Chemical Industry Wrote FDA's Bisphenol-A Assessment

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has reported that the American Chemistry Council, a trade association and lobbying organization representing the chemical industry, wrote much of the FDA's August assessment of bisphenol-A.

A day after the Journal Sentinel ran its story, a group of scientists criticized the FDA for allowing this obvious conflict of interest.

The Environmental Working Group has been criticizing the FDA's position on BPA since this spring and offers this brief review of the conflicts of interest involved.

See all Mediocre Polymath posts about bisphenol-A.

SIGG bottles contained bisphenol-A

In a letter posted on the SIGG website this month, CEO Steve Wasik admitted that SIGG bottles manufactured prior to August 2008 contained the controversial chemical bisphenol-A (BPA).

Wasik's letter claims that all SIGG bottles manufactured after August 2008 use a new polyester-based liner that contains no BPA. He explains that (company sponsored?) laboratory testing had shown that the BPA-laced proprietary liner SIGG used did not leach BPA into common liquids like water, juice, soda, etc., and that SIGG continued to sell the BPA-lined bottles believing they were safe.

In an interesting marketing twist, the SIGG website shows consumers how to determine between pre- and post-August 2008 made bottles. I suppose SIGG loyalists (people who enjoy cute, $20 aluminum) may recycle their BPA bottles and replace them with the newer model.

Read SIGG's letter of admission.

The consumer blog Z Recommends offers a timeline of SIGG's misinformation campaign about BPA in its bottles.

SIGG clearly has violated consumer trust.

Read this blog's posts about bisphenol-A.

Bisphenol-A continues to confuse

The FDA announced this week that it thinks bisphenol-A is not toxic for adults and children, but that they aren't sure about its safety for infants. The New York Times has a more readable summary of the story.

But the Environmental Working Group claims that the source studies the FDA used to arrive at its conclusions are scientifically flawed, using standards set 50 years ago by chemical manufacturers.

Here is a list of bpa-related posts on mediocre polymath.

Update 9/4: And now the National Toxicology Program (say what?) has issued a report voicing "some concern" about bisphenol-a and development in infants and children. 

Reduce your use of toxic chemicals – Part I: Plastics

Who hasn't suspected that plastics aren't entirely safe? Anyone with taste buds can tell that plastics leach into the foods and drinks we store in them. After all, nearly all plastics are petroleum byproducts.

Plastics are everywhere. There are seven types of plastics that are commonly identified for recycling purposes with a "resin identification code". These codes reveal the class of plastic and can help you avoid plastics that contain, leach, or outgas toxins.

"Good" plastics with no components or leachates that are yet known to be hazardous to human health:

#1 PETE or PET - polyethylene terephthalate
#2 HDPE - high density polyethylene
#4 LDPE - low density polyethylene
#5 PP - polypropylene

Dangerous plastics:

#3 PVC or V - polyvinyl chloride: Manufacturing or burning PVC releases carcinogens (dioxins). Phthalates are "plasticizers" that make PVC more pliable. Vinyl shower curtains are loaded with phthalates. Examples of PVC: plastic "cling" wrap, anything with the "new car" or "new shower curtain" smell, PVC piping/plumbing. Science News articles suggest these effects of phthalates: may reduce sperm count or damage sperm in males, may shorten pregnancy, worsens skin allergies, may boost obesity, may cause developmental damage to fetuses, may elevate risk for developing asthma, eczema, and rhinitis, can mimic estrogen and "feminize" boys

#6 PS - polystyrene (aka "Styrofoam"): Made from styrene, a suspected carcinogen, PS also contains p-nonylphenol; both chemicals are suspected endocrine disruptors. Don't consume fatty foods or alcoholic beverages from Styrofoam containers; styrene can leach into these substances (I've actually watched styrofoam dissolve in beer.). Some opaque plastic cutlery is PS, as well.

