Be a smart cosmetic shopper

Yesterday’s post in Enviroblog entitled “Tips from the make-up artist” makes a good point about the importance of paying attention to the ingredients in our personal care products. Those of us with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity are probably more concientious than the average shopper, but I have to admit that up until very recently, I relied more on what my nose and body told me than what was on the label.

But now, I not only do the sniff test for all my cosmetics and personal care products, I also check labels and consult the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database, the bible of concientious shoppers. I do this because it’s not just the toxic chemicals that trigger MCS symptoms that I need to eliminate from my life, it’s all toxic chemicals and products.

Here are some practical shopping tips from Skin Deep, most of which I’m sure you are already following, but it never hurts to review, especially for those of you who do not have MCS but are interested in living a healthier lifestyle:

Use our What Not To Buy list to avoid especially problematic ingredients - like mercury, lead, and placenta - and the products that contain them.

Use fewer products. Is there something you can cut from your daily routine, or a product you can use less often? By cutting down on the number of chemicals contacting your skin every day, you will reduce any potential health risks associated with your products.

Use the “Advanced Search” feature of Skin Deep to find products that have fewer potential health issues. Choose a product category and exclude the hazardous ingredients - carcinogens and neurotoxins, for instance - and Skin Deep will generate a custom shopping list for you.

Read labels. Marketing claims on personal care products are not defined under the law, and can mean anything or nothing at all, including claims like organic, natural, hypoallergenic, animal cruelty free, and fragrance free. Read the ingredient label carefully to find evidence that the claims are true.

Use milder soaps. Soap removes dirt and grease from the surface of your skin, but also strips away your body’s own natural skin oils. Choosing a milder soap may reduce skin dryness and your need for moisturizers to replace oils your skin can provide naturally.

Minimize your use of dark hair dyes. Many contain coal tar ingredients that have been linked to cancer in some studies.

Cut down on your use of powders; avoid the use of baby powder on newborns and infants. A number of ingredients common in powder have been linked to cancer and other lung problems when they are inhaled. FDA warns that powders may cause lung damage if inhaled regularly.

Choose products that are “fragrance”-free. Fragrances can cause allergic reactions. Products that claim to be “fragrance free” on the packaging may not be. They could contain masking fragrances that give off a neutral odor. Read the ingredient label - in products truly free of fragrance, the word “fragrance” will not appear there. Find “fragrance”-free products with our advanced search.

Reduce your use of nail polish. It’s one of the few types of products that routinely contains ingredients linked to birth defects. Paint your toenails and skip the fingernails. Paint nails in a well-ventilated room, or outside, or avoid using nail polish altogether, particularly when you are pregnant. Browse our custom shopping guide for advice on nail polishes that contain fewer ingredients of concern.

Link

Photo by smcgee

Who’s chirping about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity today?

On the election front:

Lou Cheese, over at Living w/ Mulitple Chemical Sensitivity, braved the Cleveland air to document the Obama rally today. As his photo at left shows: “I packed my bag with extra batteries for the camera, two respirators, and a note from the doctor explaining the requirement for respirator use in public areas,” he says. “Just what every guy needs.” He posted three updates, at 11:00 a.m.,  3:00 p.m., and 7:00 p.m. I’ve really enjoyed his perspectives on the presidential race, including his fears of being arrested by the Secret Service at various rallies for being a terrorist because of wearing a respirator!

GreenMuze put together a simple guide to a green voting experience, what they call “Your Eco-Voting Etiquette Guide.” The guide talks about how it’s not enough to just be voting green, you should act like a greenie at the polling place, too. I was delighted to see they recommend a fragrance-free experience. Along with recommending carpooling, eco-friendly water containers, and organic cotton t-shirts, they also say this:

Go scent free.

For many people voting is a social occasion, you see your neighbours, chat with friends, and even perhaps flirt with someone new in the line-ups, but do everyone a favour and go scent free. Increasingly, people are having more chemical sensitivities to perfumes, hairsprays, scented creams and even strong smelling laundry detergents and fabric softeners can be a serious health trigger for many individuals.

The Body Burden reports that everyone alive today carries within her or his body at least 700 contaminants, most of which have not been well studied. Why add more? Going chemical free will reduce the planetary toxic load, is better for your health and much better for the health of those around you. It is time we consider chemical perfumes, hairsprays, shampoos, etc. as equally as noxious as cigarette smoke.

