quote:

Originally posted by sammyk6:
That's fine Debbie but my concern is when a company (and you stock their products) tells me that they use Vitamin E as a preservative and that it can keep the product fresh for 1 year. See my previous post - vitamin E is an anti-oxidant not a preservative. They haven't come back to me as to whether they use any other preservatives.
I'm worried that potentially hazardous 'all-natural' brands are being promoted on prime-time TV.

With all due respect SammyK6 this is part of the problem with being anonymous and not disclosing an interest. We only have your word that you are a qualified scientist, and therefore ‘know what you are talking about’. However, I have taken this up with the manufacturer who uses this, as I am serious about these issues. They have explained to me how Vitamin E works, and have also said they the products are properly safety assessed and they have the certificates for anyone who would like to see them.

In the mean time I have also looked for my self to see if I can verify this for people who might be sceptical. A quick search shows Vitamin E being used as a preservative in many items. Some of these sources are unbiased.

Regarding Grapefruit seed extract; I have found at least one study that states: “suggest that GSE could inhibit bacteria significantly” (Antibacterial effect of Grapefruit Seed Extract on food-borne pathogens and its application in the preservation of minimally processed vegetables, Wentao Xu1, a, Wei Qu1, a, Kunlun Huang1, a, Feng Guoa, Jiajia Yanga, Heng Zhaoa and YunBo Luo)

Personally I have a sense of Deja-vue as the same arguments are used by people trying to discourage organic food. Many times I have read about the ‘potential dangers’ of the bacteria found in organic vegetables and how we should really be eating the sterile ones from the supermarkets as they are ‘safer’. However, how many documented cases are there of people getting ill from these bacteria?

In my opinion it is up to the individual to decide whether the risks imposed by cocktails of chemicals are worse than the risks of bacteria.


Debbie

Debbie, A few points .

Vitamin E, or Vitamin E Acetate as is often used is not a preservative. Not listed in Annexe VI of the EU directive. Not a preservative. FULL STOP.
Its an antioxidant, and possibly has some moisturising effect if you're lucky

Grapefruit seed extract. Not an approved preservative, and to be frank only has marginal preserving ability. Probably due to the high levels of parabens in it.

Thank you, Nelly (love the name!). I was just off to find some articles in my collection that I've kept for the exact same arguments.

Debbie, this is not the place to get personal. It is a forum for discussing programmes and putting across points of view.

BTW, I have a BSc Honours in Biomedical Science (Cardiff, 1992) and an MSc in Cellular Pathology (Bristol, 1996). I have the certificates to prove it. I have been interested in natural skincare for 13+ years and have been making my own products for 10+ years. My products are safety assessed and certified and I have a successful business selling both the raw ingredients and ready-made skincare products. My safety assessor would laugh me out of the building if I said I wanted to use Vitamin E and GSE as preservatives. My Insurance Company would also not cover me under these circumstances.

I'm just trying to point out some of the myths about 'natural' products.

Glad you like it Sammy. I was in a silly mood reviewing the "Data" that Ms Beeny was spouting yesterday.
If you're industry I'll probably see you in Telford in November when I'll be blagging a free bacon butty.
Look for the hells angel in a suit!

Nelly, I probably won't be in Telford but the idea of a Hell's Angel who knows their grapefruits.....now maybe I ought to go!

For fans of infant formula or those considering dropping breastfeeding because of irresponsible broadcasting heres what formula manufacturers would rather the public didn't know and do a damn good job keeping it quiet:

Contaminants In Infant Formula
You’ll never find these listed on the label!!

Aluminum

<5-45 ug/l in breast milk
557-2,346 ug/l in soy formula
Aluminum interferes with cellular metabolic processes and information transfer from DNA

Silicon

55.45ng/ml in milk of mothers with silicone implants
51.05ng/ml in milk of mothers without implants
746-13,811 ng/ml in 26 brands of formula tested for silicon
The effect of large amounts of silicon on an infant is unknown

Cadmium

Cadmium is a highly toxic metal that can cause kidney damage in high amounts. Neurotoxic effects such as psychomotor disturbances, behavioral and cognitive disorders have been demonstrated in animal models with low-dose exposure. Cadmium levels can be 6 times higher in soy formula compared to milk- based
formula. Cadmium is also found in cereals with the exposure of dietary cadmium from weaning diets up to 12 times higher in children fed infant formula compared to breast milk.