#7 "Other" - includes a range of plastics like PC (polycarbonate), acrylic, fiberglass, and nylon: The major toxic concern is bisphenol-A (bpA) used in polycarbonate plastic. BpA is the chemical that links the plastic polymers together. Articles in Science News suggest that bpA has these effects: carcinogen, exposure in utero can disrupt brain and reproductive development, mimics the hormone estrogen, can "feminize" males, may cause illness, may cause genetic mutations, may increase risk of developing diabetes. Science News articles suggest that nearly all polycarbonate plastics will leach bpA when heated. Older PC bottles (cracked or cloudy) will leach 2 to 5 times more bpA than newer PC bottles unless the newer bottles have been scratched. New PC bottles that are scratched leach several times as much bpA as older, unscratched bottles. BpA can also leach into liquids from canned foods that use a PC can lining. For some reason, coffee in PC lined cans leaches 10 times as much bpA as any other tested liquid.

Bad news, backpackers. Those Nalgene bottles you've been using for years are made of Lexan, which is polycarbonate and contains bisphenol-A (Nalgene address bpA in their PC bottles). If you can still read the number, check the bottom of your Nalgene bottles: all #7s.

Even worse, the longer you've been using them, the more likely they are to be leaching bpA into your water. If you're like me, you've got opaque bottles dating back to Boy Scouts that used to be translucent still in circulation. Worst of all, bpA leaches from polycarbonate 10 times more when exposed to hot coffee. Backcountry Starbucks anyone? Heck, I used to pour coffee straight from coffee pot to Nalgene for my morning commute. Other brands that use polycarbonate: CamelBak, GSI, anything that says Lexan

Alternatives (all available at REI):

HDPE from Nalgene
Stainless steel: Kleen Kanteen
Aluminum: SIGG

More resources

Which plastics are safe or unsafe for food use? In what items are these plastics found (baby bottles, etc.)? Check out the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy's Smart Plastics Guide Healthier Food Uses of Plastics for Parents and Children (a quick pdf download) .

Bisphenol A FREE - A website digest of news stories about bpA.

Be Safe - National organization that lobbies large corporations to reduce prevalance of chemicals like PVC, dioxin, etc.

A Polluted Lifestyle

I’m a healthy, relatively fit, 32-year old guy. I work for an endurance sports fitness publisher in Boulder, CO. It’s a health-conscious job in a health-obsessed town. Yet I live a polluted life. A typical day:

• Wake up, brush teeth (with antibiotics, flouride – a neurotoxin, other chemicals).
• Use mouthwash (with artificial colorants, flavors, alcohol).
• Make coffee in my plastic coffee maker (possible bisphenol-A from polycarbonate plastics).
• Hit the shower, using soap and shampoo (made of petroleum by-products).
• Shave with all sorts of synthetic, petroleum-based chemicals.
• Apply aluminum-based deodorant.
• Get dressed (in clothing routinely cleaned with petroleum-based detergents).
• Eat breakfast of cereal with milk (fertilizers, pesticides, bovine growth hormone, antibiotics).
• Pour hot coffee into Nalgene bottle, add milk (bisphenol-A from polycarbonate bottle, more bovine growth and antibiotics).
• Drive to work (outgassed fumes from vinyl dashboard/console, exposure to various flame retardants in upholstery, exposure to stain-resistant chemicals in upholstery, carcinogens and heavy metals from car exhaust, carcinogens and particulates from diesel exhaust, heavy metals from brake pad and tire dust).
• Work (exposure to office cleaning agents, allergens, etc.)
• Drive to lunch and back for a deli sandwich and soda for lunch (more growth hormones and antibiotics from meat, more pesticides from vegetables and bread, more bisphenol-A from polycarbonate soda can liner, more car and exhaust pollutants).
• Brush teeth (more antibiotics and flouride)
• Afternoon snack (possible crop-related pesticides, nitrates, etc.)
• Drive home (carcinogens from gas fumes, more car and exhaust pollutants).
• Go for a jog or bike ride (more exhaust pollutants and allergens but breathed more deeply into my lungs).
• Eat dinner (more fertilizers, pesticides, bovine growth hormone, antibiotics).
• Clean up dinner with dish soap, dish detergent.
• Play with kid (exposure to flame retardants and stain resistants on carpeting).
• Mess around on computer or watch tv (exposure to flame retardants and stain resistants on upholstery).
• Brush teeth (more antibiotics and flouride).
• Go to bed (on pillow and mattress doused in flame retardants and stain resistants).

Then there’s the less-than-daily chores: cleaning the kitchen and bathrooms; doing the laundry; changing motor oil in the cars; replacing windshield wiper fluid; getting gas. All of these tasks involve shorter exposures to more toxic chemicals.

