Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Everyday Products Are Filled With Toxins -- And We're Not Doing a Thing About It

By Amy Goodman, Truthdig. Posted February 25, 2009.


U.S. consumers are exposed to a vast array of harmful chemicals and additives in toys, cosmetics, plastic water bottles and countless other products.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Is your lipstick laden with lead? Is your baby's bottle toxic? The American Chemistry Council assures us that "we make the products that help keep you safe and healthy." But U.S. consumers are actually exposed to a vast array of harmful chemicals and additives embedded in toys, cosmetics, plastic water bottles and countless other products. U.S. chemical and manufacturing industries have fought regulation, while Europe moves ahead with strict prohibitions against the most harmful toxins. The European Union says regulation is good for business, inspiring consumer confidence and saving money over the long term.

Most people would be surprised to learn that the cosmetics industry in the United States is largely unregulated. Investigative journalist Mark Schapiro is the author of "Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What's at Stake for American Power." In the absence of oversight, researchers and journalists like Schapiro and grass-roots organizations have stepped into the breach.

Schapiro told me, "Whether it is your nail polish, eye shadow, shampoo, essentially personal-care products [are] not regulated by the [Food and Drug Administration]. ... Numerous times in the Senate, over the last 50 years, there have been efforts to expand the purview of the FDA, and it's been repeatedly beaten back by the cosmetics industry." Details on the toxins are hard to come by. Schapiro continued, "The reason I even know what kind of material is in cosmetics is not because the FDA has told us; it's actually because the European Union has taken the action to remove that stuff, and they have a list."

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics lists numerous toxins that appear regularly in cosmetics and personal-care products, among them lead and phthalates. Phthalates are linked to birth defects, including disruption of genital development in boys, decreased sperm counts and infertility. Lead appears in lipstick and hundreds of other products. The CSC reports that "lead ... is a proven neurotoxin -- linked to learning, language and behavioral problems ... miscarriage, reduced fertility in both men and women, hormonal changes, menstrual irregularities and delays in puberty onset in girls." This is the stuff women and girls are putting on their lips all day, licking it off and reapplying.

The European Union, with 27 member nations representing almost half a billion people, is asserting itself on issues of toxins, using serious economic muscle. Stavros Dimas, European Union commissioner for environment, explained the long-term benefits of regulation: "The medical expenses for chemical-related diseases will be less. Medicines will not be needed. We will not lose working hours, and productivity will be better. So the overall benefits will by far outweigh costs to the industry."

Interestingly, because European countries pay a far larger share of their citizens' health-care costs than does the U.S., they want to keep costs down and they expect to save upward of $50 billion in coming decades, says Schapiro, as a result of the improved health and environmental conditions brought about by stricter chemical regulations.

In the wake of the 2007 China toy recall in the U.S. (because of lead found in the toys), Congress passed, and President George W. Bush signed, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. A key provision, mandating a ban of phthalate- and lead-containing products intended for children 12 years of age and younger, went into effect Feb. 10. If you bought a plastic toy before that date, beware: After the law passed last summer, some stores stuffed their shelves with tainted toys and sold them at fire-sale prices to unload their inventory.

Safe alternatives for toys, cosmetics, shampoos and other products are becoming increasingly available as demand for organic products grows. The difference between market forces limiting toxins and a law doing it, Schapiro says, is "if you have a law, it makes it far more equitable, because everybody gets the same protections, whether you have the resources or the knowledge to pursue the alternatives."

That is where the EU comes in, with its expansive and world-leading regulatory system in place (called "REACH," for Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and restriction of CHemical substances). Schapiro notes, "The European-led revolution in chemical regulation requires that thousands of chemicals finally be assessed for their potentially toxic effects on human beings and signals the end of American industry's ability to withhold critical data from the public."

Tough regulations on toxins are not only essential to saving lives; they also make good business sense. The U.S. now has an opportunity to catch up to our European partners -- and make changes that are more than just cosmetic.

