Reprinted with permission from Experience Life Magazine.

We assume they are safe. But in fact, many popular household cleaners are dangerously toxic. Learn about the eight scariest substances hiding under your kitchen sink, and how to replace them with safer, more natural options that really work.

By Jessie Sholl

When a pain in Beth Greer’s shoulder led her to a chiropractor nine years ago, she wasn’t that worried. After all, she led a healthy lifestyle: She watched her weight, meditated regularly, and ate mostly organic food. Greer’s chiropractor wasn’t worried either; he diagnosed her with a herniated disk. But after three sessions, not only was she not better, the pain was beginning to radiate down her arm and into her fingers.

An MRI revealed the true cause of Greer’s pain: a tennis-ball-size tumor in her chest. The good news was the mass was benign. Still, each of the three thoracic surgeons Greer saw strongly recommended she have it removed. One wanted to get at it by going in under her collarbone, one wanted to reach the mass through her armpit, and the third wanted to remove a rib to get the tumor from the back.

They all agreed on just one thing: The surgery was risky. Because the tumor was in such a nerve-packed place, there was a real possibility that removing it could cause Greer to lose feeling in her hand.

Greer opted out of the surgery, and instead focused on doing everything she could to support her body’s healing capacity. Curious by nature (she and her husband, Steven Seligman, owned the Learning Annex, a group of schools offering short-term classes on everything from relationships to real-estate), Greer decided to learn everything she could about her condition and discovered that tumors typically grow in response to irritation and inflammation. Eliminating environmental toxins that might be contributing to her tumor’s growth seemed like a practical first step.

First, she turned her attention to the conventional household cleaning products tucked away in her cabinets. “I’d look at a label and it would say ‘hazardous to humans and domestic animals,’” says Greer. “So why would anyone want to use that?”

She ultimately tossed her entire collection of toxic cleaning products and began making her own with ingredients like vinegar, baking soda and essential oil. She also swapped her commercial body-care products and makeup for nontoxic ones, and she cleaned up her already healthy diet by eating only whole, unprocessed foods — without any labels.

Nine months later, her tumor was gone. Completely. Although she can’t pin her results on any one environmental change, Greer’s confident that cutting down her exposure to toxins played a critical role — so much so that she’s made sharing that information with others a central part of her life.

Today, Greer consults professionally with others who want to detoxify their homes and offices. In 2002 she and Seligman sold the Learning Annex and she began writing about toxin-free living. The result is her book, Super Natural Home (Rodale Books, 2009).

During her research for the book, Greer was shocked to learn that there’s no federal regulation of chemicals in household products. Rebecca Sutton, PhD, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), explains, “In terms of household cleaners, neither ingredients nor products must meet any sort of safety standard, nor is any testing data or notification required before bringing a product to market.”

The average household contains about 62 toxic chemicals, say environmental experts. We’re exposed to them routinely — from the phthalates in synthetic fragrances to the noxious fumes in oven cleaners. Ingredients in common household products have been linked to asthma, cancer, reproductive disorders, hormone disruption and neurotoxicity.

Manufacturers argue that in small amounts these toxic ingredients aren’t likely to be a problem, but when we’re exposed to them routinely, and in combinations that haven’t been studied, it’s impossible to accurately gauge the risks. While a few products cause immediate reactions from acute exposure (headaches from fumes, skin burns from accidental contact), different problems arise with repeated contact. Chronic exposure adds to the body’s “toxic burden” — the number of chemicals stored in its tissues at a given time.

This toxic body burden is EWG’s chief concern about household chemicals. Sutton explains: “Our concern is daily, weekly, chronic exposure over a lifetime. Maybe if you’re exposed to a chemical a handful of times it wouldn’t cause harm, but some chemicals build up enough or cause enough harm in your body over time that it triggers some kind of disease outcome. The concept [of body burden] is that pollution is not just in our air and in our water — it’s also in us.”

No one can avoid exposure to toxic chemicals altogether, but it is possible to reduce it significantly. In the following pages, Greer, Sutton and other experts weigh in on the worst toxic offenders commonly found in household cleaning products, and offer ways to swap them for healthier, safer options.

1. Phthalates

Found in: Many fragranced household products, such as air fresheners, dish soap, even toilet paper. Because of proprietary laws, companies don’t have to disclose what’s in their scents, so you won’t find phthalates on a label. If you see the word “fragrance” on a label, there’s a good chance phthalates are present.

Health Risks: Phthalates are known endocrine disruptors. Men with higher phthalate compounds in their blood had correspondingly reduced sperm counts, according to a 2003 study conducted by researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Harvard School of Public Health. Although exposure to phthalates mainly occurs through inhalation, it can also happen through skin contact with scented soaps, which is a significant problem, warns Alicia Stanton, MD, coauthor of Hormone Harmony (Healthy Life Library, 2009). Unlike the digestive system, the skin has no safeguards against toxins. Absorbed chemicals go straight to organs.

Healthier Choice: When possible choose fragrance-free or all-natural organic products. Greer recommends bypassing aerosol or plug-in air fresheners and instead using essential oils or simply opening windows to freshen the air. Besides causing more serious effects like endocrine disruption, “Aerosol sprays and air fresheners can be migraine and asthma triggers,” she says. Also consider adding more plants to your home: They’re natural air detoxifiers.