GreenMuze also says “Obama is certainly not the eco-saviour that Al Gore would have been, but he is much better than the McCain/Palin ticket and smart enough to stock his cabinet with good green people.” Exactly!

Canary’s Cry for Sunday, Oct. 12

A new feature on The Canary Report: Recent news worthy of a Canary’s Cry.

Here’s the alarm call for Sunday, Oct 12:

The Standard Speaker reports on “A body at war,” the story of a veteran of Desert Storm and Desert Shield who now suffers from multiple sclerosis or MS. My heart breaks when I hear stories about chemically injured veterans.

Local10.com finds “Mold Forces Hundreds of Students Out of Dorms” at Florida Memorial University. Gross out warning.

RedOrbit says South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency reported on Thursday: “South Korea is the Largest User of Farm Chemicals Among the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Members.”

AP reports that “Mexican marijuana cartels sully US forests, parks.” Seems herbicides and pesticides are being used to grow pot in National Forests, resulting in horrendous damage.

In other forest news, Eonline blares the headline “Britney Sees the Forest for the Perfume.” The pop star’s new perfume Hidden Fantasy has the tagline “What do you have to hide?” and is being marketed as a “seductive scent that is all about expressing the many mysterious sides of a woman.” I have no idea what this has to do with forests, although the promo photo has her looking like a tree hugger, literally.

FT.com, out of the UK, reports in “Making scents of the male market” that more than 40 new men’s scents are being launched in the US market alone this year. Oh goodie, I can hardly wait.

Link to photo by emingus

The sorrow of isolation

CatherineWO, at Breathez, posted about Sisterhood yesterday, lamenting the loss of getting together with other women as much as she’d like since developing Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. While she’s found some comfort with online blogs, she makes a very valid point about the need for personal interaction.

She recently attended a jewelry party at her daughter-in-law’s. She writes about the gathering: “…even more important to me was the opportunity to just sit and talk with other women. It was a small group, but they all knew I would be there so had come fragrance free. It felt good just to relax and enjoy the company of others.”

But she has a much harder time being able to participate in her church activities. I wrote about CatherineWO’s successful activism at her church, where she lobbied church elders to make all church buildings fragrance free. But she still has some problems with more casual gatherings with women friends, which causes her deep sorrow.

We all suffer losses in our lives for which we must grieve and then move on, hopefully filling the gap with something else of value. But I am not sure how to fill this gap in my life. In moments of selfishness and self-pity, I rail at the women in my own local group who refuse to change their behavior so that I can participate. Yet, such wallowing is so unproductive. I can’t change the behavior of other women, and railing on them to myself only makes me more angry. And I don’t want to become just an angry old woman.

One place I still feel sisterhood is through online blogs. There are some wonderful LDS group blogs that reach out to women, such as www.feministmormonhousewives.org , http://segulah.org/blog and http://the-exponent.com (my favorite). Blogs cannot replace the intimacy we get associating in person with other women, but they do offer a free exchange of feelings and ideas that helps to fill the gap.

Perhaps my greatest resource for sisterhood is with my own daughters and daughter-in-law, four truly amazing women who reach out to me on an almost daily basis. I love them and really appreciate them, but it is unfair and unrealistic to expect them to fulfill the bulk of my social and emotional needs.

So I continue to seek new ways to conpensate for the loss of sisterhood I feel in the isolation of chemical sensitivity. Even introverts need a little socializing once in a while.

Link

How to handle the problem of a co-worker’s perfume

Attack the problem, not the person

Office etiquette experts Cheryl Stinski and Karen Dorn, in their column Alternative Resolutions found at postcrescent.com, offer some good advice on how to talk to a co-worker about his or her offensive fragrance.

I think the recommendations given are solid, but the last paragraph on further “options” is too vague to be helpful. I would say that if the co-worker does not respond to the kind and educational approach suggested here, that you go to your supervisor and on up the food chain until you get results–”results” meaning that either the person stops wearing the toxic fragrance, or you be given an alternative work space.

Know that the trend is toward no-scent policies in the workplace (also conventions, public meetings, etc) and your proactive participation in moving your management toward creating policy that supports a safer work environment for everyone will make you feel very good!

