Many Sunscreens Increase Skin Cancer Risk, FDA Has Known For A Decade But Done Nothing

July 14th, 2011

Natural News

By: Ethan A. Huff

A new report issued by the consumer protection organization Environmental Working Group (EWG) reveals that many popular sunscreens contain ingredients known to spur the growth and spread of skin cancer cells, which defeats their stated purpose of preventing skin cancer.

Data indicates that the sun’s rays combine with certain sunscreen ingredients in the skin and damage skin cells, which can lead to lesions and tumors — and worst of all, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has allegedly been aware of this critical information for the past ten years, but has done absolutely nothing to warn people about it.

According to a report by AOL News, about half of the sunscreens tested contained vitamin A ingredients and derivatives like retinol and retinyl palmitate, which FDA’s own studies have shown are photocarcinogenic, meaning they become toxic when exposed to sunlight. In fact, an older FDA report explains that sunscreens containing vitamin A ingredients cause tumors and lesions to develop and spread 21 percent faster than sunscreens that do not contain vitamin A ingredients.

Not to be confused with the vitamin A found in food and supplements that is absolutely essential for good health, vitamin A additives in sunscreen are different — their interactions with ultraviolet sun rays actually produce carcinogens in the skin.

And yet the FDA continues to remain silent about the dangers of vitamin A in sunscreen, including in its recent updated sunscreen guidelines that make no mention of them.

“There was enough evidence ten years ago for FDA to caution consumers against the use of vitamin A in sunscreens,” said Jane Houlihan, EWG’s senior vice president for research, to AOL News. “FDA launched this one-year study, completed their research and now ten years later, they say nothing about it, just silence.”

When questioned by AOL News about the matter, an FDA spokeswoman responded by claiming the agency “thoroughly checked” its records and could not find any evidence of such a study. Apparently the agency did not look hard enough, though, because a report issued in 2000 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) cites the same FDA research which found that vitamin A derivatives are both phototoxic and photocarcinogenic.

Vitamin A derivatives, of course, are not the only toxic ingredients in sunscreens either. According to the EWG report, hormone-disrupting chemicals like oxybenzone are prominent in many popular sunscreen brands. These same sunscreens also contain a slew of other mystery chemicals, many of which have never been proven safe or effective for use, and are likely carcinogenic as well.

In total, a mere 7.8 percent of the sunscreens tested by EWG as part of its annual analysis turned out to be “safe and effective” according to the group’s safety standards. The other 92.2 percent, which represent hundreds of sunscreens on the market today, contain one or more ingredients known to be harmful to health, a shocking figure when considering their widespread use.

As far as safe sunscreens go, EWG also recently released its fifth annual “Sunscreen Guide,” a database of more than 1,700 sun products from 292 brands that the group recognizes as having safe, non-toxic ingredients. You can access that database here: http://breakingnews.ewg.org/2011sunscreen/

For ideal health, however, regular exposure to sunlight without the use of sunscreen is vital for obtaining and maintaining healthy levels of vitamin D. Most sunscreens block the ultraviolet B (UVB) sun rays responsible for producing the vitamin D hormone in the skin — and without unfettered exposure to these beneficial rays, it is virtually impossible to maintain optimal vitamin D levels apart from supplementation.

By gradually exposing your skin to the sun on a regular, limited basis, you will eventually develop tolerance to it, even if you are prone to burning. And by supplementing with the antioxidant astaxanthin, which functions as a type of natural “sunscreen” that protects your skin from the oxidative damage caused by too much sun exposure, you will increase your sun tolerance even further, to the point that you may even stop burning under moderate exposure conditions.

The Vitamin D Council, a non-profit group dedicated to raising awareness about the importance of vitamin D for health, recommends that all individuals use the sun as their primary source of gaining vitamin D. Depending on your skin type, you will need anywhere from 15 minutes to over an hour of daily sunlight exposure in order to achieve and maintain optimal levels.

If natural sunlight exposure is not feasible on a daily basis, which is common for most people during the wintertime when the sun’s decreased angle prevents an adequate amount of UVB rays from reaching the skin, daily supplementation with vitamin D3 is the next best option. The Council suggests taking anywhere between 1,000 and 6,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D3 a day, depending on your age.

