A Thousand Threats, Cancer: How Dangerous Are Our Cosmetics?
Toxic chemicals don’t just hurt us in big doses. An environmental oncologist argues that
myriad tiny amounts of cancer-causing agents in our environment—and even in our
shampoo—can make us sick.
At Risk? A recent study found that para-dioxane in some children's shampoos was at levels
higher than those recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Web-exclusive Commentary
By Devra Davis
Special to Newsweek
Updated: 9:49 p.m. ET Feb 15, 2007
Feb. 15, 2007 - We know that children are not simply little adults. With their quick heartbeats, fast-
growing organs and enviable metabolism, the young absorb proportionally more pollutants than
those who are older. Exposures to minute amounts of hormones, environmental tobacco smoke or pollutants
early in the life of an animal or human embryo can deform reproductive tracts, lower birth weight and increase
the chance of developing cancer. And yet results from an independent chemical testing laboratory released last
week found a probable human carcinogen, 1,4-dioxane (also known as para-dioxane), in some common
children's shampoos at levels higher than those recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The
Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org, a research and advocacy organization that ran the study,
estimates that more than a quarter of all personal-care products sold in the United States may contain
this cancer-causing agent.
The presence of a cancerous agent at levels above those suggested by the FDA is disturbing
enough. The idea that such a compound exists at any amount in products that can be in regular contact with
babies’ skin is even more disconcerting. Scientists have long known that certain chemicals like para-dioxane
can cause cancer. (The World Health Organization considers para-dioxane a probable human carcinogen
because it is proven to cause cancer in male and female mice and rats.) Now we're beginning to realize
that the sum total of a person's exposure to all the little amounts of cancerous agents in the
environment may be just as harmful as big doses of a few well-known carcinogens. Over a lifetime,
cigarettes deliver massive quantities of carcinogens that increase the risk of lung and other cancers. Our
chances of getting cancer reflect the full gamut of carcinogens we're exposed to each day—in air, water and
food pollution and in cancerous ingredients or contaminants in household cleaners, clothing, furniture and the
dozens of personal-care products many of us use daily.
Of the many cancer risks we face, shampoos and bubble baths should not be among them. The risks
of para-dioxane in American baby soaps, for instance, could be completely eliminated through simple
manufacturing changes—as they are in Europe. To remove such carcinogens, however, would require
intervention by the federal government, but the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act allows the industry to
police itself. Europe has banned the use of para-dioxane in all personal-care products and recently initiated a
recall of any contaminated products. There’s a problem with the way the United States and other countries look
at toxicity in commercial agents. Regulators nowadays often won’t take action until enough people have already
complained of harm. This makes little sense. Scientists can seldom discern how the myriad substances, both
good and bad, that we encounter in our lives precisely affect our health. We need to be smarter about using
experimental evidence to predict and therefore prevent harm from happening. A few decades ago, people
accepted the fact that cigarette smoking was harmful, even though no scientist could explain precisely how this
happened in any particular cancer patient. If we had insisted in having perfect proof of how smoking damaged
the lungs before acting to discourage this unhealthy practice, we would still be questioning what to do. By the
same token, we now have to get used to the idea that scientists are unlikely to be able to say with certainty that
a trace chemical in shampoo accounts for a specific disease in a given child. But if we're to reduce our
cancer risk, we need to lower our exposures to those agents that can be avoided and find safer
substitutes for those that can’t.
Scientists don’t experiment on humans, for obvious reasons, but we have found some clues from lab and
wildlife studies. Medical researchers have demonstrated that trace chemicals of some widely used synthetic
organic materials can damage cultured human tissue. The effects don’t just accumulate, they mushroom.
UC Berkeley Professor Tyrone Hayes has shown that very low levels of pesticide residues in Nebraska
cornfields can combine to create male frogs with female features that are vulnerable to infection and can’t
reproduce.
Should we wait for these same things to happen to baby boys before acting to lower exposures?
