A new study brings to light a potentially dangerous link between chemicals used in ordinary products, such as baby shampoos and lotions, to reproductive problems in children. The chemicals, called phthalates, have been under attack by some environmental advocacy groups, according to a Feb. 4, 2008 AP News article, although experts are uncertain what dangers they might pose.

The study, which appears in the February issue of the journal Pediatrics, found elevated levels of phthalates in the urine of babies who recently had baby products applied to them. The federal government does not limit their use, even though California and some European countries will have restricted their use beginning in 2009. Although the Food and Drug Administration stated that this study "has no compelling evidence that phthalates pose a safety risk when used in cosmetics," it has many parents paying closer attention to what products they are putting on their children.

"We really need to take a look at the number of products we use on a daily basis and figure out what we truly need," said Stacy Malkan, spokeswoman for the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and author of Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Cosmetic Industry.

According to Malkan, these chemicals do not remain in the body for long periods of time. They can be flushed out within 24 hours. However, due to the ubiquitous use of the chemicals in thousands of personal care products used daily, we are continuously exposed to them.

Malkan said that phthalates are hormone disruptors and block the production of testosterone. This can cause problems in utero as well as through adulthood, causing a cascade of reproductive issues. The chemicals have been linked to undescended testicles, testicular tumors, low fertility and infertility. "This study directly correlates the phthalate level in babies with the use of personal care products," Malkan said. "Reproductive toxins just do not belong in baby shampoos and lotions."

Of the 163 babies between two and 28 months that participated in the study, 100 percent of them had at least one phthalate, and 80 percent had at least seven different types.

But many parents are stuck with their hands tied, because retail products aren't required to list individual ingredients of fragrances, which are a common phthalate source.

A group of concerned mothers on a Babyfit.com message board have decided to take it upon themselves to learn more about the ingredients in the products they are using, and make drastic changes to ensure to the best of their ability that their children remain safe. After one mother posted a link to the Web site (www.cosmeticdatabase.com) , the floodgates opened up.

Some of the sentiments were:

"Between the BPA and the phthalates, I want to scream. This just is not fair to our children. I shudder to think about the possible harm I've already caused."

"I have always tried to be cautious about what I put in and on my body, but this just takes it to a whole new level! Companies don't even have to add these bad ingredients on their lists, so how are we to be sure?"

"We need to demand better of these companies. Most chemicals and preservatives are added because it is cheaper and increases shelf life. They aren't necessary."

"I just lost someone close to me to cancer and the statistics say 1 out of every 3 people will get cancer... Why? So we can buy cheap crap?"

"I had worked in an environmental lab for seven years before I quit to become a stay-at-home-mom. If you ladies saw what I saw, you would lose your minds."

Every day, children are exposed to an average of 27 personal care ingredients that have not been found safe for kids, according to a national survey conducted in 2007 by Environmental Working Group (EWG), creator of (cosmeticdatabase.com) .

A search for Huggies Baby Lotion with Chamomile and Lavender reveals a wealth of information about the product, including but not limited to: its ranking (both as an average for the entire project and per ingredient), whether or not it does animal testing, and a list of concerns (cancer, endocrine disruption, allergies, developmental/reproductive toxicity) paralleled with each specific ingredient.

The ranking system is color-coded for easy viewing: products with a low hazard ranking are given a green 0-2, products with a medium hazard ranking are given a yellow 3-6, and products with a high hazard are given a red 7-10.

Huggies Baby Lotion with Chamomile ranks overall as a red 8, largely due to the fragrance component of the product, and does practice animal testing. According to the search, ingredients in this product are linked to: developmental/reproductive toxicity; violations, restrictions and warnings; allergies/immunotoxicity; neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, and skin irritation - to name a few.

According to EWG, by law, the government cannot mandate safety studies of cosmetics products or their ingredients, and only 13 percent of the 10,500 ingredients in personal care products have been reviewed for safety by the cosmetic industry's own review panel. For virtually every product on the market, safety decisions are made behind closed doors, guided by an industry-funded panel, without the benefit of peer-review or independent pre-market safety testing.

