The Environmental Working Group (EWG), known for its “Dirty Dozen” and “Clean Fifteen” lists of pesticide residues on produce and its Skin Deep database ranking the safety of personal care ingredients, has filed a lawsuit against the FDA over what it says is a failure to act on issues surrounding popular hair-straightening keratin treatments known as the Brazilian Blowout.

According to EWG’s Scott Faber, the group’s senior vice president of government affairs, formaldehyde, which is present in the Brazilian Blowout products, is a known carcinogen.

The FDA is legally required to respond within a year of requests for an investigation into the safety of a product, Faber told CNN. But the agency has not moved according to the required timeline.

“[T]he petitioner can make the argument of undue delay,” Faber noted, “and that’s what we’re doing here.”

“For years stylists have reported that the application of these hair treatments caused difficulty breathing, eye irritation and nosebleeds,” Tina Sigurdson, EWG assistant general counsel, said in a statement. “The FDA has been aware of the health hazards associated with the products since at least 2008. Despite these dangers, the FDA has yet to take action to remove them from the market.”

Warning letters were sent by the FDA to both Brazilian Blowout and Van Tibolli Beauty Corp., over what it cited as safety and labeling violations. A Van Tibolli spokesperson told CNN that it made label changes per the FDA’s request.

“People are aware that there’s methylene glycol in the product,” a Van Tibolli representative told CNN, “that’s one of the first things they learn about the ingredients.” Usually, customers communicate with the company a lot about how to use the products, but having learned this information from the start, they typically don’t complain.”

According to the Environmental Working Group’s website, formaldehyde, found in high levels of keratin hair straightening treatments, is both a potential allergen and known human carcinogen, putting customers and salon workers at risk for serious health issues. Heating the hair—an essential step in the application of keratin hair-straightening treatments, releases the formaldehyde into the air, making them more absorbable by the body and potentially more dangerous.

“The health risks posed by these products deserved immediate action from the FDA when it was brought to their attention in 2008,” Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research for Women’s Voices for the Earth, a fellow plaintiff in the suit, said in a statement on the EWG website. “Allowing salon workers and their customers to continue to be harmed by these products for over six years is unconscionable.”

Find Jill on Twitter and Instagram

Related on Organic Authority

Brazilian Blowouts: Pretty Toxic, Actually
6 Steps to DIY Cupping Therapy for Clear Skin
Tame Your Mane This Winter: How to Straighten Your Hair Without Damaging It

The post EWG Sues FDA Over Inaction on Safety of Brazilian Blowout Ingredients appeared first on EcoSalon.

Sex sells. And Sprout Pharmaceuticals just scored the diamond ring with the FDA approval of its previously rejected female Viagra drug Flibanserin. But is it just selling us the image of desire or can it authentically fix our female libido problems? 

This libido issue has been recognized as a “medical” problem, initially termed hypoactive sexual desire (H.S.D.D. ) with its own diagnostic code until 2013 when it was renamed female sexual interest/arousal disorder (F.S.I.A.D.).  The name change, as silly as it sounds, is important because it indicates a new and more accurate understanding of a more realistic sexual response cycle for women. The idea that this new pink Viagra treats a disorder that isn’t even still in the books only adds insult to injury when you consider both the significant side effects, including fainting and low blood pressure from Flibasnserin (a failed antidepressant), and the almost non-existent increase in sexual response.   

Only two days after the approval of Flibanserin, Sprout Pharmaceuticals, a company of less than 40 employees, was sold for $1 billion, easily covering the $100 million dollar initial investment, spent mostly on an elaborate social media campaign equating a dubious drug approval to equal rights for women. The one good thing that has come from the FDA drug approval and even the bogus PR movement “Even the Score” developed to persuade the FDA to cave on the drug, is that now we can speak freely and honestly about female libido- and the fact that most women want more of it, but often have no idea how to get it. 

