We are always told to read the label. Ok, so you read the label. How far ahead are you? Most of us don't know what most of the ingredients are on a label. Take toothpaste for example. The disclaimer on the tubes that I have read say to call poison control if ingested. Now I imagine that is for children but why? I was shown you can use backing soda to brush your teeth and it works just as well and is natural although it does not have the sweet flavor of typical toothpaste, but what cost do we pay for flavor and a product that is dangerous to a certain degree? Do we have any idea of what is good or bad for us? What about your personal care products? Do you know what ingredients really work or what ingredients may or have shown to cause cancer? Probably not. In fact if you read enough labels you may see enough common ingredients that you might think they are ok because they are in so many products. This is usually not the case.

If you take the time to do a little research you will find that many common chemicals in the products you use every day are cancer causing. The truth is the home is a haven for cancer. According to Michael Dufresne, a leading researcher in environmental cancers, "54% of women working in the home are at a higher risk of developing cancer than women working outside the home." The reason? Chemicals in every day products.

Dufresne, a researcher professor at the University of Windsor, who is also a research coordinator for Cancer Care Ontario and a member of the US Barbara Karmanos Cancer Institute, says that the presence of cancer-linked chemicals in cosmetic and hair products, toothpaste, shaving cream, furniture polish, dish washing liquids and other household products should raise major concerns.

Dufresne said his greatest worry is the lack of information given to the public about products they use every day, more so because they are being used in concert.

He said "people are blindly being led in the use of these products, they assume they are safe, and they are not." He added, "scientists are discovering that exposure to a variety of trace chemicals over the span of a lifetime is dangerous."

Did you know that the US Public Interest Group reports there are more that 100,000 synthetic chemicals in use? Scary yes, but even scarier according to Dufresne is that unlike cigarettes there are virtually no warning labels on cosmetics and virtually no FDA regulations policing them.

What about price. If the product is expensive it must be good for you right? Uh Uh. Dufresne's own study showed that "men and women think they are safer if they pay more, but there is absolutely no relationship between cost and safety."

One product that saved farmers millions of dollars was DDT. The U.S. government outlawed the use of the pesticide DDT because of the cancer causing dangers research has proven. Unfortunately most people are unaware that many countries from which we import out fruits and vegetables still use DDT because their respective governments aren't worried about the effects since the produce is exported to the US. Monsanto, one of the major chemical producers, manufactures DDT and sells it abroad. Why? Because it works so well, it is cheap to produce and of course it is good for the bottom line. Profit. Unless you grow your food yourself or buy organic produce, you may never really know what you are adding to your diet. The choice is yours! As the adage goes...buyer beware.

So what can we do about it?

Buy organic!!... or we all become farmers, or we demand to know more about our products so that we can make the choice for ourselves!

The main reason most chemicals show up in so many products is because they are inexpensive, simple and effective—and the government allows them to continue to be used by virtually every cosmetics and personal care product manufacturer in the country. A lot of them were being used before the Food and Drug Administration began regulating the use of dangerous chemicals in such products and they were "grandfathered in," and, at the time, seemed ok.

Below is a listing of some of those chemicals, their properties, and their other uses. With this list in hand, the next time you go to the drug store or even the grocery store, or your own household cabinets you can examine the labels on every product you have to see if some of them appear in the ingredient list, and they usually do.

When you find these ingredients on the label the wisest course is to put it back on the shelf and look for something that does not contain these chemicals.

ALPHA HYDROXY ACIDS: This is one of the most touted chemicals there is in the cosmetic industry today. It is supposed to make your skin look younger and remove wrinkles. It does that, all right. But at the cost of prematurely exposing immature skin through the removal of the tough outer layer. It exposes young, not fully developed skin to the harsh aging and damaging environmental agents. The "smoothing" of the skin is temporary and regular use of AHAs could actually make your skin age much faster. Your outer layer of skin is your first, and most important layer of defense, and AHAs work to destroy it.

PROPYLENE GLYCOL: This is used as a humectant in cosmetics. It is also used as an industrial anti-freeze, and as the major ingredient in brake and hydraulic fluid. Laboratory tests show it to be a strong skin irritant.

Material Safety Data Sheets (required by the government) on this chemical warn to avoid skin contact as it is systemic (affects the entire system) and can cause liver abnormalities and kidney damage.