Toxicologists like to say that “everything is toxic at a high enough dose”. Most of the individual toxic doses of daily living are minute. Yet small, repeated doses can raise the body’s chemical load. Some of these chemicals may interact in ways we don’t yet understand. And some of these chemicals persist in the body; it takes days, weeks, months, or years before they are eliminated.

What does your daily routine look like, chemically?

Is Bisphenol-A history?

The Environmental Working Group has released a survey of the history of bisphenol-A. http://www.ewg.org/reports/bpatimeline

The timeline is riddled with cover ups and governement-industry conflicts of interest, but it all culminates with this wonderful news:

"April 18-21, 2008: Major manufacturers and retailers abandon BPA in plastics. Within days of the NTP and Canadian judgements major BPA manufacturers including Playtex (which makes bottles and cups) and Nalgene announce a shift to BPA-free products. Major retailers including Wal-Mart and Toys"R"Us announce they will quickly phase-out BPA-containing baby bottles. [Wal-Mart to phase out BPA] [Toys"R"Us - BPA phase-out] [Nalgene goes BPA free]"

It's good news that retailers and (some) manufacturers are voluntarily planning a phase out of bisphenol-A, but the Environmental Working Group history of the chemical reveals all the weaknesses of health regulation in the U.S.

Also revealing is how suddenly the tables turned on BPA. Between March and April 2008, there were a few stories appearing about BPA and baby bottles. Within days of each other, two newspaper stories (below) and one story on the Today Show seemed to shock a system that had been showing signs of a slow-building momentum against BPA, but no signs of imminent, widespread action.

Interestingly, the U.S. federal government has long seemed unconcerned with the chemicals that European governments have banned, yet when Canada, a government a little closer to home, decided to do something about BPA, it's all over the news. Perhaps American health lobbies like the Environmental Working Group might be more effective in the U.S. by lobbying Canada.

I'm heading to the recycling center tomorrow. What will you do with your old Nalgene bottles?

[health, backpacking]

Being alive is dangerous to your health.

U.S. law allows most manufacturers to use toxic materials in products without telling anyone. Only the food and drug industries are closely regulated for product safety, and even their labelling tells consumers just a fraction of the relevant information. For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires the disclosure of the presence of trans fat in a food only if a single serving size contains more than a half gram of total fats. In other words, a food can contain a half gram of trans fat and the label can still say “0 grams”. Even if unhealthy ingredients are listed, most Americans don’t know how they affect health. Other industries are worse; there are cosmetics on the market that contain lead (lipstick), mercury (eye drops), and placenta (hair conditioners).

In October, 2006, National Geographic ran a feature, "Chemicals Within Us - The Pollution Within", for which the magazine dropped $15,000 to run a "journalist-as-guinea pig" experiment. Mt. Sinai hospital sucked 14 vials of blood from reporter David Ewing Duncan to perform a comprehensive blood screen. The goal: to identify and quantify known pollutants in him. The results are an alarming chemical klaxon—we are polluting ourselves. And this pollution does not come only from the iconic factory smokestack. The article identifies dozens of household sources of toxic chemicals, from cosmetics to furniture to more obvious sources like pesticides and cleaners.

Science News, a weekly digest of news from dozens of scientific journals and conferences, has been reporting on similar studies of household pollutants (for example, search its website for “bisphenol-a” or “pfoa”.). There have been stories about non-stick coatings releasing fumes toxic enough to kill household pets and plastics used in baby bottles that disrupt fetal development and may induce diabetes.

WIRED magazine runs a single page feature each issue called “What’s Inside?”, profiling the contents of a consumer product. Since I began subscribing last spring, WIRED has profiled gasoline, whipped cream, shaving gel, E-Z Cheese, and several other mostly synthetic consumer products. WIRED’s satirical product labelling provides more than a list of ingredients, it quickly surveys their sources and health effects. FDA take note.

The skeptic can easily raise an eyebrow at websites with flamboyant titles like “Our Stolen Future” and “PVC: The Poison Plastic”, but National Geographic, Science News, WIRED?

The mainstream media paid attention last fall when American toy manufacturers voluntarily recalled children’s toys that contained lead, GHB (the date rape drug), and powdered asbestos. Why are these recalls voluntary? Why don’t manufacturers have to tell us what’s in children’s toys? Why are there no penalties for selling toxic products?

