Lead levels in lipstick are much higher than previously thought

Pregnant women, take note: A study by the Food and Drug Administration has discovered that lead levels in lipstick are much higher than those detected by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CSC) in a 2007 study that received international attention.

The FDA found lead in all 20 lipsticks tested, at 0.09 to 3.06 parts per million – four times higher than the highest level reported by CSC. A new device was used by the FDA to analyze lipstick; thus, the organization said earlier test methods likely underestimated lead levels.

There were three manufacturers whose lipsticks had the highest lead levels; however, the FDA is not releasing the brand names.

Current Lead Levels Allowed in Lipstick

The FDA has no standard for lead in lipstick, although any level could be unsafe. “Pregnant women using lipstick are unknowingly exposing their fetuses to unknown and unregulated levels of lead,” said Lisa Archer, national coordinator for the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics at the Breast Cancer Fund. “FDA should immediately set standards to require manufacturers to make lipstick as safe as possible.” Sounds like  great time to switch to organic make-up.

As with anything, pregnant women should check with their doctor if they are concerned about using a product during pregnancy. In addition, if you are concerned or wonder if something is safe to use – don’t use it.

The use of anesthetics and sedatives is necessary in performing certain medical interventions, from a simple tooth extraction to more complicated surgical procedures. However, there have been concerns about the effects of these medications on children’s developing brain. Studies in animals have linked sedative and anesthetic use to memory problems, learning deficits and other neurodegenerative changes in the central nervous system. However, no data on human patients are available even though millions of children receive these drugs each year.

It is for this reason that the regulatory body US FDA launched the multi-year project Safety of Key Inhaled and Intravenous Drugs in Pediatrics (SAFEKIDS). The project involves collaboration with academic and clinical partners who will look into filling major gaps in scientific information about the safe use of anesthetics and sedatives. It is hoped that the first set of data will be available within the next two years. The SAFEKIDS researcher partners are:

• The International Anesthesia Research Society (Cleveland, Ohio), which will be responsible for leading the administrative oversight and the overarching framework for the partnership.
• Children’s Hospital – Harvard University (Boston), which is conducting a long-term study of neurodevelopmental outcomes in pediatric patients administered regional or general anesthesia as neonates or infants.
• Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research Institute (Little Rock, Ark.), which will research the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and neurotoxic effects of an anesthetic agent in infants undergoing various surgical procedures.
• Columbia University (New York), which will evaluate the effects of anesthetic exposure on neurocognitive, emotional and behavioral outcomes in pediatric patients
• Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minn.), which will study long-term cognitive development following exposure to general anesthetic agents during infancy.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says that it plans to study the effects of BPA in depth in the future.  Currently, the FDA says that BPA’s are safe.  According to experts, the FDA bases this on the results of two studies done by other groups.  These studies, which were funded by chemical industries, claim that BPA’s are safe.

The National Toxicology Program has determined from it’s research that BPA’s, even in small amounts, can cause changes in brain development and behavior in infants and small children.  BPA’s are most easily ingested when chemicals from plastic containers seep into food and drink.

I became concerned about this when I saw an article that the bottles that I’d used for my son had a high concentration of BPA’s.  I began to try to find products without the chemical and was shocked at the lack of choices I found.  Many companies that made infant bottles weren’t even forthcoming with information it seemed.

Several months have passed and while strolling down the baby aisle last week, I noticed several products that actually announced that their product was BPA free.  I bought several BPA free products that day for my son.

Call me cynical, but I don’t buy the FDA’s position that this chemical is safe.  I’m grateful that I now have choices for safer products to purchase for my son.

Do you seek out products that advertise that they are BPA free? Do you agree with the FDA that this chemical is safe?

I was not too surprised when I read that trace amounts of melamine have been found in infant formulas in the USA. Recently, large amounts of the industrial chemical were found in Chinese infant formula products after thousands of infants became very ill after drinking the formula. Several infants actually died.