2. Perchloroethylene or “PERC”

Found in: Dry-cleaning solutions, spot removers, and carpet and upholstery cleaners.

Health Risks: Perc is a neurotoxin, according to the chief scientist of environmental protection for the New York Attorney General’s office. And the EPA classifies perc as a “possible carcinogen” as well. People who live in residential buildings where dry cleaners are located have reported dizziness, loss of coordination and other symptoms. While the EPA has ordered a phase-out of perc machines in residential buildings by 2020, California is going even further and plans to eliminate all use of perc by 2023 because of its suspected health risks. The route of exposure is most often inhalation: that telltale smell on clothes when they return from the dry cleaner, or the fumes that linger after cleaning carpets.

Healthier Choice: Curtains, drapes and clothes that are labeled “dry clean only” can be taken instead to a “wet cleaner,” which uses water-based technology rather than chemical solvents. The EPA recently recognized liquid carbon dioxide (CO2) as an environmentally preferable alternative to more toxic dry-cleaning solvents. Ask your dry cleaner which method they use. For a safer spot remover, look for a nontoxic brand like Ecover at a natural market, or rub undiluted castile soap directly on stains before washing.

3. Triclosan

Found in: Most liquid dishwashing detergents and hand soaps labeled “antibacterial.”

Health Risks: Triclosan is an aggressive antibacterial agent that can promote the growth of drug-resistant bacteria. Explains Sutton: “The American Medical Association has found no evidence that these antimicrobials make us healthier or safer, and they’re particularly concerned because they don’t want us overusing antibacterial chemicals — that’s how microbes develop resistance, and not just to these [household antibacterials], but also to real antibiotics that we need.” Other studies have now found dangerous concentrations of triclosan in rivers and streams, where it is toxic to algae. The EPA is currently investigating whether triclosan may also disrupt endocrine (hormonal) function. It is a probable carcinogen. At press time, the agency was reviewing the safety of triclosan in consumer products.

Healthier Choice: Use simple detergents and soaps with short ingredient lists, and avoid antibacterial products with triclosan for home use. If you’re hooked on hand sanitizer, choose one that is alcohol-based and without triclosan.

4. Quarternary Ammonium Compounds, or “QUATS”

Found in: Fabric softener liquids and sheets, most household cleaners labeled “antibacterial.”

Health Risks: Quats are another type of antimicrobial, and thus pose the same problem as triclosan by helping breed antibiotic-resistant bacteria. They’re also a skin irritant; one 10-year study of contact dermatitis found quats to be one of the leading causes. According to Sutton, they’re also suspected as a culprit for respiratory disorders: “There’s evidence that even healthy people who are [exposed to quats] on a regular basis develop asthma as a result.”

Healthier Choice: You don’t really need fabric softener or dryer sheets to soften clothes or get rid of static: Simple vinegar works just as well. “Vinegar is the natural fabric softener of choice for many reasons,” explains Karyn Siegel-Maier in her book The Naturally Clean Home (Storey Publishing, 2008). “Not only is it nontoxic, it also removes soap residue in the rinse cycle and helps to prevent static cling in the dryer.” White vinegar is your best choice for general cleaning; other types can stain.

Alternatives to chemical disinfectants abound, including antibacterial, antifungal tea-tree oil. Mix a few drops of tea-tree oil and a tablespoon of vinegar with water in a spray bottle for a safe, germ killing, all-purpose cleaner. Add a couple of drops of lavender essential oil for scent.

5. 2-Butoxyethanol

Found in: Window, kitchen and multipurpose cleaners.

Health Risks: 2-butoxyethanol is the key ingredient in many window cleaners and gives them their characteristic sweet smell. It belongs in the category of “glycol ethers,” a set of powerful solvents that don’t mess around. Law does not require 2-butoxyethanol to be listed on a product’s label. According to the EPA’s Web site, in addition to causing sore throats when inhaled, at high levels glycol ethers can also contribute to narcosis, pulmonary edema, and severe liver and kidney damage. Although the EPA sets a standard on 2-butoxyethanol for workplace safety, Sutton warns, “If you’re cleaning at home in a confined area, like an unventilated bathroom, you can actually end up getting 2-butoxyethanol in the air at levels that are higher than workplace safety standards.”

Healthier Choice: Clean mirrors and windows with newspaper and diluted vinegar. For other kitchen tasks, stick to simple cleaning compounds like Bon Ami powder; it’s made from natural ingredients like ground feldspar and baking soda without the added bleach or fragrances found in most commercial cleansers. You can also make your own formulas with baking soda, vinegar and essential oils. See the “DIY Cleaners” sidebar for a list of clean concoctions.

6. Ammonia

Found in: Polishing agents for bathroom fixtures, sinks and jewelry; also in glass cleaner.

Health Risks: Because ammonia evaporates and doesn’t leave streaks, it’s another common ingredient in commercial window cleaners. That sparkle has a price. “Ammonia is a powerful irritant,” says Donna Kasuska, chemical engineer and president of ChemConscious, Inc., a risk-management consulting company. “It’s going to affect you right away. The people who will be really affected are those who have asthma, and elderly people with lung issues and breathing problems. It’s almost always inhaled. People who get a lot of ammonia exposure, like housekeepers, will often develop chronic bronchitis and asthma.” Ammonia can also create a poisonous gas if it’s mixed with bleach.