"Under federal law, companies can put virtually anything they wish into personal care products, and many of them do. Mercury, lead, and placenta extract - all of these and many other hazardous materials are in products that millions of Americans, including children, use every day," said Jane Houlihan, Vice President of Research at EWG. "Mothers shouldn't have to worry about what is in the baby lotion they use, and now they don't have to. The new Skin Deep database provides information on nearly 25,000 personal care products so people can find out for themselves which products are the best choices for them and their families."

About the author

Julie Hurley is a working mother of two children. She has a degree in journalism from Grand Valley State University in Michigan, and has an increasing interest in holistic living.

She is an Independent Distributor for the It Works product line, which features the Ultimate Body Applicator (www.itworks.net/juliehurley).

Julie is also training for her first 25k in May after picking up running in April 2007. Follow her training journey on her blog at: http://tinyurl.com/37t4yf.

EPA, American Chemistry Council Conspire to Remove Toxicologist Deborah Rice from Panel on Flame Retardant Safety

Tuesday, March 04, 2008 by: Mike Adams | Key concepts: EPA, the EPA and deca

NaturalNews) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dismissed an award-winning neurotoxin specialist from a toxicology review panel in August, in compliance with a request from the industry lobby group the American Chemical Council.

Deborah Rice, currently an employee of the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, was among five scientists to win an award from the EPA in 2004 for "exceptionally high-quality research" into lead exposure's ability to cause premature puberty in girls. In her former position as a senior toxicologist for the EPA National Center for Environmental Research, Rice was one of the scientists involved in setting the agency's guidelines for fish consumption as a way of limiting mercury exposure.

A specialist in neurotoxins, Rice has also extensively studied the low-dose neurological effects of the polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) known as deca. That's why when the EPA set up a five-member panel to review the safety of deca in early 2007, it selected Rice as panel chair.

PBDEs are flame-retarding chemicals widely used in the plastic housings of electronic items such as television sets. They are also used in automobiles, building materials and furniture textiles. Two PBDEs, known as penta and octa, were banned in 2004 after studies showed that they disrupted the nervous and hormonal systems and were accumulating in the tissue of humans and wildlife.

Prior to being banned, penta and octa concentrations in breast milk were doubling every four to six years, a rate of chemical accumulation not seen since the 1950s. After the ban, concentrations began to decrease.

Why Rice was a threat to the chemical industry

While the purpose of the EPA panel on deca was only to review and comment on the scientific research surrounding the chemical, the panel's report would be used by the EPA to set new maximums for safe exposure.

The EPA has not yet released these new exposure levels, but if they are set low enough, it could mean an end to the chemical's use in consumer products. This would be a major blow to the global chemical industry, which manufactures 56,000 tons of the substance each year, the majority of it for use in the United States and Asia.

In May, a vice president of the American Chemistry Council, Sharon Kneiss, wrote a letter to an EPA assistant administrator objecting to Rice's presence on the deca panel. Kneiss called Rice "a fervent advocate of banning" deca, who "has no place in an independent, objective peer review." Having Rice on the panel, Kneiss said, "calls into question the overall integrity" of the deca review.

As evidence of Rice's alleged bias, the American Chemistry Council pointed to comments she had made saying that deca should be banned due to its toxic and bioaccumulating nature.

This is nothing short of astonishing. What it means is that any expert who dares to say that toxic chemicals are dangerous and should be banned is kicked off the advisory panels. This is how the American Chemistry Council and EPA conspire to keep dangerous, cancer-causing chemicals on the market while pretending to be operating under the guidance of "scientific advisors."

How the EPA censors scientists who oppose dangerous chemicals

Rice is fully aware of the dangers of the chemical. And like any scientist that operates with a sense of ethics, she wants to prevent further harm by seeing the substance banned. "We don't need to wait another five years or even another two years and let it increase in the environment, while we nail down every possible question we have," Rice said to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in March 2007. Rice also testified before the Maine state legislature in favor of a ban on the substance.

One month after receiving the American Chemistry Council's letter, top EPA officials met with representatives of the group and promised to act on their concerns. In August, the EPA dismissed Rice from the panel and removed all of her comments, as well as any mention of her, from the panel's final report.