Genetically engineered corn and soy

Detected in Alsoy (Carnation/Nestle), Similac Neocare (Ross Labs), Isomil (Ross Labs), Prosobee (Mead Johnson)
Transgenic ingredients pose the risk of introducing novel toxins, new allergens, and increased antibiotic resistance to infants. The FDA does not require labeling of genetically engineered foods, so parents will remain unaware that their baby is consuming transgenic ingredients


MSG (processed free glutamic acid and processed free aspartic acid)

These are known neurotoxins found in a number of infant formulas. Because the blood brain barrier is not fully developed in infants, these neurotoxins are more accessible to the infant brain than the adult brain. The highest levels of these neurotoxins were found in hypoallergenic formulas. Because no studies have
been done on the long term outcomes of infants fed on hypoallergenic formulas it is unknown if they will exhibit more learning disabilities at school age, and/or more endocrine disorders such as obesity, and reproductive disorders, later in life.

Phytoestrogens

Phytoestrogens are endocrine disruptors found in soy formulas. Infants fed soy formula can have circulating phytoestrogen concentrations that are 13,000-22,000 times higher than normal levels in early life. These bioactive compounds can create steroid hormone imbalance, compete with enzymes that metabolize steroids, drugs and xenobiotics, and can influence gonadal function. Genistein can be carcinogenic if exposure occurs during critical periods of differentiation. Soy formula has been linked to premature thelarche (breast development in infants and girls under eight years of age). Phytoestrogens (isoflavones) also act on the thyroid gland. They are well known inducers of goiter and anti-thyroid agents. They act against the thyroid by inhibition of thyroid peroxidase. Children with autoimmune thyroid disease were three times more likely to have been fed soy formula in infancy.

Phthalates and Bisphenol-A

These are endocrine disrupting industrial chemicals. Phthalates are used as plasticisers and are testicular toxins as well as estradiol imitators.
Bisphenol-A is used in the production of polycarbonate plastics and has been found in plastic baby bottles. It can leach from the container and has been known to be estrogenic since 1938. Bisphenol-A resins are used as lacquers to coat metal products such as food cans. With a high affinity for fatty products, it has
been shown to leach into the content of cans during the autoclaving process, including cans of milk based infant formula.


Contaminants in water used to reconstitute concentrated and powdered formula

Lead

Lead in water used to reconstitute formula can cause elevations in blood lead levels if used from the hot water tap or boiled. Boiling concentrates lead. There is a 6 point IQ drop for every 10ug increase in blood lead levels.


Nitrates

Infants fed formula reconstituted with nitrate-contaminated water are at risk for potentially fatal methemoglobinemia. Nitrates are converted to nitrites by the baby resulting in hemoglobin being converted to methemoglobin that cannot bind molecular oxygen. This risk increases if babies under six months are also
fed baby food with high concentrations of nitrates such as green beans and bananas.


Atrazine

Atrazine is a weed killer that causes mammary and uterine cancer in rats. In the cities and towns the worst tap water contamination, formula-fed babies who consume reconstituted formula would lifetime dose of this chemical in the first four months of their lives.


Bacteria

Significant bacterial contamination can occur during home preparation of powdered infant formula. Reconstituted formula stored in the refrigerator shows increasing bacterial counts over time.

For info go to naba-breastfeeding org

News from baby milk action:
Friday, October 05, 2007
Ruling in Belgium : deaths from contaminated formula are to be accepted

News arrives from Belgium that a family has lost its legal action against Nestlé and the hospital that put their new-born child onto infant formula that turned out to be contaminated with bacteria. The effect of the ruling is to suggest that deaths from intrinsic contamination of formula, which are rare, are to be expected and accepted.

The couple's son became ill with meningitis and died at 5 days old. This was linked to Enterobacter Sakazakii contamination in Nestlé Beba infant formula, prompting a recall. See the International Baby Food Action (IBFAN)'s press release from 10 May 2002.

This death and others in France prompted action at the World Health Assembly. IBFAN called for improved labelling to warn of the risks and how to reduce them. This call was reflected in the Resolution adopted shortly afterwards (WHA 55.25) and more explicitely in 2005 (WHA 58.32) after the World Health Organisation had held an expert meeting.

QUOTE
"Would we knowingly substitute any other complete biological system of nourishment (blood for example) with one that contained no living cells, no tissue-specific growth enhancers, no immune system modulators, no inflammatory response inhibitors plus a massive dose of non-human protein? And then give it to our children for the first six months of life when their immune systems are at their most under-developed and sensitive and consider it a mystery when they become ill?"