Healthier Choice: Vodka. “It will produce a reflective shine on any metal or mirrored surface,” explains Lori Dennis, author of Green Interior Design (Allsworth Press, 2010). And toothpaste makes an outstanding silver polish.

7. Chlorine

Found in: Scouring powders, toilet bowl cleaners, mildew removers, laundry whiteners, household tap water.

Health Risks: “With chlorine we have so many avenues of exposure,” says Kasuska. “You’re getting exposed through fumes and possibly through skin when you clean with it, but because it’s also in city water to get rid of bacteria, you’re also getting exposed when you take a shower or bath. The health risks from chlorine can be acute, and they can be chronic; it’s a respiratory irritant at an acute level. But the chronic effects are what people don’t realize: It may be a serious thyroid disrupter.”

Healthier Choice: For scrubbing, stick to Bon Ami or baking soda. Toilet bowls can be cleaned with vinegar, and vinegar or borax powder both work well for whitening clothes. So does the chlorine-free oxygen bleach powder made by Biokleen. To reduce your exposure to chlorine through tap water, install filters on your kitchen sink and in the shower.

8. Sodium Hydroxide

Found in: Oven cleaners and drain openers.

Health Risks: Otherwise known as lye, sodium hydroxide is extremely corrosive: If it touches your skin or gets in your eyes, it can cause severe burns. Routes of exposure are skin contact and inhalation. Inhaling sodium hydroxide can cause a sore throat that lasts for days.

Healthier Choice: You can clean the grimiest oven with baking-soda paste — it just takes a little more time and elbow grease (see recipes in “DIY Cleaners” sidebar). Unclog drains with a mechanical “snake” tool, or try this approach from the Green Living Ideas Web site: Pour a cup of baking soda and a cup of vinegar down the drain and plug it for 30 minutes. After the bubbles die down, run hot water down the drain to clear the debris.

Jessie Sholl has written about health for a variety of publications. She is also the author of Dirty Secret: A Daughter Comes Clean About Her Mother’s Compulsive Hoarding (Simon and Schuster/Gallery Books, 2010).

SIDEBAR

Beware of Greenwashing

If a cleaning product at your supermarket proclaims itself “green,” “natural” or “biodegradable,” that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s nontoxic. In 2010 the environmental consulting firm TerraChoice Group produced a report called “The Sins of Greenwashing.” In it the group found more than 95 percent of so-called green consumer products had committed at least one “greenwashing sin,” like making an environmental claim that may be truthful but unimportant. “CFC-free,” for example, is a common one, since CFCs are banned by law. Donna Kasuska of ChemConscious offers this advice: “When gauging ecological claims, look for specifics. ‘Biodegradable in three to five days’ holds more meaning than ‘biodegradable,’ as most substances will eventually break down with enough time.”

SIDEBAR

DIY Cleaners

Clean your home safely — and cheaply — with the following recipes:

• Basic sink cleanser — Combine ½ cup baking soda with six drops essential oil (such as lavender, rosemary, lemon, lime or orange). Rinse sink well with hot water. Sprinkle combination into sink and pour ¼ cup vinegar over top. After the fizz settles, scrub with a damp sponge or cloth. Rinse again with hot water. (From The Naturally Clean Home, by Karyn Siegel-Maier.)

• Oven cleanser — Put a heatproof dish filled with water in the oven. Turn on the heat to let the steam soften any baked-on grease. Once the oven is cool, apply a paste of equal parts salt, baking soda, and vinegar, and scrub. (From Super Natural Home, by Beth Greer.)

• Bathroom mildew remover — Good ventilation helps prevent mildew and mold. When they do occur, make a spray with 2 cups of water and 1/4 teaspoon each of tea-tree and lavender oil. Shake first and spray on trouble spots. The oils break down the mildew so there’s no need to wipe it down. (From Green Interior Design, by Lori Dennis.)

• Carpet shampoo — Mix 3 cups water, ¾ cup vegetable-based liquid soap, and 10 drops peppermint essential oil. Rub the foam into soiled areas with a damp sponge. Let dry thoroughly and then vacuum. (FromThe Naturally Clean Home.)

• Laundry soap — Try “soap nuts” made from the dried fruit of the Chinese soapberry tree. Available in natural groceries and online, the reusable soap nuts come in a cotton sack that goes into the washing machine with clothes.

• Dusting — Skip the furniture polishes. Instead, use a microfiber cloth. Made from synthetic fibers that are then split into hundreds of smaller microfibers, they capture dust more efficiently than regular rags. If necessary, a little olive oil makes a fine polishing agent.

Reprinted with permission from Experience Life Magazine.

Experience Life magazine is an award-winning health and fitness publication that aims to empower people to live their best, most authentic lives, and challenges the conventions of hype, gimmicks and superficiality in favor of a discerning, whole-person perspective. Visit www.experiencelife.com to learn more, to sign up for Experience Life newsletters, or to subscribe to the print or digital version.

