What?? A sippy cup made from PVC!

I really can't believe I missed this, but I just realized recently that the sippy cup I was giving to my toddler to drink water out of... is made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Who makes sippy cups out of PVC?! Apparently, Arrow Plastic Manufacturing Company does. How could I have been fooled? The top of the sippy cup is made from polypropylene. OK. The bottom part was clear and hard -- I just assumed it was polystyrene...but if you look closely at the plastic number logo at the bottom, it says "3" which is... PVC. Not OK. The main concern with PVC is the phthalate plasticizers that are used to make PVC more flexible, since it's a brittle polymer in its unmodified form. Phthalates, which are considered to be estrogen mimics, can leach out of PVC products. Bad. According to Arrow, there are no phthalates in the hard PVC plastic used to make the sippy cups, so they are safe. And oh yeah, the sippy cups don't contain BPA either! Of course they don't. BPA isn't used to make PVC... And apparently, lots of other additives are also generally added during PVC processing, like heat stabilizers, UV stabilizers, lubricants, processing aids, impact modifiers, etc.

I'm not sure how reassured I am by that. I did some Googling, and the only thing I could find about PVC sippy cups is this article from Green & Clean MOM who seems to have gone through a similar experience of "Are you kidding me?"

I do wonder about all the PVC water pipes out there though... If those are considered safe to transport drinking water, then technically, these sippy cups should be "safe" too, right?

It gets worse -- BPA in cash register receipts is absorbed through the skin...

Apparently, three recent studies have shown that Bisphenol A -- the chemical that has everyone freaked out about baby bottles, canned foods/drinks, and cash register receipts -- is absorbed through the skin. This doesn't surprise me, since skin absorption is a common pathway for chemicals to enter our bodies. The studies found that cashiers tend to have higher levels of BPA in their bodies, since there are significant amounts of BPA on thermal paper used in cash register receipts.

Two separate studies found that pregnant women who worked as cashiers had the highest levels of BPA in their bodies. In a third study, researchers exposed sections of fresh ear skin from pigs (often used as a model for human skin) to BPA, and found that after three days, 65% of the BPA was absorbed. They repeated the experiment with small samples of excised living human skin, and found that 46% of the BPA was absorbed. These numbers may seem scary, but seriously, they exposed the skin samples to BPA for THREE days. That's not really representative of what happens in the real world.

Sure, BPA is absorbed through the skin, so take precautions when handling thermal paper. It might be a good idea for cashiers to wear gloves when working... or better yet, maybe stores should stop using BPA-containing thermal paper. According to the EPA, Japan phased out the use of BPA in thermal printing applications in 2004. That's six years ago!! There are obviously alternatives out there, so why are we still using BPA-laden receipts?

(To be fair, the EPA did note that the health and environmental effects of BPA alternatives have yet to be assessed. And that is definitely a concern. Sometimes alternatives aren't necessarily better.)

Curious about the ingredients in cleaning products?

Have you ever wondered what is really in all the cleaning products you use at home? The Soap and Detergent Association (SDA) and the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association (CCSPA) have made it easy for you by creating an Ingredient Communication Initiative to provide consumers with information about the ingredients in various cleaning products.

The SDA Ingredient Central page provides a list of companies and their websites where you can find information on the ingredients used in their products. However, while some of the web links take you directly to the company's ingredient information page, most of them just link to the company website, and you have to do your own exploring to find your way to the ingredients page.

Please, use sunscreen to get cancer...

It seems like chemical sunscreens are a toxic brew of reproductive toxins and cancer causing chemicals...They say, "put on sunscreen to protect against skin cancer," but some new studies are suggesting that perhaps sunscreens are causing cancer.

Looking through all the sunscreen choices at the store, I've noticed that currently, most formulations contain one or more of the following active ingredients: oxybenzone and avobenzone (bad because they generate free radicals when exposed to UV radiation); cinnamates (often listed as "cinoxate," as if the abbreviation will make it seem less scary); salicylates (often listed as "homosalate" or "octisalate"); titanium dioxide and zinc oxide (physical barrier, but possibly bad because they're often nano-sized). Apparently, one of the non-active ingredients that is commonly added to sunscreens is an anti-oxidant called retinyl palmitate, a derivative of vitamin A, which presumably is supposed to help prevent skin damage from the sun. However, this compound may also be "photocarcinogenic," as it breaks down upon exposure to UV radiation to form compounds that have been shown to accelerate cancer in lab animals. There's no evidence as to what it does in humans, but it might be a good idea to be cautious.

