by Miles Martin
By now we are all aware of the huge environmental crisis presented by climate change. We hear about it on the news constantly, and we are reminded of it again every time we go to throw something away.
We are regularly encouraged to take action to reduce our individual impact on the environment by “going green.” And while recycling, reducing food waste, and remembering to turn off the lights are all noble things to do, they do not have as big an impact as you might think in the grand scheme of things.
To solve any problem, it’s critical to find the source. And climate change is no exception. Small individual actions do not make a huge impact in solving the climate crisis because they are not a major cause of the problem.
The real root of the problem is big industries.
How Industries are the Bigger Problem
While it can seem like every small “not so green” action, like throwing away a plastic cup, must be destroying the planet bit by bit, don’t forget – that cup was there before you picked it up. It was put there by manufacturers, distributers, and retailers who have no idea who you are or why you wanted it. They produced the cup because they assumed (in this case correctly) that somebody would buy it. But you are not directly responsible for that cup, even if you use it and throw it away.
When it comes to climate change, individuals are statistically blameless. A recent report from CDP (Carbon Data Project) revealed that just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. Twenty-five (25) corporations are responsible for just over half of emissions over the same time period. Here are some of the biggest offenders by industry:
Companies include: Saudi Aramco, Chevron, Gazprom, Exxon Mobile, National Iranian Oil Company Shell, BP
This is by far the biggest contributor to climate change. In fact, if you go back far enough, many activities across industries that contribute to climate change can be traced back to burning fossil fuels.
These companies extract sources of energy like oil and coal from the Earth and sell them to individuals or other industries that need them – which is unfortunately pretty much everybody.
Companies include: Fonterra, Daily Farmers of America, Cargill, Tyson Foods, JBS.
Agriculture contributes about 10% of global emissions according to the EPA, and it does so in a few ways. First, large-scale agricultural systems in developed nations require a lot of fuel to transport supplies and equipment, as well as the food itself.
Second, the agricultural process itself introduces its own greenhouse gases like methane from livestock and nitrous oxide from excess nitrogen in the soil. These are not the same gases as those released by burning fossil fuels, but they are still greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.
Companies include: Exxon Mobile, Chevron, Boeing, General Motors, Ford
Manufacturing produces about 22% of emissions according to the EPA. A lot of the big-hitting manufacturing companies are the same as those for the energy industry, because many oil companies also produce plastic (like Exxon Mobile).
Industrial emissions can classified into direct and indirect emissions. Direct emissions are from the direct burning of fuel, while indirect emissions are from using electricity generated at a power plant. Given that every factory in the modern world uses electricity in some capacity, these indirect emissions are a major factor in manufacturing emissions.
While there is still a ways to go, there has been some progress to date on making industries change. Here are a few success stories in larger climate change policy:
Why Industries Stay on Top
Though industries can only produce these astronomical emissions while we continue to use and purchase their products, it’s difficult for consumers to make a huge impact because we need these products and alternatives are not always available. So consumers appear to have the power but are often trapped by large corporations.
Plastics are a great example of this problem. Production of plastic is a massive contributor to climate change because plastic begins its life as fossil fuels, and end up in landfills or the ocean where they break down into toxic microplastics. Worse still, plastics are often incinerated, flooding the atmosphere with all the carbon used to make them.
But as evil as plastic may seem, most regular people absolutely need it. It would be nearly impossible to go a whole day without using plastic. Components of your cell phone, computer, car, house, and almost everything else you use are all made of plastic. Plastic is also used for broader societal needs like medical supplies and equipment for law enforcement and first responders.
So as much as industries would like us to think that solving climate change is all about individual choices, there is clearly a much larger issue here. And it is one that industries are avoiding. To date, no company has officially committed itself to reducing its own emissions and those of its products to align with science-based goals of limiting average global temperature rise to 1.5 °C (we are currently at over 1.0 °C).
Industries are waiting for us to make the change. And while it’s difficult, there are some things that you can do, and it’s not all about recycling either.
What you can do to help
While it may seem like the industries contributing to climate change are all-powerful and there’s nothing an individual can do, this isn’t entirely true. Remember, these industries ultimately rely on consumers to purchase their products and services. No business can run without its customers – and that means you.
Since an industry’s main goal is to make money – we as the consumers do hold some power. The reason large corporations are not operating more sustainably is because we have not produced enough demand for it.
Producing this demand is easier said than done, since we often passively support big industries out of necessity. For example – Many products on our grocery store shelf are a result of unsustainable agriculture, and they are delivered from farms to warehouses to supermarkets by trucks, planes, or barges all fueled by big oil.
