Several major news outlets recently reported that three states in the Northeast section of the country were found to have PFOA-contaminated municipal water supplies. The states are New Hampshire, Vermont and New York. Companies that produce perfluoro-octanoic acid (PFOA) include the corporate giants DuPont and 3M. And like so many other industrial chemical monoliths, DuPont and 3M have been allowing PFOA's to escape into the waterways of this country for decades. What they have always made bank on is the seeming conspiracy of the average American through a confederacy of complacency. These companies expect little to no interest or protest or curiosity from the general public when stories of drinking water contamination make the headlines. The massive amounts of money, investments, and financial/fiduciary collusion between industry and government are so large as to overwhelm the priorities of health and environment. Few senators, governors or scions of industry share the concerns of working America. Because it is an election year, a presidential election year at that, there exists a responsibility to inform and subsequently arm oneself with information before taking step one toward the polling station. This election cycle we must make the health of our children and their environment the primary concern; we must become public health voters.
Let's begin.
Recent studies conducted by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) found that more than 98 percent of all Americans have at least trace amounts of PFOA and related chemicals in their blood. Perfluoro-octanoic acid (PFOA), also known as C8, when ingested, does not bioaccumulate in adipose or fatty tissue, rather it circulates in the blood, collecting in the serum. PFOA is not a new chemical creation, it has been in production for close to 70 years. It is the primary chemical used in the manufacturing of Teflon. It is also used in scores of products, including: non-stick cookware, stain-resistant carpet, microwave popcorn bags, pizza box liners, wire coatings, fire fighting foam and flame and water-resistant clothing. It is a chemical that persists in our water, our soil and our bodies; as it does not easily degrade either within the human body or in the environment, it is simply transferred from the lakes and rivers to the water supply, to the soil; from mother to fetus via placenta and cord blood; from mother to infant via breast milk. It is important to note that ingestion of/exposure to C8 by infants and children has been shown to reduce the efficacy of nearly all vaccinations.
The adult body burden of PFOA and related compounds, known as fluorotelomers, has been linked to the development of certain cancers, including: kidney, thyroid, prostate, bladder, ovarian, breast, pancreas, testicle and liver. In fact, the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer), a subsidiary of the World Health Organization, has officially recognized PFOA as a Group 2B carcinogen. Such classification places C8 in the company of a number of other long-standing cancer-causing agents, i.e. DDT, 1, 4-Dioxane, Heptachlor, Styrene, Mirex, Toxaphene, Chlordane, Nitrobenzene and Chloroform.
PFOA, like so many other 2B's, bioaccumulates in wildlife and as a result fish, fowl and cattle are also contaminated. Perfluorinated compounds are found in the most significant concentrations in shrimp, mussels, clams and oysters. As a result of this super-concentration in aquatic invertebrates/fish, the Minnesota Department of Health has issued a series of fish consumption advisories for contaminated portions of the Mississippi River.
Water, fish, fowl and foodstuffs are not the only routes of C8 ingestion and exposure. As cited earlier, food-packaging products are notorious for containing PFOA; such products can include food-coatings and food wraps as well as non-stick cookware. And once PFOA/ Teflon-coated cookware is heated during the food preparation process, inhalation of PFOA fumes becomes a distinct possibility. In addition, ingestion of contaminated house dust via hand-mouth transfer is a route of contamination for toddlers and children.
Despite the very real and extensively documented deleterious health effects PFOA exacts on humans throughout every stage of development, the EPA has yet to develop and implement standardized exposure thresholds, safe exposure limits in drinking water, foods, etcetera. In fact, the United States has yet to ratify, accept or approve the Stockholm Convention, a global treaty put into force May 2004. Simply stated, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is a global treaty to protect human health and the environment from chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributed geographically, accumulate in the fatty tissue of humans and wildlife, and have harmful impacts on human health or on the environment. This treaty requires its parties to take meaures to eliminate or reduce the release of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) into the environment. The following countries are examples of those that have signed, ratified, accepted, approved and put into force the Stockholm Convention: Canada, France, Germany, Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. Again, the United States remains relatively uninvolved and unaffected by the sentiment and effort of this treaty. Have we, as a country, allowed big business/big pharma to so completely infiltrate our government that what was once for the people by the people has become something more akin to for the profit, despite the people? The why's and wherefore's of this shift within our country we may never know, however, it is not acceptable nor is it prudent to forfeit control of our health and that of our family to the drift of financial whim. We must perform our due diligence as voters this election cycle and support candidates who will ratify and put into force the Stockholm Convention, and are dedicated to the public good, our public health.
