Human Hair Makes Good Fertilizer
Andrea Thompson
Senior Writer
LiveScience.com
andrea Thompson
Mon Jan 5, 9:11 am ET
All those snipped locks that are swept up after your haircut could be turned into crop fertilizer, researchers now say.
In addition to water and sunlight, plants need certain nutrients to grow, particularly nitrogen. While nitrogen is abundant in the Earth's atmosphere (composing about 78 percent of it), it is in the form of molecular nitrogen (two nitrogen atoms bonded together), which is unusable to plants.
For plants to take up nitrogen, it must be "fixed" into compounds such as nitrate (one nitrogen and three oxygen atoms), which plant roots can absorb from the soil.
While some plants, such as legumes, get their nitrogen through symbiotic relationships with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, others rely on fertilizers, whether organic (composted plant waste or animal manure) or inorganic (the man-made stuff you buy at the gardening center).
Previous studies had also shown that human hair discarded from barbershops and hair salons can also be a nutrient source for plants when combined with other compost materials. But it had not yet been proven that hair could act alone as an effective fertilizer.
To test this, Vlatcho Zheljazkov and his colleagues at Mississippi State University pitted waste hair against commercial fertilizers. They compared the productivity of four plants, lettuce, wormwood, yellow poppy and feverfew, under four different treatments: non-composted hair cubes, a controlled-release fertilizer, a water-soluble fertilizer, and no treatment.
Plant yields increased for the hair-fertilized plants compared to the untreated controls overall, but were still lower than for the commercial, inorganic fertilizers in lettuce and wormwood, which are fast-growing plants. Yellow poppy, however, saw higher yields for the hair treatment. (The results didn't differ between fertilizers for the feverfew.)
The researchers suspect that some of the difference between hair and the inorganic fertilizers is due to the time it takes for hair to degrade and release its nutrients. So hair shouldn't be used as a sole fertilizer, at least for fast-growing plants, they concluded.
Further research is still needed to see if human hair waste is a viable option for fertilizing edible crops though because of possible health concerns.
The results of the study were detailed in a recent issue of the journal HortTechnology.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Paraben Research Findings
EDITORIAL
Significance of the Detection of Esters of
p-Hydroxybenzoic Acid (Parabens) in Human Breast Tumours
p-Hydroxybenzoic Acid (Parabens) in Human Breast Tumours
Philip W. Harvey* and David J. Everett
Department of Toxicology, Covance Laboratories Ltd, Otley Road, Harrogate, North Yorkshire HG3 1PY, UK
Department of Toxicology, Covance Laboratories Ltd, Otley Road, Harrogate, North Yorkshire HG3 1PY, UK
Key words: breast cancer; hydroxybenzoic acid; parabens; oestrogen; tumour; carcinogenesis; underarm; deodorant; antiperspirant.
This issue of Journal of Applied Toxicology publishes the paper Concentrations of Parabens in Human Breast Tumours by Darbre et al. (2004), which reports that esters of p-hydroxybenzoic acid (parabens) can be detected in samples of tissue from human breast tumours. Breast tumour samples were supplied from 20 patients, in collaboration with the Edinburgh Breast Unit Research Group, and analysed by high-pressure liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry. The parabens are used as antimicrobial preservatives in underarm deodorants and antiperspirants and in a wide range of other consumer products. The parabens
also have inherent oestrogenic and other hormone related activity (increased progesterone receptor gene expression). As oestrogen is a major aetiological factor in the growth and development of the majority of human breast cancers, it has been previously suggested by Darbre that parabens and other chemicals in underarm cosmetics may contribute to the rising incidence of breast cancer. The significance of the finding of parabens in tumour samples is discussed here in terms of 1) Darbre et al's study design, 2) what can be inferred from this type of data (and what can not, such as the cause of these tumours), 3) the toxicology of these
compounds and 4) the limitations of the existing toxicology database and the need to consider data that is appropriate to human exposures.
also have inherent oestrogenic and other hormone related activity (increased progesterone receptor gene expression). As oestrogen is a major aetiological factor in the growth and development of the majority of human breast cancers, it has been previously suggested by Darbre that parabens and other chemicals in underarm cosmetics may contribute to the rising incidence of breast cancer. The significance of the finding of parabens in tumour samples is discussed here in terms of 1) Darbre et al's study design, 2) what can be inferred from this type of data (and what can not, such as the cause of these tumours), 3) the toxicology of these
compounds and 4) the limitations of the existing toxicology database and the need to consider data that is appropriate to human exposures.
Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
* Correspondence to: Dr. P. W. Harvey, Department of Toxicology,
Covance Laboratories Ltd, Otley Road, Harrogate, North Yorkshire
HG3 1PY, UK.
Covance Laboratories Ltd, Otley Road, Harrogate, North Yorkshire
HG3 1PY, UK.
E-mail: philip.harvey@covance.com
JOURNAL OF APPLIED TOXICOLOGY
J. Appl. Toxicol. 24, 1–4 (2004)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jat.957
J. Appl. Toxicol. 24, 1–4 (2004)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jat.957
Received 30 September 2003
Revised 7 October 2003
Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 7 October 2003
Revised 7 October 2003
Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 7 October 2003
INTRODUCTION
This issue of Journal of Applied Toxicology publishes the paper 'Concentrations of Parabens in Human Breast Tumours' by Darbre et al. (2004) which reports that esters of p-hydroxybenzoic acid (parabens) can be detected in samples of tissue from human breast tumours. Breast tumour samples were supplied from 20 patients in a collaboration with the Edinburgh Breast Unit Research Group, and analysed by high pressure liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry. The parabens are used as antimicrobial preservatives in underarm deodorants and antiperspirants, and in a wide range of other consumer products. The parabens also have inherent oestrogenic activity (briefly reviewed in the next section) and oestrogen is a major aetiological factor in the growth and development of human breast cancer. It has previously been suggested that chemicals in underarm cosmetics may contribute to the rising incidence of breast cancer (Darbre, 2001; 2003; and see Harvey, 2003) and the significance of the finding of parabens in tumour samples is therefore highly topical.
This issue of Journal of Applied Toxicology publishes the paper 'Concentrations of Parabens in Human Breast Tumours' by Darbre et al. (2004) which reports that esters of p-hydroxybenzoic acid (parabens) can be detected in samples of tissue from human breast tumours. Breast tumour samples were supplied from 20 patients in a collaboration with the Edinburgh Breast Unit Research Group, and analysed by high pressure liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry. The parabens are used as antimicrobial preservatives in underarm deodorants and antiperspirants, and in a wide range of other consumer products. The parabens also have inherent oestrogenic activity (briefly reviewed in the next section) and oestrogen is a major aetiological factor in the growth and development of human breast cancer. It has previously been suggested that chemicals in underarm cosmetics may contribute to the rising incidence of breast cancer (Darbre, 2001; 2003; and see Harvey, 2003) and the significance of the finding of parabens in tumour samples is therefore highly topical.
