- 0:
- 0:
- 0.00%Discount:
- $0.00 (AUD):
- $0.00:
- $0.00:
- $0.00(AUD):
News
Latest News
Latest NewsONEgroup News
Click on 'read article' to expand the news item and see its content.
You can also subscribe to this as an RSS Feed by using this url:- http://rss.onegrp.com/OGnotices.xml
Chemicals Endangering Our Kids
Chemicals endangering our kids
Friday 10th October 2008
A Current Affair - Channel 9
Click here to view the video aired on A Current Affair
We all fuss over the beauty of a new born baby’s delicate skin, but is it under siege from a barrage of chemical cocktail thanks to the everyday toiletries we use?
Public health researcher, Dr Sarah Lantz, says she has grave concerns about everyday chemicals we find on our supermarket shelves and how they could be affecting our children. So concerned in fact, she has just released a book on the topic: Chemical Free Kids - Raising Healthy Children in a Toxic World, which you can find at www.chemicalfreeparenting.com.
"We've got a world which is filled with chemicals and in lots of ways we're subjecting little bodies to a range of different toxins," Dr Lantz told ACA.
"There is more and more research showing a link between chemicals and behavioural problems. There is also a link to a range of diseases with the potentially cancerous materials that show up in different products."
According to Dr Lantz's research, our entire modern environment is toxic and we are all suffering the consequences with increasing numbers of children being diagnosed with asthma and behavioural problems including attention deficit disorder - even autism.
"There's a whole range of chronic problems the whole population is experiencing - and at a younger age these days,"she says.
Paediatric dermatologist, Dr. Gayle Fischer, at Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney suggests parents keep products on children to a minimum.
"I would really just recommend a mild soap and water, if your child has normal skin. The main complaint in little children is often that they're a little dry, in which case, just select an unperfumed moisturiser that's greasy enough to make your child's skin feel normal," she says.
But Dr Fischer says we shouldn't be too concerned about the chemicals in our toiletries.
"Even though there are a lot of people worried about toxins and chemicals in the environment, the fact is that we are living to a ripe old age. And a lot of that has to do with modern hygiene and sanitation,"she says.
Not everyone is convinced.
Mother of three, Narelle Chenery, was very concerned about the chemicals in supposedly natural skin care products. So, she made her own totally natural products with Miessence Certified Organics - www.mionegroup.com
"These products are something I started in my kitchen ten years ago and now we're a multimillion dollar company selling certified organic products around the world, it's very exciting,"says Narelle.
Now her adult skin care range is sold in over 60 countries and she's just launched a baby range.
And this young mum from the Gold Coast has done something else quite remarkable. She has the first fully organically certified range of baby skin care products in the world.
"The ingredients that go into our products, being certified organic, are actually edible. You can eat them, so that's utmost proof of safety.’ she says.
Whilst Narelle's business has been fully certified as organic, there are many out there who promote their products as natural or organic, but consumers beware!
"In theory a skin product that's organic should be entirely plant derived, have no petroleum products and no preservatives," says Dr Lanz.
"But if you actually turn around the label, turn around the bottle and have a look at it - it contains a host of other really kind of toxic ingredients and a lot of chemicals."
So here are Dr Sarah Lantz's tips on how to help keep your kids, chemical free.
# BE A CONSCIOUS CONSUMER
Really get clear on what are good chemicals and what are bad chemicals. Beware of certain chemicals: Phthalates, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Cocomide DEA
# BE WARY OF CERTAIN CHEMICALS
Anything that's got a number next to it is something that we should be really critical of or looking at.
# BEWARE OF PRODUCTS THAT SAY THEY ARE NATURAL OR ORGANIC
Always look out of the certification logo.
# GO FRAGRANCE FREE
Babies just do not need fragrances or chemicals on their skins at all.
# REDUCE YOUR CHILD'S EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS
Reducing it means look at what they're playing with, what they're eating, what are you putting on their bodies.
# AND HAVE A BASIC CLEANING ROUTINE
I would say with kids keep it as simple as possible. For a lot of the time just use water. For a normal healthy child the message is, don't do anything special, keep it really simple and enjoy your time with your baby. Read ArticleFrench health agency promises to clean up baby cosmetics
French health agency promises to clean up baby cosmetics
Date: 8 October 2008
Source: Cosmetics Design.com
Full Article
The French health agency (AFSSAPS) has promised to tighten controls on baby cosmetics following a high profile campaign that labeled the products “toxic cocktails”.
To protect public health and restore confidence in baby cosmetics, the AFSSAPS will increase inspections and controls to ensure that the products on the market comply with existing regulations.
The health agency will also put the ingredients and products brought into question under the microscope to determine whether they pose risks to human health.
These measures were decided upon in reaction to the sustainable health charity raising the alarm over a number of chemicals in baby cosmetics including parabens, EDTA, BHA and bisphenol A.
Supporting the campaign, Professor Dominique Belpomme, who is president of the cancer research charity ARTAC, told the press that the accumulative cocktail effect of the baby products was unknown.
She said the current situation is absolutely unacceptable from the point of view of public health.
Put under particular scrutiny by the C2DS were the baby cosmetic products distributed in French maternity wards, the evaluation of which the AFSSAPS has now vowed to make a priority.
In addition to the other initiatives the AFSSAPS has put in place the organization announced the creation of a working group to evaluate the safety assessment methods used by manufacturers of baby cosmetics.
Meanwhile the Fédération des Entreprises de la Beauté (FEBEA) defended the industry and sought to reassure consumers that baby products are safe.
The French trade association said all cosmetics are thoroughly tested and that under the EU Cosmetics Directive products aimed at children under three must undergo a specific evaluation process.
Check out our Mother&Baby Range - products good enough to eat! Read ArticleChemicals Found in Cosmetics Linked to Future Infertility
Chemicals Found in Cosmetics Linked to Future Infertility
Date: 30 September 2008
Source: NaturalNews.com
Full Article
NaturalNews) The first three months of pregnancy have a significant impact on a baby boy's future fertility. Chemicals found in cosmetics could create infertility problems later in life. Researchers at Edinburgh University have shown that exposure to chemicals in the first 12 weeks in the womb can affect sperm production in manhood. Many of these products are routinely used by a majority of women.
Although the evidence is not conclusive, it is a step in the right direction to show women how vital it is to only use natural, healthy products. The skin is the largest organ in the body, and anything that is put on it gets absorbed and ends up in the blood stream, ultimately coming into contact with unborn babies.
Future Disease, Including Cancer
Some chemicals used in cosmetics can block hormones. In the study, male hormones in rats were blocked for a period of time when they were in the womb. These rats went on to suffer from infertility.
The scientists also concluded that these chemicals may also increase the risk of baby boys developing other reproductive conditions in later life, including testicular cancer. They urged women who were intending to become pregnant to avoid putting these harmful cosmetic products on their skin.
Prof. Sharpe, who led the study says, "There are lots of compounds in perfumes that we know in higher concentrations have the potential to have biological effects, so it is just being ultra safe to say that by avoiding using them your baby isn't at risk.
"If you are planning to become pregnant you should change your lifestyle. Those lifestyle things don't necessarily mean that you are going to cause terrible harm to your baby, but by avoiding them you are going to have a positive effect.
"We would recommend you avoid exposure to chemicals that are present in cosmetics, anything that you put on your body that might then get through your body into your developing baby.
"It is not because we have evidence that these chemicals categorically cause harm to babies, it is only based on experimental studies on animals that suggest it is a possibility."
Just Pregnant Women?
If these products disrupt the hormonal balance in baby boys, then doesn't it stand to reason that they could potentially have a harmful effect on all of us? Do you want to take the chance?
Most people who are into natural health have already concluded that natural, organic or wild products are best. Nature provides everything we need, and putting toxic chemicals on our skin is not going to ultimately make it softer, smoother or younger. These toxins must be processed in the liver, which is the organ that most influences our skin.
The best choice is for every person to choose natural cosmetic products, not just women who are becoming pregnant. It is such an easy way to become less toxic and improve wellbeing.
The problem is that the study also showed that chemicals in household fabrics and plastics can cause the same problem.
Check out our Mother&Baby range of products for an alternative to your current products - the choice is yours! Read ArticleBerries Provide a Cocktail of Cancer Preventing Compounds
Berries Provide a Cocktail of Cancer Preventing Compounds
Date: 30 September 2008
Source: NaturalNews.com
Full Article
(NaturalNews) Black raspberries provide a powerful mix of cancer-inhibiting compounds. New research at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center was conducted to test the effect of black raspberries on the genetic activity of rats provoked to develop cancer of the esophagus.