Yet a review of EPA documents reveals that all of Rice's comments concerned only technical questions about the toxicity of deca. Rice suggested, for example, that the EPA consider the long-term cumulative effects of chemicals that exhibit similar toxic effects to deca.

The agency says it dismissed Rice because of "the perception of a potential conflict of interest." But this rationale has been criticized as a double standard, given the agency's willingness to allow industry advocates to remain on its panels. In other words, the EPA has no problem with "conflicts of interest" when it comes to allowing pro-chemical industry experts on the panel. They only invoke the conflict of interest claim when fishing for a way to remove an opponent of toxic chemicals.

According to the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, there were 17 members on seven EPA review panels in 2007 who had financial ties to the chemical industry, or who had publicly affirmed the safety of the chemicals they were reviewing. For example, an Exxon Mobil employee was allowed to serve on a panel reviewing the carcinogenic chemical ethylene oxide, which is manufactured by that company. The EPA has no problem with these obvious conflicts of interest. In fact, it seems to be doing everything it can to stack the panels with pro-chemical advocates who have financial ties to chemical manufacturers.

The EPA now serves industry, not the public

Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst at the Environmental Working Group, said the EPA's double standard on conflicts of interest is "deeply problematic from the public interest perspective."

"It's a scary world if we create a precedent that says scientists involved in decision-making are perceived to be too biased," she said. Under such rules, it is impossible for any honest scientist to express concern about toxic chemicals without being censored and fired from the panel. This is how the EPA wants the scam to work, of course: Eliminate all the opponents of toxic chemicals, and stack the panels with pro-chemical advocates.

Representative Henry Waxman of Los Angeles, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, expressed concern about the EPA's acceptance of pro-industry panelists and dismissal of those who are critical of chemicals.

"If this information is accurate, it raises serious questions about EPA's approach to preventing conflicts of interest on its expert scientific panels," Waxman said.

Deca was formerly thought to be less dangerous that other PBDEs, because it did not appear to accumulate in human and wildlife bodies in the same way. But more recent research has indicated that when exposed to sunlight, deca transforms into different PBDEs, which do accumulate in the environment.

Like other PBDE flame-retardants, deca is known to affect brain development and interfere with thyroid hormones. These effects can lead to problems in the learning and motor skills of young animals, including humans.

Out of concern for these effects, both Maine and Washington have passed laws phasing out certain uses of deca and restricting others. California is considering similar laws.

What the EPA, FDA and USDA all have in common...

To any intelligent consumer, it's quite obvious now that the EPA, FDA and USDA all now serve the interests of powerful corporations and have betrayed the American people they were supposed to protect. These agencies that once sought to regulate industry have now become the marketing branches of industry, abandoning the protection of the public and working on ways to maximize profits (or at least limit the damages when new toxicities are discovered).

That the EPA would so directly censor a scientist who simply sought to ask the right questions about the safety of deca is nothing short of outrageous. It is a further indication that the EPA now serves a new master: The Chemical companies. And under the Bush Administration, the EPA has gone to great lengths to censor scientists who dared to tell the truth about threats to our natural environment, from toxic chemicals to climate change. Now, telling the truth at the EPA is apparently enough to get you fired. The truth will no longer be tolerated. Only fictions will be heard at the EPA.

And soon, we'll all be told the same lies now being repeated behind closed doors at the EPA: Toxic chemicals are good for you, and there's no need to be concerned about the 10,000+ chemicals being used in consumer products today.

Recommended reading: The Hundred Year Lie by Randall Fitzgerald. The book will shock you.

About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health researcher and author with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He is a prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is a trusted, independent journalist who receives no money or promotional fees whatsoever to write about other companies' products. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of super bright LED light bulbs that are 1000% more energy efficient than incandescent lights. He's also a noted pioneer in the email marketing software industry, having been the first to launch an HTML email newsletter technology that has grown to become a standard in the industry. Adams also serves as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a non-profit consumer protection group, and pursues hobbies such as Pilates, Capoeira, nature macrophotography and organic gardening. Known by his callsign, the 'Health Ranger,' Adams posts his missions statements, health statistics and health photos at www.HealthRanger.org