In the case of the formula in the United States, what surprised me was that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) refused to identify the formulas that contained the chemical and insisted that trace amounts of the chemical were insignificant and that it would be a “dangerous overreaction” for parents to stop feeding the formula to their children. The FDA further claims that the contamination occurred during the product processing, and was not intentionally added to the product.

WHAT? Does it really make a difference how it got there?

According to The Associated Press, which gathered information un the Freedom of Information Act, the FDA detected melamine in a sample of one “popular” formula and the presence of cyanuric acid in another formula. Cyanuric acid is similar to meaamine.

The chemical was found according to the report in the formulas produced by three firms–Abbott Laboratories, Nestle and Mead Johnson. These companies produce about 90% of infant formula in the United States.

Although no exposure level has been established by the FDA, officials insist that trace levels of the chemical are safe. Some experts claim that scientific evidence shows that low levels of melamine are always present in certain foods and that trace amounts of the chemical pose no health risk and shouldn’t cause alarm. Other experts insist that since no safe exposure level has been established, no amount of the chemical should be tolerated. These experts argue that the FDA should begin recalling the infant formula which contain the trace amounts of melamine, and insist upon a zero tolerance policy for melamine levels in infant formula.

What do you think? Do these finding concern you? Do you think that trace amounts of the chemical in formula should pose no great health risk to infants?

Just when you thought (maybe) BPA was safe, we find out that the FDA did not include important evidence in its report.

It turns out that the report’s thumbs-up for BPA was based on studies paid for by the plastics industry! It also conveniently ignored information from some independent studies.

The short story is that the FDA said BPA (a chemical used to harden plastic for products like baby bottles) was safe at the levels typically ingested by babies. However, the conclusion may be wrong on a few different levels. For one, they underestimated how much BPA babies take in, especially considering they may get it from several sources, not just bottles. But it also seems that BPA can be harmful at levels 10 times lower than they reported.

The National Toxicology Program, also a government group, said last month that there IS concern about how BPA alters brain and prostate development, as well as behavior in children and fetuses.

Not only that, but a new report just traced a link between exposure to BPA and resistance to chemotherapy treatment.

Currently, it is suggested that plastics #1,2,4, and 5 are safer choices than others (look in the recycling triangle for the number). I don’t like to join a hysteria bandwagon, and like “they” say–we survived despite our parents’ ignorance. But when it comes to things like this, I think it’s better to be safe than sorry. What will it hurt me to buy plastics that are BPA-free?

The most fun age to take children trick or treating may be when they are toddlers. But that can also be when they are most in danger. This is partly because they are very mobile, but also uncoordinated, leading to the three most common preventable Halloween injuries. Dr. Brian Keaton, President of the American College of Emergency Physicians says, “Every year you see kids injured while trick-or-treating, and it’s always frustrating because the injuries are easily prevented.” What do ER doctors see most often? Eye injuries and burns, and children hit by cars as they go through the neighborhood.

To safeguard their eyes, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other similar organizations have suggested that wands, swords, and other accessories should be blunted. Also make sure they are short enough that your little one does not trip over it. And, in case he does trip, make sure it is flexible enough to bend under him. The University of Michigan Health System also recommends that you take the lenses out of decorative eyeglasses.

Because of the burn risk, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission urges parents to only purchase costumes that are flame resistant. Of course, if you make your own costume, keep in mind that some fabrics are more flammable than others. The University of Michigan Trauma Burn Center says that the most flammable fabric is 100% cotton. The safest is polyester. Don’t let little trick-or-treaters wear capes and other billowy costumes that can come in contacts with burning jack-o-lanterns.

When it comes to traffic injuries, have your children wear reflective tape no the their costumes, even if it “spoils” some of the look. Keep them always at arm’s length and make them carry their own lights.

Of course, there are other common sense advisories, such as making sure shoes aren’t too big, and that you don’t obstruct airways, vision or hearing. Infant costumes should not have accessories that can cause choking. For this reason, many parents use face paint for little children instead of masks. That is a smart choice, but can have its own potential downside. To avoid allergic reactions with a child’s sensitive skin, use only FDA approved cosmetics (note that zinc sulfide is the only luminescent color approved for skin).