The U.S. government, in its own ponderous way, is finally beginning to acknowledge the possibility of a problem with our toxic lifestyle. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have begun releasing a series of reports on toxins in the American bloodstream. This National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals is a start. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is narrowly involved as well, with its Endocrine Disruptors Research Initiative.

Unfortunately for the public health, the chemical lobby is hard at work protecting the profitable interests of its member companies and their customers. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), for example, runs several websites denying or downplaying the dangers found in the scientific evidence, especially for consumer plastics. Some ACC funded websites include: the Phthalate Information Center, Bisphenol-A, PlasticsMythBuster, and PlasticsInfo.org.

Many of these health hazards are systemic to our political-economy, but there are ways that we as individuals can reduce our personal toxic load.

FDA agrees its August statement on BPA was wrong

From this Washington Post article (10/31/08):

"A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel agreed Friday that the agency had erred in August when it said that a chemical widely used in baby bottles and other plastic packaging for foods and beverages posed no health risks."

"On Wednesday, a panel of toxicology experts said the FDA hadn't properly assessed the potential health risks posed by the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), which some studies have linked to cancer, diabetes, heart disease and developmental delays in children. The toxicologists said the FDA had relied too heavily on studies funded by the chemical industry to make its decision."

"On Friday, the FDA's Science Board, which consists of scientists from academia, government and industry and advises the FDA commissioner, seconded the toxicologists' concerns about the FDA's August ruling."

"The FDA's position on BPA has been controversial because it contradicted more than 100 studies, as well as a finding by the U.S. National Toxicology Program, that there was "some concern" that BPA may affect the brain and behavioral development in fetuses, infants and small children."

Wait--Bisphenol-A is Toxic?

New York Times 4/16/08 - Canada Likely to Label Plastic Ingredient ‘Toxic’
My favorite quote: "Because animal tests have shown that even small amounts of the chemical may cause changes in the body, however, researchers have focused on food- and drink-related applications of B.P.A., like the popular Nalgene brand beverage bottles."

Interestingly, Mountain Equipment Co-op, the REI of Canada, stopped selling polycarbonate water bottles, including Nalgene-brand bottles, last year sometime. Their explanation

But our polite friends up north aren't the only ones offering a gentle reminder:
Washington Post 4/16/08 - U.S. Cites Fears on Chemical In Plastics
My favorite quote: "Last year, another expert panel using outside scientists minimized the health risks of BPA, but its findings were widely assailed after a congressional investigation found that a firm hired to perform scientific analysis was also working for the chemical industry."

the next bisphenol-A

Prominent Cancer Doctor Warns About Cellphones

July 24, 2008, 11:20 am

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/prominent-cancer-doctor-warns-about-cellphones/

The head of a prominent cancer research institute has warned his faculty and staff to limit cellphone use because of a possible cancer risk, The Associated Press reports.

Would You Like a Copy of Your Receipt?

Science News, a news magazine devoted to making the science behind new findings accessible to non-scientists, published this story revealing a surprising source for bisphenol-A contamination in humans--cash register and credit card receipts.








Photo credit: Yan-san via Flickr

You are what you eat (plastic, that is).

Science News offers another survey of the latest in bisphenol-A testing.

How Plastic We've Become
Our bodies carry residues of kitchen plastics
January 19, 2008

Obama's FDA Is Concerned About BPA

George W. Bush's FDA declared bisphenol-A, a widely used plastic chemical, to be safe for human ingestion. That's reassuring considering that all Americans carry detectable amounts in their bloodstream from can liners, polycarbonate plastic bottles, and credit card receipts.

However, W's FDA was criticized for its 2008 announcement and a FDA advisory panel later admitted that the FDA's statement was misguided.

In January, the FDA changed its position on BPA, stating that it was concerned about possible effects on fetuses, infants, and children.

Update, the EPA will investigate BPA's effects on the environment, particularly its effects on the reproductive systems of animals. 


See this blog's BPA coverage here.