MOTHERS Act Seeks to Drug Expectant Mothers with Antidepressants to "Treat" Postpartum Depression

Thursday, March 06, 2008 by: Mike Adams | Key concepts: MOTHERS Act, expectant mothers and antidepressants

NaturalNews) A new law being considered in the U.S. Congress would attempt to prevent postpartum depression in new moms by drugging them with SSRI antidepressant drugs while they're still pregnant. This legislation is being aggressively pushed by pro-pharma front groups in an effort to expand the customer base for SSRI drugs by targeting pregnant women as new "customers" for the chemicals. It's an example of the latest insanity from Big Pharma, whose drugs are already killing over 100,000 Americans each year while inciting violence and suicides in teens. Every single shooting massacre we've seen in the last ten years has been carried out by a person taking SSRI antidepressant drugs. The mainstream media pays no attention to this link, and the FDA ignores the reports in order to keep these drugs on the market.

SSRI drugs have never been approved for use on newborns, yet this new MOTHERS Act will effectively drug unborn babies and newborns with drugs like Prozac. This will certainly have an impact on their developing brains, and the bulk of the research available today shows that the impact will be negative. Will these children be more prone to violent thoughts and behavior? Will they contemplate suicide at younger ages? And what will be the impact of the drugs on the mother?

For one mother who was drugged with antidepressants -- Amy Philo -- the drugs caused her to experience thoughts of violence against her own newborn babies. After taking antidepressants prescribed by her doctor, she had visions of killing them (and herself). Upon returning to her doctor, Amy was told to increase the dosage! Eventually, Amy realized the drugs were wrecking her own brain chemistry, and she stopped taking the pills entirely, causing the thoughts of violence and suicide to subside.

Now, Amy is leading a campaign to stop the MOTHERS Act. She's posted a heart-wrenching 5-minute video on YouTube that tells her story (with pictures of her babies, too!):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LQW23XCmOCw

A local news station also covered her story, and that report can be viewed here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=W4B8I_8wz6I

An article explaining more about the effort to stop the MOTHERS Act is found here:

http://birthfriend.wordpress.com/2008/0...

As you'll learn from these videos and articles, the real purpose of the MOTHERS Act is to drug the mothers. Thus, it should really be called the Drug the MOTHERS Act! It's being pushed by drug companies, of course, and backed by psychiatrists and corrupt government officials who have close ties to the pharmaceutical industry. The whole point of this act is not to protect mothers from depression, but to recruit mothers as patients and, by doing so, also expose newborns to psychiatric drugs that will destroy their normal brain function and turn them into lifelong customers requiring ongoing chemical treatment.

We must stop the MOTHERS Act. It is a dangerous law created for marketing purposes, not medical purposes. Treating pregnant women with antidepressant drugs (and thereby exposing their unborn babies to those drugs) is one of the most outrageous pro-pharma ideas to come along in many years. It's not enough to drug the teenagers and children with these dangerous pharmaceuticals, now Big Pharma wants to start drugging children before they're even born!

If this law is passed and implemented, I fear for the future of our babies. Imbalanced by these dangerous pharmaceuticals, mothers are likely to commit acts of extreme violence against their children. Then they will be thrown into the prison system, of course, where they will be drugged with yet more psychiatric drugs (generating yet more profits for Big Pharma). Their children, meanwhile, will be taken away by Child Protective Services and treated with psychiatric drugs under the care of a "psychiatric doctors" who, of course, will poison that child's brain with a never-ending regimen of Big Pharma's chemicals. Do you see the scam here? By "screening" pregnant women for depression, they can create TWO new patients for psychiatric drugs, even though a family is destroyed in the process.

This is precisely the aim of Big Pharma: Sell more drugs, create more markets, and earn more profits regardless of the cost in human suffering. Big Pharma has zero concern for families and zero compassion for human beings. It only seeks to poison the minds of the people through television advertising and psychiatric drugs, all while maximizing its own profits.

What you can do to stop the MOTHERS Act

We must work together to stop this dangerous act that would recruit mothers to be treated with dangerous psychiatric drugs (while exposing their unborn babies to those same drugs).

Sign the petition:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-t...

Also, see Unite For Life at:

http://uniteforlife.org/MOTHERSact.htm#...

