Nonstick chemicals may pose a threat

By SCOTT STREATER

STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER

They're found in floor waxes and shampoos. They're used in many fast-food wrappers and microwave popcorn bags. They coat pizza boxes, carpets and frying pans. And they're in people. They're perfluorochemicals. While you may not recognize the word, you probably know the brand names: Teflon, Stainmaster, Gore-Tex.

You are exposed to those compounds every day, and there is mounting concern that they may cause a variety of health problems. A panel of scientists selected by the Environmental Protection Agency concluded this year that a perfluorochemical used in nonstick cookware is a likely cancer-causing agent.

As is the case with many of the 82,000 chemicals in commercial use today, health officials aren't sure what levels of perfluorochemicals in the body can cause health problems. Researchers aren't even sure of the main source of human exposure: household products or manufacturing plants. They know only that perfluorochemicals remain in the environment and the body for a long time. "These compounds are used in an unbelievable number of products that we come in contact with every day," said Kurunthachalam Kannan, a research scientist at the New York State Department of Health, in Albany, who has extensively researched the compounds.

Scientists have found that U.S. residents have the world's highest levels of perfluorochemicals in their bodies. Kannan says it takes the body at least eight years to rid itself of the chemicals. That's one reason 3M agreed six years ago to stop making and using perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS, to make Scotchgard. The company's own research found that the compound was showing up in low doses in people and wildlife worldwide. Today, a different chemical is used in the popular stain- and water repellent. "We didn't want to be a contributing source of these materials in the environment," said Bill Nelson, a 3M spokesman. He said the company's decision does not mean that there is evidence that the chemicals in the products cause harm.

In January, DuPont and other companies volunteered to phase out the use of perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, used in Teflon nonstick cookware and some microwave popcorn bags. But researchers say there's evidence that both compounds persist in the environment -- perhaps forever. That means people could be exposed for an untold amount of time.

A Star-Telegram research project tested the blood of 12 volunteers for a host of chemicals, and PFOS was found in all 12; PFOA was found in six. The concentrations were tiny -- in the parts-per-billion range. One part per billion is equivalent to one kernel of corn in a 45-foot silo filled to the brim.

Yet one study published last year in the peer-reviewed journal Toxicological Sciences found that PFOA hurt the livers of laboratory rats at low levels. The highest level of PFOA found in any of the Star-Telegram study participants was 5 parts per billion. Zoraida Rodriguez, 33, had one of the lowest levels of perfluorochemicals. And she had no measured level of PFOA. One possible reason, says Rodriguez, a Puerto Rican native, is that she has never used nonstick cookware. Her mother always cooked with stainless steel pans, which were common where she grew up. But not here. Rodriguez, who lives in Burleson, said that she's seen news reports about Teflon products and the health concerns associated with them and that she tries to avoid them. She's just not sure that's possible. "You go to a restaurant, and they may cook with it," she said. "I go to eat at my sister-in-law's. I go out of town. I eat out. You never know."

DuPont's troubles

The chemical that makes nonstick cookware slick is in the national spotlight now. DuPont, based in Wilmington, Del., is North America's only producer of PFOA and faces numerous lawsuits tied to plants that produce the compound. In 2004, DuPont agreed to pay up to $343 million to settle a class-action suit filed by Ohio and West Virginia residents who said their water supplies had been contaminated with PFOA from DuPont's Parkersburg, W.Va., plant. The settlement requires the company to spend up to $70 million for medical evaluations for tens of thousands of people who drank contaminated water. A similar federal lawsuit was filed in April by New Jersey residents who claim that DuPont's plant in Salem County, N.J., contaminated drinking water supplies there and that the company knew of the contamination for years. The PFOA levels in those cases are much higher than what would be expected from products. Texas has no industrial plants that are known to emit PFOA.

DuPont faces a federal class-action lawsuit brought by residents in 20 states and the District of Columbia who say the company failed to make public possible health risks associated with the use of its nonstick pots and pans. The lawsuit, filed in May in Iowa, alleges DuPont knew its Teflon cookware releases PFOA and other toxic gases into the air when heated. DuPont denies the allegation. Last year, the EPA fined DuPont $10.25 million -- the largest civil penalty in the agency's 36-year history -- for failing to report that it had learned as early as 1981 that PFOA could pass from a woman's blood to her fetus.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore said in February that in blood samples from the umbilical cords of 300 newborns, 298 contained trace levels of the compound. "We're not only looking at the levels, but we're also trying to understand whether there are potential health effects or biological markers, biological changes that might be indicative of a biological effect," said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a pediatrician and researcher at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who helped lead the study.

Goldman, a former assistant administrator in the EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, said researchers don't know the answer yet. Dr. Leo Trasande, a pediatrician and environmental health specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, said: "We know relatively little about PFOA. But what we know raises strong concerns about their human health effects, especially their effects on children."

What industry's doing

Under mounting public pressure, industry is taking action. DuPont and seven other companies worldwide agreed in January to work toward stopping manufacture and use of PFOA by 2015. "The fact that it's out there in the blood of the population raises questions that need to be answered," said David Boothe, global business manager for DuPont Fluoroproducts. But the company vigorously defends the use of the chemical and the products that contain it, saying it is "not toxic by the yardsticks that the government usually measures these things." A number of independent health studies dispute that, however. The EPA's science advisory board that recommended PFOA be considered a likely carcinogen has also proposed that the agency study PFOA's potential to cause liver, testicular, pancreatic and breast cancers and whether it affects the hormones or nervous or immune systems.

DuPont rejects the science panel's review because it is based primarily on animal testing. "We think the weight of evidence and science says, look, the things that are happening in rats don't happen in people," Boothe said. He also said the EPA has ignored company studies that did not find health problems in workers "exposed to thousands of times higher levels than in the general population." "So DuPont's position on this is, to date, there are no known health effects from exposure to PFOA," Boothe said. But the company's worker studies "have many limitations, such that definitive conclusions about PFOA cannot be made at this time," said Charles Auer, director of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics, in an e-mail response to written questions from the Star-Telegram. There's nothing wrong with using animal studies to gauge the health effects of chemicals, said Linda Birnbaum, an EPA toxicologist. "People are animals," Birnbaum said. "If you find a similar kind of response in a couple of species of animals or if you find that a chemical is targeting multiple kinds of tissues, why would we think that humans would be completely resistant or different?"

