Tea tree oil crisis

It's nature's healer, treating ailments from acne to MRSA. But now there are real worries about the safety of tea tree products. Jeremy Laurance reports

Published: 27 February 2007
Personally, I wouldn't mind if the stuff was banned tomorrow. I once used tea tree oil in a shampoo. Never again. I liked the smell of menthol and the cooling sensation - the top of my skull felt as though it had lifted half an inch off my head. But after every up there is always a down. Within hours my scalp started to itch, and then to flake. The next day, it looked like a Colombian drug baron had sneezed across my shoulders. I dived into the shower for relief.
Tea tree oil is powerful stuff. It is also ubiquitous. Its popularity has seen it included as an ingredient of lotions and creams for acne, as an antiseptic for cuts and grazes and as a mild astringent in shampoos, shower gels and vapour rubs.
Its versatility has attracted the interest of scientists - and they have sounded a note of caution. The International Fragrance Association warned in 2001 that the product could be irritating to the skin; this warning was mainly to protect factory workers producing and handling the stuff in large quantities.
The European Cosmetics Association recommended in 2002 that tea tree oil should be limited to a concentration of 1 per cent in cosmetic products. This opinion was backed by Germany's Federal Institute of Risk Assessment in 2003.
In December 2004, the European Commission's scientific committee on consumer products published the most thorough analysis yet of the safety of tea tree oil. It concluded that its use in cosmetics and soaps, where its concentration did not exceed 1 per cent, was unlikely to be harmful. At higher than 1 per cent, there was a risk it might cause skin irritation in some people.
But tea tree oil is also sold neat - as an antiseptic; as a treatment for spots and pimples; and as an insect and lice repellant. The scientific committee said it could not judge whether products containing high concentrations of tea tree oil, of up to 100 per cent, were safe and requested more information from the manufacturers. Its blunt conclusion was: "The sparse data available suggest [that] undiluted oil as a commercial product is not safe."
Most tea tree oil is produced in Australia; it is derived from the Australian metaleuca tree and has been used as a traditional remedy by Australian Aborigines for centuries. It was used by Australian soldiers during the First World War as an antiseptic for wounds, and more recently it has been cited as a potential weapon against the superbug MRSA.
The Australian Tea Tree Oil Industry Association is due to submit a dossier of evidence on the safety of the neat product by the end of next month, having missed the initial deadline of the end of 2005. The EU scientific committee will then consider its verdict.
Customers, retailers and manufacturers now await the outcome with varying degrees of anxiety. Chris Flower, the director general of the Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association, is relaxed. He says: "People using tea tree oil products should carry on without worrying. There is no issue in relation to its safety in cosmetics. The only real concern is over its use neat. The problems in that case can be avoided by not overdoing it. It is a matter of common sense."
Flower added: "I expect the EU committee to say [that the neat product] is fine. They may have specific recommendations about the number of times it is used. Or they may say they are not convinced and they may demand more data."
A spokeswoman for the European Commission said that tea tree oil contained "several hundred constituents" and it would take time to assess their safety. It might be possible to adjust the constituents if any were found to be unsafe, she said: "We cannot prejudge the scientific opinion."
Two factors have muddied the waters. Earlier this month, a review in The New England Journal of Medicine warned parents to avoid using tea tree oil products on their children after three reports of boys growing breasts.
Researchers in the US believe that the oils, which included lavender oil, may have hormone-like properties that lead to gynaecomastia - the growth of breasts. When the boys stopped using the oils, their breasts disappeared. One of the boys, aged 10, had regularly used a styling gel containing lavender and tea tree oil on his hair and scalp.
The researchers from the National Institutes of Health and the University of Colorado School of Medicine said that the oils "may possess endocrine-disrupting activity that causes an imbalance in oestrogen and androgen pathway signalling". Laboratory tests showed that the oils mimicked the activity of the female hormone oestrogen.
Flower dismissed the research. "The findings seem very unlikely to me. We are talking about a very small number of cases who were not thoroughly investigated to see what other things they might have been exposed to. I am not aware of people working in tea tree oil factories suffering ill effects , or of people in the South of France where most lavender is grown and processed."
A second factor worrying scientists is the stability of the product. Tea tree oil tends to oxidise when exposed to light and air, and this can increase its irritant effect. The EU scientific committee said the stability of the oil in cosmetics was questionable and tests should be developed to monitor its degradation. "Our major concern is that toxic and risky chemicals become even more potent - up to three times as strong - if stored at room temperature and exposed to light and air," the committee said.
Some campaigners think this is alarmist. Oxidation can be minimised by adding antioxidants such as vitamins C and E, or altering the formulation of the product.
Tony Burfield of Cropwatch, a lobbying group for traditional remedies, warns of the danger of pandering to the interests of big pharmaceutical business. He says a full scientific critique is in preparation that will meet the EU scientific committee's concerns. But until the boffins of Brussels are satisfied, the centuries-old remedy's place on pharmacy shelves is under threat.