From issue 2445 of New Scientist magazine, 01 May 2004, page 32

Debbie,
Oxidation is not the same as colonisation by bacteria or fungi. A product "going off" may be due to any of these processes and Vit E will not protect against fungal or bacterial growth. Incidentally it is important to QA your sources so it's important to be aware that EWG is an American pressure group. Although their database is useful it has no critical appraisal, so if you search, for example on "limonene", (being on topic as it was mentioned in the Sarah Beeny prog), you'll find it categorised as "low toxicity" and as borderline "high toxicity" depending on the product and the concentration. So interpretation of the EWG data is important.
Incidentally just in case you're wondering I have a PhD in biochemistry and 30 years experience in toxicology.

quote:

In my opinion it is up to the individual to decide whether the risks imposed by cocktails of chemicals are worse than the risks of bacteria.

A cocktail of chemicals (specifically ones designed to protect against bacteria) or a product which will grow these organisms in due course? These organisms which can cause severe skin infections or, in the case of an eye product, blindness. It's a tough choice. But of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions. This topic is hopefully giving people food for thought.

quote:

Originally posted by sammyk6:

quote:

In my opinion it is up to the individual to decide whether the risks imposed by cocktails of chemicals are worse than the risks of bacteria.

A cocktail of chemicals (specifically ones designed to protect against bacteria) or a product which will grow these organisms in due course? These organisms which can cause severe skin infections or, in the case of an eye product, blindness. It's a tough choice. But of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions. This topic is hopefully giving people food for thought.

Exactly, we are told by manufactures that we need these cocktails of chemicals to protect against bacteria, but they do not disclose that these chemicals are in themselves potentially dangerous and may in the long term cause cancer and other serious diseases. Like the sale of cigarettes, people should be fully informed about a product’s health risks, so they can make the decision themselves.

I think that is why the program was so good. Most people do not even know that the products they use contain so many synthetic ingredients, and most assume they are completely, unquestionably ‘safe’. I wonder how many mothers use baby products containing Formaldehyde not knowing that it is classified as a human carcinogen?


Debbie

You may be a little biased here though.

Yes, people should be informed either way but some of the mis-information given on the programme can, in itself, be dangerous.

Its really good to see that the outcome of all of these points posted here is to highlight that both natural and synthetic products can pose problems and risks to health... but it did not come over so clearly on the programme which was definitely leading towards the assumption that natural = good and synthetic = bad.

I worry that this kind of scaremongering will drive the general public to rejecting certain products in preference to others that are actually no better or safer for them. Most people without a scientific background will look at cosmetic labels and apart from high profile names such as Parabens they dont understand a single thing that is written there. How can they make a sensible choice? What it boils down to is whether they believe the advertising that goes with it... and as usual ... the guys with the biggest advertising budget win the most customers.

Thank goodness there is such an interest in this subject. I suffer with bad breathing problems on contact with chemical products from shower gel to paint. Medics seem to have a problem diagnosing this and years have been spent on tests which were not helpful like testing negative for asthma. I am not aware of any medical antidote so it would be wise not to risk lung damage etc for the small extra cost of alternative products. There is no harm in using alternative items so why risk using cheaply produced chemicals which are not so cheap to buy. Is the real issue really about making money?

Hi Antybugsy... how do you know that there is no harm in alternative products? And which alternative products do you mean? Your own particular allergy aside.... lets assume that you choose a moisturiser specifically because it is made by a small company who have very strong ethics about not using synthetic chemicals. The moisturiser is water based and has lots of yummy oils in it such as sweet almond, jojoba and calendula along with some vitamin e and a couple of essential oils... but no preservative. What you have there is a lovely growing environment for bacteria... and if we give the manufacturer the benefit of the doubt and say that the product was bacteria free when it arrived at your house... we can be sure that once you have dipped your finger into it... it is no longer bacteria free (and you dont even have to dip your finger in to introduce bacteria). The bugs will grow and multipy like crazy in your cream. And then you smear them all over your skin on a daily basis.

You could probably go on doing this for quite some time without any ill effect because most of these are your bacteria (from your own skin)and your skin is used to them... but if by chance... (and there are millions of ways for this to happen) a foreign bacteria jumps into your pot and decides to set up home and then you smear it over your face (oops watch out for the little blob that went too near your eyes... that spot... that little cut or scrape... or up your nose...) and you run a very real risk of severe infection and possible disfigurement (scarring) once all the sores and pustules have healed (after you have been given a huge dose of antibiotics by your doctor of course).

No the real issue is not about making money, its about public health and the knee jerk reaction of the general public rushing out to buy possibly unsafe products just because they do not contain any synthetic chemicals. One should take note that there are some safe natural products out there which have been protected by the use of preservatives that do not contain parabens or formaldehyde... I believe it is good to try and avoid synthetic chemicals where possible but to do it sensibly and to accept that there are some instances where a synthetic chemical is absolutely necessary. Alternatively... choose only oil based products which do not need synthetic preservatives.

quote:

I wonder how many mothers use baby products containing Formaldehyde not knowing that it is classified as a human carcinogen?