What do climate-science deniers and “spin doctors” who attack environmental health protections have in common?  They’re like moths to the flame of an activist victory for safer products. Ever since my organization succeeded in pressuring Johnson & Johnson to get carcinogens out of its baby products,  the “boys who know best” are coming round to tell us not to worry our pretty little heads about cancer-causing chemicals in baby shampoo.

David Ropeik wins the prize for paternalistic, condescending framing in his Scientific American blog: “Warning! Health Hazards May be Hazardous to Your Health.”

Ropeik warns that “frightened, worried, scared, concerned” moms are at greater risk of stress-related illnesses (irritable bowel syndrome, clinical depression) than babies are at risk from getting cancer from formaldehyde in the bathtub; as if the only choice here is between soaking kids in toxic substances or making mothers sick with worry.

How about if America’s “most-trusted brand” just gets the carcinogens out of baby shampoo? And hey, guess what, Johnson & Johnson has already done that in other countries, where they have better laws, just not here! That’s the kind of thing that really makes moms sick to their stomachs.

Ropeik is described in the article as an instructor at Harvard Extension School,but there’s no mention of his role as a “risk communications” expert; one of those people who gets hired to help corporations spin themselves out of trouble – and spin he has, for clients that include Dow Chemical, DuPont and others working against environmental health protections.

Ropeik may want to pay more attention to the science than the talking points if he’s going to write for Scientific American. The concern about quaternium-15 isn’t just that it emits formaldehyde (a known human carcinogen); dermatologists have been warning for years that the chemical is contributing to higher rates of contact dermatitis.

This sort of detail doesn’t fit with the “how dare you worry moms about chemicals” narrative of folks like Joe Schwarcz, director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society, who used the space so generously provided him by the Montreal Gazette to make the “Case to Keep Chemical Soup in Baby’s Soap.”

Schwarcz was keynote speaker for this year’s meeting of the Personal Care Products Council (which counts Johnson & Johnson among its members), and is also a consultant for industry (including Monsanto) who, as described in his bio, “interprets science” for the public.

Joe, I urge you to try out your 2 cubic meter theory on the nearest mom, and ask her if she wouldn’t just rather that her baby’s shampoo contained no formaldehyde at all.

At least Schwarcz admits it’s time to get formaldehyde out of Brazilian Blowout hair straighteners. A recent attack report by the better known and notorious industry front group Competitive Enterprises Institute — leading opponents of the overwhelming science on climate change — starts off on a dubious foot by claiming that the Brazilian Blowout problem was “quickly resolved” (except that it’s still not resolved). And that’s not the only detail in the report that’s opposite of true.

Ah well, consider the source: a group with funding ties to Exxon, Texaco and the Koch family foundation…

As Nicole Abene points out in “Industry-Funded Watchdog Group Says Toxic Chemicals in Cosmetics Are Good for You,” the authors of the report attacking the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics are the same folks who produced a TV commercial advocating for increased carbon-dioxide emissions because it’s “what plants breathe in.”

Following the logic of the chemical industry talking points, a little bit of carcinogen on the head might be just what the baby really needs.

And for moms who disagree, well, we can console ourselves with the knowledge that: We’re winning! Companies are responding to our demands and cleaning up their products, and it isn’t even all that hard for them to do.

As Abene writes, “It was only under significant public pressure that Johnson & Johnson agreed to no longer introduce new products with formaldehyde-releasing ingredients. No one was asking Johnson & Johnson to pull a hat trick—a safer alternative was already available and in production, so why the double standard?”

Here’s hoping the Corporations of America get it that it’s time to invest in a toxic-free future and give the spin doctors a rest.

Photo credit:
Bubble Monster: audi_insperation on Flickr.com Creative Commons

When it comes to BPA’s – bisphenol A – I really can’t say a good word about them. They’re bad for the earth and terrible for our bodies – so the less we ingest (knowingly or not) the better. When you feel as strongly about sustaining wellness as I do, the best way to deal with BPA’s is to get them out of your life. And how do I loathe BPAs? Let me count the ways. First of all, biosphenol A is an industrial chemical, an endocrine disrupter, a suspected carcinogen and proven synthetic hormone that mimics the effects of estrogen! BPA’s have been linked to increased risks for heart disease, cancer and diabetes, as well as liver and brain problems. BPA’s are also credited with contributing to erectile dysfunction and the growth of breast cancer cells in adults, plus developmental problems in children. Need I go on?  Clearly, it’s time for all of us to kick it to the curb. Here’s how to start your BPA purge, preferably today:

Kick the can.
Virtually all canned food liners contain BPA’s, which leech into the food (yuck!). My advice? Don’t buy canned food. It’s as simple as that. Buy glass bottled items instead. Better yet, buy fresh, whole, organic foods and prep them yourself to minimize BPA exposure.  If you can’t kick the can completely, just be sure to use canned goods as little as possible.

Keep it glassy.
Store foods in glass containers to eliminate BPA leeching. Reheat items in glass as well to banish the BPA’s. If you have a lot of plastic microwavable containers in your pantry, slowly start decommissioning them and start transitioning over to an all-glass or ceramic-container kitchen. The older the plastic container, the sooner you should throw it out.

