Children's bath products are often marketed as safe and gentle. However, laboratory tests commissioned by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics found these products are commonly contaminated with formaldehyde or 1,4-dioxane – and, in many cases, both. These two chemicals, linked to cancer and skin allergies, are anything but safe and gentle and are completely unregulated in children's bath products. The Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) oversees the safety of personal care products in the U.S., but lacks basic authority needed to ensure that products are actually safe. The FDA cannot require companies to test products for safety before they are sold, does not systematically review the safety of ingredients and does not set limits for common, harmful contaminants in products. The FDA also does not require contaminants to be listed on product ingredient labels.1 As a result, consumers have no way of knowing if their products contain toxic contaminants. This report is the first to document the widespread contamination of children's products with formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1,4-dioxane is a probable carcinogen.2 The federal Consumer Product Safety Commission states that "the presence of 1,4-dioxane, even as a trace contaminant, is cause for concern."3 1,4-dioxane is a byproduct of a chemical processing technique called ethoxylation used to make petroleum-based cosmetic ingredients gentler to the skin. Manufacturers can easily remove the toxic byproduct, but are not required to under federal cosmetic safety standards. Formaldehyde is a probable carcinogen, according to the EPA,4 though the risk of cancer from absorption through the skin is not fully understood.5 The chemical can also trigger adverse skin reactions in children and adults who are sensitive to the chemical.6-9 Contact dermatitis specialists recommend that children avoid exposure to products containing formaldehyde.10 Formaldehyde contaminates personal care products when common preservatives called formaldehyde releasers break down over time in the container. None of the products tested list formaldehyde or 1,4-dioxane on the ingredient label. They are not added to products intentionally, but are toxic byproducts of chemical manufacturing and product formulation. To better understand the extent of the problem, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and its partner Environmental Working Group sent samples of popular children's bath products to Analytical Sciences, an independent laboratory in Petaluma, Calif., to be tested. The products chosen for testing contained ingredients commonly associated with 1,4-dioxane or formaldehyde contamination.11 61% of the children's bath products tested for this report contained both formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane. We tested 48 products for 1,4-dioxane. From that batch, we also tested 28 of those products for formaldehyde. Highlights of results from the independent lab tests include: Multiple Contaminants: Formaldehyde: 1,4-dioxane: As this report shows, dozens of leading body care products for babies and children contain the toxic chemicals formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane. Many of these products also contain other ingredients with known or suspected links to cancer or other serious health problems – showing that, unbeknownst to most parents, harmful chemicals in the bath may be adding up. The evidence is compelling: The United States must reform cosmetic policies to protect people, especially babies and children, from unnecessary toxic chemical exposures. References 1 There are two major loopholes in ingredient labeling laws – companies do not have to list the components of fragrance on labels, nor do they have to list contaminants, also known as impurities. The Campaign has released several reports that highlight concerns about fragrance. For example, see "A Little Prettier" (available at www.safecosmetics.org/article.php?id=367) and "Not Too Pretty" (available at www.safecosmetics.org/downloads/NotTooPretty_report.pdf). 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Web Site. "1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide)." www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/dioxane.html. Viewed December 20, 2008. 3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. "1,4-Dioxane, CAS No. 123-91-1: Reasonably Anticipated to be a Human Carcinogen." Eleventh Report on Carcinogens. December 2002. Available at: 4 Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Web site. "Formaldehyde." 5 Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Priority Existing Chemical Assessment Report No. 28: Formaldehyde. November 2006. Page 68. Available at: www.nicnas.gov.au/Publications/CAR/PEC/PEC28/PEC_28_Full_Report_PDF.pdf. 6 Flyvholm MA, Menné T. Allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde. A case study focusing on sources of formaldehyde exposure. Contact Dermatitis. 1992 Jul;27(1):27-36. 7 Boyvat A, Akyol A, Gürgey E. Contact sensitivity to preservatives in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52(6):333-337. 8 Pratt MD, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF Jr, Fransway AF, Maibach HI, Marks JG, Mathias CG, Rietschel RL, Sasseville D, Sherertz EF, Storrs FJ, Taylor JS, Zug K. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2001-2002 study period. Dermatitis. 2004;15(4):176-83. Erratum in: Dermatitis. 2005;16(2):106. 9 Jacob SE, Brod B and Crawford GH. Clinically Relevant Patch Test Reactions in Children—A United States Based Study. Pediatric Dermatology. 2008;25(5):520–527. 10 Jacob SE and Steele T. Avoiding Formaldehyde Allergic Reactions In Children. Pediatric Annals 2007;36(1):55-6. 11 The Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep Cosmetics Database was used for this research. http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/. 12 Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-food Products. Opinion concerning a clarification on the formaldehyde and para-formaldehyde entry in Directive 76/768/EEC on cosmetic products. Opinion: European Comission. 2002. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/sccp/out187_en.pdf. 13 Salvador, Amparo and Alberto Chisvert, editors. Analysis of Cosmetic Products. Elsevier. Amsterdam. 2007. p. 215. http://books.google.com/books?id=IYf8FDXlD5oC&dq=Analysis+of+Cosmetic+Products&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=QP2mSfiYO4mQtQOj3_3cDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA215,M1. Viewed February 25, 2009. 14 European Union Cosmetic Ingredients & Substances. Annex II: List of substances which must not form part of the composition of cosmetic products. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/cosmetics/cosing/pdf/COSING_Annex%20II.pdf. Note, the EU lists dioxane as prohibited. According to the United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Adminstration, Dioxane is a synonym for 1,4-Dioxane. See www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/dioxane/recognition.html. 15 Europa Consumer Affairs. "The Rapid Alert System for Non-Food Products - Week 39, 2006."
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s080diox.pdf.
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/formalde.html. Viewed January 5, 2009.
Perrenoud D, Bircher A, Hunziker T, Suter H, Bruckner-Tuderman L, Stäger J, Thürlimann W, Schmid P, Suard A, Hunziker N. Frequency of sensitization to 13 common preservatives in Switzerland. Swiss Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;30(5):276-9.