Last week, Chinese officials issued a statement that the issue of melamine-food products is resolved. End of the story.

Well, not quite. As a fellow BOL blogger wrote a few days ago, more and more tainted products have come to light.

The US FDA must have their hands full with the problem. Just a few days ago, the regulatory body issued a health advisory warning against the Taiwanese-made Mr Brown coffee and milk tea.

Thanks to international cooperation, health officials in other countries are sharing information to warn the international community of tainted products they detect. The New Zealand Food Safety Authority, for example, reported a positive melamine test for White Rabbit Creamy Candies imported from China.

In addition, the FDA is also tightening the labelling of imported food products. It is proposed that products refused or rejected entry in a US port be labeled clearly as such. When products are refused entry to the US, they should normally be destroyed.

Some food importers try the so-called “port shopping” strategy of importing – trying to get through another port with less stringent checks. By clearly labelling refused products on official documents as well as on the shipping container, port shopping is avoided. Furthermore, other countries will also then be privy to the import status of the product and can carefully conduct checks of their own.

The problem of melamine-tainted products will cost Chinese companies and multinationals with Chinese subsidiaries millions of dollars. Under the FDA proposal,

“all owners or consignees of refused food would be required to affix a label to the shipping container that reads: “UNITED STATES: REFUSED ENTRY” in clear, conspicuous, print.

Let’s hopethat this proposed labelling will deter unscrupulous import companies from dumping tainted products in ports and countries with less vigilant or dishonest food safety. authorities.

What?s in your food? – A primer on artificial food additives.

In this series, we?ve been exploring the issue of the health effects of artificial food additives from a study on hyperactivity to food coloring.

In this part, we look at preservatives.

According to the FDA:

?In its broadest sense, a food additive is any substance added to food ? directly or indirectly, in its becoming a component or otherwise affecting the characteristics of any food. This definition includes any substance used in the production, processing, treatment, packaging, transportation or storage of food.?

In other words, there are thousands of direct and indirect food additives in the foods that we consume, many of which are used as preservatives to maintain freshness and retard spoiling.

Some of the additives lurking in your foods that are considered harmful include:

• Aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet) ? considered an ?unclassifiable carcinogen? by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
• Acesulfame-K ? an artificial sweetener that disrupts thyroid function and is often used in conjunction with aspartame<
• Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA) ? An allergen and suspected endocrine disruptor (may interfere with, mimic or block hormones)
• Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT) ? a preservative, also an allergen and suspected endocrine disruptor
• Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) ? A University of Pennsylvania study showed that MSG ?interferes with the production of a number of liver enzymes, which are vital to the body’s ability to metabolize drugs and other potentially toxic substances. Neonatal exposure to MSG has a different effect on growth hormone production. [MSG] causes a permanent reduction in the secretion of growth hormone, which leads to a reduced production of the drug-metabolizing enzymes. This hampers the metabolization of drugs and toxic substance. The reduced quantity of growth hormone leads to stunted growth and irreversible obesity.?
• Sodium Nitrate/Nitrate ? a preservative, considered an ?unclassifiable carcinogen by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. While Nitrates are naturally occurring, and do not present major issues for most, health consequences for infants and babies in utero are great.
• Sodium Benzoate ? studied in addition to the laundry list of food colorings that presented adverse behavioral effects in toddlers and pre-teens, it can create benzene when combined with vitamin C (ascorbic acid). Benzene, is a known carcinogen and has the ability to affect mitochondria in cells and cause cell death.
• Sulfites (including Sulfur Dioxide, Sodium Sulfite, Sodium And Potassium Bisulfite, Sodium and Potassium Metabisulfite) This group, and all of its derivatives falls under a chemical is considered to be ?unclassifiable carcinogens? by the WHO and the EPA.

