Read the original article at http://www.oregon-health.org/assets/Pre ... review.pdf"Five of the six products emitted one or more carcinogenic 'hazardous air pollutants,' which are considered by the Environmental Protection Agency to have no safe exposure level." - Anne C. Steinemann
A University of Washington study of top-selling laundry products and air fresheners found the products emitted dozens of different chemicals. All six products tested gave off at least one chemical regulated as toxic or hazardous under federal laws, but none of those chemicals was listed on the product labels.
"I first got interested in this topic because people were telling me that the air fresheners in public restrooms and the scent from laundry products vented outdoors were making them sick," said Anne Steinemann, a UW professor of civil and environmental engineering and of public affairs. "And I wanted to know, 'What's in these products that is causing these effects?'"
She analyzed the products to discover the chemicals' identity. "I was surprised by both the number and the potential toxicity of the chemicals that were found," Steinemann said. Chemicals included:
* Acetone, the active ingredient in paint thinner and nail-polish remover;
* Limonene, a molecule with a citrus scent;
* And acetaldehyde, chloromethane and 1,4-dioxane.
"Nearly 100 volatile organic compounds were emitted from these six products, and none were listed on any product label. Plus, five of the six products emitted one or more carcinogenic 'hazardous air pollutants,' which are considered by the Environmental Protection Agency to have no safe exposure level," Steinemann said.
Her study was published online by the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review. [See “Fragranced consumer products and undisclosed ingredients,” July 10, 2008.] Steinemann chose not to disclose the brand names of the six products she tested.
In a larger study of 25 cleaners, personal care products, air fresheners and laundry products, now submitted for publication, she found that many other brands contained similar chemicals. [Note: The Environmental Working Group offers detailed information on the fragrance & other chemicals in thousands of branded cosmetics. See "Online Safety Guide to Cosmetics and Personal Care Products."]
Because manufacturers of consumer products are not required to disclose the ingredients, Steinemann analyzed the products to discover their contents.
She studied:
* Three common air fresheners (a solid deodorizer disk, a liquid spray and a plug-in oil)
* And three laundry products (a dryer sheet, fabric softener and a detergent),
* Selecting a top seller in each category.
She bought household items at a grocery store and asked companies for samples of industrial products. In the laboratory, each product was placed in an isolated space at room temperature and the surrounding air was analyzed for volatile organic compounds - small molecules that evaporate from the product's surface into the air.
Results showed 58 different volatile organic compounds above a concentration of 300 micrograms per cubic meter, many of which were present in more than one of the six products. For instance:
* A plug-in air freshener contained more than 20 different volatile organic compounds.
* Of these, seven are regulated as toxic or hazardous under federal laws.
* The product label lists no ingredients, and information on the Material Safety Data Sheet, required for workplace handling of chemicals, lists the contents as "mixture of perfume oils."
This study does not address links between exposure to chemicals and health effects. However, two national surveys published by Steinemann and a colleague in 2004 and 2005 found that:
* About 20 percent of the population reported adverse health effects from air fresheners,
* And about 10 percent complained of adverse effects from laundry products vented to the outdoors.
* Among asthmatics such complaints were roughly twice as common.
Manufacturers are not required to list the ingredients used in laundry products and air fresheners. Personal-care products and cleaners often contain similar fragrance chemicals, Steinemann said. And although cosmetics are required by the Food and Drug Administration to list ingredients, no law requires products of any kind to list chemicals used in fragrances.
"Fragrance chemicals are of particular interest because of the potential for involuntary exposure, or second-hand scents," Steinemann said.
"Be careful if you buy products with fragrance, because you really don't know what's in them," she added. "I'd like to see better labeling. In the meantime, I'd recommend that instead of air fresheners people use ventilation, and with laundry products, choose fragrance-free versions."
The European Union recently enacted legislation requiring products to list 26 fragrance chemicals when they are present above a certain concentration in cosmetic products and detergents. No similar laws exist in the United States.
"I hope this study will raise public awareness, and reduce exposures to potentially hazardous chemicals," said Steinemann.
Hey - Something we have in common. I was wearing Z-14 when I met my wife (among other ladies) . It still gets women a little worked up .StillAnotherGuest wrote:OK, how about a "value" judgement that's a fact?-SWS wrote:Well, I'm personally not fond of casting value judgments, as opposed to objectively discussing facts.
For instance, you can get a 4.2 ounce bottle of Halston Z-14 cologne (hey, I like it) for about 20 bucks. That's 126 ml of product.
