Talc. Or was that Asbestos?

I was doing a crossword puzzle the other day and I uncovered the answer to the following clue:

“Post bath soother” (4 letters)

It didn’t come to me at first but after filling in a few other clues I realized that the word it was looking for was “TALC”.

The creator of this crossword puzzle, I’m guessing, was pretty old-school. Talc has been on the radar list of bad ingredients for some years now. Many baby powders are touted as “talc-free”, replacing the ingredient with safer alternatives – like arrowroot powder, kaolin clay and/or corn starch. But it's still super common in powdered makeup. And if you've ever used talcum powder for rock climbing or gymnastics... well just guess where it got its name.

In case you were among the many that didn’t know that (a) talc was a potentially toxic ingredient, or (b) why talc is now considered a potential toxin, let’s recap. First of all, talc is absolutely natural. It is a mineral, found among a number of environments and well known to geologists (such as myself), general rockhounds, and pretty much anyone who has taken an introductory course on geology. And if you’re among any of those groups of population you may recall that talc is the standard of “1” on Moh’s scale of hardness. That is to say, that talc is one of the softest mineral we know of. But what does all this have to do with the toxicity of talc?

You see, talc is also mineralogically similar – and often present with – asbestos (pictured). Asbestos is also a natural mineral and no doubt you’re aware of the toxicity of asbestos. In fact, not all types of asbestos, but only a few are toxic. And their toxicity is almost entirely related to inhaling the particles. There are two primary routes of exposure to toxic asbestos dust: (1) – inhaling due to poorly ventilated conditions without proper safety respiratory equipment in an asbestos mine, or (2) – inhalation from aging asbestos insulation (or ceiling tiles). It is potentially carcinogenic; many types of cancers have been linked to asbestos exposure but lung cancer and mesothelioma are among the most common. Technically, talc is not likely to be as toxic as asbestos, but rarely are the two not found together. One of the most common methods of making talc (geologically speaking) is by alteration of asbestos crystals. Not too surprisingly, most commercially used talc is contaminated with asbestos. Even still, talc does have its risks as well. It's just more like "asbestos lite"

More proof that sometimes we need to read between the lines of ingredients.

Sunscreens - Safe or Toxic?

This past weekend, Environmental Working Group posted an interesting article on their Facebook Page. You can find the article here.

Coincidentally, one week ago we announced the arrival of one of the most demanded items yet: a safe sunscreen. I'd like to share a story before I get back on point. It took us a pretty long time to find a sunscreen but we did - from a land that was known for its sun and beaches: California. And we ordered it. And then we never heard anything back from the manufacturer. A few days passed, some phone calls went unanswered but nothing happened. It was disappointing, to say the least. We scoured the world (via internet given our limitations) and there was only one sunscreen in the world that we were comfortable stocking but apparently we couldn't have it. Could anyone? WTF? Then a week or two after that, by sheer accident (I don't even remember how, really) there was another one! Just as safe, same sizes, except it cost less and only came from New Hampshire! That one of course is the one that happily worked out and came in, better late than never - Loving Naturals Sunscreen.

But regarding this article. Don't get deluded by SPF. Do you need sun protection? Absolutely. The sun will burn you and you really should avoid getting burned when possible. But do you need a sunscreen with an SPF 60? No. In fact that's probably causing more harm than good. Three big reasons why that is (in my favourite order):

1. High-SPF sunscreens require using more toxic chemical SPF blockers in higher proportions, and are therefore more toxic than lower-SPF sunscreens.

2. To get the full effect of a sunscreen you need to use to 1 full ounce (more than a third of the small Loving Naturals)

3. They present a false sense of security, allowing us to think it's okay to be in the sun longer and expose ourselves to the rays more.

I can't help but love the irony of the first point, while also being a bit disturbed by that. But that point is no laughing matter. That is effectively the reason why it took us at pur alternatives so long to commit to a sunscreen line (let alone two!)

