When I first heard about Brazilian blowouts/hair treatments I thought they sounded like a great solution for people with frizzy or curly hair that were seeking a way to keep their hair looking smooth and sleek. Since my hair is already (painfully) straight, it didn’t apply to me, but it seemed like a much needed addition to hair style options. That was, until I started hearing news reports about mysterious illnesses that stylists and customers were experiencing. Everything from constant congestion, to asthma, to burning eyes to nausea and dizziness. Sounds great, right? Ugh.

For awhile now salons and the blowout manufacturers have tried to downplay the the toxicity because, clearly, this is/was a big money maker. Women were clamoring for the treatment because it worked so well. But at what cost? The formaldehyde-laden formula is applied to the hair and then hair is blown dry and straightened -meanwhile producing clouds of toxic fumes. To make matters worse, the salons are typically not ventilated sufficiently so not only are clients exposed during the process, poor stylists breathe the fumes all day long. And it is becoming a major health concern

The treatments have been banned already in Canada. Hopefully, they will be soon banned here. We all want to look our best, but this one comes at too serious of a cost. And stylists have finally started to talk.  One woman created a blog in desperation – you can read her story here. It’s a powerful recounting of how stylists and salons can get caught up in the whole trend – it’s an easy money maker, and that’s understandably hard to give up.  As the blogger can account, the price she has paid is real and very scary.

This week EWG came out with their annual list of the “Dirty Dozen” – the twelve fruits and vegetables with the highest levels of pesticides.  And guess what – 2 of the top 3 are fruits that are typically big hits with children – Apples (#1) and Strawberries (#3).  Ugh. In our house, those are two of the most consumed fruits. I pretty much buy only organic apples, and we still wash them with fruit wash. But organic strawberries are harder to find. Right now they are at Trader Joe’s and are reasonably priced, but that only lasts for a couple of months. Frustrating…

It all does make you think. We are exposed to pesticides in many ways – not just from the food we eat but also in our homes and offices. The greatest exposure in general actually comes from household pesticide use (those sprays that keep ants and bugs out of your house). So if you are worried about what you are eating, definitely think about what you are spraying too. There are many non-toxic bug control sprays available – we have one that we have been using that has kept the tiny ants away (those little guys make me nuts!) It may take a couple of additional days to get rid of the bugs, but just think about how much healthier it is for you and your family.

Anyway, if you are looking for fruits and veggies that are LOW in pesticides, check out EWG’s list of the “Clean 15″. This will help you balance your selections. According to EWG: “Picking five servings of fruits and vegetables from the 12 most-contaminated products would result in consuming an average of 14 different pesticides a day. Choosing five servings from the 15 least contaminated fruits and vegetables would result in consuming fewer than two pesticides per day.” It’s also important to remember to eat a variety of fruits and vegetables so you get the vitamins and minerals you need.

Both of these are available in PDF form so you can bring it with you when you shop.

What do YOU do to try to reduce your exposure to pesticides? Or do you think this is all blowing things out of proportion? We’d love to hear from you – join in the conversation on the Garden Girl Facebook page.

The Daily Green online magazine has released some useful guidelines for seeking safe lipsticks.  Basically, what it comes down to is to avoid the following:

• Parabens
• Phthalates
• Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives
• Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA)
• Oxybenzone
• Fragrance
• Lead

In many ways, it’s great to have a nice list to use when looking for a safe product. However, the tricky thing is that you often don’t know if some of these ingredients are in the products as many companies don’t label all ingredients in their products.

The article does go on to list a few suggestions of safe lipsticks. Interestingly they are all pretty steeply priced. The good news? Garden Girl offers lipstick sheers that meet the above requirements AND are only $5.50 each! Check them out at www.GardenGirlSkinCare.com.

And keep an eye out for more colors coming soon!