Be kinder to the earth.
Another reason to go with glass? It’s kinder to the earth and can be easily recycled. Better yet, you use less energy and water by using one-dish glass cookware that goes from the oven straight to the table. The same is true also for ceramic cookware.

Put down the spatula.
Particularly if it’s made of plastic. Some of the cheaper brands made in countries with fewer safety regulations may contain BPA’s, so be conscious of what your cooking utensils are made of. A better bet is to switch to sustainable, earth-friendly cooking utensils, such as bamboo, that won’t melt or leech chemicals into food with every stir of the soup.

Know your BPA-free numbers.
Pay attention to recycling codes on the bottom of the container. If they’re tagged with a # 1,2, 4 or 5, they’ll be BPA-free, so they’ OK for short-term, single-occasion use, but again, the less you buy, use and dump in a landfill, the better.

Know the bad guys.
Stay far away from the 3’s and the 7’s. The 3’s are made of PVC, also known as vinyl, a notorious toxic off-gasser. Items marked with the #7 recycling code are made with BPA’s so leave them at the store.

Hit the bottle.
Just not plastic ones. If you like to carry water along wherever you go, then portable bottles made of stainless steel are the BPA-free way to go. However, you should remember to check that the bottle doesn’t have a plastic liner, which may contain BPA’s. If you do buy bottled drinks in BPA-free plastic bottles (usually marked with the #1 recycling code), never re-use them, as they’re not designed to withstand hot water washings or repeated usage.

Have a happy and BPA-free day!

Are you polishing your skin with plastic? You are if your favorite facial scrub contains particles made from polyethelene. It’s a common exfoliating ingredient in such popular products as Olay Regenerist Advanced Anti-Aging Regeneration Cream Cleanser, the new Neutrogena Rapid Clear Foaming Scrub, and even Bliss Lemon + Sage Body Scrub. Polyethelene beads are made from polymers of ethylene oxide (say that three times fast)—the same synthetic stuff used to make plastic grocery bags.

What is it doing in your skin care? The beads are supposed to be a boon for skin because they’re perfectly spherical—unlike walnut shells and apricot pits which can be coarse, some say, and tear at tender facial skin, or worse, irritate, infect, or spread a case of the pimples, particularly the red bumpy kind. (They’re better off used in body scrubs.)

At best, polyethelene beads probably create a bit of friction as they roll over your face. New York City dermatologist Dennis Gross, M.D., who’s not a fan of most scrubs, says that of all possible materials, at least these have a smooth surface.

At worst, these teeny plastic pellets roll down your drain and wind up in rivers and seas. Microplastics—particles of less than 1 milimeter—are on ecologist’s Most Wanted list of environmental pollutants right now. They’re tiny enough to squeeze out of a beauty product tube—and to escape sewage filtering systems. That’s not good for something that doesn’t exactly biodegrade and may carry toxic fossil fuel byproducts. Studies of the effects of microplastics on marine wildlife suggest equally scary things, namely that fish, not known for their eyesight, can’t distinguish a polyethelene bead from a grain of sand or a microorganism that it might consume for dinner.

Do we really need a perfectly shaped facial scrub that badly?

Fortunately, some companies say that the quest for the perfectly round skin-polishing bead has already been discovered—in nature. It’s jojoba, says Tina Touhy, a spokesperson for Aveda, which uses the botanical bead-like spheres in the deep-cleansing Tourmaline Charged Exfoliating Cleanser. Jojoba also gets marquee billing in REN Jojoba Microbead Invigorating Facial Polish, which contains a pick-me-up of peppermint, and it’s paired with oats in Naturopathica Oat Facial Polish, a gentle non-drying scrub that’s particularly good for sensitive skin. These are scrubs with polish.

Classic symptoms of dairy sensitivity are mucus, respiratory problems, digestive problems (such as gas, bloating, diarrhea, or constipation), fatigue, joint pains, and skin problems from rashes to acne. About 10% of adults are lactose intolerant and many others have difficulty digesting casein from cow’s milk. When casein is not properly digested, it gets into your bloodstream, and the immune system reacts, causing inflammation.

There are a number of hormones in an average glass of milk (even the organic and bovine growth hormone free milk) and recently a cocktail of other chemicals were found in a typical glass of milk too. Pasteurization eliminates many of the beneficial components of milk, and homogenization creates fats that are foreign to most human digestive systems.

At the Eleven Eleven Wellness Center, we encourage patients to give up dairy products, which includes milk, cheese, cottage cheese, yogurt, butter and non-dairy creamers. By doing this for at least 2 weeks you will give your digestive system a rest and will be able to tell if you are sensitive to dairy. In my experience of eliminating dairy for a few weeks, I figured out that it bothers my stomach (especially any cream-based soups), so I now avoid dairy and feel much better.

If you’re among the many people who don’t tolerate dairy well, don’t despair! Here are some easy alternatives:

Milk Substitutes

Almond Milk: Almond milk is my favorite of the dairy alternatives. I use a splash in a cup of tea or it’s great in a smoothie. The trick is to choose unsweetened almond milk. Brands that I like are Pacific Natural Foods or Blue Diamond Almond Breeze – choose organic if possible. You should be able to find almond milk at Whole Foods, in your health food store or even your supermarket.