How about we begin instead with some basic sex education and dispel a few persistent myths about how libido works as well as how it changes. The persistent and harmful belief that sexual desire is or should be spontaneous is where the trouble starts. We all remember those initial early stirrings of sexual hunger, when it was some odd animal unleashed in us, just by being near the crush of the month, or even the frenzied, rip-your-clothes off feelings in the biologically driven stage of falling in love. Who doesn’t love that kind of spontaneous eruption of desire? It’s like surfing a giant wave, or dancing around a bonfire. So yes, there are times- rare and beautiful as they are- when our libido spontaneously takes us on a fantastic ride, sometimes resulting in an over the top orgasm.   

And then there is life: children, bills, figuring out the Feng Shui of correct furniture placement, dealing with in-laws, trying to progress in careers, cars breaking down, and you know… getting to an exercise class. Somehow, spontaneous sexual desire doesn’t usually mix in this list. This is where we have to start working for a new and more reliable form of libido. As adults, this is the moment when we have to both want and learn how to generate our capacity for desire. And this is where the libido story falls apart for most women. Study participants stated, “Once I started, it wasn’t an issue. It was getting me started.” And “I hate having to ‘wind myself up’ to do it,” said another participant. “It makes me feel broken.”  These comments reflect the real problem with female libido, that most women don’t understand: what makes desire work over the long-term is being willing to own and cultivate our erotic selves.   

It is a big leap to take responsibility for our own erotic impulses. It is much easier to let them lie dormant under a giant stack of old guilt or wounds of  being sexual, emotional disconnection from our partner, silent shame about our body image, or just having no idea about how to access a fantasy life. It is grown-up business that requires both curiosity and commitment to our erotic soul for it to flourish. And most women equate that work with being broken. We know now that desire is not usually the leader- just waking up our capacity to be aroused is enough to kick desire awake. And arousal is available through any of our senses if we go looking for it.

Giving up the longing for spontaneous desire to take you over and leaning towards getting good at cultivating responsive desire is the only pill you need to take.  Not only will you avoid the pain and embarrassment of frequent fainting spells, which will not help your libido, but you will invent exciting new pathways in your brain to actually get to the passion we all truly want.

Stay tuned in the next weeks for real ideas on how to make your own desire cure.

Related on EcoSalon

John Oliver: Sex Ed Teacher of the Year [Video]

Other Appropriate Reactions to Totally Sexist Questions and Comments

3 Companies that Make Sustainable Sex Sexy

Image licensed via Shutterstock

The post Female Viagra: Selling Desire, Not Fixing the Female Libido Problem appeared first on EcoSalon.

Women, safety, and cosmetics. How’s that for a trifecta? Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Susan Collins introduce The Personal Care Products Safety Act, calling for stronger FDA regulation.

We can’t view a TV show or sit in the passenger seat of a car without reading a warning on the possible detriment it may pose to our health or well being. We have to sign waivers for every group event our kids attend and promise (in writing) that we are able to perform physical activity when obtaining a gym membership.

Many daily events are met with cautionary recommendations and disclaimers. It’s the world we live in.

The one thing we can do with no forewarning is apply toxins to our bodies. There is no adequate regulation of cosmetics or personal care products in our country, and this means we are on our own when determining the safety of a product.

In our caution obsessed society, personal care product safety has definitely taken a back seat. The $60 billion per year industry has not seen updated regulations in 75 years. But two female senators have their sights set on turning that around.

This past Monday, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced The Personal Care Products Safety Act, a new bipartisan bill aimed to get the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) more involved in cosmetic and personal care product safety. A move that would work toward getting the U.S. closer to the higher levels of cosmetic regulation employed by the European Union.

The proposal, which is being backed by The Environmental Working Group and many (surprisingly non-green) personal care manufacturers, would require studies on five ingredients each year and the ability to recall products deemed dangerous.

The first round of ingredients to go under scrutiny are propylparaben (a commonly used synthetic preservative), lead acetate (used as a colorant in hair dye), methylene glycol (found in hair straighteners, like the Brazilian Blowout), and diazolidinyl urea and quaternium-15 (used as preservatives).