While changing industry practices isn’t as easy as turning off a light switch, here are a few things you can do:
It would not be fair to say that individual efforts have absolutely no impact on climate change. However, the impact of individual choices is not about your specific “carbon footprint,” but rather about the pressure put onto larger businesses to make changes in response to consumer needs.
So while you can forgive yourself for occasionally forgetting to recycle, leaving the lights on, or driving your car instead of taking the bus, we still have an important role to play in saving our planet – forcing those who can save the planet to actually do so.
Add your comments or questions below.
by Christa Sadler
Science is under attack these days. From average citizens to the media and our policy makers, we’ve come to a place in our culture where what “I believe” is just as important as what the “experts” tell me. Although skepticism about science is nothing new, the proliferation of misinformation on the Internet, and social and mass media has become downright dangerous for us and our planet. So it seems like a good time to remind ourselves exactly what “science” is, and what it can and cannot do.
One of the most common questions scientists hear is: “Yes, but how do you know?” “How do you know that things looked a certain way millions of years ago?” “How do you know that this additive will be safe in food products? “How do you know this drug will help?” These are reasonable questions, especially when only the final results of a long scientific inquiry are presented—whether it’s in geology, botany, physics, or medicine. One thing that helps is to understand a little of how scientists come to their conclusions.
It is particularly important to understand that science is not a body of knowledge. Instead, it is a process that allows for ideas to be modified as new information becomes available. The process is called the scientific method and it is an elegant tool to help us make sense of the world in which we live—past, present, and future.
The scientific method consists of questions, observations, tests, hypotheses and changes to these hypotheses, discussions, models, and ongoing investigations. The method is rooted in observation of natural and physical phenomena and the development of hypotheses from those observations. A hypothesis doesn’t just come out of the blue; it is an educated guess based on the information at hand to explain an observation. Once it is developed, a hypothesis must be tested, whether in the laboratory, by searching for more information, by examining other similar phenomena, by running controlled tests, etc. These tests must be repeatable, so that others can try them as well, as a control.
Here’s the really important thing about testing a hypothesis: these tests are attempting to disprove the hypothesis, not prove it. While this may seem like a fine point, holding a hypothesis up to the light of skepticism ensures that scientists can avoid using only the evidence that supports an idea and may therefore skew the results.
If a hypothesis does not stand up to scrutiny, it will be modified and retested. If an idea cannot be disproven by rigorous testing over time, and if it can explain a large body of information, it becomes a scientific theory (such as the theories of plate tectonics or evolution). So a scientific theory is very different from how we use the word in everyday life, where we use it to mean more of a guess or a belief. A scientific theory has instead undergone sometimes decades of testing and examination and has not been able (yet!) to be disproven. This is really important for people, the media, and policy makers to understand.
The elegance of the scientific method is that it allows for continual modification of ideas as new methods, technologies, or information become available. An example is butter and margarine. As the medical establishment began to understand the connection between fats and heart disease back in the 1970s, butter was seen as a culprit. Doctors, and then the food industry, began pushing margarine. It wasn’t until scientists started to understand the effects of hydrogenated oils on our physiology that they realized margarine is much worse for the human body than an appropriate amount of butter. Another example comes from today’s headlines. The original estimates of extremely high mortality from the Coronavirus have now been revised downwards, thankfully, because new information has come to light (including how well social distancing has worked) to help scientists revise their models. Currently, medical experts say that there is no evidence that housepets can transmit COVID-19 to people, but if that evidence does occur, that statement will be revised. The important thing to remember is that if ideas change in science, that’s not a failure and it doesn’t mean the “experts” aren’t, in fact, experts. It means the method is working, and that we are remaining nimble enough to keep up with changes in technology, experience, and evidence.
One aspect of science that is not given enough airtime is the concept of evidence-based practice. In the simplest sense, being evidence-based means being supported by a large amount of empirical scientific research, and does not rely on anecdotal or the researcher’s professional experience. The Oregon Research Institute has a great description of what this means.
This is absolutely critical when considering things like food additives, beauty products, or medicines. For example, there was a lot of hype around hydroxychloroquine as a cure for COVID-19, but most of that hype was based on anecdotal evidence (basically stories). To be considered scientifically valid (and to guarantee safety and efficacy as much as possible for things like medicines and additives), testing must be rigorous, objective, controlled, and use a large enough number of subjects to account for variabilty in the results. When political leaders and media disregard the scientific evidence and the advice of medical experts either because they don’t understand how science works or for some other reason, it becomes extremely dangerous.
