Posted on 05/16/2005 6:19:34 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
In a new war with the $35 billion cosmetics industry, a Manhattan lawmaker is preparing to seek a ban in New York of the sale of cosmetics with suspected links to cancer, asthma and birth defects. The chemicals — known as DBP and DEHP — are widely used here in nail polish, lipstick, shampoo, deodorant and other grooming products, mainly as a binding agent for colors, but are banned in the European Union because they were deemed hazardous to women.
Assemblyman Scott Stringer (D-Manhattan), who's introducing the ban in a bill tomorrow, said he's prepared for a firestorm of lobbying from the industry's powerful Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, which worked to kill a similar bill in committee in California's legislature two weeks ago.
Several cosmetic giants, including L'Oreal, Estee Lauder, Aveda, the Body Shop and Unilever, have already removed the suspected harmful chemicals from many of their products. Revlon has also announced it's replacing the chemicals with safer ones. "New York should be at the forefront of assuring greater cosmetics safety," said Stringer.
"Banning these chemicals now in personal grooming products will stop us from looking back 10 or 20 years from now and saying, 'We should have done something before.'"
Consumer alarms over the safety of the ingredients triggered an inquiry by the Food and Drug Administration, which ruled last week that although the chemicals harmed animals, it found nothing harmful to humans. The FDA said it would monitor the chemicals. In its 67-year history, the FDA has banned only nine such ingredients. The cosmetics lobby group says efforts to ban the chemicals are "scare tactics" that are "not only anti-business, but not even based on scientific evidence."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Hand me the sauce, here's a dry spot.
Actually, I'm also a (drum roll)... vegetarian!!!
NOT vegan, mrs lj and I do milk products. I don't tell everyone (peeks over shoulder...)
I also run a couple pinglists, so I'm not a flake - really.
I've been a vegetarian for many years and so has the mrs. We eat no meat or fish, but do eat/drink milk products. The "vegan" diet without any milk products is very dangerous, especially for children.
Tasty, and very easy to get enough protein, especially if more natural whole foods are eaten and little junk food.
We're happy with it, and we love animals. Especially when they're walking around!
Not necessarily anything wrong healthwise, although many fish do carry toxins due to the nature of food chain concentration.
It's avoiding anything which tries to avoid death and feels pain basically. You know, things with eyes and mothers.
:-)
Mrs LJ and I have been vegetarian (let's see, me for 35 yrs and she for about 20, raised a couple of kids vegetarian and they were big strapping and healthy kids. There are many benefits and it is not treasonous, and being vegetarian does NOT turn you into a liberal.
No one could accuse me of being a liberal.
Do DBP and DEHP have to be listed on labels of cosmetics?
Listed at your link were sites claiming those chemicals are in everything from Gouda cheese wrappers to baby teethers. How can anyone escape?
Do you eat eggs? I do have to worry about my protein level. I went on a diet a couple of years ago and lost 122 pounds. I ate lean cuisines, fresh fruit, oatmeal, lots of yogurt, and skim milk. However, after I lost the weight, my serum protein level was below normal and I had serum BUN levels showing signs of muscle wasting.
Funny, I cannot use Clinique as it caused the only skin rash I ever had. Or at least one of their eye shadows did. Apparently it had something to do with the dyes. I went to a dematologist, even called OSHA thinking it might be something in the office building, a new and shiny one with all kinds of chemicals in paints, carpets, etc. Another woman in my office had a similar problem. Turned out that we used the same eye shadow shade. Imagine that!
I don't eat eggs either. I eat cheese, milk, lots of various kinds of beans and a variety of whole grains. Whole grains have a good amount of protein especially when you also eat beans, nuts or peanut butter, and milk products. I use a pressure cooker for beans and soak them first. Makes great pinto beans in under an hour.
Wow! 122 pounds! I hope you didn't lose too fast, it can weaken the body. If you don't need to lose a lot anymore, it's more healthy to keep some milk fat in the diet.
