EFFECTIVENESS - WHAT WORKS BEST?

Dear Friends,

TIP is now approaching six years old, and I am in the process of evaluating our progress and thinking about our future. We are still a small organization, and although we have accomplished, I believe, a great deal for our size, our resources are limited. So, it’s very important to choose actions that will be most productive in advancing our cause. I’ve become aware that activities we sponsor alone take an inordinately large amount of time and effort. Also, it is hard to bring people out to hear about toxic chemicals! We only succeed when we have been able to join with others, such as the Erin Boles (MBCC) talk on Environmental Connections to Breast Cancer (at URI, in cooperation with the URI Women’s Center & Dept. and RI Breast Cancer Coalition). Or, when we provide expert training for professionals, as with our organic land care workshops. Even then, much preparation and planning is needed.

My observation is that the most effective thing we do is to share information with many members of the public at our TIP booth and through working with other community organizations, and to do likewise with school and health professionals. So, for 2009, I am planning to focus on how to do the best outreach to these groups. It seems that there are two kinds of materials needed. For parents and public, the most useful seems to be short, simple suggestions on what products and chemicals to avoid and on healthier options to choose. Those in the scientific, health, educational and academic spheres require, I believe, more detailed and extensive information - and that backed by respected and well-conducted research.

How to address both of these?

For the Public: Continue writing my Ounce of Prevention column for Families Today magazine. Prepare short, practical Less Toxic Living guide brochures on various topics of interest, such as Healthy Holidays & Gift-Giving, Kids & Toxics, Healthy Households and Personal Care. If possible, find a way to give these out for free, if not, at a very minimal cost. Network with other organizations concerned for children, health, safe schools and the environment, offer materials at their events, speak to groups if invited.

For School & Health Professionals: Organize the large number of scholarly articles we already have and continue collecting them, then post them on our website. E-Mail links to this information to our database.

For All: Network, network, network! Offer to research any questions people may have and provide answers, suggestions, options, solutions, based on the best currently available information. Pass along options for actions to take in support of a healthy, less toxic world.

CURRENT ACTIONS

The RI Children’s Product Safety Act: didn’t succeed this year. Federal legislation was passed to strengthen regulations and oversight of a variety of products by the consumer product safety commission. However, it only mentions phthalates by name, not bisphenol-A. Also, federal agencies have a track record of sometimes taking many years to even begin work on mandated actions. And the research on which they rely is often tainted by industry involvement. THE BEST PROTECTION FOR OUR KIDS IS EDUCATED CONSUMERS!

YOUR HELP IS NEEDED TO HELP EDUCATE PARENTS & OTHERS ON HOW TO PROTECT KIDS IN RHODE ISLAND FROM TOXIC CHEMICALS IN THEIR TOYS & OTHER PRODUCTS!

1. GET ON THE TIP E-MAIL LIST AND RECEIVE THE LATEST INFORMATION ON SAFER PRODUCTS AND WHICH TO AVOID.

2. PASS ON THIS INFORMATION AND THAT ON THE TIP WEBSITE TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY.

3. WATCH FOR THE UPCOMING “LESS TOXIC LIVING GUIDE” SERIES OF HELPFUL BROCHURES. THE FIRST, ON HEALTHY HOLIDAY ENTERTAINING AND GIFT-GIVING, SHOULD BE AVAILABLE IN EARLY TO MID-NOVEMBER.

4. BECOME A MEMBER OF TIP, SUPPORT OUR WORK AND RECEIVE OUR INFORMATIVE QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER! www.toxicsinfo.org/subscribe.htm

It makes no sense to continue to expose children to chemicals that raise such serious questions when alternatives are readily available and in use around the world. Do you want your children or grandkids to be subjected to suspect carcinogens and hormone while waiting for 100 percent certainty about their safety? Could you look them in the eye if they developed any of the health effects about which we’ve been warned?

Contact me with any questions or to help with further action: Liberty Goodwin, Director, Toxics Information Project (TIP), P.O. Box 40572, Providence, RI 02940, E-Mail: liberty@toxicsinfo.org, Tel. 401-351-9193.

ACTION ALERT: JUST SAY "KNOW" TO GMOS

Today there is really good news, thanks to the brave action of a member of the United States House of Representatives! Dennis Kuchinich has taken Monsanto and the other Big Biotech corporations on, toe to toe. He understands our demand to have clear labeling of Franken Foods. But he can't do this alone - he needs our help in alerting Congress to the urgency and importance of performing safety testing on ALL genetically modified foods in our food supply AND labeling them clearly.