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: health, toxins, fda, consumer, products

Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Ugly Truths about Pretty Faces
Posted by: artie on Feb 25, 2009 4:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The information in the article is a bit dated. I would recommend that its readers follow leads in Stacy Malkan's book, "Not Just a Pretty Face - The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry."
Malkan has done a superb job investigating the personal-care products industry; the book makes plain the flagrant irresponsibility of the US government and the US public apropos of their own health and, especially, the health of babies and children.
Let me mention an Environmental Working Group study mentioned by Malkan. The Red Cross randomly selected umbilical-cord blood samples from babies born in the US in August and September of 2004, and the samples were checked for various contaminants. As Malkan reported, "researchers detected a total of 287 chemicals in the babies' cord blood, including 180 chemicals that cause cancer in humans or animals, 217 that are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 that cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal studies."(Malkan, p.2)
Although it may be scientifically intractable, one can only wonder how this virtually 'innate' chemical signature is affecting the lives of these babies. Are the increases in LDs, Autism, ADHD, infertility, ...., merely a coincidence?
One would think that the US personal-care products industry could learn from US auto-industries' mistakes: will the US personal-care products industry lose an overwhelming market-share to European and Japanese competitors? Will it also eventually cry for a bail out, for money from those to whose health they pose a detrimental threat?
Is it so incredibly difficult for US industrialists to understand that doing the 'right thing' is not only the 'right thing' to do (something of a tautology), but, in the long run, doing the right thing could even improve profit margins for those whose only motivation is the smell of money (I have just heard that some US manufacturers are no longer allowed to market their products in Japan ....)?
When will they ever learn?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Excellent post, Artie! Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Ugly Truths about Pretty Faces Posted by: anneliese-nyc
» RE: Ugly Truths about Pretty Faces Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Parabens, phthalates, lead
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Mar 3, 2009 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, while the rest of the world bans ingredients and substances, US multinationals just keep dumping them on us. To make things worse, the acceptance of harmful substances seems to be a part of conservative thought! Snopes.com has a "de-bunk" about lead in lipstick, saying that it is not found in levels sufficient to cause cancer. Cancer? The concern with lead ingestion is learning disabilities, though the editors of Snopes choose not to deal with the issue properly.

Things are changing as the American public begins to realize that consumer product manufacturers are not necessarily our friends, and that the FDA and USDA are not necessarily on our side.

If a bath or body product doesn't contain parabens and phthalates, the label will say so. You can be pretty sure that if the label doesn't say "no parabens or phthalates", then the product does contain these carcinogens.

There is a great website, maintained by Environmental Working Group, where you can find out what's in your products, and find safer equivalents:

http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/index.php

I also love the wonderful website www.organicconsumers.org which is a continuously updated source of news and information about toxins and questionable ingredients in food, body products, everything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The biggest one of all, that is hard to avoid
Posted by: justicecraver on Mar 4, 2009 1:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She left out fluoride in our water systems. That is the biggest scam of all and it is a known poison. Not only that, the fluoride they put in water is industrial waste from the aluminum industry and has lead and arsenic mixed in.

Just b/c it is good on your teeth does NOT mean we should drink it. You don't drink your hand sanitizer do you? 98% of western European water systems ban it.

Simply shameful!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» FLOURIDE IN DRINKING WATER Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: FLOURIDE IN DRINKING WATER Posted by: willymack
» simply shameful Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Don't forget about vaccinations! Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Go fish. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Go shit in your hat. Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Links for further information
Posted by: warrior woman on Mar 4, 2009 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you really want to assess chemicals in our food, cosmetic and water systems, I suggest that you view the following websites:

Some of these links are very long and had to be broken up to fit the response guidelines:

http://www.breastcancerfund.org/site/pp.asp?
c=kwKXLdPaE&b=70918

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/47849/
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/8100/8100.html Decrease in Anogenital Distance among Male Infants with Prenatal Phthalate Exposure

http://www.breastcancerfund.org/atf/cf/%
7BDE68F7B2-5F6A-4B57-9794-AFE5D27A3CFF%7D/
2006%20Ugly%20truths%20brochure.pdf 12 Ugly Truths behind the Myths of Cosmetic Safety