When it comes to sunscreens, there are effectively 3 different protectors that can give us the SPF protection. Possibly the most popular one in use is Titanium Dioxide. Although completely natural (it is a mineral) there have been numerous concerns on its safety. More on that in a moment. We have allowed Zinc Oxide in any sunscreen we carry; although it must be in non-nanoparticle form. Again, more on that in a moment though. The worst ones of course - and probably the most common (in both the natural and toxic product lines) are the fully synthetic chemicals - Octinoxate (AKA, octyl-methoxycinnamate) is the most common, but Oxybenzone is another that pops up frequently enough. They just sound awful, don't they? Coppertone, Hawaiian Tropic, Kiss My Face, Olay, Neutrogena, Alba all use these ones (one, or the other, or combinations of the both). They are also both related, and there are innumerable other varieties out there but the risks are high. Why would they be used then? Basically because you can use very small amounts of them (compared to the oxides) for a lot of SPF. These are where you get the SPF 50's and 70's and SPF 100's. Nevertheless don't be fooled into thinking they're safe. Even small amounts have been known to cause severe endocrine disruption, organ failure, neurotoxicity, are bioaccumulative, and are disruptive to ecosystems.

But back to the oxides. It's a bit of a gray area but you do need to get the SPF protection somewhere. Titanium dioxide has had weak links to carcinogenicity, but perhaps the most troubling is a lot of evidence of it causing cellular mutation. I'm still trying to sort through the mud on whether this is titanium dioxide in general or specifically nanoparticle titanium dioxide (i.e., particle size less than 100 microns). Zinc however, is without doubt the most inert of them all. There are minor concerns around it, which is not completely unreasonable but most evidence of health concerns I've seen all stem from high doses of it. To get a proper SPF 30 though in a sunscreen you do need to use more zinc than you would of any other SPF-providing ingredient but because zinc is near paste-like, you also get the water barrier. But nanoparticles we're just not comfortable with. It's a very new science and once you're dealing with particles that small there is the potential of penetrating at the cellular level. What little research that has been done seems to claim that the particles do not penetrate "healthy skin" (I can only assume related to other skin barriers, our natural oils, or perhaps some ionic (charge balancing for the non-science folk) reaction). But limiting exposure to healthy skin puts too fine a condition on ideal circumstance (see my borax post below)

Zinc is also old school. Remember the white stuff that your Mom would put on your nose (better known as a sun block)? Mine didn't much because more advanced sunscreens were getting popular - that's actually even a bit before my time - but that's zinc. Granted the safe sunscreens we've found blend well enough (although technically they too are sunblocks) but as far as we can tell, it's just one more indication that if we want to use safe products, stick to old ingredients. We can bring them into the modern age, sure, but stick to what we've known for a long time to be safe.

Dirty Laundry - Part 1: Phosphates Summarized

Introductions and memories are great and all. But that’s not really why I set this up. Instead I figured it would be more useful to share some of the points that we’ve picked up along the way, most of which are rooted to our ingredient commitment.

Oh sure, there’s lots of stuff that is bothering me right now and I could absolutely talk about that. But maybe let’s go into something a bit more useful: Laundry Detergents. They’re a fishy bunch. Most commercial brands don’t list at all what is contained while many “natural” brands list vague terms at best (see “coconut derived surfactant”). While also using a variety of toxic cleaners, emulsifiers, stabilizers, and fragrances, a big concern in laundry detergents has long been phosphates. These are effectively “laundry boosters”. They increase the lifting power of detergents and help keep dirt from resettling back into the clothes. They are also water softeners. Their notoriety comes back to how they mess with ecosystems. I could talk more about the detergents themselves but right now I’m drawn to the phosphates. These synthetic phosphates break down in the water well enough, and believe it or not the stuff it breaks down into is effectively natural nutrients that certain aquatic biota (i.e., algae), absolutely LOVE.

But therein lies the problem: by adding all these extra phosphates into our waters, aquatic algae grow like crazy, cause dramatic decreases in oxygen levels in the water, and choke & kill the fish and invertebrates.