dibutylphthalate (DBP) and di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). The DEHP concentrations were as high as 3.7 parts per million (ppm). However, the wraps used on these cheeses did not contain either phthalate as a primary plasticizer, and concentrations in the cheeses could not be clearly attributed to migration from the wraps. Other possible sources include glues and inks used on the printed labels, and background environmental contamination in the cheese itself. Both DBP and DEHP have been shown to be present in dairy foods independent of contact with plastic wraps.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 18, 2005
CONTACTS: Nick Guroff, NET, 415-863-8934 x109; Rebecca Farmer, BCA, 415-243-9301 x16; Kevin Donegan, BCF, 415-346-8223 x14
Safe Cosmetic Bill Faces Critical Vote
Public Health Advocates Challenge Industry's Faulty Science
SACRAMENTO, CA—Tomorrow in the Assembly Health Committee, Assemblywoman Judy Chu's (D-Monterey Park) legislation to promote cosmetic safety will receive its first and most critical legislative vote. Assembly Bill 908 would prohibit the use of two ingredients (DBP and DEHP, two chemicals known as phthalates) in personal care products that have been linked to male infertility, birth defects in the male reproductive system and premature breast development in females. Volumes of research on these chemicals have already been conducted at independent research institutions and published in peer reviewed journals. Cosmetics giants Revlon, Unilever and L'Oreal recently announced plans to remove the phthalates DBP and DEHP, while the European Union has prohibited these two hazards from cosmetics altogether.
"The question tomorrow before the Health Committee is not about whether the science exists to support a ban on these health hazards. Without a doubt it does," said Jeanne Rizzo, Executive Director of the Breast Cancer Fund, an environmental health organization that is co-sponsoring the bill. "We commend industry leaders such as L’Oreal and Revlon who have voluntarily agreed to discontinue using phthalates in their products worldwide. We can’t wait for decades, as happened with nicotine, lead and DDT, for other manufacturers who refuse to take leadership on this issue."
The results of scientific research on chemicals tend to differ based on the source of funding. A recent compilation of new science on another problematic chemical (bisphenol-A) in consumer products, found that over 90 percent of independent studies reported harmful effects of low dose exposure, while 100 percent of industry-funded studies reported no significant adverse effects. This same trend has held true with regard to DBP and DEHP. While supporters of AB 908 point to the studies that have informed the National Toxicology Program and the State of California's designations of these chemicals as reproductive toxicants, industry trade groups have “substantiated” the safety of DBP by relying on outmoded EPA safety levels—a safety level determined by a rat mortality study published in 1953, long since obsolete.
"Industry's hired guns will argue the science isn't there. When the science is presented, they will do everything in their power to discredit it. If they can't discredit it they will claim that acting on the science will put the little guys out of business," said Nick Guroff, California Representative for the National Environmental Trust. "Make no mistake about it, if these guys really cared about small business, they'd be putting their millions into safer products and not high-paid consultants."
Contrary to what many consumers may believe, the FDA has no legal authority to require safety assessments of cosmetics (www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-206.html). Product safety is by default the responsibility of the industry and its own appointed Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel. The CIR has found just nine of 1,175 reviewed ingredients unsafe for use in cosmetics. Further, the CIR has reviewed only 11 percent of the ingredients in personal care products for their safety at large. Not only is this panel unable to act with autonomy from the industry, even when CIR has issued health recommendations, they have been ignored by industry (www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep/report/safety_violations.php).
"Industry lobbyists can't have it both ways. They can't on the one hand claim that they know phthalates are safe and then on the other claim that we would need more research to prove them harmful," said Barbara Brenner, Executive Director at Breast Cancer Action. "It's time to stop the hamster wheel on these hazards and get them out of products. Women’s lives are at stake."
AB 908 will be heard in room number 4202 after 1:30 tomorrow afternoon. Other bills related to safe consumer products Senate Bill 484 (Migden) and AB 319 (Chan) will be heard on April 20 and April 26, respectively. SB 484 would require cosmetics manufacturers to report the use of harmful chemicals in their products to the state, while AB 319 would prohibit DBP, DEHP, and bisphenol-A from children's toys. For peer reviewed research on the phthalates DBP and DEHP please note the listing provided below. Abstracts and complete studies will be made available upon request.
Vegetarianism has a certain appeal for me too. I managed to stay with it for about six weeks,but after that, I did not feel well. A week now and then seems OK.
I need about 18-20 grams of protein at each meal with my veggies--about 3 ounces of meat, 4 ounces of fish, 3/4 cup cottage cheese, or three egg whites. All non-fat. I use very good X-virgin green Italian olive oil for fat plus cod liver oil. Do you use tofu? I try, but find it hard to like.
I had friends who raised the most beautiful white chickens who laid magnificent eggs. They were all named for saints: Saint Agnes, Saint Anne, etc. The chickens were affection trained and would leap into your arms for a cuddle once they got to know you. Chicken has been a little hard to eat ever since.
Men can be deemed hazardous to women so will they be banned next?