/www.ewg.org Environmental Working Group or Skin Deep

http://safecosmetics.org/ Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

http://www.breastcancerfund.org/
siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=kwKXLdPaE&b=
1314453&aid=5728 Tell Congress to implement global ban on world's most harmful chemicalsTell Congress to implement global ban on world's most harmful chemicals

http://www.breastcancerfund.org/siteapps/
advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=kwKXLdPaE&b=1314453&aid=5033 Ban Triclosan from Personal Care Products Ban Triclosan from Personal Care Products

Dozens of Chemicals Found in Most Americans' Bodies
By Marla Cone
The Los Angeles Times
Friday 22 July 2005


http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/
content/abstract/121/2/e260?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=
10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=
shampoo&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=
1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype
=HWCIT

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/9882/abstract.html

http://www.ewg.org/node/25964

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and restriction of CHemical substances
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Mar 4, 2009 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where do I register my tap water? The formula for this CHemical substance is H2O, and it is known to be highly lethal if ingested in sufficient quantities.

I propose a temporary moratorium on the delivery of dihydrogen monooxide until we are sure that depressed blood pressure, disruption of salt balance, coma and death are the only side effects that such intoxication can impart upon the children.

Cheese louise, somebody get the regumulators out there!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe if we stop calling guys "gay" for wearing makeup would we all fight for better solutions.
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 4, 2009 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, why turn women into sex objects? Bring it on us guys too so we can feel the pain and team up with the women in fighting for better quality. It's working on tights and the sales are coming back so it can work on makeup too. For example, I bought and tried on a couple of male tights and even let my wife try them on and while no visible difference between the default "cheap" tights and the male ones, more durability and less runs so I bought her some. The more we make them all unisex, the better off we'll all be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Speaking of oils and glycerin, Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» RE: Speaking of oils and glycerin, Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Speaking of oils and glycerin, Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» cruelty to birds Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Max, we are drowning in "product" Posted by: stellabloo
By the way, making the switch to hemp and oil from algae will go a long ways towards
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 4, 2009 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
healing the environment and the economy. Think about it. Buying environmentally friendly products that last longer and won't choke those dollars.

P.S.: Looks like it has been discovered that there is indeed the chemical equivilant of light sweet crude oil from algae except that it's carbon neutral and renewable. Oh, and we need to decentralize the operations of course and get rid of big government conspiring with big oil as if 80 years wasn't enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perfect Scapegoat
Posted by: Gravitas on Mar 4, 2009 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the reasons we don't do anything about it is because of the highly successful campaign to blame lifestyle for everything, particularly obesity. It is so ingrained in our minds that it is responsible for any and every health problem, we never look past love handles. Complicating the situation is that some endocrine disrupters can cause weight gain. So when those people get sick, it is proof positive it is weight that is the culprit. No one considers their could be something that is causing both unnatural weight gain and illness. Plus the corporations get to sell us useless diet products at the tune of billions a year. And so distract us with the scale we don't have energy for activism. Perfect set up they have going there!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Perfect Scapegoat Posted by: Liberty G
It's not just the baby bottle, it's the nipple that goes in the baby's mouth!
Posted by: PaulK on Mar 4, 2009 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The chemical in the nipple is Bisphenyl-A, an endocrine disruptor. Endocrine disruptors have grown breasts on two year old girls, and they shrink boys' genitals. They eventually kill people too, but for some reason nobody cares about that image quite as much.

Lead in lipstick (makes you want to lick your lips?) is the tip of the iceberg. Nail polish soaks right through human skin just as nicotine in a nicotine patch soaks through skin. So do a lot of skin chemicals.

That hand cleaner that you see at the front door of the supermarket probably contains carcinogenic triclosan. Read its label. It says to wash off immediately, but the store wants you to apply it and leave it on.