Please reference: npr.org, cancer.org, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, chm.pops.int, epa.gov
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Let's Be Honest---SLS is Never a Good Idea, while Caveat Emptor is
Jessica Alba's Honest Company is in front of the consumer firing squad yet again; she and her company are facing a proposed class action law suit rooted in false and deceptive advertising. The suit alleges that Honest deceptively marketed cleaning products, dish soap and laundry detergent--stating that these products are honestly free of the additive sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), when in fact the products in question have been found to contain SLS in significant concentrations. This is not the first time Honest Company has been hit with a class action claiming deceptive and misleading labels and marketing, however. In September of 2015, a $5 million suit was filed against the company; on this occasion the customer claimed that compounds including but not limited to SLS were found in several household products labeled to be honestly free; claims of Honest's sunscreen being wholly ineffective were included in this suit along with claims that the materials from which the company's line of infant diapers are produced, contain a petrochemical-derived additive.
In February 2016, a Wall Street Journal investigation into the Honest Company and its claims, employed two independent labs to test for the presence of sodium lauryl sulfate in the company's laundry detergent. SLS was found in the detergent at each lab. Of course, Honest vehemently protests such investigations into the composition of its product catalogue and vilifies the efforts of any researcher involved in the endeavor. The company which produces Honest Company laundry detergent has, as of last year, removed its claim of SLS-free products from its web-site. Honest's claims of SLS-free products, however, continue.
Why is the Honest Company and its proclivity for attracting class action lawsuits and deceptive marketing even relevant? Simply stated, each of us is exposed,often unknowingly, to a toxic combination of environmental and household chemicals--many in products purchased because of claims to the contrary--every single day. Americans spray glyphosate on their lawns; put permethrins on their pets, DEET on their children, dump oils and degreasers down storm drains, support fracking--and then become indignant when a company puts SLS in the laundry soap. Aren't we all guilty of this sort of chemical-consumption hypocrisy? Because if we, as consumers, felt genuine affront at the actions of the Honest Company, the chemical and its contaminants would be the story rather than the tabloid crucifixion of Jessica Alba, company co-founder and, I suspect, caring and conscientious mother.
This is why the story matters: Women on average apply over 200 chemicals to their skin daily; more than 60 percent of which are absorbed directly into the bloodstream. Among these 200 is SLS, sodium lauryl sulfate. SLS has two common contaminants, 1,4-dioxane and ethylene dioxide.
Let's start with SLS.
SLS is derived from ethoxylated lauryl alcohol and used as a surfactant-cleansing agent, as well as a surfactant-emulsifying agent. As a surfactant, SLS breaks-up surface tension and separates molecules to allow a more complete interaction between, for example, shampoo and hair. This interaction creates a lather which increases the efficacy of SLS as a cleaning agent. Due to its low cost and overall effectiveness, SLS is used in a wide range of products, including laundry detergent, shampoo, toothpaste, engine degreaser and industrial strength cleaners.
During the process which produces SLS, 1,4-dioxane is commonly formed as an unwanted contaminant. An unwanted contaminant that is seldom removed--as it is found in more than 46 pecent of all personal care products. This is incredibly unfortunate for consumers due in large part to 1,4-dioxane being a known human carcinogen. In 2001, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) detected 1, 4-dioxane at levels up to 1410 parts per million (ppm) in cosmetic raw materials and at 279 ppm in personal care products. It was also found at levels in excess of 85 ppm in various brands of children's shampoo. To provide context and significance to the aforementioned figures please consider that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) insists that exposure to 1,4-dioxane even as a trace contaminant (at levels much lower than 85 ppm) is cause for concern.
In addition, ethylene dioxide is also formed during the SLS production process. Ethylene dioxide is a known human carcinogen with developmental and reproductive toxicity. It is a common impurity in SLS, polysorbate-20, ceteareth-20, laureth-20, PEG-40 hydrogenated castor oil and polysorbate-80. One would be hard pressed to find a common commercial household product that does not contain either ethylene dioxide or 1,4-dioxane, with SLS as the carrier chemical.
Unless the Honest Company is selling laundry detergent with a companion warranty the onus of responsibility lies with the consumer. One must realize that chemicals in the products which define our daily routines almost always carry chemical contaminants, most of which are recognized carcinogens. Isn't it time that the US starts becoming a more product-savvy society? Assigning blame for one's ignorance is never an acceptable excuse, irrespective of the realm of common consumption within which are defined daily beauty routines, bathing routines, etcetera. If we allow fracking water to be dumped into our drinking water, where do we think it goes? If we apply permethrin to our pets what happens to the chemicals when we touch, brush, play with our pets? If we purchase shampoo for our children and choose not to read the label, looking for known carcinogens' chemical names and their synonyms, whose fault is it should our children fall ill or experience neurotoxicity?