More than 80% of Americans want genetically modified foods labeled according to a recent NY Times survey. More than 80% of the food in the US is contaminated with unlabeled GMO ingredients. If you believe, as we do, that your health freedom includes the right to make choices about whether to eat clean, unadulterated food and do not want to eat FrankenFood (at least without a choice to eat something else): Take Action on the Kucinich Legislation at: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=25920

and ask your Congresspersons to become co-sponsors of Rep. Kuchinch's vitally important bills, H.R. 6635, H.R. 6636 and H.R. 6637. Read more about this concern at the following site: http://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/09/dennis-kuchinich-defending-peoples.html

This is a Health Freedom Issue of immense importance. Please, spread the word and ask your friends, neighbors, associates to join this effort to assure the safety of our food and clearly label GMOs for the first time.

Join the Natural Solutions Foundation's "Just Say No to GMO" forum at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-genetically-modified-foods/

ORGANIC BYTES #141: Health, Justice and Sustainability News Tidbits with an Edge! 8/13/2008 (From the Organic Consumers Association)

CONSUMER AND FARMER VICTORY!

MONSANTO FINALLY FORCED TO DUMP RBGH

Monsanto announced on August 6 it will "divest" or sell off its controversial genetically engineered animal drug, recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). Monsanto's divestment of rBGH is a direct result of 14 years of determined opposition by organic consumer, public interest, and family farmer groups. Since its founding, the Organic Consumers Association has campaigned against this cruel and dangerous drug, pointing out to organic and health-minded consumers that rBGH-tainted dairy products pose unacceptable dangers to humans from increased antibiotic residues and elevated levels of a potent cancer tumor promoter called IGF-1. OCA's "Millions Against Monsanto" campaign has generated over a quarter million emails and petition signatures on the topic of rBGH, helping make rBGH one of the most controversial food products in the world.

Learn more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbghlink.cfm

We'd like to thank you and all our allies for taking part in this 14-year campaign and helping to bring one of the world's largest and most powerful corporations to its knees. Now let's break Monsanto's stranglehold over seeds and take away their mandate to force-feed genetically engineered food to an unwilling public. Help us push through federal legislation to require mandatory labeling and safety-testing of GMOs (genetically modified organisms.) Contact us with any other campaign ideas you may have http://www.organicconsumers.org/aboutus.cfm#contact Learn more about the Millions Against Monsanto campaign: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm

*******************************************************************************************************************

SAFEGUADING ORGANIC STANDARDS: OCA CALLS FOR REVIEW BOARD

TO MONITOR THE USDA ORGANIC PROGRAM

Last week, Organic Bytes reported on the USDA's August 5 announcement that half of the accredited organic certifiers under investigation failed the agency's recent audits. The USDA audit report, combined with two recent food safety recalls of tainted organic ginger and beef sent shockwaves through the organic industry. After years of pressure from watchdog groups like the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), the Cornucopia Institute, and others, the USDA has finally acknowledged publicly that there are problems in its monitoring and enforcement of the National Organic Program (NOP).

In responding to the media over the USDA's audits, and recent food safety recalls by Whole Foods Markets and others of Chinese organic ginger and e-coli tainted organic beef, the OCA has emphasized that the overwhelming majority of organic farmers, producers, and certifiers are indeed "playing by the rules," but we need to stop unscrupulous certifiers and USDA bureaucrats from allowing U.S. factory farm dairy feedlots (operated by or selling to Aurora and Horizon Organic), Chinese importers, and body care companies from labeling their products as "organic" when in fact they are not. We need a professional, well-funded and independent NOP Peer Review Board, composed of respected members of the organic community, as required by law, and we need it now.

Learn more and take action: www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_13943.cfm

*******************************************************************************************************************

Senate Sends Sweeping Product-Safety Bill On to Bush

(TIP Note: He signed it! Now we need to see that it is enforced!))

By Annys Shin, Washington Post, Friday, August 1, 2008

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103007.html

Historic legislation that would remove toxic chemicals from toys and put a more powerful and better funded cop on the beat to police the safety of consumer goods is on the verge of becoming law. The measure, approved by the Senate in an 89 to 3 vote last night and now awaiting President Bush's signature, represents the most significant expansion of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) since it was created in 1973. It also marks a fundamental shift in the federal government's approach to protecting consumers from dangerous products: transforming a reactive stance to a preventive one by dealing with hazards before goods reach the marketplace, including products manufactured overseas.