A recent OpEd piece in the Washington Post brought up the question again about whether food dyes could be contributing to hyperactivity. The author noted that the FDA is scheduled to meet this week to discuss the topic – in a Bloomberg article on the same subject, they note the specific dyes that are of highest concern, based on a petition submitted in 2008 by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. As quoted from the Bloomberg article:

“The petition covers Blue Nos. 1 and 2, Green No. 3, Orange B, Red Nos. 3 and 40, and Yellow Nos. 5 and 6. FDA approval of these chemicals dates to the 1960s and is subject to batch certification. The dyes are used to make a variety of candy, beverages, baked goods and sausage.” (ok sausage? really?)

There have been numerous studies (all controversial) that have linked food dyes to hyperactivity. With two young boys (…), I will be definitely interested in seeing where this goes.  Food in our house is generally clear of dyes – I try to avoid things that are not natural-ish or at least that have too many unnecessary ingredients (like dyes).  I’m not saying we’re crazy vigilant about it – they do get the occasional treat that might have that stuff in it, but generally it is avoided. But it comes down to the fact that, to me, it just seems like another chemical that doesn’t need to be in our food.

But clearly this is a controversial subject. I also found this Food Fear Mongering the the WaPost in response to the Op Ed piece. The author clearly believes that there is too much hype and not enough proof regarding this topic. She believes that sugar is a bigger dietary culprit. She goes on to “fact check” the Washington Post piece. However, some of her fact checking lacks facts, unfortunately:

• She said she found no evidence that the FDA is meeting on the subject (they are, see link above)
• Her rubuttal to the quote from the Washington Post stating “Today’s supermarket is a fun house of hues. Its aisles feature riotously colored processed foods perfectly engineered to appeal to the part of your brain that says ‘yum’.”  is that those foods have no nutritional value and are loaded with sugar. All very true, however that’s not the point. The sugar impacts the taste – one of the senses that impacts the “yum” part of the brain we while eating. But the color impacts the visual – another one of the senses that impacts how appealing food is.

Anyway – I think this will be interesting to watch. Clearly lobbyists on both sides will be fighting hard. In Europe they have required warning labels on foods using some of those dyes. It has actually forced companies like Kellogg’s to change to natural dyes to avoid having to put those labels on their products in Europe. The way I see it, if it’s one fewer unnecessary chemical used in food, regardless of whether costly studies and wasted time have proven any links to anything detrimental, that’s a good thing. So let’s hope we at least get the warning labels.

In a recent Boston Globe article, Dr. Perry E. Sheffield, an assistant professor of preventive medicine and pediatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, was quoted as saying “Effectively, we’re conducting experiments on our population.”

In our homes, every day, we are exposed to all kinds of chemicals. And, as the article states, it’s nearly impossible to prove “scientifically that certain diseases are caused by household chemicals, such as bisphenol-A, phthalates, and flame retardants.” But the three scientists that were interviewed for the article have changed their own habits at home, based on their own research and therefore their understanding of the risks we are exposed to.

The “Big Three” that are the focus of the article are: Bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates and fire retardants.

The first, BPA, is one that I have written about numerous times. It seems that every few months there is a new study linking it to some issue. The Globe summarized recent studies, saying:

I remember very clearly when I was in grad school and we lived in apartments in Phoenix, each Wednesday a guy practically in a hazmat suit would come by and spray our apartment to keep the insects at bay. Having had MANY MANY nights when we had crickets in our A/C system (I can’t even begin to describe how completely annoying that is), and also more than a couple of unnerving experiences with some grotesque and completely fear-inspiring ginormous spiders (kinds that we east-coasters don’t usually see), at the time I was very appreciative of that man. But to be honest,I didn’t put much thought to the potential harm my husband and I were exposing ourselves to. I was just happy to be free of crickets, freakish spiders and (thankfully we never got these) scorpions. Note: Clearly if it was Jiminy Cricket living with us, it would have been a totally different story…

But now, I realize that we were lucky we only were exposed to that for a shortish amount of time. And I’m very glad we weren’t living there when we started our family. More and more information is cropping up about the concerns about pesticides – and this week USA Today had a story about how some pesticides have been linked to developmental issues. Should we be surprised by that? Not especially, considering the fact that pesticides work by basically damaging the brains of the insects. So if it works on them, wouldn’t you expect it to have some impact on humans?