Tracking PFOA

Researchers know that PFOA is widespread in the environment, but how did it get there? Until recently, many suspected Teflon cookware was the main source. A 2001 University of Toronto study published in the British science journal Nature concluded that PFOA is one of several toxic gases emitted when Teflon is heated to 680 degrees, which is easy to do, even if cooking an omelet. And there have been at least 94 documented cases of a flulike illness, polymer fumer fever, among industrial workers exposed to Teflon heated beyond 700 degrees. DuPont has spent millions of dollars on studies that it says show that the compound is not coming off nonstick pots and pans. And DuPont has recently reduced the level of PFOA in new Teflon products. Independent researchers say small levels do come off the pans but not enough to explain the widespread exposures that have been measured.

Today, the focus has shifted to food wrappers, carpet and other household products. Kannan, the New York State Department of Health scientist, believes that those items release perfluorochemicals as a gas. "They are constantly leaching from the surfaces they are applied to," he said. "The indoor air is filled with these compounds." They can also be released from manufacturing plants. That's one reason that the EPA pledged in January to add PFOA to a program that tracks industrial emissions of toxic chemicals and makes the results public. Doing so would allow researchers to track "where this stuff might be concentrated," said Brad Karkkainen, an expert on environmental and natural-resources law at the University of Minnesota Law School in Minneapolis. It would also be a symbolic gesture, he said, "an official acknowledgement by the EPA that it has reason to believe that there are adverse environmental or public health effects associated with the thing." The agency has not added the compound to its Toxics Release Inventory, and EPA officials say they have no timetable for doing so.

Wastewater treatment plants can also release perfluorochemicals. When shampoos, denture cleaners and car waxes are washed down the drain, wastewater plants are not designed to treat the PFOA in them. "So they get released into the rivers, lakes and ponds, and fish living in those places accumulate these compounds and enter into the food chain that way," Kannan said.

The voluntary withdrawal will help slow the spread of PFOA. But the deadline for withdrawal is not until 2015, which the EPA has classified as an "aspirational goal," not a mandate. "Technical and cost issues might preclude eliminating PFOA and related chemicals entirely from emissions and product content by 2015," said Auer, the EPA toxics official. That concerns some researchers who want to see regulatory action taken now to reduce human exposure, even if a lot more research is needed to determine precise human health effects. "I think you want to take regulatory action at a point before there are effects in humans," said Goldman, the Johns Hopkins researcher. "The point is to try and prevent that."

PERFLUOROCHEMICALS

What are they? A group of man-made chemicals often used in a wide variety of consumer products such as carpets, upholstery, textiles and nonstick cookware. Perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, has grabbed the public spotlight recently because it is used in Teflon cookware. DuPont and other manufacturers agreed to work to phase out its use by 2015. Still, perfluorochemicals are in the blood of virtually all Americans, according to the federal Environmental Protection Agency. And numerous studies have found that the levels in U.S. residents are the world's highest. The chemicals' widespread use in carpets, stain-resistant textiles and cleaners is possibly the major source of human exposure.

What are the possible health effects? The main concern is that when perfluorochemicals enter the body, they stay there for years. An EPA science advisory panel recommended in February that PFOA is a "likely" human carcinogen. Other studies involving laboratory animals have found that perfluorochemicals damage organ function and sexual development. DuPont officials, however, say there is no evidence that the chemicals harm humans.

SOURCES: Environmental Protection Agency, federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, New York State Department of Health

Nail salons' workers, clients at risk from toxic chemicals:

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/294599_nailsalon04.html

Nail salons' workers, clients at risk from toxic chemicals: Insufficient regulation cited in call for improved safety practices

Monday, December 4, 2006

By LISA STIFFLER, P-I REPORTER

Close your eyes and walk past one of the city's countless nail salons and you might think you're passing an auto body paint shop. That's because many of the chemicals are the same, albeit in smaller quantities. The products that lacquer your toenails fire-engine red or make your fingernails luxuriously long and shapely can contain chemicals that are suspected or known to cause cancer and birth defects. For many dangerous ingredients, the long-term effects -- five, 10, even 20 years after exposure -- are unclear. Yet there are limited safeguards for nail salon workers and their customers.

There are no requirements for ventilation or protective gear for manicurists. Masks worn by some salon workers will shield them from dust, but not fumes. And the government isn't making sure that the nail polishes, removers and acrylic nail products are safe before they adorn your digits -- that's up to the manufacturers. "They are heavy-duty toxic chemicals so you can't just use them indiscriminately," said Susan Titus, an indoor-air-program specialist with the Environmental Protection Agency in Seattle. "You have to be aware of the chemicals that you are using. "I'm guessing that most of the customers that go in are not really thinking about it," she said.

Led by the EPA, local and state health officials, along with Seattle environmental and community activists, began meeting in July to learn more about the risks and to devise ways to better protect manicurists and their clients. The group will continue meeting next year. Participants plan to monitor air quality in salons and to increase their educational outreach. "We really don't have a good understanding of what the accumulative effects are of (nail salon) chemicals when they're put together," said Ryan Kellogg, public health supervisor for the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County. "We really need to get a better handle on that." Until that happens, county officials are visiting salons and teaching workers about safer practices, including keeping products capped with tight lids and disposing of irritating solvents -- such as acetone and toluene -- in sealed trash cans.

The number of nail salons is multiplying rapidly, with between 800 and 1,200 new manicurist licenses issued by the state each year since 2002. There are more than 13,600 licensed manicurists in Washington and more than 400 nail salons in King County alone. Fueled by Vietnamese immigrants who have made this their niche business, the salons offer pampering at a reasonable price -- about $12 for manicures and acrylic nails for $25. For seven years, Tien Tran worked in poorly ventilated salons from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m., six days a week, before opening her own shop in the Central Area six months ago. Tran wanted to create a healthier environment for her customers and workers. Her goal was "to build a nail salon that was less potent," said the 26-year-old woman, who has two manicurists working with her. Her Couture Nails & Spa is spacious and well-ventilated to the outdoors. After they use noxious solvents, workers dispose of them quickly. Containers holding strong-smelling products such as nail polish remover are capped except for the brief time when they're in use. Tran also switched to chamomile lotion to dry nails, rather than a pungent aerosol spray. "I know that the fumes may be hazardous, but I'm doing my best to do research to find products that have less fumes and are less hazardous for myself and for my customers," Tran said.

Nail-product manufacturers and some regulatory agencies say that workers and customers are not at risk from the chemicals. "Generally speaking, the exposure is very low-level in a nail salon, as compared to what we see in industrial use," said Elaine Fischer, spokeswoman for the state Department of Labor and Industries. "Not only is it not over the regulated limit, it's well under."

Like other businesses in which dangerous chemicals are used, salons are required to have a written training program to teach workers about the chemicals and what to do if there's an accident, such as a spill or the splashing of a product into someone's eyes. Product safety is part of the 600 hours of training required for a manicurist license. For many years, the safety focus for nail salons has been the risk of bacterial or fungal infections from salons practicing sloppy hygiene. Now those concerns have been expanded. "People need to be aware of what they're being exposed to," said Yalonda Sinde, outgoing executive director of the Community Coalition for Environmental Justice, which works to safeguard minority and low-income communities.

On the West Coast, the majority of manicurists are Vietnamese women. They're frequently immigrants who may have difficulty understanding chemical safety sheets -- though shop owners are supposed to provide them with information in their own language.

On an early Saturday morning, Huong "Jenny" Nguyen's hair and nail salon on Martin Luther King Jr. Way South has only a detectable scent of beauty supplies. Through an interpreter, Nguyen says that she notices the nail supply smells, but that they don't give her headaches or irritate her nose or throat. She wondered if maybe pregnant women would be more sensitive to the fumes. To increase the ventilation at her shop -- which does manicures, but not acrylic nails -- she'll open up the doors during the summer.

Sinde's group has joined with the Environmental Coalition of South Seattle to try to win grant money from the EPA to pay for better public education for salons such as Nguyen's. They want to teach salons about less-toxic products and ways to improve air quality, such as using ventilated manicure tables that suck up noxious fumes. Nationally, groups such as the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum have pushed to ban some of the most dangerous chemicals in cosmetics, including dibutyl phthalate, which is used in nail polishes.

The chemical is easily absorbed through the skin and intestinal tract and can cross the placenta into the fetus. It has been linked to development problems in the male genitals of humans and rats. Exposed pregnant rodents had fewer live pups and smaller offspring. Nail-polish makers and trade groups maintain that the ingredient as used in their products does not pose a threat to humans. The Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for regulating the safety of cosmetics, agrees. But the European Union banned the use of dibutyl phthalates in makeup in 2004. That led consumer groups this summer to pressure recalcitrant companies to remove it from products sold in the United States as well. The popular nail-polish maker OPI is one of the companies that finally agreed to eliminate the ingredient beginning with its winter 2006 collection. The reason? "They wanted one worldwide formula," said spokesman Harris Shepard. "OPI products are safe. Absolutely." It's up to manufacturers to make sure their products aren't dangerous, because the FDA's approach to cosmetic regulation is largely hands-off. Manufacturers make information sheets available to the public, with many posted online. But they are often too technical, incomplete or vague for most consumers or nail salon workers to understand. They might lack the exact concentrations of ingredients, fail to list components deemed "trade secrets" or state that exposure limits and health hazards have not been established. For ingredients that are listed, additional health information frequently is difficult to find, out-of-date or inconclusive.

The Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel -- an independent panel created and funded by the cosmetics industry -- is a key source for safety information, though it's tackled only a small fraction of ingredients used. The FDA lacks the authority to force cosmetic manufacturers to prove that their products are safe -- even if the public raises concerns. But complaints are rare, those in the industry say. The EU ban on dibutyl phthalates was because of concerns about the chemical generally, not specifically because it's a risk when used in makeup and nail polish, said Doug Schoon, co-chairman of the Nail Manufacturers Council, a trade group with the Professional Beauty Association. "It's rare when somebody is really injured by cosmetics," he said. "The truth is cosmetics are extraordinarily safe." Kellogg, the King County health official, objects to the notion "that we need to be seeing the cancers, that we need to be seeing the birth defects before we take action." "In public heath, we're about prevention," he said. "There's an interest in taking precautionary action in a setting like this."

FOLLOWING THE BEAUTY ROUTINE

NAIL TREATMENTS

 Manicures: Old nail polish is removed. Fingernails are filed and cuticles gently pushed back from the nail. The nails can be buffed or painted with nail polish, typically with multiple coats.

 Artificial nails: The lengthening or thickening of natural nails most commonly uses acrylics made from liquids and powders. The nail is then painted, sometimes with elaborate designs including jewels and glitter.

 Fills: As the natural nail grows, a gap is created between the cuticle and the artificial nail. That gap can be "filled" with acrylic.

REDUCING EXPOSURE

 Proper ventilation: Ventilate room to the outdoors; manicure tables should have well-maintained charcoal filters or ventilation leading outdoors.

 Personal safety devices: Odor masks with charcoal filters protect from some vapors; protective gloves specific to the chemicals should be used.

 Safe storage: Store chemicals with tight lids; open containers for short periods of time.

 Cleanliness: Dispose of solvent-saturated tissues and cotton balls in plastic bags and metal, lidded garbage cans, which should be emptied daily.

 Products: Select products that contain fewer toxic ingredients; read Material Safety Data Sheets for ingredient and safety information. Recent research has identified polishes and removers from Honeybee Gardens, Sante Kosmetic and en Vogue Sculptured Nail Systems as safer alternatives.

CHEMICALS OF CONCERN

 Acetone: Solvent in nail polish remover, polish; can cause nose, throat and eye irritation, headaches, confusion, nausea, vomiting, unconsciousness and possibly coma, and shortening of the menstrual cycle.

 Dibutyl phthalate: Plasticizer in nail polish; easily absorbed through the skin and intestinal tract and can cross the placenta into the fetus; can cause development problems in the male genitals of humans and rats; exposed pregnant rodents have fewer live pups and smaller offspring.

 Toluene: Solvent in nail polish remover and nail treatments; low levels can cause tiredness, weakness, drunken-type actions, memory loss, nausea, loss of appetite, and hearing and color vision loss; high levels can cause birth defects in children including retarded mental abilities and growth.

 Ethyl methacrylate: Used to form artificial nails; can cause eye and skin irritation, vapors may cause dizziness or suffocation.

Sources: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; Environmental Protection Agency; Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel; New Ecology Inc.

Bad Shoes

A leading source of environmental toxins is the material composing Chanel's $555 ballet flats- It's PVC, or vinyl, used throughout the shoe industry, where exposures during manufacturing threaten workers' health, though not customers'. Although Chanel proudly advertises its vinyl shoes, some manufacturers—including Nike—are eliminating PVCs and dangerous volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (see chart below). Nike is also focusing on reducing greenhouse emissions from manufacturing and shipping, says Sarah Severn, corporate global director of sustainable development. And its Reuse-A-Shoe program converts sneakers into soccer fields and basketball courts.

StatsCan to test 5,000 people for toxins

The federal government's first large-scale survey mirrors similar efforts in the United States that have found that virtually the entire population carries a complex burden of pollutants in their tissues.

The blood and urine will be subjected to a battery of expensive tests that will check for 70 metals and chemicals, including DDT, the once widely used insecticide that has been banned for decades.

DDT is still found throughout the environment because it degrades so slowly.

Many of the substances to be monitored have only recently emerged as potential health threats, and are a worry because the chemicals appear to be leaking out of common consumer products and getting into people.

Bisphenol A, for instance, is a compound that mimics the female sex hormone estrogen and is the main component of polycarbonate, used to make hard-plastic water bottles and dental sealants.

Phthalates are a ubiquitous plastic softener found in many cosmetics and which contribute to the distinctive smell of new cars.

Phthalates concern researchers because they appear able to interfere with the normal functioning of male hormones.

The tests will also look at brominated flame retardants, a widely used family of chemicals that reduce the fire hazard of mattresses and computers, but have been linked in animal experiments to problems resembling attention-deficit disorders in children.

It is unknown whether current exposures to these substances or their interactions in people's bodies is harmful, although animal experimentation has found that during early life and fetal development even trace exposures to some of the substances can skew development in ways that increase the chances of cancers and other health problems later in life.

The U.S. has been issuing results of large-scale testing for contaminants, a process known as biomonitoring, since 2001.

The testing has discovered that the public carries a bewildering cocktail of chemicals from day-to-day exposures to substances originating in consumer products, polluting industries and residues on food. However, the U.S. work has also shown that efforts to ban harmful substances, like the end of the sale of leaded gasoline, have been quickly reflected in reduced levels of the brain-damaging heavy metal in children.

China Pollution in Washington

I cut the following from a long article about the impact of the cashmere sweater boom in the US on the Chinese environment and how it makes Washington air more toxic…

****

A wave of new research is detailing how China's dust and dirty air hurtle across the Pacific, fouling the sky, thickening the haze and altering the climate in the U.S.

What scientists call trans-Pacific transport is an airborne highway of dust and pollutants. Indeed, just as China's air comes to the U.S., North American pollution traverses the Atlantic. But China's air poses particular hazards because it is some of the world's filthiest. Roughly 300,000 people die each year in China of diseases linked to air pollution, according to a Chinese research institute.

The main culprit is coal. About 70 percent of China's soaring energy needs are met by coal-fired power plants. Many private homes also burn coal, combining to give China some of the world's highest emissions of sulfur dioxide, soot and other pollutants.

The goats play an important role as well. Dust from the animal-ravaged grasslands of Alashan is snatched by wind and sent east, where smokestacks frost it in a layer of pollution. Together the noxious brew reaches the U.S. within five days, where it can combine with local pollution to exceed the limits of healthy air, said Rudolf Husar, an atmospheric chemist at Washington University in St. Louis.

Of most concern are ultra-tiny particles that lodge deep in the lungs, contributing to respiratory damage, heart disease and cancer. One storm that began in China and Mongolia in spring 1998 caused a spike in air pollution that prompted health officials in Washington, Idaho, Oregon and British Columbia to issue warnings to the public.

That storm was strong enough to drape a brown cloud over the West Coast. Most of the time, China's dirty dust is invisible to everyone except the growing ranks of researchers troubled by it.

From atop Mt. Tamalpais and other sites on the West Coast, researchers are discovering that polluted air from Asia hits the U.S. far more regularly than was believed even two years ago.

"As pollution levels in Asia continue to rise, I believe that we will observe more Asian pollution in the U.S. in the future," said Cliff, an atmospheric scientist at the University of California, Davis.

Asian dust already accounted for 40 percent of the worst dust days in the Western U.S. in 2001, according to a study by researchers at NASA and Harvard. Despite efforts to reduce emissions, a top Chinese environmental official warned last year that air pollution could quadruple within 15 years because of the rapid rise in private cars and energy use in China. More Chinese pollution will make it harder and more expensive for cities like Los Angeles to meet strict federal air standards.

Chinese environmental authorities recognize the damage contributed by overgrazing and are struggling to stem it. They have stitched massive checkered straw mats into the surface of the desert, dropped seeds from planes and planted millions of trees nationwide. Nothing has solved the problem.

The price we pay for China's boom. The improbable connection between cheap sweaters, Asia's prairies and America's air captures how the most ordinary shifts in the global economy are triggering extraordinary change. Chicago Tribune, Illinois.

Child Labor

Dangerous jobs for India's army of child workers

By Palash Kumar | December 13, 2006

FIROZABAD, India (Reuters) - In the corner of a dark room filled with the stench of kerosene, Prabhu Dayal crouches over a fire, his nimble fingers forming glass bangles in the flames. Prabhu is only 8-years-old, but his life is already one of endless toil, making colorful, glass bangles popular among women across India. "Sometimes I get sores on my fingers but it's okay," Prabhu said, without looking away from the flame for a moment. "When the flame is blue, it's okay. When it turns yellow, then foul gas comes out," he explained. "It's not that difficult. Just hold the two ends (of the bangle) like this and join them with the fire," he added, deftly showing his skill.

Despite a government ban on child labor, Prabhu is one of tens of thousands of children in India who work in horrific conditions in often dangerous industries to support their poor families. Across the country, children stuff explosives into fireworks to be lit during religious festivals and extravagant wedding celebrations, or weave carpets, sew textiles and make everything from footballs to cricket bats to sulphur-tipped matchsticks. Around the town of Firozabad, about 230 km (140 miles) southeast of New Delhi and the hub of India's glassware industry, 50,000 child workers endure lives similar to Prabhu's laboring away in dozens of factories, rights groups estimate.

Under India's Child Labor Act of 1986, children under 14 are banned from working in industries deemed "hazardous" such as fireworks, matchstick-making, auto workshops or carpet weaving. The ban was extended in October to cover those employed at roadside food stalls, homes and hotels. But the rules are widely flouted, and prosecutions, when they happen at all, get bogged down in courts for lengthy periods.

In 1996, a government survey found that 22,000 children worked in factories around Firozabad. Charges were brought against plant owners, many of whom are still involved in legal battles. The factories stopped employing children directly, but began outsourcing their work to "household units," workshops like the tiny, dark room where Prabhu works eight to ten hours a day. A restless boy with sparkling eyes, Prabhu earns about 10 rupees (22 cents) for joining around 1,200 bangles a day. Child rights activists like Ramesh Singh Chandel of the Bachpan Bachao Andolan say hundreds, if not thousands, of these children become afflicted with lung disease from their exposure to chemicals. Most refuse to be examined for fear of losing their only source of income. "Once we held a free health check up camp here," said Chandel, a human rights worker based in the area. "Not one person came. Nearly everyone here suffers from some form of asthma." The day begins at 3 a.m. for Prabhu, his two brothers and their father. At 8 a.m., Prabhu goes to school but he returns to the dingy workshop at around noon and works until 5 p.m. The finished bangles are then heaped on carts and bicycles, which are dragged back to the factories in Firozabad. "After that we play," Prabhu said.

Middle-aged Ramrati lives in a one-room mud hut where she cooks in an earthen oven. She has three sons, aged between 5 and 13. All of them work in the bangle industry. A daughter, who also grew up making glass bangles, died of tuberculosis a few years ago at the age of 16 "The bangles killed her," she said. "She used to cough a lot and turned weak. I got her married thinking her health would improve but she died in a few months." "What option do they have?" asked Vishwa Vimohan Kulshreshtha, who runs a UNICEF program here to wean the children away from work. "Where will they go? What will they do? The government has only banned child labor but it has not created any jobs." "Until the parents get some other work, they will continue to use their children to increase their income. It's a question of livelihood," he said.

Bal Krishan Gupta is the owner of Om Glassworks, one of the biggest factories in the region. Inside his sprawling residence is a cricket field, a fish pond and ducks playing on the lawns. Gupta, who came to Firozabad in 1946, says his factories no longer make bangles, but he knows that children in the region are making them in hazardous conditions. "But who is responsible for this? Is it not the father of the child who is making the child work?" he asked.

Mercury

Cremation costs to rise as tooth fillings poison the living

09.01.07 London, UK Evening Standard

Cremation costs are set to rise by up to £100 - because the teeth of the dead are poisoning the living. Bereaved families are to be hit with a charge to fund new filters that stop toxic fumes from vaporised mercury fillings polluting the atmosphere. The levy could see the price of having a loved one cremated rise by up to a third. But environmentalists say it is vital to cut the spiralling mercury emissions from dental fillings that contaminate the air, waterways, soil, wildlife and food.

Mercury pollution has been linked with birth defects, kidney disease and multiple sclerosis. Cremations already cause nearly one sixth of all UK emissions of the metal. Left unchecked, this would likely rise by two thirds by 2020, making crematoria the biggest single cause of mercury pollution in the country. In an attempt to stop it getting out of control, the government has ordered half of crematoria to fit the new filters by 2012.

Those who have already installed the new technology started charging an £35 for cremations this month. And with the filters costing up to £300,000 to fit, there are fears the charge could rapidly rise to £100. By 2013 all cremations will be subject to the new levy. Grieving relatives will be expected to pay, regardless of whether their loved one has any mercury fillings.

Duncan McCallum, secretary of the Federation of British Cremation Authorities, said: "The government's decision was that the person at the end of the chain pays, and unfortunately that is the family of the deceased. "We would have preferred some funding to assist the installation." He said the charge would be reviewed annually, and it was impossible to predict how high it could rise. Cremations now account for around three out of four funerals in Britain. Most cost between £300 and £400, but the average cost of the full funeral is £1215.

The rise in mercury pollution from crematoria is caused by increasing deaths in what dentists describe as the "heavy metal generation" - those in their 40s and above. These people are dying with more teeth because of better dental care. But many of those teeth are loaded with potentially dangerous levels of mercury-laced fillings. Millions of Britons have two to four grams of mercury in their mouths. Just a single gramme in a 25-acre lake can raise toxic levels in fish to danger levels.

Adults who have absorbed mercury or inhaled mercury vapour lose their appetite, are emotionally unstable, have trouble sleeping and develop gastric problems, sore gums and dribble excessively. Researchers have also found that higher levels of mercury can lead to an increased risk of heart disease in men. High mercury levels in food are especially dangerous for pregnant women, affecting their baby's central nervous system. Other countries including Austria, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland have already taken steps to regulate mercury emissions from crematoria. The only alternative way of cutting mercury emissions from dental fillings would be to remove filled teeth from bodies before cremation, but experts say this would be too time consuming

Animals shouldn't do drugs

Curing the problem of discarding pills

By CHERIE BLACK
P-I REPORTER

At one time, pharmacies and physicians were OK with consumers flushing unwanted or expired medications down the toilet or throwing them in the garbage.

Now, we know better.

Evidence of the medications' harmful effects have been surfacing in our waterways, landfills and marine life. A nationwide study released in 2002 by the United States Geological Survey showed trace levels of chemicals found in prescription drugs in 80 percent of the streams across the country.

Putting medicines in the garbage also can lead to accidental contact by children and animals. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention points to an increased risk of accidental poisoning from unwanted or expired medications sitting in medicine cabinets. Plus, the old medicines still can end up in the soil through landfills.

So what to do?

"We see this all the time, patients come to us and say please help us figure this out," said Shirley Reitz, associate director for clinical pharmacy services at Group Health. "We needed a way to do this without flushing them down the toilet or putting them in the garbage can," she said.

As a result, a coalition of government and non-profit groups throughout the state, including Group Health, the Department of Ecology and the Washington State Board of Pharmacy, have developed a program to offer a better option -- the first program in Washington that collects unwanted pharmaceuticals and disposes of them safely.

The program is running in pharmacies at seven test sites throughout the state, including three in King County. Each has a large, blue, highly secure medical disposal unit in the customer waiting area where consumers bring unwanted medications in the original containers and drop them in the box, Reitz said. The materials are then transported to a hazardous waste destruction site for environmentally safe disposal.

Interesting slide show

Quite possibly the most interesting 6 minutes you will spend today

http://www.scottmcleod.org/didyouknow.wmv

Teflon Article

March 14, 2007

Cancer rates high in C8 areas

Residents in the communities where water is polluted with the toxic chemical C8 have elevated levels of several cancers, according to a previously confidential state government analysis…

Agency researchers found elevated rates of prostate cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in Wood and Jackson counties, according to a draft of the study. DHHR also discovered high rates of leukemia and skin cancer in Wood County, where a DuPont Co. plant makes and discharges C8, according to the study…

Since the 1950s, DuPont has used C8 at its Washington Works chemical plant south of Parkersburg. The chemical is used to make Teflon, other nonstick products, oil-resistant paper packaging and stain- and water-repellent textiles. C8 is another name for ammonium perfluorooctanoate, or PFOA. Researchers are finding that people around the world have C8 in their blood. The blood levels may be generally small, but it is unclear whether these amounts are dangerous…

Dan Turner, a media spokesman for DuPont, released a short statement about the study from Robert Rickard, DuPont’s science director. “We agree with the authors that studies of this kind can provide a useful initial screen of differences in disease rates across geographic areas,” Rickard said. “But, as the authors themselves acknowledge, the study cannot and does not identify any cause that explains the observations.”

Green Room to Grow In

March/April 2007 National Geographic The Green Guide

http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/119/greenroomtogrow

PBDE ban first in nation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 3, 2007
CONTACT: Laurie Valeriano, Washington Toxics Coalition, 206-200-2824
Jamie Smith, House Democratic Caucus, 360-786-7631

Washington State Legislature Passes First-in-the-Nation Ban on Toxic
Flame Retardants

Measure Passes Senate 41 to 8, Goes to Governor for Signature

Olympia-The Washington State Legislature has passed the nation's first
ban on all forms of the toxic flame retardants known as PBDEs. The
Senate passed ESHB1024, sponsored by Rep. Ross Hunter (D-Medina), by a
41 to 8 margin at noon today. Senator Debbie Regala (D-Tacoma) sponsored
the companion bill in the Senate. "Washington state is leading the way
for improving the health and safety of our children," said Hunter, who
has sponsored the legislation for three years. "We've come up with a
common-sense strategy for preserving fire safety while getting rid of
chemicals like PBDEs that build up in our environment, in our bodies,
and even in mothers' breast milk."

Major manufacturers, including HP, Dell, Sony, Panasonic, and Phillips,
have already stopped using PBDEs in their products. Sen. Regala
applauded the bill's final passage, saying "Companies have proven that
we don't need toxic chemicals like PBDEs to make effective products.
It's up to us at the state level to move the rest of the industry toward
safer practices."

The Washington State Departments of Ecology and Health requested the
legislation, which is supported by Governor Gregoire, three state fire
associations, the Washington State Nurses Association, the Washington
Medical Association, and many others. The bill is the first one of the
four Priorities for a Healthy Washington to head to the Governor's desk.
While other states have passed bans on the penta and octa forms of
PBDEs, which have been phased out of manufacture, Washington is the
first to act on the deca form. Deca has by far the highest production
volume of the PBDE forms.

"Fire fighters are concerned about preventing fires and reducing
exposure to toxic chemicals, because we're on the front lines in both
cases," said Keven Rojecki of the Washington State Council of Fire
Fighters. "Fire fighters are already exposed to so many deadly
carcinogens, it is critical that safer alternatives be used to ensure
products are fire safe. This bill is a victory for protecting the health
of firefighters and the public from harmful toxic chemicals."

The legislation does the following:

Bans the use of the penta and octa forms of PBDEs, with limited
exceptions, by 2008
Bans the use of the deca form in mattresses by 2008
Bans the use of the deca form in televisions, computers, and
residential upholstered furniture by 2011, as long as a safer,
reasonable, and effective alternative has been identified by the
state departments of Ecology and Health and approved by fire
safety officials

"This legislation is about doing the right thing to protect families and
our environment from the harmful effects of PBDEs," said Rep. Skip
Priest, R-Federal Way. "We're doing the responsible thing-banning the
chemical and working with alternative fire retardants so we don't trade
one danger for another." Priest added that he was very concerned about
the possible link between PBDEs and irregular brain development in
fetuses. This measure, he says, is the only sure way to break that
connection. As the measure gained momentum, the bromine industry, the
most significant opponent to the legislation, employed tactics that
included testifying as fire safety organizations and widely distributing
a mailer with misleading information.

"With the passage of this legislation, Washington is a safer place to
raise children," said Laurie Valeriano, Policy Director for the
Washington Toxics Coalition. "Scientific facts and disease prevention
won out today over chemical industry scare tactics and hype."

Three hundred health care professionals signed a letter supporting the
ban on PBDEs, citing harmful health impacts from PBDEs including
learning and behavioral disorders, memory impairments, disruption of
thyroid function, reproductive effects, and cancer. The letter's authors
note that substantial evidence shows the buildup of PBDEs in people,
orca whales, and the environment, and new studies find that the deca
form breaks down into other forms of PBDEs that have already been phased
out.

"This action by the Washington State legislature marks a crucial step
forward for the health, development and learning of Washington's
children." said Barry Lawson, MD, Immediate Past President of the
Washington Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics said, "By phasing
out PBDEs, we can safeguard our children from exposures to these
persistent toxic chemicals and act on our responsibility to provide them
with a healthier future."

"This is truly a case where prevention is essential," said Judy
Huntington, MN, RN, Executive Director of the Washington State Nurses
Association. "By passing this legislation, we are making vital progress
in protecting our state's children, families and workers from permanent
yet preventable harm."

Enviro injustice

18 Missing Inches in New Orleans

By Greg Palast

The Department of Homeland Security, after a five-year hunt for Osama, finally brought charges against... Greg Palast.

As America crawled toward the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attack, Homeland Security charged me and my US producer Matt Pascarella with violating the anti-terror laws.

Don't you feel safer?

And I confess: we're guilty.

On August 22, 2006, we were videotaping Katrina evacuees still held behind barbed wire in a trailer park encampment a hundred miles from New Orleans. It had been a year since the hurricane and 73,000 POW's (Prisoners of Dubya) were still in mobile home Gulags. I arranged a surreptitious visit with Pamela Lewis, one of the unwilling guests of George Bush's Guantanamo on wheels. She told me, "It's a prison set-up" - except there are no home furloughs for these inmates because they no longer have homes. You can't film there. FEMA is part of Homeland Security and its camps are off limits to cameras. We don't want Osama to know he can get a cramped Airstream by posing as a displaced Black person.

To give a sense of the full flavor and smell of Kamp Katrina, we wanted to show that this human parking lot, with kids and elderly, is close by Exxon Petroleum's Baton Rouge refinery. The neighborhood goes by the quaint sobriquet, "Cancer Alley." So we filmed it. Uh, oh. The refinery, is a CAVIP, "Critical Asset and Vulnerable Infrastructure Point." Apparently, you can't film a CAVIP.

As to the bust: The positive side for me as a reporter was that I got to see Bush's terror-trackers in action. I should note that it took the Maxwell Smarts at Homeland Security a full two weeks to hunt us down. And we're on television.

Frankly, Matt and I were a bit scared that, given the charges, we wouldn't be allowed on a plane into New York for the September 11 commemoration. But what scared us more is that we were allowed on the plane.

Once I was traced, I had a bit of an other-worldly conversation with my would-be captors. Detective Frank Penantano of Homeland Security told me, "This is a 'Critical Infrastructure' … and they get nervous about unauthorized filming of their property." Well, me too, Detective. In fact, I'm very nervous that extremely detailed satellite photos of this potential chemical blast-site can be downloaded from maps.google.com. Detective Penantano, in justifying our impending arrest, said, "If you remember, a lot of people were killed on 9/11."

Yes, I remember "a lot" of people were killed. So I have this suggestion, Detective - and you can pass it on to Mr. Bush: Go find the people who killed them.

18 Missing Inches

Before the Big Bust, we learned a little more about how New Orleans drowned. Given my line of work, I'm not shocked at much. Yet, this one got to me. "By midnight on Monday the White House knew. Monday night I was at the state Emergency Operations Center and nobody was aware that the levees had breeched. Nobody."

The charges were so devastating - the White House's withholding from the state police the information that the city was about to flood - that from almost any source, I simply would have dismissed it. But this was not just any source. The whistleblower was Dr. Ivor van Heerden, deputy chief of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Studies Center, and the chief technician advising the state on saving lives during Katrina.

That Monday night, August 29, 2005, the sleepless crew at the state Emergency Operations Center, directing the response to Hurricane Katrina, were high-fiving it, relieved that Katrina had swung east of New Orleans, sparing the city from drowning.

They were wrong. The Army Corps, FEMA and White House knew for critical hours that the levees had begun to crack, but withheld the information for a day and night. The delay was deadly.

Van Heerden explained that levees don't collapse in a single bang. First, there's a small crack or two, a few feet wide, which take hours to burst open into visible floodways. Had the state known New Orleans' bulwark was failing, they would have shifted resources to get out those left in the danger zone.

Van Heerden: FEMA knew on 11 o'clock on Monday that the levees had breeched. At 2pm they flew over the 17th Street Canal and took video of the breech.

Question: So the White House wouldn't tell you that the levees had breeched?

Van Heerden: They didn't tell anybody.

Question: And you're at the Emergency Center?

Van Heerden: I mean nobody knew. Well, the Corps of Engineers knew. FEMA knew. None of us knew.

The prevarications continued all week.

Van Heerden said, "I went to the Governor's on Tuesday night and I said this, 'There's a lot more breeches than one.' They said, "Whatever you need, go find out.' I got in an airplane, I flew. I counted 28 breeches." The White House had good reason, or at least political and financial reasons, to keep mum. A hurricane is an act of God, but catastrophic levee failure is an act of the Administration. Once the federal levees go, evacuation, rescue and those frightening words - responsibility and compensation - become Washington's. Van Heerden knew that "not an act of God, but catastrophic failure of the levee system" would mean that, at least, "these people must be compensated."

Not every flood victim in America gets the Katrina treatment. In 1992, storms wiped out 190 houses on the beach at West Hampton Dunes, home to film stars and celebrity speculators. The federal government paid to completely rebuild the houses, which, hauled in four million cubic feet of sand to restore the tony beaches, and guaranteed the home's safety into the coming decades - after which the "victim's" homes rose in value to an average $2 million each.

But in New Orleans, instead of compensation, 73,000 have been sentenced to life in FEMA's trailer-parks in Louisiana. Even more are displaced to other states. I asked van Heeerden about the consequences of the White House's failures, the information about the levee being just one of a list.

"Well, fifteen hundred people drowned. That's the bottom line."

But why did the levees fail at all if the hurricane missed the city? The professor showed me a computer model indicating the levees were a foot and a half too short - the result of a technical error in the Army Corp of Engineer's calculation of sea level when the levees were built beginning in the 1930s.

And the Bush crew knew it. Long before Katrina struck, the White House staff had sought van Heerden's advice on coastal safety. So when the professor learned of the 18-inch error, he informed the White House directly. But this was advice they didn't want to hear. The President had already sent the levee repair crew, the Army Corp of Engineers, to Afghanistan and Iraq.

*********

Greg Palast is author of Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans - Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild, released this week by Penguin. Get it here.&&

For more information on the Armed Madhouse tour and for a podcast of 18 Missing Inches read by 'On With Leon's' Dr. Wilmer Leon go to www.GregPalast.com

You can also read "Who Drowned the Big Easy?," a new article by Greg Palast, in the next issue of YES! magazine.

A good Perspective

Ten Things You Can Say to a White Person Upon First Meeting:

1. How much white are you?
2. I’m part white myself, you know.
3. I learned all your people’s ways in the Boy Scouts.
4. My great-great-grandmother was a full-blooded white-Canadian princess.
5. Funny, you don’t look white.
6. Where’s your powdered wig and knickers?
7. Do you live in a covered wagon?
8. What’s the meaning behind the square dance?
9. What’s your feeling about riverboat casinos? Do they really help your people, or are they just a short-term fix?
10. Oh, wow! I really love your hair! Can I touch it?

Cancer and cosmetics

MARGARET PHILP

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Amy Robertson is about as natural as a Canadian can be. Without a trace of makeup, her blond hair usually cinched in a ponytail, the former organic farmer and health-food store clerk from Vancouver scrupulously avoids preservatives and pesticides in her food. She was also tested last year by researchers collecting proof of toxic chemicals in the body. But what she discovered shocked her -- her clean-living body was distressingly polluted with heavy metals and PCBs. If the 43-year-old is disciplined about what goes into her mouth, she is anything but when it comes to what she puts on her skin. Inspecting her herbal shampoo label for the first time, she finds cocamidopropyl hydroxysultaine and methyl cocoyl taurate, the stuff of chemistry labs. "I've always said to the kids, 'If you can't pronounce an ingredient, we won't buy it,' " Ms. Robertson says. "But I have obviously not been that good with cosmetics." Few have. While Canadians have become savvy about chemicals in their food -- scanning package labels and paying premium prices for organic produce -- little mention has been made of the chemicals that clean our hair and moisturize our skin day in and day out.

Yet some of the 10,000 ingredients in beauty products are suspected or confirmed carcinogens, hormone-mimicking chemicals or substances linked to birth defects. And in an age of increasing fear over chemical exposures, the $5.3-billion cosmetics industry is poised to become the new frontier for health and eco-minded consumers. Under new federal rules that came into force late last year, cosmetics companies selling products in Canada are compelled to list ingredients on their packages -- a move that has brought this country closer into line with Europe and the United States, where, for some, checking the label on a lipstick is as routine as reading a cereal box. Some cosmetics ingredients will also go under the microscope when Ottawa begins a massive safety review of thousands of chemicals in widespread use that was announced last winter.

And later this month hearings will begin in Ontario on a private member's bill tabled by NDP environment critic Peter Tabuns that would slap warnings on all cosmetics and other products containing known and suspected carcinogens. Outside Canada, a law just passed in California placing the onus on cosmetics companies to disclose to health authorities the details of toxic ingredients linked to cancer or reproductive problems. "The fact is, we're using so many different cosmetics and we're putting them directly onto our skin," says Madeleine Bird, a Montreal health researcher who founded a Canadian counterpart to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a U.S. coalition of health and environmental activists, last year. "We use them on our babies. It's a very intimate part of our daily lives and we want that to be as safe as possible."

But while even those in the Canadian cosmetics industry laud the move to list contents on packaging, many consumers are discovering that these labels are hardly founts of information. Ingredients are listed by unfamiliar Latin names that obscure even benign substances -- shea butter becomes butyrospermum parkii. Unless shoppers splurge on an $1,100 dictionary to cross-reference ingredients, they are left no wiser than they were before the new rules. This is why the Canadian Cancer Society is tossing around the idea of a colour-coded logo that would flag possible carcinogens. The Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control committee also has product labelling on their agenda. "When you pick up something at the grocery store, it should immediately tell you something about what's in that substance [so] you can make an informed decision," says Heather Logan, the director of cancer control policy at the Canadian Cancer Society. "We don't have that yet." Aside from labelling, Health Canada does maintain a hot list of more than 500 banned and restricted chemicals. Companies selling cosmetics here are also required to disclose the ingredients contained in their products to Ottawa.

In the United States, ingredients have been listed on cosmetics for years. But there are loopholes that allow companies to conceal some suspect chemicals under the vague title of "fragrance" or refuse to name ingredients that are claimed to be trade secrets. "There are some ingredients that have benefits and some risk as well," says Carl Carter, director of the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association. "But our feeling is that under the Canadian regulatory system, we are very confident about the safety of the substances that are used."

Some health and environmental activists don't agree. They want Health Canada to use warning labels to protect Canadians from questionable chemicals -- or to follow the aggressive stance of the European Union, where more than 1,100 chemicals in cosmetics have been banned outright. The battle comes back to science. Research on chemicals in cosmetics is spotty. Many compounds have never been studied. Others are linked to cancer or birth defects in animals but not people -- or show a link to cancer, but at far higher doses than the levels present in cosmetics. In fact, the studies making the airtight case connecting compounds to cancer are few.

To the industry, these studies suggest that their products are safe. To activists, the science overlooks the fact these minute chemical exposures in cosmetics are repeated with successive products -- soap, deodorant, makeup -- every day. But even where conclusive scientific evidence exists, it has not swayed health authorities in Canada or the United States to ban the substances from widespread use.

In the face of this, the Washington-based Environmental Working Group started an online listing called Skin Deep that ranks the safety of 14,000 cosmetics -- about half of those on the market -- according to their safety as determined by the research available. And for the past four years, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics in the U.S. has been pushing 500 companies -- most of them small "green" producers -- to sign a pact to substitute toxic ingredients with safe alternatives. The Body Shop, recently purchased by L'Oréal, is the biggest convert to date.

Meanwhile, growing unease about cosmetics is boosting sales of alternative products -- both at health-food stores and grocery chains. Some of these products have simply disguised suspect ingredients in earthy-looking packaging touting "natural" or "herbal" properties. But a growing number of companies are starting to sell chemical-free cosmetics. And a U.S. financial research firm recently published a report suggesting that those who ignore the push for healthier products risk a backlash.

New cosmetics brands are also emerging. Alain Menard and his wife, Karen Clark, started the Green Beaver Company in Hawkesbury, near Ottawa, after the birth of their first child three years ago. At the time, he worked as a microbiologist in pharmaceuticals and she was a biochemist with a pesticide company. But neither wanted their son exposed to the chemicals in cosmetics and both saw a market niche for an all-natural Canadian cosmetics company. Mr. Menard welcomes the new labelling law in Canada, sure it will expose the pretenders marketing supposedly natural and organic products that are neither. But he, too, worries about the confounding Latin names, fearing that customers will feel threatened by natural ingredients that sound like chemicals. "There may be some confusion about what these terms mean," he says.

Take Ms. Robertson. As she reads through the label on her shampoo, the names grow longer and more complicated. As hair-care products go, it ranks among the more benign. Still, it does contain methyl, ethyl, propyl and butyl parabens. In the bottle are ingredients considered to be toxic, endocrine disruptors and harmful to wildlife -- a rude shock to the Vancouverite, who buys her cosmetics at a health-food store.

"To be quite honest, I'd never read down that whole ingredient list until now," she says. "I don't know what all the parabens are."

Margaret Philp is a feature writer with The Globe and Mail.

Pretty dangerous

Some compounds in personal-care products are worth watching out for.

Lead acetate: A known reproductive toxin banned in the European Union but found in some hair dyes and cleansers in North America.

Formaldehyde: A known carcinogen found in some nail products.

Toluene: A possible reproductive or developmental toxin found in some nail polishes.

Petroleum distillates: Possible carcinogen prohibited in the EU, but found in some mascara, perfume and lipstick in North America.

Ethyl acrylate: A possible carcinogen found in some mascara.

Coal tar: A known carcinogen found in dandruff shampoos, anti-itch creams and hair dyes.

Dibutyl phthalate: An endocrine disruptor and possible reproductive or developmental toxin found in some nail polish, perfume and hair spray.

Sodium lauryl sulfate: A skin irritant prone to contamination by a probable carcinogen called 1,4-dioxane used in many soaps and shampoos for its foaming properties.

Methyl, propyl, butyl and ethyl paraben: Endocrine disruptors and possible breast carcinogens used as a preservative in cosmetics such as lotions and shampoos.

-- Margaret Philp

Source: Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, Environmental Working Group