Now I'm really confused. Isn't L'Oreal a French company? Wouldn't they have already removed DBP and DEHP to comply with EU standards?
As for following 1953 guidelines, that sounds like an invitation to disaster.
Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Calls Product Reformulations by L’Oréal, Revlon and Unilever a “Victory for Women’s Health and Consumers”
SAN FRANCISCO -- January 13 -- In a telling example of how new European safety standards for cosmetics are affecting products sold on U.S. shelves, L’Oréal, Revlon and Unilever confirmed they have eliminated certain toxic chemicals from their products.
In response to an investigation by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of U.S. health and environmental groups, both L’Oréal and Revlon said they are now in compliance with the European Union 7th Amendment Cosmetic Directive; Unilever’s policy on reformulation was less clear.
The EU law requires that cosmetics companies stop using chemicals that are known or highly suspected of causing cancer, impaired fertility or birth defects, such as the phthalates DBP and DEHP used in some fragrances, hair sprays and nail polishes. Companies were required to stop placing such products on store shelves by January 1.
The companies’ responses followed repeated requests by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to clarify whether they would stop using chemicals known or highly suspected to be carcinogens, mutagens or reproductive toxins everywhere their products are sold. In September, the Campaign named the three companies in a full-page advertisement in USA Today, which depicted a young girl applying lipstick with the headline, “Putting on makeup shouldn’t be like playing with matches.”
“We commend L’Oréal and Revlon for announcing they will globally reformulate their products to eliminate the use of dibutyl-phthalate and other toxic chemicals,” said Jeanne Rizzo, executive director of the Breast Cancer Fund, a founding member of the coalition. “This is a victory for women’s health and consumers. Regrettably, U.S. law still permits companies to put unlimited amounts of toxic chemicals into cosmetics sold in the United States.”
The three companies may differ, however, in whether they are reformulating globally to meet the new European standards or are taking a market-by-market approach. For companies that do not reformulate globally, their products containing hazardous ingredients will continue to be available to U.S. and other non-European consumers.
In a letter dated December 21, L’Oréal Senior Vice President for Research and Development Alan J. Meyers wrote unequivocally that his company’s products are in compliance with the EU cosmetics directive “no matter where they are sold around the world.”
Revlon Senior Vice President for Corporate Communications Catherine Fisher wrote on December 20 that “all products sold by Revlon are currently in full compliance with… EU Directives 76/768 EEC.”
The response from Unilever on the company’s reformulation policy was unclear. While Senior Vice President for Research and Development David Duncan wrote that Unilever “does not use [DBP and DEHP] as an ingredient in our products,” the letter of December 15 did not state whether the company’s products sold in the United States and other markets would comply with the EU directive, which also requires elimination of many more ingredients known or highly suspected to be carcinogens, mutagens or reproductive toxins (CMRs).
Contrary to popular perception, the FDA does not evaluate cosmetics products for safety before they are sold. The FDA states on its Web site that “neither cosmetic products nor cosmetic ingredients are reviewed or approved by FDA before they are sold to the public.” The statement continues, “FDA cannot require companies to do safety testing of their cosmetic products before marketing.”
“We are pleased these leading companies are removing some of the worst toxic chemicals from their products,” said Bryony Schwan, national campaigns director for Women’s Voices for the Earth, a founding member of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “This is just a first step to making truly safe cosmetics, however.”
The Campaign is asking all cosmetics companies to sign the Compact for Safe Cosmetics, a pledge to immediately remove all EU-banned chemicals, inventory all ingredients and develop a plan to replace chemicals of concern with safe alternatives within three years. For more information, visit http://www.safecosmetics.org/companies/compact_with_america.cfm.
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics will publish a “report card” in March grading major cosmetics companies on their reformulation policies and their responsiveness to consumer inquiries about safety. The full correspondence with the above three companies is available.
Founding members of The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics include: Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, Breast Cancer Fund, Commonweal, Friends of the Earth, Women's Voices for the Earth, Environmental Working Group, National Black Environmental Justice Network and the National Environmental Trust. For more information and background on the campaign, see www.SafeCosmetics.org.
Chickens when raised by hand can be very nice pets.
If you can get really fresh good quality firm tofu, you can do a lot with it. I like to butter a baking pan and bake it, sprinkled with soy sauce or other stuff. Gets kind of chewy and crunchy without frying.
I need a lot of protein too, so I eat a lot of beans and bean soup, and probably more cheese than is good for me. Cholesterol's ok but I should lose 20 pounds. Or even 30, but what the heck. I don't want to scare people when they don't recognize me!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.