My Chemical Inventory, Or: Why the FDA Should Regulate Cosmetics

We humans expose ourselves to an astonishing number of chemicals. Chemistry is such a part of daily life that we rarely give a second thought to the chemicals surrounding us and in us. In fact, I suspect the average American hardly considers items like soap, toothpaste, hair conditioner to be chemicals. These and other household chemicals, through their everyday use, friendly packaging, and advertising, have become seemingly indispensable and positive additions to daily life.

The Environmental Working Group has been compiling a database of cosmetics and their ingredients since 2004. The database is called Skin Deep and it is partly user generated: website users submit a list of chemical ingredients from cosmetic packaging. Skin Deep cross-references cosmetic ingredients against 50 toxicity and regulatory databases of hazardous chemicals and rates the product with a safety score. Here is more info on Skin Deep.

As an exercise in cosmetic awareness, I submit to you my day in cosmetic chemistry.

Good Morning!

Brush teeth! Crest Baking Soda & Peroxide Whitening Toothpaste with Tartar Protection Fresh Mint

• Skin Deep hazard rating: 5 out of 10 (moderate hazard)
• Potential hazards: cancer, developmental/reproductive toxicity, violations, restrictions & warnings, allergies/immunotoxicity
• Ingredient count: 19
• Unspecified ingredient count: 1 (flavor)
• Chemical ingredients: Active Ingredients: Sodium Fluoride 0.243% (0.16% W/V Fluoride Ion) ; Inactive Ingredients: Glycerin; Hydrated Silica; Water; Propylene Glycol; Sodium Bicarbonate; Tetrasodium Pyrophosphate; Sorbitol; PEG-12; Flavor; Sodium Hydroxide; Sodium Lauryl Sulfate; Sodium Saccharin; Poloxamer 407; Xanthan Gum; Cellulose Gum; Calcium Peroxide; Titanium Dioxide; Blue 1

Rinse mouth with Up & Up Mouth Rinse Antiseptic (the Target house brand)

• Not yet rated in Skin Deep, but the preliminary rating is 4 out of 10 (moderate hazard)
• Potential hazards: cancer, Developmental/reproductive toxicity, Violations, restrictions & warnings, Other concerns for ingredients used in this product:
• Neurotoxicity, Persistence and bioaccumulation, Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive), Miscellaneous, Multiple, additive exposure sources, Irritation (skin, eyes, or lungs), Enhanced skin absorption, Occupational hazards
• Ingredient count: 13
• Unspecified ingredient count: 1 (flavor)
• Chemical ingredients: Active ingredients Eucalyptol 0.092%, Menthol 0.042% Methyl salicylate 0.060%, Thymol 0.064% Inactive ingredients water, alcohol 21.6%, sorbitol solution, flavor, poloxamer 407, benzoic acid, sodium saccharin, sodium benzoate, FD&C green no. 3

Cleanliness Is Godliness! Ivory Bar Soap, Simply Ivory

• Skin Deep hazard rating: 3 out of 10 (moderate hazard)
• Potential hazards: allergies/immunotoxicity, Other concerns for ingredients used in this product: neurotoxicity, organ system toxicity (non-reproductive), Miscellaneous, Irritation (skin, eyes, or lungs), Enhanced skin absorption, Occupational hazards
• Ingredient count: 13
• Unspecified ingredient count: 1 (fragrance)
• Chemical ingredients: Sodium Tallowate, Sodium Palmate, Water, Sodium Cocoate, Sodium Palm Kernelate, Glycerin, Sodium Chloride, Fragrance - Parfum, Coconut Acid, Palm Kernel Acid, Tallow Acid, Palm Acid, Tetrasodium EDTA

Clean that Mop! Avalon Organics Revitalizing Shampoo Peppermint

• Skin Deep hazard rating: 3 out of 10 (moderate hazard)
• Potential hazards: Allergies/immunotoxicity, Other concerns for ingredients used in this product: Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive), Multiple, additive exposure sources, Irritation (skin, eyes, or lungs), Enhanced skin absorption, Contamination concerns
• Ingredient count: 17
• Unspecified ingredient count: 1 ("other essential oils")
• Chemical ingredients: Purified water, cocamidopropyl betaine, disodium cocoamphodiacetate, sodium cocoyl sarcosinate, coconut acid, organic mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf(1), calendula officinalis (calendula) flower(1) and chamomilla recutita (chamomile) flower(2) extracts, organic orbignya oleifera (babassu) seed oil(3), babassuamidopropalkonium chloride, vegetable glycerin, bisabolol (chamomile), ethylhexylglycerin, arginine (amino acid), panthenol (pro-vitamin B5), tocopherol (vitamin E), organic mentha piperita (peppermint) leaf oil(2) and other essential oils. 1) Certified by Quality Assurance International 2) Certified by BCS Öko-Garamtie 3) Certified by Instituto Biodinâmico