There's plenty of solid human evidence that combined pollutants can cause more harm together than they do
alone. We are not surprised to hear that people who smoke, drink and work as painters have much higher risks
of kidney cancer than those who only engage in one of these known cancer-causing practices. We also
understand that women who use hormone-replacement therapy and drink more than two glasses of wine daily
have higher risks of breast cancer than those who engage in only one of these practices. This tells us that
other combinations of chemicals in the environment can also lead to other cancers. One in five cases of lung
cancer in women today—a disease that kills more women than ovarian, breast and uterine cancer combined—
has no known history of active or passive smoking exposure. Rates of non-Hodgkins lymphoma and other
cancers not tied with aging or improved screening have also increased in many industrial countries. New cases
of testicular cancer continue to rise in most industrial countries. While still rare, childhood cancer is more
common today than in the past, and most cases occur in children with no known inherited risk of the disease.
The problem, from a scientific standpoint, is that resolving the effects of miniscule levels of chemicals we
encounter throughout our lives is part of a complicated puzzle for which many pieces are missing. What
scientists need is data—lots of it. Manufacturers, however, tend to hold the precise formulations of products as
trade secrets, and the law allows them to withhold much information about carcinogens even if they are known
to be present. Of course, we should continue to collect information to advance our ability to prevent cancer and
other chronic diseases. But when a chemical causes cancers in both sexes of two different species of animals,
we shouldn’t arrogantly presume we will escape a similar fate. Recent work on the human and animal genomes
shows us that humans differ from frogs and mice by fewer than 10 percent of genes. We should not let the
absence of specific information on the health consequences for our infants and toddlers of single cancer-
causing contaminants like para-dioxane become a reason to delay getting rid of such hazards.
The goal of public-health policy is to prevent harm, not to prove that it's already happened. The Center for
Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute advises that personal-care products
that contain hormones may, in part, account for the continuing and unexplained patterns of breast cancer in
African-Americans under age 40, and also may explain why more girls are developing breasts at younger ages.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found generally higher residues of some plastic metabolites in
African-American women, with children ages 6 to 11 having twice the levels of whites. Dr. Chandra Tiwary, a
recently retired military chief of pediatric endocrinology at Brooks Air Force Base, found that African-American
baby girls as young as 1 year old developed breasts after their parents applied creams that they hadn't
realized contained estrogen to their scalps. When the creams were no longer used, these infant breasts went
away. Other work published last week by the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, shows similar
effects in young boys who had been washed with some hormone-mimicking soaps or oils. After their parents
stopped applying these products, their breasts also receded.
In light of the growing numbers of young girls with breasts, the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine
Society, the certifying board for pediatric endocrinology, in 1999 changed the recommendation of what is
natural. We believe this would be a dangerous move. If we say that it’s now normal for African-American and
white young girls to develop breasts at ages 6 and 7, respectively, we will fail to pick up serious diseases that
could account for this. We will also lose the chance to learn whether widely used agents in the environment, like
those found in personal-care products today or others that may enter the food supply, lay behind some of
these patterns.
It should not be the job of scientists, or of public-spirited leaders or environmental groups, to find out what
contaminants or ingredients may be affecting the delicate endocrine systems of our children and grandchildren.
(The tests that found para-dioxane in shampoo were funded privately by environmental journalist and activist
David Steinman, author of "Safe Journey to Eden.") Manufacturers have known for years about how para-
dioxane forms as a by-product of manufacturing and how to get rid of it. Until now, they just haven’t
need to do so. People have a right to know whether products they use on themselves and their
children contain compounds that increase their risk of disease. They also have a right to expect
that government will prevent companies from selling products that are harmful to children. To do
otherwise is to treat our children like lab rats in a vast uncontrollable experiment.
Davis is director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer
Institute and is a professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public
Health. A National Book Award finalist for "When Smoke Ran Like Water," she is completing "The
Secret History of the War on Cancer," from which this work is adapted, expected in October from Basic
Books.
Toxic chemicals don’t just hurt us in big doses. An environmental oncologist argues that
myriad tiny amounts of cancer-causing agents in our environment—and even in our
shampoo—can make us sick.