So how do we know what to believe in a world that contains an overabundance of information—some of it pretty bad? Start by doing your own research. Most products that are used by the public have available information that has been distilled from science-speak into normal-speak, so you don’t have to have a PhD to understand it. Don’t rely only on Wikipedia or WebMD or other popular sources. You can start there, but find other sources. And look closely at those sources. Where is your information coming from? Here are some things to look for:
Following these suggestions may not always provide the perfect answer, but it will help you more readily distinguish information that is more trustworthy from that which is backed by an agenda, bad science, or no science at all. And the more important the subject is (a medication, chemical, or a food additive, for instance), the more seriously you should take this process. It’s worth the effort for you, your family, and your planet!
by Katie E. Boyle, MPH
What if I said that your son's use of colognes or body sprays could affect his sperm quality and fertility later in life? Based on research done in animals so far, Boyle's Naturals (BN) and many in the scientific community argue this theory is truth. As such, BN wants to increase consumer awareness about the facts and dangers of chemicals in these popular body sprays. Here, we provide evidence for the recommendation to steer clear of conventional fragrance brands and seek out natural alternatives.
Humans are a species with regular environmental exposure to chemicals incompatible with healthy body function and fetal development. Here are some facts.
Hormones control spermatogenesis (sperm production). Conventional fragrance products contain phthalates (thal-ates) also known as "hormone-disrupting" or "endocrine-disrupting" chemicals (EDCs). Research in male animals has shown a clear link between exposure to high doses of phthalates and decline in semen quality, count and motility. In developing male fetuses, the mother’s exposure was associated with abnormalities in fetal skeletal and reproductive systems.(1-5)
While we humans never get the equivalent exposure administered to these animals, we do know that human exposure to phthalates is ubiquitous. And we do know that phthalates are around us in a long list of things we live with and use daily, such as personal care products, clothing, cosmetics, furniture, children’s toys, building materials, medical devices, food packaging, supplements, cleaning products, pesticides and more.(6) And we do know is that three million metric tonnes of phthalates are produced annually (Bizzari, S., et al. 2000 as reported in 6).
The precautionary principle in public health states that the absence of definitive data linking a suspected risk to a particular outcome should never delay taking action to mitigate the risk. This necessary action can be legislative, community-wide or in our own homes.
Using the precautionary principal wouldn’t it make sense to stop using these products? And use no or natural fragrances instead? We are lacking in definitive proof because we haven’t and can’t directly expose humans to chemicals and tally up our daily exposures. Our levels of exposure to damaging phthalates are greater than we think, and increasing rates of infertility are very likely the result.
Our levels of exposure to damaging phthalates are greater than we think, and increasing rates of infertility are very likely the result.
So, staying on the males, human males exposed during all his life stages - the developing fetus, infancy, childhood, adolescence and adulthood - may be seeing varying types and degrees of reproductive effects, all of which directly negatively affect his fertility.
BN's recommendation is to cease buying non-natural fragrance products, body sprays and perfumes. Doing that will reduce your exposures to phthalates, and take your name off the list of reasons why companies produce three million metric tonnes of phthalates annually.
If the list of things containing phthalates seems overwhelming (it is), don’t fret. We have nothing to lose by taking stock of the products we use in our home, starting with one product. Do some research and switch it out for a more natural version. Search “natural organic perfume” and you'll find a lot of options out there. Or email BN for a suggestion. Remove one toxic product at a time from your home and you’ll be reducing your family’s exposures to harmful chemicals over time. And that's a definitive fact.
If you are concerned about the info here, search “endocrine disruptors' effect on male reproductive system,” to read about it more and/or discuss with your doctor. You may also request a full, customized report on the status of the research done to date by emailing firstname.lastname@example.org.
Disclaimer: Boyle's Naturals' educational content is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Seek advice of a qualified health provider with any questions you have about a medical condition. This article presents BN staff's educated opinion based on published research we have reviewed. This is not a full literature review of absolutely everything published on this topic.
Development of this content is funded by sales of Boyle’s Naturals’ products. So when you make a purchase, you are helping to bring educational posts like these into existence. Support our work at BoylesNaturals.com/shop.
Research cited and more information:
1. CDC Factsheet on phthalates:
2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry factsheet on Di-n-butyl Phthalate: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=857&tid=167
3. Rehman S., et al. (2018). Endocrine disrupting chemicals and impact on male reproductive health. Transl Androl Urol. 7(3), pp.490–503, doi:# 10.21037/tau.2018.05.17.
