Caution: 'Asbestos' Like Cosmetics Could Hurt You and Your Family

[Guest guest]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/24/epstein-interview.aspx

 

Dr. Samuel Epstein is a well respected professional in cancer

prevention. He is a professor emeritus of occupational and environment

medicine at the University of Illinois in Chicago, and is an expert on

toxins. He is also the chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition.

Dr. Epstein has authored 270 scientific articles, and 15 books on

the causes and prevention of cancer. These include the groundbreaking

Politics of Cancer (1979), and most recently Toxic Beauty (2009) about

carcinogens and other toxic ingredients in cosmetics and personal care

products.

In this interview, Dr. Epstein discusses several pressing health

dangers that receive little attention, including:

 

Nanoparticles used in cosmetics

rBGH milk

Meats

The lack of prevention in the new Obama cancer plan

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Epstein’s background makes him exceptionally well-qualified to

discuss topics related to cancer prevention, and the toxicological

causes of cancer that must be part of any effective cancer prevention

plan.

In this interview he offers a vital overview of four topics, three

of them related to toxic exposures that promote cancer, and lastly, he

raises an urgently important question: With everything we already know

about cancer, why is prevention completely ignored in the government’s

cancer plan?

Once you look at what’s being done, and more importantly, what’s

NOT being done, cancer starts to look like a profitable business plan

in and of itself. Only when viewed under this loupe does ignoring

cancer prevention make sense.

 

A Serious Warning about Dr. Perricone’s Cosmeceuticals

 

Dr. Perricone is noted for his holistic approach to aging and for

developing a line of what is technically known as cosmeceuticals to

firm sagging skin and eliminate wrinkles.

But Dr. Epstein has some serious concerns about many of the

products in the Perricone line, stating that, “his claims are devoid of

any evidence… The only way of getting evidence for a cosmeceutical… are

double blind clinical trials.”

He further explains:

 

“In these the patients are randomly assigned to groups which

receive either the test treatment or an alternative untreated control.

Neither the patient nor the dermatologist who is conducting the study

knows, or should know, whether the treatment or the control that is

being given to the patient until the trial is over, and that’s

the standard way of excluding bias…”

 

However, the lack of scientific basis to show that the products

actually work is not what really troubles Dr. Epstein. Rather it’s the

evidence that certain ingredients used in the Perricone line DO cause

harm, and that these facts are being hidden and ignored.

Now, these ingredients are used in many different brands of

cosmetics and cosmeceuticals, so I encourage you to use this

information to evaluate ANY type of cosmetic you’re considering buying.

Dr. Perricone has developed a patented technology exclusive to his

line, called Fullerene. “Fullerenes are highly stable, microscopic

hollow spheres that carry the active ingredients into the skin,”

Epstein explains.

However, there are serious concerns about this type of

nano-technology, especially when applied to your skin. In fact, Dr.

Epstein goes as far as saying that “the presence of these microscopic

hollow spheres is of extraordinary danger.”

They’re so dangerous, in fact, they’re slowly but surely becoming

known as “universal asbestos.”

 

“There is no labeling of the warning at all of the dangers

of these nanoparticles, instead they are touted as reducing wrinkling

and firming up the skin surface,” he says.

“Perricone has also introduced these fullerenes into a wide

range of products including sun blocks and ceramic eye smoothers, and

in fact, most of his products.

However, the use of nanoparticles in cosmeceuticals, whether

they are sham cosmeceuticals or whether they’re bonafide

cosmeceuticals, poses an extraordinarily dangerous and unrecognized

public health hazards.

Nanoparticles, because of their ultramicroscopic size,

readily penetrate the skin, can invade underlying blood vessels, get

into the general blood stream, and produce distant toxic effects.

We already have evidence of this, including toxic effects in

the brain, degenerative disorders in the brain, and nerve damage. So

we’re dealing here with one of the most dangerous types of products in

the whole cosmetic industry.

 

In May 2006, the Friends

of the Earth – a global network of grassroots groups in nearly 80

countries -- published a report on nanoparticles titled “Nanoparticles,

sunscreens and cosmetics: Small ingredients, big risks.”

They warned that these high risk products must be banned and

removed from the market to protect public health.

 

“About two years later, in mid-2008, the British Royal

Commission report warned that products like Perricone’s products --

those that contain the nanoparticles -- pose very, very high toxic

risks,” Epstein says.

… Now, at least seven of his [Perricone’s] products contain

these nanoparticles while a total of 20 to 25 contain also a wide range

of other toxic ingredients. So you got a double whammy.”

 

The toxic ingredients he’s referring to include allergens, toxic

hormonal ingredients, and known carcinogens such as:

 

Ethylene oxide

Dioxane

Nitrosamines

Formaldehyde

Acrylamide

 

These are known carcinogens, and should not be present in anything

you slather on your skin.

According to the Environmental Working Group, 25 of the Perricone

products are deemed to pose ‘moderate to high hazards.’

 

“These are the highest risk products on the market,” Epstein

says.