The researchers split the rats into two groups. One group was fed a normal diet while the other was fed a diet with 5 percent freeze-dried black raspberries. After two weeks, half of the rats in each group were injected with a chemical carcinogen that induces esophageal cancer.
After a week of carcinogen application, the rats' health was examined. Judging by appearance, the esophageal tissue of the rats that ate black raspberries was more normal and healthy compared to the other rats. In an earlier study, the berry-fed rats had a 60 percent reduction in tumors.
On the genetic level, the findings were astonishing. The researchers were able to measure the activity levels of the 41,000 genes in each of the rats. In the rats without the preventative benefits of the berries, the activity levels of 2,261 genes changed by at least 50 percent. Predictably, those genes are responsible for such things as cell proliferation, inflammation, and cell destruction: actions that are common during cancer development. Amazingly, one fifth (462) of those carcinogen-effected-genes were expressed at normal levels in the rats fed black raspberries.
Black raspberries, in addition to other berries, have multiple mechanisms of prevention. The result is a beneficial effect throughout an animal's genome due to the collection of vitamins, minerals, phytosterols and phenols in the berries.
"This suggests to us that a mixture of preventative agents, which berries provide, may more effectively prevent cancer than a single agent that targets only one or a few genes," said Gary D. Stoner, a professor of pathology, human nutrition and medicine at the University.
A similar companion study tested a single chemoprevention compound in the rats with the same ailment. Of the stated 462 genes, 53 were kept at normal activity levels by this agent alone.
Concerning this, Stoner said, "What's emerging from studies in cancer chemoprevention is that using single compounds alone is not enough." He went on to say that berries are not enough either: they only partially prevent tumors. He recommended finding other foods to combine with berries.
Other foods to consider are mushrooms, grapes, cruciferous vegetables, flax, and many more.
Check out our Berry Radical - with over 7,000 ORAC unit in just one serving!!! Read ArticleChoosing Products That Promote Beauty and Well Being
Choosing Products That Promote Beauty and Well Being
Dat:e 7 Cctober 2008
Source: Natural News.com
Full Article
(NaturalNews) Millions of Americans are adversely affected each year by a silent from of chemical warfare that's taking place every day within the comforts of our own homes. While we worry about the chemical weaponry of terrorists and lead-contaminated imported toys, we are literally poisoning our immune systems with thousands of toxic chemicals that are known carcinogens, hormone disrupters, and cancer-causing agents.
It starts with your morning routine. If you are a man, you will probably use shampoo, soap, toothpaste, mouthwash, deodorant, hair gel or styling products, shaving cream, and aftershave or cologne. A typical day for a woman starts much the same, with the added possibilities of shower gel, body and face cream, lotion, moisturizer, make-up, hair spray, perfume, and nail polish. By the time you have made it to the door, you have swallowed, inhaled and absorbed through your skin hundreds of toxic chemicals, some of which have been proven to be deadly to laboratory animals and many of which are known to be carcinogens.
If you are suffering from dry flaky skin, persistent skin irritations, rashes, sinus problems, allergies, asthma, respiratory ailments and other health problems that never seem to get cured, it may be time for you to examine the negative effects your personal care products are having on your health. It's great to exercise and watch what you eat, but you must also watch what you put on your body and even what you use to clean your house if you want to achieve optimal health.
Any substance you put on your skin, or inhale will enter your bloodstream just as surely as if you had swallowed it. Once these chemicals enter your bloodstream, they are perceived by your immune system as foreign and not recognizable, and they are perceived by your liver as toxins. When your immune system and liver are dealing with toxic chemical overload they aren't available to do the jobs they were intended to do. That's why people who insist on putting toxic chemicals into their bodies suffer from frequent bacterial and viral infections, other mysterious maladies, and even cancer.
Have you ever taken a close look at the ingredients in your personal care products? Whatever you are seeing probably includes water. Is there anything else on that label that you recognize as a naturally occurring substance you might actually want to put inside your body? If it doesn't occur in nature, it shouldn't be inside of you, because you are a natural being.
How does the label on your soap look like?
No matter what the advertisements try to make you think, fragrance does not come from flowers or anything else natural. More than 4,000 chemicals are used in fragrances, many of which are waste products from the petroleum industry. Several of them are known to cause cancer, birth defects, infertility, and brain and central nervous system damage including Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease and Alzheimer's.
Since so many products are now scented, the number of people who are made ill by fragrances is steadily increasing. Babies and children are especially vulnerable along with those recovering from illness or disease. Chemical fragrances are everywhere: laundry detergent, fabric softeners, dish washing liquids, suntan products, sunscreen, incense, lotions, moisturizers, lip balms, almost every personal care product, and more. It's even found in many products labeled as unscented because it is contained within a compound when that compound is added to the product.
Exposure to scented products can cause the persistent symptoms that mystify people, such as chronic aches and pains, headaches, allergies, swollen glands and lymph tenderness, heart palpitations, memory, fatigue, asthma, nausea, and neural-motor functioning including dizziness, and fainting. Exposure in children and even adults can cause learning and behavioral problems, attention deficit and hyperactivity in addition to any of the other symptoms. Continued exposure to chemical fragrances along with other toxic chemicals can cause development of Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Disease. When you have this disease, the slightest whiff of a toxic chemical makes you so ill you cannot function. Your ability to interact with the rest of the world is seriously compromised.
It's tempting to say to your self that these products must be alright or the 'government' wouldn't let them be sold, but this isn't true. The personal care products industry is not supervised. The FDA does not require manufacturers to register their products or to file safety data on the ingredients they use in them. They are free to put in as many toxic chemicals as they want. The only thing that stops them is reaction from the public. A few years ago, magazines came with scented strips advertising the latest perfumes. So many people were sickened and complained that the strips were discontinued. If enough people refuse to buy toxic products, manufacturers would stop making them.
Products you use while taking a shower are particularly dangerous since you are using them at a time when your pores are opened by hot water, allowing quick and easy access to your bloodstream. A look at the ingredients in your shampoo may be shocking. There are more than 100 toxic chemicals traditionally used in shampoo, and most brands contain 20 to 30 of them in addition to chemical fragrance and dyes.
Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is a dominant ingredient in almost all shampoos. In addition to its toxic effects on your immune and detoxification systems, SLS has been shown to corrode the hair follicles and impede hair growth. It has been blamed for premature hair loss. The Material Safety Data Sheet provided by the U.S. government says exposure to SLS can lead to burning, coughing, wheezing, laryngitis, shortness of breath, headache, nausea and vomiting. The American College of Toxicology says that SLS stays in the body for up to five days and maintains residual levels in the heart, liver, lungs and brain.
While there are many natural alternative substances available that will clean and beautify you far better than these toxic concoctions, the large corporations that produce personal care products won't use them because it would cost too much money and interfere with their profits. They even try to disguise their cheap chemicals with tiny amounts of natural ingredients that are prominently featured on the front of the bottle. This is done to deceive you into buying what you think is an item that promotes health. But turn the bottle over and you will see a mind boggling list of toxic ingredients.
If you have decided that you don't want to pay your hard earned money to a corporation that strives to deceive you and tell you lies, you will find that discovering how to replace your toxic products with products that promote good health is a very difficult task. No matter what it says on the label, there are virtually No products in any of the discount stores, traditional supermarkets, or drugstores that are not filled with health compromising chemicals.
Some supermarkets featuring organic or health sections carry Burt's Bees products. These are certainly far preferable to those produced by the large corporations, but Burt's Bees has recently been bought out by Clorox Corporation, so its quality may soon be compromised. For now, some of Burt's Bees products are safe, and some contain toxic ingredients such as fragrance, endocrine system disrupting glucose oxidase, and borax (the active ingredient in most ant poisons).
You will have a better chance of finding products that promote health at a health food market. But even there, you can't just walk in and buy what appeals to you on sight. Many products marketed as 'natural' contain high levels of toxic ingredients. Whole Foods Market publishes a list of ingredients not allowed in the foods they sell, but many of these ingredients are contained in their personal care items. Apparently it is alright with them if the toxins enter you body through your skin instead of your mouth.
When you try to replace your personal care products with ones that promote health, you will find that almost every item you pick lists ingredients that sounds like chemicals. The only way to be sure of what you are buying is to research these ingredients. Here is a website where you can easily research many of these ingredients using their search box: (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/) Check out Miessence product ratings.