Parabens, as you likely know, have been a press favorite for the past few years because of their link to breast cancer. These synthetic preservatives are widely used and have been found intact in breast tumors and are believed to act like estrogen in the body. Lead acetate is a heavy metal found in progressive hair colorants, like those for men. It is a suspected human carcinogen. And the last three on the list are formaldehyde-releasing ingredients. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen.

This legislation would also cover safety reports and allow the FDA to recall products. A manufacturer would be required to report “serious” health issues from its products (like hospitalization, disfigurement, or death) within 15 days. “Nonserious” reports (like rashes) would have to be reported annually.

It seems crazy that ingredients with the ability to mess with our hormones and cause cancer are still allowed in cosmetics. Any steps taken to holding manufacturers more accountable for product safety are in the right direction and long overdue.

It is important to keep in mind that you need to decide for yourself whether a product is safe. Read ingredient listings and follow brands you trust.

Related on EcoSalon

Annie Leonard’s The Story of Cosmetics: Essential News About Your Beauty Products

American Beauty: Why Europe Bans Cosmetics America Won’t

Dangerous Toxins In Personal Care Products Exposed in Online Cosmetics Database

Image of woman with strong arms via Shutterstock

The post Should Personal Care Products Come With Warnings? Senators Introduce the Personal Care Products Safety Act appeared first on EcoSalon.

Does big tobacco have a legal leg to stand on with labeling requirements?

On Tuesday, big tobacco filed suit against FDA over tobacco product labeling, claiming that the agency had overstepped its authority. The lawsuit is in response to a guidance issued in March which requires that tobacco companies submit their labeling changes for approval.

Marlboro, Camel, and Newport cigarettes, all subsidiaries of Altria Group Inc., Reynolds-American Inc. and Lorillard Inc., have come together in a lawsuit arguing that the Tobacco Control Act, which initially gave FDA authority to regulate the industry, gave limited control over labeling. FDA said that it does not comment on lawsuits.

“We disagree that FDA’s new requirements that manufacturers must obtain agency authorization before changing certain product labels when the actual physical tobacco product remains exactly the same,” said Brian May, an Altria spokesman to Morningstar News. “We’re asking the court to resolve these issues so that we and other manufacturers know how to proceed.”

Big tobacco says that the labeling requirements could be something as minor as a color or logo change.

According to The Consumerist:

The plaintiff tobacco companies contend that, even though the guidelines are not legally binding, following them has the effect of locking manufacturers into all existing packaging designs or opens them up to financial and legal costs if they make changes.

The industry contends that FDA has a right to regulate labeling changes that present a lower risk to the smoker, while not regulating all labeling. Such requirements would be in violation of big tobacco’s First Amendment Rights.

In its latest guidance, FDA said that it wanted premarket approval of any new tobacco products and it considered new labeling to be part of that guidance. According to FDA:

FDA does conclude, however, that if a product’s label is modified in any way that renders the product distinct from the predicate, even if its characteristics remain the same, the modified product is a new product under section 910(a)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act because that product was not commercially marketed in the United States as of February 15, 2007.

The 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act requires that a pictorial warning label cover 50 percent of the back panel of a cigarette box. The new labels have been found to effectively inform smokers of the impact that cigarettes can have on their health. Those that regularly smoke are also constantly exposed to the warning labels. Furthermore, the warning labels help create the image that not smoking is the norm and that smoking presents an unnecessary risk to consumers. This is a good thing considering that there are still 43.8 million smokers in the U.S. and half of them will die prematurely as a result of their addiction. It’s a label that is in fact incredibly accurate and conveys the risk at hand for those that choose to smoke cigarettes.

Related on EcoSalon

The Butts Remain

Nonsmoking Beaches in the Future

Worldwide Rates of Women Smoking Are Increasing

Image of a tobacco box from Shuttershock

The post Big Tobacco Sues FDA Over Labeling Requirements appeared first on EcoSalon.

Are e-cigarettes really as safe as they appear?

While a good chunk of my friends started smoking in high school, I was a late bloomer and didn’t pick up my first cigarette until my mid-twenties. It wasn’t so much the smoking itself I enjoyed, but the ritual of smoking: During this uber-stressful period of my life, there was nothing better than “going out for a smoke” and enjoying five minutes of stillness I wouldn’t have taken for myself otherwise.