Here’s the advice:

Q: A new person recently started in my office. She’s a good addition to our team, with one huge exception - her strong perfume is making me and others sick. One of my co-workers already missed work because of allergy problems heightened by her perfume and

I’ve had to use my asthma medication much more frequently on workdays.

I told her that her perfume is too strong but she insists it isn’t a problem. My manager says that because the employee handbook doesn’t address perfume, there’s nothing he can do.

We’ve resorted to opening all the windows and doors to air the place out, but the weather will soon take away that option. She may have started wearing a little less of the stinky stuff but when we have to close the place up I’m afraid we’ll be right back at square one.

Do we all need to sign an anti-perfume petition or can something else be done?

A: There can be a fine line between an individual’s personal choices and what gets in the way of his/her co-worker’s ability to be productive employees. Most people really do want to be sensitive to the needs of their co-workers, but they also don’t like being told what to do.

Employee policies create guidelines but they can’t cover every circumstance. And, as you’ve discovered, perfumes and odors can raise all kinds of sensitivity issues, both in the health arena and in how the problem gets handled. Instead of further escalating the power struggle with a petition, let’s look at how to handle a sensitive problem with sensitivity.

Frame the problem accurately: The problem isn’t your co-worker’s perfume, it’s the health impact it’s having on some of her co-workers and the resulting loss of productivity; in another environment with other people, there may not be a problem at all.

Attack the problem, not person: Instead of pointing the finger with a You Message like “your perfume is too strong” try this: “I am concerned about the perfume you are wearing to work because several people are having health reactions.”

Be specific when stating the facts: Don’t just say “you’re perfume is making people sick.” Give as much information as you can without violating privacy rights of other employees - “one person has had to increase medication on workdays,” or “we have doctor verification that a medical condition is aggravated by prolonged contact with strong perfume.”

Be open to options: The obvious solution, which may seem like the easiest solution, may not necessarily be the best solution in the long run. Taking the time to listen to each other and explore options will ensure that all are involved in finding a solution that meets everyone’s needs to the best of your ability.

Cheryl Stinski or Karen Dorn 920-993-1490 with questions you’d like answered in this column and to learn how Alternative Resolutions Inc. can help with your workplace needs. Sign up at newsletter@alternativeresolutions.biz for a free subscription to their monthly e-newsletter, The Toolbox.

Link

Link to photo by lecanu mickael on flickr

Perfume is an air pollutant

Letter to the editor at Kingston This Week:

When it comes to perfume, please, a little goes a long way

We hear so much today about clean air and pollutants. Recently, we experienced what I consider something to be a definite air pollutant.

We were shopping at the Cataraqui Canadian Tire when a lady passed us wearing so much cologne or perfume it made me feel sick, but much more to the point, it made my husband almost pass out. He suffers from a disease known as COPD, where at times it’s very difficult, almost impossible to breathe.

This event really affected him and I thought he was going to pass out, as has previously happened. One kind lady offered to get him a chair. We quickly made our way outside to the fresh air and after a while he was all right.

This has happened several times before and we really appreciate the scent-free zones. (Now, if only everyone would abide by these requests, it would be a much more comfortable world for all of those having breathing problems).

When I was in KGH several months ago, a patient in my room had a visitor drenched in perfume. My roommate had to have oxygen administered and my husband had to leave the room. The fragrance lasted for quite a while.

Please be considerate of others when applying anything with fragrance. As in most things, a little goes a long way. It is certainly no fun watching anyone, especially someone you love, fighting for each and every breath.

Jacqueline Neilson

Kingston

Link

Link to photo credit at National Heart Lung and Blood Institute

Hormone-altering cosmetics chemicals found in teenage girls

Many chemicals detected linked to serious health problems

Here’s a new report from the Environmental Working Group about hormone-altering chemicals found in cosmetics and body care products. Isn’t it interesting that the products that trigger a bad reaction in people with Mulitple Chemical Sensitivity are proving out through scientific study to be toxic and damaging even at low levels?

OAKLAND, CA - Teenage girls across America are contaminated with hormone-altering chemicals found in cosmetics and body care products, confirms a new study released today by the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

The first-of-its kind study found 16 toxic chemicals in blood and urine samples from 20 teenage girls from eight states and the District of Columbia, aged 14-19, including preservatives, fragrance and antimicrobial compounds. Many of these are linked to serious health risks in lab animals, even at low-dose levels.