4. Rahman E., et al. (2015). A review on endocrine disruptors and their possible impacts on human health. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. 40(1), pp.241-258. doi:# 10.1016/j.etap.2015.06.009
5. Slama R., et al. (2017). Characterizing the effect of endocrine disruptors on human health: The role of epidemiological cohorts. C. R. Biologies. 340, pp. 421–431. doi:#10.1016/j.crvi.2017.07.008.
6. Schettler T. (2005) Human exposure to phthalates via consumer products. International journal of andrology ISSN 0105-6263. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2605.2005.00567.x and Bizzari, S., Oppenberg, B. & Iskikawa, Y. (2000) Plasticizers. Chemical Economics Handbook. SRI International, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
And that's a good thing. The anti-perspirants we mention, and all others, have ingredients that intentionally and artificially clog our underarm pores to stop us from sweating. No sweat = less bacteria = less or no odor. That's how they work. On top of that, they contain synthetic fragrances to cover up any remaining stink our bodies may produce. It’s a brilliant mechanism and very lucrative industry. Deodorant/anti-perspirant is now a must-have staple item for everyone past puberty, which makes sense given that stinking to high Heaven is really not socially acceptable anywhere: at work, at the gym, on the train, wherever.
But for those of us who’ve heard about the potential links between use of anti-perspirants and breast cancer, who don’t want to put synthetic chemicals on our bodies and/or feel that the body should be allowed to sweat and eliminate its toxins, we try nat-deo.
Our journey through the "Nat-deo Elimination Rounds" goes like this: we forge ahead through the deodorant aisle and, one-by-one, buy each.and.every.single.damn.brand of nat-deo that exists. We start with Tom’s purchased at the pharmacy. Ok. Then we order from Amazon. We scour for the best deal. Then we shop at Whole Foods. We may have some success but alas, $12.00 for two weeks-worth of deodorant isn’t sustainable. “Dangit! Why is toxin-free living more expensive?” we say. And we suffer consequences of using nat-deo:
By 10am, we stink.
With no hard feelings toward nat-deo - in fact just the opposite - with appreciation for the companies who recognize that consumers need body odor protection without the toxins), Boyle’s Naturals created a solution. Gently scrubbing with PIT GRIT® Underarm Scrub in the shower or on-the-go before using your nat-deo makes it work better. Using only natural ingredients, PIT GRIT® fully cleanses the underarm and lets your nat-deo be its best self!
We now have the freedom to choose any nat-deo brand we want, you say? The cheapest? The nicest smelling? Yes, yes yes! And we can use that nat-deo with more confidence!
Combined with the fact that Boyle’s Naturals is a small, woman-owned manufacturer, we think you should try PIT GRIT® and see why people are calling it a “life-saver” and a “game-changer.”
Order PIT GRIT® with free shipping by clicking below or here.
PIT GRIT(R) Underarm Scrub
Do you have stinky underarms and body odor, but can’t find a natural or organic deodorant that works well enough?
Don’t sweat it – PIT GRIT, our patent-pending, all-natural odor fighting body scrub boosts natural deodorants’ ability to ward off stinky pits and offensive body odor.
PIT GRIT can be used in the shower after a long hard day, or on-the-go in with natural and organic deodorant to better cleanse, remove build-up from the underarm and inhibit body odor-causing bacteria with just a dime-sized dab.
In addition to fighting natural body odor, PIT GRIT is also a great solution for people suffering from excessive body-odor.
Use it before applying your favorite brand of organic or natural deodorant, or use without deodorant.
Try using it before working out and be amazed at how much less "smelly" those armpits can be!
Instructions: Dispense a dime-sized amount onto wet hand, rub for 5-10 seconds in each underarm and then rinse or wipe away. Apply deodorant (or not) as normal.
PIT GRIT UPC 865738000452
Not recommended for use on any other area of the body.
$2.99 per gift. Our team will thoughtfully wrap your gift with recycled paper and our signature turquoise ribbon. Add one gift wrap per item to your cart and indicate which items in your order need to bewrapped when you check out.
by Katie E. Boyle, MPH
If your tween and adolescent kids wear perfumes or body sprays, they will not want you to read this post. I’ll start out by saying that I don't wear store-bought perfume. I want to; I am tempted by the appeal of the advertisements, the fame of the celebrities who back them and the fragrances themselves. Many of them smell so delicious as they float upwards from the page of the magazine. But I just can’t do it. Here’s why:
Unless noted otherwise, conventional perfumes contain synthetic chemicals under the name "fragrance" or "parfum.” That one word which may or may not be listed on the label actually represents a combination of a chemicals plus other things not listed, like stabilizers, mixing agents, dispersants and preservatives, all bundled into one ingredient: fragrance.(EWG) And we intentionally breathe this in and put this on our skin? Components of this mystery cocktail of chemicals act as hormones in our bodies, so we call them “endocrine disrupting" chemicals.