Soft and Flowing Locks! American Crew Classic Stimulating Conditioner

• Not yet rated in Skin Deep, but the preliminary rating is 6 out of 10 (moderate hazard)
• Potential hazards:     Developmental/reproductive toxicity, Violations, restrictions & warnings, Allergies/immunotoxicity, Other concerns for ingredients used in this product: Endocrine disruption, Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive), Multiple, additive exposure sources, Irritation (skin, eyes, or lungs), Enhanced skin absorption, Contamination concerns, Biochemical or cellular level changes
• Ingredient count: 18
• Unspecified ingredient count: 0
• Chemical ingredients: water; cetyl alcohol; dicetyldimonium chloride; ceteareth-20; rosemary leaf extract; thyme extract; panama bark extract; provitamin B5; stearamidopropyl dimethylamine; propylene glycol; citric acid; menthol; peppermint oil; limonene; methylparaben; propylparaben; methylisothiazolinone; methylchloroisothiazolinone

Postpone the Weekend Grizzle! Kiss My Face Moisture Shave fragrance free

• Skin Deep hazard rating: 5 out of 10 (moderate hazard)
• Potential hazards: cancer, developmental/reproductive toxicity, violations, restrictions & warnings, allergies/immunotoxicity; Other concerns for ingredients used in this product: Endocrine disruption, Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive), Multiple, additive exposure sources, Irritation (skin, eyes, or lungs), Enhanced skin absorption, Contamination concerns, Biochemical or cellular level changes
• Ingredient count: 27
• Unspecified ingredient count: 0
• Chemical ingredients: WATER, POTASSIUM MYRISTATE (DERIVED FROM VEGETABLE OILS), SODIUM MYRISTATE (DERIVED FROM VEGETABLE OILS), PROPYLENE GLYCOL, TEA STEARATE, COCONUT OIL, OLIVE OIL, ALOE VERA, VITAMINS A & D, TOCOPHEROL ACETATE (VITAMIN E), ALLANTOIN, LECITHIN, LIME EXTRACT, LADY'S MANTLE EXTRACT, SOAPWORT EXTRACT, PEPPERMINT EXTRACT, HORSETAIL EXTRACT, WATERCRESS EXTRACT, LEMONGRASS EXTRACT, SAGE EXTRACT, GOLDENSEAL EXTRACT, ORANGEFLOWER EXTRACT, HYDROXYETHYLCELLULOSE (PLANT SOURCE), METHYLPARABEN, PROPYLPARABEN, SODIUM BENZOATE

Lube the smackers! Burt's Bees Beeswax Lip Balm

• Skin Deep hazard rating: 2 out of 10 (low hazard)
• Potential hazards: allergies/immunotoxicity, Other concerns for ingredients used in this product: Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive), Enhanced skin absorption, Contamination concerns
• Ingredient count: 9
• Unspecified ingredient count: 0
• Chemical ingredients: COCONUT OIL, BEESWAX, SWEET ALMOND OIL, PEPPERMINT OIL, TOCOPHERYL ACETATE, TOCOPHEROL (VITAMIN E), LANOLIN, COMFREY ROOT EXTRACT, ROSEMARY EXTRACT