I still haven't found a sunscreen that I like. I don't spend that much time in the sun anyway, but if I know I'll be in the sun long enough to get sunburned, then sure, I'll apply some sunscreen. Otherwise, I'll take my chances and get some vitamin D from a little sun exposure. When needed, I use California Baby's no fragrance sunscreen on my toddler. It's the best I can find so far, but I'm still a little concerned about the whole nanoparticle issue with titanium dioxide and zinc oxide formulations.

The horror! Methyl iodide as an approved pesticide??

I recall hearing a couple of years ago that California was considering using methyl iodide as a replacement for methyl bromide, which has been used extensively as a pesticide for crops, such as strawberries, but has also been wreaking havoc on the ozone layer. So, methyl bromide is being phased out, but what to replace it with? Apparently, Arysta LifeScience has been pushing the use of methyl iodide as a soil fumigant, which should work similarly but not affect the ozone layer. In 2007, the EPA actually approved its use, despite the warnings from many chemists who said they were "astonished" that the EPA was considering "broadcast releases of one of the more toxic chemicals used in manufacturing into the environment."

I personally used methyl iodide in grad school, but I always took great precautions -- gloves, fumehood, syringes to transfer. This is not something you want to get on yourself. It is routinely used to methylate DNA. Can you say, "cancer"? Methyl iodide is 6 times more toxic than methyl bromide. It's still very volatile, so there is a serious inhalation risk. If used on crops, it will contaminate the air and the water, and most likely poison farm workers and people living in the vicinity (especially downwind).

A report from the California Scientific Review Committee in 2009 concluded that there was no good way to use methyl iodide safely and that its use would have a significant adverse impact on public health. Yet, on April 30, 2010, California actually proposed using methyl iodide as a pesticide for use in agriculture. What are these people thinking?? If nothing is done, methyl iodide will become legal for California farmers to use after June 29.

Interesting facts: 47 States have licensed the use of methyl iodide, and 11 states have used it at least once. It has been used mostly on strawberries and sometimes on tomatoes and peppers.

The top 15 chemical additives in food

According to Coupon Sherpa, the top 15 chemicals that are added to food to make it look better and last longer are:

1. 1-Methylcyclopropene: also known as "SmartFresh," this gas is used to keep fruit from producing ethylene, which causes ripening. Apparently, it preserves apples for a year and bananas for a month.
2. Artificial coloring: many of the artificial colors developed since the early 1900s have been banned by the FDA as proven carcinogens. The artificial colors currently allowed in foods are: Blue #1, Blue #2, Green #3, Red #3, Red #40, Yellow #5, and Yellow #6. However, many are banned in other countries and still have potential health risks. The following have been restricted or banned: Greens #1 and #2, Reds #1, #2, #3, and #4, and Violet #1. As a safer alternative, look for natural food dyes, such as: caramel coloring, annatto, cochineal, betanin, turmeric, saffron, and paprika.
3. Artificial flavoring: apparently these have been linked to behavioral changes...
4. Aspartame: also known as Equal or NutraSweet, should be avoided by people suffering from phenylketonuria, who can't metabolize the amino acid phenylalanine. The safety of aspartame is still debatable as it breaks down into methanol, phenylalanine, and aspartic acid, and then further into formaldehyde, formic acid, and diketopiperazine.
5. Astaxanthin: is apparently added to the diet of farm-raised salmon so that their flesh acquires that pink color found in wild salmon. This is because farm-raised salmon don't get to eat crustaceans which contain a natural astaxanthin.
6. Sodium benzoate: is a preservative that is often added to soft drinks, cereals, meats. It has been linked to digestive problems, headaches, asthma attacks, and hyperactivity.
7. Antioxidants: such as BHA and BHT, are added to oil-containing processed foods, like crackers, cereals, and sausages, as a preservative to keep them from getting rancid. Both butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) are possible human carcinogens.
8. Canthaxanthin: is apparently used to make egg yolks look golden yellow. Large amounts of canthaxanthin can cause retinal damage.
9. Emulsifiers: such as agar, albumin, alginate, casein, egg yolk, glycerol monostearate, xanthan gum, Irish moss, lecithin, and soaps. These help to improve the shelf life of bread products and help oil and water to mix homogeneously. Reduced-fat and low-calorie products tend to contain emulsifiers.
   