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/dyna/rapex/create_rapex.cfm?rx_id=99 Viewed February 28, 2009.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Toxic Chemicals in Bath Products (EWG.com)
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Chemicals to avoid in personal care products (NaturalNews.com)
Chemicals to Avoid in Personal Care Products:
Cocoamide DEA, diethanolamine, TEA, triethanolamine, MEA -- Used as a shampoo thickener and foam stabilizer. According to the MSDS for Cocoamide DEA, this chemical is harmful if swallowed or inhaled and contact with skin, eyes, and clothing should be avoided.
Propylene glycol, propylene oxide, polyethylene glycol -- Listed on the FDA government website as a known carcinogen. This is a common ingredient in many moisturizers and lotions. It has also been connected with kidney and liver damage in scientific testing. Propylene glycol has also now been connected with common skin rashes and skin damage.
Sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium laureth sulfate -- A common ingredient in shampoos and liquid soaps. SLS may be the most dangerous ingredient used in personal care products. SLS is the active ingredient in garage floor cleaners, engine degreasers and industrial strength soaps. This is a very corrosive chemical used to clean industrial and greasy surfaces.
Sodium Fluoride -- The fluoride that is added to drinking water is hydrofluoric acid. This is a compound of fluorine, which is actually a chemical byproduct of aluminum, steel, cement, phosphate, and other assorted ingredients. Fluoride in this form has no nutritional value and is one of the most caustic industrial chemicals. Fluoride is also an active ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons.
Mineral Oil, Petrolatum and Coal Tar -- Used in many moisturizing products. Mineral oil is a petroleum by-product that interferes with skin's ability to eliminate toxins. Because of this it promotes acne and other skin disorders. Mineral oil has also been associated with premature aging. Any product that contains mineral oil may be contaminated with cancer causing Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
Consumers who are armed with accurate information about toxic ingredients contained in common personal care products will be able to make informed decisions that will protect their health.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Review Urged of Phthalates in Toys, Cosmetics (Reuters)
Friday, December 19, 2008 WASHINGTON — U.S. regulators should examine whether a controversial class of chemicals found in many plastic products including children's toys can hurt people, a panel of experts said on Thursday. A panel of the independent National Research Council said the scientific evidence justifies an Environmental Protection Agency assessment of the health effects from cumulative exposure to chemicals known as phthalates. Phthalates, which make plastic products soft and flexible, have been used commercially for decades. They are different from another chemical, bisphenol A, or BPA, found in plastic products including baby bottles that has also come under health scrutiny. The Food and Drug Administration says BPA is safe at current levels of exposure but plans more research. Animal studies cited by the panel indicated that exposure to phthalates affected male reproductive system development. Some phthalates reduce levels of the male hormone testosterone. Studies also link phthalates to liver cancer, the panel said. If the EPA does an assessment, it could lead to new regulations on products with phthalates, the panel said. "If we don't do this as a cumulative risk assessment focused on these adverse effects, we're going to be underestimating risks," said panel chairwoman, Deborah Cory-Slechta of the University of Rochester. President George W. Bush signed a law this year banning three types of phthalates in children's toys and child care items, except for minute amounts, while temporarily banning three others pending further study. The same six phthalates have been banned in European toys for nearly a decade. Chris Bryant of the American Chemistry Council, an industry group, expressed concern about the panel's recommendations, saying Congress had already asked the Consumer Product Safety Commission to conduct a risk assessment on phthalates. Bryant said the panel's proposal for such a broad EPA risk assessment "essentially could result in a study without limits, financially or otherwise." Some retailers including Wal-Mart and Toys R Us have announced plans to phase out phthalates in toys.Experts Urge Review of Plastics Chemical Found in Toys, Cosmetics
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Study: Moisturizers/Estrogen/Breast Cancer (Reuters)
Tuesday, December 16, 2008 SAN ANTONIO — Breast cancer patients who apply moisturizers may be dosing themselves with estrogen without even knowing it, investigators reported at a breast cancer symposium in San Antonio. Dr. Adrienne Olson, with Breastlink in Hawthorne, California, and colleagues analyzed 16 widely available moisturizers for estrogen-like compounds. None of the creams analyzed noted any estrogen content in their list of ingredients. Even so, six samples contained estriol or estrone. Olson, who is a seven-year breast cancer survivor, explained that estrogens applied to the skin are more efficiently absorbed into the body than estrogens taken orally. She urged women with breast cancer that is driven by estrogen (that is, estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer) to avoid externally applied estrogen to minimize the risk of a recurrence. Women without breast cancer are also at risk, she added. If they use estrogen-containing topical moisturizers, they may be dosing themselves daily with estrogen for extended periods, thereby boosting their risk of breast cancer.Study: Many Moisturizers Contain Estrogen, Pose Dangers to Women
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Estrogen in Sunscreen? (Mayo Clinic)
No studies have proved that ingredients in sunscreen are linked to breast cancer. However, some animal and laboratory studies have shown that some ultraviolet (UV) filters in sunscreen may mimic estrogen, which could disrupt or alter your endocrine system. No evidence has shown that exposure to endocrine disruptors in low levels, such as those in sunscreen, leads to health problems. One study with human volunteers found that the UV filters in sunscreens were absorbed into the skin, but they didn't have an effect on the health of the volunteers, or their levels of estrogen or any other hormone. Further studies are needed to see if humans could be harmed by the ingredients in sunscreen. For now, the American Academy of Dermatology still recommends these precautions before heading out in the sun: If you're still concerned about the risks of traditional sunscreens, you can use a sunscreen containing zinc oxide or titanium dioxide as an alternative. Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide aren't absorbed into your skin, and don't mimic estrogen. 
I read that several ingredients in sunscreen are similar to estrogen and may cause breast cancer. Is this true?
