Astrakan Images / Cultura / Getty Images
Under pressure from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and other environmental and public health groups, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has banned seven substances used in artificial flavors that have been linked to cancer in animals.
<p>
"Chemicals that could cause cancer should never have been allowed in our food in the first place, especially not hiding behind the confusing label of 'artificial flavors,'" said Melanie Benesh, EWG's legislative attorney. "The FDA finally did the right thing by taking this important step to better protect consumers."
</p><p>
These food additives are most commonly used to enhance the flavor of baked goods, ice cream, candy, chewing gum and beverages. The newly banned flavors are benzophenone, ethyl acrylate, eugenyl methyl ether, myrcene, pulegone, pyridine and styrene.
</p><p>
"Consumers will never know which foods were made with these chemicals, since manufacturers have been allowed to hide these ingredients behind the vague term 'flavor,'" said Dawn Undurraga, EWG's nutritionist. "This is a positive step forward, but the FDA should empower consumers to make their own fully informed decisions by requiring full ingredient disclosure."
</p><p>
The ban on styrene was also supported by a petition from the food industry. But the FDA acted on the other six after public interest groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit petitioning the FDA to make a final decision whether to prohibit the seven cancer-causing artificial chemicals from use in food.
</p><p>
Earthjustice represented the petitioners, including Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, the Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Environmental Defense Fund, the Environmental Working Group, Natural Resources Defense Council, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="75714" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8A0ZCQ1576662851"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1050008173053177857" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">"We think this is a win for consumers. Our petition laid out the science linking these flavoring chemicals to cance… https://t.co/ijya5LiJPi</div> — NRDC 🌎 (@NRDC 🌎)<a href="https://twitter.com/NRDC/statuses/1050008173053177857">1539176431.0</a></blockquote></div>
Manufacturers that use these food additives will have two years to comply with the new rules.<br>
<p></p><p>
To learn more about the chemicals used in processed foods, please visit EWG's <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/ewg-s-dirty-dozen-guide-food-additives" target="_blank">Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Additives</a>. Consumers looking for healthier options can also visit EWG's <a href="https://www.ewg.org/foodscores#.W7zC-i2ZNTY" target="_blank">Food Scores</a> database or download EWG's <a href="https://www.ewg.org/apps/" target="_blank">Healthy Living App,</a> which provides ratings for more than 120,000 food and personal care products.
</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
By Anna Reade
A new report by the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP) details findings from product testing they performed on beauty, personal care and cleaning products, with an emphasis on products often marketed to vulnerable populations, such as children and women of color. The report focuses on the identification of chemicals used for fragrance in these products because, currently, chemicals used for fragrance do not have to be disclosed. The simple term "fragrance" on your shampoo or lotion label could represent several (if not many unknown, and potentially harmful, chemicals.
<p>Although BCPP was only able to test a small fraction of the market (32 products), BCPP's main findings raise concern and confirm the need for transparency of ingredients in products used in our homes. Almost 100 of the over 300 fragrance chemicals identified were linked to adverse health effects. Of the products tested by BCPP, the product that contained the most fragrance chemicals linked to health concerns was Just for Me Shampoo, a shampoo aimed at children of color, with popular perfumes following closely behind.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODY2ODU3NS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMjg5MTMxN30.Qb9JCLFrz7i7DIqXjebPMp9xQh6xtp9dyxcZJHw_dyc/img.png?width=980" id="c8d89" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1520dc8208f92fd35c40e8f103df38fc" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p><p><br></p><p>And it's not just fragrance ingredients. BCPP found a total of 24 chemicals of concern, 14 of which were fragrance chemicals, in Just for Me Shampoo—including four carcinogens, 19 hormone disruptors, six developmental toxicants and three chemicals that can trigger, or worsen, respiratory problems, like asthma.</p><p>Due to a loophole, fragrance ingredients are not required to be disclosed in personal care products or cleaning products; and until recently, there were no requirements for disclosure of ingredients in cosmetics used in professional setting or in cleaning products in general. This year California became the first state in the U.S. to <a href="https://www.womensvoices.org/2018/09/17/ca-governor-signs-historic-law-requiring-ingredient-disclosure-in-professional-salon-products/" target="_blank">extend retail cosmetic ingredient disclosure</a> requirements to products used by salon workers. And last year, with the passage of the NRDC co-sponsored <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/avinash-kar/transparency-fundamental-protection-against-toxic-chemicals" target="_blank">Cleaning Products Right to Know Act of 2017</a> n California, manufacturers of cleaning products will have to disclose the majority of the ingredients in their products on labels and online. The Act's disclosure requirements include fragrance ingredients, the first and only product category with fragrance disclosure requirements.</p><p>The BCPP report confirms the importance of California's ground-breaking legislation, and the need for expanded transparency and ingredient disclosure for all consumer product categories. The "right-to-know" what is in the products we use and what is being released into our environment is essential to protecting public health and the environment. </p><p>The lack of fragrance ingredient disclosure, in combination with a largely unregulated fragrance industry, leaves consumers, health agencies and advocates in the dark about what chemicals people are being exposed to. The research and testing that has been done suggests that many of the chemicals used in fragrance are associated with health hazards such as reproductive and developmental harm, hormone disruption, cancer, neurotoxicity, and respiratory and skin irritation and sensitization.