To learn more about vitamin D, including which other vitamins and nutrients are its necessary cofactors, and which diseases and conditions can be treated and prevented simply by maintaining optimal levels, visit: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org

Click here for the full report from Natural News

Sunscreen May Accelerate Cancer

June 27th, 2011

AOL News

By: Andrew Schneider

Almost half of the 500 most popular sunscreen products may actually increase the speed at which malignant cells develop and spread skin cancer because they contain vitamin A or its derivatives, according to an evaluation of those products released today.

AOL News also has learned through documents and interviews that the Food and Drug Administration has known of the potential danger for as long as a decade without alerting the public, which the FDA denies.

The study was released with Memorial Day weekend approaching. Store shelves throughout the country are already crammed with tubes, jars, bottles and spray cans of sunscreen.

The white goop, creams and ointments might prevent sunburn. But don’t count on them to keep the ultraviolet light from destroying your skin cells and causing tumors and lesions, according to researchers at Environmental Working Group.

In their annual report to consumers on sunscreen, they say that only 39 of the 500 products they examined were considered safe and effective to use.

The report cites these problems with bogus sun protection factor (SPF) numbers:

• The use of the hormone-disrupting chemical oxybenzone, which penetrates the skin and enters the bloodstream.
• Overstated claims about performance.
• The lack of needed regulations and oversight by the Food and Drug Administration.

But the most alarming disclosure in this year’s report is the finding that vitamin A and its derivatives, retinol and retinyl palmitate, may speed up the cancer that sunscreen is used to prevent.

A dangerous additive

The industry includes vitamin A in its sunscreen formulations because it is an anti-oxidant that slows skin aging.

But the EWG researchers found the initial findings of an FDA study of vitamin A’s photocarcinogenic properties, meaning the possibility that it results in cancerous tumors when used on skin exposed to sunlight.

“In that yearlong study, tumors and lesions developed up to 21 percent faster in lab animals coated in a vitamin A-laced cream than animals treated with a vitamin-free cream,” the report said.

The conclusion came from EWG’s analysis of initial findings released last fall by the FDA and the National Toxicology Program, the federal government’s principle evaluator of substances that raise public health concerns.

EWG’s conclusions were subsequently scrutinized by outside toxicologists.

Based on the strength of the findings by FDA’s own scientists, many in the public health community say they can’t believe nor understand why the agency hasn’t already notified the public of the possible danger.

“There was enough evidence 10 years ago for FDA to caution consumers against the use of vitamin A in sunscreens,” Jane Houlihan, EWG’s senior vice president for research, told AOL News.

“FDA launched this one-year study, completed their research and now 10 years later, they say nothing about it, just silence.”

On Friday, the FDA said the allegations are not true.

“We have thoroughly checked and are not aware of any studies,” an FDA spokesperson told AOL News. She said she checked with bosses throughout the agency and found no one who knew of the vitamin A sunscreen research being done by or on behalf of the agency.

But documents from the FDA and the National Toxicology Program showed that the agency had done the research.

“Retinyl palmitate was selected by (FDA’s) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition for photo-toxicity and photocarcinogenicity testing based on the increasingly widespread use of this compound in cosmetic retail products for use on sun-exposed skin,” said an October 2000 report by the National Toxicology Program.

FDA’s own website said the animal studies were done at its National Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson, Ark. And it was scientists from the FDA center and National Toxicology Program who posted the study data last fall.

In a perfect world

The ideal sunscreen would completely block the UV rays that cause sunburn, immune suppression and damaging free radicals. It would remain effective on the skin for several hours and not form harmful ingredients when degraded by UV light, the report said.

But in the U.S., there is currently no sunscreen that meets all of these criteria. European countries have more chemical combinations to offer, but in the U.S. the major choice is between the “chemical” sunscreens, which have inferior stability, penetrate the skin and may disrupt the body’s hormone systems, and “mineral” sunscreens zinc and titanium dioxide.

Increasingly, as AOL News reported in March, the industry is using titanium dioxide that is made nanosized, which a growing number of researchers believe have serious health implications.

The sunscreen industry cringes when EWG releases its yearly report — this is its fourth. The industry charges that the advocacy group wants to do away with all sunscreen products, a claim that is not accurate.