By the way, this is not an article about pro-life vs. pro-choice on the issue of unborn babies, and I use the term "unborn babies" in a purely humanitarian sense, because a child that's in the womb and about to be born is clearly an "unborn baby" whose health must be protected. I am opposed to the drugging of mothers during any trimester. Pharmaceuticals simply do not belong in expectant mothers. Those pharmaceuticals pass straight through to the blood of the fetus. Regardless of whether you're pro-life or pro-choice on the issue of abortion, I hope you agree that pregnant women should not be drugged with antidepressants!

Press release from UNITE / CHAADA

UNITE / CHAADA / ICFDA / COPES Foundation Objection to the Proposed MOTHERS Act - Bill before Senate Puts Young Children and Mothers in Serious Danger

To the HELP Committee of the United States Senate:

For years, the March of Dimes has warned not to use meds while pregnant. Why now encourage mothers to take drugs?

Please register this extreme objection to the proposed MOTHERS Act (S. 1375) which is now before you in committee. It is my earnest hope that you will immediately defeat this bill in committee. The bill has been brought to you under the guise of ensuring safety or support for new mothers; however, nothing could be further from the truth.

The bill was originally proposed in response to the death by suicide of Melanie Stokes, a pharmaceutical rep. who took her own life by leaping from a balcony several stories off of the ground. Contrary to popular understanding it was not post-partum depression that killed Melanie, but the numerous antidepressant drugs she was taking, which the FDA confirmed double the suicide risk.

Nobody is suggesting that new moms do not ever experience mood swings, depression, or even psychotic episodes. The more important issue is what the effect of this bill will be and why nobody is addressing potential methods of prevention. Everyone knows how many young moms experience gestational diabetes, but who is addressing the even higher rate of gestational hypoglycemia, which often initially manifests as depression? This is a physical condition that is treated with diet and is exacerbated by antidepressants (which list hypoglycemia as a side effect).

To simply screen women for post-partum mood disorders and ensure that they get "treatment," we would be setting families up for the expectation of tragedy and increasing the chances of that actually happening when we refer them to medical "professionals" who are oblivious to the negative mind-altering effects of psychiatric drugs. A popular opinion among medical caregivers these days is that "post-partum mood disorders" must be a sign of an underlying biochemical imbalance and would be corrected with drugs.

Current drugs used on post-partum women include SSRIs, atypical antidepressants, and even antipsychotic drugs. These pose a significant risk to the immediate safety and health of women as well as their children and families. SSRIs carry a black box warning for suicide and the most popular one, Effexor (the same medication Andrea Yates was taking when she drowned her 5 children), has the words "homicidal ideation" listed as a side effect. Nearly every recent case of infanticide which has made news can be clearly linked back to a psychiatric drug. These drugs endanger babies and mothers.

Additionally, the drugs can be extremely addictive and also pose a risk to nurslings or babies exposed in subsequent pregnancies. Some babies have died from SIDS linked to exposure from pregnancy or nursing; others have experienced coma, seizures, GI bleeding, heart defects, lung problems, and many babies died before reaching full term or soon after birth.

The bill does not address the fact that studies show that biological agents (antidepressants for example) cited in the bill and already prescribed to pregnant women can cause congenital heart birth defects where children have had to undergo open-heart surgeries to correct this. Also, some babies are being born with organs outside their bodies, requiring immediate surgery.

In closing I want to re-emphasize the total lack of any real answer to post-partum depression posed by this bill. If we can prevent post-partum depression or support moms through it, or offer proven SAFE and EFFECTIVE natural alternatives to dangerous drugs, then we should. However we should never, ever become party to a pharmaceutical campaign to push drugs on the public. We will set ourselves up for disaster if we allow an invasion into the privacy of every family in the country and suggest to our most vulnerable citizens that they might be mentally ill.

We must do everything in our power to protect innocent children, and giving their mothers addictive drugs which pose a significant risk of causing suicide and violence does not protect anyone. It does cause the child to become addicted while still in the womb and sets up drug dependence which can be lifelong.

We still have no idea what effect most drugs have on developing brains. It might take decades for the impact on the developing brain to become apparent.