I don't have the room or time here to go through thousands of products. Suffice it to say that cancer (diabetes, heart disease, MS, lots more) has visited your family because your government was a bunch of flesh-eating ghouls. Also you didn't know that you needed to pick the right products.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Pattern is "Poison for Years, Till You Get Caught" Two Solutions
Posted by: Liberty G on Mar 4, 2009 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Over and over we have seen corporate greed operate by peddling a product, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, vinyl chloride, BPA laden baby bottles - for many years. They rake in the bucks, then say, "Oh, Gee!" when down the road someone finally proves beyond doubt that the stuff is deadly.

What needs to happen is:

1. The American consumer has to get the
fact that their protection from toxins
in cosmetics and many other products
is zero. For example,"fragrance" on a
label means "Any number of chemicals
that we don't have to reveal to anyone
- trade secrets". Regulation of these,
which are known to include toluene and
a host of other nasties, consists of
saying it is approved by the fragrance
industry group.(Do you feel safer yet?)
Government oversight and restrictions
- none.

2. The government needs to understand,
as they do in Europe, that allowing
these toxins to proliferate in our
bodies is feeding the time bomb called
"health care costs". We are
approaching complete non-sustainability
here. I predict the high costs today
will seem benign compared to a few
years down the road, as more people
succumb to the slow poisons we ingest
and inhale every day. Real regulation
could halt this economic and human
disaster.

Unfortunately, I have little faith in number two happening until the health crisis has reached the proportions of the current bank and mortgage and stock market scenario.

That's why my organization, Toxics Information Project (TIP) is working to get the word out. Besides the great links included above, check out a few from our website:

Fragrance Safety Concerns,by Lynn Ruggeri, PhD:
www.toxicsinfo.org/personal/fragrance_safety.htm

Autism & Endocrine Disrupters
www.toxicsinfo.org/kids/Autism%20Endocrine%20Disrupters.htm

Study: Chemicals in Air Fresheners May Affect Reproductive Development
www.toxicsinfo.org/kids/endocrine/AirFreshenerReport.htm

The American Lung Association on Household Product Asthma Triggers
www.toxicsinfo.org/asthma/ALAtriggers.htm

Cancer, Chemicals & History
www.thenation.com/doc/20050207/wiener

The good news - a smart consumer can avoid
much of the chemical onslaught by educating
themselves on the least toxic alternatives.
Many such are scattered about our website,
for example, see: www.toxicsinfo.org/thoughts.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blame Corporate Greed
Posted by: dragonlady620 on Mar 4, 2009 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Big business has always regarded EPA and safety regulations as inconveniences that cut into profits. They spend a great deal of money dispensing pseudoscience to refute any findings to the contrary. Conservative sites still use "the EPA stranglehold on business" as a talking point. You would think the lead-poisoning scare would be a big wake-up call.
Years ago I saw a documentary on public television entitled "Industrial Pollution in Russia". (It was pre-Chernobyl so it didn't even touch on that.) It showed the effects of having no regulation at all-and it was horrific. Cancers, repsiratory problems, skin diseases, and a whole host of other problems were result, as well as poisoned water and tainted food supplies, and those were merely the problems that had been PROVED to have been caused by industrial pollution-there were many others that were suspected but not yet established. Now China is facing monumental problems from their own industrialization-and Corporate America still tries to perpetuate the myth that the problems don't exist. The effects of having no regulation are very evident, and should illustrate why it is necessary-but instead of spending money to comply with regulation big business prefers to spend it on anti-regulation propaganda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is Necessary?
Posted by: ksun77 on Mar 4, 2009 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe the best thing to do is not use these products.

Think about it. All we absolutely NEED is to breathe, eat (nourish/hydrate) & sleep (rest your body/mind). I'd like to add, that for myself, I can't live without love (as in positive vibes) although it's lack may not kill me as quickly as going w/o the first three. The lipstick is optional, as is 98% of the rest of that crap.