Fonte: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article2308729.ece- 27/02/07

Protetor solar nacional

Sabe onde os pesquisadores foram descobrir o protetor nacional? Em uma fruta brasileiríssima, o caju! Mais precisamente, na casca da castanha do caju. E sai pela metade do preço!
O Instituto Nacional do Câncer botou o bloco na rua: lançou, neste fim de semana, uma campanha contra o câncer de pele. Entre as recomendações, usar sempre o filtro solar. E olha, tem novidade das boas no mercado.
Como diz o povo, o sol é para todos. Já o protetor solar... “Eu não uso protetor solar, porque é muito caro”, diz um vendedor ambulante. A dermatologista Fátima Pires pergunta para um banhista quantas vezes ele passa o filtro solar. “Eu só passo o filtro solar uma vez”, responde o rapaz. “Mas não pode, porque você transpira e o filtro solar sai. Você passa a mão no rosto e o filtro solar sai. Você tem que repetir isso várias vezes”, aconselha Fátima. “Isso eu não sabia”, alega o jovem. Mas será que o brasileiro tem dinheiro pra comprar tanto protetor solar? “O preço é exagerado, porque quem pega sol e que está sujeito a câncer não é só quem tem poder aquisitivo, é o pobre também”, ressalta o aposentado Gilberto Souza. O Fantástico foi às ruas com a dermatologista Fátima Pires e confirmou: a maioria das pessoas não usa protetor ou usa muito menos do que deveria. Um frasco de filtro solar de 120 mililitros com fator de proteção 20 custa, em média, R$ 20. O preço é alto, ainda mais em país onde, a cada ano, cerca de 120 mil pessoas têm câncer de pele. O protetor solar é feito com substâncias importadas – justamente os filtros que protegem a pele contra queimaduras e o câncer. A boa notícia é que o filtro solar nacional já está chegando. Ele foi criado por três universidades brasileiras: a Católica de Brasília, a Universidade de Brasília e a Federal do Rio de Janeiro. “Nesse momento, a gente está exatamente na fase de transformar o que a gente fez em processo de laboratório em processo industrial”, explica a diretora do Instituto de Química da Universidade de Brasília, Maria Lucília dos Santos. Sabe onde os pesquisadores foram descobrir o protetor nacional? Em uma fruta brasileiríssima, o caju! Mais precisamente, na casca da castanha do caju. É um líquido retirado da casca da castanha que dá origem ao protetor solar nacional. Em aproximadamente dois anos, ele deve estar no mercado. Poderá custar até 50% mais barato. “A partir de maio de 2006, a gente depositou a patente internacional dela. Então, ela esta sob proteção”, informa a professora da UFRJ Sheila Garcia. Mas é muito importante lembrar: a casca ou o óleo da castanha do caju jamais passar diretamente na pele, porque provocam queimaduras. Somente depois de processado em laboratório o produto passa a proteger a pele. Em qualquer estação do ano, não se esqueça: mesmo com protetor solar, é perigoso pegar muito sol, principalmente entre 10h e 16h, quando os raios Ultravioleta castigam mais. Para os trabalhadores, atenção! Quem se expõe ao sol diariamente, não facilite. Além do protetor solar, use chapéus e roupas que protejam o corpo. A lei ainda não obriga as empresas a fornecer protetor solar, mas algumas já fazem isso espontaneamente como os Correios. No Brasil inteiro, mais de 40 mil funcionários são orientados pela empresa a não ir para rua sem protetor solar. “Aqui a gente tem de graça, então não tem como dizer que não vai usar”, conta a carteira Kellen Christine Soares.
“Está muito bom mesmo. Evoluiu bastante e a gente passa todo dia o protetor solar”, diz o carteiro Gilberto Nunes. Esta aí um bom exemplo que poderia ser seguido por outras empresas.


Fonte: - http://fantastico.globo.com/Jornalismo/Fantastico/0,,AA1461579-4005-640847-0-18022007,00.html - 18/02/2007

Should You Trust Your Makeup?