“… the evidence which we’ve accumulated so far, is largely

restricted to the fact that they [nano particles] get into your

bloodstream and reach organs throughout your body.

And as far as the brain is concerned, we have actual

evidence of entry into the brain and producing toxic effects --

lesions, small lesions, toxic effects in the brain.”

 

 

Why US Milk is BANNED From All of Europe

 

On March 18, the New York Times ran an editorial

titled “Honest Food Labels.” In this article, Dr. Hamburg

publicized letters to about 17 or 18 companies, accusing them of

masking undesirable ingredients in their products.

She also emphasized the importance of providing information that

consumers can rely on.

 

“Very, very unfortunately, however, she has totally failed

to take any such action with regard to two of our major dietary

staples; milk and meat,” says Eptein.

“She has excluded milk and meat from undesirable

ingredients, and in so doing, she has created the impression that they

are safe.

… About 20 percent of our milk is genetically engineered.

Technically this is known as rBGH, the small r stands for recombinant,

BGH, is bovine growth hormone… This [milk] contains very high levels of

a natural growth factor known as IGF-1…

IGF-1 stands for Insulin-like Growth Factor 1. So growth

factor 1 is a natural growth factor and is responsible for normal

growth but when you drink rBGH milk, you have very, very high levels of

this natural growth factor.

When you drink it, the IGF-1 survives digestion and is

readily absorbed from your small intestine, into your blood.

Increased levels of IGF-1 have been shown to increase risks

of breast cancer and we have about 20 publications showing this; risk

of colon cancer [shown] by about 10 publications; prostate cancer by

about another 10 publications.

And a further concern: increased levels of IGF-1 block

natural defense mechanisms against early cancers, [mechanisms] known as

‘apoptosis.’”

 

The scientific evidence of the dangers of rBGH milk is explained

in great detail in Dr. Epstein’s book What’s in Your Milk?,

published in 2006.

 

“Based on the concerns which I have just briefly summarized,

in 1999, the United Nations Food and Safety Agency, which represents a

hundred nations worldwide, ruled unanimously not to set safety

standards for rBGH milk, and effectively this has resulted in an

international ban on U.S. milk.

So here we have Margaret Hamburg saying she wants to prevent

any company from selling food with undesirable ingredients. Yet,

American milk is banned worldwide because of its dangers -- because of

its high levels of IGF-1 and attendant risks from that.”

 

It’s even worse than simply ignoring the dangers, because milk

producers who are committed to providing healthier milk are not allowed

to label it correctly. That’s right, they’re NOT allowed to

say it’s “rBGH-free,” without adding a big disclaimer saying there are

no known health risks of rBGH…

In an ideal world, agencies like the US FDA would do the proper

investigations and protect you from known health dangers, so you don’t

have to. But there’s nothing ideal about the current state of affairs,

so it’s imperative to do your own research and educate yourself about

what toxins are lurking in your foods, drugs, and other consumer

products, so that you can make the conscious choice to avoid them.

This also goes for most commercial meats.

 

The Beef with Commercial Meats

 

One practice in particular makes most commercial meats potentially

dangerous to your health, and that’s the practice of implanting cattle

with sex hormones prior to entering the feed lot, about 100 days prior

to slaughter.

This is done by implanting a pellet containing natural or

synthetic sex hormones under the skin of the cattle’s ear. The

objective is a financial one, as it increases the meat weight, and

hence profits, by about 10 percent, for very little additional cost.

As a result, nearly all commercial meats contain very high levels

of sex hormones. Either the natural hormones: testosterone, estrogen,

progesterone, or the synthetic equivalent.

 

“Our meat poses increased risks of hormonal cancers, which

have escalated since 1975. Breast cancer has increased by 25 percent,

prostate cancer by 60 percent, and testes cancer by 60 percent,”

says Epstein.

“Not surprisingly, U.S. meat is banned worldwide like rBGH

milk.

So here we are, in what I like to consider is the leading

democracy in the world, in which we sell a staple diet -- meat and milk

-- that are banned worldwide because they pose major threats of

cancer.”

 

In 1986 there was a report titled “Human

Food Safety and the Regulation of Animal Drugs,” which was

unanimously approved by the House Committee of Government Operations.

In it they concluded that “the FDA has consistently disregarded its

responsibility, has repeatedly put what it perceives are interests of

veterinarians in the livestock industry ahead of its obligation to

protect consumers, thereby jeopardizing the health and safety of

consumers of meat, milk, and poultry.”

Unfortunately, nothing has changed as a result of any of these

findings.

Says Epstein:

 

“The American public are still eating and drinking ultra

dangerous products in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence,

and in spite of the warnings they have received from the rest of the

world that “we will not buy your products.”

… It’s almost like an Alice in Wonderland situation. We like

to think we’re the greatest democracy in the world and yet we tolerate

white collar crime, industry white collar crime, and the white collar

crimes for profit.

Not only do we tolerate it, we don’t raise any questions or

objections to it.

So, there is something the matter with the American public

because they still implicitly trust government and my unfortunate and

unhappy warning is: you cannot trust government. You cannot trust USDA.