What are endocrine disruptors (EDCs)?
EDCs are chemicals that imitate natural hormones in the body; meaning the body treats them like hormones already in our endocrine system, allowing them to alter and damage cells. They can be present in the six-dollar or ninety-six-dollar bottles of perfume and are also in plastics, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, baby care products, building materials, cleaning materials, air fresheners and insecticides. More details on EDCs and how they act in the body (e.g. the REAL sciency stuff) can be found at the National Science Foundation's page here.
Why should this matter to you?
EDCs are associated with increased breast cancer rates, abnormalities in reproductive function and anatomy (reduced sperm count, quality and motility) and neurodevelopmental delays in children (WHO). In a laboratory study, EDCs also assisted in the proliferation of breast cancer cells and inhibited the tumor-killing action of Tamoxifen used in treating the tumor (Kim, 2004). So not only did the EDCs help the cancer cells grow, they blocked the beneficial effect of the treatment used to combat the cancer = so f-ing scary!
Humans - babies, children, adolescents to adults - are exposed to EDCs via ingestion, inhalation of gases and particles in the air and absorption through the skin. The developing fetus is exposed via transfer through the placenta. Chemicals in perfume are (obviously) inhaled and absorbed through the skin, or go from mother to baby in placenta or breast milk.
A woman’s exposure during pregnancy is the most concerning, as hormones play a central role in the development of the fetus and negative health effects may not appear until much later in life. Young girls are getting their periods earlier, and exposure to these chemicals is a likely cause. Read more about the benefits a group of teens in a study at UC Berkeley experienced when they switched from conventional to natural cosmetics.
The Solution – Google It
Unfortunately, we are accustomed to smelling synthetic fragrances in everything from cleaning products to candles to cosmetics, but the chemicals in these products can and do hurt us! In reality, the only “safe” type of fragrance to use on our skin is the oil derived from fruits, plants and trees, such as lavender, cedarwood, ylang ylang, lemon, clove, geranium, vanilla and so many more. (But beware that any dermatologist will tell you about the risk for contact dermatitis or other skin reactions when using essential oils!)
After reading this, go ahead and Google “natural perfumes” and you’ll find a bunch of “Top 10” and “Best of” lists to comb through. Some of the natural brands out there have the same sexiness, allure and price tag of the celebrity-backed perfumes, but by supporting them, you’re making a statement that you support the use of natural, healthy, sustainable ingredients, and moreover, you back the companies who have those values built in. If purchases of conventional perfumes go down, those manufacturers (and celebrities) will hopefully take heed and nix the toxins in their formulas!
I say, if the alternatives I have to choose from come straight from the Earth with names like clove, grapefruit, lavender, lemon, vanilla, ylang ylang, geranium, rose, vetiver, wild orange.... why would I ever consider buying conventional perfume!? Natural fragrances are a million times better and can in some cases can have therapeutic benefits, like inducing relaxation, soothing tired muscles, boosting immunity, assisting with focus, reducing inflammation or stimulating the senses. Given the great benefits of going natural, I am a voice asking you and all consumers to stop buying conventional fragrances for yourselves and your daughters/sons. Natural fragrances are no more expensive than perfume, and with the added therapeutic benefits and comparable investment in sleek and sexy packaging like the others, they are a cool gift to receive and a total WIN-WIN!
Disclaimer: I am a Doterra member mainly to earn rewards for all the essential oils I buy and use in the products I make. If you are interested in reading more or purchasing essential oils, click here.
Kim, 2004: Kim IY, Han SY, Moon A (2004a). Phthalates inhibit tamoxifen-induced apoptosis in MCF-7 human breast cancer cells. J Toxicol Environ Health, 67:2025-2035.
SixClasses: http://www.sixclasses.org/bisphenols-phthalates/ and
by Katie E. Boyle, MPH
My first career out of college in the early 2000’s was as an Environmental Scientist for an environmental consulting and engineering firm, GeoInsight, Inc., in Connecticut. There, I learned from the best* about how water is sourced, treated and delivered to our homes, along with the state and federal water quality standards that public water is required to meet. I learned how to properly collect a water sample from the tap, submit it to a lab for testing to look for contaminants and interpret and report the results. I also learned that I can be in charge of my home’s water quality by learning more about the testing that’s regularly done on it, along with the filtration systems I can use to supplement the treatment the water has already received.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has made being in charge of your home’s water quality much easier by publishing a national Tap Water Database and Water Filter Buying Guide.
