Having problems with message search?
Many of you probably know barb. Sorry if this is a cross posting for you...
Max
----- Original Message -----
From: Barbara Wilkie
To: wilworks@...
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:03 AM
Subject: [cheasthma] Research Summary: Pollution In Homes . . . page 3
And then, you all may wish to take a look at EHN's section of Fragrance Info at http://users.lmi.net/~wilworks/ehnlinx/f.htm#Fragrance
In that section, there's plenty of information indicating years of knowledge about fragrance chemicals and asthma such as:
"Effects of Odors in Asthma"
Chang Shim, MD and M. Henry Williams, Jr., MD,
Pulmonary Division, Department of Medicine,
Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx NY,
The American Journal of Medicine, Volume 80, January 1986.
In that study they "carefully distinguished between unpleasant emotional reaction to the odors and respiratory symptoms." In conclusion they wrote: "From a practical standpoint, sensitive asthmatic patients should be advised to eliminate odors from their environment as much as possible. They usually have done so on their own."
We have. But, in a scented workplace, in healthcare facilities . . . anywhere, we must breathe the air polluted by the superfluous fragrance chemicals used by others. -- barb http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3079951&dopt=Abstract
Those who have visited that section on EHN's site have also seen the Cal Berkeley report that Dean Edell just made the news with tonight!
Air Resources Board and the University of California, Berkeley
*Household cleaners and air fresheners emit toxic pollutants
May 25, 2006, 12:33, Reviewed by: Dr. Priya Saxena
"Their results indicate that we need to look beyond the directly emitted compounds."
By UC Berkeley, When used indoors under certain conditions, many common household
cleaners and air fresheners emit toxic pollutants at levels that may lead to health risks,
according to a new study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, and
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
http://www.rxpgnews.com/research/environment/pollution/article_4312.shtml
. . . and that led to . . .
Principal Investigator: William W. Nazaroff
University of California, Berkeley
April 2006
ARB Contract No. 01-336 (Full Report)
ABSTRACT
When cleaning products and air fresheners are used indoors, occupants are exposed to
airborne chemicals, potentially leading to health risks. Indoor air pollutant exposures
owing to cleaning product and air freshener use depend on emissions from products,
dynamic behavior of chemical species, and human factors. A series of experiments was
conducted to investigate volatile organic compound emissions, concentrations, and
reactive chemistry associated with the household use of cleaning products and air
fresheners. Research focused on two common classes of ingredients in cleaning products
and air fresheners: ethylene-based glycol ethers, which are classified as toxic air
contaminants, and terpenes, which react rapidly with ozone. A shelf-survey of retail
outlets led to the selection of 21 products whose chemical composition was characterized.
Among the criteria used to select these products were ready availability through
California retail outlets and, for the majority of products, expectation that they contained
ethylene-based glycol ethers, terpenes and related compounds, or both. Of the 17
cleaning products characterized, four contained substantial levels of d-limonene (4-25% by
mass), three contained terpenoids that are characteristic of pine oil, six contained
substantial levels of ethylene-based glycol ethers (0.8-10% by mass), and five contained
less than 0.2% of any of the target analytes. Xylene in one product was the only other
toxic air contaminant detected. Among the four air fresheners characterized, three
contained substantial quantities (9-14% by mass) of terpene hydrocarbon and terpene
alcohol constituents, with linalool being the most abundant. Six of the 21 products were
investigated in simulated-use experiments in which emissions and concentrations of
primary constituents were measured. Cleaning products that contain 2- butoxyethanol
as an active ingredient produced one-hour-average concentrations of 300 to 2,300 µg/m 3
immediately after simulated typical use in a room-sized chamber. For cleaning products
that contain d-limonene as an active ingredient, corresponding levels were 1,000 to
6,000 µg/m 3 . Application of a pine-oil based cleaner produced one-hour-average
concentrations of 10-1300 µg/m 3 for terpene hydrocarbons and terpene alcohols.
Reactive chemistry was studied by exposing constituents of three products to ozone, both
in a bench-scale chamber and during simulated use. Prominent products of the
reaction of terpenes with ozone included formaldehyde (a toxic air contaminant), hydroxyl
radical, and secondary organic aerosol (a form of fine particulate matter). Incorporating
the new experimental data, exposures were estimated for several simulated use
scenarios. Under ordinary circumstances, exposures to 2-butoxyethanol, formaldehyde,
and secondary organic aerosol are not expected to be as high as guideline values solely
as a result of cleaning product or air freshener use. However, ordinary use could lead to
exposure levels of similar magnitude as guideline values. Scenario model results
suggest that exposure levels could exceed guideline values under exceptional yet plausible
conditions, such as cleaning a large surface area in a small room. The results of this
study provide important information for understanding the inhalation exposures to
certain air pollutants that can result from the use of common household products.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/abstracts/01-336.htm
We all can keep ignoring the elephant in the room, or we all can describe one part of it and not know just what we are looking at (or feeling blindfolded) but the fact remains the elephant is in the room. And while we continue to ignore it, we are allowing the flavors and fragrance industry to continue spreading its poisons far and wide, which are quite definitely making people sick. The reasons are many. The mere fact that there has been little research -- until recently -- should heighten our desire to look seriously at petrochemical-derived fragrances for the role they play in asthma. (And other diseases, for that matter; but here, we deal with asthma.)