- Anne / Louisiana
Answer
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Lead in Lipstick (Reuters)
ATLANTA (Reuters) - Lipsticks tested by a U.S. consumer rights group found that more than half contained lead and some popular brands including Cover Girl, L'Oreal and Christian Dior had more lead than others , the group said on Thursday. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics said tests on 33 brand-name red lipsticks by the Bodycote Testing Group in Santa Fe Spring, California, found that 61 percent had detectable lead levels of 0.03 to 0.65 parts per million (ppm). Lipstick, like candy, is ingested. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of public health, environmental and women's groups, said the FDA has not set a limit for lead in lipstick. One-third of the lipsticks tested contained an amount of lead that exceeded the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's 0.1 ppm limit for lead in candy -- a standard established to protect children from ingesting lead, the group said. Thirty-nine percent of the lipsticks tested had no discernible lead, it said. "It's critical that manufacturers reformulate their product," said Stacy Malkan, a co-founder of the coalition. "It's possible to make lipsticks without lead, and all companies should be doing that." Lead can cause learning, language and behavioral problems such as reduced school performance and increased aggression. Pregnant women and young children are particularly vulnerable to lead exposure, the group said in its statement. Lead has also been linked to infertility and miscarriage, it said. Procter & Gamble Co's makes Cover Girl brand and France's L'Oreal is one of the largest cosmetic companies in the world. Over the last three months, more than 20 million toys made in China have been recalled, mostly due to the use of lead paint. The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association trade group said in a statement that lead was a naturally occurring element that was not intentionally added to cosmetics. The FDA has "set strict limits for lead levels allowed in the colors used in lipsticks, and actually analyze most of these to ensure they are followed," the association's statement said. "The products identified in the (CSC) report meet these standards." L'Oreal's U.S. arm said its products are reviewed and tested by a safety team that includes toxicologists, pharmacists and doctors. "All the brands of the L'Oreal Group are in full compliance with FDA regulations" as well as safety requirements in international markets, L'Oreal USA said in a statement. P&G said in a statement that the quantity of lead a consumer might be exposed to from its lip product "is hundreds of times less than the amount that she would get from eating, breathing and drinking water." "Lead builds up in the body over time and lead-containing lipstick applied several times a day, every day, can add up to significant exposure levels. The latest studies show there is no safe level of lead exposure," said Dr. Mark Mitchell, president of the Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice. Lipsticks contain lead, consumer group says
Friday, November 21, 2008
Natural, Organic Cosmetics = Healthier Skin?
FOR Flavia Kawaja, an interior designer in Manhattan, a trip to the beauty department at Whole Foods Market comes not with a shopping list but with a mental list of what synthetic ingredients to avoid. "I don't assume that organic automatically means good for you," she said. "I mean, if you fry an organic potato, it's still a French fry." Organic connoisseurs have long made a practice of reading food labels to weed out those grown with pesticides or that contain synthetic colors, flavors or preservatives. Now, in the wake of recent health scares over tainted pet food and toothpaste, some beauty mavens are seeking synthetic-free cosmetics in the belief that products made without industrial ingredients like petrochemicals ought to be healthier for you. These newly minted label inspectors are fueling a boom in so-called natural and organic personal care products. Natural cosmetics market themselves as containing plant or mineral ingredients; organic products say they are made with agricultural ingredients grown without pesticides. During the 12 months through Sept. 9, Americans spent $150 million on the top three mass-market natural personal care brands, including Burt's Bees, Jason Natural Cosmetics and Tom's of Maine, an increase of $51 million over the year before, according to Information Resources Inc., a market research firm. Meanwhile, sales of organic personal care items reached $350 million last year, an increase of $68 million over 2005, according to manufacturers' data compiled by the Organic Trade Association, an industry group. "We're seeing an increased consciousness that what you put on your body is as important as what goes in your body," said Jeremiah McElwee, the senior coordinator in charge of personal care at Whole Foods, which is the company's fastest-growing department. "The biggest impetus for buying natural or organic body care is the perceived health benefit." It would seem logical to assume that common ingestible ingredients like olives or soy would naturally be healthier for the skin and body than hard-to-pronounce, multisyllabic industrial cosmetic ingredients like the preservative methylchloroisothiazolinone. But representatives for the government and the beauty industry, as well as some environmental activists, acknowledge that there is no published scientific proof to support the notion that plant-based cosmetics are safer, healthier or more effective for people. "Consumers should not necessarily assume that an 'organic' or 'natural' ingredient or product would possess greater inherent safety than another chemically identical version of the same ingredient," Dr. Linda M. Katz, the director of the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Cosmetics and Colors, wrote in an e-mail message to this reporter. "In fact, 'natural' ingredients may be harder to preserve against microbial contamination and growth than synthetic raw materials." The confusion over the "truthiness" of the natural personal care market also stems from the lack of national standards. The F.D.A., which regulates cosmetics, has never imposed standard definitions for marketing terms like natural and organic as they apply to grooming products, Dr. Katz said via e-mail. So manufacturers are free to use such terms on everything from a synthetic-based shampoo with one plant derivative to a synthetic-free face powder formulated with only minerals. The agency requires manufacturers to ensure that cosmetics are safe for their intended use. But the agency leaves it up to manufacturers to decide which safety and efficacy tests to perform on ingredients and finished products. John Bailey, the executive vice president for science of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, a trade group in Washington, said cosmetics are safe, whether their formulas contain synthetics or plants. "On the most fundamental level, they are held to the same legal and regulatory standards," said Dr. Bailey, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry. But Jane Houlihan, the vice president for research of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit group in Washington, said the lack of established federal standards is responsible for consumer confusion over whether natural products provide tangible advantages or are simply a sop to green mind-sets. Ms. Houlihan said increased consumer interest in natural products is driving a few manufacturers to include exotic plants in formulas that lack an established track record in the beauty industry. For example, she said, her group could not find published safety data on newer cosmetic ingredients like West Indian rosewood bark oil and white peony flower extract. "Just because an ingredient comes from a plant does not necessarily make it safe to use in a cosmetic," Ms. Houlihan said. "Tobacco, hemlock and poison ivy are all examples of plants that can be hazardous." Indeed, some dermatologists said that even natural ingredients that seem benign can cause skin allergies. For example, Dr. David A. Kiken, a chief dermatology resident at the school of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, said he had seen skin irritation caused by tea tree oil, chamomile and green tea in cosmetics. "Although the term natural botanical extracts inherently purports to have beneficial and benign properties, these extracts can cause adverse reactions in individuals," Dr. Kiken wrote in a paper published in the American Journal of Contact Dermatitis. In the absence of F.D.A. standards, dozens of beauty companies and stores are using words like botanical, herbal, natural, pure and organic to market brands, each using its own in-house definition. For example, on http://www.sephora.com/browse/section.jhtml?categoryId=C15680&searchString=organic, the company distinguishes between botanical brands that use some plant ingredients; natural brands that eschew synthetic preservatives, colors and fragrances; and organic brands that employ some plant ingredients grown without pesticides. Other brands style themselves as organic to signal ultimate wholesomeness. Even then, definitions vary widely. Some beauty companies simply employ organic in their brand names. Others promote certain ingredients that have been vetted by private companies that inspect organic foods. A few brands — including Origins and Nature's Gate — have even received certification for some products from the National Organic Program, the division of the Department of Agriculture whose logo appears on certified organic food products. Cosmetics are eligible to use such food seals if they contain at least 95 percent of certified organic ingredients that are agricultural products made from livestock or crops, grown and processed without chemical fertilizers, pesticides, growth hormones and antibiotics. But people should not interpret even the U.S.D.A. Organic seal — http:///www.ams.usda.gov/nop/FactSheets/Backgrounder.html— on cosmetics as proof of health benefits or of efficacy, said Joan Shaffer, a department spokeswoman. Government-accredited certifiers simply vet the manner in which these food ingredients are grown and processed, just as they would for a jar of organic tomato sauce, she said. "The National Organic Program is a marketing program, not a safety program," Ms. Shaffer said, likening the department's organic seal to its grading system for beef. "Steak may be graded prime, but that has no bearing on whether it is safe or nutritious to eat." 
