Aluminum salts in deodorants caused CANCER, and Switzerland may be the first nation in the world to BAN them

 Switzerland is slated to become the first country to ban deodorants that contain aluminum salts. This, following results of a 2016 study indicating that the toxic chemicals may play a role in breast cancer onset. The country’s National Councilvoted 126 to 58 in favor of approving a bill instructing the Federal Council to consider banning aluminum salts from being used in antiperspirant. The measure also urges that Federal Council to commission research that would prove a causal relationship between deodorant use and increased breast cancer risk.

Aluminum salts are the active ingredients used in the manufacturing of many antiperspirant and deodorant products in the market, which help prevent excessive sweating and stave off body odor. The toxic chemical works by dissolving in sweat and blocking the sweat gland. In turn, the chemical lessens the amount of moisture present in the skin. However, such an effect was also found to promote a build up in breast tissue. Most antiperspirant and deodorant products contain this cancer-causing chemical, researchers noted.

Breast cancer remains to be the most prevalent type of cancer among women worldwide, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported. According to WHO’s 2013 Global Health Estimates, more than 508,000 women all over the world died of breast cancer in 2011 alone. The organization also noted that while breast cancer was previously thought to be more prevalent in developed countries, nearly half of breast cancer cases and 58 percent of deaths occurred in less developed nations.

Details of the deodorant-breast cancer study

A study published in the International Journal of Cancer in September last year served as a primary catalyst for Switzerland’s latest move to ban the use of aluminum salts in deodorant production. As part of the study, a team of researchers from the University of Geneva examined the effects of the toxic chemicals on mice. The research team found that prolonged exposure to the hazardous chemical was associated with tumor growth in the animals’ breast tissue. This could also trigger cancer to metastasize to other parts of the body, the research team cautioned. A researcher warned that people, especially women, should avoid using products that contained aluminum salts. Likewise, he urged that the chemical be prohibited in the same manner as asbestos. (Related: Learn more about the different toxic chemicals found in personal care products at Toxins.news)

“I think we should avoid all deodorants containing aluminium salt. And it’s very difficult to be sure that the so-called ‘without aluminium’ brands really are without…Asbestos is cheap, has very attractive industrial potential, and it took 50 years to ban it. We hope it doesn’t take so long to ban aluminium salts,” study co-author André-Pascal Sappino was quoted in saying in TheLocal.ch.

However, an outside expert refuted the study’s claim, and pointed out a significant pitfall of the research: It being conducted in animal models. The expert also noted that the findings should not affect the use of deodorants and antiperspirants among women.

“This study looks specifically at mouse cells grown in the lab and in mice and we need to put its findings in the context of previous research looking at human breast cancer. Studies investigating antiperspirant or deodorant use in women have consistently shown no good evidence of a link to breast cancer. With the current evidence, there is no reason for women to be concerned about using them on account of their breast cancer risk. There are, however, established ways that all women can help reduce their risk of the disease, including cutting down on alcohol intake, maintaining a healthy weight and getting regular exercise,” Breast Cancer Now chief executive Baroness Delyth Morgan said in HuffingtonPost.co.uk.

Sources include:

DailyMail.co.uk

HippocraticPost.com

WHO.int

TheLocal.ch

HuffingtonPost.co.uk

Organic certifier warns: Many beauty products in the UK that are labeled “organic” are misleading

If it’s labeled “organic” then you might want to panic. As explained by the UK-based organic certification agency Soil Association, thousands of beauty products with the “organic” label are anything but. A recent market report released by the organization has revealed that a number of products bearing tag aren’t actually certified and often contain banned ingredients.

“There are hundreds or even thousands of products for sale on UK high streets which make organic claims but contain ingredients which would not be permitted in a certified organic product,” the organization explained in their report. “The confusing terms on the labels we encountered suggest that it is often very difficult for consumers to know they are making the right choice when doing their shopping.”

According to TheGuardian.com, the organic health and beauty products industry has witnessed a steady rise in popularity in the UK. The Soil Association warned that the industry is focused more on marketing its products as “green” rather than directing its resources into formulating toxin-free, environmentally products. Beauty products are not required to adhere to the strict regulations established by the European Union (EU), unlike organic foods. This lack of control allows any company to classify any product and brand as “organic” or “natural” even they contain no organic nor natural ingredients.

“This is the tip of the iceberg,” says Peter Melchett, Policy Director of the Soil Association. “The labels on products we encountered were littered with confusing terms. Our consumer research shows that it is very difficult for consumers to know they are making the right choice when doing their shopping.”