And here’s the kicker, this study is based on the pesticide Permethrin, which, the article states, is “among the most commonly detected pesticides in homes”. Well guess what? This Permethrin is the REPLACEMENT for “older organophosphorous pesticides” which were “phased out because of concerns that they harm brain development.” Oh boy. Out of the frying pan into the fire.

This study was conducted in New York City where followed pregnant women, who are exposed to the pesticide as a result of spraying for cockroaches, who had agreed to wear a monitor. They monitored the health of the women and their children (both in utero and after birth) for a few years.

What they found was  that “children exposed to the highest pesticide levels before birth were three times as likely to have a mental delay compared to children with lower levels.” I guess it’s not surprising, and I feel for people who need to find a solution for their insect problem (believe me, I totally get that) – but I hope for everyone’s sake that a safe solution is found. Because the only alternative to living with bugs shouldn’t be poisoning our babies.

I guess I had kind of considered parabens a “girl thing”. Not in a good way – but I had really viewed their danger as more of a threat to women (with regards to breast cancer) than to men. But sadly, it appears that men are at risk as well – but for different reasons. A recent study published by the Environmental Health Perspectives revealed that there is a likely link between one particular type of paraben – Butyl Paraben (or BP – not to be confused with bisphenol A/BPA which is a different chemical) – and damaged DNA in human sperm.

Butyl Paraben is a preservative found in many creams, lotions, gels, cosmetics, deodorants and even some food. If you aren’t already in the habit of reading labels for everything you buy, now is a good time to start. Look for parabens on the label – typically at the end of the ingredients list. Many products even have many of the paraben types: ethyl-, butyl-, methyl- and propylparaben.

This study examined the relationship between paraben levels in men and sperm health, something that had not been done previously. The findings were quite disturbing. They found that the higher the levels of BP in men’s urine, the more more sperm damage they had.  When combined with higher Bisphenol A levels, the sperm damage was even worse. And when there is DNA damage to the sperm, the chances of infertility issues increases.

Of course, this was a relatively small study and it was preliminary so there are many out there that will disregard it or poke holes into it. But there is clearly something here that is concerning. Not good. For anyone.

Everywhere you turn this time of year it seems that some big cosmetics, skin care or fragrance company is offering a “special” pink product, with proceeds going to cancer research. But have you ever noticed that so many of these companies are selling products that are loaded with the very chemicals that are suspected to be connected to cancer?  Avon? They could probably do more for cancer by reformulating their products instead of organizing their breast cancer walks. Not that I am even suggesting that what they do isn’t amazing, it’s just that I think it’s a tad hypocritical. But they’re not alone – Revlon, L’Oreal, Estee Lauder – all in the game. There’s a reason the phrase “pink washing” came about:

1. a term used to describe the activities of companies and groups that position themselves as leaders in the struggle to eradicate breast cancer while engaging in practices that may be contributing to rising rates of the disease.

So this month, Garden Girl, a company that is dedicated to providing safe products free of parabens, sulfates, petroleum products and phthalates, will donate 5% of sales to Susan G Komen for the Cure. I know that, despite my good intentions and the fact that I can confidently say we are not guilty of “pink washing”, our donation will be microscopic compared to those “big guys” – but we can feel good about this donation because it is free of strings or baggage.

And in case you are interested, we chose Susan G Komen because they are the “largest source of nonprofit funds dedicated to the fight against breast cancer in the world.” (quoted from their website) They do so many wonderful things from funding research, supporting survivors and ensuring quality care to name only a few. But not only that, they are highly rated on charity ratings websites for running an efficient organization and putting their funds to good use.

So shopping all this month will have a special meaning. You will not only be getting some amazing products, but you’ll also be donating to a fantastic cause.

I’m beating the BPA drum again, but this is something I really believe is going to become a bigger and bigger issue. And this week there’s more evidence pointing to the need to ban the chemical BPA (Bisphenol A). A study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, was released that suggests that our exposure to the chemical BPA is more than 8 times greater than previously thought. Not good news, but also, quite honestly, not surprising.