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Nail polish & lipstick chemical breast cancer link
Friday, December 07, 2007 A chemical commonly used to soften plastic and in lipstick, nail polish and other household items has been found to interfere with the development of healthy breast tissue, which could lead to breast cancer, according to a new study. Butyl benzyl phthalate, or BBP, used in toys, has been linked in past studies to birth defects, kidney problems, infertility and stunted sex organ development in male babies, according to a report from French news agency AFP. A study appearing this week in the online journal BMC Genomics found that lactating rats fed the man-made chemical, which mimics the female hormone estrogen, passed it on to their offspring via their breast milk. Scientists at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia said that BBP — which accumulates in fat cells — alter breast tissue in infants in a way that could increase the risks of breast cancer later in life. The rats were fed an amount of BBP estimated to be equivalent to the American Environmental Protection Agency's safe dose for humans .Study: Chemical in Nail Polish, Lipstick Linked to Breast Cancer
Nanotechnology
The Daily Mail.com A breed of Frankenfood is being introduced into human diet and cosmetics with potentially disastrous consequences, experts said last night. The particles it uses are so small - 80,000 times thinner than a human hair - that they can pass through membranes protecting the brain or babies in the womb. Nano health supplements, such as antioxidants, are already on the market while the first of hundreds of new foods are expected to arrive in the next 12 months. However, the products are being introdeduced without any regulation or independent assessment to ensure they are safe - mirroring the controversy over the launch of GM foods ten years ago. Some critics have talked of the threat of the creation of a "grey goo" of tiny particles with hidden harmful properties. Prince Charles has said it would be "surprising" if the technology did not "offer similar upsets" to thalidomide - the morning sickness drug that caused children to be born with deformed limbs. Professor Vicki Stone, Professor of Toxicology at Napier University in Edinburgh, is concerned about unforeseen side effects. "We know very little about the ability of nanoparticles to move around the body, to accumulate or to be excreted, or their potential to cause toxic effects in organs," she said. However, nanotech advocates have remarkable claims for the technology. For example, foods are in development that are said to stave off the aging process. On a more trivial level, they suggest it would be possible to create a fizzy drink that changes flavour according to the number of times the can is shaken. Scroll down for more… The consumer group Which? is about to launch a nanotech campaign arguing that consumers need to be consulted on the risks and benefits before it is too late. The food and farming department Defra has published an independent report which admits there are serious gaps in safety data. It warns: "There could be very significant implications for business and the wider community if potential risks are not identified and managed before any harm to the environment or human health may be done." The report - Characterising the Risks Posed by Engineered Nanoparticles - states there is a shortage of research money. It says the resulting absence of basic information about the particles means "it will be difficult or impossible to develop any general understanding of nanoparticle toxicology". The report adds: "Transfer across biological barriers - e.g. to the brain or foetus - should be studied. Research into how long these tiny particles persist in the body is urgently needed." It warns that work assessing human toxicology is being hamstrung by "profound difficulties in accessing relevant funding for these longer term projects". Research by Which? found six out of ten people (61 per cent) have never heard of nanotechnology. Sue Davies of Which? said: "The benefits that nanotechnologies can offer consumers are really exciting. 'But before the market is flooded with products, it's crucial the Government addresses the lack of scientific understanding about how some nanoparticles behave." The European Food Safety Authority last year held a conference on the future of food. Dr Donald Bruce, an expert on food and ethics, told delegates that the arrival of nanotech foods has many similarities with GM products. US corporations attempted to introduce GM before an effective safety regime could be established. "One of the things to ask is do we need the benefits claimed by the producers?' he said. 'Also there is the underlying notion that we are tampering with nature." Environment minister Phil Woolas admitted there were gaps in knowledge, but denied the Government was failing to provide enough research cash. Tiny particles that have generated great hopes and growing concerns Nanotechnology involves using a substance in particles that are so small that the substance takes on new properties. The name of the technology comes from the size of the particles - one nanometre in diameter - a millionth of a millimetre. Reduced to this size, materials can suddenly show very different and unexpected properties. For example, an opaque substance such as copper becomes transparent, or an inert metal such as platinum becomes a catalyst and triggers chemical reactions. Advocates argue that such particles can be organised to work together to deliver specific effects in a piece of equipment or in the human body. They can be used to build miniature hard drives that have an immense memory, so allowing further miniaturisation and sophistication of products such as computers and mobile phones. Washing machines have been developed that release silver nanoparticles that will kill bacteria in dirty washing. Sun creams have been created so they become transparent rather than chalky white. In medicine, it is claimed that nanotechnology will allow the creation of drugs that reach and treat a problem quickly. Manufacturers are working on nanotech foods and supplements that are also designed to deliver specific health benefits. Similarly, firms are working on developing anti-ageing foods, where nanotech particles associated with renewing the skin from the inside could be included in everyday products such as yoghurt, spreads or breakfast cereals. The technology promises huge riches for firms which develop winning applications. One of the first group of nanoparticles being utilised are fullerenes - tiny hollow carbon balls and tubes. They are very heat resistant, strong and conduct electricity. The football-shaped C60 fullerene is being used in some anti-ageing products. The creams are said to reduce fine lines and firm the skin. C60 has some antioxidant properties in that it kills the rogue chemicals which damage cells. However, a high dose can itself damage cells. Some nano particles are known to mimic the harmful effects of asbestos on the lungs. Consequently, they have the potential to trigger lung cancer if inhaled. © 2007 The Daily Mail