Kiss My Face makes that luscious olive oil soap without scent or in several scents created from chemicals. Many of their other products contain an array of toxic ingredients.
Jason's is good for toothpaste, making several flavors without fluoride or significant toxic chemicals. But again, much of their line contains objectionable ingredients.
Cosmetics made entirely from minerals are gaining in popularity as witnessed by the astounding growth in Bare Essential shops. Mineral cosmetics provide the affects of traditional cosmetics and don't contain toxic chemicals. There are several other companies that sell cosmetics made from minerals. Their products are available at health food stores and online.
It's not easy to make the change from disease promoting personal care products to those promoting health. It seems to require some trial and error, a lot of time to do research, patience, and a commitment to paying higher prices for the products you use. But once the change is made and these products become as familiar to you as the ones you used to buy, it will be easy from that point on. You will realize that you have made a significant investment in your future health and freedom from disease, and you will feel proud of yourself. You will know that it's all a matter of priorities.
After you have found products in every category that you really like and seen how good you feel using them, you probably won't even consider returning to the old brands. You will feel good about spending your money on products made by a company who knows its future rests in producing products that keep you healthy, rather that a corporation that sees you only as someone to be exploited. And you may realize that looking your best can be achieved only with the vibrant glow of good health shining from your insides out. Read ArticleCalifornia passes green chemistry legislation
California passes green chemistry legislation
Source: Cosmetics Design
Date: 1 October 2008
Full Article
Arnold Schwarzenegger has put his signature to green chemistry legislation in California that promises to remove politics from the evaluation of disputed chemicals.
State governor Schwarzenegger has signed two bills into law that aim to establish a science-based process for tackling potentially toxic chemicals and therefore prevent lobby groups and political interests from determining the content of consumer goods.
New system and powers
A.B. 1879 gives the California Department of Toxic Substances Control authority, for the first time, to regulate chemicals in consumer products.
Under the legislation, the department will have the authority to identify, evaluate and even ban potentially harmful chemicals.
To exercise these new powers in the best interests of consumers, state regulators will have to develop a science-based program to identify chemicals of concern, evaluate them and analyze alternatives.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control has until January 1, 2011 to put this process in place and it will also have to establish a Green Ribbon Science Panel for advisory purposes.
Online information resource
The other bill signed into law by Schwarzenegger was S.B. 509 which requires the establishment of an online Toxic Information Clearinghouse.
This will provide consumers and businesses with information about the toxicity and hazards of chemicals used in everyday life.
Signing the bills in Los Angeles this week Schwarzenegger said: “With these two bills, we will stop looking at toxics as an inevitable byproduct of industrial production.
“Instead they will be something that can be removed from every product in the design stage - protecting people's health and our environment.”
Criticism of the legislation
However the legislation is not without its critics. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) claims it is watered down and devoid of substance.
“We hope we're wrong,” said EWG president Richard Wiles. “But these bills do not establish a human health safety standard or public health goal for chemicals of concern or their prospective substitutes. In fact, they are completely devoid of any tangible commitment to protect the health of the people of California.
“They provide a statutory shield for chemical companies who want to delay health protections and preserve the status quo while bureaucrats ponder the problem.”
Read ArticlePollution can make you fat, study claims
Pollution can make you fat, study claims
Date: Sunday, 7 September 2008
Source: The Independent UK
Full Story
Children exposed to pesticide in womb twice as likely to be overweight, refuting idea of sole personal responsibility. Geoffrey Lean reports
Pollution can make children fat, startling new research shows. A groundbreaking Spanish study indicates that exposure to a range of common chemicals before birth sets up a baby to grow up stout, thus helping to drive the worldwide obesity epidemic.
The results of the study, just published – the first to link chemical contamination in the womb with one of the developing world's greatest and fastest-growing health crises – carry huge potential implications for public policy around the globe. They undermine recent strictures from the Conservative leader, David Cameron, that blame solely the obese for their own condition.
A quarter of all British adults and a fifth of children are obese – four times as many as 30 years ago. And so are at least 300 million people worldwide. The main explanation is that they are consuming more calories than they burn. But there is growing evidence that diet and lack of exercise, though critical, cannot alone explain the rapid growth of the epidemic.
It has long been known that genetics give people different metabolisms, making some gain weight more easily than others. But the new study by scientists at Barcelona's Municipal Institute of Medical Research suggests that pollution may similarly predispose people to get fat.
The research, published in the current issue of the journal Acta Paediatrica, measured levels of hexachlorobenzene (HCB), a pesticide, in the umbilical cords of 403 children born on the Spanish island of Menorca, from before birth. It found that those with the highest levels were twice as likely to be obese when they reached the age of six and a half.
HCB, which was mainly used to treat seeds, has been banned internationally since the children were born, but its persistence ensures that it remains in the environment and gets into food.
The importance of the study is not so much in identifying one chemical, as in showing what is likely to be happening as a result of contact with many of them. Its authors call for exposures to similar pesticides to be "minimised".
Experiments have shown that many chemicals fed to pregnant animals cause their offspring to grow up obese. These include organotins, long employed in antifouling paints on ships and now widely found in fish; bisphenol A (BPA), used in baby bottles and to line cans of food, among countless other applications; and phthalates, found in cosmetics, shampoos, plastics to wrap food, and in a host of other everyday products.
These pollutants – dubbed "obesogens" as a result of these findings – are so ubiquitous that almost everyone now has them in their bodies. Ninety-five per cent of Americans excrete BPA in their urine; 90 per cent of babies have been found to be exposed to phthalates in the womb; and every umbilical cord analysed in the new Spanish study was found to contain organchlorine pesticides such as HCB.
Two American studies have implicated phthalates in obesity in adult men, but the new research is much more conclusive, and is the first to show the effects of exposure in the womb, where humans are most vulnerable.
Dr Pete Myers, one of the world's leading experts on obesogens, told The Independent on Sunday last night: "This is very important. It is the first good study of the effects on the foetus. Its conclusions are not surprising, given what we know from the animal experiments, but it firmly links such chemicals to the biggest challenge facing public health today."
No one knows how HCB causes obesity. The Spanish scientists speculate that it may have made the mothers diabetic, which would increase the chances of their children becoming obese (see graphic, above).
Dr Myers, who is chief scientist at the US-based Environmental Health Sciences, which helps to increase public understanding of emerging scientific links, says this is "plausible", but adds that the animal experiments point elsewhere. These have shown that obesogens "switch genes on and off" in the womb, causing stem cells to be turned into fat cells. The children then grow up with a much greater disposition to store and accumulate fat.
Whatever the explanation, the research goes some way to undermining David Cameron's assertion in a speech this summer that obesity is purely a matter of "personal responsibility", a view echoed by his health spokesman, Andrew Lansley 10 days ago. The Tory leader said that the obese are "people who eat too much and take too little exercise".
Dr Myers calls that "wishful ideological thinking which does not accord with biological reality", adding: "We need to discover ways to reduce exposures to these chemicals so that changing diet and lifestyle has a chance to work."
Factors that may pile on the pounds
Why is the world getting so fat? Everyone agrees that people gain weight by taking in more calories in their food than they burn off through everyday activities and exercise. But many scientists are coming to believe that changes in diet and exercise do not sufficiently explain the rapid growth of the epidemic. As 'The Independent on Sunday' reported last week, there has been no reduction in physical activity in Britain since 1980, while obesity rates have quadrupled.
The genetic make-up of a population does not change rapidly enough to provide an explanation. So the hunt is on for other factors that might show why more people are gaining weight more easily.
Life before birth. Both overweight and underweight babies are more likely to grow up fat. So are those born to smokers. Evidence suggests pollution is also predisposing the unborn to obesity. The introduction and increase in the use of such chemicals coincides with the epidemic taking off.
Age of mothers. The chances of becoming obese increase with maternal age. And the average age of first giving birth has gone up by 2.6 years in Britain since 1970.
Less sleep. Both children and adults are more likely to get fat if they get too little sleep, partly because they become hungrier. Average daily sleep has fallen from nine to seven hours over recent decades.
Temperature. People burn up more calories when they are cold. Central heating has ensured that they spend most of their time in comfortable temperatures.
Prescription drugs. Some drugs – including anti-psychotics, antidepressants and treatments for diabetes – cause people to gain weight.