Gel the doo! Matrix Amplify Volumizing System Thick Boost gel

• Not yet rated in Skin Deep, but the preliminary hazard rating is 10 out of 10 (high hazard)
• Potential hazards: developmental/reproductive toxicity, violations, restrictions & warnings, allergies/immunotoxicity, Other concerns for ingredients used in this product: Neurotoxicity, Endocrine disruption, Persistence and bioaccumulation, Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive), Miscellaneous, Multiple, additive exposure sources, Irritation (skin, eyes, or lungs), Enhanced skin absorption, Contamination concerns, Occupational hazards, Biochemical or cellular level changes
• Ingredient count: 31
• Unspecified ingredient count: 1 (fragrance)
• Chemical ingredients: water; amp-acrylates/allyl methacrylate copolymer; pvp; peg-14 dimethicone; acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate crosspolymer; propylene glycol; aminomethyl propanol; peg-40 hydrogenated castor oil; phenoxyethanol; polysorbate 80; peg-40; methylparaben; parfum/fragrance; ethylparaben; alpha-isomethyl ionone; ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate; hexyl cinnamal; butylphenyl methylpropional; linalool; benzyl salicylate; limonene; benzyl benzoate; citronellol; oleth-10; geraniol; disodium cocoamphodipropionate; octylacrylamide/acrylates/butylaminoethyl methacrylate copolymer; lecithin; phosphoric acid; polyquaternium-10; disodium edta;

Avoid stinky pits! Tom's of Maine original natural care odor protection aluminum-free deodorant stick

• Not yet rated in Skin Deep, but the preliminary rating is 3 out of 10 (moderate hazard)
• Potential hazards: Violations, restrictions & warnings, Allergies/immunotoxicity, Other concerns for ingredients used in this product: Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive), Irritation (skin, eyes, or lungs), Enhanced skin absorption, Occupational hazards
• Ingredient count: 11
• Unspecified ingredient count: 0
• Chemical ingredients: propylene glycol; water; sodium stearate; aloe barbadensis; witch hazel; glyceryl laurate; matricaria flower aqueous extract; hops; caprylic/capric triglyceride; ascorbic acid; cymbopogon schoenanthus oil

Banish scaly skin! Eucerin Dry Skin Therapy Daily Replenishing Lotion

• Not yet rated in Skin Deep, but the preliminary rating is 6 out of 10 (moderate hazard)
• Potential hazards: developmental/reproductive toxicity, violations, restrictions & warnings, allergies/immunotoxicity, Other concerns for ingredients used in this product: Neurotoxicity, Endocrine disruption, Persistence and bioaccumulation, Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive), Multiple, additive exposure sources, Irritation (skin, eyes, or lungs), Enhanced skin absorption, Contamination concerns, Occupational hazards, Biochemical or cellular level changes
• Ingredient count: 24
• Unspecified ingredient count: 0
• Chemical ingredients: water; sunflower seed oil; petrolatum; glycerin; glyceryl stearate SE; octyldodecanol; caprylic/capric triglyceride; stearic acid; dimethicone; cetearyl alcohol; lanolin alcohol; panthenol; tocopheryl acetate; cholesterol; carbomer; disodium EDTA; sodium hydroxide; phenoxyethenol; methylparaben; ethylparaben; propylparaben; butylparaben; isobutylparaben; bht

That's 182 chemicals in 10 cosmetic products (with some duplicate chemicals, of course), not including common chemicals in the municipal water supply like chlorine, flouride, pesticides, fertilizers, heavy metals, petrochemicals, dioxins, radioactive materials, bacteria or viruses, pharmaceuticals, and antibiotics. So mix those into my shower along with any residues that persisted on my skin overnight from the previous day.

And I haven't even left my own bathroom yet!

There are thousands of other daily chemicals to add to the stew:

• flame retardants in furniture and carpets
• formaldehyde in plywood, particleboard, paneling, fiberboard, furniture, cabinets, etc.
• radon from your foundation
• phthalates in plastics, cosmetics, toys
• bisphenol A in type 7 plastics, can liners, and credit card receipts
• lead paints
• PFOA in non-stick surfaces like Teflon
• car exhaust: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, breathable particles, benzene, formaldehyde, polycyclic hydrocarbons
• diesel exhaust: includes 40 carcinogens according to the EPA
• household cleaners
• hand soaps, dish soaps, laundry detergents, fabric softeners

No one knows how much of these chemicals it takes to cause problems over a lifetime. There is little known about how much of these chemicals enter and stay in the body. And no one knows how these hundreds of chemicals might interact in the body.
 

There are many things individuals can't control about our environment, but it's certainly possible to reduce the number, amount, and toxicity of chemicals in our cosmetics and households. I will definitely be pitching my hair gel, for example, and I'll look for alternative products that have a lower and more pronounceable ingredient list.

Take your own chemical inventory at Skin Deep. Then think about the fact that the American cosmetics industry is totally unregulated. 

Photo by Horia Varlan.