Amazingly, you will find this ingredient in hand and body lotions and facial moisturizers that you rub into your skin. It is also found in many other products. I am hard put to find any useful and effective personal care product at the drug store that does not have this poison among its ingredients.

MINERAL OIL: Do you use this product on your baby's skin? On yours? It's supposed to be "gentle" and good for you, isn't it? It comes from crude oil (petroleum) that is used in industry as metal cutting fluid. It may suffocate the skin by forming an oil film. Healthy skin needs oxygen, and it needs to release carbon dioxide. It should not be inhibited. If you hold large quantities of moisture in the skin, you can "flood" the biology. This may result in immature, unhealthy, sensitive skin that dries out easily.

PETROLEUM BASE PRODUCTS: This has the same properties as mineral oil. It is used in industry as a grease component and many other uses.

SODIUM LAURYL SULFATE (SLS) OR SODIUM LAURETH SULFATE (SLES):

Link to Data Sheet on SLS .....More Information... Of the two, SLS is potentially the most harmful ingredient to be used in personal care products. It is a standard ingredient used in labs to purposefully irritate the skin of test animals so that other, non-irritating ingredients can be tested. It can inhibit hair growth, contribute to hair loss, and could cause cataracts if it gets into the eyes. It's industrial uses include: garage floor cleaners, engine degreasers, car wash soap, among others. Dr. Keith Green, Department of Ophthalmology, Medical College of Georgia insists: "It may keep children's eyes from developing properly and cause adult cataracts." (Source: A summary of Dr. Green's report to "Prevent Blindness, Inc." Conference)

Both of these products (SLS and SLES) have been known to cause potentially carcinogenic nitrates to form in shampoos and cleaners by reacting with certain other commonly used ingredients found in most shampoos. Dr. Green states that very large amounts of nitrates may enter the blood system in just one use of the shampoo containing the chemicals where nitrates have formed. SLS and SLES are the only surfactants in shampoos and cleaners known to enter the blood system (SLES is the alcohol form of SLS. Sodium levels in the body may increase with its use. It's slightly less irritating, but may cause more drying out.).

And these are the ingredients you're expected to put in your mouth or rub onto and into your skin. Why are they used? Because they're cheap and a small amount generates lots of foam. When salt is added, it thickens and gives the illusion of being thick and concentrated (remember the television commercial showing a man with two different shampoos on his head, with the emphasis on the one that is "thick and concentrated?").

Sodium Laureth Sulfate has several names: Sodium Dodecyl Polyoxyethylene Sulfate, Sodium Lauryl Ether Sulfate, Sodium Lauryl Ethoxysulfate and Sodium Polyoxyethylene Lauryl Sulfate. Ammonium Laureth Sulfate's alternative name is Ammonium Lauryl Ether Sulfate.

BENTONITE-KAOLIN: These are clays used in foundations, and may clog the skin and keep oxygen out. These chemicals are used to fight fires. And the same thing that can suffocate a fire can suffocate your face.

GLYCERINE: It draws moisture from inside the skin and holds it on the surface for a better feel. But it dries the skin from the inside out.

COLLAGEN AND ELASTIN: This is derived from small animal skins and ground up chicken feet. Another film that may suffocate and over moisturize the skin. Cosmetic manufacturers have heralded it (collagen) as a new "wonder ingredient," but according to medical experts, it cannot affect the skin's own collagen when applied topically. Elastin is much like collagen in that it cannot be absorbed by the skin and merely provides a suffocating coating on the skin's surface.

BENTONITE: Used in facial masks. But it can have sharp edges that scratch the skin. It forms films that effectively trap toxins and carbon dioxide in the skin, suffocating it.

LANOLIN: Touted as being able to penetrate skin better than other oils, even though there is little scientific proof of this. It can cause allergic contact skin rashes and may contain pesticides used on sheep and wool.

BAR SOAPS: Made from animal fat and lye. Bacteria can feed in it and grow. It may also corrode and dry out the skin.

Did you know that over 400 "foreign" chemicals have been identified in human tissue? That more than 500 chemicals can be found under the kitchen sink, in the bathrooms, and in the laundry rooms of the average home? That about 100 pounds of hazardous waste are in storage in basements and garages in the average home?