Stopping smoking. Though mothers who smoke may make their children fat, they – and all smokers – are themselves less likely to put on weight. As the habit has decreased, obesity has soared. Read ArticleResearch into wound healing provides animal testing alternatives
Research into wound healing provides animal testing alternatives
Source: Cosmetics Design Europe (full article)
Date: 25 Aug 2008
A human skin equivalent from researchers in Queensland may help the Australian cosmetics industry keep up with Europe’s imminent ban on animal testing.
Scientists from the University of Queensland’s Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation (IHBI) are showcasing their alternative to animal testing at the ‘Show Some Skin’ event held today at the Institute.
Although developed as part of the IHBI’s work into wound healing, the model can also be used to test cosmetics and their ingredients replacing laboratory tests using rats or pigs, one of the Institute’s senior researchers Professor Zoe Upton explained.
"Most people would go to rats and mice for lab testing, but when it comes to testing new wound therapies, or products and cosmetics that go on human skin, pig skin is our closest alternative and is most often used.
"However, this is expensive, the test numbers are limited and of course there are ethical problems to consider, so using a human skin equivalent will reduce this use and possibly give more accurate results," she said.
Skin cells from surgery patients
IHBI’s human skin equivalent uses skin cells from human patients undergoing surgery.
The skin cells are then isolated and processed in the laboratory so that they begin to grow healthily again. Once this occurs they can be brought back together and a human skin equivalent can be reconstructed, explained Upton.
"We deconstruct the skin and its cells and then reconstruct them - we cannot use the skin cut-offs themselves, as they are dying and we need to get the cells back to a state where they are growing healthily again," she said.
The model, which was a finalist in this year’s Museum of Australia’s Eureka Prize for ‘Research that contributes to animal protection’, comes at a particularly important time for the cosmetics industry.
European ban on animal testing
European regulation that bans the testing of cosmetics ingredients on animals will come into force from 2009.
Companies who do not comply with this legislation will not be able to export their products into Europe - losing access to one of the industry’s most significant markets. Read ArticleWomen warned not to wear perfume during pregnancy
Women warned not to wear perfume during pregnancy
Date: 31 August 2008
Source: Scotland on Sunday (full article)
By Kate Foster
PREGNANT women have been advised to avoid using perfumes or scented body creams after research suggested the products can cause unborn boys to suffer infertility or cancer in later life.
Research on rats carried out by Professor Richard Sharpe has found that the reproductive system of male foetuses can be damaged as early as at eight weeks' gestation by chemicals including those found in many cosmetics.
The damage can result in in fertility or testicular cancer "both growing medical problems across the world" said Sharpe, principal investigator at the Medical Research Council's Human Sciences Unit.
Sharpe, who will unveil his findings at a major conference on fertility in Edinburgh this week, has discovered a "time window" at 8 to 12 weeks' gestation - before some women even know they are pregnant - during which certain hormones in the foetus are activated and the male reproductive system is established.
Sharpe has found that future problems with male fertility including undescended testicles, low sperm count and the risk of testicular cancer could be determined at this time if these hormones, such as testosterone, do not work properly.
Experiments on rats have confirmed that if the hormones are blocked the animals suffered fertility problems.
Sharpe told Scotland on Sunday: "We have found the male programming window, which occurs far earlier in foetal development than was previously thought, before the reproductive organs fully develop. This is when the androgens such as testosterone in the foetus are at their most active.
"If the male foetus does not receive enough androgens it may not realise its full reproductive potential, including the size of the penis and testes, undescended testes or the sperm count. The chances are, something will be wrong with the reproductive system. It may be one thing or several things.
"Women could stop using body creams and perfumes. Although we do not have conclusive evidence that they do harm, there are components about which there are question marks; for example it could be certain combinations of chemicals. If you are thinking about how a baby might be exposed, that's one way, and it's something positive you can do. It might have no consequence, but it's something positive women can do for their baby."
Sharpe will reveal his findings this week at the Simpson Symposium in Edinburgh, a gathering of fertility experts organised by Edinburgh University.
Up to 8% of boys are thought to be born with undescended testicles, which is the most common birth defect in boys and is linked to infertility. The condition is also a risk factor for developing testicular cancer later in life.
Sperm quality and number have declined in the last 30 years. About one in seven couples in the UK will have difficulty conceiving at some time. About one third of cases are due to problems in the man.
Testicular cancer is also increasing worldwide by between 1% and 6% a year. The annual number of new cases of testicular cancer in the UK grew from 850 in 1975 to 1,889 in 2004.
However, campaigners urged women not to panic over the suggestion until further studies are conducted.
Susan Seenan, spokeswoman for the charity Infertility Network UK, said: "A lot of women will not even know they are pregnant at this stage, or how far along they are. I would be very concerned about alarming women until these tests have been done on humans. We welcome any new research in infertility but we would like to see a lot more research in this area before the findings on animals can be said for humans."
REMEMBER: Miessence Products have no toxins, no synthetic chemicals and no parabens. Read ArticleAustralian Organic Industry Worth Around 600 Million Dollars
Australian Organic Industry Worth Around 600 Million Dollars
Source: OFA - Organic Federation of Australia - August 2008 Newsletter
Date: August 2008.
The Australian Organic Market Report 2008 shows that the industry is worth almost $600 million with around 30% growth per annum for some sectors since the OFA initiated report in 2004. 2007 farm gate values were estimated to be in excess of $231 m Australian dollars – an 80 % increase on 2004. Major retailers now carry in excess of 500 different organic lines in fresh and grocery categories.
OFA members Dr Paul Kristiansen from the University of New England and Alasdair Smithson of Organic Knowledge conducted the research for Biological Farmers of Australia.
The number of certified organic operators has increased by an annual 5 % average net over the last 5 years. This is in contrast to ABARE figures on all farms in Australia that show a decline in the numbers.
Over 40 % of consumers now buy organic food, which should be compared to research data showing that 86% of consumers oppose GMOs.
Australia still has largest amount of certified organic farmland in the world, 11,988,044 hectares, the majority of which is used for sustainable rangelands grazing.
NASAA certifies around half of this making it the biggest certifier in the world for land area.
The report is available at: www.bfa.com.au Read ArticleClear Evidence of the Health-Promoting Benefits of Vitamins and Antioxidants
Clear Evidence of the Health-Promoting Benefits of Vitamins and Antioxidants
Date: August 2008
Source: The Scoop (http://www.organic-center.org/)
Between 25 and 40 million people in Bangladesh rely on water contaminated with natural sources of arsenic, increasing the prevalence of skin lesions and a range of cancers.
A U.S. team of researchers has found that individuals in Bangladesh consuming diets rich in vitamins and antioxidants enjoy up to a 68% reduction in risk of skin lesions triggered by exposure to arsenic in drinking water.
Source: Lydia B. Zablotska et al., "Protective Effects of B Vitamins and Antioxidants on the Risk of Arsenic-Related Skin Lesions in Bangladesh," Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 116, No. 8,
The Scoop's Editor's Note:-
The Center is often asked whether there is any solid evidence that shows that consuming a diet rich in vitamins and antioxidants actually improves health. Despite hundreds of studies that suggest they do promote health, skeptics remain. Studies like this one in Bangladesh answer this question in another way - by focusing on the impact of diet in a population with a clear cut, easy to measure health problem. In many cases, this sort of study produces solid evidence of a protective effect of some drug or intervention in the face of a recognized health problem.
But does this study in Bangladesh have any relevance to environmental risks and diet-health connections in the U.S.? Very few Americans are drinking arsenic-contaminated water, so no, there is little direct relevance. Still these findings are significant, because they show the great potential in promoting health and preventing disease from attainable increases in vitamin and antioxidant intakes.
While few of us suffer from arsenic in our drinking water, the American public is far less healthy than should be the case, given our wealth, health care system, and access to abundant, high quality foods. While calories are consumed in excess by most American, vitamins and antioxidants are not. Indeed, the average American ingests only about one-third the antioxidants needed on a daily basis to maximize the chances of healthy development and graceful aging.
Consuming organic fruits and vegetables will likely increase average daily vitamin and antioxidant intakes by at least a third, in contrast to eating the same conventional fruits and vegetables. Couple choosing organic with new determination to seek out brightly colored or dark, antioxidant-rich foods, picked ripe and consumed fresh, and a person can easily more than triple daily antioxidant intakes and by doing so, go a long way toward preserving good health, even in the face of the bugs, stresses, contaminants, and strains of modern life. Maybe not arsenic, but surely something else. Read ArticleMoisturizer use linked to skin cancer
Moisturizer use linked to skin cancer
Date: 18 August 2008
Author: Guy Montague-Jones
Source: CosmeticsDesign (click here for full story)
Scientists have linked a batch of commonly used moisturizing creams to skin cancer in mice but remain guarded about the implications for human use.