Given the above prices for Bret's Bubblegum fragrance, the equivalent amount would cost $150.78!! Does it make any sense that essence of Bubblegum should be 8.4 times more expensive than Halston??
SAG
I must disagree with you a bit, there, jnk. Instead of thinking about Bret and PurSleep in that statement, think DMEs and CPAP equipment. The huge majority of threads and posts on this forum area about getting quality and value, whether it's about CPAP machines, interfaces or adjuncts (like aromatherapy). Indeed, that underlying thought was the birth of the forum itself. If people raise questions about DMEs marking up equipment 2 to 3 times normal retail, then those astronomical markups on Bret's products need to be scrutinized.jnk wrote:I don't think price is the issue, myself. One poster may feel some gouging is going on. Or one poster may feel that the price means greater, or clearer, safety assurances should be expected for a product meant for use in conjunction with a medical therapy.
Maybe. However, as I stated at the very beginning of this thread:jnk wrote:And I still say, at the risk of hammering my earlier point, that every time this thread gets bumped, PurSleep makes MORE sales.
andSAG wrote:I have been in discussion with an Integrative Medicine Health Care Professional who is Certified in Aromatherapy. I asked them if they considered the PurSleep System as discussed on this board represented a safe route of administration and dosage approach to aromatherapy. They in turn posed the question to their mentors and contacts. The answer that I received was that it was not a recommended nor appropriate approach to aromatherapy. However, at least some of that reply is simply based on the lack of current evidence, pro- or con-, of the long term use of inhalational oils.
which should be the take-home points from SAG's side of the equation.SAG wrote:I believe that CAM has a very important role in sleep disorders (hey, most of sleep hygiene could be classified as CAM), aromatherapy may be very helpful, but there's also a number of other very effective routes of adminstration for essential oils.
I will give credit to Bret with bringing the concept of aromatherapy to CPAP users. SAG will take the blame for trying to insure that aromatherapy is done correctly, using the right substances, at a fair price.jnk wrote:It drives the brand name into the eyes of every lurker watching the thread list... whether that is good or bad, I don't know.
Amen, brother. My professional contact tells me that source in my sig is the way to go.jnk wrote:Anyone, and I do mean anyone, is free to compete with PurSleep any way they want. Right?
LOL! Well, it won't be me responsible for that! I got my eye on that group of threads in the 290's and I'm out, too!jnk wrote:I might as well move on from this one before it accidentally catches up with Larissa.
Wow is right. Huge message here from and about SAG.....and probably not the one intended. Just keep beating that horse, SAG. I think the point has just been made now, loud and clear.SharkBait wrote:Wow. No doubt we have an agenda here, and product safety isn't it.
On a similar theme. Is it true that ephedrine (má huáng) which is commonly used in Chinese medicine, really so bad that the FDA had to make it illegal? A few years back it was stacked with caffeine and used a diet supplement. However, because a few idiots thought "wow, this stuff really works so if I use more it will work even better".StillAnotherGuest wrote:Oh, c'mon, just one more? I got a great one involving intracardiac epinephrine for cardiac arrest.
SAG
From Klaus Ferlow, HMH (Honorary Master Herbalist, Dominion Herbal College, Burnaby, B.C.)Essential Versus Fragrance Oils. Part 2: The Hazards of Scents
What is a Fragrance Oil?
Fragrance oils are combinations of synthetically manufactured chemicals designed to "mimic" the aroma of natural materials. Far from "natural", 95% of the chemicals found in these oils are synthetic compounds derived from petroleum, and include chemicals such as benzene derivatives, aldehydes, and others capable causing cancer, birth defects, central nervous system disorders (CNS) and allergic reactions. Today, fragrances are marketed to an unsuspecting public who think that these scents are "natural." Even unscented and fragrance-free products can contain masking scents to "mask" the smell of other ingredients.
Despite the widespread and constant exposure to fragrance chemicals in thousands of products, there is minimal government regulation and monitoring on their safety. With 1000 new synthetic chemicals added yearly to the already 80 - 100.000 in use today, most of which have not be tested individually or in combination for their effects on human health, its not surprising that one in five people experience health problems when exposed. Fragrance chemicals do not have to be listed on the product label. Trade secret laws keep toxicity testing and ingredient identification from being accurately disclosed, in an industry which is largely self-regulating!