“Hormone-altering chemicals shouldn’t be in cosmetics, especially in products used by millions of teenage girls,” said Rebecca Sutton, Ph.D, author of the report and Staff Scientist at EWG. “Their bodies are still developing and may be especially vulnerable to risks from these exposures,” added Sutton.

The young women participating in this study were recruited from locations across the U.S. and represent diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds.  They used an average of nearly 17 personal care products per day that contain a total of 174 unique cosmetic ingredients.

The study provides the first data available from teens on levels of synthetic chemical musks, common fragrance ingredients that accumulate in people and act like estrogen in the body, and preservatives called parabens that also mimic estrogen.

“The Teen Body Burden Study is proof that something needs to be done. My results serve as permanent motivation to fight the chemical battle and win,” said Jessica Assaf, one of the teens tested.

Federal health statutes do not require companies to test products or ingredients for safety before they are sold. As a result, nearly all body care products contain ingredients that have not been assessed for safety by any federal agency, and are not required to meet any uniform safety standards.

“Most parents don’t know that the eyeliner, lipstick or shampoo they allow their daughters to use probably contains at least one chemical linked to a number of serious health concerns,” said Sutton. “Teenage girls are at a particularly vulnerable age and these exposures could trigger a subtle sequence of damaging effects that leads to health problems later in life.”

Teenagers and their parents can consult EWG’s Skin Deep online database to help them make informed decisions about their products.

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment.

Link to full EWG release

Link to full EWG Report: Teen Girls’ Body Burden of Hormone-Altering Cosmetics Chemicals

Link to Greenwire release

Article in Salon: Now smell this

There’s a frightening story in Salon on Scent Marketing. The article will make you go nutz, but read through to the comments, they are fascinating.

Note that one of the “experts” quoted is Avery Gilbert, a synthetic fragrance industry hack who recently published a book in which he says Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is a psychosomatic problem. I wrote about it here (comments are pretty interesting on that post).

Link

Thanks, Eloise!

Link to photo by betsymartian at flickr

Girl’s perfume sends 11 students to hospital

Welcome to our world.

Eleven middle school pupils and a driver were taken to a hospital Thursday after a girl dropped a bottle of perfume on the bus.

The McLaughlin Middle School students and driver complained of nausea and dizziness.

The principal said it’s against the rules to bring perfume or glass on campus, so even though it appeared to be an accident, the girl probably will be disciplined.

Link to FOXNews

Link to photo by squacco on flicker

LDS leadership declares local church fragrance-free

A woman with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities asks LDS leadership to designate all their church buildings fragrance-free, and to her delight, they decide in her favor.

Catherine, who blogs at Breathez, describes herself in her bio:

I am a middle-aged (well, maybe a little beyond middle age) woman with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS). My goal is to offer information and support to other people with MCS, and to provide a place for discussion of MCS and environmental issues. I am also a life-long member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons). Politically I lean to the left.

Today she blogs about asking for fragrance-free designation of church buildings so that she and others with MCS can fully participate in all church activities. Church leadership granted the request.

Bravo, Catherine!

One Step Closer to a Fragrance-free Building

Well, I had quite the experience this past Sunday evening. Our local church leadership (LDS stake presidency, bishops and branch presidents) met to discuss the proposed goal of designating our local church buildings as fragrance-free. Since I cannot safely go into the building, I was asked to give a 15-minute presentation via speaker phone. That isn’t very much time, so I had to plan ahead and choose my words wisely. I focused on the stages of chemical sensitivity (from tolerance to permanent tissue damage), common symptoms of these different stages and then my own experience with stage 3 MCS and the physical reactions I have had in our church buildings. I also gave a brief overview of the symptoms other people in our congregations have reported having in our buildings. (We have a list of 15 people who have complained about some degree of chemical sensitivity they have had at church.)

There was an overwhelming vote of support among these leaders for pushing ahead with the fragrance-free goal in the four church-owned buildings and also in the two small rented facilities. This same group will meet again in about two weeks to finalize plans for implementation, i.e. educating members, putting signs on doors, deciding where to seat people who come fragranced unknowingly (visitors), etc.

This is a huge step for this area. As many of you know, I quit attending church meetings here entirely over six months ago. Since then, my husband (who is a member of the stake presidency) has made a great effort to educate people and enlist support for creating a safer environment (i.e. fragrance-free) in our buildings. I do not like bringing attention to myself, and would willingly have just faded away into inactivity indefinitely, but he was not willing to let it slide by.