XOXOAlert Over The March of The 'Grey Goo' in Nanotechnology Frankenfoods
Preservatives: Parabens, Phthalates, Talc & Cosmetics
Pucker up: Industry sees rise in organic makeup Recently, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics announced it found potentially dangerous levels of lead in lipsticks, saying one-third of the 33 red lipsticks it examined contained an amount that exceeds the FDA's limit for lead in candy. The FDA, however, does not set a limit for lead in lipstick. But what, exactly, are "organic" cosmetics? Flexible term Americans spent about $155 million on the top three mass-market natural personal care brands -- Burt's Bees, Jason Natural Cosmetics and Tom's of Maine -- during the 12 months through October, according to Information Resources Inc. But just because cosmetics companies label a tube of lipstick as natural or organic does not mean it makes for a better pucker or is kinder to the planet. Cosmetics and their ingredients are not required to undergo government approval before hitting the store shelves, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. There are no standards as to what natural or organic means. "If a company says it is organic because it uses organic flowers, they might be, but there could be a whole lot of different chemicals inside that product, as well," says Jovana Ruzicic, a spokeswoman for the Washington, D.C., nonprofit Environmental Working Group. The watchdog group is pushing for federal definitions of natural and organic when it comes to personal care products. "It's hard for us to recommend organic or natural when there is no definition for them," Ruzicic says. The group runs a database of personal care items -- from mascara to shampoo -- to help consumers find safer alternatives at http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/. The site lists ingredients, says whether they're linked to allergies or cancer, and suggests another mascara or shampoo if the one you like is bad for you or the environment. What's in there? Garrett says women should avoid three major ingredients in their cosmetics: preservatives called parabens; phthalates, which are often found in fragrances; and talc. Parabens have been linked to breast cancer, but they are such cheap preservatives, companies rely on them, she says. One study showed phthalates to be harmful to the reproductive system. And talc has been linked to ovarian cancer, she says. If you are moving to a natural or organic cosmetics line, read the labels, Garrett says. Some may have organic rose petals in them but also contain talc, which aside from being potentially harmful, is not that great as a beauty ingredient. Tashian says she's made it a habit to read labels. She has switched to organic shampoo and conditioner. She doesn't use nail polish, which is often filled with phthalates. And, she prefers natural brands such as Burt's Bees and Kiss My Face for body lotion and face cleansers. "I already buy organic vegetables," Tashian says. "So I thought I'd give organic makeup a try."
BY BONNA JOHNSON
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE ADVERTISEMENT
Oxy-ben-zone & Sunscreen
25 MAR 2008 A new study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reveals that 97% of Americans are contaminated with a widely-used sunscreen ingredient called oxybenzone that has been linked to allergies, hormone disruption, and cell damage. A companion study published just one day earlier revealed that this chemical is linked to low birth weight in baby girls whose mothers are exposed during pregnancy. Oxybenzone is also a penetration enhancer, a chemical that helps other chemicals penetrate the skin. Although oxybenzone is most common in sunscreen, companies also use the chemical in at least 567 other personal care products. Environmental Working Group identified nearly 600 sunscreens sold in the U.S. that contain oxybenzone, including products by Hawaiian Tropic, Coppertone, and Banana Boat (see the full list of 588 sunscreens here) as well as 172 facial moisturizers, 111 lip balms, and 81 different types of lipstick. The Food and Drug Administration has failed miserably in its duty to protect the public from toxic chemicals like oxybenzone in personal care products. At the request of industry lobbyists, including Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who represented the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association, the agency has delayed final sunscreen safety standards for nearly 30 years. FDA issued a new draft of the standards last October under pressure from EWG, but continues to delay finalizing them at the behest of the regulated industry. EWG research shows that 84% of 910 name-brand sunscreen products offer inadequate protection from the sun, or contain ingredients, like oxybenzone, with significant safety concerns. The last safety review for oxybenzone was done in the 1970s, and does not reflect a wealth of information developed since that time indicating increased toxicity concerns and widespread human exposure. A recent review in the European Union found that sufficient data were not available to assess if oxybenzone in sunscreen was safe for consumers. Environmental Working Group again calls on FDA to review the safety of oxybenzone, given this new data on widespread contamination of the U.S. population, and to finalize its sunscreen safety standards so that consumers can be certain that sunscreen products they purchase are safe and effective. Top scientists from CDC published results March 21, 2008 from a national survey of 2,500 Americans, age 6 and up, showing that oxybenzone readily absorbs into the body and is present in 97% of Americans tested (Calafat 2008). Oxybenzone, also known as benzophenone-3, was detected in the urine of nearly every study participant. Typically, women and girls had higher levels of oxybenzone in their bodies than men and boys, likely a result of differences in use of body care products including sunscreens. A companion study released a day earlier revealed that mothers with high levels of oxybenzone in their bodies were more likely to give birth to underweight baby girls (Wolff 2008). Low birth weight is a critical risk factor linked to coronary heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and other diseases in adulthood (Lau 2004). Among common sunscreen chemicals, oxybenzone is most likely to be associated with allergic reactions triggered by sun exposure. In a study of 82 patients with photoallergic contact dermatitis, over one quarter showed photoallergic reactions to oxybenzone (Rodriguez 2006); another study reported 1 in 5 allergic reactions to photopatch tests resulted from exposure to oxybenzone (Bryden 2006). Sunlight also causes oxybenzone to form free radical chemicals that may be linked to cell damage, according to 2 of 3 studies (Allen 1996; Serpone 2002; Hanson 2006). A less visible but more alarming concern, this chemical absorbs through the skin in significant amounts, as indicated by the CDC study. A previous biomonitoring study reported that 96% of 6 to 8 year old girls had detectable amounts of oxybenzone in their urine (Wolff 2007). An earlier study detected oxybenzone in the urine of all 30 adult participants (Ye 2005). Studies