What does this tap water database do? It compiles results from drinking water testing done by our public water supply companies across the nation. And it answers these questions for us:
EWG also provides an in-depth guide to the water filtration options out there. It contains descriptions - in one easily-accessible place - of every type of water filtration system one can buy, from the tiny ones inside a water bottle to the big expensive whole house filtration systems that are professionally installed. Based on the water quality results you find for your water system, you can choose a filter that's right for you. Each filter description is linked to options for purchasing: how handy!
I was pleasantly surprised at the under-sink options available in the $100-$200 area, a price point I feel like my family can manage.
To see whether your water supply company is in compliance, along with any contaminants found in your water in the last quarter, enter your zip code by clicking the link for EWG's Tap Water Database. Then click through to research water filters that make sense for your needs.
3 Things I Learned Just by Showing Up
On March 31st this year, the Coalition for a Safe and Healthy CT, an advocacy group that aims to protect our children from toxic chemicals, held a press event to voice concerns over the use of recycled tire rubber as a ground cover in playgrounds and urge passing of the bill to ban its use. I saw firsthand the world in which the Coalition works and learned a few things about the legislative process, the science, and the impact of simply showing up to relay my concern. Here are three things I realized:
1. Showing up is actually not that hard to do. Driving into the CT state capitol to the the Legislative Office Building is easy. And I managed to stand for a half hour with my two year old, and keep her occupied in front of the cameras, in order to express my support for this legislation. You can do it too; if you have interest in learning more and lending your support on these issues, follow the Coalition on Facebook, and you'll see all their calls for action.
2. Standing up for what you believe in is worth a little inconvenience. When the Coalition asked me to come with my kids to the press event on March 31st to show how much we care, I wasn't sure I could do it. My oldest daughter had a fever, had to stay home from school, and we had no child care plan other than me! My husband stepped in, knowing how important this issue is to the health of our children, and stayed home from work for the morning so I could attend.
3. My presence was impactful. Adding to the voice of the Coalition to support the passing of a piece of legislation is humbling and empowering. Representatives and the Coalition work SO hard to bring awareness, digest the science for the general public, relay our concerns and rally the masses, but the impact of a mom holding her child and talking about her concerns can be massive. The legislators listen.
The reason we care so much is because tire rubber is not a natural material, being made of toxic chemicals such as benzene, mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, styrene-butadiene, arsenic, heavy metals and other carcinogens. Children young and old playing at the playground on this surface are exposed via ALL routes of exposure: inhalation, absorption and ingestion. And when the material gets hot, the chemicals "off-gas," into the air. While the use of old tires as ground cover on our playgrounds seems like a solution for what to do with all our discarded tires, it's absolutely NOT. Weighing the risks, it is not an acceptable solution.
We absolutely need to do better for the health of our kids. A HUGE thank you to the Coalition for protecting our children from toxic chemical exposures. I am proud to be a part of your mission.
A word of advice: if you have the choice to buy your little girl a "spa set" like this or a bat and ball, get her the bat and ball. Why? Come on; a million reasons. A bat and ball gets her outside. It gets her moving and playing with her siblings and peers.
And it doesn't come with an increased risk for early puberty or cancer. Spinning this gift set around to read the back label, there is a clear, large warning that reads:
"This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer."
Did that make you pause? This warning is now required due to the progressive legislation in the State of California aimed to protect human health.
(Track the legislation efforts and progress in your state at the Safer States website here.)
Let's look a little deeper into two of the ingredients in these adorable little pink tubes and bottles.
All the items in this set have fragrance on their list of ingredients. As I have reported before, fragrance is one word to describe a mix of synthetic chemicals and odor masking agents. In the name of not disclosing "proprietary" blends of ingredients, companies generally do not report the chemicals used in their fragrances.
So, let's take diethyl phthalate, a common chemical included in fragrance formulations. We know that diethyl phthalate interferes with thyroid hormone regulation (animal studies) and is an immune system toxicant and allergen (human studies)...not to mention its toxicity to wildlife and the environment (1).
Click here for more information on Fragrance.
Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT) in the lip gloss
BHT is a toluene-based ingredient used as an antioxidant (preservative) and scent masking agent in products. Toluene is a highly volatile petrochemical solvent and paint thinner (2). Very high levels of exposure (much higher than in the use of these products) can damage the nervous system, skin, eyes, respiratory system and kidneys. A woman's exposure during pregnancy can result in birth defects and abnormalities in child's development and growth…[in addition to] spontaneous abortion (3). And toluene has been linked to malignant lymphoma (2). BHT, which comes from toluene, is in the lip gloss your daughter is putting on her lips.
So why do we give our kids these products?!