I am realistic enough to know that this won’t happen overnight. People don’t willingly change their behavior without some struggle. But getting the leaders on board is a huge step. My sincere hope is that church members will realize the importance of reaching out in compassion to fellow members with special needs and will also come to understand that this creates a safer environment for everyone.

Link

Researchers: Perfume is “risk to unborn babies”

Pregnant women are told that using perfumes or scented creams may increase the risk of unborn boys developing infertility in later life

Anyone with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity knows that perfume and other synthetic fragrances are toxic. Effects of exposure can range from dizziness and coughing to total loss of cognitive ability (sometimes called “brain fade”) and serious trouble breathing. These overt physical effects alarm us and make us question what else the poison is doing to our bodies. We people with MCS are the “canaries” of the public, sounding the alarm that synthetic fragrance is hazardous to health– not just to people with MCS, but to everybody.

Slowly, peer reviewed research is catching up with us. Here’s a report at the BBC today about researchers at Edinburgh University who believe exposure to chemicals found in cosmetics between eight and 12 weeks of pregnancy may affect later sperm production in male children. Their recommendation: Do not use personal care products with synthetic fragrance while pregnant. Canaries’ recommendation: Do not use personal care products with synthetic fragrance EVER.

Testicular cancer

During tests on rats, [the researchers] blocked the action of androgens, which include male sex hormones such as testosterone.

The experiments confirmed that if the hormones are blocked, the animals suffered fertility problems.

Some of the chemicals which can block the hormones are widely used in the production of items such as cosmetics, household fabrics and plastics.

Prof Sharpe said the chemicals may also increase the risk of baby boys developing other reproductive conditions in later life, including testicular cancer.

He added that women planning on becoming pregnant should avoid putting any cosmetic products on their skin which could then be absorbed into their bodies.

He told BBC Scotland’s news website: “There are lots of compounds in perfumes that we know in higher concentrations have the potential to have biological effects, so it is just being ultra safe to say that by avoiding using them your baby isn’t at risk.

“If you are planning to become pregnant you should change your lifestyle. Those lifestyle things don’t necessarily mean that you are going to cause terrible harm to your baby, but by avoiding them you are going to have a positive effect.

“We would recommend you avoid exposure to chemicals that are present in cosmetics, anything that you put on your body that might then get through your body into your developing baby. [...]

Link

Bath best way to smell good

Here’s the cutest letter to the editor ever, in response to an op/ed piece on perfume at YumaSun.com.

Thanks, Natacha Dannenberg, for writing about perfume. I am allergic to perfume and after shave lotion. I pass out from it. Besides it being a chemical, there are so many additives in it. It causes cancer. I’ve been told that by a doctor.

I have been around people who get asthma attacks from perfume and people who lost their voice from it. And yes, if people have trouble concentrating, they should try doing without perfume and after shave lotion.

I am wondering why they don’t have “hazard to your health” on the bottles. It is worse than second-hand cigarette smoke.

The best fragrance is a bath - you can smell if you are dirty or clean.

AGI MONTGOMERY
Yuma

Link

Photo by Daniel KJ at flickr.

New book on smell debunks MCS; author is synthetic industry hack

MCS expert Salvador Lourdes tears apart smelly book, shames Dallas News book reviewer to do his homework

Fred Bortz, special contributor to the Dallas News, writes in a review of the new book What the Nose Knows by Avery Gilbert, “I’ve never met psychologist Avery Gilbert, but after reading his new book, What the Nose Knows: The Science of Scent in Everyday Life, I’m sure he smells a lot better than I do in both senses of the word.”

Guess what Mr. Bortz? You both stink.

Here’s an excerpt from Bortz’s review:

It opens with the challenge of classifying odors and measuring their strength. It draws readers in with wines, flowers and perfumes, which “occupy the sunny heights of the smellscape.” But then the author lowers the boom.

“Beyond lies the Dark Side, a swampland reeking of burnt rubber, rotten eggs, and the silent but deadly guy on the No. 33 bus. Few people aspire to study stench – there are no maestros of malodor. And yet, if we are truly to understand the sense of smell, we must account for the whole of it … .”