10. High fructose corn syrup: is used as a sweetener and also helps to maintain moisture while preserving freshness. It is highly used in processed foods. In addition to causing obesity, its consumption has also been linked to diabetes, heart disease, as well as kidney and liver disease.
11. Monosodium glutamate (MSG): is the sodium salt of glutamic acid, an amino acid. MSG is used as a flavor enhancer in processed foods, such as chips, condiments, and seasonings. Some people have reported tightening in the chest, headaches and a burning sensation in the neck and forearms after consuming food containing MSG.
12. Olestra: also known as "Olean," is a fat substitute that doesn't get digested by the human body, and is often used in foods such as fat-free chips. Aside from the well-publicized "anal leakage" problem, consumption of large amounts of Olestra can also prevent our bodies from absorbing fat-soluble vitamins.
13. Partially hydrogenated oils: are a cheaper alternative to butter and are found in many processed foods. The process of hydrogenating oil can lead to the production of trans fats as a side product. Trans fats have been linked to heart disease.
14. Potassium bromate: is an oxidizing agent and is used to improve flour, so that bread dough rises higher. Most of the bromate breaks down during the breadmaking process, but traces of it can be a cancer risk.
15. Sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate: are commonly used to preserve meat and is found in cold cuts, hot dogs, and sausages. When heated to high temperatures (like frying), sodium nitrite in meat can form nitrosamines, which are carcinogenic.

I'm not sure I can rid my diet of all of these additives, but it definitely makes sense to limit our consumption of processed foods (so hard!) Check out the ingredient list of foods that you commonly buy and see if you're horrified.

A Handy Resource: The Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database

I recently came across this handy website called the Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database, which was created by the Environmental Working Group. The site is useful because it allows you to search for cosmetics and personal care products by product name, ingredient, or company/brand, and it shows you their safety rating, which is based on the potential health hazards (e.g., cancer, developmental/reproductive toxicity, allergies, etc.) linked to the individual ingredients in the product. You can also browse categories of products, such as makeup, skin care, hair care, etc., and try to find safer products to use.

You'd think that with the FDA's "strict" regulation of cosmetics and personal care products, all the products that you buy should be safe. Well, before these products can be sold to the public, the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) requires that companies show that the products and their ingredients are safe and that they don't contain banned ingredients. But really, how do you prove that a certain chemical is "safe" before you try to market a product? A lot of these chemicals may not show any significant health effects until years down the road, and what company is willing to wait that long before marketing a product? You get the idea.

The Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database is neat in that it lists all the relevant information in an easy-to-use layout. The safety ratings are color coded -- green for "low hazard", yellow for "moderate hazard", and red for "high hazard" --so you can get an idea for how safe a product is at a glance. Of course, when I first discovered the site, I immediately started looking up all the products I use on a daily basis, and I was a little horrified at the results. There were a couple of things that I use that were in the high moderate to high hazard category. Yikes! As a result, I looked up some safer alternatives. You'll notice that a lot of the safest products will likely be hard to find in your average store, and that was something that annoyed me. I decided to look for products that you can find in the store with a decently safe rating instead.

HOWEVER -- this is a big HOWEVER... Just because the rating says a product is safe, it doesn't mean it actually is. What? You say. Well, it's important to look at the actual ingredient list. For example, a lot of the sunscreens that are rated the safest contain zinc oxide or titanium dioxide nanoparticles, and recent studies have shown that these particles can be absorbed through the skin. The Australian government has been looking into this and has published a review of the scientific literature on the safety of titanium dioxide or zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens. A while ago, I had bought some California Baby Sunscreen thinking that it would be safer than other kids' sunscreens. Skin Deep rates it at "1" or "low hazard," but guess what. It uses titanium dioxide nanoparticles. So, is it really safer? Not sure...