Here in Canada there’s a lot of water. And despite our “best efforts” at overfishing, deforestation, and more, we have a lot of fish. Now, since they’ve developed such a bad name, phosphates are thankfully not quite as abundant as they were 20 years ago. During the mid 1990’s and early part of the 21st century, commercial soap makers started cutting back on the amount of phosphates used and/or swapping them out with other ingredients. Unfortunately, many of the “new formulations” were far more toxic. Even still, this was another case of the industry regulating itself. Although Europe, Japan, and even a large part of the US starting imposing regulations on phosphates, here in Canada we’d been dragging our feet. The provinces of Manitoba and Quebec both imposed their own limitations on phosphates and in 2008, then-Federal Environment Minister John Baird announced Canada’s proposed limitations on them (less than 0.05% by weight) in household detergents (including laundry and dishwashing). However, as is often the case, there were holes in the limitations – notably, little regulation on industrial use detergents. And talk about timing! Those regulations are set to take effect July 2010.

So apparently it’s mostly up to us (as consumers) to be vigilant in choosing the right laundry cleaners. Where do we go with that? Start by looking for the words "Phosphate free". That's a good start but by no means the end! You could also look for biodegradable laundry detergents. These days, "environmentally friendly" is a selling point so if a protect is so much as slightly better for the environment the manufacturer will stamp it all over the product. My advice though: Don't buy laundry detergent. Buy laundry soaps. Yes, there is a difference. Detergents replaced soaps years ago because they weren't as limited with hard water. But they're far more harsh. Laundry soaps on the other hand, be they solid or liquid, break down readily in the environment and don't break down your clothes as quickly as detergents. You may need the help of a spot remover with a bit of elbow grease, but the fish will thank you.

The Beginning?

It’s a question that bothers us all when we start blogging... Where DO we start? Personally, my “blogs” have usually been sorry excuses of such and it’s been easy to just ignore them altogether. But this will be different. That is my promise to you.

It’s noteworthy that this blog is closely linked to the business I share, pūr alternatives. And it would probably be just as well to start with why I got involved in the company at all. Depending on my mood when I’m asked the answer may vary but truth be told they’re all true. I will say that it started as Stephanie’s idea. She was getting increasingly aware of toxins in personal care products and so we started trying to make the responsible choices as consumers ourselves we’d go through ingredient labels of everything we found at some of local stores. But we were quickly finding that even the “natural products” weren’t much better than the drug store crap. This generally led to her expressing her disgust over the state of the industry’s regulation. Quietly, I thought to myself “Okay, so do something about it...” After a few of these “discussions” we both appeared to have the same light bulb moment: we should open a store where we’ve already taken the guesswork out of these ingredient lists. Source all the good stuff and put it all in one place. And so pūr alternatives was born.

That’s all well and good but that didn’t really answer why I got involved. Potentially it could have been just Stephanie’s business and I could have only offered a hand where needed. After all, I had (still have?) a promising career as a skilled geologist. Why would I give that up? Well, the shortest answer at the time was that I didn’t have much choice in the matter. Like a lot of others in any number of fields, the work just didn’t exist. We all found ourselves unemployed and at the time nobody really knew when it would bounce back. So it was basically either do something else or collect unemployment. But despite the possibility of some much-needed downtime the latter just wasn’t my style. And there was something mysterious and alluring about being behind a business. Plus, pūr alternatives just seemed like the right thing to do. So many parts of it just felt right and this was one of those moments when I just had to go with my gut (coincidentally, that decision has probably been responsible for numerous ulcers as well, but that stuff’s for a different story). When we thought about it, we knew that we would be making a difference with pūr alternatives – because a big list of boycotted ingredients is basically a gateway. After all, many people ask us why we would boycott those ingredients – which in turn leads to explaining what pūr alternatives stands for.

I’ve digressed a bit and I confess I didn’t want to make this blog entry this big. My first impression makes me appear long winded! But really, I edited this post numerous times and can only slash out so much. Regarding pūr alternatives’s history as a whole I’ve left out a lot. Maybe we’ll go down that memory lane trip another day. Stay tuned world. There may be more memories to share, maybe some fun tidbits I’ve picked up, maybe random thoughts. I’m a fan of mixing things up. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? (and by “tomorrow”, I may mean “tomorrow” or I may mean “next week”, or ... )