After trying to quit what felt like 4,532 times, I finally succeeded two years ago with the patch. My sister is now quitting through the use of e-cigarettes (quite successfully I might add, and I couldn’t be prouder). Called “vaping,” you suck on the mouthpiece exactly as you would a cigarette. A tiny battery ignites to heat a liquid solution until it becomes vapor, which you then inhale. E-cigarettes are available in ready-to-use disposables, rechargeables, and refillables.

But with all of the controversy surrounding e-cigarettes, can we really trust them? Or are you really just trading one evil in for another?

The Good
“The pros outweigh the cons 99-1,” says David Goerlitz, anti-tobacco activist and spokesman for American Heritage International. “There are so many benefits to the e-cig it almost becomes silly to compare.” There are only about five ingredients in them, compared to the 4,600 toxins in cigarettes. According to Goerlitz, there’s been more success for people quitting with e-cigarettes than any other nicotine replacement product.

Not only are they cheaper in the long run, they help promote the non-use of traditionally harmful tobacco. “It’s not the nicotine that harms a lot of smokers, it’s the ‘smoke,’” says Goerlitz.

The Bad
The biggest problem with e-cigarettes is ingredient inconsistency between brands, and the lack of regulation is causing quite a stir. There’s also little data on whether e-cigarettes “work” as a smoking cessation device, but there’s little data to prove they don’t, either. The data itself tends to be flawed, such as the study’s too small or isn’t randomized or controlled. Without concrete data to backup claims, it’s impossible to properly regulate them.

Now that the devices have become more popular, there has been an uptick in complaints – from nicotine toxicity to cardiovascular problems – but let’s face it: Too much of anything can be harmful. “The press is saying e-cig poisonings are an epidemic, which isn’t true,” says Gorleitz. “In Ohio there was news of 60 poisonings called in on e-cig liquids,’ while failing to mention the 90,000 calls in the same year caused by other household and personal products.”

There’s also a huge concern that they’ll become a “gateway drug” for youth to start smoking real cigarettes, according to a recent study.

The Ugly
Well… they’re called e-cigarettes. “Calling it an e-cigarette gives fuel to the fire to those that think smoking is a dirty rotten filthy habit and should be stopped,” says Goerlitz. “For the majority of citizens, non-smokers look down on tobacco users as out of control, and the Anti-Tobacco Control Movement makes them feel like lepers and second class citizens.” (As someone who’s been on both sides of the coin, it’s very true.)

If they were called something else upon their arrival, maybe there wouldn’t be such a stigma attached to them. But, as Goerlitz points out, you can’t unring a bell or put toothpaste back in the tube.

With other cessation tools like medication, the patch or gum, they don’t just rid you of the nicotine withdrawal, but the habit of smoking. For me, e-cigarettes would’ve just made me want to smoke more – they don’t completely fulfill my craving and would leave me foaming at the mouth.

I’ve always wondered: Sure, you’re now off cigarettes, but what do you do to get off e-cigarettes? Our habits cut deep. But then, there’s my sister: The one person in our family we thought would never quit (she’s been a smoker my entire life) has been smoke-free now for almost a year – thanks to e-cigarettes.

Do your due diligence to find the brand you’d be happiest with. It comes down to personal awareness: Knowing yourself well enough to decide what it will take for you to break the habit for good – in your own time, and on your own terms.

How do you feel about e-cigarettes? Yay or nay?

Related on EcoSalon

Electronic Cigarettes Under Fire: Hidden Risk or Effective Cure?

Protecting Yourself From the 20 Percent of People That Still Smoke

What’s Behind the Surprise Global Spike in Female Smoking?

Image: Lindsay Fox

The post Can We Really Trust E-Cigarettes? The Good, The Bad and the Ugly appeared first on EcoSalon.

Hold the sprinkles? The American love affair with brightly colored foods may be risky business.