Another ingredient that has been listed as hazardous is polyethylene, which I find rather puzzling. It is listed as a cancer risk (based on a study from 1955!) Huh? Polyethylene is one of the cleanest and safest plastics out there. So, for example, Maybelline's Lash Discovery mascara is dinged pretty heavily (score: 7, high hazard) partly because it contains polyethylene... Hmm. Well, my point is, look at the ingredient list carefully. Skin Deep is a useful tool, but don't take the ratings at face value.

Blood sugar sensing tattoos for diabetics

The thought of having to draw blood (even if it's just a tiny pin prick) to check for blood sugar levels several times a day is rather unpleasant... Perhaps here is some good news for diabetics. Researchers at Draper Laboratory in Cambridge, MA have developed a tiny color-changing sensor tattoo that can detect blood sugar levels. The tattoo ink consists of nanospheres containing a fluorescent dye and a molecule that can attract and bind glucose to produce a color change. The nanospheres are injected into the outermost layer of skin. [Apparently, when blood glucose levels increase, they also increase everywhere else in the body, including the outermost layer of skin.] The nanospheres turn purple when glucose is present -- otherwise, they're yellow. Of course, there will be a range of colors depending on how much glucose is present. With a healthy blood sugar level, the tattoo is an orangish color.

The tattoo has been successfully tested in healthy mice, and the next step will be to test it in diabetic mice. The tattoo may be ready for testing in people within the next 5 years.

Pregnant women beware -- Folic acid plus vitamin B12 increase cancer risk?

A recent study of patients with heart disease in Norway found that they had an increased risk of cancer and death if they were treated with folic acid and vitamin B12. Previous studies have typically shown that folic acid deficiency can promote the development of cancer, while high doses of folic acid can enhance cancer cell growth. Apparently this particular study showed that there was an increased incidence of lung cancer among patients who received both folic acid and vitamin B12. Food in Norway isn't fortified with folic acid like it is in North America. Since 1998, folic acid has been added to flour and grain products in order to reduce the risk of neural-tube birth defects, which can result in spina bifida or anencephaly in developing fetuses. Pregnant women are also encouraged to take prenatal vitamins which contain even more folic acid and vitamin B12. What does this mean for the general population and especially pregnant women? Pending further studies, the authors recommend that the safety of widespread folic acid consumption be monitored. Wonderful...

Cheap 'dipstick' test for pesticides in food

Researchers from McMaster University in Canada are developing a cheap "dipstick" test that can detect pesticide residues in food and drinks in less than 5 minutes. In contrast, conventional mass spectrometric testing typically takes hours to complete. The experimental paper-based test strip detects acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors, including organophosphate pesticides, and changes color depending on the amount of pesticide present. The test has pesticide detection limits on the order of 1-10 nM (bendiocarb 1 nM; carbaryl 10 nM; paraoxon 1 nM; malathion 10 nM) and should be suitable for the rapid screening of trace levels of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides.

Their work has been published in the journal Analytical Chemistry.

While the test won't be able to tell us exactly what types of pesticides are present in our food, it would be pretty neat if the test strips could eventually be available to the average consumer so that we can check the levels of pesticide residues in the stuff we buy, and make better choices about the foods we eat.

Tylenol reduces effectiveness of vaccines in babies?

A new study published in The Lancet, led by military and government scientists in the Czech Republic, has found that Tylenol (aka acetaminophen, paracetamol), when administered right after an immunization shot, can slightly reduce the effectiveness of vaccines in young babies (9-16 weeks old). Acetaminophen is widely recommended as an analgesic for babies, and it seems to be common practice for parents to give their babies acetaminophen right after they get their shots to prevent fever and fussiness. Fever after a vaccine is pretty common -- it's the body's immune response -- but apparently, curbing the fever also reduces the immune response and the amount of antibodies that are produced. In fact, antibody levels remained significantly lower even after the babies got their booster shots at 12-15 months old.