All of these sweeteners and preservatives range from being as mild as creating allergic reactions in some consumers to having potential grave health effects.

While the FDA may counter that they are ?safe? in the small doses in each batch of food item, when one takes into account how many foods you and your family are ingesting every day that contain them, the issue of ?safety? seems compromised.

Even when you think that you are picking safe and healthy alternatives, you may be consuming toxins unwittingly.

In part four, we?ll examine your produce.

Learn more:

Comprehensive list of food and environmental chemicals and warning levels for each

FDA on the safety of food additives.

FDA?s ?What is a Food Additive??

How ?Safe? is Safe?

?Limiting your child?s intake of food additives?

Comprehensive list of food additives from the GSFA Codex

Organic Food

Parenting Starts Before Pregnancy

We are all wary of taking drugs during pregnancy and nursing. But there are many among us who – for medical reasons – have to take medications, pregnant or not. I have to take thyroid replacement hormone everyday for the rest of my life. Others take pills for a wide range of pre-existing conditions such as asthma, allergies, epilepsy, or diabetes. It is estimated that in the US, pregnant women take on the average, 3 to 5 prescription drugs during pregnancy.

This is the reason why the US FDA has recent proposed to update the rules of labeling prescription drugs to give better and more detailed information of the effects of drugs to the unborn child or the nursing baby.

“Under the proposal, drug labeling would explain, based on available information, the potential benefits and risks for the mother and the fetus, and how these risks may change during the course of pregnancy.”

The new labels would contain a special sections on pregnancy and lactation. The “fetal summary risk” section should give all available information, be it on animals or humans, regarding this topic. The label should also reveal whether the drug has a pregnancy exposure registry, a registry which collects data on the effects of drugs prescribed to pregnant women.

In the lactation section, information about the amount of drug that is passed into the milk and possible effects to the nursing baby should also be given.

It is hoped that with the new labels, expecting and nursing mothers are better informed and protected.

Source:

FDA News 28 May 2008

The Ortho-Evra patch was introduced in 2001 in a blaze of advertising hyping the benefits of the patch over the pill. The patch contains hormones similar to those in the contraceptive pill, except that they are absorbed through the skin. Patches are worn in a four-week cycle. A patch is worn for a week at a time, then replaced, for three weeks. After a patch-free week, the cycle starts again.

It’s supposed to be more convenient, easier to use, and deliver a more consistent dose of hormones than the pill. Campaign group Public Citizen says that the patch also puts women at more risk of blood clots and a range of other side effects, than using the pill.

Public Citizen are calling the FDA to remove the Ortho-Evra patch from the market. The FDA have changed the labeling of the patch several times to add warnings. The label changes came after studies showing that women using the patch are up to two times as likely to suffer from blood clots than those using the pill.

Several law suits have been filed by women and families of women who say they have suffered blood clots – oftentimes fatal – caused by the Ortho-Evra patch. Johnson & Johnson, the pharmaceutical company who manufacture Ortho-Evra, have been settling several cases out of court before they went to trial, presumably to avoid adverse publicity in the face of growing concerns over the patch. One tragic case involved a 14-year-old Wisconsin girl who had only been using the patch for six weeks before suffering fatal blood clots in her lungs. Johnson & Johnson settled out of court with the girl’s family for $1.25 million.

Studies have also shown Ortho-Evra users are more likely to suffer side effects like breast discomfort, painful periods, nausea and vomiting, and reactions at the patch site, compared to those who used the pill.

Johnson & Johnson say that Ortho-Evra users find it easier to use the patch, and use it more reliably than the pill, so it is a more effective contraception method than the pill. They also say that the risk to individual patch users is very small – around 3-5 women in 10,000 will suffer a blood clot, compared to 1 in 10000 in women who don’t use hormone-based contraceptives.

Public Citizen say the extra risk is simply unacceptable, and Ortho-Evra should be withdrawn within the next six months. Do you agree? You can sign their petition to the FDA at NotMyPatch.org.