And account for the whole he does, especially in the book’s most potent chapter, “The Malevolence of Malodor.” There he examines the syndrome known as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity or Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance. The verdict: The symptoms are real but psychosomatic. “The psychogenic hypothesis doesn’t sit well with some IEI patients … [T]hey resent any suggestion that … implies their suffering isn’t real. The good news for them, if they will only hear it, is that the psychogenic hypothesis points to a treatment.”

And here’s the rebuttal from MCS expert Salvador Lourdes:

Avery Gilbert is to the MCS community as Michael Savage was to the autism community. It would seem Gilbert has missed literally hundreds of studies out there showing various biological alterations that account for MCS symptoms. Another case of HITSD (head-in-the-sand disorder), unless Gilbert has industry ties to explain his denial. It would be interesting to know whether he has any industries ties which have not been disclosed that stand behind the promotion of this propaganda. Sure enough the first hit on him in a Google search shows he’s the president of Synesthetics, Inc., a firm which “provides innovative sensory science for the development and marketing of consumer products… We help our clients measure and optimize the multisensory impact of fragrance on consumer perception… We put sensory science in the service of marketing… Synesthetics, Inc. brings proven sensory research expertise to the challenges of designing, evaluating, and marketing fragranced products.”

Enough said… Gilbert is not a medical doctor, has no credibility to determine what causes MCS, and is obviously protecting his financial interests in consumer products scientifically proven to be laden with toxic substances. Anne Steinemann, on the other hand, has published independent, peer-reviewed data that shows the very products Gilbert is protecting indeed emit carcinogens and numerous unlabeled chemical ingredients, many of which are on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) no safe limit list, meaning no exposure level no matter how small is considered safe.

Steinemann AC. Fragranced consumer products and undisclosed ingredients. Environ Impact Asses Rev (2008), doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2008.05.002. http://www.ce.washington.edu/people/faculty/bios/documents/Steinemann2008.pdf .

Link.

Link to Lourdes’ MCS America blog.

A whiff of perfume history

07/07/08  Everything was fine for 2,000 years, and then it all goes so very wrong in the last 20.

Long, long, lonnng before the existence of soaps and clean personal hygiene, perfume was invented, no doubt to mask any number of unpleasant odors. This has been credited to the Medes, ancestors of the Kurds, in about the 10th Century B.C.

The Egyptians pioneered perfumery as an industry in about 1580 B.C. Perfume became a daily staple in both religious and boudoir rituals, the latter occurring most frequently in the chambers of Queen Cleopatra.

Drawing on their experience with plants for medicinal remedies, the Egyptians developed new methods of extracting and processing scents from plant and animal sources. China, Persia, Arabia and India sold raw materials to Egyptian perfumers, and Alexandria flourished as the most important trade center in that part of the world.

By 350 B.C. the Greeks had developed such faith in the powers of perfume that they sprinkled it into the air at their feasts so that it could be dispersed by the wings of flying doves to elevate the appetite for food and lovemaking.

At one point the obsession with perfume got so out of hand that it was actually pronounced illegal. But perfume proved unstoppable. It was thought to make people smarter, cure illness, and secure the favor of the gods. Rich people even went to their graves holding a bottle of perfume. And not to be excluded, poor people were placed in caskets bearing a painting of a bottle of perfume.

Fast forward to Italy, 500 A.D. Now perfume was the rage for both religious ceremonies and personal use. Soon the use of perfume spread to the Islamic world. But alas, the fall of the Roman Empire brought the perfume industry down with it.

Now fast waaay forward to France, 1656. The French established a “guild of glove and perfume makers” and the perfume industry came alive again. Perfumed gloves became the rage. The kings had “perfumed courts.” New blends continued to elevate consumer demand and finally came Eau de Cologne: a fragrance for internal consumption! Yes, they drizzled cologne onto sugar lumps and stirred it into wines. They rinsed their mouths with it, poured it into bath water, and even used it for enemas.

The 1800s found France flooding the world with perfumes and colognes born of new chemical discoveries and manufacturing processes. This spawned the designer bottling industry, and its lavish works of glass raised the art of merchandising to new heights.

The 1900s brought the advent of synthetic fragrance materials, making it possible to formulate many thousands of scents. So today we can select perfumes and colognes from an endless universe of designer scents to delight the senses, inspire ooohhs and ahhs, and complement every personality [emphasis added].