Did you also know that approximately 3,000 chemicals are intentionally added to our foods and that 700 different chemicals have been found in drinking water? Their are also 884 neurotoxic chemical compounds that are used in cosmetic, personal care, and perfume industry products. Are they safe? At what levels and in what combinations? Who is really willing to take that chance? For those of us that have either gone thru an illness or a loss of someone close to us, we have first hand knowledge of the toll it takes on ourselves and the family. And what if it could have been changed just by some simple little things in our lives?

What these products can do by themselves, let alone if they are used in combination with each other. Those types of studies are not done very often because of the thousands of possible combinations and costs, but should we just ignore that and hope that it is ok, not if we truly want to ourselves and our family to be as safe as we can make it. The funny thing is that it will not take much effort except a change in our life style. It will require change and a new commitment to ones life style, but being ill or not healthy is the one of the biggest inconveniencies there is.

According to the founder of the Response Team for the Chemically Injured, at least one study from the National Cancer Institute suggests that as many as 98 percent of all cancers may be linked to chemical exposures.

WARNING LABELS: They are appearing on more and more personal care products every day, but we just ignore them and keep on rubbing irritants into our skins, having our children (and ourselves) brush their teeth with dangerous chemicals and use mouthwashes that are not safe.

The labels warn us not to swallow. And if you do, to contact the Poison Control Center if we swallow too much. Other labels warn us of the danger of prolonged contact with the skin of products that are designed to be rubbed into the skin.

Learn the names of these harmful chemicals, and stop ignoring the warning are listed, put it back on the shelf. You may live longer and with fewer health problems by doing just this one thing.

ORGANIC FOOD FIGHT
Outcry over rule changes that allow more pesticides, hormones
- Carol Ness, Chronicle Staff Writer (San Francisco Chronicle) - Saturday, May 22, 2004

A showdown is taking shape over the nation's organic food standards, triggered by a spate of recent rule changes that some producers and activists say are setting a pattern that could eventually render the organic label meaningless.

The changes in the National Organic Program standards, made in April, expand the use of antibiotics and hormones in organic dairy cows, allow more pesticides in the organic arsenal and for the first time let organic livestock eat potentially contaminated fishmeal.

Program administrators also reversed themselves and said seafood, pet food and body care products can use "organic" on their labels without meeting any standards at all.

And in what the $11 billion organic food industry, consumer and farm groups call a dangerous precedent, program administrators made last month's changes in three "guidances" and one "directive" without seeking public comment or consulting with their own advisers on the National Organics Standards Board.

"This is hugely terrible for the organic industry," said Nancy Hirshberg, a vice president at Stonyfield Farm, a New Hampshire organic dairy whose yogurts are sold in the Bay Area. "It's a real weakening of the standards. And it could have the effect of weakening consumer confidence in the organic label."

A coalition of organic interests, including the powerful Consumers Union, says the interpretations represent major changes that could threaten the integrity of the program, which set a high standard for what products qualify as organic. And they say administrators risk undermining trust in the program by leaving the public, including its own advisory board, out of the decision- making.

Sounding a national alarm, the coalition is pressuring the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retract the changes and keep the public involved.

In both the House and Senate, letters calling on Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman to withdraw the documents are gathering bipartisan support. And businesses that will lose money because of the changes are said to be considering lawsuits.

"We are drawing a line in the organic soil," said Bob Scowcroft of the Organic Farming Research Foundation in Santa Cruz, who helped write the organic standards.

Barbara Robinson, the USDA deputy administrator in charge of the organic program, defended the moves as merely interpretations of the standards, not new regulations. Among the 90-plus USDA-accredited organic certifiers, some were interpreting the standards one way, some another, she said. For example, some were allowing dairy farmers to use antibiotics in certain circumstances, and some weren't.

"We want it to be consistent," she said in an interview. In an earlier statement, she put it this way: "The statements simply say what is enforceable under the existing regulation and statute and what is not. There is nothing new, just an attempt to be clear about what is covered."

The board wasn't involved because the guidances didn't set new standards, she said. Decisions needed to be made, and Robinson said she has only six staff members and $1.5 million, out of the USDA's $70 billion budget, to run the entire organic program.

If people don't agree with the staff, she added, "the fix is to petition the department to change the regulation. That can be done."

The National Organic Standards Board was told of the changes just the day before they were announced and responded with a letter expressing its strong concerns.

"The board was totally caught by surprise,'' said vice chair James Riddle, who has written to demand that the directives be withdrawn. "They certainly weaken the regulations."