Our little girls' bodies, at every stage until adulthood, are still growing and developing, so why in the Lord's name do we buy these products and give them to our children...to apply to their lips and skin? Science is documenting that environmental factors play a role in early puberty and hormone-related cancers. Let's just quit spending our hard earned money on products like these. And if you're not sure the origin of a product, such as the adorbs little blue lip gloss given out at the fast food place, just toss it in the trash. 'Cause we both know our preschoolers are not only going to apply the lip gloss but ingest it too.
The Bottom Line
The minute we refrain from buying toxic personal care products and instead go for brands with fewer chemicals (...or decide NOT to buy body wash for an 8 year old at all), companies will take notice.
Large corporations like Walmart and Target are already making huge changes to the chemicals policies on a voluntary basis. Even though it's baby steps, I applaud this wholeheartedly! These are promising steps toward offering safer products, but they need to see an unwavering shift in demand from consumers.
So save the money on toxic personal care items for your little girl, and instead promote her physical fitness, confidence and team-player attitude with a good old fashioned sports gear!
The bottom line is: if we stop buying it, stores will stop selling it and instead focus those dollars on something else (perhaps signing up for the Chemical Footprint Project or taking steps to contract with product suppliers who have responsible chemicals policies).
And we get to see our kids grow up living the healthiest life they can!
3. OSHA: https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/toluene/health_hazards.html
by Sarah Tyrrell, Sustainability Consultant
Almost two years ago Congress passed a bill known as the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015amending the FDA “to ban rinse-off cosmetics that contain intentionally-added plastic microbeads beginning on January 1, 2018, and to ban manufacturing of these cosmetics beginning on July 1, 2017.”
Most of us are familiar with these microbeads. They exist in many of our favorite scrubs, facial cleansers and toothpastes. They aid in exfoliation, add sparkle to toothpaste and can help fill wrinkles in some “age defying” makeup.
A 2015 study estimated that nationwide 8 billion microbeads are emitted into aquatic ecosystems everyday. While they may be small, as defined as being less than 5 millimeters at their greatest dimension, the quantities released into the environment are devastatingly large. They are so small that they slip through our filtration processes where they enter our rivers, lakes and oceans. These microbeads absorb pollutants, such as pesticides and motor oil. Mistaken for food, they are eaten by marine life and can physically cause damages such ascellular necrosis or lacerations to the digestion track, according to a statement released by Society for Conservation Biology in 2015.
However, what is potentially more concerning is the chemical harm that can be done to animals. With microbeads being composed of complex chemical mixtures, the consumption of these 'cocktails' can lead to an accumulation of chemicals overtime, which can bring on liver toxicity and disrupt the endocrine system.
Although phasing microbeads out of these products is a huge step, the bill only pertains to “rinse-off” products, leaving plastic abrasives in deodorants, lotions and some makeup. Additionally, companies selling over the counter products containing microbeads have a one-year extension to phase out these products or change the ingredients.
Until July 1, 2018 it is in the hands of consumers to choose whether they opt for or away from the products containing microbeads. With these chemicals sometimes being difficult to spot with just a glance, the FDA mandated ingredient labels help expose products that contain plastic. If you spot polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, or polymethyl methacrylate it’s safe to say that product contains plastic.
Likewise there are so many better alternatives to choose from that provide exfoliation without the use of plastic. Top rated exfoliants have been rated by the Environmental Working Groupin their cosmetic database, an amazing tool to explore healthier cosmetics. There are also several natural, DIY exfoliant recipes available online which are easy to make with typical household and kitchen ingredients.
Infographic Image via 5 Gyres.
Use this, Not that. Why toxin-free hand soap is an absolute must-have.
A LOOK AT THE INGREDIENTS IN A COMMON CONVENTIONAL HAND SOAP
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE SOFTSOAP LAVENDER & CHAMOMILE
Ingredients: Water, sodium laureth sulfate, c14-16 olefin sulfonate, lauramide dea, sodium chloride, cocamidopropyl betaine, fragrance, dmdm hydantoin, citric acid, tetrasodium edta, polyquaternium-7, glycerin, peg-7 glyceryl cocoate, benzophenone-4, hydrolyzed silk, aloe barbadensis leaf juice, ext D&C violet no. 2.
INGREDIENT COUNT: at least 17, but likely more, because there is no law requiring Colgate-Palmolive to report all ingredients in the product. So why am I even counting? And secondly, where is the lavender and where is the chamomile?
Not all the ingredients in Softsoap are compatible with human health.