Doctors from the U.S. Centers For Disease Control and Prevention note that even with the use of acetaminophen, more than 90% of the babies achieved protection from the vaccines after the booster dose, but they believe that the consistency of findings from other studies suggests that routine use of fever-lowering medicines during immunization may not be recommended.

Now there's BPA in cash register receipts?

I haven't posted about bisphenol A (BPA) at all, even though there's been A LOT of coverage on the health concerns of this chemical. First it was in polycarbonate baby bottles, then in the epoxy liners for food cans. Now we find out it's in cash receipts. What's the concern? BPA is an endocrine disruptor (estrogen mimic), and some studies suggest that human exposure to the chemical could lead to negative health effects, such as reproductive problems, obesity, and cancer. Back when I was working in industry, I used BPA quite regularly as a monomer, but of course I was handling it safely, with gloves and in a fume hood.

Apparently, the carbonless copy papers that are used for most credit card receipts and the thermal imaging papers used by most cash registers both rely on BPA chemistry. How does it work? A powdery layer of BPA combined with an invisible ink is coated onto one side of the paper so that when heat or pressure is applied, the BPA and ink molecules react to produce color. Not surprisingly, the quantities of BPA on these receipts are at the milligram level (60-100 mg) -- compare that to the nanogram amounts of BPA that can leach out of polycarbonate baby bottles. Yikes. TIP: Wash your hands well before you lick your fingers...

What's next, BPA in polycarbonate CDs and DVDs? Maybe we're better off going back to vinyl records and VHS tapes.

Detecting cancer during surgery in real time

This is cool. Researchers at Justus-Liebig University in Germany have developed a way to detect cancerous cells during surgery, by using a combination of mass spectrometry and an electroscalpel. Mass spectrometry is already used to distinguish between healthy and cancerous tissue, but samples have to be ionized before analysis by way of a high-voltage nitrogen jet -- a procedure that would most certainly not sit well with the patient...

However, the researchers found that the "surgical smoke" emitted by the electroscalpel can be collected and used as a sample for mass spectrometry. Analyzing the samples takes only a fraction of a second. By taking multiple samples within the surgical area, doctors could map out the healthy parts and unhealthy parts, which could make tumor removal more effective and reduce the number of subsequent surgeries.

The technique has already been tested in animals, and human clinical trials will begin soon. The only drawback is that a commercial mass spectrometer is very expensive (6 digits!), but the researchers believe that the cost could be reduced to about $20,000 with lower-performance mass spectrometers, which should work fine for this purpose.

The best and worst cellphones in terms of radiation output

Here's a post that caught my eye from Engadget, pointing out a list of best and worst cellphones based on the amount of radiation they put out. A quick glance at the list made me jump, as my cellphone -- the Motorola W385 -- is among the worst. Great. However, nothing in the list indicates anything about the quality or performance of the phones. My phone works extremely well in terms of sound quality and reception, and I'm not sure I would trade it in for one that emitted less radiation but had crappy reception and sound quality. And seriously, how much radiation are we talking about here?

It would take some work to dig out all the studies about the health effects of cellphone radiation that are out there, but so far, the conclusion is... inconclusive. Research is still on-going. But until then, it might be wise to not chat for hours with the cellphone next to your head. Or chat while driving -- this is a little off-topic as it has nothing to do with radiation, but it's probably more dangerous. I guarantee that if you see someone driving erratically on the road, weaving and driving much slower than the speed limit, it's not because they're intoxicated. It's because they're talking on their cellphone.

Getting back to the list of phones... If you pay closer attention to the source of this list, it's from the Environmental Working Group, an environmental advocacy group. While their website is nice in that it compiles a lot of useful information, be wary that this group tends to sensationalize science to suit their agenda. Do your research and use your common sense.

Don't drink the water at school...

According to an investigation by the Associated Press, the drinking water at public and private schools in all 50 states in the U.S. has been found to contain various contaminants, including coliform bacteria, lead, copper, arsenic, nitrates, pesticides like 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), and disinfectants. Contamination is worst at schools that use well water.