Researchers at Rutgers University, New Jersey, applied four widely used moisturizers to mice every day for several months and then exposed the animals to UVB radiation.
In a study published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology they found the number of non-melanoma tumors was significantly higher in the mice treated with cream than the control group.
Different products, different results
Significant differences were also observed between the moisturizers.
Dermabase by Paddock Laboratories, Dermovan by Healthpoint, Eucerin Original Moisturizing Cream by Beiersdorf and Vanicream by Pharmaceutical Specialties were all put under the microscope.
Tumor rates increased 95 percent with Dermovan and only 24 percent with Eucerin leading the scientists to conclude that certain ingredients were responsible for the higher risk levels.
They prepared a custom blend without several suspect ingredients such as sodium lauryl sulfate and found that cancer rates were significantly lower.
Doubts about relevence to humans
Leading study author Allan Conney said further studies were needed to determine whether the conclusions could be extended to apply to humans exposed to sunlight.
Rodent skin is far more sensitive than human skin and for the purposes of the experiment strong UVB light rather than natural sunlight was used to test the effect of moisturizer use.
"Tumorigenic Effect of Some Commonly Used Moisturizing Creams when Applied Topically to UVB-Pretreated High-Risk Mice."
Read ArticleBFA introduces the first Australian organic market data available for four years
BFA introduces the first Australian organic market data available for four years
Date: Thursday 14 August 2008
Source: The Organic Advantage - Edition 105 (click here for full story)
BFA has released the first local Australian organic industry data for four years, with figures unveiling an optimistic outlook for an energetic sector in years ahead.
The report found the value returned to organic producers at farm-gate has increased by 80% since 2004, despite tough climatic conditions and drought. On the other side of the fence, the industry’s retail value broke through the $0.5B for the first time to reach a figure of approximately $623 million.
Other key report findings include:
* Australia retains the largest amount of certified organic land area in the world (approx. 11.8 million ha), most of which is found in vast grazing regions in South West QLD
* Organic farmers on average are younger than non-organic
* Horticulture remains a mainstay of the industry, accounting for two thirds of total organic farmers, and representing up to half of the total organic farmgate value in Australia.
* The organic vegetable, herb and nursery production sector is the highest valued in the industry overall, followed by organic fruit & wine, and organic beef sectors
* The industry has witnessed an increase in strategic market alliances and market groups
* The organic industry is consolidating and the average size of organic farms has increased – there is a trend towards professional farming at a larger scale (though t still well under non-organic farm enterprise levels for most sectors).
* Major supermarkets now stock more than 500 organic products in various category lines
* 40% of consumers now buy organic food on occasion
* Woman are the primary purchasers of organic food
* Fresh fruit and vegetables remain the most common point of entry for newcomers purchasing organic food
The Organic Market Report 2008 was commissioned by BFA and independently researched by The University of New England’s Organic Research Centre.
Doug Haas, BFA Group Chair says the report will allow everyone from governments to organic businesses to banks to glean a better understanding, and make an assessment of, the current market status of organic in Australia.
" Long anticipated, it has been some four years now since industry has enjoyed a document of this kind. The report will identify potential growth areas for investment, report on areas of significance and map future development going forward.
" Moving forward, these documents will continue to be used as yardsticks for measuring industry’s growth. The BFA will continue to commission similar independent surveys and research documents with the support of industry well into the future” he says.
Support for the report from the Federal government and six state governments (NSW, Tas, WA, SA, Vic and Qld), as well as from major report sponsor Westpac Agribusiness is evidence of the increasingly recognised value of the organic sector by major agricultural players in years to come.
Barry Ruddy, Westpac National Manager, Agribusiness Banking says Westpac is committed to managing its impact on the environment and supporting initiatives with high environmental benefit.
"Westpac Agribusiness is a strong supporter of research into organic and sustainable farming systems and industries, given the importance of contributing to a sustainable and viable future for Australian farming" he said.
"We also recognise the substantial emerging opportunities of organic and sustainable farming for agribusinesses across Australia. Sustainable practices are an important part of the way Westpac does business, and we're keen to help businesses manage the risks and capitalise on these new products and market."
Dr. Andrew Monk, BFA Director and Standards Chair, says the Australian organic industry has come of age in the past five years and is in a strong position to move forwards.
While most agriculture has suffered in recent years from drought and floods, many sectors of the organic industry have recovered to be able to consolidate and expand.
Such rapid growth is likely to be attributed to a combination of consumer driven interest in purchasing organic products in line with trends overseas, as well as possibly the naturally more resilient nature of organically well-managed soils, enabling faster recovery following extreme dry or wet weather periods alike.
Dr Monk says it is intended the research will be commissioned every two years from 2008 with underwriting support from BFA and matching support from industry and governments. Read ArticleWhy Scented Products (Fakegrances) Are Not Safe
Why Scented Products (Fakegrances) Are Not Safe
Date: Monday, August 11, 2008
By: Virginia Hopkins
Source: Natural News (click here for full article)
If all fake fragrances (I call them fakegrances) were banned tomorrow, the world would be a dramatically healthier place by the following day. That’s not going to happen, but the more people who refuse to use them in any form, the faster they’ll disperse (so to speak). But watch out, those who manufacture products containing fakegrances are sneaky. The word 'unscented' usually means that fragrances have been used to cover up fragrances. To actually avoid fragrances you have to look for the words 'fragrance free' on the label.
By fake fragrances I mean that they're not found in nature. Oh sure, they may smell like a rose, or mint, or apple, but what goes into creating that aroma has nothing to do with the flower or fruit. Virtually all perfumes, scented laundry soaps and fabric softeners, so-called air fresheners (they should be called air poisoners) and many cleaning products are scented with fakegrances. Even dry cleaners are getting into the act, handing back clothes that are clean, pressed and exuding fragrance.
Perfumes are All Fake
Well, almost all. Unless they’re pure essential oils, they’re made from a nasty brew of dozens if not hundreds of chemicals which are, of course, a secret. For example, the benzene family of chemicals tends to have a sweetish aroma that is very popular among perfumers. The benzenes are petroleum-based, so they’re cheap, easy to come by, and, by the way, a known cause of leukemia. It was one thing when a woman spritzed some benzene on her wrist before a romantic evening, but it’s quite another when it’s everywhere from clothes to cars to the restroom in the dentist’s office.
Or how about those phthalates, plastics that can interfere with the normal sexual development of a fetus or infant. Phthalates have recently been banned from toys in California which is great, but how about clothes and bed sheets? Apparently phthalates make perfumes stick around longer so they’re in just about everything scented.
Asthmatics Should Look for Fakegrances as Causes
I don’t want to downplay those good old-fashioned allergens such as ragweed and cats, but according to the Environmental Working Group, "Fragrance formulas are considered to be among the top five known allergens and can trigger asthma attacks." Are doctors giving this information to their asthmatic patients? Not very often.
I’ll bet you didn’t know that many processed foods contain fakegrances. Take for example diacetyl, a chemical that gives microwave popcorn its buttery flavor and aroma, and also causes serious lung disease when heated and inhaled frequently. Diacetyl is being phased out of microwave popcorn, but not before many popcorn factory workers were permanently disabled by it. Now it might take a lot of microwave popcorn fumes to knock down an adult, but how about a child with asthma?
For optimal health, it’s important to avoid fakegrances, and it’s also important to speak up if they’re in a public area. You’ll be amazed at how many other people will suddenly admit they hate fakegrances when you speak up. If someone in your workplace is using heavy perfume, or there’s a so-called air freshener in the restroom, do something about it. You have a right to breathe clean air.
How about products that claim to be "natural scented"? Sorry about that, but 'naturally scented' means absolutely nothing. It probably smells like something in nature such as apple or rose or jasmine, but it’s likely made from the same old nasty chemical brew, complete with carcinogens, xenohormones and allergens. The only way to be sure that a scented product is for real is to read the label. If it says, 'pure essential oils' or 'lavender oil' for example, it’s the genuine article.
Read ArticleBabies absorb chemicals from shampoo
BABIES ASBORB CHEMICALS FROM SHAMPOO
Date: Tuesday, 5 February 2008
Source: Catalyst (click here for full story)
Parents are advised to limit their baby's exposure to shampoo, lotions and powder after a new study found chemicals from babycare products in their urine
Baby lotion, powder and shampoo can lead to higher concentrations in an infant's body of phthalates, chemicals linked to allergies and altered reproductive development, a US study shows.