Have you used Ortho-Evra? Did you suffer any side effects? Should it be banned? Or do you enjoy the benefits and think they outweigh the risks?

The lab tests are out and it doesn`t look good for the dietary supplements Total Body Formula and Total Body Mega Formula Products. The FDA tests detected concentrations of chromium in these products which are considered hazardous to human health ? in fact, 17 times the acceptable concentrations. The same products already tested positive for hazardous levels of selenium last month.

Chromium and selenium can be beneficial and are said to have antioxidant properties when taken in small amounts. They are present in many multivitamin and dietary supplements. Excessive intake, however, can ?cause fatigue, muscle cramps, hyperactivity, hypoglycemia, renal failure and liver toxicity.?

Source:

FDA News, 1 May 2008

The FDA has just issued a warning about possible contamination of cantaloupes coming from Honduras, specifically from the company Agropecuaria Montelibano. Cantaloupes shipment of this company has been detained because they have been linked to Salmonella outbreaks in 16 states.

Symptoms of Salmonella infection contracted through food include:

• diarrhea
• nausea
• vomiting
• fever
• abdominal pain and cramps

However, there is no reason to abstain from eating this tasty and nutritious fruit.

To reduce infection risk, the FDA gives the following recommendations:

• Buy only fresh, unbruised cantaloupes.
• If buying freshly-cut cantaloupe, make sure it has been hygienically prepared and is kept refrigerated or in ice. Cantaloupe cuts and slices should not be left for more than two hours at room temperature
• Cantaloupes should be refrigerated immediately after purchase. When transported outdoors, the fruit should be kept in ice or a cooler.
• Cut away bruised or damaged parts of the fruit before eating it.
• Before and after handling fresh fruits, wash hands with hot water and soap.
• Before eating, whole cantaloupes should be cleaned and scrubbed with clean produce brush and cold tap water. The use soap or detergents is not advisable.
• Use only clean utensils when cutting cantaloupes. Utensils and areas used in the preparation of raw meat or seafood should be first cleaned thoroughly before use with fresh produce.

Source:

FDA News, 22 March 2008

The US FDA has just issued a safety alert concerning the long-acting cough depressant Tussionex Pennkinetic Extended-Release Suspension. Its use has been associated with side effects, some of which are life-threatening, both in adults and children.

Some of the warnings issued by the FDA are:

? Tussionex should not be prescribed to children under 6 years old.
? Doctors should clearly explain to the patient or parents of the patient (if the patient is a minor) the correct dosing amount and frequency.
? The drug should not be taken too frequently – an interval of 12 hours or more should separate each dose.
? Proper measuring devices such as a medicine syringe should be used when measuring the medicine. Do not use an ordinary teaspoon or tablespoon.

Tussionex contains the narcotic hydrocodone and the antihistamine chlorpheniramine. Hydrocodone can be dangerous when taken in overdose. Some of the adverse effects associated with this medicine are:

? Breathing problems
? Slow heartbeat
? Sleepiness
? Cold clammy skin

Attention, Botox users. The US FDA has issued a public notification regarding the side effects of Botox use. The warning concerned the ongoing safety review of Botox and Botox Cosmetic (Botulinum toxin Type A) and Myobloc (Botulinum toxin Type B).

The side effects observed ranged from mild to serious and life-threatening conditions, a few are listed below:

? allergic reactions
? weakness
? breathing problems
? difficulty in swallowing
? respiratory failure

Botox is short for botulism toxin, a neurotoxin produced by the bacterial species Clostridium botulinum. As its name suggest, it is a very toxic substance that causes muscle paralysis and death. However, it was discovered that in very small doses, the toxin can smoothen wrinkles, making it one of the most popular cosmetic treatments in developed countries.

The side effects described were related to both FDA-approved and non-FDA approved applications. Cosmetic operation with Botox is FDA-approved. Treatment of limb spasticity in patients with cerebral palsy is not. The latter treatment is linked to very serious adverse effects in children.