What’s wrong with the natural color of a pickled pepper? That’s what I’ve been wondering for at least a year, ever since I decided to avoid artificial food coloring whenever possible and found that jarred Greek peppers only come in FD&C Yellow #5. Willing to accept that perhaps my obsession with natural foods had careened straight past “eccentric hippie” into the territory of undiagnosed mental illness, I’ll be picking my own peck of pickled peppers this year. There’s good reason to do so: artificial food coloring is linked to a multitude of side effects.

They’re linked to allergies, cancer and other heath problems in children and adults.

In the U.S., there are seven FDA-approved, mostly petroleum-derived food dyes currently in use: Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Red 3, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6. The three most widely-used colors – Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 – contain known carcinogens, and the FDA has admitted that Red 3 is a carcinogen as well.

According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, studies have found that Blue 2, which is made of coal tar, causes brain cancer in male rats, while Red 3 gave lab rats thyroid tumors. Yellow 5 can not only cause allergy-like hypersensitivity reactions, but can also be contaminated with cancer-causing substances. Yellow 6 has been implicated in tumors of the adrenal gland and kidney.

They’re in almost all processed foods – and even some fresh whole foods.

It’s not just the neon cereals, candies, sprinkles and juices that have been enhanced with artificial dyes. Bagels, waffles, tomato juice, crackers, salad dressing, cheese, yogurt and those pickled peppers are among the many packaged foods that contain food coloring. In fact, the blueberries in Aunt Jemima Blueberry Waffles are just bits of food coloring.

Fruit growers are allowed to dip oranges in a carcinogenic red food dye to make them more appealing. That dye is no longer allowed as an additive in foods, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers its use for peel enhancement acceptable.

Food dyes are used to exploit our natural instincts linking color to freshness, and to entice kids to eat junk.

The food industry uses dyes to manipulate us into believing that the food we’re eating is healthier than it is. We’re drawn to the brightest red apples, the most verdant salad greens and the darkest purple berries because we’re biologically wired to recognize foods that are brimming with nutrients. Conventional produce grown in nutrient-starved soil may be lacking in the color department.

They also know that kids, who are attracted by bright colors from an early age, are far more likely to pick Fruity Pebbles over beige, naturally-colored and -flavored cereals.

Dyes are linked to hyperactivity in children.

After meeting on March 30th and 31st this year to mull warning labels on foods that contain artificial colors, the FDA decided there’s not enough evidence linking them to hyperactivity in kids (by a margin of 8 to 6). “If we put a label that long on every chemical and ingredient that hasn’t been adequately studied . . . you wouldn’t see the package anymore,” argued Tim Jones, Tennessee’s deputy state epidemiologist and a member of the FDA panel.

But two recent studies sponsored by the British government, which looked not just at children who have already been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), but at a wide sample of children in the general population, found that kids given foods that contain artificial dyes do indeed show a measurable increase in hyperactivity.

Dyes are discouraged in Britain, and require a warning label in most of the European Union.

The British Food Standards Agency advises parents to avoid artificially colored foods, while the European Food Safety Agency warns consumers right on the package that artificial colors may have adverse health effects. In fact, the EU is mulling an all-out ban.

Kraft, Coca-Cola and Walmart have already removed artificial dyes from the products they distribute overseas, but not in America. For example, while Nutri-Grain bars sold in American contain Red 40, Yellow 6 and Blue 1, those sold in the UK contain beetroot red, annato and paprika instead.

Natural dyes aren’t totally off the hook, either.

A natural red dye that is listed on labels as cochineal, carmine or carminic acid has a bit of a squick factor simply because it’s made from bugs. It takes 70,000 cochineal insects to make just a pound of this red dye, which is used in everything from strawberry milkshakes to cosmetics. The substance can cause severe allergic reactions, as can natural dyes annatto and saffron. (It’s worth noting that even the most natural substance can produce allergic reactions in very small percentages of the population, so that’s not necessary a reason to avoid them entirely.)

Safe, natural alternatives exist.