The study conducted at the University of Washington and Seattle Children's Hospital Research Institute found that babies treated with common babycare products such as lotion, shampoo, and powder were more likely to have phthalates in their urine than other babies.
But more research is needed to determine if exposing very young children to phthalates is linked with reproductive or other problems, says the study published online in the journal Pediatrics.
Phthalates are chemicals commonly found in personal care and other household products, including plastic children's toys, lubricants and chemical stabilisers in cosmetics and personal care products.
Animal studies of phthalates have found that they can harm reproductive system development, and studies in humans have found that prenatal exposure or exposure through breast milk can alter hormone concentrations, the study says.
Researchers measured the levels of nine different phthalates in urine samples collected from 163 infants, aged 2 months to 28 months.
The team also asked the babies' mothers to fill out questionnaires on their use of babycare products in the previous 24 hours.
The scientists found that at least one phthalate in every baby's urine sample, and that using baby powder, lotion and shampoo were strongly associated with higher phthalate levels in the urine.
Pthalates present included monethyl, monomethyl and monoisobutyl phthalates.
This association was strongest in young infants under 8 months old who the report says may be more vulnerable to developmental and reproductive toxic effects.
Troubling
Lead author Dr Sheela Sathyanarayana, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington medical school, describes the findings as "troubling".
"Babies may be more at risk than children or adults because their reproductive, endocrine and immune systems are still developing," she says.
She adds that phthalate exposure in early childhood has been associated with altered hormone concentrations as well as increased allergies, runny nose and eczema.
"If parents want to decrease exposures for their children, they can try to use lotions, shampoo, and baby powder sparingly unless otherwise indicated for a medical reason," Sathyanarayana suggests.
In 2006, the European Union banned the use of six phthalate softeners in PVC toys designed to be placed in the mouth by children younger than three.
Remember: Miessence Mother & Baby Range is free from fragrance, allergens and semi-naturals. There is no toxins, no synthetic chemicals & no parabens.
Read ArticleSuperior Nutrient Content Reported in Organic Blueberries
Superior Nutrient Content Reported in Organic Blueberries
Date: July 2008
Source: The Scope - The Organic Centre Newsletter
http://www.organic-center.org/news_archive/thescoop_july08.htm
The Bluecrop variety of highbush blueberries were grown on five organic and conventional farms in New Jersey. The farms shared comparable soils and weather conditions, and the berries were harvested in precisely the same way. The scientists carrying out the study are based at the USDA's Genetic Improvement of Fruits and Vegetables Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland, and at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
The team found consistent and significant differences in nutrient content. The organic blueberries contained 46 ORAC units, a measure of total antioxidant capacity, while the conventional berries contained 31 ORAC units.
Accordingly, the organic berries had over 50% more total antioxidant activity. They also contained about 50% higher levels of total anthocyanins, the natural plant phytochemicals that give blueberries their dark color.
The organic blueberries also had 67% more total phenolics. The authors' concluding sentence reads:
"Blueberries produced from organic culture contained significantly higher amounts of phytonutrients than those produced from conventional culture."
Source: S.H. Wang et al., "Fruit Quality, Antioxidant Capacity, and Flavonoid Content of Organically and Conventionally Grown Blueberries," Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, published on web July 1, 2008.
Remember..... Nutritionists recommend we consume around 5000 ORAC units per day.
One serving of Berry Radical contains over 7000 ORAC units.
1 Box of 30 sachets contains 217,200 ORAC units.
Click here to read more about Berry Radical Read ArticleThe Federal government releases Green Paper
Title: The Federal government releases Green Paper
Date: July 2008
Source: Department of Climate Change
Website: www.climatechange.gov.au
The Federal Government has released its proposed scheme to address the future of carbon emissions in Australia. Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, launched the Green Paper on 16 July at the National Press Club in Canberra.
"Placing a limit and a price on pollution will change the things we produce, the way we produce them and the things we buy," Wong said.
"In this Green Paper the Government has sought to strike the right balance on the basis of economically responsible policy in the national interest."
The Green Paper proposes an emissions trading scheme that will incorporate the majority of industrial sectors, including forestry. The emissions trading scheme will set a pollution cap for the nation and will then sell permits on auction. Set to begin in 2010 and some of the intended heavier hit industries, such as aluminium and cement manufacturers, will receive a majority of their permits for free.
The plan targets companies that emit more than 25,000 tonnes of CO2 a year, which includes about 1000 businesses internationally. At present, these businesses account for about 75 per cent of total emissions in the nation.
To ease the anticipated strain on the economy, the plan also includes a "cent for cent" reduction of the fuel excise tax to help mitigate the imminent rise of petrol prices. This goes against the recommendations of Prof. Ross Garnaut in his draft Climate Change report released on 4 July.
Click here for a Summary
Click here to read more from the Department of Climate Change Read ArticleKid-Safe Chemicals Act
Title: Kid-Safe Chemicals Act
Author: By Katie Bird
Date: May, 2008
Source: Environmental Working Group
Website: www.ewg.org/kidsafe
"Please don't tell me a pre-polluted baby is just fine."
--Julie Deardorf, Chicago Tribune, 2005
Why We Need The Kid-Safe Chemicals Act
The nation's toxic chemical regulatory law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, is in drastic need of reform. Passed in 1976 and never amended since, TSCA is widely regarded as the weakest of all major environmental laws on the books today.
When passed, the Act declared safe some 62,000 chemicals already on the market, even though there were little or no data to support this policy. Since that time another 20,000 chemicals have been put into commerce in the United States, also with little or no data to support their safety.
The human race is now polluted with hundreds of industrial chemicals with little or no understanding of the consequences. Babies are born pre-polluted with as many as 300 industrial chemicals in their bodies when they enter the world. Testing by Environmental Working Group has identified 455 chemicals in people, and again, no one has any idea if these exposures are safe.
We are at a tipping point, where the pollution in people is increasingly associated with a range of serious diseases and conditions from childhood cancer, to autism, ADHD, learning deficits, infertility, and birth defects. Yet even as our knowledge about the link between chemical exposure and human disease grows, the government has almost no authority to protect people from even the most hazardous chemicals on the market.
The Campaign: Pass the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act (KSCA)
This pollution of people is the direct result of a law that does not require chemicals to be proven safe to get on the market, or stay on the market. Under the current toothless law, EPA does not have the authority to demand the information it needs to evaluate a chemical's risk, and neither manufacturers nor the EPA are required to prove a chemical's safety as a condition of use.
The Kid-Safe Chemical Act will change all this through a fundamental overhaul of our nation's chemical regulatory law. Specifically, the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act:
* requires that industrial chemicals be safe for infants, kids and other vulnerable groups;
* requires that new chemicals be safety tested before they are sold;
* requires chemical manufacturers to test and prove that the 62,000 chemicals already on the market that have never been tested are safe in order for them to remain in commerce;
* requires EPA to review "priority" chemicals, those which are found in people, on an expedited schedule;
* requires regular biomonitoring to determine what chemicals are in people and in what amounts;
* requires regular updates of health and safety data and provides EPA with clear authority to request additional information and tests;
* provides incentives for manufacturers to further reduce health hazards;
* requires EPA to promote safer alternatives and alternatives to animal testing;
* protects state and local rights; and
* requires that this information be publicly available.
Through the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act we can give our children a safer and healthier future. Read ArticleCalifornia files lawsuit against mislabelled cosmetics
Title: California files lawsuit against mislabelled cosmetics
Author: By Katie Bird
Date: June 11, 2008
Source: Cosmetic Design
Website: http://cosmeticsdesign.com/news/ng.asp?id=85853
The Attorney General of California has filed a lawsuit against a number of natural personal care companies whose products allegedly contain levels of a carcinogenic compound.
Avalon Natural products, which manufactures Alba, Un-petroleum and Avalon Organics brands, has been accused of failing to warn consumers that its products contain 1,4-Dioxane.
Consumers not warned about compound
Under the state's Proposition 65 consumer products should not expose consumers to chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without giving clear and reasonable warning.
The Attorney General of California has accused Avalon Natural, along with the Whole Foods Market California, Beaumont Products and Nutribiotic of failing to give clear and reasonable warning of the presence of 1,4-Dioxane in their products.
