Letter to Snopes.com regarding Sodium Lauryl Sulfate

This posting is from my family blog site from: 12/31/09

I read this on the snopes.com website and felt compelled to respond about SLS.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/household/shampoo.asp

Here is my comment:

Regarding your response for "Sodium Lauryl Sulfate", I URGE you to reconsider your response and check the following sources:

www.cosmeticsdatabase.com
This site lists this ingredient IS linked with cancer, and gives several sources. The website is run by the Environmental Working Group.
Also, another good source is the book "Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry", by Stacy Malkan. Or, the book "Toxic Beauty" by Samuel Epstein, MD.

There are numerous other sources on the subject.

The "Environmental Canada Domestic Substance List" needs to be mentioned in your response. Studies done in Canada have linked this ingredient with cancer.

If you research further you will also find that there are still contamination concerns for this ingredient.

Contamination concerns - ETHYLENE OXIDE, 1,4-DIOXANE

1,4-Dioxane is a KNOWN carcinogen

To simply site that the FDA and our government is protecting us from such substances is completely false.
In the US there are absolutely no independent studies being done on ingredients such as Sodium Laryl Sulfate before they hit the market. It is the cosmetic industry itself, not the FDA that makes determinations on ingredients. Cosmetics are a self-policing industry that the FDA does NOT oversee.

Your response gives full trust to our government and FDA, which seems irresponsible. Why does the European Union ban over 1,100 chemicals from their products, and the U.S. only NINE?! Please read the 1938 FDA mandate where industry lobbying succeeded in blocking the FDA from requiring testing of cosmetics.

I have used the snopes.com site for years as a trusted source, I would hate to now view it as being inaccurate. I urge you to look into further studies on the subjects of toxins in products.

Thank you,

Lyndsi

Johnson & Johnson.... These products are made for BABIES??

Are you kidding me??

How does this product sound?

Johnson's Baby Nourishing Milk Lotion

Sounds pretty safe, right?
WRONG!

This product is rated "7" on the Skin Deep website (10 being the worst score).

• 11 of the ingredients in this baby product are linked with causing Cancer
• 7 of the ingredients are linked with Developmental/Reproductive Toxicity
• Contains ingredients, such as parabens that are banned in Europe
• Contains many other ingredients under the word "fragrance" that they do not disclose on the label.
  

What is going ON? It makes me sad that innocent babies out there are being slathered in this product several times a week. Their parents might trust Johnson & Johnson. Or, they might think that the government tests and regulates these products, which is not true. Or, they might be busy working parents that just haven't had time to look into it. Well, I urge you to make the time to look up your own products, especially if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or have children.

Here are a few other companies and the ranges of products that they have -


Avalon Organics: 0-5

Avon: 1-10

Bareminerals: 2-5

Cetaphil: 3-7

Dove: 2-9

Johnson & Johnson: 0-10

PEG's and 1,4 Dioxane

Posted on my family blog on 11/09:

If the chemicals in this title sound unfamiliar to you, please know that they are in products that you might use everyday!!

PEG's (or Polyethylene glycol) are also known as: PEG-100 Stearate, PEG-6, PEG-11 or Octoxynol-11, PEG - 3 Sorbitan Oleate, PEG-4 Dimethacrylate, Ceteareth-20, PEG-8 Laurate, etc...

PEG's:

• are linked to causing cancer

• Suspected to be environmental toxins

• are a skin irritant

PEG's are often contaminated with 1,4 Dioxane a carcinogen.

Check out this article regarding PEG's and increased risk of breast cancer:
http://www.phend.co.za/health/Chemical5.htm

Would you like to find products that do not contain any of these chemicals??

Check out www.AvaAndersonNonToxic.com/LyndsiandCoreyOBrien

BPA

Posted on my family blog on November 3, 2009

Just another reason why we need stricter testing and labeling in the U.S!!

BPA has been found in canned food and baby formula!

Click on my title to read the full article.

Canned tomatoes are especially a problem and right now there are no canned tomatoes for sale in the US that are BPA free. Since tomatoes are so acidic it takes special packaging to put them in cans. Even the glass jars of tomatoes have lids that are lined with a substance that contains BPA.

BPA is a problem because it is a known hormone disruptor, similar to phthalates. They have been linked with causing low sperm count, infertility, and genital malformation. In studies, women with high amounts of phthalates had babies with high amounts... the baby boys were also more likely to have smaller penises and undescended testicles. (Study done in 2005 by University of Rochester).

Phthalates leach out of products and end up contaminating our food and environment. They are found in many products such as COSMETICS (anything that says "fragrance"), vinyl shower curtains, toys, and now we find out they are in canned food as well! The question is, with this many products containing the chemical, how much is inside our bodies?

The European Union has already banned some phthalates from toys & cosmetics. When the City of San Francisco banned several phthalates & BPA from children's toys (in 2006), they were then SUED by the chemical industry trade association!! It is easy to see why it is such a struggle in this country to protect ourselves and our kids. As consumers, we have very little rights compared to powerful industries. Instead of waiting and hoping that someone else does something, try contacting your local legislators and telling them that this issue is very important to you!