Amazingly, this problem has been mostly ignored by the federal government even as the number of violations against the Safe Drinking Water Act have increased significantly over the past 10 years. Apparently, drinking water monitoring is inefficiently spread out among too many local, state, and federal agencies, such that many risks are going unreported, and devising an effective national monitoring plan will be complicated and expensive. Right now, the EPA can only provide guidelines on environmental practices, since it doesn't have the authority to require testing for all schools.

The AP's analysis of a database of federal drinking water violations from 1998 to 2008 revealed that California (which has the most schools of any state) had the greatest number of violations (612), followed by Ohio (451), Maine (417), Connecticut (318), and Indiana (289). The most common contaminant was coliform bacteria, followed by lead, copper, arsenic, and nitrates.

I guess the good news is that the number of schools with unsafe water represents only a small percentage of the nation's 132,500 schools, but something needs to be done. Kids drink more water per pound than adults, so they are more susceptible to the effects of contaminants in water as well as food. It's probably best to give your kids (bottled, if you trust it, or filtered) water to bring to school so that they don't have to drink the school's water.

Sometimes I wonder what's in our tap water at home. We filter it, but even then, what gets through the filter? I honestly don't know, and I'm just assuming it's fine. Anyone have an atomic absorption spectrometer and GC-MS?

Showering can be bad for your health?

This is interesting. Researchers from the University of Colorado at Boulder report that showering can be bad for your health...when the inside of the shower head is contaminated with a biofilm of Mycobacterium avium, which can cause lung infections in people with weakened immune systems, such as the elderly and pregnant women. Symptoms include tiredness, a persistent dry cough, shortness of breath and weakness, and generally feeling unwell. Bacteria-filled water droplets suspended in the air in a shower can be inhaled into the deepest parts of the lungs.

The researchers found that of the 50 shower heads they tested (from 9 cities in 7 U.S. states), 30% of them contained M. avium at levels that were 100 times greater than that typically found in household water supplies. In particular, plastic shower heads accumulated more bacteria-rich biofilms than metal ones. Their work is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Other illnesses that are known to be spread from showers include Legionnaires' disease and Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Hot tubs and spa pools can also spread disease.

It's probably a good idea to let the shower run a bit before stepping in to reduce the amount of exposure to any bacteria.

Study finds people who multitask are often bad at it

I thought this article was kind of amusing. I like to multitask, and I think I do it pretty well, but I also realize that sometimes it's better to do things one at a time.

Stanford University researchers put 100 students through a series of three tests and found that heavy media multitaskers -- those who regularly juggle e-mail, instant messaging, text messaging, while watching TV, surfing the internet, and doing homework -- tend to be distracted by everything.

In each test, the students were separated into two groups: those who do a lot of media multitasking and those who don't. In the first test, they were shown two sets of images -- two red rectangles, and two red rectangles surrounded blue rectangles -- and were told to ignore the blue rectangles and determine if the red rectangles in the second image were in a different position than in the first image. While the heavy multitaskers had trouble ignoring the blue rectangles, the low multitaskers aced the test. The second test showed that the heavy multitaskers weren't any better at memorizing things (sorting and organizing information) either. They were shown sequences of alphabetical letters, but they were not very good at remembering when a letter popped up twice. In the third test, they were shown images of letters and numbers at the same time and were told what to focus on, and once again the heavy multitaskers weren't any better than low multitaskers at switching from one task to another.

The researchers concluded that when multitaskers are bombarded with multiple sources of information, they can't filter out the irrelevant stuff, which ultimately hinders their performance. But they are still studying whether chronic media multitaskers are born with the inability to concentrate or whether they are hurting their brain functions by taking in so much information at the same time.

Chemicals leach from packaging into our food

Surprise, surprise. Chemicals from packaging products leach into food -- that's the cover story in a recent issue of Chemical & Engineering News. According to folks in the packaging industry, all packaging materials leach chemicals into food, so it's not a question of whether chemicals will leach but how much will end up in your food...