The report’s researchers clearly say that an effective sunscreen prevents more damage than it causes, but it wants consumers to have accurate information on the limitations of what they buy and on the potentially harmful chemicals in some of those products.

EWG does warn consumers not to depend on any sunscreen for primary protection from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. Hats, clothing and shade are still the most reliable sun protection available, they say.

Don’t count on the numbers

Some of us are old enough to remember when the idea of having a tan was good, a sign of health, when billboards and magazine ads featured the Coppertone girl showing off her tan when a puppy pulls down her bathing suit bottom.

Going for that tan, we coated our kids and ourselves with sun blockers with sun protection factors of 1 or 2. Some overly cautious parents might have smeared on a 4 during the hottest part of a day.

But we’ve learned of the dangers that come from exposure to the sun’s rays, especially ultraviolet A and B. So today, drugstore shelves are crammed with sunscreens boasting SPFs of 30, 45, 80 or even higher.

However, the new report says those numbers are often meaningless and dangerous because products with high SPF ratings sell a false sense of security, encouraging people using them to stay out in the sun longer.

“People don’t get the high SPF they pay for,” the report says. “People apply about a quarter of the recommended amount. So in everyday practice, a product labeled SPF 100 really performs like SPF 3.2, an SPF 30 rating equates to a 2.3 and an SPF 15 translates to 2.”

In 2007, the report says, the FDA published proposed regulations that would prohibit manufacturers from labeling sunscreens with an SPF higher than “SPF 50.” The agency wrote that higher values would be “inherently misleading,” given that “there is no assurance that the specific values themselves are in fact truthful.”

This is being widely ignored by the sunscreen makers who are heavily advertising their 80, 90 and 100 SPF products.

“Flouting FDA’s proposed regulation,” companies substantially increased their high-SPF offerings in 2010 with one in six brands now listing SPF values higher than 50. “Neutrogena and Banana Boat stand out among the offenders, with six and four products labeled as ‘SPF 100,’ respectively,” the new report says.

The full list of the best and worst sunscreens can be found on the EWG’s searchable database. (Update: The database has been loading slowly today. You may want to try it again later.)

Click here for the full report from AOL News

Apples Top Most Pesticide-Contaminated List

June 13th, 2011

USA Today

By: Janice Lloyd

Apples are at the top of the list of produce most contaminated with pesticides in a report published today by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a public health advocacy group.

Its seventh annual report analyzed government data on 53 fruits and vegetables, identifying which have the most and least pesticides after washing and peeling. For produce found to be highest in pesticides, the group recommends buying organic.

Apples moved up three spots from last year, replacing celery at the top of the most-contaminated list; 92% of apples contained two or more pesticides.

“We think what’s happening to apples is more pesticides and fungicides are being applied after the harvest so the fruit can have a longer shelf life,” says EWG analyst Sonya Lunder. “Pesticides might be in small amounts, but we don’t know what the subtle, long-term effects of many of these pesticides are yet.”

The worst offenders also include strawberries (No. 3) and imported grapes (No. 7). Onions top the “clean” list, found to be lowest in pesticides.

By choosing five servings of fruit and vegetables a day from the clean list, most people can lower the volume of pesticides they consume daily by 92%, the report says.

“Consumers don’t want pesticides on their foods,” says EWG president Ken Cook. “We eat plenty of apples in our house, but we buy organic when we can.”

Rankings reflect the amounts of chemicals present on food when it is eaten. Most samples were washed and peeled before testing. Washing with a “produce wash” is unlikely to help remove pesticides because they’re taken up by the entire plant and reside on more than just the skin, the report says.

For shoppers who cannot afford organic food, which often is more expensive, Cook says the lists offer alternatives. Can’t find organic apples? Buy pineapples, the top fruit on the clean list, or avocados or mangoes.

Fewer than 10% of pineapple, mango and avocado samples showed pesticides. For vegetables, asparagus, corn and onions had no detectable residue on 90% or more of samples.

Pesticides are known to be toxic to the nervous system, cause cancer, disrupt hormones and cause brain damage in children. Pregnant women are advised to avoid foods containing pesticides.