It’s also easy to make your own almond milk: Soak 1 cup of raw almonds for at least 4 hours or overnight. Then strain the water and add the almonds to your blender with 3 cups of filtered water. Blend for several minutes until smooth. Then you will strain through a cheesecloth, refrigerate the milk and use within 3 days. You can also make cashew milk in the same fashion. Enjoy!   

Rice Milk: Rice milk is also a great choice. The consistency is a bit thinner (more watery) than almond milk, but some people prefer it and of course it’s a good alternative if you have a nut allergy.

Hemp Milk: Hemp milk has a nice creamy consistency.  It is made with hemp seeds which are nutritional powerhouses – they are a good vegetarian source of protein and essential omega 3 and 6 fatty acids.

Goat’s Milk: Though technically a dairy product, goat’s milk is more easily digested by many people who are sensitive to cow’s milk. We recommend that you take all dairy products out of your diet for at least two weeks, and then you can introduce some goat milk and see if you’re able to digest it without a problem.

Cheese, Butter and Yogurt

Daiya is a dairy-free cheese substitute that you can check out.  We also find that many people tolerate goat cheese, sheep’s milk feta or buffalo mozzarella better than sheep from cows. For butter, you may be fine with small amounts of butter, or you can try Earth Balance Natural Spread. For yogurt alternatives, you can try a yogurt made from coconut milk such as So Delicious or Turtle Mountain brands.

Ice Cream

What fun is life without ice cream? Not much!  Here are some suggestions to satisfy that craving for something cold and creamy:

Smoothies: You can’t go wrong with a refreshing smoothie. I like to make my morning smoothies so thick that I eat them with a spoon. They are the best way to pack in protein, healthy fats, and even greens in an easy-to-digest beverage. Check out this recipe for a Blueberry Pear Smoothie – delicious! We have many more smoothie recipes here.

Banana Soft Serve: Check out this amazing recipe for banana soft serve from certified clinical nutritionist Gena Hamshaw. Heaven on earth!

Coconut Bliss Ice Cream: This dairy-free ice cream is made with coconut milk and is delicious. Just be aware that it still has a lot of sugar, so this should be an occasional treat not an everyday staple. Check it out at www.coconutbliss.com.

This should be enough to get you started on your dairy-free journey! If you stay open-minded and get creative about trying dairy alternatives the transition will be easy. If you have questions or need additional ideas for dairy substitutes, email me at Kerry@bewellbydrfranklipman.com.

You might have heard that sure, parabens and other chemicals are bad if ingested, but they can’t penetrate your skin so you don’t have anything to worry about. The fact is, that much of what we place on our skin is absorbed into our bloodstream. Just think about nicotene and birth control patches. While there may be some chemicals that are too large to enter your bloodstream most are small enough to penetrate. We have had studies done on everything from umbilical cords of unborn children to adult urine and have found alarming levels of cosmetic chemicals. So I say you’re better off doing your best to avoid all known harmful chemicals because chances are they’re entering your bloodstream.

The next thing you want to think about is the level of exposure you’re getting from the products you’re using. Different products mean different levels of exposure and concern. For instance, if you use a lotion all over your body and it soaks into your skin all day, you’re getting a lot more exposure to those chemicals than if you were to use the same ingredients in a face cleanser that is quickly washed off. So be strategic– try to get the best ingredients in products that you have a lot of exposure to (shampoo, lotion, sunscreen, etc…) and if you want relax your standards a bit for products like hand soap that gets washed off.

When we try to be perfect, we get paralyzed. It can get so overwhelming to constantly worry about each ingredient in every product that we just want to forget the whole thing and buy a bar of soap already. The way to avoid this is by choosing when to demand a certain standard and when to relax. That way you don’t have to worry about every ingredient all the time and you still drastically improve the overall quality of your beauty products.

Top products to look for cleanest ingredients

1. Anything you soak in a bath

2. Anything you apply and do not wash off, such as lotion, face cream and body oil

3. Body powder

4. Shampoo and conditioner (it is a wash off, but has high exposure due to where you use it and how it goes over your entire body)

5. Any product you put on your child

Top products that have limited exposure and you can relax your standards if you choose

1. Eye shadow, pencil

2. Face cleanser

3. Bar soap

4. Blush

5. Leave in hair care products

Fragrance is the problem child ingredient of traditional beauty products. Wild and wily, these molecules of scent can wreak havoc on your skin by causing contact dermatitis, a seriously red and itchy rash, or other allergic reactions like a headache or asthma. According to the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), fragrance is the biggest cause of cosmetic contact dermatitis. It’s up there with nickel and poison ivy, which most people know how to avoid.

But it can be hard to steer clear of something that’s in scores of products, from skin care and hair care to makeup and perfume, of course. An equal opportunity player, fragrance is added to drugstore brands and department store ones alike to connote luxury or brand unity or cover up what skin-care ingredients might smell like without it. (Medicinal with a hint of cold cream is not very sexy.) Here are few more facts we’ve sniffed out about this potentially vexing ingredient.

“Fragrance” is a catch-all term on the list of ingredients, making it hard to know exactly what’s in your skin-care product

FRAGRANCE GETS A FREE PASS ON LABELS

For consumer clarity, beauty companies have to use the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) when listing what’s in a product. This standardized book of ingredient names means that lavandula angustifolia (lavender extract) is always lavandula angustifolia, regardless of whether a company thinks theirs is better, exotic, or magical.