OESTROGEN AS A COMMON FACTOR IN BREAST CANCER AND PARABEN TOXICITY
It has been known for many years that oestrogen is the major aetiological factor in the development of breast cancer and, indeed, modern therapies continue to use pharmacological receptor blockade and synthetic suppression (e.g. aromatase inhibition) in clinical treatments
(McPherson et al., 1994; Wiseman, 1994; Elledge & Osbourne, 1997; Walker, 1999; Lønning, 2001; Beral et al., 2003). Given this, it is logical to suggest that application of oestrogenic agents to areas adjacent to the breast may be an unnecessary risk in some women (in this context it has
been suggested that first-degree relatives of breast cancer patients and peri-adolescent females would be at most risk of continued exposure to oestrogenic chemicals). The ubiquitous use of underarm deodorants and antiperspirants throughout the Western world means that millions of
women have applied a range of chemicals to the axilla of the arm and it is surprising that only recently have some of these chemical ingredients been screened for the toxicologically important endpoints of inherent oestrogenic and hormonal activity. There are now numerous reports that various parabens are oestrogenic. Lemini et al. (1997) reported that subcutaneous administration of p-hydroxybenzoic acid produced vaginal cornification and increased uterine weights (both classic effects of the action of endogenous oestradiol) 2 P. W. HARVEY AND D. J. EVERETT Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Appl. Toxicol. 24, 1–4 (2004) in mice. Routledge et al. (1998) reported that butylparaben competed with [3H]oestradiol in an oestrogen receptor binding assay, that methyl-, ethyl-, propyl- and butylparaben were weakly positive in a yeast oestrogen assay and that butylparaben was positive in an immature rat
uterotrophic assay by the subcutaneous (but not oral; see later) administration route. In human MCF7 breast cancer cells, Byford et al. (2002) have shown that methyl-, ethyl-, n-propyl- and n-butylparaben are oestrogenic. Okubo et al. (2001) reported similar findings with ethyl-,
propyl-, butyl-, isopropyl- and isobutylparaben and also that butylparaben and isobutylparaben increased progesterone receptor gene expression. Interestingly, oestrogen– progestagen hormone replacement therapy confers the greatest risk of breast cancer (Beral et al., 2003) and the parabens show activity to both oestrogen and progesterone receptors. Darbre et al. (2002, 2003), using both MCF7 and ZR-75-1 human breast cancer cell lines, report oestrogenic
activity for isobutylparaben and benzylparaben. These latter studies also reported oestrogenic activity in vivo: isobutylparaben resulted in a uterotrophic response in immature mice following subcutaneous administration but, of most significance, benzylparaben induced a uterotrophic
response following topical administration (application to dorsal skin of 33 mg per mouse per day for 3 days; Darbre et al., 2003). Parabens also have structures predicted to bind to the oestrogen receptor (Hong et al., 2002). Harvey (2003) provides a perspective on the dose levels
reported to produce effects in short-term in vivo animal studies (i.e. while dose levels are relatively high, convention dictates that risk assessments would apply safety factors of at least 100-fold to data from animal studies when extrapolating to safe human exposures) and the relative lack of activity by the oral route (presumably due to metabolic breakdown, an effect that apparently does not occur with the more direct subcutaneous or topical administration
routes in animal studies) as factors particularly relevant to risk assessments specific for cosmetic use, and the possibility of inappropriate extrapolation from the existing parabens animal toxicology database. In reviewing the various reports of paraben oestrogenicity, potency
ranges from 500-fold less than oestradiol (reported by Lemini et al. (1997) in a rat uterotrophic assay following subcutaneous administration of p-hydroxybenzoic acid) to 10 000-fold less potent as reported by Routledge et al. (1998) for butylparaben in the in vitro yeast assay. Clearly there is a need to place human exposures of the parabens into perspective: contributions to the total body burden of oestrogenic agents include endogenous oestrogen and a variety of xenobiotics (e.g., resorcylic acid lactone residues in food; Everett et al., 1987). Parabens epresent just one class of these oestrogenic materials, all of which need to be
considered both in terms of inherent oestrogenic potency as well as their actual concentrations in human tissues. Although oestrogenic potency of the parabens is relatively weak, the use patterns of underarm cosmetics and parabens in other products can result in long-term exposures.
(McPherson et al., 1994; Wiseman, 1994; Elledge & Osbourne, 1997; Walker, 1999; Lønning, 2001; Beral et al., 2003). Given this, it is logical to suggest that application of oestrogenic agents to areas adjacent to the breast may be an unnecessary risk in some women (in this context it has
been suggested that first-degree relatives of breast cancer patients and peri-adolescent females would be at most risk of continued exposure to oestrogenic chemicals). The ubiquitous use of underarm deodorants and antiperspirants throughout the Western world means that millions of
women have applied a range of chemicals to the axilla of the arm and it is surprising that only recently have some of these chemical ingredients been screened for the toxicologically important endpoints of inherent oestrogenic and hormonal activity. There are now numerous reports that various parabens are oestrogenic. Lemini et al. (1997) reported that subcutaneous administration of p-hydroxybenzoic acid produced vaginal cornification and increased uterine weights (both classic effects of the action of endogenous oestradiol) 2 P. W. HARVEY AND D. J. EVERETT Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Appl. Toxicol. 24, 1–4 (2004) in mice. Routledge et al. (1998) reported that butylparaben competed with [3H]oestradiol in an oestrogen receptor binding assay, that methyl-, ethyl-, propyl- and butylparaben were weakly positive in a yeast oestrogen assay and that butylparaben was positive in an immature rat
uterotrophic assay by the subcutaneous (but not oral; see later) administration route. In human MCF7 breast cancer cells, Byford et al. (2002) have shown that methyl-, ethyl-, n-propyl- and n-butylparaben are oestrogenic. Okubo et al. (2001) reported similar findings with ethyl-,
propyl-, butyl-, isopropyl- and isobutylparaben and also that butylparaben and isobutylparaben increased progesterone receptor gene expression. Interestingly, oestrogen– progestagen hormone replacement therapy confers the greatest risk of breast cancer (Beral et al., 2003) and the parabens show activity to both oestrogen and progesterone receptors. Darbre et al. (2002, 2003), using both MCF7 and ZR-75-1 human breast cancer cell lines, report oestrogenic
activity for isobutylparaben and benzylparaben. These latter studies also reported oestrogenic activity in vivo: isobutylparaben resulted in a uterotrophic response in immature mice following subcutaneous administration but, of most significance, benzylparaben induced a uterotrophic
response following topical administration (application to dorsal skin of 33 mg per mouse per day for 3 days; Darbre et al., 2003). Parabens also have structures predicted to bind to the oestrogen receptor (Hong et al., 2002). Harvey (2003) provides a perspective on the dose levels
reported to produce effects in short-term in vivo animal studies (i.e. while dose levels are relatively high, convention dictates that risk assessments would apply safety factors of at least 100-fold to data from animal studies when extrapolating to safe human exposures) and the relative lack of activity by the oral route (presumably due to metabolic breakdown, an effect that apparently does not occur with the more direct subcutaneous or topical administration
routes in animal studies) as factors particularly relevant to risk assessments specific for cosmetic use, and the possibility of inappropriate extrapolation from the existing parabens animal toxicology database. In reviewing the various reports of paraben oestrogenicity, potency
ranges from 500-fold less than oestradiol (reported by Lemini et al. (1997) in a rat uterotrophic assay following subcutaneous administration of p-hydroxybenzoic acid) to 10 000-fold less potent as reported by Routledge et al. (1998) for butylparaben in the in vitro yeast assay. Clearly there is a need to place human exposures of the parabens into perspective: contributions to the total body burden of oestrogenic agents include endogenous oestrogen and a variety of xenobiotics (e.g., resorcylic acid lactone residues in food; Everett et al., 1987). Parabens epresent just one class of these oestrogenic materials, all of which need to be
considered both in terms of inherent oestrogenic potency as well as their actual concentrations in human tissues. Although oestrogenic potency of the parabens is relatively weak, the use patterns of underarm cosmetics and parabens in other products can result in long-term exposures.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DETECTION OF PARABENS IN BREAST TUMOURS
Darbre et al. (2004) have shown that a common group of chemicals used in underarm deodorant and antiperspirant formulations and other consumer products, previously generally regarded as safe but recently shown to possess oestrogenic activity in a wide variety of assays, can be detected in human breast tumour tissue. This finding would logically be a significant prerequisite criterion to the hypothesis that these compounds may be involved in, or in some way contribute to, the incidence of breast cancer (which has steadily risen over recent decades in the UK and elsewhere, parallelling, for example, underarm cosmetic usage; see Darbre, 2003) in that there would obviously need to be cellular exposure to these chemicals in order to induce any direct carcinogenic response. If the source of these chemicals was prior historical use of underarm
cosmetics containing these ingredients (at present it is not known what the half-life or clearance of these chemicals from human breast tissue is, or the contribution from sources other than underarm cosmetics — see below), then such data suggest that these chemicals can be absorbed dermally and probably persist in human breast tissue. Several points must be made in discussing Darbre et al.'s (2004) findings:
(i) The detection of parabens in breast tumour tissue
should not be taken to imply causality of the individual
cancer, because the findings are essentially
coincidental in nature.
(ii) 'Normal' breast tissue, and other tissue, was not analysed.