A study by Harvard School of Public Health found children exposed to pesticides had a higher risk of developing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Lunder says pesticides were measured in six different ways to calculate overall scores:
•Percentage of samples tested with detectable pesticides.
•Percentage of samples with two or more pesticides.
•Average number of pesticides found on a single sample.
•Average amount (level in parts per million) of all pesticides found.
•Maximum number of pesticides found on a single sample.
•Total number of pesticides found on the commodity.

Eating five servings of fruits and vegetables from the “dirty dozen” list would mean you’d get an average of 14 different pesticides. By choosing five from the clean list, you’d consumer fewer than two pesticides.

“With the increased emphasis on eating more fruits and vegetables, we need to be vigilant about the food we’re producing and serving,” Lunder says.

Click here for the full report from USA Today

Select Sunscreens Linked To Cancer

May 24, 2010

AOLNews.com

by Andrew Schneider

Almost half of the 500 most popular sunscreen products may actually increase the speed at which malignant cells develop and spread skin cancer because they contain vitamin A or its derivatives, according to an evaluation of those products released today.

AOL News also has learned through documents and interviews that the Food and Drug Administration has known of the potential danger for as long as a decade without alerting the public, which the FDA denies.

The study was released with Memorial Day weekend approaching. Store shelves throughout the country are already crammed with tubes, jars, bottles and spray cans of sunscreen.

The white goop, creams and ointments might prevent sunburn. But don’t count on them to keep the ultraviolet light from destroying your skin cells and causing tumors and lesions, according to researchers at Environmental Working Group.

In their annual report to consumers on sunscreen, they say that only 39 of the 500 products they examined were considered safe and effective to use.

The report cites these problems with bogus sun protection factor (SPF) numbers:

* The use of the hormone-disrupting chemical oxybenzone, which penetrates the skin and enters the bloodstream.
* Overstated claims about performance.
* The lack of needed regulations and oversight by the Food and Drug Administration.

But the most alarming disclosure in this year’s report is the finding that vitamin A and its derivatives, retinol and retinyl palmitate, may speed up the cancer that sunscreen is used to prevent.

A dangerous additive

The industry includes vitamin A in its sunscreen formulations because it is an anti-oxidant that slows skin aging.

But the EWG researchers found the initial findings of an FDA study of vitamin A’s photocarcinogenic properties, meaning the possibility that it results in cancerous tumors when used on skin exposed to sunlight.

“In that yearlong study, tumors and lesions developed up to 21 percent faster in lab animals coated in a vitamin A-laced cream than animals treated with a vitamin-free cream,” the report said.

The conclusion came from EWG’s analysis of initial findings released last fall by the FDA and the National Toxicology Program, the federal government’s principle evaluator of substances that raise public health concerns.

EWG’s conclusions were subsequently scrutinized by outside toxicologists.

Based on the strength of the findings by FDA’s own scientists, many in the public health community say they can’t believe nor understand why the agency hasn’t already notified the public of the possible danger.

“There was enough evidence 10 years ago for FDA to caution consumers against the use of vitamin A in sunscreens,” Jane Houlihan, EWG’s senior vice president for research, told AOL News.

“FDA launched this one-year study, completed their research and now 10 years later, they say nothing about it, just silence.”

On Friday, the FDA said the allegations are not true.

“We have thoroughly checked and are not aware of any studies,” an FDA spokesperson told AOL News. She said she checked with bosses throughout the agency and found no one who knew of the vitamin A sunscreen research being done by or on behalf of the agency.

But documents from the FDA and the National Toxicology Program showed that the agency had done the research.

“Retinyl palmitate was selected by (FDA’s) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition for…

Click here to continue reading the full report

Procter & Gamble to Reduce Toxins in Herbal Essences Shampoos

April 12, 2010

NaturalNews.com

by Ethan A. Huff

(NaturalNews) A recent press conference hosted by the Green Patriot Working Group (GPWG) included an announcement that Procter and Gamble (P&G) will be reducing the levels of toxic 1,4-dioxane in its Herbal Essences line of hair care products. P&G has stated that it will reformulate eighteen different Herbal Essences products to meet the guidelines established by California’s Proposition 65, which require that consumer products contain no more than 10 parts per million (ppm) of 1,4-dioxane.