But fragrance gets a free pass under the law—it’s the only ingredient that’s allowed to hide under a cloud of rose petals and doesn’t have to say what it really is. The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) exempts it from having to be more specific, even though it might contain synthetic, preservative, or allergy-provoking substances that you might want to know about. That can be a big problem for New Yorkers who pride themselves on knowing what exactly goes into their food or face creams.

FRAGRANCE: A COMPLICATED COCKTAIL

Although fragrance looks like it’s one ingredient on the label, it’s more likely a blend of many ingredients, confirms the AAD, which says about 5,000 fragrance molecules are used in heavy rotation. Cosmetic companies may use as many fragrance-forming ingredients as they like—and still “fragrance” takes up just one spot on the label. Suffice it say, it can make it hard to figure out exactly what you’re allergic to.

Intelligent Nutrients names every ingredient in the bottle. All companies could do this instead of using “fragrance” to hide the ones that worry us.

AN OUTDATED LOOPHOLE

Why does the FDA give fragrance this label-listing loophole? It was originally developed to protect a company’s proprietary perfume blend or trade secrets, under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966. In other words, it protected Coty and Chanel No. 5 from copycats.

The regulation designed to conceal ingredients from the eyes of corporate competitors now does the same for a cosmetic consumer who might be inclined to scan the label for parabens, petroleum by-products, and synthetics.

FYI: Companies can choose to disclose their ingredients without giving away the specific amounts and the formulation process—and some do. After all, chocolate, sugar, flour, and butter doesn’t make the exact same cake.

HOW TO AVOID SYNTHETIC FRAGRANCE

The solution? (Other than lobbying the FDA to change this, which some groups are doing, by the way.) Look for beauty products that plainly state what’s scenting it: On the back label, “fragrance” should be followed by a list of ingredients in parentheses.

Or look for a product that uses essential oils instead of “fragrance (parfum).” Many brands, including Dermalogica, now do this.

And Intelligent Nutrients practices what’s probably the most reasonable solution: The company doesn’t use the term “fragrance” at all. Instead it just lists every single ingredient on the label regardless of what its purpose is. Companies that use synthetics could do this, too.

BEFORE YOU REACH FOR “FRAGRANCE-FREE” PRODUCTS

You might be totally tempted to scan the beauty counter for “fragrance-free” products at this point. Not to be a buzzkill, but that’s probably not enough. All kinds of companies use the term, and not in the same way.

“No synthetic fragrance” reads this stamp REN developed for its products

Companies that don’t use any chemicals or synthetic fragrance molecules—just plant and flower extracts or essential oils—might call their products “fragrance-free,” like REN, a natural skin-care brand.

But companies that use scent-masking chemicals, so your product smells no more or less than milk, will also claim to be “fragrance-free.” Neutrogena is a good example.

Good to know for sniffing out your beauty product labels.

By David Michaels

I posted a book review this week on this important book and found this video book review….so for those of you who would rather watch then read a book review…watch on.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Doubt is Their Product is an indictment of the way big business has ignored, suppressed or distorted vital scientific evidence to the detriment of the public’s health. This sabotaging of science is now a routine part of American politics and a common corporate strategy. It was a tactic started by the tobacco industry, which worked for years and now is being used by the Pharmaceutical and Chemical industries. They bombard the courts and regulatory agencies with a barrage of dubious scientific information to create doubt about the toxicity of their various products to delay regulation. Unfortunately it has nearly always worked, at least for a time. In these battles over regulating substances, money has bought science, and then science—or, more precisely, artificially exaggerated uncertainty about scientific findings—has greatly delayed action to protect public and worker safety. And in many cases people are dying or suffering unnecessarily….it is criminal.

Here is a good review of the book that I found on the website for the book:

“In this eye-opening expose, David Michaels reveals how the tobacco industry’s duplicitous tactics spawned a multimillion dollar industry that is dismantling public health safeguards. Product defense consultants, he argues, have increasingly skewed the scientific literature, manufactured and magnified scientific uncertainty, and influenced policy decisions to the advantage of polluters and the manufacturers of dangerous products. To keep the public confused about the hazards posed by global warming, second-hand smoke, asbestos, lead, plastics, and many other toxic materials, industry executives have hired unscrupulous scientists and lobbyists to dispute scientific evidence about health risks. In doing so, they have not only delayed action on specific hazards, but they have constructed barriers to make it harder for lawmakers, government agencies, and courts to respond to future threats. The Orwellian strategy of dismissing research conducted by the scientific community as “junk science” and elevating science conducted by product defense specialists to “sound science” status also creates confusion about the very nature of scientific inquiry and undermines the public’s confidence in science’s ability to address public health and environmental concerns Such reckless practices have long existed, but Michaels argues that the Bush administration deepened the dysfunction by virtually handing over regulatory agencies to the very corporate powers whose products and behavior they are charged with overseeing.

