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.

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:

In this week’s New York Times there was an interesting article about Detoxifying the Home that I thought you might enjoy. The reporter, Penelope Green, wrote about hiring a consultant to come into her NYC apartment and assess how safe it was from a toxins/chemical exposure perspective. The consultant, Matthew Waletzke, is “a 35-year-old triathlete-in-training with a degree in psychology, who turned to building biology as a way to “detox” Simply Vibrant, his Rockville Centre, N.Y., wellness center. He was treating a lot of autistic children, he said, and after learning that some studies indicate their immune systems have a difficult time processing toxins, he wanted to create as benign an environment as possible there.”

So Mr. Waletzke goes through Ms. Green’s apartment with a fine tooth comb, so to speak, and enlightens her on everything from electromagnetic radiation, to cleaning product toxins, to mold and mildew.

Anyway – it’s a pretty interesting and a somewhat entertaining read so definitely check it out if you have a minute – you can click here to read the complete article. (Note: the photo credits go to the NYT article)

Wow – great news! The EPA has recognized that there are some major issues with our current system of regulating chemicals that can pose threats to people and the environment. The top ranking environmental administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, stated that the existing antiquated regulatory system (which was put into place in 1976) is “cumbersome” and “time consuming”. She expects that a new chemical law will be promoted in Congress in coming months.

In a speech on September 29th in San Francisco, Jackson stated that the 1976 law has “been proven an inadequate tool for providing the protection against chemical risks that the public rightfully expects.”

She gave a great background and history of chemicals in the US, saying “After World War II, the chemical industry in this country grew by leaps and bounds, earning the US an enviable reputation for innovation but also making chemicals pervasive in our lives. Everything from our cars, to the cell phones we all have in our pockets are constructed with plastics and chemical additives. The technological revolution that my two sons take for granted has done more than change the way we interact with each other – it’s made chemicals ubiquitous in our economy and products – as well as our environment and our bodies.”

“A child born in America today will grow up exposed to more chemicals than a child from any other generation in our history. A 2005 study found 287 different chemicals in the cord blood of 10 newborn babies – chemicals from pesticides, fast food packaging, coal and gasoline emissions, and trash incineration. They were found in children in their most vulnerable stage. Our kids are getting steady infusions of industrial chemicals before we even give them solid food. Now, some chemicals may be risk-free at the levels we are seeing. I repeat: some chemical may be risk-free. But as more and more chemicals are found in our bodies and the environment, the public is understandably anxious and confused.”

Jackson stated clearly that there is no incentive for the manufacturers of chemicals to supply any new safety data, just any data that may already exist. She said that “today, advances in toxicology and analytical chemistry are revealing new pathways of exposure. There are subtle and troubling effects of chemicals on hormone systems, human reproduction, intellectual development and cognition. Every few weeks, we read about new potential threats: Bisphenol A, or BPA – a chemical that can affect brain development and has been linked to obesity and cancer – is in baby bottles; phthalate esters – which have been said to affect reproductive development – are in our medical devices; we see lead in toys; dioxins in fish; and the list goes on.”

Jackson concluded by saying that she will give Congress clear Administrative principals to help guide them in developing a new law that will address the current inadequecies. She also stated that she plans to address key chemicals in the near term – including Bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates.

To read her complete speech, go to the transcript at the EPA website.

I’ll admit it. I’m a bit of a freak when it comes to things like stomach flu and seasonal flu. I get very anxious when I hear either of those is going around. Swine flu? Even worse. So I do carry antibacterial gel in my purse and in the car. But to be honest – I use those only when absolutely necessary. And we use natural soaps and dishwashing liquids around the house – not the anti-bacterial kinds. Here’s one word why: Triclosan.

Triclosan is not really something you want to be exposing yourself (or your family) to if you don’t have to. According to EWG.org triclosan has been linked to liver and inhalation toxicity, and low levels of triclosan may disrupt thyroid function. Further, there is really no reason to buy anti-bacterial soaps and dishwashing liquids. Studies have shown that washing hands with regular soap and water is as effective at killing germs as using anti-bacterial products. Moreover, since 2000, the American Medical Association has been recommending that households avoid use of anti-bacterial products as it can contribute to the development of drug resistent bacteria.

All pretty good reasons to avoid the ingredient, even for germophobes like me. But there’s even one last reason. Triclosan is not eliminated in the waste water treatment systems, so it ends up in our water systems – which can impact aquatic life as well.