The goal must be to limit harmful chemical exposure through informed purchases for ourselves and our families. This means reading labels with some self-education. If the health of one's family does not provide enough impetus to initiate these small changes then mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.
Please reference: SLSfree.net, cfsan.fda.gov, epa.gov, ewg.gov, abcnews.go.com
In February 2016, a Wall Street Journal investigation into the Honest Company and its claims, employed two independent labs to test for the presence of sodium lauryl sulfate in the company's laundry detergent. SLS was found in the detergent at each lab. Of course, Honest vehemently protests such investigations into the composition of its product catalogue and vilifies the efforts of any researcher involved in the endeavor. The company which produces Honest Company laundry detergent has, as of last year, removed its claim of SLS-free products from its web-site. Honest's claims of SLS-free products, however, continue.
Why is the Honest Company and its proclivity for attracting class action lawsuits and deceptive marketing even relevant? Simply stated, each of us is exposed,often unknowingly, to a toxic combination of environmental and household chemicals--many in products purchased because of claims to the contrary--every single day. Americans spray glyphosate on their lawns; put permethrins on their pets, DEET on their children, dump oils and degreasers down storm drains, support fracking--and then become indignant when a company puts SLS in the laundry soap. Aren't we all guilty of this sort of chemical-consumption hypocrisy? Because if we, as consumers, felt genuine affront at the actions of the Honest Company, the chemical and its contaminants would be the story rather than the tabloid crucifixion of Jessica Alba, company co-founder and, I suspect, caring and conscientious mother.
This is why the story matters: Women on average apply over 200 chemicals to their skin daily; more than 60 percent of which are absorbed directly into the bloodstream. Among these 200 is SLS, sodium lauryl sulfate. SLS has two common contaminants, 1,4-dioxane and ethylene dioxide.
Let's start with SLS.
SLS is derived from ethoxylated lauryl alcohol and used as a surfactant-cleansing agent, as well as a surfactant-emulsifying agent. As a surfactant, SLS breaks-up surface tension and separates molecules to allow a more complete interaction between, for example, shampoo and hair. This interaction creates a lather which increases the efficacy of SLS as a cleaning agent. Due to its low cost and overall effectiveness, SLS is used in a wide range of products, including laundry detergent, shampoo, toothpaste, engine degreaser and industrial strength cleaners.
During the process which produces SLS, 1,4-dioxane is commonly formed as an unwanted contaminant. An unwanted contaminant that is seldom removed--as it is found in more than 46 pecent of all personal care products. This is incredibly unfortunate for consumers due in large part to 1,4-dioxane being a known human carcinogen. In 2001, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) detected 1, 4-dioxane at levels up to 1410 parts per million (ppm) in cosmetic raw materials and at 279 ppm in personal care products. It was also found at levels in excess of 85 ppm in various brands of children's shampoo. To provide context and significance to the aforementioned figures please consider that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) insists that exposure to 1,4-dioxane even as a trace contaminant (at levels much lower than 85 ppm) is cause for concern.
In addition, ethylene dioxide is also formed during the SLS production process. Ethylene dioxide is a known human carcinogen with developmental and reproductive toxicity. It is a common impurity in SLS, polysorbate-20, ceteareth-20, laureth-20, PEG-40 hydrogenated castor oil and polysorbate-80. One would be hard pressed to find a common commercial household product that does not contain either ethylene dioxide or 1,4-dioxane, with SLS as the carrier chemical.
Unless the Honest Company is selling laundry detergent with a companion warranty the onus of responsibility lies with the consumer. One must realize that chemicals in the products which define our daily routines almost always carry chemical contaminants, most of which are recognized carcinogens. Isn't it time that the US starts becoming a more product-savvy society? Assigning blame for one's ignorance is never an acceptable excuse, irrespective of the realm of common consumption within which are defined daily beauty routines, bathing routines, etcetera. If we allow fracking water to be dumped into our drinking water, where do we think it goes? If we apply permethrin to our pets what happens to the chemicals when we touch, brush, play with our pets? If we purchase shampoo for our children and choose not to read the label, looking for known carcinogens' chemical names and their synonyms, whose fault is it should our children fall ill or experience neurotoxicity?
The goal must be to limit harmful chemical exposure through informed purchases for ourselves and our families. This means reading labels with some self-education. If the health of one's family does not provide enough impetus to initiate these small changes then mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.
Please reference: SLSfree.net, cfsan.fda.gov, epa.gov, ewg.gov, abcnews.go.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)