on human volunteers indicate a wide variation in the level of oxybenzone absorbed into the body, with some individuals absorbing at least 9% of the applied dose, as measured in excretions in urine (Hayden 1997; Janjua 2004; Sarveiya 2004; Gonzalez 2006). Volunteers continued to excrete oxybenzone many days after the last application of the chemical, an indication of its tendency to accumulate in fatty tissues in the body (Gonzalez 2006). In addition to its ability to absorb into the body, oxybenzone is also a penetration enhancer, a chemical that helps other chemicals penetrate the skin (Pont 2004). Studies on cells and laboratory animals indicate that oxybenzone and its metabolites, the chemicals the body makes from oxybenzone in an attempt to detoxify and excrete it, may disrupt the hormone system. Under study conditions, oxybenzone and its metabolites cause weak estrogenic (Nakagawa 2002; Schlumpf 2001, 2004; Kunz 2006; van Liempd 2007) and anti-androgenic (Ma 2003) effects. Oxybenzone displays additive hormonal effects when tested with other sunscreen chemicals (Heneweer 2005). Laboratory study also suggests that oxybenzone may affect the adrenal hormone system (Ziolkowska 2006). One human study coapplying 3 sunscreen active ingredients (oxybenzone, 4-MBC, and octinoxate) suggested a minor, intermittent, but statistically significant drop in testosterone levels in men during a one-week application period (Janjua 2004). Researchers also detected statistically significant declines in estradiol levels in men; other hormonal differences detected could not be linked to sunscreen use due to differences in baseline hormone levels before and during treatment. A 2006 European Union review concluded that a rigorous exposure assessment of oxybenzone was impossible, due to lack of information about the levels of absorption into the body (SCCP 2006). The levels of contamination reported in this latest CDC study indicate that absorption may be significant, consistent with previous, small-scale biomonitoring reports. A decades-old evaluation by FDA, as well as more recent review by the cosmetics industry's own safety panel, do not consider concerns regarding hormone disruption, nor the implications of the ability of oxybenzone to penetrate the skin (FDA 1978; CIR 1983, 2002). At present, no health-based standards exist for safe levels of oxybenzone in the body. Additional cautions must be employed when considering the effects of oxybenzone on children. The surface area of a child's skin relative to body weight is greater than adults. As a result, the potential dose of a chemical following dermal exposure is likely to be about 1.4 times greater in children than in adults (SCCNFP 2001). In addition, children are less able than adults to detoxify and excrete chemicals, and children's developing organ systems are more vulnerable to damage from chemical exposures, and more sensitive to low levels of hormonally active compounds (NAS 1993; Janjua 2004). Children also have more years of future life in which to develop disease triggered by early exposure to chemicals (NAS 1993). Despite these well-documented concerns regarding children's sensitivity to harmful substances, no special protections exist regarding ingredients in personal care products marketed for babies and children. The fraction of oxybenzone that is not absorbed into the human body often contaminates water, washed from the skin during swimming and water play or while bathing (Lambropolou 2002; Danovaro 2008). Wastewater treatment removes only a fraction of this sunscreen chemical (Li 2007), resulting in detection of oxybenzone in treated wastewater, in lake and sea waters due to recreational use or to discharges from water treatment facilities, and even in fish (Balmer 2005; Cuderman 2007; Li 2007). Studies show oxybenzone can trigger outbreaks of viral infection in coral reefs (Danovaro 2008), and can cause feminization of male fish (Kunz 2006). Despite significant ecological concerns, there are no measures in place to protect sensitive ecosystems from damage caused by this contaminant. FDA last reviewed the safety of oxybenzone in the 1970s, publishing its evaluation in 1978, at the same time it announced plans to develop comprehensive standards for sunscreen safety and effectiveness (FDA 1978). 30 years later, the Agency has yet to issue final regulations. Instead, it encourages manufacturers to follow draft guidelines that the Agency has delayed finalizing at the behest of the sunscreen industry. As a result, sunscreen manufacturers in the U.S. are free to market products containing ingredients like oxybenzone that have not been proven safe for people. Found in over half of the 910 name-brand sunscreen products we reviewed, oxybenzone is tied to significant health concerns that must be scrutinized. Instead, FDA's refusal to re-examine this ingredient keeps sunscreens containing oxybenzone on the market. Petitions for review of newly developed sunscreen ingredients approved for use in other countries, and with far fewer health concerns, have been met with similar inattention, blocking Americans' access to better products. FDA foot-dragging has left the U.S. without enforceable standards for sunscreen safety and effectiveness for decades. EWG demands that FDA finalize the latest version of its monograph on sunscreen products immediately, and launch an investigation into the safety of the sunscreen ingredient oxybenzone.CDC: Most Americans' Blood Tainted With Toxic Sunscreen Chemical
Related EWG Content
March 25, 2008
November 26, 2007
August 23, 2007
June 19, 2007
May 24, 2007 Categories
FDA Caving to Industry Lobbyists Delays Final Sunscreen Safety Standards for Nearly 30 Years
View name-brand products that contain oxybenzone:
CDC study of oxybenzone signals concern
Oxybenzone damages and penetrates the skin
Oxybenzone may disrupt the human hormone system
Outdated health protections do not take into account these and other adverse effects
EWG to FDA: Oxybenzone investigation is long overdue
Nanoparticles in Cosmetics
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Moisturizers & Skin Cancer