So be sure to read labels as this flu season starts. It’s not just in anti-bacterial products. You can find it in all kinds of personal care products including toothpaste! Try to avoid triclosan whenever possible. And check out this quick fact sheet from EWG.org for more information.

Christine, our GG consultant in Maryland/DC, sent me this link to a great piece that the ABC affiliate in Boston did on make-up and young girls. In it they quote an EWG study on girls from across the country, that “discovered that girls’ blood and urine tested positive for the presence of an average of 16 toxins.” The tests cannot prove definitively that the toxins came from beauty products or personal care products, but the toxins are the same ones that are definitely found in many topical products. And girls are using products like that at younger and younger ages. Why? To look “grown up.” I don’t know about you, but I think kids grow up fast enough these days. I’m not sure we need to encourage it more – especially if it is exposing them unnecessarily to toxins that can impact their development.

Check out the article:
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/17876176/detail.html?rss=bos&taf=bos

A report was released last night (Tuesday night) from advisors to the FDA that had re-examined all of the data regarding the potential harm from BPA. For those of you who aren’t aware, BPA stands for Bisphenol-A – a “synthetic estrogen” chemical used in the manufacture of plastics, most commonly those with the recycling #7.

The advisors, who were initially believed to be too closely tied to the plastics industry, gave environmental groups a pleasant surprise by concurring that there is inherent danger with the chemical and that the exposure to humans (particularly infants) poses significant concern. The particular concern is with infants as they are exposed at notably high levels during their first few months which can impact development and also future risk of diabetes, obesity and cancer.

The way we are exposed to BPA is when the chemical leeches into liquids that are stored in that plastic – either #7 plastic bottles or cans lined with plastic (infant formula, canned fruits and vegetables etc). The longer the liquid is in contact with the plastic – the worse it is.

I saw a segment this morning on the Early Show (click here for the report) – the doctor and the journalist came right out and said clearly – DO NOT drink or eat from #7 plastic. That was the first time I had heard it so strongly – it’s usually “try to avoid.”

So here’s the most frustrating part, this report was requested after another report in September had linked BPA to developmental delays, diabetes, cancer, heart disease and early onset puberty. The report had clearly stated the dangers, however the FDA came out and maintained their position that BPA is safe in the levels it is currently used. This was despite the fact that well-respected scientists were claiming that the chemical can alter cell activity at extremely low levels – and we are exposed to 10 to 100 times those levels. (read this report from USA Today)

So in comes this panel of advisors – OK’d by the FDA – to give their thorough and final assessment. As if we need one? And lo and behold they are in agreement – BPA is a threat to human health. So you would THINK that the FDA would cry “uncle” and give in. Really. But it doesn’t look like it. Despite the fact that countries like Canada have already banned BPA, our FDA is going to take it’s own sweet time in making a decision. And don’t hold your breath that it will be the right decision. The plastics industry is big and strong. Human health doesn’t hold a torch to the powers of plastics lobbyists. Lesson learned? You CANNOT trust that the FDA will keep your health as its number 1 (or even #2, #5 or #10) priority. You have to stay informed and listen to the real experts – the ones without any agenda.

The experts are clearly saying: DON’T USE #7 PLASTIC – check all of your sports bottles (YES – that means your Nalgene has to go), your baby bottles etc. It also means the big water cooler bottles at your office or in your home (like Poland Spring). Avoid canned goods with plastic linings (ugh – that one is hard!) And stay informed.

I have read a pretty incredible book and decided I would start sharing snippets from the book. The book is called Not Just a Pretty FaceThe Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry by Stacy Malkan. Stacy is the Communications Director of Health Care Without Harm and a media strategist and cofounder of Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

The book is an eye-opening look at the cosmetics industry and the lobbying efforts that have allowed big name companies to continue to use chemicals that are known to be harmful in humans.

The book starts by writing about a study that was done in 2004 by the American Red Cross and the Environmental Working Group, and Commonweal, a California health and environmental group. In the study, they measured chemicals in the umbilical cord blood of newborns born at randomly selected hospitals across the country. These babies had not yet been in direct contact with industrialized society. “The researchers detected a total of 287 chemicals in the babies’ cord blood, including 180 chemicals that can 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.” OK – that was on page 2 of this book. Needless to say I was more than curious to read on.

I will continue to post learnings that I found very interesting.