We are borrowing from future generations all the clean air and water with no plan or means to repay them. Our grandkids will be doing the clean-up after we've partied like rock stars our whole lives and walked out without paying the bill.

We see clearly our lifestyle is toxic to us and to many of our fellow species & ecosystems. And yet, we make choices every time we spend a nickel or a dollar. As capitalists, like it or not, our vote IS the money we spend. No amount of lipstick will disguise this pig, (although it seems that with enough you can kill it, or at least make it very sick.) As consumers in a capitalist country, we should quit blaming our leaders for the choices we ourselves are making at the marketplace. Open your eyes, Mr. Magoo. Your life is the choices you have made. Nobody is doing this TO YOU.

Food can be grown, prepared and consumed in healthy & sustainable ways. Bodies can be cleaned, shelters built & maintained. Lifestyles can be lived. Changes can be made. Again, it is us who choose. Do we want to shamelessly flaunt our right to waste electricity and somehow justify the mountaintop removal, the radioactive waste, the toxic sludge spills? Or will we choose to demand the highest efficiency products and only use the ones most necessary and effective? As Americans, we make these choices every time we make a purchase, every time we make a lifestyle decision.

As an individual, it is difficult & often prohibitively expensive to accomplish these changes. But as a group, and especially as a group of informed consumers, we can demand a new type of consumer good that is in line with healthy, sustainable living for all species, current & future. We could use support from our government to make these changes. We can demand that agriculture subsidies go to sustainable, healthy farms, and energy subsidies go to appropriate sources producing renewable energy. We can demand that insurance is not run as a 'for-profit' enterprise.

I love to read where irate mobs drag their leaders out into the streets and tear them into pieces with their bare hands. They did it in France a while back. They did it to Ceausescu in Romania just recently. They did it in Massachusetts before the American Revolution. I know I'd be tempted to rip a chunk out of Dick Cheney's cowardly blue ass if I ever laid a hand on him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is Necessary?
Posted by: ksun77 on Mar 4, 2009 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe the best thing to do is not use these products.

Think about it. All we absolutely NEED is to breathe, eat (nourish/hydrate) & sleep (rest your body/mind). I'd like to add, that for myself, I can't live without love (as in positive vibes) although it's lack may not kill me as quickly as going w/o the first three. The lipstick is optional, as is 98% of the rest of that crap.

We are borrowing from future generations all the clean air and water with no plan or means to repay them. Our grandkids will be doing the clean-up after we've partied like rock stars our whole lives and walked out without paying the bill.

We see clearly our lifestyle is toxic to us and to many of our fellow species & ecosystems. And yet, we make choices every time we spend a nickel or a dollar. As capitalists, like it or not, our vote IS the money we spend. No amount of lipstick will disguise this pig, (although it seems that with enough you can kill it, or at least make it very sick.) As consumers in a capitalist country, we should quit blaming our leaders for the choices we ourselves are making at the marketplace. Open your eyes, Mr. Magoo. Your life is the choices you have made. Nobody is doing this TO YOU.

Food can be grown, prepared and consumed in healthy & sustainable ways. Bodies can be cleaned, shelters built & maintained. Lifestyles can be lived. Changes can be made. Again, it is us who choose. Do we want to shamelessly flaunt our right to waste electricity and somehow justify the mountaintop removal, the radioactive waste, the toxic sludge spills? Or will we choose to demand the highest efficiency products and only use the ones most necessary and effective? As Americans, we make these choices every time we make a purchase, every time we make a lifestyle decision.

As an individual, it is difficult & often prohibitively expensive to accomplish these changes. But as a group, and especially as a group of informed consumers, we can demand a new type of consumer good that is in line with healthy, sustainable living for all species, current & future. We could use support from our government to make these changes. We can demand that agriculture subsidies go to sustainable, healthy farms, and energy subsidies go to appropriate sources producing renewable energy. We can demand that insurance is not run as a 'for-profit' enterprise.