Debbie,
Don't forget it's all in the dose, and yes, under the precautionary principle formaldehyde is restricted in its use. Just for comparison, methyl eugenol, a major constituent of rose oil is also classified as a potential carcinogen and the levels of rose oil in cosmetic products is now limited such that the methyl eugenol content does not exceed 0.004%. Many people in the business think this is crazy but the risks from rose oil in cosmetics is about the same as from formaldehyde in cosmetics; ie very low.

Janeleg, beautifully put!

Does bacteria grow in almond oil or jojoba oil?

I didn't think that oils were a good environment for bacteria but maybe that's my ignorance showing. I mean you can keep olive oil in the cupboard for a year without it going of and even when it does it's due to oxidisation.

Could you provide some more details of bacteria-infested oils please janealeg.

No, bacteria don't usually grow in oil unless, for example, that oil has been infused with herbs that had a little moisture on them before being placed in the pot (even dried herbs can have retained moisture if they haven't been dried completely, and hwo do you know for certain?). Maybe the oil has some plant matter left in it. The bacteria will grow on that miniscule droplet of water.....
Products made with herbs harvested from someone's garden are equally risky - my Insurance Company told me that they would never cover any products made in this way, ever.

Janeleg was suggesting that, if you want to 'go natural', then oil-based products are generally safer to use.

Hi Janeleg Thanks for your comments. I understand that if people do have a bad reaction to chemicals it is usually too late and the damage is already done. For myself alternative products are marked 'chemical free'. The factor sun creams I used worked the same way, looked the same was in a similar bottle. The difference with chemical or other products is a person's reaction and to be aware of any discomfort. I used chemical paint in the morning and spent three days in hospital on oxygen. I used chemical-free paint all day and enjoyed myself in the evening. One of my concerns is unnecessary products like 'po-pouri', and air-fresheners and some strong perfumes are making it difficult for many people to mix socially because it is an irritant for them. The programme was a warning as to the risks relating to too many chemicals. They have become too excessive and we each need to decide as to how much we can tolerate. Thank goodness there are companies who try to limit the use of chemicals and are trying to maintain a healthier environment. My bottom line is 'It's just all too much'. All the best.

Antybugsy, Janeleg's point is that chemical-free doesn't always mean micro-organism free and these can cause just as dangerous reactions as chemicals.
It's good to try and limit our exposure to chemicals but not to the detriment of our health in other ways.

Hi Antybugsy, I would agree that for fragranced products, they have become stronger over the years, and more products have more potent and sophisticated fragrances than they used to.
If fragrances set you off, certainly for personal care products the Fragrance free option is always there.
As for sunscreens, these are always a bit of a problems as there are very few ways of getting protection that don't involve in Ms Beeny's words "Man Made Chemicals".
As a general rule, the lower factors up to around 20 or so will tend to be organic filter only, as they are cheaper to manufacture that way. The medium to high ones will be a blend of organics and Titanium dioxide, with sometimes some Zinc Oxide. There are some specialist products out there that use only Titanium and Zinc oxide for protection purposes, but heres the rub. They are expensive as they need a lot of not cheap materials in powder form. They're not that brilliant on the aesthetic either. BUT they do the job. I'll always say though that SPF products should be the last line of defence, not the first Cancer research UK do a load on this Sunsmart campaign link

quote:

Originally posted by sammyk6:
Antybugsy, Janeleg's point is that chemical-free doesn't always mean micro-organism free and these can cause just as dangerous reactions as chemicals.
It's good to try and limit our exposure to chemicals but not to the detriment of our health in other ways.

Its the appropriate use of chemical materials, and not using excessive amounts.
Appropriate is using a small amount of acetone based nail varnish remover, to do the job
Inappropriate is using a gallon of Nitromors, and a wire brush

Do you know what,we could all bicker about what does what and which "natural" product is safer than whatever "man-made" product. But the reality is that the majority of these cosmetic and cleaning products are totally unneccessary!!

My children bathe in plain water, they are shampoo'd about once a month, if that, and people comment on how lovely they smell!! I use no cosmetic cleansers or moisturisers, just plain hot water on a facecloth, guess what, I have good skin, and no, it's not luck, it's because I respect it and allow it to be naturally balanced, not chemically stripped and clogged with cleanser, toner and moisturiser. I don't faff about with make up every day (just now and then) and I don't bleach my house or use "anti-bacterials". My babies wear cloth nappies (and we rarely use baby wipes!) and we eat real food.

It's more about living as "well" as we can, and that doesn't mean covering your skin with gloop and blitzing your house with harsh substances, be they man-made or "natural"!!!