Although passed too late to affect toys that will be sold this holiday season, the measure's impact will be felt for years to come, supporters said. The legislation's impact on consumers "is vast and can't be underestimated," said Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America. Lead, the toxic metal that last year turned up in cherished playthings such as Elmo and Dora the Explorer, effectively would be banned from toys and children's products. So will some phthalates, a class of chemicals in soft plastic used in teethers, pacifiers and other items that infants and toddlers put in their mouths. The phthalate most commonly used in children's products, diisononyl phthalate (DINP) will be banned for two years, pending a study.

Toymakers would be required to have independent labs test products before they are sold -- a practice many consumers assumed was already happening until last year's wave of toy recalls. And voluntary safety standards would become mandatory, including a requirement that powerful rare earth magnets in toys not fall out or come loose. From 2003 to 2006, one child died and 19 others required surgery after swallowing magnets. Consumers could eventually see labels certifying toys have been tested before being sold. When they buy a toy online or through a catalog, they would be able to see the same warning label that appears on packaging to warn parents of small parts or other potential hazards. Consumers would also be able to look up complaints or accident reports, involving not only toys but lighters, electric saws, cribs and other goods in an online database.

To ensure that manufacturers comply with all these new requirements, the CPSC will receive a large boost in resources and authority. The agency budget will nearly double to $136 million, from $80 million for this fiscal year. It has already begun hiring more inspectors for the nation's largest ports. The CPSC will have the assistance of state attorneys general who will have the authority to help enforce federal product safety laws. They will be able to take manufacturers to court to keep dangerous products off the market. "What you'll see is better systems put in place to check for dangerous products," said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), the measure's chief backer in the Senate and a former state attorney general. Companies that fail to report hazards or violate product safety laws could face as much as $15 million in penalties. Previously, that amount was capped at $1.8 million.

The Senate vote followed months of debate among lawmakers, business groups and consumer advocates who agreed on many provisions, such as the lead ban and more funding for the CPSC. Talks became bogged down earlier this year over the proposed ban on phthalates and which parts of the measure would supersede state ones. On Monday, House and Senate negotiators finally reached agreement on the remaining sticking points, and on Wednesday the House voted 424 to 1 to approve the measure.

The toy industry is hoping the new law will deliver the No. 1 item on its wish list this year: consumer confidence. “We are going to be working hard to assure people of the safety of toys this season," said Carter Keithley, Toy Industry Association president. "This is a historic change for the industry. It adds a remarkable level of additional toy safety assurance . . . We feel it is the right thing to do."

STUDY SUGGESTS BPA MAY BE LINKED TO HEART DISEASE, DIABETES

From the September 17, 2008 Morning Minute: An International Digest

Of The Day's News For Pulmonary, Critical Care, And Sleep Professionals

The CBS Evening News (9/16, story 4, 1:50, Smith) reported that consumers "may be confused by some of the" recent news "about a chemical found in bottles and containers" called "Bisphenol A, or BPA." NBC Nightly News (9/16, story 7, 2:00, Williams) added that many "Americans lately have been checking for the numbers at the base of plastic bottles and containers because we've been told some of them may pose a health risk."

The Los Angeles Times (9/17, Maugh II) reports that "the first large-scale human study" of BPA, which is "used to make plastic baby bottles, aluminum can linings, and myriad other common products, found double the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and liver problems in people with the highest concentrations in their urine," according to a study published in the Sept. 17 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. The Times notes that "there have been growing concerns about its safety as studies in rodents have linked it to diabetes, brain damage, developmental abnormalities, precancerous changes in the prostate and breast, and a variety of other health problems." Approximately "seven billion pounds of the chemical are produced worldwide each year, and studies [conducted] by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have found that 93 percent of Americans have detectable levels in their urine."

For the study, David Melzer, M.B., Ph.D., of Peninsula Medical School in England, and colleagues, "compared the health status of 1,455 men and women with...BPA in their urine," the Washington Post (9/17, A3, Layton) adds. The investigators "divided the subjects into four statistical groupings according to their BPA levels, and found that those in the quartile with the highest concentrations were nearly three times as likely to have cardiovascular disease than those with the lowest levels, and 2.4 times as likely to have diabetes. Higher BPA levels were also associated with abnormal concentrations of three liver enzymes."