</p><h4>BCPP Product Testing Report</h4><p>To shed some light on the "fragrance" black box, BCPP tested 25 personal care and 7 cleaning products and compared chemicals identified to the International Fragrance Association <a href="http://www.ifraorg.org/en/ingredients" target="_blank">ingredient transparency list</a>. BCPP then used the <a href="https://commons.healthymaterials.net/" target="_blank">Chemical Hazards Data Commons</a> developed by the Healthy Building Network to determine which identified chemicals were linked to adverse effects such as cancer, asthma, reproductive harm, hormone disruption and aquatic toxicity.</p><p>BCPP concluded that more than a quarter of the 338 fragrance ingredients they identified were linked to adverse health effects; and of the total chemicals linked to adverse health effects in each product, a high percentage of them were fragrance chemicals. And it's not just fragrance ingredients; cosmetics and cleaning products also contain other chemicals that can be really harmful as well. </p><p>Examples of chemicals of concern found in tested products include: </p><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>Toluene – used as a solvent in industry and in consumer products such as paint thinners and nail polish; linked to endocrine disruption, reproductive and developmental harm, neurotoxicity, and skin irritation</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>Parabens – antimicrobials used in food, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics; associated with hormone disruption, cancer, and reproductive harm</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>Phthalates – used to in fragrances and to soften plastics; associated with neurotoxicity, reproductive harm, hormone disruption and obesity</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Benzophenones – prevent damage from light to scents and colors in fragrances and personal care products; linked to cancer and hormone disruption</li></ul><p>While this report does not quantify the concentration of each chemical, the presence of unlabeled chemicals linked to such a broad array of health effects should raise concerns for consumers and the public health community, especially given how often an average person is exposed to personal care and cleaning products in their daily lives. For example, a NGO-led <a href="http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/2004/06/15/exposures-add-up-survey-results/" target="_blank">survey</a> found that the average woman uses 12 personal care products a day.</p><h4>The Most Vulnerable</h4><p>Some populations are more sensitive and/or vulnerable to the effects of toxic chemicals that are often found in personal care and cleaning products. Children and adolescents are still developing and are especially vulnerable to the effects of hormone disruptors and developmental toxicants. Additionally, research suggests that when pregnant women are exposed to environmental toxicants, even at extremely low levels, fetal development can be disrupted. Advertising that promotes mainstream beauty norms <a href="https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(17)30862-1/fulltext" target="_blank">may influence and increase</a> the use by women of color of products such as skin lighteners and hair straighteners, many of which contain chemicals of concern. Finally, workers such as custodians, cleaners and cosmetologist are disproportionally exposed to these products and any toxic ingredients they contain. </p><p>While BCPP's testing represents a limited sample, it is worth noting that many of the products BCPP tested are often marketed to and used by vulnerable populations.</p><h4>Conclusion</h4><p>This report illustrates the need for full ingredient disclosure in all consumer products, because:</p><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>Consumers need this information to make safer, more informed purchases for themselves and their families;</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>Workers need this information take the necessary steps to protect themselves from unsafe chemical exposures in the workplace;</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>Regulators need this information to effectively regulate consumer products to better protect public health and the environment; and</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Companies could also benefit from lower reputational risk.</li></ul>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Toxic Toys? After Nine Years, a Ban on Harmful Chemicals Becomes Official
19 October 2017
Health + Wellness
Mladen Kostic / iStock
Phthalates are a particularly harmful type of chemical, used, among a range of other ways, to soften plastic in children's toys and products like pacifiers and teething rings. In response to mounting concern about the serious health impacts of phthalates—most notably, interference with hormone production and reproductive development in young children—Congress voted overwhelmingly in 2008 to outlaw the use of a few phthalates in these products and ordered the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to assess the use of other types of the chemical in these products. After much delay, the CPSC voted 3–2 Wednesday to ban five additional types of phthalates in kids' toys and childcare products.
<p style="">"This is a big victory for children's health," <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/avinash-kar" target="_blank">Avinash Kar</a>, a senior attorney in the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council's</a> (NRDC) Health and Environment program, said about the decision. "These chemicals in children's toys and childcare articles are a known health risk. In banning them, CPSC is following the advice of its scientific experts and doing precisely what Congress directed the agency to do in a 2008 law it passed overwhelmingly."</p><p style="">The CPSC proposed a ban on the five additional types of phthalates in late 2014 but blew past its January 2015 deadline to finalize the rule. Much of the delay can be attributed to the efforts of phthalate-manufacturing chemical companies like ExxonMobil to sway the agency to reverse its decision. In December 2016, NRDC, along with <a href="https://www.bcpp.org/" target="_blank">Breast Cancer Prevention Partners</a> and <a href="http://ej4all.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Justice Health Alliance</a>, <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/avinash-kar/nrdc-and-partners-force-action-last-toxics-toys" target="_blank">sued to force the agency</a> to make a final decision. The case ended up being settled, and the CPSC agreed to take a final vote on the phthalates rule by Wednesday.</p><p style="">While much work is still needed to address phthalate exposure in this and other contexts, Kar views this as a major step forward. "Today's [Wednesday] decision takes the protections that we helped enforce back in 2009 further. This vote means that children will be exposed to fewer dangerous chemicals in the products they come into contact with every day. And that is a good thing."</p>
Read More
Show Less