Hormone Disrupting Effects
A study by Greenpeace in 2005, discovered that 36 well-known perfume brands contained two toxic, man-made chemicals, phthalate esters and synthetic musk, as in the "old" days the perfumes were derived 100% from botanical plants. Phthalates are known estrogen and testosterone hormone disrupters and effect DNA, male sperm and restricts lung function in men, while synthetic musk can attack living tissues. Phthalates have been associated with thyroid disorders, premature breast development in baby girls, and abnormal sexual development in male fetus and infants. They are also found in the blood of pregnant women, in breast milk, and can cross the placenta. Diethyl phthalate, commonly used in fragrances and other personal care products, damages the DNA of sperm which can lead to infertility in adult men. Phthalates can change peoples mood and behaviour, and as they can disguise unpleasant odours, are often found in cleaning products, in hospitals (seems today one of the most dangerous place on earth) and nursing homes.
Some fragrance chemicals can alter the skin's surface tension, facilitating the absorption of other chemicals into the skin. Fragrances can lead to allergies, eczema, psoriasis, contact dermatitis and other skin conditions. It is estimated that 1 - 2% of the North America population may have a skin allergy to fragrances as these can easily volatilize. And, as manufacturers use long lasting fragrance chemicals and invent new powerful potent ones, they can linger in the air, settling and sticking to skin, hair, clothes, furnishings, everything!
Fragranced laundry products provide constant exposure, infants' skin being especially susceptible to absorbing chemicals directly from diapers. Fragrance chemicals can also accumulate in fabrics and are very difficult to remove. Laundry will even absorb fragrances if other people have used fragrance detergents in their wash.
Neurological Effects
Fragrance chemicals affect brain and the central nervous system, with some effects being immediate and transistory, while others are chronic and long lasting. Fragrances can modify brain blood flow, alter blood pressure, pulse and mood, and trigger migraine headaches. When inhaled, some have potent sedative effects and some like AETT and musk ambrette are neurotoxic. Specially formulated fragrances are used to control public behaviour.
Respiratory Effects
Fragrance chemicals can induce or worsen respiratory problems, and lower airway irritation occurs in 15% of people. These respiratory irritants, which cause inflammation and increase mucus production, make the airways more susceptible to injury and allergens, as well as trigger and exacerbate such conditions as asthma, allergies, sinus problems and other respiratory disorders. In school aged children, fragrances can trigger asthma, a chronic illness afflicting 9 million American children. Among adults, asthma rates have doubled since 1980, with one in fourteen suffers from asthma, and with 72% of asthmatics citing fragrance as a trigger.
The current legislation under review, the Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act of 2009, is presently referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. In re: disclosure of ingredients and control of harmful or potentially harmful substances, FDAG09 saysDreamDiver wrote:It will be interesting to see if industry will regulate itself, or if the government will have to step in. For the peanut guys, it looks like the government might have to.
as opposed to the European standards which say this:(4) the ingredients in the cosmetic in descending order of predominance by weight, except that--
(A) flavors and fragrances may be designated as such; and
(B) all variations in color, flavor, or fragrance may be included in one statement
Everyday Products Are Filled With Toxins -- And We're Not Doing a Thing About It Amy Goodman
The European Union, with 27 member nations representing almost half a billion people, is asserting itself on issues of toxins, using serious economic muscle. Stavros Dimas, European Union commissioner for environment, explained the long-term benefits of regulation: "The medical expenses for chemical-related diseases will be less. Medicines will not be needed. We will not lose working hours, and productivity will be better. So the overall benefits will by far outweigh costs to the industry."
Interestingly, because European countries pay a far larger share of their citizens' health-care costs than does the U.S., they want to keep costs down and they expect to save upward of $50 billion in coming decades, says Schapiro, as a result of the improved health and environmental conditions brought about by stricter chemical regulations.
FnA-Right, kids. It's the U.S. Cosmetics Industry $$$ that prevents disclosure and insures their profits. If they had to foot the health care bill, you can rest assured that the fragrance recipes would be a heckuva lot different.plr66 wrote:Wow is right. Huge message here from and about SAG.....and probably not the one intended. Just keep beating that horse, SAG. I think the point has just been made now, loud and clear.SharkBait wrote:Wow. No doubt we have an agenda here, and product safety isn't it.
and maintains a database of about 4500 substances....was formed, as a nonprofit corporation in 1966. Its purpose is to gather and analyze scientific data, engage in testing and evaluation, distribute information, cooperate with official agencies and to encourage uniform safety standards related to the use of fragrance ingredients.
of interest is a poster presentation at the February 3, 2009 RIFM 43rd Annual Meeting, which showed little change in selected pulmonary function parameters following 15- and 30-minute exposures to a fragrance by Takasago International Corporation (poster presentation #6):Membership in RIFM is open to all companies that manufacture, sell, distribute or engage in business related to the fragrance industry for at least one year.