In Doubt Is Their Product Michaels proves, beyond a doubt, that our regulatory system has been broken. He offers concrete, workable suggestions for how it can be restored by taking the politics out of science and ensuring that concern for public safety, rather than private profits, guides our regulatory policy”

Perfumes and fragrances are the single largest category of cosmetic and personal care products, especially hair, facial, and eye. These products represent nearly 50 percent of all prestige beauty dollars now spent in the US Fragrances are also extensively used in a wide range of everyday household cleaning products.

Exposure to toxic ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products is predominantly through the skin. In contrast, exposure to toxic ingredients in household cleaning products is predominantly through inhalation.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has direct authority under the terms of the 1938 Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act to regulate toxic ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products. However, seven decades later, it has still failed to do so. Similarly, the Environmental Protection Agency has also still failed to regulate these toxic ingredients in household cleaning products.

In the disturbing absence of any federal regulations, the policies and practices of the cosmetics and personal care products industries are determined by its International Fragrance Association (IFRA). This is an international trade organization of over 100 perfume and fragrance manufacturers, representing 15 regions including the US, Europe, South America, Australia and the Far East.

The primary objectives of IFRA are to protect the self-regulatory practices and policies of the industry by the development of a Code of Practices and safety guidelines. However, these include maintaining the “trade secret” status of perfume and fragrance ingredients, and pre-empting international legislative labeling and safety initiatives.

Of the more than 5,000 ingredients used in the fragrance industry, approximately 1,300 have so far been evaluated by the industry’s International Research Institute for Fragrance Materials. This Institute is a “non-profit” organization, created by IFRA in 1966 to conduct research and testing of fragrance ingredients. However, this testing is minimal and restricted to local effects on human skin, and short-term toxicity tests in rodents. Evaluation of ingredient safety is then made by an “independent” board of toxicologists, pharmacologists and dermatologists, without disclosure of their qualifications, let alone conflicts of interest. Their findings are presented to IFRA’s Scientific Advisory Board, and then published in its trade journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology. The information reported in this journal is the basis on which IFRA formulates its own “safety guidelines.” However, due to the “trade secret” status of fragrances, manufacturers are still not required by the FDA to disclose their ingredients on the label or in any other way.

These ingredients include a wide range of allergens. They also include synthetic musks, particularly tonalide and galaxolide, designed to mimic natural scents derived from musk deer and ox. They are persistent and bioaccumulate in the body, have toxic hormonal effects, and have been identified in breast milk.

In efforts at damage control, IFRA agreed that information on allergenic ingredients in perfumes like Eternity should be made available, but only on request from dermatologists, for diagnostic purposes. This “Fragrance On-Call List” action denies the public its right to know.

In 1973, in further efforts at damage control, IFRA created a Code of Practice listing prohibited ingredients, based on its own safety analyses. This listing has been subsequently periodically updated.

In May 1999, in response to repeated complaints of respiratory, neurological, and other toxic effects following the use of Calvin Klein’s Eternity perfume, the Environmental Health Network of California hired two testing laboratories to identify the ingredients in the perfume. Analysis of these results by the Cancer Prevention Coalition, summarized in the author’s 2009 Toxic Beauty book, reveal the following:

• 26 ingredients whose “Toxicological properties have not been investigated,” or “toxicology properties have not been thoroughly investigated.”

• 25 ingredients that are “Irritants.”

• 5 ingredients that are “Skin sensitizers,” or allergens.

• 3 ingredients that show “Fetal, hormonal, and reproductive toxicity.”

• 2 ingredients that “May cause cancer.”

More disturbingly, Dr. Vey, president of IFRA, failed to respond to repeated warnings from August to October 2003 from the Cancer Prevention Coalition. These urged “all fragrance products be labeled to the effect that, apart from the absence of known skin and respiratory allergens, they contain no known carcinogens, gene damaging, hormonal, or otherwise toxic ingredients.”

As reported in “What’s That Smell,” a June 2010 report by Women’s Voices of the Earth, faced with continuing criticism of unresponsiveness, IFRA initiated a “compliance program” in 2007. However, this is based on testing of a mere 50 fragranced products from the global market place to detect prohibited ingredients.

Clearly, IFRA is recklessly irresponsible. Also, clearly the public should be protected from further exposure to toxic ingredients in cleaning products, besides those in cosmetics and personal care products. These objectives would be implemented by passage of Senator Frank Lautenberg’s Safe Chemicals Act of 2010, and Congressmen Henry Waxman and Bobby Rush’s companion Act of April 2010. Both these Acts were based on the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. The new Acts require manufacturers to provide information on “chemicals of concern” in consumer products. This would also provide the public with information on the dangers of cosmetic and personal care products, especially as the FDA has recklessly failed to do so since passage of the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Click here to endorse these concerns.

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; Recipient of the 1998 Right Livelihood Award (“Alternative Nobel Prize”) and the 2005 Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medal for International Contributions to Cancer Prevention; Author of over 270 scientific articles and 20 books on the causes and prevention of cancer, including Toxic Beauty (BenBella Books, 2009) and Cancer-Gate: How To Win The Losing Cancer War (Baywood Publishing, 2005).

CONTACT:

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
Author of the 2009 Toxic Beauty, and the 2005 Cancer-Gate books
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health
Chicago, Illinois
Tel: 312-996-2297
Email: epstein@uic.edu
www.preventcancer.com
Please join the CPC on Facebook.