According to the Wall Street Journal (9/17, D6, Dooren), "The findings are the latest to contradict Food and Drug Administration (FDA) assertions that...BPA is safe in low levels." Notably, the authors examined "typical levels of BPA exposure in a large U.S. population," using "data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, conducted in 2003 and 2004 by" the CDC. The Journal points out that one "major concern is how much BPA certain formula fed-infants are exposed to, given that BPA is in many premixed, liquid formula containers. The chemical isn't found in powdered formula containers, FDA officials said."

The AP (9/17, Alonso-Zaldivar, Tanner), Bloomberg News (9/17, Larkin), AFP (9/17), the BBC (9/16), the Chicago Tribune (9/16, Shelton), the New York Sun (9/17, Solomont), the U.K.'s Telegraph (9/17, Devlin), HealthDay (9/16, Reinberg), MedPage Today (9/16, Gever), WebMD (9/16, Hitti), Medscape (9/16, Stiles), the Wall Street Journal's (9/16, Goldstein) Health Blog, and Canada's Globe and Mail (9/17, Mittelstaedt) also cover the story.

********************************************************************************

Just How Harmful Are Bisphenol-A Plastics?

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, AUGUST 2008, By Adam Hinterthuer:

www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=just-how-harmful-are-bisphenol-a-plastics

THE ACCIDENTAL TOXICOLOGIST: A geneticist by training, Pat Hunt discovered that Bisphenol-A (BPA), an estrogen mimic, was leaching from polycarbonate plastics, which harmed her lab mice and ruined her experiments.

BIG ISSUE: In 2004, 6.4 billion pounds of Bisphenol-A were created for compact discs, eyeglasses, baby bottles and other consumer products. Production grows 10 percent every year.

CAUSE FOR ALARM? When Hunt's first report came out, other scientists took note. Says colleague Frederick vom Saal: "In the field one thing people say is, 'Pat does not get it wrong.' "

CANARY CORNER

WHERE’S THE SCIENCE?

Why All The Complaints About Cosmetics - And What’s The Real Scoop

About This “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity” Anyway?

(Some Helpful Research from RI Canary & Health Professional Susan Hurd)

COSMETICS FACTS

· Cosmetics are widely used by Americans, more so than prescription drugs, medical devices, or biological products, and Americans routinely assume that these products are safe. However, the fragrance and chemical industries have powerful lobbies and are poorly regulated. The cosmetic industry is a $ 20 billion dollar industry, loosely regulated by the FDA. Federal law overseeing cosmetics regulation has not been updated since 1938.

· We’ve known for over ten years that fully one-third of the most common ingredients in cosmetics are toxins, but have done nothing to strengthen consumer protection. In the Federal Food and Drug and Cosmetic Act there are 126 pages devoted to regulations to drugs and devices; 55 pages to food regulations; eight pages devoted to definitions; and a mere two pages devoted to regulation of the cosmetic industry.

· The FDA has no authority to require cosmetics manufacturers to register their products, or to file safety data on the ingredients used. The FDA bears the burden of demonstrating by its own testing that a product is hazardous to consumer’s health, which is unlikely & prohibitive. Fewer than two FDA employees work full time on labeling and testing cosmetics.

· Chemicals in cosmetics can cause severe allergic or asthma reactions, central nervous system damage, potentially birth defects. A recent study by the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that more than 125 ingredients commonly used in cosmetics formulations are suspected carcinogens.

· 60% of what touches your skin is absorbed into the blood stream. This is why patch medications are effective. The olfactory system is the body’s oldest system and directly wired to the brain. The sense of smell is very primitive which helped humans survive. Neuro-toxic fragrances as used in car fresheners and other products are deadening the sense of smell and people are smelling less and needing stronger, more pungent fragrances to be smelled and detected.

· The most common chemicals found in a study done by the EPA for 31 fragrance products included: acetone, benzaldehyde (a formaldehyde derivative, as are any “aldehydes”, it is neurotoxic and carcinogenic), benzyl acetate, benzyl alcohol, camphor, ethanol... Many of these, if not worn on the human body in the context of fragrance, would be classified as neurotoxins, biohazards, or hazardous waste, with stringent requirements for proper disposal, requiring transporters to suit themselves up and the products to be put in containers marked as ”hazardous waste”.