Colorful food is undoubtedly fun. We don’t have to give up pretty colors in foods in order to avoid potential health effects. In fact, many natural sources of food coloring have properties that have the opposite effects on our bodies – like turmeric, a vivid yellow herb that helps protect against cancer. Try matcha green tea powder for green, beet juice or any number of berries for beautiful reds and purples, cocoa powder for brown and red cabbage for blue.

Image: Pink Sherbet Photography

The post The Facts About Food Dyes appeared first on EcoSalon.

BPA, or Biphensol A, has become the scourge of environmentalists and health advocates. And rightly so – the chemical has been used for over forty years and is found in nearly everything made of plastic. From bottles, to children’s toys, to the lining of tin cans and even the coating of sales receipts, this chemical was long considered safe by the FDA. Then studies started showing up proving the government wrong.

Just how does BPA harm you? As Time reported, “the chemical has been linked to neurological disorders, hormonal disruptions, cancer and genital abnormalities in newborn boys.” Now studies have turned their attention to its influence on fertility, as lab animals showed side effects such as infertility.

Ah, yes, fertility. It seems like you can’t open a web browser these days without someone wringing their hands over the state of women’s reproductive abilities. (We’ve previously discussed fertility drugs and misconceptions about this topic.) Do we really need another discussion over the state of women’s reproductive skills? Won’t someone think of the (unborn) children?

Based on the recent news out of medicine covering the dangerous effect of BPA on fertility – yes, we do. As Time reports, extensive studies were conducted in 2007 and 2008 at the University of San Francisco to see if BPA had an impact on fertility and IVF by studying women who were undergoing the procedure. It turns out, it does. Scientists think that BPA damages the quality of eggs in women. They found that higher blood levels of BPA, they found, were linked to a “50% reduction in normal fertilization of eggs after they were retrieved for IVF.”

Further, BPA may damage sperm. Via The Daily Green, Kaiser Permanente recently published a report that BPA can reduce sperm count and mobility in men. BPA mimics estrogen in the body which would account for its negative influence on sperm. Experts conclude that more studies will be necessary to look at this connection. But in the light of this evidence, one wonders why Congress recently refused to ban BPA from baby products.

The good news? While regulations seem to rise and fall regarding the permanent disuse of this chemical, people are starting to listen to its dangers. Even the government has released a warning on how to reduce you and your children’s exposure to the chemical.

And until BPA is banned permanently, there are some easy ways to avoid BPA. Lose the plastic bottles and containers in your home. And if you must go plastic, avoid plastics with recycling codes 3 and 7. They are more likely to contain BPA. Also, lose any plastic containers that are scratched. This is an easier route for the BPA to leech into your system.

Image: stevendepolo

The post BPA and Infertility: What’s Really Going On? appeared first on EcoSalon.

I’ve always been a cheese fanatic. It started when I was a kid with sharp cheddar cheese from Wisconsin and the massive blocks of baby Swiss my father used to receive from one of his patients during the holidays. I would gleefully trim off ever-so-thin slices, curl each one into a roll and start nibbling while thoughtfully eyeing where to cut off the next piece.

As many cheese lovers, my taste continues to mature, and now I’m more likely to reach for say, aged Gruyere and goat Gouda. In one of my recent grocery shopping experiences, while I carefully selected organic yogurt and organic milk, I realized that when it came to cheese, I wasn’t so sure of what I was buying. With gourmet cheeses, such as specialty goat cheese or cheese from sheep’s milk of the Basque region, I wasn’t so worried, but what about cow’s milk cheese from the U.S.? Is there a chance that it has come from cows treated with growth hormones?

I was having these thoughts when I came across this article from Grist about the recent decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn an Ohio law regarding the labeling of food produced without growth hormones.

“Earlier this week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the state of Ohio’s ban on labels that identify milk as rBST- or rBGH-free, meaning produced without the use of artificial bovine growth hormone. Consumer and organic food groups were jubilant at the Ohio news, which may have far-reaching repercussions not only for all milk, but for genetically engineered foods.”

Later, the article goes on to say:

Thanks to consumer pressure, approximately 60 percent of milk in the U.S. is rBST-free at this point, labeled or not, according to the Center for Food Safety. However, that leaves an enormous amount of milk still being produced with these hormones, and by extension cheese and most brands of ice cream, except for Ben & Jerry’s.