These chemicals can originate from the chemical composition of the packaging itself, or it can come from chemicals that the packaging comes into contact with during manufacturing, sterilization, and shipping. Plastic is probably the most common packaging material these days, and leachables include plasticizers such as di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, antioxidants like Irganox 1076, benzophenone light stabilizers, and unreacted monomers. Most recently, bisphenol A (BPA) has gotten a lot of attention for leaching out of polycarbonate baby bottles and drinking containers, as well as from epoxy-lined metal cans. Even glass containers have issues. Sometimes glass, especially the recycled variety can leach minerals or metals, and the rubber seals on caps for glass containers can also introduce chemicals such as N-nitrosamines, 2-mercaptobenzothiazole, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Then there's the waxy paper packaging for greasy things like hamburgers, or for microwave popcorn, that can leach perfluorinated compounds. And there's more... Earlier this year, the European Food Safety Authority found that 4-methylbenzophenone, a component of printing ink used on cereal boxes, was present in the German chocolate muesli contained within said boxes. Previously, infant formula had been recalled in Italy, Portugal, Spain, and France in 2005, when another printing ink component, isopropylthioxanthone, was found in it. Ink can even migrate through two layers of plastic packaging(!) Health Canada recalled a product after it was found that a drug solution in a plastic pouch was contaminated with ink that was printed on the outside of a second plastic cover pouch...

The main problem is that these materials are sourced from tertiary or quaternary sources that supply a variety of industries that have different cleanliness requirements from food or drug industries. Trying to place controls across the entire supply chain can be difficult and must start with educating suppliers about material safety. At least some packaging companies are looking at ways to reduce the amount of leachables, but it comes at a price -- more expensive packaging, and consequently, more expensive products for consumers.

Now I wonder how much of various packaging and printing chemicals Jessie has already ingested from her uncontrollable habit of chewing on everything, especially (printed) paper products...

Would you like some lead in your lipstick?

The FDA recently (and finally!) released their test results for lead in lipstick -- they found lead in all 20 lipsticks tested. The lead was present at levels as high as 3.06 ppm, with an average of 1.07 ppm, which is 10 times higher than the FDA's limit for lead in candy. Unfortunately, the FDA doesn't have any standard for lead levels in lipstick, and they won't name the three specific manufacturers that make lipsticks with the highest levels of lead in them... Although, Campaign For Safe Cosmetics had conducted its own study back in 2007 and found lead in two-thirds of the 33 different lipsticks it tested, including ones from L'Oreal, Cover Girl, Christian Dior, and Maybelline. Why is there lead in lipstick? Because apparently, some colorants contain traces of lead, and it is also present as a by-product in ingredients such as zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, ozokerite (mineral or paraffin wax), and petroleum-based ingredients. Since lead is considered a "contaminant," you won't find "lead" listed on the ingredient labels, so how will you know if your lipstick is lead-free? I guess the best thing to do is to not wear lipstick. However, apparently there are now lipsticks on the market that are labeled "lead-free," so keep an eye out for those if you trust the claim.

• Campaign For Safe Cosmetics has posted a FAQ on lead in lipstick.

• Here's the FDA's FAQ on lead in lipstick and their latest study results published in the Journal of Cosmetic Science.

A Possible Cure For Multiple Sclerosis?

I thought it was pretty cool that researchers at McGill University and the Jewish General Hospital Lady Institute for Medical Research in Montreal have developed a new experimental treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS) called GIFT15 that completely reverses it in mice. Even better, the researchers think the treatment should work in humans too. However, the MS has to be caught in its earliest stages for the treatment to be effective.

GIFT15 works by suppressing the body's immune response so that it will stop attacking the central nervous system. Because of the way it works, the treatment could also potentially be used to treat other autoimmune diseases, such as Crohn's, lupus, and arthritis, as well as to control immune responses in organ transplant patients. GIFT15 -- a new protein hormone that consists of a combination of GSM-CSF and interleukin-15 proteins that are fused together in the lab -- converts B-cells (white blood cells normally involved in immune response) into powerful immune-suppressive B-regulatory cells. The researchers took normal B-cells from the mice, added GIFT15 to transform the B-cells, and then gave the converted B-cells back to the mice intravenously. After one dose, the mice recovered from their MS-like illness with no significant side effects.

The research has been published in the journal Nature Medicine.