· In the absence of federal regulations, various states have attempted to require manufacturers to properly label cosmetics, and warn of hazards, as for example, California has done with industrial products. The cosmetics industry spends 70% of its lobbying dollars fighting the efforts on the state level, and is suggesting that they’re unconstitutional.

· Other countries such as Canada, The European Union, Denmark, Sweden, and Malaysia lead the way in consumer safety in cosmetics and proper labeling of hazardous substances.

(A footnote regarding labeling: Cosmetic activist Linda Chae, remarked that the word” fragrance” can indicate the presence of up to 4,000 separate ingredients, most synthetic. (Linda, who had MCS, has since died of cancer.)

MULTIPLE CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY (MCS) FACTS (From Susan Hurd)

· 30% of the US population has chemical sensitivities to various degrees. 2% of the population is disabled with full blown MCS. It is predicted that within 10 years 60% of the US population will be affected, with disabling MCS on the increase. It is becoming an epidemic due to the increase of chemicals with which we are bombarded. Currently major hospitals and medical schools are preparing for this epidemic and are going fragrance free and more Green in their buildings.

· 72% of all asthmatics may have attacks triggered by fragrances and common cleaners used. Many people find their migraines and headaches are triggered by the same fragrances and cleaners, high VOC paints, carpeting, and other offenders that cause adverse reactions for those with MCS.

· People with MCS have a heightened sense of smell and can detect smaller traces of scent than the average person and are more quickly affected by small traces of fragrances, leaking gas, cleaners, out-gassing materials. A person with MCS may be adversely impacted by products out-gassing that don’t affect the average person. Many people with MCS can’t ride in a new car for example, and it still smells new and affects them adversely even after it is 3 plus years old! The same can happen with new carpets and other building materials. MCS persons must out-gas new products for weeks, months or years before easily using.

· The blood oxygen/brain barrier is somehow affected more easily for those with MCS, which is thought to get damaged. MBI’s and PET scans of the brain show that a person with MCS brain doesn’t function properly upon chemical exposures even to minute traces of substances causing very real neuro-cognitive adverse reactions, which may seem crazy and made up to the average person. However tests of the brain confirm what MCS sufferers claim about the reactions they experience.

· Chemical exposures can cause disabling weakness, fatigue, pain, vertigo, inflammation and can also result in temporary personality changes of moods since they affect the brain, and can cause a person to more easily get upset, cry, become confused, hysterical or irrational. This behavior can easily be dismissed as one being simply crazy, and not be recognized as physiological reactions occurring in the brain. The result is that many with MCS don’t receive the respect or support and help and accommodations they desperately need.

COMMON REACTIONS TO COMMON CHEMICALS, FOR PEOPLE WITH MCS AND OTHERS

(Other Neurological, Cognitive, Physiological Changes And Adverse Symptoms

Can Occur, Including Potential Death And Anaphylaxis Shock.)

· When a person with MCS avoids toxins they are able to function in a fairly normal way and are often rational, calm, pleasant persons. They simply need accommodations and safe housing and work places. Toxic exposures to chemicals like carpets, paints, cleaners, herbicides and pesticides can debilitate them for days, weeks, months years or indefinitely, taking a very long time recover from an exposure.

PESTICIDE IN SOAP, TOOTHPASTE AND BREAST MILK

IS IT KID-SAFE?

EWG Research: www.ewg.org/reports/triclosan

Summary & Recommendations

By Rebecca Sutton, PhD, EWG Scientist; Olga Naidenko, PhD, EWG Scientist; Natalia Chwialkowski, EWG Intern; Jane Houlihan, Vice President for Research, July 2008

With no assessment of health risks to infants, federal regulators have approved a hormone-disrupting pesticide, triclosan, for use in 140 different types of consumer products including liquid hand soap, toothpaste, undergarments and children's toys. This exposure has been allowed despite the fact that the chemical ends up in mothers' breast milk and poses potential toxicity to fetal and childhood development. In addition to these risks, Environmental Working Group (EWG) finds no evidence that triclosan's widespread use in liquid hand soap and other products gives consumers the germ-killing benefits they are promised. The American Medical Association, a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee, and dozens of academic researchers have determined that antimicrobial soap does not work any better than plain soap and water at preventing the spread of infections or reducing bacteria on the skin.