I love to read where irate mobs drag their leaders out into the streets and tear them into pieces with their bare hands. They did it in France a while back. They did it to Ceausescu in Romania just recently. They did it in Massachusetts before the American Revolution. I know I'd be tempted to rip a chunk out of Dick Cheney's cowardly blue ass if I ever laid a hand on him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IMPORTANT BUT....
Posted by: drricklippin on Mar 4, 2009 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.... please don't let this divert our attention from the huge impacts on health outcomes-income and racial disparaties

Anyway its all connected but don't keep your eye off of the poverty ball. That would be a big mistake!

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nano-Silver and Genetic Engineering(mutation)
Posted by: zepher on Mar 4, 2009 10:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nanotechnology is a bit more than chemicals being put, without our knowlege, into lots of everyday stuff. Research has not been done and yet "nano-silver" is in sunscreens, for example. Information and a list of this invasive, non-organic addition to our bodies can be found on: http://www.nanoaction.org/nanoaction/page.cfm?id=239

Don't exclude the genetic mutating of our food sources too, i.e., corn and soybeans. Plants that produce their own insecticides, which we in turn eat. No research or control of this activity either. We eat foods that were never intended for human consumption because they did not EVOLVE, they were made in a lab.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Toxic Sex Toys
Posted by: cjacky on Mar 4, 2009 11:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't forget to mention the presence of toxic chemicals in many of the most popular sex toys on the market. The sex toy industry is insanely underregulated. The "novelty use only" attached to most sex toys makes it incredibly difficult for consumers to find safe products. This issue has potentially huge impacts on long term health but also on safer sex practices. Get more information at www.badvibes.org.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Makeup, organic or otherwise, does have its limitations.
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Mar 4, 2009 11:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I gave the organic replacements a try but I haven't noticed much of a difference from the regular. I gave up makeup altogether and reverted to taking a few drops of oil, emu and/or hempseed, and spreading it all over my face. Surprisingly, a few weeks later my coworkers said I look younger. We really need to give those plant oils a fair share of the market. The oils are also helpful in reducing stress and anxiety from my experience. As for toys, maybe it would help if a lot of us young men and women just sat down and tried to picture ourselves as the children we used to be, relax, and play with the kids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

City life
Posted by: willymack on Mar 4, 2009 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just living in a city is a guarentee of toxic poisoning of one kind or another, and one concentration or another. Back in the 1970s it was stated by medical authorities that breathing the air in New York City was the same as smoking two packs of cigarettes a day. Is the air any cleaner there today? Don't bet on it. The sudden upturn in asthma and other pulminary maladies, especially in urban areas cannot be a coincidence. It now appears our life expectency is sliding BACKWARDS here as well. More people, more pollution, more sickness. The way to reverse all this is well known; people just don't want to talk about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The government isn't interested in your health - this is news?
Posted by: stellabloo on Mar 4, 2009 11:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amazing how foods that are forced to label their ingredients suddenly have no transfat. We don't really hear about the reason WHY, just that transfats aren't good for you in a general sort of way. Now transfats are banned in at least one country (Denmark) because they cause a plaque that covers the body's insulin receptors - an obvious link to diabetes, which is now an "epidemic".

Transfats are still legal in Canada and the US; consumer pressure ALONE has caused transfats to disappear - in foods that are labelled but not restaurant foods. And the consumer doesn't even suspect the REAL reason behind the trend - why - because if they knew, they could sue.

Transfats is one example. Other examples of toxic consumer ignorance aided and abetted by corporate interests would be SSR anti-depressants, Bovine Growth Hormone, MSG, aspartame and pretty much every ingredient in most cosmetics: parabens, cocoamides and lauryl sulfates. The Dove campaign is pure marketing - there is nothing natural about their products. The sad reality is that our society has one function only: the creation of the perfect consumer rat. It was a good scam while it lasted but obviously we are in for some change here, one way or the other.