The thing is, we can’t even estimate our exposure to this hormone-mimicking chemical that is found in things made from polycarbonate plastics. According to the National Institutes of Environmental Health, “polycarbonate plastics have many applications including use in some food and drink packaging, e.g., water and infant bottles, compact discs, impact-resistant safety equipment, and medical devices. Epoxy resins are used as lacquers to coat metal products such as food cans, bottle tops, and water supply pipes. Some dental sealants and composites may also contribute to BPA exposure.” Want to avoid BPA on your own? Good luck. It’s pretty much impossible.

The primary way we are exposed to BPA is through our diet. Again, according to the National Institutes of Environmental Health, “The primary source of exposure to BPA for most people is through the diet. While air, dust, and water are other possible sources of exposure, BPA in food and beverages accounts for the majority of daily human exposure.”

The NIEH go on to say that “Bisphenol A can leach into food from the protective internal epoxy resin coatings of canned foods and from consumer products such as polycarbonate tableware, food storage containers, water bottles, and baby bottles. The degree to which BPA leaches from polycarbonate bottles into liquid may depend more on the temperature of the liquid or bottle, than the age of the container. BPA can also be found in breast milk.”

BPA has been shown to be in the blood of more than 90% of Americans. Just THAT fact should be eye opening.  The EPA had stated that BPA exposure up to 50 micrograms per kilogram of weight per day is safe. But guess what? This Environmental Health Perspectives study is suggesting that we are exposed actually to at least 8 times that amount. Oh boy.

I don’t know about you, but I find this highly disturbing. According to a New York Times article covering this study, they state that BPA  “was first synthesized as a man-made estrogen substitute before being used widely in the linings of canned goods and polycarbonate plastics.”  Because it mimics hormones, key to development and determination of things like gender, it has been of great concern to many environmental health scholars as well as concerned citizens. In the New York Times article Thomas Zoeller, a biology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst is quoted saying that “BPA, since it mimics estrogen, is an ‘endocrine disrupter.’… And amazingly, BPA has the ability to bind to not one, but three receptors — the estrogen, the male hormone and the thyroid hormone receptors, Zoeller said.”

I know there are many many people including well respected and brilliant scientists, who will try to convince us all that we should not be worried. It’s all fine. But based on what we DO know about BPA, I think it is clear that it is just bad news. Do we really want to wait around for more evidence to prove what we really already know? BPA is just not safe. And there’s no need to keep it around.

Ok – I don’t know about you, but I for one would really like it if we could just feel safe and good about using sunscreen. But it seems that every few months there’s something new to worry about. And now there’s the newest – there are concerns about retinyl palmitate (RP) – a common additive in sunscreens.

Retinyl palmitate is a type of Vitamin A that is used in many skin creams. (Note: it is not in any Garden Girl products). It is somewhat similar to Retinol but it is weaker.  And according to a report on Reuters this week:

“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been reviewing data from several studies on a potential link between retinyl palmitate (RP), a common sunscreen additive and cases of skin cancer, since July 2009, but has yet to issue any rulings or guidelines, Senator Charles Schumer said.”

The study they refer to found that “tumors and lesions developed up to 21 percent faster in lab animals coated in retinyl palmitate-laced cream than animals treated with a cream that did not contain RP.”

So again, could be hype. But sounds like something that even the FDA is taking note of and investigating. So my advice is try to avoid it. And yes, I find it frustrating and depressing.  Making it even worse is that my favorite of the “not so bad” sunscreens (Trader Joe’s Face & Body Sunscreen) has the dreaded Retinyl Palmitate. Sigh.

Now my best recommendation is the sunscreen I discovered via a suggestion from a Garden Girl customer – Caribbean Sol. Check it out. It’s natural, biodegradable, eco-safe and reef-friendly! There aren’t any parabens, and they use Titanium Dioxide and Zinc Oxide. Still takes a little effort to get it rubbed in, but it’s better than Blue Lizard Baby. Plus the ingredients are MUCH better than the Blue Lizard products. And not only that, they do say it’s water resistant as well. You can but it online at www.caribbean-sol.com and it’s also sold in most Whole Foods markets. Let me know if you like it – I’m thinking of selling it next year!