As required by law, the Environmental Protection Agency is now reviewing health and safety data for triclosan. This is a critical process that could lead to the stringent health and environmental protections needed to reduce exposure to this toxic antimicrobial agent. However, EPA's draft risk assessment of triclosan gives cause for concern: Plagued with data gaps and inconsistencies, the assessment was crafted to support the status quo. EPA has approved triclosan for use in 20 pesticide formulations applied to consumer products from credit cards and countertops to baby bibs and blankets. In a callous and unjustified abuse of federal pesticide law, EPA failed to consider the safety of babies' and children's exposure to triclosan in breast milk, mattresses, sleepers, blankets, bibs, toys, house dust, diaper cream, and other potential sources when approving these uses.

Triclosan persists in the environment, breaks down into substances highly toxic to wildlife, pollutes the human body, and poses health risks that are barely studied and poorly understood. Because triclosan has been proven ineffective, and EPA has failed to assess its safety for children, we recommend:

A ban on triclosan in personal care products and any other products used at home, in line with the conclusion of the American Medical Association that common antimicrobials for which resistance has been demonstrated should "be discontinued in consumer products unless data emerge that conclusively show that such resistance has no effect on public health and that such products are effective at preventing infection."
For remaining non-consumer uses, EPA must fully assess the safety of triclosan and its breakdown products for the fetus, infant, child, and other vulnerable populations.
Consumers should avoid the use of triclosan-laden products whenever possible.
Manufacturers should curtail their use of this toxic, persistent chemical in consumer products, voluntarily in advance of mandatory restrictions.

******************************************************************************************************************************

HEALTHY TOYS.ORG

The Consumer Action Guide to Toxic Chemicals in Toys

Includes a product action guide and search feature.

HealthyToys.org is in the process of testing 2008 toys just in time for the holiday season. The new test results for 2008 toys will be released on December 3rd. As we update and grow our HealthyToys.org services, we want to make sure that you are getting the information you need in a useful and user-friendly way to keep your family healthy. Please help us continue to improve the HealthyToys.org project by taking this short survey. www.healthytoys.org/emailupdates/2008_survey.php Everyone who completes the survey will automatically be entered in a raffle to win a $50 gift certificate from one of our favorite toy stores. It will only take you five minutes (or less) to complete.

You can also help us grow by letting your friends know about HealthyToys.org. If they sign up now, they will receive the latest 2008 test results as they're released this holiday season.

HealthyToys.org was developed by the Ecology Center in collaboration with the Washington Toxics Coalition. For more information, visit www.EcoCenter.org and www.watoxics.org/

OTHER PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS:

*****************************************************************************************************************************

WILLOW TREE TOYS WELCOMES PLAN TOYS

GREEN TOYS, GREEN COMPANY

Monday, September 15, 2008 7:07 AM Thailand based Plan Creations Co., Ltd. Is an innovative green company that emphasizes socially responsible manufacturing. Plan Toys products are made with non-toxic, water based dyes containing no heavy metals. product packaging is printed with soy or water based inks, and the company integrates alternative energy sources including solar, biomass or scrap wood. It is the world's first and largest manufacturer of recycled wooden toys. Plan Toys come from rubberwood trees that are too old to produce latex. Prior to Plan Toys, these trees were cut, burned and discarded. Through Plan Toys these trees are reused to create innovative wooden toys loved by children around the world. Willow TreeToys.com is impressed with Plan Toys' commitment to the environment. Plan Toys shares their eco-friendly manufacturing processes with competing toy companies so the earth can be better cared for by all. Good for your child, good for the environment. What could be better than that? NOTE: WILLOW TREE OFFERS A VARIETY OF OTHER ECO-FRIENDLY PRODUCTS. See: www.willowtreetoys.com

SOME EXAMPLES OF PLAN TOY OFFERINGS

Roller Rattle: Our Rainbow Roller Rattle will become one of your child's favorite toys. Wooden beads produce a gentle, rhythmic beat as the roller moves about the floor. The rainbow colors are bright and inviting. Stimulates visual and auditory senses. Measures 2.1" x 2.3" x 2.3". Ages 6 months and up. Price: $9.95

Balancing Coral: Our balancing coral game is an artistic sculpture expression as well as a game! Players take turns carefully adding a piece of coral to the sculpture without making it fall. Game is for 1 to 4 players ages 3 and up. Measures 12.6" x 11" x 11". Price: $34.95

Classic Airplane: Our bright and colorful wooden airplane includes pilot. The prop spins and the wheels turn as your child takes to the skies! Works well as a stand alone toy or as an accompaniment to our Plan City Airport. Measures 3.9" x 4.5" x 2.4". Ages 3+. Price: $11.95