 

You cannot trust FDA, and I say this with a sense of

overwhelming sadness but there’s an old French expression saying,

“Anyone who is in danger should save himself.” “

 

Making educated choices when food shopping has become a necessity,

if you want to remain healthy. That includes avoiding all pasteurized

milk, especially milk containing rBGH, and avoiding all commercial,

conventionally-raised meats.

One exception is lamb. Dr. Epstein confirms that sex hormones are

not used for lambs, and since they’re slaughtered young, they’re mainly

grass-fed, even when raised non-organically. It’s also fairly

inexpensive, so it can serve as a good alternative if you don’t have

regular access to organically-raised, grass-fed meats.

 

What’s Wrong with the Obama Cancer Plan?

 

President Obama is the first president to develop a comprehensive

cancer plan. Unfortunately, the plan overwhelmingly emphasises oncology

– the treatment of cancer after diagnosis, and the

references to cancer prevention are scant.

The Obama’s Plan prioritizes and coordinates several agencies; the

National Cancer Institute, the Research and Clinical Trials, Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Centers for Medicaid and

Medicare services, and the FDA for regulating cancer drugs.

Congress passed the National Cancer Act in 1971, which authorized

the National Cancer Program to expand and intensify research on cancer

prevention due to occupational and environmental exposure to

carcinogens.

Shortly after that, President Nixon authorized a 200 million

dollar budget for the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Since then, the

NCI budget has increased more than 30-fold, to over $6 billion for

2010.

Meanwhile, as Dr. Epstein points out, the incidence of a wide

range of cancers (other than due to smoking) has also escalated

sharply.

 

“In other words, the more money we spend, the more cancer

we’re getting” Dr. Epstein remarks.

 

For example, according to Dr. Epstein, malignant melanoma has

risen by 170 percent; Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma by 80 percent; thyroid

cancer by 120 percent; testes 60 percent, and childhood cancers by 40

percent.

Clearly, something is off; something is wrong. But what?

A major part of this puzzle is the fact that the National Cancer

Institute has no interest whatsoever in prevention.

Its focus is exclusively focused on diagnosed treatment and

oncology research.

Says Epstein:

 

“The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has failed to develop

or publicize any listing or registry to avoid all exposures to

carcinogens, and these include some drugs, some pharmaceuticals,

diagnostic radiation, occupational, environmental exposures to

carcinogens, ingredients and consumer products, carcinogenic

ingredients and consumer products, food, natural products, cosmetics

and personal care products.

Furthermore, NCI - National Cancer Institute has failed to

respond, except misleadingly, to a series of congressional requests for

such information.

… In March, 1988, in a series of questions to NCI director

Richard Klausner… we requested information on NCI’s policies and

priorities, and Congressman Obey said, “Should the NCI develop or

register avoidable carcinogens and to make this information widely

available to the public?” and the answer was, and remains, “No.””

 

Even more befuddling and frustrating is the fact that the US spend

more than five times more than Great Britain does on chemotherapy, yet

survival rates are similar.

The answer to the cancer epidemic is clearly not larger budgets

for oncology research and drug development. The answer lies in

implementing preventive measures, and removing known carcinogens from

the market.

Based on Dr. Epstein’s extensive research, here’s a list of toxic

factors that have been linked to various kinds of cancer:

 

Malignant melanoma – Use of sunscreens that fail to block

long-wave, ultraviolet light

Thyroid cancer – Various types of radiation

Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma – Herbicides and hair dyes

Testicular cancer – Pesticides and hormone residues in meats

Childhood leukemia – Ionizing radiation, preservatives in meat

(like hotdogs), and parental exposures to carcinogens

Ovarian cancer in African-American women over 65 – Genital use

of talc powder

 

With everything we DO know about cancer, the official attitude of

indifference to prevention is appalling and immoral.

 

“We are really dealing with overwhelming policy ineptitude

which verges on the criminal on the part of directors of the National

Cancer Institute and other Federal agencies,” says Epstein.

… What is happening to us?

Why don’t we exercise some degree of control over those who

are supposed to guide us, direct us?”

 

To hear what other developments are brewing, please listen to the

interview in its entirety, or read through the transcript. You won’t

believe the potential conflicts of interest that have arisen within the

National Cancer Institute with Harold Varmus as its newly appointed…

 

Further Educational Sources

 

Dr. Epstein’s web site www.PreventCancer.com

contains more information about all the topics discussed above.

You can also find more articles about the dangers of rBGH milk and

hormone-laced meats on my site, simply by using the search engine at

the top of this page.

Educating yourself and others is a process that is not completed

overnight. But we are making progress. The more people get educated,

the more we’re able to expose the real facts, and push for real

changes.

You are a big part of this process!

Don’t underestimate your own importance. Our grassroots efforts

paid off big time during last year’s swine flu debacle, and the

public’s refusal to be duped has resulted in the World Health

Organization now having to take a bite of the sour apple and confess to

at least some of its improprieties.

So keep reading, keep investigating, and keep spreading the word

about how you can take control of your health!