The Soil Association collaborated with Emeritus Professor Vyvyan Howard of the Centre for Molecular Bioscience at Ulster University to come up with the “Terrible Ten” list. On the list are ingredients that consumers need to watch out for, and which shouldn’t be used in a product that’s been certified organic. The Terrible Ten ingredients are:

• Ethyl hexylsalicylate (Octisalate)
• Homosalate
• Imidazolidinyl urea
• Octinoxate
• Octocrylene
• PEGs: PEG-7; PEG-40; PEG-200; PEG-12
• Polyquaternium 7
• Polysorbate 20
• Red 17 artificial colour 26100
• Retinyl palmitate

Among the problems caused by these ingredients are hormone disruption, allergies, and even harm to unborn babies. Of their findings, Howard has said: “I was shocked to find ingredients which could contain human carcinogens in products with labels which could misleadingly suggest that they might be organic. Genuine organic products are independently certified and I would encourage consumers to choose those to be sure they are keeping away from ingredients included in the Terrible Ten.” (Related: Thousands of ‘organic’ beauty products found to contain banned chemicals)

The HuffingtonPost.co.uk reported that the Soil Association has found “13 products from eight different brands that have labels which could suggest to consumers that they are wholly or mainly organic, yet are not independently certified.” In response, the Soil Association created the Campaign for Clarity, a movement dedicated to clean up “greenwashing” (disinformation spread by an organization to make themselves look environmentally responsible) that has become common in the beauty industry. One of the recommendations made by campaigners is to look for the logos of independent organic certification agencies, such as COSMOS, NaTrue, and NSF-ANSI.

The Soil Association hopes to garner enough signatures for their petition to encourage transparency from the manufacturers. “We’re hoping that lots of consumers will sign our petition calling on the brands in the league table to Come Clean About Beauty and that the brands will respond by either getting their products certified or stopping making organic and natural claims on the labels,” Jenny Collins, Standards Project Manager of the Soil Association, explains.

You can learn more about what does and doesn’t count as “organic” by visiting Organics.news.

Sources include:

TheGuardian.com

SoilAssociation.org

HuffingtonPost.co.uk

Mindfulness meditation found to be less effective for men, according to researchers

Think the secret to inner peace lies in meditation? If you’re a man, think again. In a new study by researchers from Brown University, the team found that practicing mindfulness meditation does wonders for women while doing the opposite for men, reported the DailyMail.co.uk. Mindfulness meditation, wrote the researchers, is the practice of “intentionally and non-judgmentally directing one’s attention to the present moment, often by focusing on a particular salient sensation, such as one’s breath.”

Although touted as a way to treat depression and anxiety, the researchers noted that there have been no studies to investigate the effects of mindfulness meditation across genders. The researchers used this as the springboard for their study, which involved 77 Brown University undergraduates who took a 12-week course that focused on mindfulness training. The components of the course included papers, tests, presentations, weekly seminars, and three hour-long meditation sessions. The meditation sessions incorporated “approximately 30 min of a specific contemplative practice from Buddhist or Daoist traditions.”

During the study, each student engaged in an average of over 41 hours of meditation during class and outside of it. The students were also asked to fill out questionnaires at the beginning and at the end of the class.

By the end of the study, researchers were presented with surprising results. “Both women and men improved significantly in most measures,” the researchers wrote. The practical results were more varied, however. Researchers found a discrepancy between the groups: “Our results suggest that women benefited more from school-based mindfulness training than men.” (Related: Meditation linked to happiness and positive behavior).

The difference lay in how men and women usually react to negative emotions and situations. In the study, published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology, the team indicated that women tend to “ruminate” and immerse themselves in “self-critical behavior”, which made the practice of mindful meditation better for the 36 female students. By contrast, men “’externalize’ by distracting themselves or engaging the environment”, meaning that mindful meditation was more stressful an experience for the 41 male students.

Doctor Willoughby B. Britton, one of the co-authors, went on to declare that mindfulness meditation was fitting for those who were already willing to confront or expose themselves to difficult or negative feelings. For those who were suddenly forced to expose themselves to those feelings, mindfulness meditation was “counterproductive”. The researchers concluded their study by stating, “Women benefit more by demonstrating decreased negative affect and improved mindfulness and self-compassion skills. Conversely, men did not show improvements in negative affect, nor did improvements in mindfulness and self-compassion translate to improved affect as it did in women.”

In a statement to the DailyMail.co.uk, Britton said: “While facing one’s difficulties and feeling one’s emotions may seem to be universally beneficial, it does not take into account that there may be different cultural expectations for men and women around emotionality.”

If further research can support their hypothesis, then the findings of this study may become vital to designers of mindfulness courses, as well as mindfulness researchers.

So if mindfulness meditation won’t work on men, what can? In their study, the researchers suggested more “active methods of mindfulness training”, citing yoga or Tai Chi as possible options since these were thought of as more suitable to the coping strategies typically used by men. The team also noted that previous research has shown the efficacy of physical activity on the stress reduction of men and women with greater masculinity ratings.

Learn more about mental health issues and news by visiting Psychiatry.news.

Sources include:

Journals.FrontiersIn.org
DailyMail.co.uk
PSMag.com