By NATASHA SINGER

Published: February 15, 2007
FOR decades, companies that make everything from after-shave to lip gloss have conducted safety testing on grooming products and shipped the cosmetics to stores to be sold to consumers, all with very little government involvement. And over the years, there have been few health or safety problems associated with the myriad grooming products and cosmetics on the market.
Nonetheless, momentum has been building for greater oversight of the chemicals in everyday products, with the European Union and California taking the lead in imposing new rules for monitoring what is in the perfumes, creams, nail polish and hair sprays that are sold.
The California Safe Cosmetics Act, which took effect on Jan. 1, requires cosmetics companies to tell state health authorities if a product contains any chemical on several government lists covering possible cancer-causing agents or substances that may harm the reproductive system.
State Senator Carole Migden, Democrat of San Francisco, said that such chemicals, even in trace amounts, should be removed from beauty products because they have been found to cause cancer or hormonal changes in lab animals.
“The bill mandates that manufacturers reveal potentially poisonous ingredients,” said Senator Migden, the bill’s author. “I hope that the bill will lead manufacturers to voluntarily eliminate suspect ingredients from cosmetics.”
The cosmetics industry is already taking steps to heighten self-monitoring, though representatives said the ingredients that the California law regulates pose no risk to human health when used topically in the small quantities found in some cosmetics.
Indeed, no rigorous large-scale clinical trials have been conducted that would indicate that cosmetics trigger major diseases in humans. But some small case reports published in medical journals suggest that a few substances used in cosmetics may affect hormone function in humans.
Scientists are particularly interested in a group of chemicals called phthalates — used in some nail polishes, fragrances, medical devices and shower curtains — some of which have had an effect on the reproductive systems of lab animals and can be absorbed and excreted by the human body.
Although the cosmetics industry considers the phthalates used in its products to be safe, some companies have voluntarily removed dibutyl phthalate, which California considers harmful to the reproductive system, from their nail polishes.
But some environmentalists are pressing for a deeper analysis of the possible long-term effects of exposure to these chemicals. Some have formed a group called the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to publicize their concerns, using the Internet to highlight ingredients and manufacturers. Their efforts have raised the possibility that the cosmetics industry eventually could be subject to greater government regulation, with perhaps mandatory testing and product approval.
Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families in Washington, said that activists are singling out cosmetics because, unlike medical devices, they are optional purchases.
“If you are looking for chemical exposures that everyone can relate to, it’s not medical devices like IV bags,” Dr. Zuckerman said. “It’s shampoos and creams that are ubiquitous, that men, women and children are using every day.”
Since 1938, when Congress gave the Food and Drug Administration limited authority over beauty products, cosmetics has been a largely self-regulating industry. Prescription and over-the-counter drugs must submit safety data to the agency before it approves them for sale to the public. But cosmetics do not need agency approval because they are defined as topical products (like moisturizer or mascara) that alter neither the structure nor the function of the skin.
Beauty manufacturers are required to ensure the safety of their cosmetics before they go on sale, but the federal agency has never defined safety, according to an agency spokeswoman. That has left it to the beauty industry to settle on a definition, with the overall standard being that products are safe for use if they do not irritate the skin when applied as directed.
By that standard, the industry has a long record of safety, with about six billion products manufactured annually worldwide, and only rare reports of problems like allergic reactions. Americans spent about $50 billion last year on cosmetics and toiletries, according to Euromonitor International, a market research firm.
But some health groups have raised questions about the possible long-term or cumulative effects of exposure to all the chemicals in everyday products. In response to their concerns, the European Union imposed new regulations on the industry in 2004, banning more than 600 chemicals from use in cosmetics. In 2005, it went further to require more package information on product shelf life and allergenic ingredients.
Later this year, the European Union will take its oversight another step, instituting a policy called the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH), which will require companies — including cosmetics firms — that produce chemicals or use them in their products, packaging or manufacturing, to collect comprehensive data on the possible risks of the substances to human health and to the environment. The European Commission has estimated that the new law will cost the chemical industry as much as $6.7 billion over the next decade, but that it could save up to $70 billion in health costs over the next 30 years.
Part of the push for greater oversight stems from concerns about health trends, like increased reports of early puberty, asthma and allergies. Some scientists and health groups want to know if there is any connection to the aggregate exposure to chemicals.
A handful of small case studies and anecdotal reports, published in medical journals, suggest that a few ingredients used in some cosmetics could potentially have a hormonal or allergenic affect on humans.
A report published Feb. 1 in the New England Journal of Medicine described the cases of three preteenage boys who each used shampoo, hair gel or body products that contained either lavender oil or tea tree oil and who each grew breast tissue; the tissue receded after the boys stopped using the products. The researchers said their findings, though far from conclusive, suggest that repeated exposure to these oils has the potential to affect hormones.
On Feb. 2, BMJ (formerly known as the British Medical Journal) published an editorial from doctors in which they cited reports of a marked increase in allergic reactions to hair dyes. The editorial called for increased scrutiny of hair dyes.
California has done the most of any state to address the issue of chemicals in cosmetics. Legislators in a few other states have discussed similar measures.
The cosmetics industry has not been resistant to greater disclosure. It has embraced the new European regulations, and it is working with California regulators to institute the new law.
But industry representatives said their goal is increased self-regulation, not government oversight. Toward that aim, the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, an industry trade group, last month began to offer companies a voluntary program to make their safety data available to the F.D.A. and to report adverse reactions to the agency. They also said manufacturers would be more accountable to the guidance of an industry panel that reviews the safety of cosmetic ingredients.
At the same time, though, the industry has employed lobbyists to counter legislation and has argued that the new regulations are prompted by unsubstantiated fears rather than by hard science.
John Bailey, executive vice president for science of the cosmetics industry trade group, said that each beauty company conducts its own safety assessment of ingredients and final products. This typically includes a review of scientific literature to ensure that chemicals used in formulas don’t cause toxic reactions or cell mutations in the body; patch tests on volunteers to make sure finished products won’t irritate; and bacterial tests to make sure products won’t spoil, he said.
Dr. Bailey added that substances being singled out by regulators and environmental groups are present in such small amounts in such a limited number of cosmetics that they pose no threat to human health. He compared them to salt in cooking.
“A little salt on your peas or tomatoes can be good,” Dr. Bailey said. “But a lot of salt can have adverse health effects on your blood pressure, and too much can be fatal.”
But some say the possible cumulative effect is exactly the point.
“They test in the short term for immediate reactions to make sure the product doesn’t cause your skin to itch, get red or fall off,” said Jeanne Rizzo, executive director of the Breast Cancer Fund, a nonprofit group in San Francisco that was one of the sponsors of the new California law. “But we don’t know the long-term effect of multiple exposures to chemicals in cosmetics that can get absorbed in your skin and end up in your urine or your bloodstream.”
Antonia M. Calafat, lead researcher at the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, said the body’s absorption and excretion of chemicals do not necessarily indicate an impact on human health.
“All we can say at the moment is that humans are exposed to these chemicals, but the presence of a chemical in the body does not necessarily constitute a negative effect,” said Dr. Calafat, who added, “There need to be comprehensive, well-designed studies to understand whether indeed these compounds are harmful for humans.”
The chemicals that must be reported to health officials under the California law include lead acetate, found in some hair dyes; formaldehyde, which can be used as a cosmetic preservative; and toluene, a solvent used in some nail products.
“The law only requires that a cosmetic manufacturer with a product that contains a toxicant report it,” said Kevin Reilly, deputy director of prevention services of the state’s public health program. “But it will be interesting to see whether this bill drives reformulation of products.”