According to the Organic Consumers Association the lawsuit is a reaction to a study released by the association back in March, in addition to the state's own testing.
The OCA's campaign highlighted a number of 'fake' natural and organic brands that were found to contain the offending compound which is a by product of ethylene oxide, often used as a surfactant.
"The OCA's 1,4-dioxane study elevated the issue of fake 'natural' and 'organic' brands that utilize petrochemicals in their formulas in March, and now we are seeing labelling enforcement on a scale we have never seen before," said OCA national director Ronnie Cummins.
Although the OCA is unaware of the particular products that have prompted the lawsuit it stated that all the named companies have sold products that tested close to or in excess of 20 parts per million for 1,4-Dioxane in the OCA study.
In July 2007 the FDA released a comment stating that 1,4-dioxane does not pose a hazard to consumers at levels seen it has seen in the monitoring of cosmetics products.
No one at the FDA was available for comment regarding the Californian lawsuit.
Misleading organic branding
This is not the first time the state of California has seen a lawsuit filed over mislabelling cosmetics products.
Earlier this spring Dr Bronner's Magic Soaps filed a lawsuit in the superior court of California against a number of leading organic and natural brands and two certification bodies regarding the 'mislabelling' of products as organic, but contained conventional petrochemical or agricultural ingredients.
"We have been deeply disappointed and frustrated by companies in the 'natural' personal care space who have been screwing over organic consumers, engaging in misleading organic branding and label call-outs on products that were not natural in the first place, let alone organic," said president of Dr Bronner's Magic Soaps David Bronner.
The company and the Organic Consumer Association (OCA) had previously warned the brands that if they did not drop organic claims or reformulate their products they would face litigation.
However this approach failed to achieve the desired affect, according to the OCA.
"The pressure of imminent litigation outlines in cease and desist letters sent by OCA and Dr Bronner's in March prompted some serious discussion with some of the offending companies, but ultimately failed to resolve the core issues," said executive director Ronnie Cummins. Read ArticleGlobal Organic Growth - an update by Dr Ajay Shah
Title: Global Organic Growth - an update
Author: By Ajay Shah
Date: May 12, 2008
Source: BFA Organic Advantage Newsletter
Website: http://news.bfa.com.au/listmanager/display.php?List=1&N=15
Demand for organic foods continues to grow, reflecting accelerating rates of new product activity. Organic remains the fastest growing sector of the food industry. There were over 2,900 global organic food and drink launches recorded in the Innova Database (www.innovadatabase.com) in the first ten months of 2007, up from just over 2,600 in the January to October 2006 period. This was up in turn was up from 1,919 in the first 10 months of 2005.
The global market for organic foods is valued at about US$40bn a year, more than double the 2000 total.
The market is currently still highly geographically concentrated, however, with North America and Western Europe accounting for over 90% of global market value.
The UK has one of the largest markets in Europe, thanks to a series of nightmarish food scares, although estimates of its size vary from just over GB £1bn to nearly £2bn, depending on the definition and extent of coverage of alternative retail channels.
Fresh produce traditionally dominated the market, but has now been overtaken by dairy products, where sales of organic lines now stand at about £300m a year.
Sales in organic food in the UK increased by over 30% in 2005 to almost £1.6bn, an average weekly gain of £7m according to the UK Soil Association (British Certifying Body). For comparison, the current annual growth of all UK food and drink sales is around 3%. The UK may have one of the largest markets in Europe, but it trails well behind the US in terms of sheer size.
US sales of organic foods are expected to reach US$20bn in 2007, equivalent to over 3% of total retail food sales.
Fresh produce accounts for a leading share of the market, with about one quarter of the total value, but processed foods are demonstrating a better growth rate, reflecting the rising demand for convenience organic alternatives to standard lines. Organic dairy lines are less significant in terms of their market share than in Europe, with about 10% of the market.
In both countries, the market is being extended via the addition of organic products to standard brand lines of food and through the launch of specialist organic brands both by mainstream and specialist food companies. This has been critical to the overall expansion of organics.
The largest increases in organic food production have been in Asia, Africa and Latin America. All three regions have reported triple digit growth figures in organic farmland since 2000. Japan and Singapore are emerging markets projected to show rapid growth rates.
The Australian organic food industry has experienced strong growth as the number of certified organic operators increased 200% between the period 2000 to 2003 from 850 to 2,500.
Produce is not all sold on the Australian market, but approximately 40% is destined for export. Demand for organic food has grown over the past 5 years but is unable to mirror the growth of the UK, where food safety incidents have driven the desire for more naturally produced products. Australia’s clean and green image will stymie the growth of the organic sector at home.
The prospects for organic food and drink are looking very bright globally and are expected to increase in retail sales value by 50% over the next 5 years. The key factors that need to be considered are the ethical or health impulses of consumers that drive this growth, which will determine the feasibility of the market’s long term future.
References:
1. Innova Database
2. Hilliam, M (2007)
Organic Growth Continues,
The World of Food Ingredients, December, pp11-12
Dr Ajay Shah is the Director of AAS Food Technology Pty Ltd.
Email: ajay@aasfood.com
Web: www.aasfood.com Read ArticleThe changing face of organic cosmetics
Title: The changing face of organic cosmetics
Date: April 22, 2008
Source: BFA Organic Advantage Newsletter
Website: http://news.bfa.com.au/listmanager/display.php?List=1&N=11
The market for organic cosmetics is growing and industry commentators predict "2008 will be a defining year for the natural cosmetics industry."
According to a recent report from Organic Monitor, this is the year widespread adoption of natural & organic standards will begin, clearing the currently blurred lines between legitimate natural / organic products and pseudo products.
Regulatory activity is intensifying in the EU and leading European certification agencies will unveil a new European standard in June 2008, after working on the harmonisation of private standards for over a year. Standards implementation is due by the end of the year leading to uniform regulation of certified natural & organic cosmetic products for the first time.
Organic cosmetic growth in the U.S is strong and Austrade predicts retail sales of natural and organic skincare, hair care and cosmetics in the US will reach around $7.9 billion by 2009.
The growth of separate private standards in the US is reportedly of some concern, with a number of representative groups developing their own regulatory guides for release this year.
The impact of natural & organic standards on the cosmetics industry will be debated at the upcoming Natural Beauty Summit America (New York, May 15-17).
Improvements to the regulation of cosmetics in Australia in the past year include the addition of a distinct cosmetic standard to the Australian Organic Standard (AOS).
"The AOS now includes a well regulated and precise set of requirements for cosmetics, compared to previous strongly food based standards," says BFA cosmetic sub-committee chair Akiko Nicholls.
"Meeting these new requirements does present a greater challenge to cosmetics manufacturers, but there are Australian Certified Organic clients who have overcome those challenges and (in doing so) are delivering products at a high standard actively sought by consumers."
Eliza McGivern, marketing manager of Australia’s Sydney Essential Oil Co. says the business, which specialises in trade sales of personal care and cosmetic ingredients, is experiencing growth. But she adds there are obstacles to overcome before cosmetics can enjoy the rapid climb experienced by the organic food sector.
"Growth of organic cosmetic products has been weak in comparison to organic food, as the manufacturing standard has only recently been made specific to cosmetics."
"Nevertheless, demand for the product is increasing and manufacturers are investing in more R&D to make compliant product that also meets the aesthetic demands of the consumer," she says.
Ms. McGivern says other challenges in the cosmetic sector include:
* Ingredient availability and cost - "availability depends on the season and seasonal
price rises can occur on top of products already at a premium"
* Product development - "organic (natural) ingredients perform uniquely and cannot
simply be substituted for conventional cosmetic chemical ingredients, so extensive
R&D is necessary"
* Marketing claims - "Products touted as ‘contains organic' are not truly compliant
organic products. Those who do pursue and achieve fully compliant certified status
can find themselves competing on an unlevel playing field in the marketplace and we
do see evidence of this"
Ms. Nicholls says preservatives and emulsifiers have presented particular problems in cosmetics regulation.
"We have formed the BFA Cosmetics Sub-committee which allows us to assess ingredient proposals and issues on a case by case basis. Our organic cosmetic standard is still developing and we welcome industry feedback," she says.
Ms. McGivern says the approval of several emulsifiers and preservatives will open up sector opportunities.
"Production of organic cosmetic products will increase and a full assortment of personal care products will be available at the highest certification level," she predicts.
International cosmetic opportunity has organics covered
Austrade have reported substantial opportunities for the export of all natural, organic and high end luxury cosmetic products to key markets.