David Steinman, environmental health consumer advocate and head of GPWG, issued a notice of intent to file a lawsuit against P&G for violating Prop. 65 and exposing consumers to unacceptably dangerous levels of 1,4-dioxane. Together with the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), an 850,000-member watchdog group, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and Clean Water Action California, GPWG proudly announced that the nation’s fourth largest company would be reformulating 17 Herbal Essences products by July 1, 2010.

1,4-dioxane is a petrochemical carcinogen that results from using ethoxylation, a chemical process that renders harsh cleaning ingredients more gentle. 1,4-dioxane is created inadvertently due to the chemical processing and is therefore not listed on ingredient labels. Nevertheless, the chemical is highly toxic and consumers are exposed to it through a myriad of different sources.

According to the California Environmental Protection Agency, 1,4-dioxane is known to cause cancer and may cause kidney, respiratory, and neurological toxicity. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has also stated that 1,4-dioxane is a groundwater contaminant. 1,4-dioxane does not biodegrade and has a penchant for clinging to water and making its way through wastewater treatment plants back into water supplies.

Steinman explained during the press conference that his organization targeted the Herbal Essences line of products particularly because it consistently tests higher than many other brands. Instead of offering consumers a “totally organic experience” as its marketing claims, Herbal Essences products actually expose consumers to levels of 1,4-dioxane upwards of twice the established maximum.

Since Herbal Essences products are marketed as being natural, organic and herbal, it is entirely unacceptable that they have consistently tested among the highest for 1,4-dioxane. The announcement from P&G represents a positive step forward towards removing 1,4-dioxane entirely from consumer products, as other large companies will likely have to address the problem as well.

“Ten ppm could well be just the start and as its supply chain improves, P&G will no doubt move closer and closer to non-detectable levels,” explained Steinman during the conference.

With the last product in the Herbal Essences line set to be reformulated by January 2011, it remains to be seen how the other major consumer product manufacturers will respond to P&G’s announcement concerning their own product lines.

Click here for full report

Babies Testing for BPAs in the Womb

January 28th, 2010

Natural News

By E. Huff

For the first time in the history of its testing, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has found bisphenol A (BPA) in the umbilical cord blood of American babies. Nine out of ten samples tested positive for the chemical, a shocking number when considering the laundry list of chronic illnesses that are associated with BPA exposure.

Used in the production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins, BPA has come under increasing scrutiny over the past several years for its role in contributing to the development of cancer, endocrine damage, reproductive problems, and neurological dysfunction. Many plastics manufacturers have begun removing the additive from their products, despite continued reassurances by the FDA that the chemical is safe.

Studies continue to show that BPA is dangerous, even at minimal levels, and that it should not be used in consumer products. Several groups, including the Endocrine Society and the American Medical Association (AMA), have expressed opposition to the use of BPA. Scientists are finding that low-dose exposure, especially during early developmental years, can actually cause more endocrine and reproductive problems than larger-dose exposure due to the way the body recognizes the chemical.

Not only was BPA found in babies, but 231 other chemicals were detected as well, indicating that human beings are exposed to more toxic chemicals than ever. Experts fear that such an onslaught of toxicity may cause permanent damage to the next generation of Americans.

Public outcry over the FDA’s continued approval of BPA despite numerous studies revealing its dangers has led the agency to express that it will reevaluate its position. The agency was supposed to issue an updated review about BPA safety on November 30 but it never actually followed through. The FDA most recently claimed that the report will be made available before the end of the year.

Experts and analysts believe the food industry is behind the push to keep BPA legal, exerting influence on the FDA to conceal the truth about its dangers. Many manufacturers have voluntarily been able to eliminate BPA from their products, illustrating that there is no reason why it should continue to be used by anyone.

The AMA, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have all endorsed a resolution that calls on Congress to minimize or eliminate the use of BPA in consumer products. The EWG hopes that top priority will be given to the issue in light of the group’s recent discovery.

Click here for the full report

Pollutants in our Drinking Water

January 26, 2010

NaturalNews

by E. Huff

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has released yet another report indicting the nation’s drinking water supplies are being highly contaminated with pollutants. An analysis of 20 million water quality tests performed between 2004 and 2009 revealed that many local and regional water supplies are tainted with up to 316 different toxic chemicals, many of which are unregulated by current federal standards.

Of the over 300 pollutants found, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set safe maximum limits for only 114 of them, leaving the remaining 64 percent unrecognized as pollutants and unregulated by toxin laws. A few of these chemicals include perchlorate, a toxic component of rocket fuel; freon and radon, two chemical refrigerants; acetone; and metolachlor, a weed killer.

Nearly 10,000 American communities comprised of roughly 132 million people are receiving over 200 unregulated chemicals in their water supplies. Experts question the long-term safety of ingesting such tainted water, citing the fact that even existing federal laws about regulated chemicals suggest that tap water is unsafe for long-term ingestion. Health officials admit that current acceptable water contamination limits render water unsafe to drink.

Jane Houlihan, Senior Vice President for Research at EWG, notes that federal guidelines have failed to keep up with the growing number of toxic contaminants being found in drinking water. Utility companies, she says, are doing their best to purify water and make it safe to drink, but federal laws must be amended to include new chemicals in order to protect water supplies from unnecessary contamination.

Because many of the chemicals being found in water are unregulated and essentially permitted at any level, water utilities concerned about removing them spend more than $4 billion a year on chemicals designed to remove them from water. Only $207 million, or five percent of that amount, is spent protecting water sources from being contaminated in the first place.

Almost all of the unregulated chemicals being found in water are a result of discharge from agricultural pesticides and fertilizers, industrial pollutant runoff, and other wastewater treatment residue that makes its way into aquifers, reservoirs and groundwater supplies. Since there are virtually no laws in place to protect water supplies from these contaminants, industry is essentially permitted to discharge this waste with no consequence.

Experts believe that a federal restructuring of contaminant guidelines would go far to prevent water supply contamination, saving water utilities billions of dollars in treatment costs and maintaining the integrity of water supplies nationwide.

Click here for full report

Women Put 515 Chemicals Onto Their Faces Daily

December 29, 2009

Natural News

By E. Huff

A study published by Bionsen, a company in the United Kingdom that sells aluminum-free body products, found that the average woman applies 515 chemicals to her face a day. Makeup, perfumes, lotions, mascara, and other beauty products all contribute to the toxic brew that is causing health problems for many women.

The study revealed that the typical woman uses about 13 different beauty products a day. Most of these products contain at least 20 ingredients and additives, many of which can have a detrimental effect on the body and skin. Perfumes alone were found to contain up to 400 different ingredients.

Other products that were tested include lipstick, body lotions and mascara which contained an average of 30 ingredients each. Aside from aluminum, many of these products contain other harmful ingredients like synthetic dyes, fragrances, and parabens. When applied continually, the many beauty products that women use are exposing them to wide range of carcinogens.

The perpetual advent of new and innovative beauty products has led to a massive increase in product usage over the years. What was once a basic cleansing protocol has turned into a lifestyle of trying the latest and greatest products in an effort to maintain youthful beauty. As a result, women are exposed to more toxic carcinogens from beauty products than ever.

An Environmental Working Group (EWG) study from 2006 found that less than one percent of all cosmetic products are made from ingredients that have all undergone safety assessments. The great majority of products contain known carcinogens, reproductive toxins and various other harmful chemicals that cause serious diseases like cancer.

The EWG study found that the average person uses up to 25 personal care products per day. Among these, about 200 different chemicals will have been added to scent, preserve, synthesize and stabilize them for consumption. Many of these ingredients will end up causing hormonal disruption and immune dysfunction. In younger people, developmental problems are likely to result from excessive product use.

Makeup usage among younger girls has also increased. About 90 percent of 14-year-old girls now use makeup, according to a research study conducted by Mintel Internation Group in 2004. Sixty-three percent of girls as young as seven are now using lipstick, eyeliner, eye shadow and mascara.

As consumers are becoming more aware of many beauty product ingredients and the harm they are causing, product manufacturers are beginning to remove many of them from their formulations. Those concerned would do best to purchase only products that have minimal or no toxic ingredients. Greatly reducing one’s cosmetic arsenal is the next best option.

Click here for the full report.