Although the question remains of what levels
occur in such control tissue, it should be recognized
that apparently normal tissue at the time of biopsy
may later develop a tumour (this is important because
cancer represents a risk over a lifetime and
not a single time point) and there are questions of
what would be an appropriate control for this type
of data.
(iii) The obvious route of entry into the breast tissue is
local absorption from the underarm (because esters
were detected rather than metabolites) and the
source is probably therefore underarm cosmetics.
However, the source needs to be confirmed and
Darbre et al. make it clear that their study does not
identify route.
(iv) Although the data could be consistent with local
absorption, it would be interesting to establish what
the levels of parabens are in other tissues (e.g. blood,
adipose and those also sensitive to oestrogen).
(v) It is obvious that extraneous synthetic organic chemicals
serve no useful function in the human breast
but, the question is, have they caused harm?
(vi) Related to this, Darbre et al.'s (2004) study analysed
parabens because of interest in their use in underarm
cosmetics: other chemicals also may be present
(because these types of study are records of single
time points, the levels of a variety of extraneous
chemicals could increase or decline over a lifetime).
(vii) Darbre et al.'s (2004) study shows the presence of
parabens in breast tumour tissue: although it has been
emphasized that the significance of this should not
be overinterpreted, their route of disposition and
possible effects on the breast are worthy of further
investigation.
(viii) In the general context of the hypothesis, any response
of cells in the breast will depend on the properties of
the chemicals, the timing and relative duration of
exposure (consider potential differences of effect
PARABENS IN BREAST TUMOURS 3
Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Appl. Toxicol. 24, 1–4 (2004)
such as orally if there was no metabolic transformation of
the parent compound.
Darbre et al. (2004) have shown that a common group of chemicals used in underarm deodorant and antiperspirant formulations and other consumer products, previously generally regarded as safe but recently shown to possess oestrogenic activity in a wide variety of assays, can be detected in human breast tumour tissue. This finding would logically be a significant prerequisite criterion to the hypothesis that these compounds may be involved in, or in some way contribute to, the incidence of breast cancer (which has steadily risen over recent decades in the UK and elsewhere, parallelling, for example, underarm cosmetic usage; see Darbre, 2003) in that there would obviously need to be cellular exposure to these chemicals in order to induce any direct carcinogenic response. If the source of these chemicals was prior historical use of underarm
cosmetics containing these ingredients (at present it is not known what the half-life or clearance of these chemicals from human breast tissue is, or the contribution from sources other than underarm cosmetics — see below), then such data suggest that these chemicals can be absorbed dermally and probably persist in human breast tissue. Several points must be made in discussing Darbre et al.'s (2004) findings:
(i) The detection of parabens in breast tumour tissue
should not be taken to imply causality of the individual
cancer, because the findings are essentially
coincidental in nature.
(ii) 'Normal' breast tissue, and other tissue, was not analysed.
Although the question remains of what levels
occur in such control tissue, it should be recognized
that apparently normal tissue at the time of biopsy
may later develop a tumour (this is important because
cancer represents a risk over a lifetime and
not a single time point) and there are questions of
what would be an appropriate control for this type
of data.
(iii) The obvious route of entry into the breast tissue is
local absorption from the underarm (because esters
were detected rather than metabolites) and the
source is probably therefore underarm cosmetics.
However, the source needs to be confirmed and
Darbre et al. make it clear that their study does not
identify route.
(iv) Although the data could be consistent with local
absorption, it would be interesting to establish what
the levels of parabens are in other tissues (e.g. blood,
adipose and those also sensitive to oestrogen).
(v) It is obvious that extraneous synthetic organic chemicals
serve no useful function in the human breast
but, the question is, have they caused harm?
(vi) Related to this, Darbre et al.'s (2004) study analysed
parabens because of interest in their use in underarm
cosmetics: other chemicals also may be present
(because these types of study are records of single
time points, the levels of a variety of extraneous
chemicals could increase or decline over a lifetime).
(vii) Darbre et al.'s (2004) study shows the presence of
parabens in breast tumour tissue: although it has been
emphasized that the significance of this should not
be overinterpreted, their route of disposition and
possible effects on the breast are worthy of further
investigation.
(viii) In the general context of the hypothesis, any response
of cells in the breast will depend on the properties of
the chemicals, the timing and relative duration of
exposure (consider potential differences of effect
PARABENS IN BREAST TUMOURS 3
Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Appl. Toxicol. 24, 1–4 (2004)
such as orally if there was no metabolic transformation of
the parent compound.
The hypothesis forwarded that underarm cosmetics may be implicated in the incidence of breast cancer (Darbre, 2003) has been discussed also in terms of the potential toxicity of oestrogenic formulation ingredients (Harvey, 2003). Although recent efforts have been made to examine
'antiperspirant use and the risk of breast cancer' (see
Mirick et al. (2002), who report no association based on
retrospective interview), there is a need for research that
carefully focuses on chemical toxicity issues (i.e. the specific
formulation ingredients and not simply underarm cosmetics
per se). Research also should consider sensitive population
subgroups (especially adolescents and firstdegree relatives
of breast cancer patients) and requires designs with the
sensitivity to elucidate any effects of long-term, low-level
exposures to mixtures. As far as toxicological reviews and
risk assessments of the parabens are concerned, they apparently
have not taken into account recent evidence of
inherent oestrogenic and hormonal activities (Soni et al.,
2002; Willis, 1995) and there is a perceived need to conduct
up-to-date risk assessments on the suitability of each type
of paraben specifically for their use in underarm cosmetics.
Finally, Darbre et al.'s (2004) study is a contribution to a
body of literature that reports chemicals in human breast
tissue, with the suggestion that these compounds may be
carcinogenic (Falck et al., 1992; Snedeker, 2001), particularly
breast organochlorine concentrations correlated with
increased cancer risk (Aronson et al., 2000) and related
to oestrogenicity (Starek, 2003). Whether underarm cosmetics
will prove to be a special case because of their
direct application or not, unlike diffuse environmental
exposures, individual use is preventable and the removal
of oestrogenic formulants would effectively resolve
at least one potential mechanistic factor central to this
hypothesis.
between adolescent exposure with the developing
breast and exposure in later life), the dose and the
interaction with other genetic and environmental
factors.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND
CONCLUSION
The findings of parabens in tumour samples are additional
results in line with the general hypothesis that there
may be a link between oestrogenic compounds commonly
used in underarm cosmetics and other consumer products
and breast cancer. The results alone, however, do not
suggest that these chemicals caused the tumours in these
patients. Darbre et al.'s findings invite several questions:
how did the parabens get into the breast, are they persistent
and could they do harm? The answers require
further research.
The hypothesis that underarm cosmetics may contribute
to the incidence of breast cancer has obvious implications,
not least because of the size of the population potentially
exposed. The role of oestrogen in breast cancer is clear. It
is also now clear that the parabens are weakly oestrogenic
and thus there is logic to the hypothesis when combined
with other lines of evidence (Darbre, 2003). However, apparently
little is known of any side-effects associated with
long-term, low-level exposures to synthetic xenoestrogens.
The use of underarm cosmetics presents a special
case because of the direct application of the compounds to
skin. Darbre et al.'s (2004) study indicates that paraben
esters are detectable in breast tumour tissue, which could
feasibly result from a previous history of cosmetic use,
local dermal absorption and some degree of residue persistence,
but the route also could be from other sources,
REFERENCES
Aronson KJ, Miller AB, Woolcott CG, Sterns EE, McCready DR,
Lickley LA, Fish EB, Hiracki GY, Holloway C, Ross T, Hanna
WM, SenGupta SK, Weber JP. 2000. Breast adipose tissue
concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls and other
organochlorines and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol.
Biomarkers Prev. 9: 55–63.
Beral V, Million Women Study Collaborators. 2003. Breast cancer
and hormone replacement in the million women study.
Lancet 362: 419–427.
Byford JR, Shaw LE, Drew MG, Pope GS, Sauer MJ, Darbre PD.
2002. Oestrogenic activity of parabens in MCF7 human breast
cancer cells. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 80: 49–60.