****************************************************************************************************************

TO DYE OR NOT TO DYE? PERMANENT HAIR DYES

posted by Annie B. Bond Oct 20, 1999 4:47 pm filed under: True Beauty, Hair Care, Health & Safety, Healthy Beauty Basics, www.care2.com/greenliving/permanent-hair-dye-dangers.html

If you use permanent hair dyes at least once a month you should know about a 2001 study from researchers at the University of Southern California that analyzed the association between hair dying activity and bladder cancer. There was no association between semi-permanent or temporary hair dyes and bladder cancer. While the study was not a clinical cancer trial, it did make a determination of those who are at highest risk from use of permanent dyes:

* Women who use permanent, hair dyes once a month for 1 year or longer have twice the risk of bladder cancer. Women who use permanent hair dyes for 15 or more years at least monthly have three times the risk of bladder cancer using permanent dyes for 15 or more years when the dyes are used monthly or more frequently.

* Those who have worked as hair dressers or barbers for 10 years or more have five times the risk of bladder cancer.

The researchers note that the exposure of concern is to a family of chemicals called Arylamines, an ingredient in many oxidative hair dyes, which is a known risk factor for bladder cancer and found to cause cancer in experimental animals.

The study was considered of enough concern in Europe that the European Commission, a body that drafts legislation for the European Union, has changed their policy to demand information from manufacturers about ingredients contained in hair dyes. The United States does not required manufacturers to file data on ingredients or report cosmetic-related injuries.

Darker hair dyes cause higher risk because of the increased number of chemicals.

SAFER WAYS TO COLOR YOUR HAIR

www.care2.com/greenliving/safer-ways-to-color-your-hair.html

posted by Annie B. Bond Oct 21, 1999 12:38 pm, filed under: True Beauty, Hair Care

www.care2.com/greenliving/safer-ways-to-color-your-hair.html

Permanent hair colors are the harshest for hair, and pose the most potential health risk (see To Dye or Not to Dye?). Whenever possible, choose temporary, semi-permanent, demi-permanent, and natural dyes.

Glossary of Dye Types

Permanent hair colors change the natural pigment found within your hair.
Demi-permanent color enriches color, adds shine, and blends gray. With its lower levels of hydrogen peroxide and artificial color molecules, this service has less structural impact on your hair than permanent color, and it gradually fades over a period of four to six weeks.
Semi-permanent color stains your hair shaft and covers gray but fades after six to eight shampoos.

Consider a natural color service or one that uses lower levels of hydrogen peroxide or developers, along with colors that have a lower dye lot.

Natural and Herbal Color Rinses

Certified organic henna and plant materials can also color your hair, but with a more gentle and natural approach, since they contain no synthetic chemicals, preservatives, or harsh oxidizing chemicals, such as ammonia. These pure vegetable products do not alter the structure or natural color of your hair and actually condition your hair while imparting color and sheen. No matter what you have heard, these products have come a long way. You can create a wide variety of plant pigment color rinses yourself. These concoctions do not create radical hair color change, but instead accentuate your hair’s natural tone and shine. If your hair is less than 15 percent gray, some plants will disguise the gray. In these cases, the product actually stains your hair, although very subtly. Cumulative usage creates longer-lasting, slightly more intense results. You can repeat the application as often as desired, depending on the color level you prefer.

If You Do Color …Remember this advice for keeping colored hair as healthy as possible:

· Protect and condition your hair and scalp regularly.

· Don’t stray far from your natural level and tone. Dramatic color changes require more upkeep, since outgrowth becomes very obvious very soon. (This also applies to texture services.)

· Follow your stylist’s recommendations for home-care regimen.

· Color-enhancing shampoos do work, helping you hold on to your desired color between salon or at-home color treatments, so do try them out.

· Be especially vigilant about protecting chemically treated and naturally colored hair from the sun.

· The less you chemically process your hair, the more healthy it remains.

More on Hair Care (53 articles available), More from Annie B. Bond (3230 articles available).

Related Stories: Safer Ways to Color Your Hair . Permanent hair colors are the harshest for hair, and To Dye or Not to Dye in a Salon? The first time I dyed my hair I used a dye product I…

Green Girl’s Horror Hair Dyes Bored with your same old dull hair color? Trying to spice…

Earth Talk at E/The Environmental Magazine, Week of 08/31/2008

AN UPDATE ON AEROSOL SPRAY HAZARDS

www.emagazine.com/view/?4361

Dear EarthTalk: What’s the deal nowadays with aerosol spray cans? I thought that the ozone-depleting chemicals used in them were eliminated back in the 1970s. Is this true? If so, what is now used as a propellant? Are aerosols still bad for the ozone layer?