"Fragrance" is a one-word ingredient describing a mix of "proprietary" (secret) compounds that include phthalates. Phthalates are known endocrine system disruptors, meaning they interfere with hormones and reproductive systems of animals (note: humans are animals). And these nasties are also linked to a host of other horrible things like diabetes, obesity and harmful effects on the thyroid.
A little side bar about endocrine disruptors...Results of an experimental study in genetically male frogs exposed to the pesticide and endocrine disruptor atrazine throughout their development showed that 10% of the males developed into into fully functional females capable of mating with male frogs and laying eggs. Let me rephrase: male frogs were exposed to an endocrine disrupting chemical and actually developed into female frogs (instead of male frogs), and then wanted to mate with regular ole healthy male frogs. What is occurring in these poor little frogs is premature testicular cell death and depression/interference in the male gene development. Now, atrazine is a pesticide very widely used in the US, despite having been banned in Europe since 2004. Why isn't it banned in the US?
It gets worse: the ingredient in Softsoap, DMDM HYDANTOIN is a formaldehyde releaser, a preservative that slowly breaks down in the product, releasing formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a known allergen. Additionally, IARC, the International Agency for Research on Cancer who reviews existing research and classifies potentially cancer causing agents into five levels:
Consumer pressure lead to the removal of formaldehyde from some nail polishes (those marked as "three-free" or "five-free"), so why is it still in hand soap, a ubiquitous product used multiple times per day and found on so many sinks in homes, schools, libraries, restaurants, E V E R Y W H E R E?! Outside a trip to Wholefoods or my local yoga studio where natural soaps are graciously provided because of recognition and concern for this issue, the public has no other choice but to use the conventional (=cheapest in bulk) soap and be exposed to these toxins. And, as with the asinine sunscreen debate recently posed, I am NOT asking you to leave the bathroom without washing your hands. Yuck. Germ-free hands are the surest way to prevent the spread of viruses and bacteria that make us all sick. As with the sunscreen debate, my reasoning is: if you're in the store or online spending the money anyway, why not look for a product that removes germs without exposing us to harmful chemicals?
For the final blow, the last ingredient I am choosing to explore is "ext D&C violet no. 2," the final ingredient in the list. Ext D&C violet no. 2 is a synthetic colorant derived from bituminous coal. Due to the "carcinogenic properties" of bituminous coal, this ingredient and others like it are continuously tested on animals. And in case you hear the argument that the quantity of this ingredient we're exposed to is so minuscule (it being the last ingredient in the list), just remember that (1) we wash our hands many many times a day, (2) we use many other products with this or many other harmful ingredients in them, and (3) this ingredient and all the others like it has to be produced somewhere and somehow, and it's definitely not produced in tiny, tiny quantities, which brings into play the environmental concerns of these chemicals even existing at all on our planet.
In all seriousness, in the deepest parts of my heart, I wish for more natural products everywhere so that part of our adult children's "normal" when shopping online or in a store includes (or is solely) completely safe products. Several recent steps forward this past year have me feeling that changes to our current "normal" are possible. The FDA recently banned triclosan and 18 other agents from soaps labelled 'antibacterial' because there is no solid evidence that washing with these agents results in any cleaner hands than a good long scrub with warm water and soap. On top of that, some of these agents provide fuel to the pathogens out there that are resistant to antibiotics, a serious, serious concern in modern day public health. The revisions earlier this year to Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that make it much easier for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate and regulate chemicals is also a step in the right direction. And finally, the Chemical Footprint Project (CFP) asks companies to voluntarily inventory the chemicals they use, publicly report them and then ultimately transition to safer alternatives. Seeing corporations like Johnson & Johnson, Levi Strauss & Co., GOJO Industries and Walmart, YES, Walmart participating in the CFP is actually astounding and makes me very hopeful for the future.
So as a consumer, you have the power to *think* about these issues (as evidenced by reading this far into this article, so thank you), and you can turn those thoughts into different purchasing patterns. And the corporations will notice even very minute changes in consumers' buying behavior. After reading all this, if you now want to search for safe hand soap or any other personal care product, go to the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep database. There, you can type in product names and check out their ratings and make more informed decisions. Or if you want to start by stocking your home, office or store with Boyle's Naturals products, by all means, please do.
A Perfect Alternative: Boyle's Naturals Foaming Hand Soap
Ingredients: distilled water, fragrance free castile soap (water, organic olive oil, organic coconut oil, organic cocoa butter, kukui nut oil, citric acid, Vitamin E), olive oil, pure doTerra brand lavender essential oil.
INGREDIENT COUNT: 8 ingredients (water and olive oil appear twice)
Note: All the ingredients in Boyle's all-natural soap are compatible with human health!