Darbre PD. 2001. Underarm cosmetics are a cause of breast
cancer. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 10: 389–393.
Darbre PD. 2003. Underarm cosmetics and breast cancer. J. Appl.
Toxicol. 23: 89–95.
Darbre PD, Byford JR, Shaw LE, Horton RA, Pope GS, Sauer MJ.
2002. Oestrogenic activity of isobutylparaben in vitro and in
vivo. J. Appl. Toxicol. 22: 219–226.
Darbre PD, Byford JR, Shaw LE, Hall S, Coldham NG, Pope GS,
Sauer MJ. 2003. Oestrogenic activity of benzylparaben. J.
Appl. Toxicol. 23: 43–51.
Darbre PD, Aljarrah A, Miller WR, Coldham NG, Sauer MJ Pope
GS. 2004. Concentrations of parabens in human breast
tumours. J. Appl. Toxicol. 24: 5–13.
Elledge RM, Osbourne CK. 1997. Oestrogen receptors and breast
cancer (Editorial). Br. Med. J. 314: 1834.
Everett DJ, Perry CJ, Scott KA, Martin BW, Terry MK. 1987.
Estrogenic potencies of resorcylic acid lactones and 17β-
estradiol in female rats. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 20: 435–
443.
Falck F, Ricci A, Wolff MS, Godbold J, Deckers P. 1992. Pesticides
and polychlorinated biphenyl residues in human breast
lipids and their relation to breast cancer. Arch. Environ.
Health 47: 143–146.
Harvey PW. 2003. Parabens, oestrogenicity, underarm cosmetics
and breast cancer: a perspective on a hypothesis. J. Appl.
Toxicol. 23: 285–288.
Hong H, Tong W, Fang H, Shi L, Xie Q, Perkins R, Walker JD,
Branham W, Sheehan DM. 2002. Prediction of estrogen
receptor binding for 58 000 chemicals using an integrated
system of a tree based model with structural alerts. Environ.
Health Perspect. 110: 29–36.
Lemini C, Silva G, Timossi C, Luque D, Valverde A, Gonzalez-
Marti M, Hemandez A, Rubio-Poo C, Chavez Lara B,
Valezuela F. 1997. Estrogenic effects of p-hydroxybenzoic
acid in CD1 mice. Environ. Res. 75: 130–134.
Lønning PE. 2001. Aromatase inhibitors and inactivators in breast
cancer (Editorial). Br. Med. J. 323: 880–881.
McPherson KM, Steel CM, Dixon JM. 1994. ABC of breast diseases:
Breast cancer-epidemiology, risk factors and genetics.
Br. Med. J. 309: 1003–1006.
Mirick DK, Davis S, Thomas DB. 2002. Antiperspirant use and
the risk of breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 94: 1578–1580.
Okubo T, Yokoyama Y, Kano K, Kano I. 2001. ER-dependent
estrogenic activity of parabens assessed by proliferation
of human breast cancer MCF-7 cells and expression of ER
alpha and PR. Food Chem. Toxicol. 39: 1225–1232.
4 P. W. HARVEY AND D. J. EVERETT
Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Appl. Toxicol. 24, 1–4 (2004)
Routledge EJ, Parker J, Odum J, Ashby J, Sumpter JP. 1998.
Some alkyl hydroxy benzoate preservatives (parabens) are
estrogenic. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 153: 12–19.
Snedeker SM. 2001. Pesticides and breast cancer risk: a review
of DDT, DDE and dieldrin. Environ. Health Perspect. 109
(Suppl. 1): 35–47.
Soni MG, Taylor SL, Greenberg NA, Burdock GA. 2002. Evaluation
of the health effects of methyl paraben: a review of
the published literature. Food Chem. Toxicol. 40: 1335–1373.
Starek A. 2003. Estrogens and organochlorine xenoestrogens
and breast cancer risk. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health
16: 113–124.
Walker RA. 1999. Hormonal mechanisms in breast cancer. In
Endocrine and Hormonal Toxicology, Harvey PW, Rush KC,
Cockburn A (eds). John Wiley: Chichester; 487–506.
Willis L. 1995. Final report on the safety assessment of isobutylparaben
and isopropylparaben. J. Am. Coll. Toxicol. 14:
364–372.
Wiseman H. 1994. Tamoxifen. Molecular Basis of Use in Cancer
Treatment and Prevention. John Wiley: Chichester.
6 ingredients that you do not want in your cosmetics
The cosmetics, hair and skin care industries use over 7,000 ingredients in products derived from natural or synthetic sources. As many as one-in-seven of these have harmful or toxic effects on the skin or body, ranging from minor skin irritation or contact dermatitis to carcinogenic implications. While risk factors appear to be greater with synthetic ingredients, they still exist with certain plant-derived ingredients. We refuse to use any ingredient where credible evidence casts doubt over its safety. This offers an ounce of prevention by excluding potentially harmful substances from our products and your usage. The following is our list of six ingredients to avoid and our reasoning. Chances are that that at least one is among your personal care products.
1. PARABENS (METHYL-, PROPYL-, BUTYL- etc.)This is a group of synthetic preservatives widely used in foods and personal care products, even many that claim to be 'natural' or 'organic'. Parabens are used because they are antimicrobial killing a wide range of bacteria and molds that may infect products. Recent research by Darbre et al links for the first time parabens and their estrogenic properties with human breast cancer tumors. Parabens can also be allergenic and toxic and have also been linked to asthma and eczema.
2. SODIUM LAURYL or LAURETH SULFATE (SLS or SLES)Sodium lauryl sulfate is an inexpensive and potent detergent commonly found in foaming rinse-off products such as facial cleanser, shampoo, shower gel, soft soap, shave cream, dish soap and toothpaste. Its strong degreasing action can irritate and dry the skin, hair and scalp. Sodium laureth sulfate is somewhat milder than Sodium lauryl sulfate yet either used in shampoo can lead to episodes of dandruff or a dry flaky scalp. Used on the skin, they may cause cracking of the epidermis and severe inflammation of the underlying layer. Any product containing SLS or SLES must be thoroughly rinsed off and discontinued if rash or irritation symptoms occur.
3. PETROLATUM (Petroleum Jelly)This is a heavy oil extracted from petroleum. It is comedogenic, meaning it does not absorb well into the skin, and thus can be pore clogging. This may trigger dermatitis, pimples or even acne. Furthermore petrolatum smothers skin so that it cannot breathe naturally and may cause discoloration of the skin. Frequently used in lip balms for extended durations, petrolatum provides quick moisturization effect while it gradually thins the skin of the lips, which eventually causes chapping and a "lip balm addiction".
4. PROPYLENE GLYCOLAn inexpensive substance derived from petroleum, propylene glycol is used as a humectant (moisture retainer), surfactant (spreading agent) and solvent (dissolving agent). In the motor vehicle industry it is used in antifreeze and hydraulic brake fluid! Studies have shown it can penetrate the outermost skin and carry other ingredients into the deeper layers of the epidermis where it often causes allergic and toxic reaction.
5. DIETHANOLAMINE (DEA) or TRIETHANOLAMINE (TEA)These are synthetic compounds, made from ammonia and ethylene oxide, that are used in many skin lotions, eye gels, moisturizing creams, shaving foams, shampoos and dermatological soaps as emulsifiers or acidity regulators. DEA and TEA may contain nitrosamines that are potential carcinogens and can also cause severe facial and contact dermatitis.
6. IMIDAZOLIDINYL UREA and DIAZOLIDINYL UREA These are commonly used antibacterial preservatives with poor anti-fungal action so are often combined with parabens for broad-spectrum activity. Both compounds can potentially cause skin sensitization and allergic reaction, especially in those sensitive to formaldehyde because under certain circumstances they can release this colorless and poisonous gas
Research recently published by Darbre et al reports on the high levels of estrogenic parabens discovered in human breast tumors with potentially far reaching implications. Parabens—a class of synthetic preservatives thought to be safe—are widely used in personal care products and even in the food we eat. In our modern society, preservatives are considered necessary to protect us from pathogenic organisms that cause harm, yet clearly additional investigation is needed on the risk of parabens. Are parabens worth their risk when safer and natural albeit more expensive alternatives exist?