Aug. 14, 2008 -- Four commonly used moisturizers promoted skin cancers in mouse studies. Mice are not men. But the unexpected finding suggests that these -- and perhaps other products -- may not be as safe as they're thought to be. The moisturizers tested in the study were Dermabase, Dermovan (a wholesale-only product discontinued in 2006), Eucerin Original Moisturizing Cream, and Vanicream. In a mouse model of sun-related skin cancer, frequent application of each product resulted in more skin tumors and faster tumor growth, says study leader Allan H. Conney, PhD, director of the Susan Lehman Cullman Laboratory for Cancer Research and professor in the school of pharmacy at Rutgers University in Piscataway, N.J. "This was unexpected. We really did not expect to see the tumor-promoting activity of these creams," Conney tells WebMD. In fact, Conney and colleagues were getting ready to use one of these moisturizers -- Dermabase -- in human clinical trials of topical caffeine, which prevents skin cancer in animal studies. "We thought it would be prudent to test Dermabase by itself to see if it had tumor-promoting activity," Conney says. "We did not think it would. But lo and behold, to our surprise we got an increased rate of skin cancer." This led to new tests of Dermabase and the three other moisturizers, which the Conney team hoped to use in their human study. For these new animal studies, the researchers used hairless mice irradiated with ultraviolet light twice a week for 20 weeks. With no further irradiation, such mice eventually develop skin cancer -- very much like humans overexposed to sunlight early in life. Then, five days a week, for 17 weeks, the researchers rubbed moisturizer into the animals' skin. The result: "The multimillion-dollar question is, what about humans?" Conney asks. "The answer is, we don't know. Our study raises a red flag and points out the need for epidemiologists to take a look at people who use moisturizing creams. And the companies that market these products should take a look at animal models and see if their products promote tumors." Dermatologist Keyvan Nouri, MD, director of dermatologic surgery at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and author of the best-selling book Skin Cancer, agrees that companies that make moisturizers should test their products. "This study could definitely be a warning to alert these companies to consider testing moisturizing creams with some sort of assay," Nouri tells WebMD. "These creams need to be tested first before they come to market." Nouri notes that the radiation damaged the skin of the mice before the moisturizing creams were applied. That, he says, might account for the moisturizers' unusual tumor-promoting effect. However, he notes that the skin cancers are becoming much more common in humans. "There are over a million cases a year," he says. "It is by far the most common cancer we deal with. Skin cancers account for more than half of all cancers combined. But most skin cancers are totally curable." What is it about the moisturizers that might promote cancer? The Conney team asked Johnson & Johnson to make them a "custom blend" moisturizer without two ingredients previously linked to skin irritation (sodium lauryl sulfate) and tumor promotion (mineral oil). The custom blend (on which Rutgers University and Johnson & Johnson hold a patent) did not promote skin cancer. [SO LOOK FOR THESE TWO INGREDIENTS IN YOUR MOISTERIZER - KA NOTE] But not all of the products tested use these ingredients, so exactly what -- if anything -- might be linked to cancer isn't known. And it's certainly clear that mouse and human skin are very different. Nouri warns consumers not to stop using moisturizers. "As we get older, our skin gets drier," he says. "We need to moisturize, otherwise our skin gets dry and we get eczema, dermatitis, rashes, and so on. It is too soon to say from this study people should stop moisturizing." Eucerin is made by Beiersdorf Inc. "We have just learned about this study and are currently reviewing it to understand the findings," Beiersdorf says in a statement to WebMD. "Eucerin Original Creme has been on the market for more than 100 years and is a highly respected, dermatologist-recommended brand. It has been widely used by both individuals with normal skin and those with diseased skin under the care of physicians, and no incidents of this nature have ever been reported." Vanicream is made by Pharmaceutical Specialties Inc. In a statement to WebMD, PSI President Conrad O. Thompson, RPh, says there is nothing in the Conney study to indicate any need for change in current recommendations for use of Vanicream. "Treatment with Vanicream Skin Cream clearly did not increase the proportion of animals that developed tumors," Thompson notes. Dermovan, a wholesale-only product used as a base to which other ingredients are added by compounding pharmacists, was made by Healthpoint Ltd. until the product was discontinued in 2006. "The product has been around for 50 years, and has no safety issues related to it," Healthpoint spokesman Mark Mitchell tells WebMD. Dermabase maker Paddock Laboratories Inc. did not respond to WebMD's request for comment. The Conney study appears in the Aug. 14 advance online issue of the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.
Moisturizers Up Skin Cancer in Mice
WebMD Health News
Testing Moisturizers for Safety
Moisturizers Still Necessary
Teen Girls' Body Burden of Hormone-Altering Cosmetics Chemicals
By Rebecca Sutton, Ph.D., Staff Scientist, September 2008 Laboratory tests reveal adolescent girls across America are contaminated with chemicals commonly used in cosmetics and body care products. Environmental Working Group (EWG) detected 16 chemicals from 4 chemical families - phthalates, triclosan, parabens, and musks - in blood and urine samples from 20 teen girls aged 14-19. Studies link these chemicals to potential health effects including cancer and hormone disruption. These tests feature first-ever exposure data for parabens in teens, and indicate that young women are widely exposed to this common class of cosmetic preservatives, with 2 parabens, methylparaben and propylparaben, detected in every single girl tested. This work represents the first focused look at teen exposures to chemicals of concern in cosmetics, exposures that occur during a period of accelerated development. Adolescence encompasses maturation of the reproductive, immune, blood, and adrenal hormone systems, rapid bone growth associated with the adolescent "growth spurt," shifts in metabolism, and key changes to brain structure and function. Alterations in an array of sex hormones, present in the body at levels as low as one part per billion (ppb), or even one part per trillion (ppt), guide this transformation to adulthood. Emerging research suggests that teens may be particularly sensitive to exposures to trace levels of hormone-disrupting chemicals like the ones targeted in this study, given the cascade of closely interrelated hormonal signals orchestrating the transformation from childhood to adulthood. During this window of vulnerability to toxic assault, adolescent girls typically experiment with an increasing number and variety of body care products. Teen study participants used an average of nearly 17 personal care products each day, while the average adult woman uses just 12 products daily. Thus, teens may unknowingly expose themselves to higher levels of cosmetic ingredients linked to potential health effects at a time when their bodies are more susceptible to chemical damage. Cosmetics and other personal care products are an alarming example of government and industry failures to protect public health. Federal health statutes do not require companies to test products or ingredients for safety before they are sold. As a result, nearly all personal care products contain ingredients that have not been assessed for safety by any accountable agency, and that are not required to meet standards of safety. To protect the health of teens and all Americans, we recommend action:
From Environmental Working Group (they have extreme views). I didn't read the whole article, it was many pages, I only read the Exec Summary which is pasted below. It doesn't outline the study details. So FYI only!