At Risk? A recent study found that para-dioxane in some children's shampoos was at levels
higher than those recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Web-exclusive Commentary
By Devra Davis
Special to Newsweek
Updated: 9:49 p.m. ET Feb 15, 2007
Feb. 15, 2007 - We know that children are not simply little adults. With their quick heartbeats, fast-
growing organs and enviable metabolism, the young absorb proportionally more pollutants than
those who are older. Exposures to minute amounts of hormones, environmental tobacco smoke or pollutants
early in the life of an animal or human embryo can deform reproductive tracts, lower birth weight and increase
the chance of developing cancer. And yet results from an independent chemical testing laboratory released last
week found a probable human carcinogen, 1,4-dioxane (also known as para-dioxane), in some common
children's shampoos at levels higher than those recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The
Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org, a research and advocacy organization that ran the study,
estimates that more than a quarter of all personal-care products sold in the United States may contain
this cancer-causing agent.
The presence of a cancerous agent at levels above those suggested by the FDA is disturbing
enough. The idea that such a compound exists at any amount in products that can be in regular contact with
babies’ skin is even more disconcerting. Scientists have long known that certain chemicals like para-dioxane
can cause cancer. (The World Health Organization considers para-dioxane a probable human carcinogen
because it is proven to cause cancer in male and female mice and rats.) Now we're beginning to realize
that the sum total of a person's exposure to all the little amounts of cancerous agents in the
environment may be just as harmful as big doses of a few well-known carcinogens. Over a lifetime,
cigarettes deliver massive quantities of carcinogens that increase the risk of lung and other cancers. Our
chances of getting cancer reflect the full gamut of carcinogens we're exposed to each day—in air, water and
food pollution and in cancerous ingredients or contaminants in household cleaners, clothing, furniture and the
dozens of personal-care products many of us use daily.
Of the many cancer risks we face, shampoos and bubble baths should not be among them. The risks
of para-dioxane in American baby soaps, for instance, could be completely eliminated through simple
manufacturing changes—as they are in Europe. To remove such carcinogens, however, would require
intervention by the federal government, but the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act allows the industry to
police itself. Europe has banned the use of para-dioxane in all personal-care products and recently initiated a
recall of any contaminated products. There’s a problem with the way the United States and other countries look
at toxicity in commercial agents. Regulators nowadays often won’t take action until enough people have already
complained of harm. This makes little sense. Scientists can seldom discern how the myriad substances, both
good and bad, that we encounter in our lives precisely affect our health. We need to be smarter about using
experimental evidence to predict and therefore prevent harm from happening. A few decades ago, people
accepted the fact that cigarette smoking was harmful, even though no scientist could explain precisely how this
happened in any particular cancer patient. If we had insisted in having perfect proof of how smoking damaged
the lungs before acting to discourage this unhealthy practice, we would still be questioning what to do. By the
same token, we now have to get used to the idea that scientists are unlikely to be able to say with certainty that
a trace chemical in shampoo accounts for a specific disease in a given child. But if we're to reduce our
cancer risk, we need to lower our exposures to those agents that can be avoided and find safer
substitutes for those that can’t.
Scientists don’t experiment on humans, for obvious reasons, but we have found some clues from lab and
wildlife studies. Medical researchers have demonstrated that trace chemicals of some widely used synthetic
organic materials can damage cultured human tissue. The effects don’t just accumulate, they mushroom.
UC Berkeley Professor Tyrone Hayes has shown that very low levels of pesticide residues in Nebraska
cornfields can combine to create male frogs with female features that are vulnerable to infection and can’t
reproduce.
Should we wait for these same things to happen to baby boys before acting to lower exposures?
There's plenty of solid human evidence that combined pollutants can cause more harm together than they do
alone. We are not surprised to hear that people who smoke, drink and work as painters have much higher risks
of kidney cancer than those who only engage in one of these known cancer-causing practices. We also
understand that women who use hormone-replacement therapy and drink more than two glasses of wine daily
have higher risks of breast cancer than those who engage in only one of these practices. This tells us that
other combinations of chemicals in the environment can also lead to other cancers. One in five cases of lung
cancer in women today—a disease that kills more women than ovarian, breast and uterine cancer combined—
has no known history of active or passive smoking exposure. Rates of non-Hodgkins lymphoma and other
cancers not tied with aging or improved screening have also increased in many industrial countries. New cases
of testicular cancer continue to rise in most industrial countries. While still rare, childhood cancer is more
common today than in the past, and most cases occur in children with no known inherited risk of the disease.