PARABENS IN BREAST TUMOURS 1
Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Appl. Toxicol. 24, 1–4 (2004)
1. PARABENS (METHYL-, PROPYL-, BUTYL- etc.)This is a group of synthetic preservatives widely used in foods and personal care products, even many that claim to be 'natural' or 'organic'. Parabens are used because they are antimicrobial killing a wide range of bacteria and molds that may infect products. Recent research by Darbre et al links for the first time parabens and their estrogenic properties with human breast cancer tumors. Parabens can also be allergenic and toxic and have also been linked to asthma and eczema.
2. SODIUM LAURYL or LAURETH SULFATE (SLS or SLES)Sodium lauryl sulfate is an inexpensive and potent detergent commonly found in foaming rinse-off products such as facial cleanser, shampoo, shower gel, soft soap, shave cream, dish soap and toothpaste. Its strong degreasing action can irritate and dry the skin, hair and scalp. Sodium laureth sulfate is somewhat milder than Sodium lauryl sulfate yet either used in shampoo can lead to episodes of dandruff or a dry flaky scalp. Used on the skin, they may cause cracking of the epidermis and severe inflammation of the underlying layer. Any product containing SLS or SLES must be thoroughly rinsed off and discontinued if rash or irritation symptoms occur.
3. PETROLATUM (Petroleum Jelly)This is a heavy oil extracted from petroleum. It is comedogenic, meaning it does not absorb well into the skin, and thus can be pore clogging. This may trigger dermatitis, pimples or even acne. Furthermore petrolatum smothers skin so that it cannot breathe naturally and may cause discoloration of the skin. Frequently used in lip balms for extended durations, petrolatum provides quick moisturization effect while it gradually thins the skin of the lips, which eventually causes chapping and a "lip balm addiction".
4. PROPYLENE GLYCOLAn inexpensive substance derived from petroleum, propylene glycol is used as a humectant (moisture retainer), surfactant (spreading agent) and solvent (dissolving agent). In the motor vehicle industry it is used in antifreeze and hydraulic brake fluid! Studies have shown it can penetrate the outermost skin and carry other ingredients into the deeper layers of the epidermis where it often causes allergic and toxic reaction.
5. DIETHANOLAMINE (DEA) or TRIETHANOLAMINE (TEA)These are synthetic compounds, made from ammonia and ethylene oxide, that are used in many skin lotions, eye gels, moisturizing creams, shaving foams, shampoos and dermatological soaps as emulsifiers or acidity regulators. DEA and TEA may contain nitrosamines that are potential carcinogens and can also cause severe facial and contact dermatitis.
6. IMIDAZOLIDINYL UREA and DIAZOLIDINYL UREA These are commonly used antibacterial preservatives with poor anti-fungal action so are often combined with parabens for broad-spectrum activity. Both compounds can potentially cause skin sensitization and allergic reaction, especially in those sensitive to formaldehyde because under certain circumstances they can release this colorless and poisonous gas
Research recently published by Darbre et al reports on the high levels of estrogenic parabens discovered in human breast tumors with potentially far reaching implications. Parabens—a class of synthetic preservatives thought to be safe—are widely used in personal care products and even in the food we eat. In our modern society, preservatives are considered necessary to protect us from pathogenic organisms that cause harm, yet clearly additional investigation is needed on the risk of parabens. Are parabens worth their risk when safer and natural albeit more expensive alternatives exist?
PARABENS IN BREAST TUMOURS 1
Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Appl. Toxicol. 24, 1–4 (2004)
Who tests on Animals
COMPANIES THAT DO TEST ON ANIMALS
Frequently Asked Questions:
Why are these companies included on the 'Do Test' list?
The following companies manufacture products that ARE tested on animals. Those
marked with a ? are currently observing a moratorium on (i.e., current suspension
of) animal testing. Please encourage them to announce a permanent ban. Listed in
parentheses are examples of products manufactured by either the company listed or,
if applicable, its parent company. For a complete listing of products manufactured
by a company on this list, please visit the company's Web site or contact the
company directly for more information. Companies on this list may manufacture
individual lines of products without animal testing (e.g., Clairol claims that its
Herbal Essences line is not animal-tested). They have not, however, eliminated
animal testing from their entire line of cosmetics and household products.
Similarly, companies on this list may make some products, such as
pharmaceuticals, that are required by law to be tested on animals. However, the
reason for these companies' inclusion on the list is not the animal testing that they
conduct that is required by law, but rather the animal testing (of personal care and
household products) that is not required by law.
What can be done about animal tests required by law?
Although animal testing of pharmaceuticals and certain chemicals is still mandated
by law, the arguments against using animals in cosmetics testing are still valid
when applied to the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. These industries are
regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection
Agency, respectively, and it is the responsibility of the companies that kill animals
in order to bring their products to market to convince the regulatory agencies that
there is a better way to determine product safety. PETA is actively working on this
front by funding development and validation of non-animal test methods and
providing input through our involvement on government advisory committees at
both the national and international levels. Companies resist progress because the
crude nature of animal tests allows them to market many products that might be
determined to be too toxic if cell culture tests were used. Let companies know how
you feel about this.
Arm & Hammer (Church & Dwight), P.O. Box 1625, Horsham, PA 19044-6625;
609-683-5900; 800-524-1328; www.armhammer.com
?Bic Corporation, 500 Bic Dr., Milford, CT 06460; 203-783-2000;
www.bicworld.com
Boyle-Midway (Reckitt Benckiser), 2 Wickman Rd., Toronto, ON M8Z 5M5
Canada; 416-255-2300
Chesebrough-Ponds (Fabergé, Ponds, Vaseline), 800 Sylvan Ave., Englewood
Cliffs, NJ 07632; 800-743-8640; www.pondssquad.com
Church & Dwight (Aim, Arm & Hammer, Arrid, Brillo, Close-up, Lady's
Choice, Mentadent, Nair, Orange Glo International, Pearl Drops), P.O. Box 1625,
Horsham, PA 19044-6625; 609-683-5900; 800-524-1328; www.churchdwight.com
Clairol (Aussie, Daily Defense, Herbal Essences, Infusium 23, Procter & Gamble),
1 Blachley Rd., Stamford, CT 06922; 800-252-4765; www.clairol.com
Clorox (ArmorAll, Formula 409, Fresh Step, Glad, Liquid Plumber, Pine-Sol, Soft
Scrub, S.O.S., Tilex), 1221 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612; 510-271-7000;
800-227-1860; www.clorox.com
Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Hills Pet Nutrition, Mennen, Palmolive, SoftSoap, Speed
Stick), 300 Park Ave., New York, NY 10022; 212-310-2000; 800-221-4607;
www.colgate.com
Coty (Adidas, Calvin Klein, Davidoff, Glow, The Healing Garden, JOOP!, Jovan,
Kenneth Cole, Lancaster, Marc Jacob, Rimmel, Stetson), 1325 Ave. of the
Americas, 324th Fl., New York, NY 10019; 212-389-7000; www.coty.com
Cover Girl (Procter & Gamble), One Procter & Gamble Plz., Cincinnati, OH
45202; 513-983-1100; 800-543-1745; www.covergirl.com
Del Laboratories (CornSilk, LaCross, Naturistics, New York Color, Sally Hansen),
178 EAB Plz., Uniondale, NY 11556; 516-844-2020; 800-952-5080;
www.dellabs.com
Dial Corporation (Dry Idea, Purex, Renuzit, Right Guard, Soft & Dri), 15101 N.
Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 5028, Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2199; 800-528-0849;
www.dialcorp.com
Helene Curtis Industries (Salon Selectives, Thermasilk, Unilever), 800 Sylvan
Ave., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; 800-621-2013; www.helenecurtis.com
Johnson & Johnson (Aveeno, Clean & Clear, Listerine, Lubriderm, Neutrogena,
Rembrandt, ROC), 1 Johnson & Johnson Plz., New Brunswick, NJ 08933; 732-
524-0400; 800-526-3967; www.jnj.com
Lever Bros. (Unilever), 800 Sylvan Ave., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; 212-888-
1260; 800-598-1223; www.unilever.com
L'Oréal U.S.A. (Biotherm, Cacharel, Garnier, Giorgio Armani, Helena
Rubinstein, Lancôme, Matrix Essentials, Maybelline, Ralph Lauren
Fragrances, Redken, Soft Sheen, Vichy), 575 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10017;
212-818-1500; www.lorealcosmetics.com
Max Factor (Procter & Gamble), One Procter & Gamble Plz., Cincinnati, OH
45202; 513-983-1100; 800-543-1745; www.maxfactor.com
Mead, 10 W. Second St., #1, Dayton, OH 45402; 937-495-6323;
www.meadweb.com
Melaleuca, 3910 S. Yellowstone Hwy., Idaho Falls, ID 83402-6003; 208-522-0700;
www.melaleuca.com
Mennen Co. (Colgate-Palmolive), 191 E. Hanover Ave., Morristown, NJ 07960-
3151; 973-631-9000; www.colgate.com
Neoteric Cosmetics, 4880 Havana St., Denver, CO 80239-0019; 303-373-4860
New Dana Perfumes, 470 Oakhill Rd., Crestwood Industrial Park, Mountaintop,
PA 18707; 800-822-8547
Noxell (Procter & Gamble), 11050 York Rd., Hunt Valley, MD 21030-2098;
410-785-7300; 800-572-3232; www.pg.com
Olay Co./Oil of Olay (Procter & Gamble), P.O. Box 599, Cincinnati, OH 45201;
800-543-1745; www.oilofolay.com
?Oral-B (Gillette Company), 600 Clipper Dr., Belmont, CA 94002-4119;
415-598-5000; www.oralb.com
Pantene (Procter & Gamble), One Procter & Gamble Plz., Cincinnati, OH 45202;
800-945-7768; www.pantene.com
Pfizer (BenGay, Desitin, Listerine, Lubriderm, Plax, Visine), 235 E. 42nd St., New
York, NY 10017-5755; 212-573-2323; www.pfizer.com
Physique (Procter & Gamble), One Procter & Gamble Plz., Cincinnati, OH 45202;
800-214-8957; www.physique.com
Playtex Products (Banana Boat), 300 Nyala Farms Rd., Westport, CT 06880; 203-
341-4000; www.playtex.com
Procter & Gamble Co. (Clairol, Cover Girl, Crest, Gillette, Giorgio, Iams, Max
Factor, Physique, Tide), One Procter & Gamble Plz., Cincinnati, OH 45202; 513-
983-1100; 800-543-1745; www.pg.com
Reckitt Benckiser (Easy Off, Lysol, Mop & Glo, Old English, Resolve, Spray 'N
Wash, Veet, Woolite), 1655 Valley Rd., Wayne, NJ 07474-0943; 973-633-3600;
800-232-9665; www.reckittbenckiser.com
Richardson-Vicks (Procter & Gamble), One Procter & Gamble Plz., Cincinnati,
OH 45202; 513-983-1100; 800-543-1745; www.pg.com
Sally Hansen (Del Laboratories), 178 EAB Plz., Uniondale, NY 11556; 800-645-
9888; www.sallyhansen.com
Schering-Plough (Bain de Soleil, Coppertone, Dr. Scholl's), 1 Giralda Farms,
Madison, NJ 07940-1000; 201-822-7000; 800-842-4090; www.sch-plough.com
S.C. Johnson (Drano, Edge, Fantastik, Glade, OFF!, Oust, Pledge, Scrubbing
Bubbles, Shout, Skintimate, Windex, Ziploc), 1525 Howe St., Racine, WI 53403;
800-494-4855; www.scjohnson.com
SoftSoap Enterprises (Colgate-Palmolive), 300 Park Ave., New York, NY 10022;
800-221-4607; www.colgate.com
Suave (Unilever), 800 Sylvan Ave., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; 212-888-1260;
800-782-8301; www.suave.com
Unilever (Axe, Dove, Helene Curtis, Lever Bros., Suave), 800 Sylvan Ave.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; 212-888-1260; 800-598-1223; www.unilever.com
Legend:
? The company is currently observing a moratorium on animal testing.
Frequently Asked Questions:
Why are these companies included on the 'Do Test' list?
The following companies manufacture products that ARE tested on animals. Those
marked with a ? are currently observing a moratorium on (i.e., current suspension
of) animal testing. Please encourage them to announce a permanent ban. Listed in
parentheses are examples of products manufactured by either the company listed or,
if applicable, its parent company. For a complete listing of products manufactured
by a company on this list, please visit the company's Web site or contact the
company directly for more information. Companies on this list may manufacture
individual lines of products without animal testing (e.g., Clairol claims that its
Herbal Essences line is not animal-tested). They have not, however, eliminated
animal testing from their entire line of cosmetics and household products.
Similarly, companies on this list may make some products, such as
pharmaceuticals, that are required by law to be tested on animals. However, the
reason for these companies' inclusion on the list is not the animal testing that they
conduct that is required by law, but rather the animal testing (of personal care and
household products) that is not required by law.
What can be done about animal tests required by law?
Although animal testing of pharmaceuticals and certain chemicals is still mandated
by law, the arguments against using animals in cosmetics testing are still valid
when applied to the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. These industries are
regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection
Agency, respectively, and it is the responsibility of the companies that kill animals
in order to bring their products to market to convince the regulatory agencies that
there is a better way to determine product safety. PETA is actively working on this
front by funding development and validation of non-animal test methods and
providing input through our involvement on government advisory committees at
both the national and international levels. Companies resist progress because the
crude nature of animal tests allows them to market many products that might be
determined to be too toxic if cell culture tests were used. Let companies know how
you feel about this.
Arm & Hammer (Church & Dwight), P.O. Box 1625, Horsham, PA 19044-6625;
609-683-5900; 800-524-1328; www.armhammer.com
?Bic Corporation, 500 Bic Dr., Milford, CT 06460; 203-783-2000;
www.bicworld.com
Boyle-Midway (Reckitt Benckiser), 2 Wickman Rd., Toronto, ON M8Z 5M5
Canada; 416-255-2300
Chesebrough-Ponds (Fabergé, Ponds, Vaseline), 800 Sylvan Ave., Englewood
Cliffs, NJ 07632; 800-743-8640; www.pondssquad.com
Church & Dwight (Aim, Arm & Hammer, Arrid, Brillo, Close-up, Lady's
Choice, Mentadent, Nair, Orange Glo International, Pearl Drops), P.O. Box 1625,
Horsham, PA 19044-6625; 609-683-5900; 800-524-1328; www.churchdwight.com
Clairol (Aussie, Daily Defense, Herbal Essences, Infusium 23, Procter & Gamble),
1 Blachley Rd., Stamford, CT 06922; 800-252-4765; www.clairol.com
Clorox (ArmorAll, Formula 409, Fresh Step, Glad, Liquid Plumber, Pine-Sol, Soft
Scrub, S.O.S., Tilex), 1221 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612; 510-271-7000;
800-227-1860; www.clorox.com
Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Hills Pet Nutrition, Mennen, Palmolive, SoftSoap, Speed
Stick), 300 Park Ave., New York, NY 10022; 212-310-2000; 800-221-4607;
www.colgate.com
Coty (Adidas, Calvin Klein, Davidoff, Glow, The Healing Garden, JOOP!, Jovan,
Kenneth Cole, Lancaster, Marc Jacob, Rimmel, Stetson), 1325 Ave. of the
Americas, 324th Fl., New York, NY 10019; 212-389-7000; www.coty.com
Cover Girl (Procter & Gamble), One Procter & Gamble Plz., Cincinnati, OH
45202; 513-983-1100; 800-543-1745; www.covergirl.com
Del Laboratories (CornSilk, LaCross, Naturistics, New York Color, Sally Hansen),
178 EAB Plz., Uniondale, NY 11556; 516-844-2020; 800-952-5080;
www.dellabs.com
Dial Corporation (Dry Idea, Purex, Renuzit, Right Guard, Soft & Dri), 15101 N.
Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 5028, Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2199; 800-528-0849;
www.dialcorp.com
Helene Curtis Industries (Salon Selectives, Thermasilk, Unilever), 800 Sylvan
Ave., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; 800-621-2013; www.helenecurtis.com
Johnson & Johnson (Aveeno, Clean & Clear, Listerine, Lubriderm, Neutrogena,
Rembrandt, ROC), 1 Johnson & Johnson Plz., New Brunswick, NJ 08933; 732-
524-0400; 800-526-3967; www.jnj.com
Lever Bros. (Unilever), 800 Sylvan Ave., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; 212-888-
1260; 800-598-1223; www.unilever.com
L'Oréal U.S.A. (Biotherm, Cacharel, Garnier, Giorgio Armani, Helena
Rubinstein, Lancôme, Matrix Essentials, Maybelline, Ralph Lauren
Fragrances, Redken, Soft Sheen, Vichy), 575 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10017;
212-818-1500; www.lorealcosmetics.com
Max Factor (Procter & Gamble), One Procter & Gamble Plz., Cincinnati, OH
45202; 513-983-1100; 800-543-1745; www.maxfactor.com
Mead, 10 W. Second St., #1, Dayton, OH 45402; 937-495-6323;
www.meadweb.com
Melaleuca, 3910 S. Yellowstone Hwy., Idaho Falls, ID 83402-6003; 208-522-0700;
www.melaleuca.com
Mennen Co. (Colgate-Palmolive), 191 E. Hanover Ave., Morristown, NJ 07960-
3151; 973-631-9000; www.colgate.com
Neoteric Cosmetics, 4880 Havana St., Denver, CO 80239-0019; 303-373-4860
New Dana Perfumes, 470 Oakhill Rd., Crestwood Industrial Park, Mountaintop,
PA 18707; 800-822-8547
Noxell (Procter & Gamble), 11050 York Rd., Hunt Valley, MD 21030-2098;
410-785-7300; 800-572-3232; www.pg.com
Olay Co./Oil of Olay (Procter & Gamble), P.O. Box 599, Cincinnati, OH 45201;
800-543-1745; www.oilofolay.com
?Oral-B (Gillette Company), 600 Clipper Dr., Belmont, CA 94002-4119;
415-598-5000; www.oralb.com
Pantene (Procter & Gamble), One Procter & Gamble Plz., Cincinnati, OH 45202;
800-945-7768; www.pantene.com
Pfizer (BenGay, Desitin, Listerine, Lubriderm, Plax, Visine), 235 E. 42nd St., New
York, NY 10017-5755; 212-573-2323; www.pfizer.com
Physique (Procter & Gamble), One Procter & Gamble Plz., Cincinnati, OH 45202;
800-214-8957; www.physique.com
Playtex Products (Banana Boat), 300 Nyala Farms Rd., Westport, CT 06880; 203-
341-4000; www.playtex.com
Procter & Gamble Co. (Clairol, Cover Girl, Crest, Gillette, Giorgio, Iams, Max
Factor, Physique, Tide), One Procter & Gamble Plz., Cincinnati, OH 45202; 513-
983-1100; 800-543-1745; www.pg.com
Reckitt Benckiser (Easy Off, Lysol, Mop & Glo, Old English, Resolve, Spray 'N
Wash, Veet, Woolite), 1655 Valley Rd., Wayne, NJ 07474-0943; 973-633-3600;
800-232-9665; www.reckittbenckiser.com
Richardson-Vicks (Procter & Gamble), One Procter & Gamble Plz., Cincinnati,
OH 45202; 513-983-1100; 800-543-1745; www.pg.com
Sally Hansen (Del Laboratories), 178 EAB Plz., Uniondale, NY 11556; 800-645-
9888; www.sallyhansen.com
Schering-Plough (Bain de Soleil, Coppertone, Dr. Scholl's), 1 Giralda Farms,
Madison, NJ 07940-1000; 201-822-7000; 800-842-4090; www.sch-plough.com
S.C. Johnson (Drano, Edge, Fantastik, Glade, OFF!, Oust, Pledge, Scrubbing
Bubbles, Shout, Skintimate, Windex, Ziploc), 1525 Howe St., Racine, WI 53403;
800-494-4855; www.scjohnson.com
SoftSoap Enterprises (Colgate-Palmolive), 300 Park Ave., New York, NY 10022;
800-221-4607; www.colgate.com
Suave (Unilever), 800 Sylvan Ave., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; 212-888-1260;
800-782-8301; www.suave.com
Unilever (Axe, Dove, Helene Curtis, Lever Bros., Suave), 800 Sylvan Ave.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; 212-888-1260; 800-598-1223; www.unilever.com
Legend:
? The company is currently observing a moratorium on animal testing.
Ammonia is dangerous- go for Ammonia free hair color
Ammonia is dangerous. The certified Material Safety Data Sheet for ammonia states the following:
Potential Acute Health Effects: Very hazardous in case of skin contact (corrosive, irritant, skin permeable), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion. Liquid or spray mist may produce tissue damage particularly on mucous membranes of eye, mouth and respiratory tract. Skin contact may produce burns. Inhalation of the spray mist may produce sever irritation of respiratory tract, characterized by coughing, choking, or shortness of breath. Severe over-exposure can result in death. Inflammation of the eye is characterized by redness, watering, and itching. Skin inflammation is characterized by itching, scaling, reddening, or occasionally, blistering.Potential
Chronic Health Effects: The substance is toxic to upper respiratory tract, skin and eyes. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage. Repeated or prolonged contact with spray mist may produce chronic eye irritation and severe skin irritation. Repeated or prolonged exposure to spray mist may produce respiratory tract irritation leading to frequent attacks of bronchial infection. Repeated exposure to a highly toxic material may produce general deterioration of health by an accumulation in one or many human organs.
Potential Acute Health Effects: Very hazardous in case of skin contact (corrosive, irritant, skin permeable), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion. Liquid or spray mist may produce tissue damage particularly on mucous membranes of eye, mouth and respiratory tract. Skin contact may produce burns. Inhalation of the spray mist may produce sever irritation of respiratory tract, characterized by coughing, choking, or shortness of breath. Severe over-exposure can result in death. Inflammation of the eye is characterized by redness, watering, and itching. Skin inflammation is characterized by itching, scaling, reddening, or occasionally, blistering.Potential
Chronic Health Effects: The substance is toxic to upper respiratory tract, skin and eyes. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage. Repeated or prolonged contact with spray mist may produce chronic eye irritation and severe skin irritation. Repeated or prolonged exposure to spray mist may produce respiratory tract irritation leading to frequent attacks of bronchial infection. Repeated exposure to a highly toxic material may produce general deterioration of health by an accumulation in one or many human organs.
Top 10 Hazardous Household Chemicals
TOP "10" HAZARDOUS HOUSEHOLD CHEMICALS
By Richard Alexander
AIR FRESHENERS: Most air fresheners interfere with your ability to smell by coating your nasal passages with an oil film, or by releasing a nerve deadening agent. Known toxic chemicals found in an air freshener: Formaldehyde: Highly toxic, known carcinogen. Phenol: When phenol touches your skin it can cause it to swell, burn, peel, and break out in hives. Phenol can cause cold sweats, convulsions, circulatory collapse, coma and even death.
AMMONIA: A volatile chemical; it is very damaging to your eyes, respiratory tract and skin.
BLEACH: It is a strong corrosive. It will irritate or burn the skin, eyes and respiratory tract. It may cause pulmonary edema or vomiting and coma if ingested. WARNING: never mix bleach with ammonia it may cause fumes which can be DEADLY.
CARPET AND UPHOLSTERY SHAMPOO: Most formulas are designed to over power the stain itself, they accomplish the task but not without using highly toxic substances. Some include: Perchlorethylene: Known carcinogen damages liver, kidney and nervous system damage. Ammonium Hydroxide: Corrosive, extremely irritable to eyes, skin and respiratory passages.
DISHWASHER DETERGENTS: Most products contain chlorine in a dry form that is highly concentrated. 1 cause of child poisonings, according to poison control centers.