The FDA warning does not advice against the prescription of Botox. The safety review is still ongoing.

This post is for educational purposes only and is not intended as medical advice.

Reference:

FDA News, 8 Feb 2008

Do you judge food products by what`s written on their labels? Apparently many consumers do, pushing some companies to place misleading information on products labels, much to the dismay of regulatory bodies.

The US FDA has recently filed a permanent injunction against two food manufacturers to stop have misleading labels on their products. Brownwood Acres Foods Inc. and Cherry Capital Services Inc. (aka Flavonoid Sciences), producers of fruits juices, fruit capsules, and fruit bars have placed unfounded claims that their products can ?cure, treat, mitigate or prevent diseases.? These claims can be found on their product labels, advertisements, and websites.

With people getting more and more health conscious these days, companies are using ?healthy messages? to convince consumers of the health benefits of their products. While some of these health claims may be true, such claims have first to be confirmed and authorized by regulatory bodies such as the FDA. Without proper regulations, it can turn into a free-for-all say-what-want kind of thing, without regard for the consumers` well-being.

Source:

FDA News, 22 Feb 2008

Chino-based Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. is undergoing an FDA forced recall of 143 million lbs of ground beef distributed by the Southern California Slaughterhouse since February 1 of ‘08.

The recall is the result of a video which shows the slughterhouse pushing too-ill-to-walk bovine with forklifts. The discovery that the company was not reporting the illnesses to veterinarians, which is a health code violation, is what lead to the recall. It is undetermined at this time if the meat is contaminated but be advised that it has been deemed unfit for human consumption, including some 37 million lbs distributed to school programs.

The video also shows varying degrees of animal cruelty with some of the workers kicking the ill cows and forcing water down their throats. Thankfully some of the animal handlers are being prosecuted. Read more about this story here.

The FDA on Friday has recognized the voluntary recall of canned green beans and garbanzo beans distributed by New Era Canning Co of Michigan due to the possibility of Clostridium botulinum contamination, which often leads to botulism. The recall is specifically for large 6.5 lb cans, and the FDA is urging consumers to use caution when disposing of these cans, as even a very small amount can lead to contamination.

Luckily, there have been no injuries so far!

The FDA issued a warning today advising parents to not give over the counter cough and cold medicines to infants and toddlers because of the risk of “serious and life threatening side effects that can occur”.

In October of last year, drug companies stopped selling certain versions of baby medicines. Later that same month, FDA advisors voted that the drugs didn’t work in infants and suggested that such drugs not even be used for pre-schoolers–meaning children up to age 6. Expect a formal ruling on the use of such medications in preschoolers and elementary school children to be publicized some time in spring.

Why issue a warning now? The FDA is concerned that parents have not gotten the message and that they may currently have such medicines at home, or that they may use other medicines designed for older children to medicate their infants. Also, decades ago, when these medications were first developed, scientists thought that what worked in an adult automatically would work in an infant.

Right now, specialists are advising parents who have infants with colds and coughs to rely on old fashioned remedies which include–plenty of love, rest, and liquids.

For a Limited Time…Get More & Save More with Parent’s Choice
Infant Formula

• Meets all FDA requirements
• Meets recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics
• DHA & ARA to help baby eye and brain development
• Antioxidants to help support baby’s immune system
• Up to 50% SAVINGS versus comparable national brands!

Visit Parent’s Choice for more information.

For a Limited Time Only!
Save More with a Bonus Can!

Cloned meat may soon be in your grocery stores. According to the Wall Street Journal, as early as next week, the FDA may give word that food products from cloned animals are okie dokie for human consumption.

Cloning companies are cheering, consumer groups and the European Union are booing and the cows, well the cows are mooing. I had to say it.

Because cloning is so expensive, most of the cloned animals will be used for breeding and it will likely be a couple of years before their offspring start showing up prepackaged and ready to go.

That makes me feel better. Going vegan is starting to look more and more attractive.

What do you all think? Would you eat products from cloned animals or the offspring of cloned animals?