-- Sheila, Abilene, TX

The aerosol spray can has a storied history in the United States. First invented in the 1920s by U.S. Department of Agriculture scientists to pressurize insect spray, American soldiers eventually used the technology to help ward off Malaria in the South Pacific during World War II. The aerosol spray cans today, while much smaller and more refined, are direct descendents of those original military grade clunkers. Use of the cans for consumer applications took off during the ensuing decades, until the mid-1970s when ozone depletion first came to the public’s attention.

As a result, consumer aerosol products made in the U.S. have not contained ozone-depleting chemicals—also known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)—since the late 1970s, first because companies voluntary eliminated them, and later because of federal regulations. Clean Air Act and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations further restricted the use of CFCs for non-consumer products. All consumer and most other aerosol products made or sold in the U.S. now use propellants—such as hydrocarbons and compressed gases like nitrous oxide—that do not deplete the ozone layer. Aerosol spray cans produced in some other countries might still utilize CFCs, but they cannot legally be sold in the U.S.

THE TIP BOOK STORE: GREAT GIFT BOOKS~ BUY THEM FROM US!

TO ORDER BOOKS OR LTL MATERIALS:

Tel. 401-351-9193, E-Mail: ltlbooks@toxicsinfo.org or go to:

www.toxicsinfo.org/LTL/Sales.htm to order online and pay by credit card.

GARDENING BOOKS

EFFECTIVENESS - WHAT WORKS BEST?

CURRENT ACTIONS

STUDY SUGGESTS BPA MAY BE LINKED TO HEART DISEASE, DIABETES

From the September 17, 2008 Morning Minute: An International Digest

Of The Day's News For Pulmonary, Critical Care, And Sleep Professionals

PESTICIDE IN SOAP, TOOTHPASTE AND BREAST MILK

IS IT KID-SAFE?

EWG Research: www.ewg.org/reports/triclosan

Summary & Recommendations

GREEN TOYS, GREEN COMPANY

TO DYE OR NOT TO DYE? PERMANENT HAIR DYES

SAFER WAYS TO COLOR YOUR HAIR

Earth Talk at E/The Environmental Magazine, Week of 08/31/2008

`FOR & ABOUT KIDS`

***********************************************************************************

WATCH FOR OUR UPCOMING “LESS TOXIC LIVING GUIDE” SERIES OF BROCHURES

FOR MORE ADVICE & LOCAL SOURCES FOR HEALTHIER PRODUCTS!

`Don’t forget to seek that canary wisdom - contact us at TIP@toxicsinfo.org or 401-351-9193 with queries.` Also, visit the TIP website: www.toxicsinfo.org

EFFECTIVENESS - WHAT WORKS BEST?

CURRENT ACTIONS

STUDY SUGGESTS BPA MAY BE LINKED TO HEART DISEASE, DIABETES

From the September 17, 2008 Morning Minute: An International Digest

Of The Day's News For Pulmonary, Critical Care, And Sleep Professionals

PESTICIDE IN SOAP, TOOTHPASTE AND BREAST MILK

IS IT KID-SAFE?

EWG Research: www.ewg.org/reports/triclosan

Summary & Recommendations

GREEN TOYS, GREEN COMPANY

TO DYE OR NOT TO DYE? PERMANENT HAIR DYES

SAFER WAYS TO COLOR YOUR HAIR

Earth Talk at E/The Environmental Magazine, Week of 08/31/2008

FOR & ABOUT KIDS

***********************************************************************************

WATCH FOR OUR UPCOMING “LESS TOXIC LIVING GUIDE” SERIES OF BROCHURES

FOR MORE ADVICE & LOCAL SOURCES FOR HEALTHIER PRODUCTS!

Don’t forget to seek that canary wisdom - contact us at TIP@toxicsinfo.org or 401-351-9193 with queries. Also, visit the TIP website: www.toxicsinfo.org

`FOR & ABOUT KIDS`

`Don’t forget to seek that canary wisdom - contact us at TIP@toxicsinfo.org or 401-351-9193 with queries.` Also, visit the TIP website: www.toxicsinfo.org