DRAIN CLEANER: Most drain cleaners contain lye, hydrochloric acid or trichloroethane. Lye: Caustic, burns skin and eyes, if ingested will damage esophagus and stomach. Hydrochloric acid: Corrosive, eye and skin irritant, damages kidneys, liver and digestive tract. Trichloroethane: Eye and skin irritant, nervous system depressant; damages liver and kidneys.
FURNITURE POLISH: Petroleum Distillates: Highly flammable, can cause skin and lung cancer. Phenol: (see Air fresheners, Phenol.) Nitrobenzene: Easily absorbed through the skin, extremely toxic.
MOLD AND MILDEW CLEANERS: Chemicals contained are: Sodium hypochlorite: Corrosive- irritates or burns skin and eyes, causes fluid in the lungs which can lead to coma or death. Formaldehyde: Highly toxic, (known carcinogen) Irritant to eyes, nose, throat, and skin. It may cause nausea, headaches, nosebleeds, dizziness, memory loss and shortness of breath.
OVEN CLEANER: Sodium Hydroxide (Lye): Caustic, strong irritant, burns to both skin and eyes. Inhibits reflexes, will cause severe tissue damage if swallowed.
ANTIBACTERIAL CLEANERS: may contain: Triclosan: Absorption through the skin can be tied to liver damage.
LAUNDRY ROOM PRODUCTS: Sodium or calcium hypocrite: Highly corrosive- irritates or burns skin, eyes or respiratory tract. Linear alkylate sulfonate: Absorbed through the skin and is a known liver damaging agent. Sodium Tripolyphosphate: Irritates skin and mucous membranes, causes vomiting. It is easily absorbed through the skin from clothes.
TOILET BOWL CLEANERS: Hydrochloric acid: Highly corrosive, irritant to both skin and eyes. It can damage kidneys and liver. Hypochlorite Bleach: Corrosive- irritates or burns eyes, skin and respiratory tract. It may cause pulmonary edema, vomiting or coma if ingested. Contact with other chemicals may cause chlorine fumes which may be fatal.
OTHER NASTY THINGS THAT ARE AROUND YOUR HOME
PESTICIDES: Most pesticides have ingredients that affect the nervous system of insects. Dimpylate: Better known as Diazinon, extremely toxic. It impairs the central nervous system. Chlorinate Hydrocarbons: Suspected carcinogen and mutantagen. It accumulates in food and in fatty tissue. It will attack the nervous system. Organophosphates: Toxic and poisonous. If you can smell it, your lungs are absorbing it.
FLEA POWDERS: Carbaryl: Very toxic, causes skin, respiratory and cardiovascular system damage. Chlordane: Accumulates in the food chain, may damage eyes, lungs, liver, kidney and skin. Dichlorophene: Skin irritation: May damage liver, kidney, spleen and central nervous system.
LICE SHAMPOO: Especially vulnerable are children. Lindane: Inhalation, ingestion, or ABSORPTION through the SKIN causes vomiting, diarrhea, convulsions and circulatory collapse. It may cause liver damage, stillbirths, birth defects and cancer.
CAR WASH AND POLISH: Petroleum Distillates: Associated with skin and lung cancer, irritant to skin, eyes, nose and lungs. Entry into the lungs may cause fatal pulmonary edema, most marked Danger, Harmful or Fatal.
TAR AND BUG REMOVER: Contains XYLENE and PETROLEUM DISTILLATES.
Warning terms used are significant: DANGER - Harmful or fatal if swallowed- a small taste to a teaspoonful- taken by mouth could kill an average sized adult.
By Richard Alexander
AIR FRESHENERS: Most air fresheners interfere with your ability to smell by coating your nasal passages with an oil film, or by releasing a nerve deadening agent. Known toxic chemicals found in an air freshener: Formaldehyde: Highly toxic, known carcinogen. Phenol: When phenol touches your skin it can cause it to swell, burn, peel, and break out in hives. Phenol can cause cold sweats, convulsions, circulatory collapse, coma and even death.
AMMONIA: A volatile chemical; it is very damaging to your eyes, respiratory tract and skin.
BLEACH: It is a strong corrosive. It will irritate or burn the skin, eyes and respiratory tract. It may cause pulmonary edema or vomiting and coma if ingested. WARNING: never mix bleach with ammonia it may cause fumes which can be DEADLY.
CARPET AND UPHOLSTERY SHAMPOO: Most formulas are designed to over power the stain itself, they accomplish the task but not without using highly toxic substances. Some include: Perchlorethylene: Known carcinogen damages liver, kidney and nervous system damage. Ammonium Hydroxide: Corrosive, extremely irritable to eyes, skin and respiratory passages.
DISHWASHER DETERGENTS: Most products contain chlorine in a dry form that is highly concentrated. 1 cause of child poisonings, according to poison control centers.
DRAIN CLEANER: Most drain cleaners contain lye, hydrochloric acid or trichloroethane. Lye: Caustic, burns skin and eyes, if ingested will damage esophagus and stomach. Hydrochloric acid: Corrosive, eye and skin irritant, damages kidneys, liver and digestive tract. Trichloroethane: Eye and skin irritant, nervous system depressant; damages liver and kidneys.
FURNITURE POLISH: Petroleum Distillates: Highly flammable, can cause skin and lung cancer. Phenol: (see Air fresheners, Phenol.) Nitrobenzene: Easily absorbed through the skin, extremely toxic.
MOLD AND MILDEW CLEANERS: Chemicals contained are: Sodium hypochlorite: Corrosive- irritates or burns skin and eyes, causes fluid in the lungs which can lead to coma or death. Formaldehyde: Highly toxic, (known carcinogen) Irritant to eyes, nose, throat, and skin. It may cause nausea, headaches, nosebleeds, dizziness, memory loss and shortness of breath.
OVEN CLEANER: Sodium Hydroxide (Lye): Caustic, strong irritant, burns to both skin and eyes. Inhibits reflexes, will cause severe tissue damage if swallowed.
ANTIBACTERIAL CLEANERS: may contain: Triclosan: Absorption through the skin can be tied to liver damage.
LAUNDRY ROOM PRODUCTS: Sodium or calcium hypocrite: Highly corrosive- irritates or burns skin, eyes or respiratory tract. Linear alkylate sulfonate: Absorbed through the skin and is a known liver damaging agent. Sodium Tripolyphosphate: Irritates skin and mucous membranes, causes vomiting. It is easily absorbed through the skin from clothes.
TOILET BOWL CLEANERS: Hydrochloric acid: Highly corrosive, irritant to both skin and eyes. It can damage kidneys and liver. Hypochlorite Bleach: Corrosive- irritates or burns eyes, skin and respiratory tract. It may cause pulmonary edema, vomiting or coma if ingested. Contact with other chemicals may cause chlorine fumes which may be fatal.
OTHER NASTY THINGS THAT ARE AROUND YOUR HOME
PESTICIDES: Most pesticides have ingredients that affect the nervous system of insects. Dimpylate: Better known as Diazinon, extremely toxic. It impairs the central nervous system. Chlorinate Hydrocarbons: Suspected carcinogen and mutantagen. It accumulates in food and in fatty tissue. It will attack the nervous system. Organophosphates: Toxic and poisonous. If you can smell it, your lungs are absorbing it.
FLEA POWDERS: Carbaryl: Very toxic, causes skin, respiratory and cardiovascular system damage. Chlordane: Accumulates in the food chain, may damage eyes, lungs, liver, kidney and skin. Dichlorophene: Skin irritation: May damage liver, kidney, spleen and central nervous system.
LICE SHAMPOO: Especially vulnerable are children. Lindane: Inhalation, ingestion, or ABSORPTION through the SKIN causes vomiting, diarrhea, convulsions and circulatory collapse. It may cause liver damage, stillbirths, birth defects and cancer.
CAR WASH AND POLISH: Petroleum Distillates: Associated with skin and lung cancer, irritant to skin, eyes, nose and lungs. Entry into the lungs may cause fatal pulmonary edema, most marked Danger, Harmful or Fatal.
TAR AND BUG REMOVER: Contains XYLENE and PETROLEUM DISTILLATES.
Warning terms used are significant: DANGER - Harmful or fatal if swallowed- a small taste to a teaspoonful- taken by mouth could kill an average sized adult.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