Since the 1970s, when the making of fragrances really took off as a petrochemical industry product, fragrances have spread in use. Not only have the numbers of fragrances products increased just in perfumes, but because they've been so much cheaper to make, and became more stable, they have been added to a greater variety of products. (Mother Nature always throws a curve with production . . . too hot, too wet, too dry, too cold; plus people factors such as wars, treaties and other trade agreements can throw a monkey wrench into supply and demand of nature's products.) So, as fragrances were cheaper to make and more stable, there was a natural proliferation of scents. But not only as perfumes. Fragrances are a major part of the household and janitorial cleaning and maintenace products business, which incudes such diverse items as pesticides, cleaners, detergents, and environmental enhancements like scented candles, air "fresheners" various sprays to mask odors, etc. There was a marketing push, the likes of which has only been met by the push for pharmaceuticals. The petrochemical industry has indeed been busy with it's derivatives. In essence (pun intended!) the industry has made products that make people sick and then has made products to help them over the hump of the latest illness.
But who wants to look at the idea of PREVENTION? Apparently only the already perfume-poisoned people. Alas, there just isn't the big money in preventive measures. Even the Dean Edell report tonight pussyfooted around the issue of simply purchasing safer alternatives.
Anyway, following are some numbers you may want to feast your eyes upon . . . and this is JUST perfumes. Look at the increase in only perfumes. Look at that jump in the 1970s when they really launched into making perfumes with petrochemical derivatives. Perfumes for men and women.
There is also a market geared to kids, but I don't have those figures. And there had been reports about fragrances targeting not just kids, but also African-Americans and Hispanics . . . these three demographics tend to be the ones leading the charts on Asthma. (Available through EHN under Statistics at http://users.lmi.net/~wilworks/ehnlinx/s.htm#Statistics
Go figger!
--
And then, one last comment before I again retire from the computer for a while . . .
The following is from a timeline of what we knew when about fragrances, which I created based upon info from the industry.
Let us look at the proliferation of perfumed products, based on information from The Fragrance Foundation®, Inc.
*1940 - 1950: 19 fragrances were introduced for women, four for men
*1950 - 1960: 30 fragrances introduced for women, six for men
*1960 - 1970: 46 fragrances introduced for women, 31 for men
*1970 - 1980: 197 fragrances introduced for women and 90 for men.
My tallies for the years 1980 - 1989 and 1990 - 1999 are based on the info provided by The Fragrance Foundation®, Inc.
*1980 - 1989: 281 fragrances introduced for women, 181 for men.
*1990 - 1999: 636 fragrances introduced for women, 309 for men.
*2000 -
Fragrance launches sources:
1940 - 2001 -- http://www.fragrance.org/launches1940_content.html . . . now, through the Wayback Machine at http://web.archive.org/web/20021228213050/http://www.fragrance.org/launches1940_content.html
2001 -- [Launches by name] http://www.fragrance.org/launches2001_content.html . . .
http://web.archive.org/web/20021228011904/www.fragrance.org/launches2001_content.html
2002 -- http://www.fragrance.org/launches2002_content.html 66 women's perfumes; 30 men's perfumes [Launches by name]
2003 -- [If anyone has these numbers, I'd appreciate being able to fill in this blank. -- barb]
2004 -- [If anyone has these numbers, I'd appreciate being able to fill in this blank. -- barb]
2005 -- http://www.fragrance.org/news.html 143 women's scents; 61 men's fragrances
2006 - 260 women's perfumes launched in 2006 - 106 men's perfumes from http://www.fragrance.org/news.html
2007 -- Already, by Feb. 1, 2007 11 women's scents and one scent for men.
AND JUST CHECKING THE NIGHT OF VALENTINE'S DAY, Feb 14, 2007, there are now 50 women's scents and 22 men's scents released. See http://www.fragrance.org/news.html
Folks, I'd really like to see you all be able to do something with the info on fragrances even though I have not been able to spark the attention of various Asthma groups in the past . . . and certainly not the FDA nor the USA's American Lung Association. (Canada ALA does have good info on fragrances available. See EHN's section on Fragrance Info, above.)
barb wilkie
www.ehnca.org
==
--
barb and Connie of EHN
barb and Connie of EHN
topic: fragrances including fabric softeners
archived on "Your Health Matters"
http://www.healthylife.net
It IS the combinations of chemicals,
states UC Professor Tyrone Hayes
in Oakland Tribune article about pesticides.
It IS the environment states
Breast Cancer Action and Breast Cancer Fund
in an Oakland Tribune article about breast cancer.
It IS the combination of fragrance chemicals,
as well as individual petrochemically derived chemicals,
state Betty Bridges, RN (FPIN) and Barb Wilkie (EHN)
since petitioning the FDA May 11, 1999.
Write to the FDA . . . tell them to protect your health
by regulating the flavors and fragrance industry.
Put Docket Number 99P-1340 on your subject line.
E-mail FDA Dockets at fdadockets@...
Offline 
Send Email