Fonte: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/fashion/15skin.html?pagewanted=2&ref=health - 15/02/07

Breast growth in boys blamed on cosmetics

James Randerson, science correspondent
Thursday February 1, 2007

Cosmetics containing lavender and tea tree oil can disrupt the hormonal development of pre-pubescent boys causing them to grow breasts, doctors say in a warning that follows three American boys experiencing the rare condition after they used gels, shampoos or lotions containing the essential oils.
The researchers say they do not yet know which chemicals in the oils caused the changes. Once identified these substances might need to be removed from products designed for children.
"If you use these products on your child and you see changes in their body talk to your doctor or paediatrician," said Kenneth Korach, at the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, in Maryland.
Although six in 10 boys experience some temporary breast enlargement during puberty, it is very rare for pre-pubescent boys to begin developing breasts, a condition called gynecomastia. Scientists know this is caused by a disruption of sex hormone signals to breast tissue, but it can have a variety of causes.
The researchers began to suspect lavender and tea tree oil after Clifford Bloch, a paediatrician at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, examined the cases of three boys, aged four, seven and 10. "We speculated that environmental factors might be contributing to their condition," he said. The link was that the parents had given the children products containing the essential oils, including a skin balm with lavender oil, a gel and shampoo with lavender and tea tree oil, lavender soap and lavender-scented skin lotion.
To see if the oils were the culprits, the team tested lavender and tea tree oil on human breast cells in the laboratory. They report in the New England Journal of Medicine that the oils stimulated breast cells to produce oestrogen and inhibit male sex hormones. The breasts of all three boys returned to normal a few months after they stopped using the cosmetics.
"We want to encourage doctors who may be seeing patients with gynecomastia to ask [them] about the products they are using," said Dr Korach.

Fonte: http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,2003340,00.html - 01/02/07