Bottom line: we are going to have to rethink everything that we have been taught. A good time to start would be NOW.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You CAN purchase chemical-free body-care products
Posted by: wireup on Mar 4, 2009 12:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been doing since the 1980s when I had a natural food store. At that time I was looking to carry in my store body-care products that had absolutely no chemicals. One day the salesman from one of the companies came into my store and introduced me to:

AUBREY ORGANICS
http://www.aubreyorganics.com/

I ordered the products for my shop, tried them myself, and have not looked back since.

These products are wonderful - completely natural with NO CHEMICALS. Vitamins are used as preservatives. You can find these products in health food stores or order direct from the company.

There is no middleman with this company. If a health food store wants to order, they order directly from the company which is located in Florida. If I recall correctly, the products have a shelf-life of 9 months.

There is only one drawback to these products and that is that they are in plastic containers. Regrettably, glass won't do, I guess, because of the shipping.

The other company I know of that makes chemical-free products is Dr. Hauscha:

http://www.drhauschka.com/

I use their eyeliner and like it. But I haven't tried any of their other products because I'm very happy with Aubrey Organics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Drug Companies are pushing poison
Posted by: cori on Mar 4, 2009 9:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Drug companies are pushing poison

Drug companies are selling the public medications which can cause many other diseases, have serious or fatal side effects and encourage mixing medications without adequate knowledge of their outcomes. We are told by these companies that there are no cures and we have to accept these medications and that there are no viable alternatives. They really have us in a medical vice grip that is holding us hostage. We need to demand new research into medications that don’t force people to stay on drugs just so they can make profits. New drugs need to be developed that do not cause so many side effects. Because drug companies are so profit driven there is no incentive to develop cures or to create drugs that address illnesses that are safe and less costly to the public. Many of the medications that people take are capable of causing other numerous illnesses. The drug industry tells us that there is nothing else. Asthma medications can cause Osteoporosis, Diabetes and even some tumors and can be fatal and we have no choice but to accept this level of toxicity. Doctors insist that there are always side effects and we must accept this as fact. But I think that the public and the FDA need to insist on the development of medications that are not so harmful and do not threaten the overall health of the population. Without incentives other then profits, we will all be at the mercy of dangerous and inadequate medications that will make us sicker and not offer any cures. Even the New England Journal Of Medicine has said that people cannot trust the data coming from drug companies. This means that the drugs that are sold are less safe then we even know. Without real checks and balances there can not be true progress in protecting the public from dangerous and life threatening medications and the impact of their side effects.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Drug companies are pushing poison? OF COURSE THEY ARE!!!!
Posted by: wireup on Mar 5, 2009 2:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a surprise? This is a capitalist system. No drug company, no MD, no hospital makes money when you are well. They ONLY make money when you are sick.

The drug companies are busy little bees medicalizing every god-damned symptom of anything so that they can make your problem into a disease, invent a drug for it (and "damn the side effects" is their motto), and make a fortune. This is how they work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why NO to singlepayer/universal health care
Posted by: HillbillyRob on Mar 6, 2009 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The Red Cross randomly selected umbilical-cord blood samples from babies born in the US in August and September of 2004, and the samples". snip "researchers detected a total of 287 chemicals in the babies' cord blood, including 180 chemicals that cause cancer in humans or animals, 217 that are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 that cause birth defects Are the increases in LDs, Autism, ADHD, infertility, ...., merely a coincidence?"

That sort of tells us Why the gop and some dems fight universal health care, because the corps that pay them campaign bribes do not want anything interfering with profits on poisons in cosmetics, foods, clothes.
Doesn't it kind of explain the resistance to single payer health care.
Also universal/single payer reformers were EXCLUDED from the meeting with Obama yesterday, and of the hundreds of interviews with about health care only a few (as per Amy Goodman on Demorcacy now! this am which did not mention a thing about cosmetics)
I think we need to tell congress if we don't get heath-care YOU don't either. all of them can afford to pay on their own but instead WE pay for their health care with our taxes, and they get the best care in the world.
Hellthcare corpses are making the biggest profits ever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement