OBOS has received funding to make blog entries available in Spanish. We hope to expand outreach efforts in the coming year.

Muchas personas que usan cosméticos en los Estados Unidos no se dan cuenta que no se requieren pruebas o aprobación de la FDA para la comercialización de cosméticos.  A su vez, la Agencia Federal no tiene autoridad para requerir que el fabricante retire del mercado productos que no son seguros.  Como los cosméticos no son regulados de la misma manera que los medicamentos, es más difícil para el consumidor hacer una decisión informada, y la FDA tiene menos poder para regular la industria de los cosméticos y para responder a los problemas.

La Ley para Cosméticos Seguros del 2011 (Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011), propuesta por Janic Schakowsky (IL-D) tiene el propósito de ayudar a llenar algunos de estos vacíos en la regulación de los cosméticos.

Esta ley daría poder al gobierno para retirar del mercado los cosméticos no seguros, para requerir mejor información sobre sus ingredientes, establecer estándares de seguridad adicionales y requerir que el fabricante provea información sobre la seguridad del producto.  La ley impone la obligación de informar sobre los efectos adversos para la salud, permite la prohibición de ingredientes que tienen efectos que pueden causar cáncer o problemas con la salud reproductiva, estimula alternativas a las pruebas en animales, aborda la seguridad de los trabajadores, junto a otras medidas.

In Pastel Injustice: The Corporate Use of Pinkwashing for Profit, authors Amy Lubitow and Mia Davis provide an introduction to the concept of pinkwashing, talk about environmental factors in breast cancer, and explain the problem of having corporations generate public goodwill from pink-themed breast cancer campaigns. They argue:

Funds raised from breast cancer walks and runs undoubtedly serve to further treatment and early detection of breast cancer (which saves more women’s lives). However, corporate entities marketing to cancer patients and their families develop brand loyalty, generate free advertising on the part of women who participate, and discourage questions about the role of chemicals used in consumer products in cancer incidence.

The authors go on to call pinkwashing a form of social injustice, and decry the focus solely on cancer treatment rather than on prevention. In critiquing the “buy something pink” model of responding to breast cancer, they outline how this approach excludes both many types of women at risk for cancer and prevention efforts that don’t focus on finding “a cure.”

Questions about disease causation, feelings of anger, frustration, or sadness do not meld with the dominant imagery of women who have conquered—or must be made to feel that they can conquer—the disease. Notably, this mainstream image is effectively a white, middle class model which excludes women of color, who are not only less likely to survive the disease than white women, but who may not connect with the hegemonic model of survivorhood that centers on fundraising walks (some of which require $1,800 as a baseline for participation), and which are heavily populated by white women.

Thus, women’s time, energy, and passion are diverted from efforts to prevent the disease and reduce its occurrence, and instead are focused on raising money (often by spending money on pre-assigned pink ribbon products, and cloaking themselves entirely in pink clothes with corporate logos). Everyone is told to keep their eyes on the prize: the elusive cure. This lost time and money, and more importantly, the physical pain and emotional hardship that families and communities endure with every breast cancer diagnosis is not accounted for or honored when we seek only ‘‘the cure.’’

This article is bound to be somewhat controversial, provoking questions of whether small amounts of certain chemicals are likely to cause any harm, whether additional safety studies or regulations are needed, and how much influence environmental exposures have compared to other risk factors. Whether campaigns to buy pink products or focus primarily on treatment are the appropriate way to focus our energies on breast cancer, though, is certainly something worth thinking about and discussing. The article is available online for free.

You can browse by cosmetic category or search for the name of your favorite product to find out about possible hazards in terms of cancer risk, reproductive toxicities, and allergies. Information is also provided on companies’ animal testing policies. The directions and ingredients listed on each product label is listed, and links are provided to other similar product types and products from the same manufacturer. You can also read others comments and leave your own on specific product pages.

Because in some cases there may not be much testing data on particular ingredients, the amount of available data is labeled, such as none, limited, fair, or robust. Information is provided on whether the data come from a single or multiple animal studies (which may be of limited value for humans), or if there is strong evidence of potential harm in humans.

Sources of data used for the assessments and the methods for computing scores are provided at http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/site/about.php. Thus, you can see how the assessments and ratings are derived in a pretty transparent way. For the fellow librarian readers, yes, I sent them a suggestion about the Hazardous Substance Data Bank!

I love the idea of a database like this, because it’s often difficult to know how “safe” any particular product is. I personally don’t have the appropriate background in toxicology to assess how accurately the potential risks of common ingredients are described, so I’d love to hear from readers with that expertise. I’ll also leave it to commenters to talk about why it was necessary for the “men’s” products to be in their own segregated section of the site.

Very little action has been taken on the basis of these studies, but new legislation working its way through Congress aims to change that.

The Endocrine Disruption Prevention Act of 2009 was introduced last December in the Senate (S-2828 [pdf]) by  Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and in the House of Representives (HR-4190 [pdf]) by Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.).

TEDX , the Endrocine Disruption Exchange, provides a thorough overview:

Simply put, the main purpose of the program proposed in the bill is to develop reliable and reproducible methods to identify chemicals that can disrupt the human endocrine system. These protocols will:

• address the full range of possible health outcomes (including reproductive, behavioral, intellectual, metabolic, and endocrine disorders);
• be sensitive enough to detect effects at exposure levels relevant to human exposure (and not rely on the assumption that a lower dose produces less effect);
• consider the effects of exposure to multiple chemicals

The program will rely on a panel of scientific experts, free of conflict of interest, to design research efforts that will be conducted at the NIEHS and on academic campuses across the country. The panel will then evaluate the findings and determine their level of concern (taking into account routes and sources of exposure).

Kerry recently sent a letter to other members of the Senate looking for co-sponsors of the bill. TEDX is urging everyone to call their senators and encourage their sponsorships. And while the House bill has several co-sponsors, more is always better. See “How You Can Help.”

To get a feel for the full political context, read Elizabeth Grossman’s call for “Fixing Our Broken Chemicals Policy,” inspired by the introduction of the bill.

The Panel’s recently released report, “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now,” [PDF] focuses on potential risks posed by contaminants in the environment from industrial, manufacturing, agricultural, medical, military, natural, and other sources, and provides recommendations for reducing environmental cancer risks. For example, the report discusses the radiation exposure from medical CT scans, mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, and pesticide exposures.

The Panel’s report calls for further research into environmental causes of and contributors to cancer, stronger regulation and enforcement related to hazardous substances, better disclosure to the public of potential hazards created, inclusion of environmental and public health advocates in developing research and policy agendas and information dissemination, minimization of radiation exposure from medical sources, attention to the unequal burden of exposure, and increased use of safer alternatives.

It also calls for a move away from “current reactionary approaches to environmental contaminants in which human harm must be proven before action is taken to reduce or eliminate exposure” to a more “precautionary, prevention-oriented approach.” (For more information on what such an approach would look like, see The Precautionary Principle on the OBOS website.)

The free report also includes a number of recommendations for individuals to reduce their exposure to potentially harmful chemicals.

A representative of the American Cancer Society has criticized the report, arguing that “the report is unbalanced by its implication that pollution is the major cause of cancer…its conclusion that ‘the true burden of environmentally (i.e. pollution) induced cancer has been grossly underestimated’ does not represent scientific consensus. Rather, it reflects one side of a scientific debate that has continued for almost 30 years.”

The chairman of the panel has reportedly responded, “This is an evenhanded approach, and an evenhanded report. We didn’t make statements that should not be made.” A representative of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, in a commentary for The Salt Lake Tribune, further criticized the ACS’s response, commenting that the ACS’s focus on “lifestyle factors” such as diet and exercise reflects a “blame the victim” philosophy that trivializes environmental risks. He also questions the ACS’s relationship with corporate donors who could possibly be affected by increased regulation and enforcement.

Orac at Respectful Insolence (ScienceBlogs) has detailed commentary on the report, including discussion of the ACS’s reaction – the full post is well worth a read.

In In Search of Climate Justice: Refuting Dubious Linkages, Affirming Rights [PDF], the organization criticizes the linking of population control efforts to climate change work, citing disparities between rates of population growth and levels consumption, and the ways in which attempts to simply reduce birth rates ignore other demographic factors (such as per capita consumption) that contribute to climate change concerns.

Most important, perhaps, are concerns that population control strategies “have inevitably led to abuses, coercion and the violation of women’s fundamental rights,” and the argument that “women’s rights to control their own fertility should not be sacrificed to protect the environment.” The authors note women’s vulnerability to adverse effects of climate change, and argue that women’s bodies should be looked at with concern for the effects of climate change on women, not looked at as the vehicle for climate change solutions.

Several pieces in the publication further explore this topic, and resources for further reading are also listed.

The writers of the editorial, Sexual and reproductive health and climate change, believe that family planning proponents might gain more support and funding if they focused on how family planning can reduce climate change. They argue:

With less than 3 months to go, the UN Copenhagen conference on climate change provides an opportunity to draw attention to the centrality of women. The sexual and reproductive health and rights community should challenge the global architecture of climate change, and its technology focus, and shift the discussion to a more human-based, rights-based adaptation approach. Such a strategy would better serve the range of issues pivitol to improving the health of women worldwide.

Astute readers of the full piece will note that the editors seem to be talking about efforts to reduce population in places outside the Lancet’s UK location, given specific reference to efforts in Ethiopia and general mentions of the UN and Millennium Development Goals that seem to suggest work in developing nations.

The SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective, however, takes a different stance on this approach. The current issue [PDF] of their Collective Voices newsletter is focused on reproductive and environmental justice, and includes a piece that outlines 10 reasons why population control is not the solution to global warming.

The authors – Betsy Hartmann and Elizabeth Barajas-Roman – argue that “it is not population growth that drives carbon emissions but economic systems of production, distribution and consumption based on the profligate use of fossil fuels,” and state:

Blaming climate change on overpopulation lets wealthy countries, corporations, and consumers off the hook. It is part of a long tradition of eugenic environmentalism in which environmental and economic resource scarcities are attributed to “too many people” – usually meaning too many people of color.

The authors address the issues of reproductive rights, race, and blame raised by this approach, and state that that “This strategy threatens to undermine both climate justice and reproductive justice.” The full piece is well worth a read.

Hartmann and Barajas-Roman write more about this topic at http://popdev.hampshire.edu/.

The first day of my internship with Our Bodies Ourselves began with a fascinating web conference on reproductive and environmental health, organized by Reproductive Health Technologies Project. Presenters from Planned Parenthood of Connecticut, Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice, and MomsRising spoke about their organizations’ efforts in addressing “increasing evidence that industrial chemicals are linked to infertility and a host of negative health outcomes such as early puberty, miscarriage, and reproductive cancers.”

During this web conference I learned about a new report (pdf) published by the Oakland-based Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice (ACRJ). The latest volume in their Momentum Series, “Looking Both Ways: Women’s Lives at the Crossroads of Reproductive Justice and Climate Justice,” highlights the interconnectedness of reproductive health issues and the climate crisis.

The report offers an insightful framework for approaching issues that disproportionately affect vulnerable people, particularly women living in poverty and women of color. An example is the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which, among many of the disastrous outcomes, saw a rise in sexual abuse and a decline in access to reproductive health services.

The report finds that while Hurricane Katrina “brought shape to the emerging understanding of women and climate change in the United States, the scope of the climate crisis demands much more: that we not only address how women will be impacted— and how to protect their rights — but also how women’s lives are wrapped up in both the causes of, and potential solutions to, the climate crisis.”

Looking at how women’s lives are binded to some of the causes of the climate crisis, the paper also analyzes the effects of everyday workplace exposure to certain chemicals on women’s health and fertility. It underscores the importance of using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) research to determine “the impact of the entire life cycle of a chemical or material on the environment or a particular aspect of the environment – such as energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, or water contamination.”

An LCA study generally looks at the following phases: raw material acquisition, materials manufacture, production, use/reuse/maintenance, and waste management. In other words, it is important to consider the environmental impacts of how a chemical was made, distributed and disposed of, as well as look at how a chemical’s use in a workplace affects the health of a worker. For more information, the EPA has a website on Life Cycle Assessment Research.

The nail salon industry in California is one of the examples cited, because it is a fast-growing industry that exposes workers to toxic chemicals, some unregulated, that contribute to global warming. The ACRJ’s POLISH program works with the nail care industry to improve the health of nail care workers and to reduce negative environmental impacts. Further,

[a] reproductive justice analysis of working conditions in nail salons directs improvements not only to making the nail salon environment one that is conducive to good health, but also to increasing wages, improving benefits, reducing working hours, reducing harassment and discrimination, and creating more educational opportunities for workers.

ACRJ’s important work, with POLISH and its other programs, makes “clear that the preservation of the planet remains intimately connected to protecting the reproductive capacities and self-determination of marginalized communities.”

I found the ACRJ’s report enlightening. I appreciated its broad perspective on reproductive health and the causes and effects of climate change. As someone concerned with the rapid decline of our environment, and its effects on our health, I appreciate the efforts of the ACRJ and the other organizations that presented during the web conference in addressing these issues.

Morgan Clark is a PhD student in public policy at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.

Lines in the Sand: Speaking of the elusive common ground, On the Issues magazine chose “lines in the sand” as the theme for its current issue.

An email to readers said the choice was “provoked by today’s too-prevalent sentiment to compromise principles in the interests of seeking ‘common ground’ and reconciliation with opposing views. In these articles we explore the feminist and progressive values that must be held tightly, the ‘lines in the sand’ that we refuse to erase.”

Publisher and Editor-in-Chief Merle Hoffman says reproductive freedom is “the front line, the bottom line and the everlasting line in the sand,” in her editorial “Higher Ground, Not Common Ground.”

Also look for essays by Gloria Feldt, Loretta Ross and many more writers and artists.

Economics, Race and Pollution: A study by researchers at the University of Massachusetts and the University of Southern California tracking toxic emissions from factories confirms what we already know: poor, minority communities are disproportionately affected by harmful pollution. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports on the findings. View the full report (PDF) here.

Public Attitudes Toward HIV/AIDS as a Health Issue: Kaiser Family Foundation has released its 2009 Survey of Americans on HIV/AIDS. In the United States, the sense of urgency about HIV/AIDS as a national health issue has decreased significantly. Residents’ concerns about the disease as a personal risk also has declined, even among some high-risk groups. This press release summarizes the findings. The study comes less than a year after the CDC  announced that there were 40 percent more new HIV infections each year than previously believed.

Egypt’s FGM Ban, One Year Later: In the year since Egypt outlawed female genital mutilation, the government hasn’t prosecuted a single case, Iman Azzi writes at Women’s eNews. Still, some activists say the law is a tool, among others, for gradually dismantling an ancient tradition.

Legalization – The “X” Factor: On May 1, thousands of activists took to the streets in favor of expanding immigrants rights. Suman Raghunathan, an immigration and public policy analyst, describes what immigrant women, particularly those who are undocumented, need: “A legalization program that’s broad, fair and workable for both immigrants and immigration officials.”

Raghunathan goes on to note that current federal immigration policy leaves it up to states to decide whether to provide free or low-cost health care to their undocumented residents. Several states, including New York, have expanded prenatal and neonatal care to undocumented women and children.

“Legal status,” she writes, “would mean that undocumented women are no longer left to the mercy of state legislatures and no longer denied appropriate nursing and doctoring.”

Plus: The L.A. Times reports on how some California counties are eliminating non-emergency health services for undocumented immigrants.

“We are mortgaging the future to scrape through the present,” said David Hayes-Bautista, professor of medicine and director of UCLA’s Center for the Study of Latino Health and Culture.

HRT and Heart Health: A study in the May issue of the journal Medical Care (abstract) looks at whether the decreased use of HRT has affected the rate of cardiovascular health outcomes, according to this release. The number of heart attacks in menopausal women has decreased, though it’s not conclusive that there’s a link. Researchers did not find a difference in the rate of strokes.

Before 2002, physicians believed HRT reduced the risk of coronary heart disease by up to 50 percent in menopausal women. As a result, physicians prescribed it broadly to treat many of the symptoms of menopause, as well as to protect women against cardiovascular disease. However, a report by the Women’s Health Initiative in 2002 revealed that HRT actually had the opposite effect — it increased the risk of heart attack in these women.

“After the 2002 report, the use of HRT in women aged 50 to 69 declined from more than 30 percent to less than 15 percent,” said lead study author Kanaka Shetty, M.D.

The study was sponsored by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a national coalition of nonprofit organizations focused on health and the environment. The full report, “No More Toxic Tub” (pdf), is available online. Among the findings:

• 17 out of 28 products tested – 61 percent – contained both formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane.
• 23 out of 28 products – 82 percent – contained formaldehyde at levels ranging from 54 to 610 parts per million (ppm).
• 32 out of 48 products – 67 percent – contained 1,4-dioxane at levels ranging from 0.27 to 35 ppm.

Though the levels found were relatively low, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics notes in this release “that babies may be exposed to several products at bath time, several times a week, in addition to other chemical exposures in the home and environment. Those small exposures add up and may contribute to later-life disease.”

Product labels do not disclose the chemicals because they’re contaminants (byproducts of the manufacturing process), not ingredients, and therefore are exempt from labeling laws.

Many of the products on the study list are  manufactured by Johnson & Johnson. The company released a statement, published in the Washington Post, noting that their “products meet or exceed the regulatory requirements in every country where they are sold.”

The European Union has banned 1,4-dioxane in personal care products, but the U.S. Food & Drug Administration has determined that trace amounts found in personal care products do not pose a threat. Health advocates are pushing for increased FDA regulation.

“The fact that we are bathing our kids in products contaminated with carcinogens shows how woefully out of date our cosmetics laws are and how urgently they need to be updated,” Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) told the Post. “The science has moved forward; now the FDA needs to catch up and be given the authority to protect the health of Americans.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said she will introduce legislation requiring stronger oversight of the cosmetics industry.

In an online discussion about safety limits on commercial products, Stacy Malkan, the study’s co-author and author of ” Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry,” stressed that the purpose of the study was not to cause alarm but to point out that products advertised as “gentle” and “pure” may still contain contaminants.

Many companies are already reformulating products for markets with stricter regulation outside the United States. Our own safety standards need to be updated, said Malkan.

Current cosmetics laws in the U.S. were created in 1938 — they’re a bit outdated, to say the least! Scientists have learned a lot over the past few decades about the health risks of low dose chemical exposures, and the special vulnerabilities of children. Companies have also learned a lot about how to make high performance products without carcinogenic chemicals. I believe that shifting to cleaner product formulations will benefit the beauty industry in the long run, making them more competitive globally.

To get there, we need a smarter regulatory system that requires companies to remove chemicals that are known or highly suspected of causing cancer, reproductive harm or other health problems, and also requires them to fully disclose the ingredients in their products. In other words, we need a regulatory system that keeps companies honest and rewards the companies that are doing the best job of making the safest products. This will take an act of Congress. FDA currently does not have the authority to properly regulate cosmetics.

Plus: If you want to look up the products you use, the Environmental Working Group maintains a Skin Deep database with toxicity information on more than 42,000 products.