XOXO
Teen Girls' Body Burden of Hormone-Altering Cosmetics Chemicals
Adolescent exposures to cosmetic chemicals of concern
The 20 teens we tested had an average of 13 hormone-altering cosmetics chemicals in their bodies.
In Alex (Washington DC): 12 hormone-altering cosmetics chemicals. "It's frightening to learn about the many different kinds of toxic chemicals that can be found in my body. At the same time I would much rather be knowledgeable about my body's chemical makeup than uninformed; in this case, ignorance is NOT bliss."Study teens use more personal care products daily than an average adult woman
Source: EWG product use surveys.
Nanoparticles
Medical Science News The particles under scrutiny by Lisa DeLouise, Ph.D., are almost unfathomably tiny. The particles are less than one five-thousandth the width of a human hair. If the width of that strand of hair were equivalent to the length of a football field, a typical nanoparticle wouldn't even belly up to the one-inch line. In the September issue of the journal Nano Letters, a team led by DeLouise at the University of Rochester Medical Center published a paper showing that nanoparticles pass through the skin of a living organism, a type of mouse commonly used as a model to study the damaging effects of sunlight. It's the strongest evidence yet indicating that some nanoparticles are so small that they can actually seep through skin, especially when the skin has been damaged. The health implications of nanoparticles in the body are uncertain, said DeLouise, an assistant professor of Dermatology and Biomedical Engineering and an expert on the properties of nanoparticles. Other scientists have found that the particles can accumulate in the lymph system, the liver, the nervous system, and in other areas of the body. In her study, she found that the particles accumulate around the hair follicles and in tiny skin folds. DeLouise, a chemist, points out that her study did not directly address the safety of nanoparticles in any way. "We simply wanted to see if nanoparticles could pass through the skin, and we found that they can under certain conditions," she said. DeLouise's work is part of a broad field known as nanomedicine that is a strategic area at the University of Rochester Medical Center. The area includes research, like hers, looking at the properties of nanoparticles, as well as possibilities like new forms of drug delivery and nano-sensors that can immediately identify microbes and other threats to our health. While nanoparticles are becoming widely used in the manufacture of consumer products, they are also under a great deal of study in research labs, and there are some processes - including ordinary candle flames - that produce them naturally. Some of the particles are so small, less than 10 nanometers wide (a nanometer is one-millionth of a millimeter), that they are nearly as small as the natural gaps between some skin cells. In its paper in Nano Letters, the team studied the penetration of nanoparticles known as quantum dots that fluoresce under some conditions, making them easier to see and track compared to other nanoparticles. The scientists looked at the distribution of quantum dots in mice whose skin had been exposed to about the same amount of ultraviolet light as might cause a slight sunburn on a person. The team showed that while the nanoparticles were able to breech the skin of all the mice, the particles passed more quickly through skin that had been damaged by ultraviolet light. Part of the explanation likely lies with the complex reaction of skin when it's assaulted by the Sun's rays. In response to ultraviolet light, cells proliferate, and molecules in the skin known as tight-junction proteins loosen so that new cells can migrate to where they're needed. Those proteins normally act as gatekeepers that determine which molecules to allow through the skin and into the body, and which molecules to block. When the proteins loosen up, they become less selective than usual, possibly giving nanoparticles an opportunity to pass through the barrier. In the future, DeLouise plans to study titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, two materials that are widely used in sunscreens and other cosmetic products to help block the damaging effects of ultraviolet light. In recent years the size of the metal oxide particles used in many consumer products has become smaller and smaller, so that many now are nanoparticles. The effects of the smaller particle size are visible to anyone who takes a walk on the beach or stops by the cosmetics counter at a department store: The materials are often completely transparent when applied to skin. A transparent lip gloss that protects against UV light, for example, or a see-through sunscreen may contain nanoparticles, DeLouise says. "A few years ago, a lifeguard at the swimming pool wearing sunscreen might have had his nose completely covered in white. Older sunscreens have larger particles that reflect visible light. But many newer sunscreens contain nanoparticles that are one thousand times smaller, that do not reflect visible light," said DeLouise, who noted that many people apply sunscreens after their skin has been damaged by sunlight. Initial funding from two sources allowed the team to gather the evidence necessary to expand the project dramatically. DeLouise's project was first funded by the University's Environmental Health Sciences Center, which supported graduate student Luke Mortensen during his research. The University's Clinical and Translational Science Institute has also awarded $100,000 to the team, and DeLouise has just received $394,000 from the National Science Foundation to expand the project for the next three years. She will be working with dermatologist Lisa Beck, M.D., who is an expert in allergic skin disorders. In addition to DeLouise and Mortensen, authors of the paper include G?Oberdörster, Ph.D., professor of Environmental Medicine and a widely recognized authority on the bio-effects of nanoparticles. Oberdörster is director of the Particulate Matter Center, funded by the Environmental Protection Agency, where scientists study the link between tiny air particles we breathe every day and our cardiovascular health. Dermatologist Alice Pentland, M.D., professor and chair of the Department of Dermatology and an expert on how sunlight brings about skin cancer, was also an author.
When particles are so small that they seep right through skin
Published: Tuesday, 30-Sep-2008
Printer Friendly
Scientists are finding that particles that are barely there - tiny objects known as nanoparticles that have found a home in electronics, food containers, sunscreens, and a variety of applications - can breech our most personal protective barrier: The skin.
Posts