The new pesticide rule allows the use of some pesticides that contain unidentified inert ingredients if a "reasonable effort" has been made to identify them. Before, the ingredients had to be approved before use.

The livestock rule allows organic beef cattle and poultry sold for their meat to eat non-organic fishmeal, even if it contains a synthetic preservative or toxins. The standards require organic feed, but fishmeal is allowed as a feed supplement.

A major change was defining of the scope of organic standards to say seafood, pet food and personal care products simply aren't covered. Previously, the program said they were, though standards for them had not yet been written. Businesses have been built around the promise that if they followed organic principles, they eventually could be certified.

For example, an organic shrimp farmer from Florida invested $1.5 million in raising organic fish to feed the shrimp, based on the previous policy, Riddle said. The new rule pulled the rug out from under him, and now anyone can call fish organic as long as they don't use the USDA's organic seal.

"It was a complete reversal," Riddle said.

At Stonyfield Farm organic dairy, Hirshberg said she has seen many guidances and clarifications from the program since the organic standards went into effect 11/2 years ago, but the latest series were "a turnaround. In the past they weren't true departures."

When it came to using antibiotics in an organic dairy, she said, "everyone understood that once you treat with antibiotics, a cow can't be brought back into the (milking) herd" under the 2001 standards. But some certifiers had allowed antibiotics under certain circumstances.

Under the new standard, cows and calves can be treated with antibiotics, or growth hormones or any other drug, as long as a year goes by before their milk is sold as organic.

The organic standards are based on the principle that cows should be raised in healthy, disease-preventive ways so drugs aren't needed, Hirshberg said. The new rule makes it easier for large dairy farms that have both organic and non-organic herds to move cows back and forth between the two.

"That's not what organic is about," she said.

Beyond that, many organic milk labels say "no antibiotics, no hormones," and consumers expect that to mean the milk comes from cows raised without such drugs, said Liana Hoodes of the National Coalition for Sustainable Agriculture, about three-dozen groups that monitor the organic standards.

Both the program administrators and the organic coalition fighting the changes agree that the rules need to be clear as more businesses jump into the organic market. Organics are the fastest-growing segment of the food industry, rising at more than 20 percent a year.

In Santa Cruz, Nell Newman, president and co-founder of Newman's Own Organics, said, "I think we have to fight to maintain the standards with their true and original intent. Unfortunately it's a waste of time and energy to have to fight with our overseeing agency, the USDA."

On Capitol Hill, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who wrote the 1990 organic food act, is gathering bipartisan support for a letter demanding retraction of the changes.

"Unilateral fiats like these may violate the letter of the law, and they certainly violate the spirit," Leahy said.

A draft of a similar letter to Agriculture Secretary Veneman circulating in the House expresses "strong concern" that the "far-reaching" changes will "undermine the integrity of the organic label."

Consumers Union and the Organic Consumers Association have revved up e- mail and letter-writing campaigns. And the Organic Trade Association, which represents 1,400 organic producers, are muscling up their lobbying in Washington.

Santa Cruz's Scowcroft, among others, said it's conceivable some of the new rules -- especially the one affecting body care products -- would have been reached even if the program had consulted its board and the public to resolve ambiguities in the rules.

But its failure to do so means "that the validity of these practices is questionable," Scowcroft said. "The precedent has to stop."

Points of contention

Pesticides: Now, some pesticides can be used even if they contain unknown inert ingredients if a "reasonable effort" has been made to identify them. Before, the ingredients had to be approved before use.

Livestock feed: Now, organic cattle and poultry sold for their meat can eat non-organic fishmeal, even if it contains a synthetic preservative or toxins. Before, only organic feed was allowed. The fishmeal is allowed in any quantity as a "feed supplement."

Antibiotics in dairy cows: Now, calves and cows can be treated with antibiotics or any other necessary drug, if other means of helping them have failed, but a year must pass before their milk is sold as organic. Before, most dairies interpreted the rule to mean that a cow treated with antibiotics had to be removed from the herd forever (they were sold to conventional dairies), but some certifiers allowed drug use with a 12-month hold on the milk.

Scope of organic standards: Now, any seafood, pet food and body care products can be called organic without meeting any standards other than their own. That's why the USDA hasn't objected to things like "organic" salmon in fish markets. Before, the three groups were included under the organic law although specific standards hadn't been written to cover them; some won organic certification by following the rules for livestock and crops.

E-mail Carol Ness at cness@sfchronicle.com.