These markets include Spain - where specialty cosmetics retail sales have risen 13 per cent since 1998 - and France, where there is reportedly an increasing trend for ‘cosmebio’ (organic cosmetic labels). Environmental concerns are of prime importance to cosmetic and toiletries manufacturing companies in France with a key focus on recycling, biodegradable products and packaging, and replacement of harmful ingredients.
Some opportunities are reported in the Phillipines (one of Asia's fastest growing markets for cosmetic and wellness products). Austrade says Filipinos are starting to appreciate organic and all natural products - however, say heavy introductory marketing such as educational seminars and free samples are required.
In the U.S, growth in retail sales of natural and organic skincare, hair care and cosmetics is expected to be strong (retail sales predicted around $7.9 billion by 2009).
Health warnings, environmental concerns, ethical buying concerns, therapy awareness and organic attitudes have all contributed to growth in popularity.
What other trends are there in cosmetics?
According to Austrade, niche category lines are faring well. Organic could be marketed in combination with the following trends:
- Increasing popularity of men’s lifestyle products
- Rising sales of anti-ageing products to baby boomers
- Increasing popularity of distinct youth products
- Ultra niche products including those containing botanical extracts, plant acids, enzymes,
herbs, vitamins, proteins, and food ingredients.
- Cosmeceuticals - one of the strongest trends in the cosmetics market, also subject to
confusion and ambiguity in regulation and labelling. Cosmeceuticals are 'functional
products', aiming to combine personal care with some of the benefits of medical or over-
the-counter/ drug products. Some cosmeceuticals are naturally derived and some are
synthetic. Read ArticleGovernment sued after approving 4 pesticides
Title: Government sued after approving 4 pesticides
Date: April 8, 2008
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/08/BA6P101C4R.DTL
Environmental and farmworker advocates have sued the Bush administration for allowing the continued use of four pesticides, saying the government brushed aside its own findings that the chemicals are dangerous to workers, children and wildlife.
The suit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, challenged the Environmental Protection Agency's decision in 2006 to reauthorize the four pesticides sprayed on fruit and vegetable fields in California.
A 1996 federal law required the EPA to reassess the safety of all pesticides used on foods and decide by 2006 whether to approve their use. Patti Goldman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said the agency found that four substances posed risks to human health but concluded their cost savings to growers outweighed the dangers.
"These four pesticides put thousands of farmworkers and their families at risk of serious illness every year," said Goldman, of the nonprofit firm Earthjustice.
EPA spokesman Tim Lyons said the agency would review the lawsuit and respond in court. Lyons declined to comment on the EPA's decision to approve the pesticides, but said, "Our mission is to protect the environment and human health."
California officials have classified one of the pesticides, ethoprop, as a cancer-causing substance. The state requires manufacturers to disclose that risk on product labels but cannot ban the pesticide because of the EPA approval. The suit said the pesticide, used mainly on potatoes, sugarcane and tobacco, has been linked to fish kills and has also drifted from fields into rural communities.
Another substance, methidathion, was listed as an air contaminant by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation earlier this year because of potential health hazards. It is used on artichokes, oranges, almonds, peaches and olives, mostly in California.
The other two pesticides are methamidophos, used mostly on potatoes and cotton, and oxydemeton-methyl, used on broccoli, lettuce, cauliflower, corn, cabbage and Brussels sprouts. The suit said both have been associated with bird kills. Methamidophos has been banned or severely restricted in several countries, and oxydemeton-methyl is linked to birth defects, according to the suit.
"We're relying on EPA's findings that the risks were too high," said Goldman, the plaintiffs' lawyer.
She said federal law allows the agency to approve continued use of risky pesticides based on offsetting benefits, including cost savings. But Goldman said the EPA failed to address the particular danger each pesticide poses to children, or to take adequate account of the potential harms to birds and fish as well as farmworkers.
The suit seeks a court order requiring the agency to re-evaluate the pesticides. Plaintiffs include the United Farm Workers, the Teamsters, Pesticide Action Network North America, Beyond Pesticides and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Read ArticleVitamin pills 'increase risk of early death'
Title: Vitamin pills are no substitute for healthy diet
Date: April 16, 2008
Source: Telegraph.co.uk
Website: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/16/scivita116.xml
Popular vitamin supplements taken by millions of people in the hope of improving their health may do no good and could increase the risk of a premature death, researchers report today.
Vitamin pills are no substitute for healthy diet
Have your say: Do we rely on vitamins too much?
They warn healthy people who take antioxidant supplements, including vitamins A and E, to try to keep diseases such as cancer at bay that they are interfering with their natural body defences and may be increasing their risk of an early death by up to 16 per cent.
Researchers at Copenhagen University carried out a review of 67 studies on 230,000 healthy people and found "no convincing evidence" that any of the antioxidants helped to prolong life expectancy. But some "increased mortality".
About 12 million Britons supplement their diets with vitamins and the industry is worth £330 million. But little research has been done on the long-term health implications.
The Department of Health said yesterday that people should try to get the vitamins they need by eating a balanced diet and advised care in taking large doses of supplements.
A spokesman said: "There is a need to exercise caution in the use of high doses of purified supplements of vitamins, including antioxidant vitamins, and minerals. Their impact on long-term health may not have been fully established and they cannot be assumed to be without risk.
"Anyone concerned about their diet should speak to their doctor or dietitian."
Antioxidants, including vitamins A, E, C and beta-carotene and selenium, are said to mop up compounds, called free radicals, which cause disease. It is this action that researchers believe may cause problems with the defence system.
The Danish research, released by the influential Cochrane Library, applied only to synthetic supplements and not to vitamins that occur naturally in vegetables and fruit.
It found that vitamin A supplements increased the risk of death in healthy people by 16 per cent. Taking beta-carotene was linked to a 7 per cent increased risk, while regular users of vitamin E supplements increased the risk of an early death by four per cent.
Although the review found no significant detrimental effect caused by vitamin C, it found no evidence that it helped ward off disease. Millions take it in the hope of avoiding a common cold.
Goran Bjelakovic, who led the review, said: "We could find no evidence to support taking antioxidant supplements to reduce the risk of dying earlier in healthy people or patients with various diseases.
"If anything, people in trial groups given the antioxidants beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E showed increased rates of mortality."
But Patrick Holford, a nutritionist who has formulated supplements for the company Biocare, said: "Antioxidants are not meant to be magic bullets and should not be expected to undo a lifetime of unhealthy habits.
"When used properly, in combination with a healthy diet full of fruit and vegetables, getting plenty of exercise and not smoking, antioxidant supplements can play an important role in maintaining and promoting overall health."
A spokesman for the Health Supplements Information Service said: "People should get all the vitamins and minerals they need from their diet, but for the millions who are not able to do that, vitamins can be a useful supplement and they should not stop taking them."
However, Catherine Collins, of the British Dietetic Association, said: "This study is deeply worrying and shows that there should be more regulation for vitamins and minerals.
"The public can buy vitamins as easily as sweets. They should be treated in the same way as paracetamol with maximum limits on the dosage." Read ArticleOrganic farming mitigates climate change
Title: Organic farming mitigates climate change
Date: April 21, 2008
Source: Stock & Land
Website: http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/organic-farming-mitigates-climate-change/85276.aspx
A 30 year scientific trial shows that organic practices could counteract up to 40pc of global greenhouse gas output.
Organic Federation of Australia chairman, Andre Leu, claims the trial of organic and conventional farming practices has proved that organic practices "can be the single biggest way to mitigate climate change".
"Scientists at the Rodale Institute in the US have proved that organic farming practices can remove about 7000kg of carbon dioxide from the air each year and sequester it in a hectare of farmland," Mr Leu said.
According to Mr Leu, the scientists estimated that if all of America's 100 million hectares of cropland were converted to organic practices, it would be the equivalent of taking 217 million cars off the road.
This is nearly 88pc of all cars in the US and more than a third of all the cars in the world.
Dr Paul Hepperly, PhD, research director at The Rodale Institute and Fulbright Scholar stated: "We've shown that organic practices can do better than anyone thought at sequestering carbon, and could counteract up to 40pc of global greenhouse gas output."
Mr Leu said it was important to note that the research that the amount of CO2 sequestered was based on what had already been achieved through current organic farming practices.
"This is not a theoretical estimate as in some of the tree plantation models or unproven like the millions of dollars being spent clean coal or mechanical geo sequestration trials," he said.
"This is being achieved now by organic farmers in the US, Australia and around the world."