Link

Photo by Leepak at Flickr

What is fragrance?

This is an excellent description of the problems with fragrance from the Environmental Working Group.

When the researchers at EWG are asked the question, “Is it true that the cosmetics industry can put any chemical into a product’s fragrance without showing it on the ingredients list?”, the answer in a word is, “Yes.”

Here’s the transcript from the vid:

It’s true. When you see “fragrance” on a personal care product’s label, read it as “hidden chemicals.” A major loophole in FDA’s federal law lets manufacturers of products like shampoo, lotion, and body wash include nearly any ingredient in their products under the name “fragrance” without actually listing the chemical.

Companies that manufacture personal care products are required by law to list the ingredients they use, but fragrances and trade-secret formulas are exempt. An analysis of the chemical contents of products reveals that the innocuous-looking “fragrance” often contains chemicals linked to negative health effects. Phthalates, used to make fragrances last longer, are associated damage to the male reproductive system, and artificial musks accumulate in our bodies and can be found in breast milk. Some artificial musks are even linked to cancer. And if you’ve got asthma, watch out– fragrance formulas are considered to be among the top 5 known allergens, and can trigger asthma attacks. The same kinds of chemicals are often used for fragrances in cleaning products, scented candles, and air fresheners.

To avoid those unpleasant side effects, choose fragrance-free products, but beware labels that say “unscented.” It may only mean that the manufacturer has added yet another fragrance to mask the original odor. Check ingredient labels carefully, or search Skin Deep to find products that do not list “fragrance” as an ingredient.

The best solution is not to allow cosmetics companies to get through this loophole. They should be required to list all of their ingredients on the label where consumers can find out what they’re buying. On top of that, cosmetics manufacturers regularly include ingredients with known or suspected links to cancer, reproductive toxicity and other negative health effects. The federal government must set safety standards for personal care products.

If you’re concerned about the chemicals you use on your body every day, sign EWG’s petition at cosmeticsdatabase.com and urge the FDA to make personal care products safe.

Link

Sickening sell out: Spreading the stink

Scanning the New York Times this morning, I found an interesting story on perfume advertising.

Times reporter Natasha Singer, in a story entitled “A Cover, 40 Pages, 4 Faces and One Perfume,” notes that the July issue of Harper’s Bazaar, a fashion mag by mega-publisher Hearst Communications, Inc., has ramped up perfume promotion by dedicating FORTY of its editorial pages to models used for a new fragrance from Estée Lauder (including covergirl Gwyneth Paltrow).

“Boy, they really sold out — Hearst — didn’t they?” said Allan Mottus, a beauty industry analyst who publishes the Informationist, a trade publication. Mr. Mottus added: “You have to take your hat off to Lauder. It is an enormous coup.”

Singer points out that this means perfume is becoming as highly regarded in the fashion industry as apparel. This is quite amazing, given that the canaries of the word and many others are trying to alert everyone that commercial perfumes contain unregulated toxic chemicals.

In fact, for Estée Lauder products, according to the Environmental Working Group’s cosmetic safety database, three of the four perfumes listed are high hazard. Given that 94% of all Lauder’s cosmetics have absolutely no FDA review, and chemically sensitive people are saying that most commercial perfumes are toxic… well, you decide whether or not you want to wear the stuff.

I’m just sayin’, on my personal list of things that get me sick from exposure, perfume (synthetic fragrance) is the NUMBER ONE problem. It’s really nasty, toxic stuff.

Link

Link to photo

Perfume exposure lands 3 firefighters in hospital

In Florida, June 2:

Three city firefighters were taken to North Broward Medical Center this morning for evaluation after they began suffering from headaches and lightheadedness while investigating a fire alarm at a perfume company.

Two have since been released from the hospital, while the third is still under evaluation, said Deerfield Beach Fire Division Chief Gary Fernaays.

Other firefighters have determined this afternoon that the trio taken to the hospital likely were not exposed to any hazardous chemicals and instead likely were affected by the perfumes in the building in the 600 block of Fairway Drive, Fernaays said.

[…]The three firefighters who went inside began feeling sick as they exited the building.

Some officials early on speculated that the firefighters might have been exposed to cyanide, but other firefighters sent in to investigate found no traces of cyanide or any other hazardous chemical or gas, Fernaays said.

Cyanide, perfume, same same.

Link

Photo link