The problem, from a scientific standpoint, is that resolving the effects of miniscule levels of chemicals we
encounter throughout our lives is part of a complicated puzzle for which many pieces are missing. What
scientists need is data—lots of it. Manufacturers, however, tend to hold the precise formulations of products as
trade secrets, and the law allows them to withhold much information about carcinogens even if they are known
to be present. Of course, we should continue to collect information to advance our ability to prevent cancer and
other chronic diseases. But when a chemical causes cancers in both sexes of two different species of animals,
we shouldn’t arrogantly presume we will escape a similar fate. Recent work on the human and animal genomes
shows us that humans differ from frogs and mice by fewer than 10 percent of genes. We should not let the
absence of specific information on the health consequences for our infants and toddlers of single cancer-
causing contaminants like para-dioxane become a reason to delay getting rid of such hazards.
The goal of public-health policy is to prevent harm, not to prove that it's already happened. The Center for
Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute advises that personal-care products
that contain hormones may, in part, account for the continuing and unexplained patterns of breast cancer in
African-Americans under age 40, and also may explain why more girls are developing breasts at younger ages.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found generally higher residues of some plastic metabolites in
African-American women, with children ages 6 to 11 having twice the levels of whites. Dr. Chandra Tiwary, a
recently retired military chief of pediatric endocrinology at Brooks Air Force Base, found that African-American
baby girls as young as 1 year old developed breasts after their parents applied creams that they hadn't
realized contained estrogen to their scalps. When the creams were no longer used, these infant breasts went
away. Other work published last week by the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, shows similar
effects in young boys who had been washed with some hormone-mimicking soaps or oils. After their parents
stopped applying these products, their breasts also receded.
In light of the growing numbers of young girls with breasts, the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine
Society, the certifying board for pediatric endocrinology, in 1999 changed the recommendation of what is
natural. We believe this would be a dangerous move. If we say that it’s now normal for African-American and
white young girls to develop breasts at ages 6 and 7, respectively, we will fail to pick up serious diseases that
could account for this. We will also lose the chance to learn whether widely used agents in the environment, like
those found in personal-care products today or others that may enter the food supply, lay behind some of
these patterns.
It should not be the job of scientists, or of public-spirited leaders or environmental groups, to find out what
contaminants or ingredients may be affecting the delicate endocrine systems of our children and grandchildren.
(The tests that found para-dioxane in shampoo were funded privately by environmental journalist and activist
David Steinman, author of "Safe Journey to Eden.") Manufacturers have known for years about how para-
dioxane forms as a by-product of manufacturing and how to get rid of it. Until now, they just haven’t
need to do so. People have a right to know whether products they use on themselves and their
children contain compounds that increase their risk of disease. They also have a right to expect
that government will prevent companies from selling products that are harmful to children. To do
otherwise is to treat our children like lab rats in a vast uncontrollable experiment.
Davis is director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer
Institute and is a professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public
Health. A National Book Award finalist for "When Smoke Ran Like Water," she is completing "The
Secret History of the War on Cancer," from which this work is adapted, expected in October from Basic
Books.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
~ miessence, mivitality, mienviron ~ "my choice"
organic skin care ~ organic health care ~ organic cosmetics ~ organic home ~ ethical, organic home business opportunity Independent Representative Website
organic skin care ~ organic health care ~ organic cosmetics ~ organic home ~ ethical, organic home business opportunity Independent Representative Website
|
| ONE Group is ethical and eco-friendly |
| I love having an organic, home based business with ONE Group. I am able to be actively engaged in my daughter's life, continue to be a stay-at-home mom and have time to pursue my own personal interests . It also affords me the opportunity to help other motivated people make their own dreams a reality. This is all possible because I am working with a company that has the highest standards for their certified organic products and shares my desire for making our planet a safe, clean, toxic free place for future generations. |
TAKE FIVE MINUTES Click here to listen to an audio presentation introducing you to an ethical, organic home business opportunity with Organic & Natural Enterprise Group |
Interested in owning your own ONE Group business using our party plan? Check out our MiSpa party page. Click here for more information |