The bit about ice cream got my attention. Not only do I love cheese, but I also adore ice cream. (You mean, I can’t eat Haagen-Dazs?) It seems that as I’ve been selectively buying organic milk, I may have been eating cheese and ice cream made from non-organic sources. Yikes. (Yet another reason to go D.I.Y. in the kitchen.)

I suppose I should have thought of this earlier, but I guess my love of cheese and ice cream blinded me. If anything, however, it is yet another reminder that companies should not only be allowed to label their food, but should be required to label it. Consumers need to know and have the right to know what they’re eating. I look forward to and am hopeful for the time when the FDA does the right thing in this regard. I just hope it isn’t another decade before we get there.

In the meantime, I’ll be more consciously buying cheese from such locales as the Cowgirl Creamery, certified organic. And ice cream? Looks like I’ll be making it at home.

Image: Jeffrey Coolidge

The post What’s in the Cheese? appeared first on EcoSalon.

The Corn Refiners Association has applied to change the name of high fructose corn syrup to “corn sugar” – gee, I wonder why?! According to a NY Times article, proponents of the change believe that this name more accurately reflects the nature of the syrup noting that the substance contains the same components as table sugar. The industry is worried that people have been misled by the name high fructose corn syrup and because of the current stigma now attached to the it, many food manufacturers are removing the syrup entirely from their products.

Granted, this is basically a PR stunt. While the term “high fructose corn syrup” may be misleading when comparing the substance to sugar, the public’s awareness of the prevalence of sweeteners in processed food products in general is a good thing. Changing the name to “corn sugar” does not alter the fact that a vast amount of food products sold in this country contain large quantities of sugar, whatever its form. If the basic chemistry of the sweeteners is the same, then perhaps the name change could help consumers’ overall awareness of sugar in their diet – regardless of where it comes from.

Still, the controversy over high fructose corn syrup remains, whether considering the health of individuals or of the planet as a whole.

“We do what we must, and call it by the best names.”-  Ralph Waldo Emerson

Image: normalityrelief

The post High Fructose Corn Syrup to Get a ‘Corn Sugar’ Name Makeover? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Did you know that the cosmetics industry is largely self-regulated? Did you know that lead is found in two-thirds of all top-selling lipsticks? Did you know the FDA has only banned eight of the 12,000 chemicals used in cosmetics and that they don’t require all ingredients be listed on the labels? Did you know that you could learn enough infuriating facts about the cosmetics industry to the point of wanting to don a haz-mat suit every time you step into the shower?

Okay, so the last question may be my own. But a new short from documentarian Annie Leonard has the beauty world talking – and this time, it’s not about who got what lip or breast implants. Leonard is the author The Story of Stuff, where she takes a good hard look at what we’re putting into our bodies every time we use beauty products. Check out her short here.

The good news? Congress has come up with legislation that may change all this. The Campaign of Safe Cosmetic just announced that Congress has introduced the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. Reps. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc. sponsored the bill which “gives the Food and Drug Administration authority to ensure that personal care products are free of harmful ingredients. Existing law, passed in 1938, granted decision-making about ingredient safety to the cosmetics industry.” This law, among other acts, will phase out ingredients linked to cancer, birth defects and more. It will adequately fund the FDA and require full transparency of ingredients of products for users and beauty workers.

So what can you do in the meantime? As always, be vigilant about reading labels. A good rule of thumb is to look for Sodium Lauryl Sulfates (SLS), parabens, and phthalates. Check out our resources for some of the most toxic products. We have covered a ton of products here at EcoSalon, so scroll down to learn about various natural and/or organic beauty products.

Baby Shampoo
Eye shadow
Deodorant
Shampoo
Conditioner
Makeup Labels
Blush
Kids Nail Polish
Facial Scrubs
Mascara
Moisturizer

Image: idhren

The post Annie Leonard’s The Story of Cosmetics: Essential News About Your Beauty Products appeared first on EcoSalon.