"In their study, Martin K. Patel, Li Shen and Juliane Haufe demonstrate that up to 90 percent of the current global consumption of polymers can technically be converted from oil and gas to renewable raw materials." But while that's a pretty huge number, this is a theoretical ceiling. In the short to mid-term, the numbers are much lower: "Based on recent company announcements the production capacity of bio-based plastics is projected to increase from 360,000 tons in 2007 to about 2.3 million tons by 2013."

That's a good growth rate, but it won't bring us anywhere near 90% of total plastics anytime soon, and even if it did, there would probably be huge problems getting all that biomass. This is just another reminder that since plastics are useful things, we should probably stop burning all that oil and natural gas and instead keep it around to make more useful and long-lived things.

In 2007, the most important products in terms of production volumes were starch plastics (0.15 Mt) and PLA (0.15 Mt). Based on the company announcements, the authors project that the most important representatives by 2020 will be starch plastics (1.3 Mt), PLA (0.8 Mt), bio-based PE (0.6 Mt) and PHA (0.4 Mt).

A variety of growth scenarios have been looked at by the authors of the study. The most optimistic one brings production of bio-plastics to 4.40 Mt by 2020.

How about we start putting some serious effort in designing and using plastics (bio or not) that can be recycled more easily and that don't degrade quite as much during the process (down-cycling)? Of course, the problem remains that recycling plastics isn't that attractive as long as oil prices are relatively low and it costs a lot to recycle it. Improvements in recycling techniques might be needed before things improve much.

Via European Bioplastics, Green Car Congress

More Green(er) Materials
Green Materials Guide
Green Glossary: Bioplastics

While science of BPA risk is undergoing a new and more rigorous scientific review, a task FDA is conducting as you read this, the lawyers pursuing this suit have upped the ante for FDA's work. Instead of being about the science and better policy making, FDA's report will be viewed as all about the money and jobs. As a corollary, it increases the likelihood we'll see climate 'truthiness' lawsuits down the road.

From Business Insurance:-

The lawsuits accuse manufacturers of knowing that BPA is harmful, particularly to infants and children, and failing to warn consumers. They seek economic damages--return of their purchase price for millions of baby bottles and other food containers--as well as punitive damages.

"If the FDA came out and said there is a health hazard, that would take it to an entirely new dimension. My guess is there would be plaintiff lawyers trampling each other on the way to the courthouse," Mr. Vanselow said.

For the rest of us?
Instead of helping educate consumers on better choices, instead of letting industry, academic, and corporate scientists do their jobs, unhindered by politics and fear of economic mayhem, and instead of pressuring Congress and regulatory agencies do their job, predatory lawyers are doing their part to demonstrate that government is incapable of solving public health problems.

Potential to bias the scientific review toward reduced certainty.
The action so exemplifies the kind of greed-focused "environmentalism" that gave Free Marketer's so much rein with the public's hopes over the last 20 years. Knowing how high the financial ante will be raised by the prospect of widespread industry lawsuits, in a backdrop of employment rates slipping, FDA scientists can hardly be blamed if they become distracted and equivocate on their summary determinations.

What's really on trial.
At the bottom of this pile is a 500-year old science making a severe paradigm shift, touching every scientist involved with chemical risk management. The fundamental precept of toxicology is that "All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison." This is often condensed to: "The dose makes the poison". This old idea, the very basis of all toxicology, originates from the Middle Ages (per Wikipedia). For the several endocrine disrupting chemicals of concern, including BPA, that 500-year old toxicology paradigm has been shown to be highly questionable, possibly invalid. (This is the paradigm that many in industry and government have been operating with up until now.)

For some endocrine disruptors, for example, researchers have not been able measure a traditional "no effect level." Initially, this issue was viewed as marginal to the central point of toxicology, and risk communication went on in the usual manner. Thus, the consolidated legal case puts on trial, indirectly, the most basic principle of toxicology, and all risk communications based on it.

Also on trial, as an indirect counterpoint, is the ability of the Obama Administration to rapidly resurrect the physical resources needed and professional morale at both USEPA and FDA, to the point where chemical risk management by government agencies can once again be counted on to mediate powerful, sometimes conflicting interests, and to find balanced solutions that protect public health.(Another climate action parallel.) We have, therefore, parallel deliberative processes with very high stakes and differing purposes, one in court and the other about to unfold in Washington DC. Only the latter effort will be done in the interest of protecting public health.

More posts on BPA
What Would Happen If BisPhenol A (BPA) Were Phased Out Tomorrow ...
Canada Calls Bisphenol A "Dangerous"
Wal-Mart Dumps BPA Bottles; More Studies Pan BPA :
SIGG Bottles Now BPA Free. But What Were They Before?
Consumers Reports Confirms Bisphenol A Leaches From Tin Cans ...
Nalgene Dumps Bisphenol A Like Hot Potato
Quotes of the Day: Opinions on the FDA Declaring BPA Safe :
FDA Throwing BPA Panel Under the Bus
The Politics of Plastics: Food Fights Over Bisphenol A :
Tipping Point Reached On BPA: Investigative Reporting, Product

The study is the first to find that TiO2 nanoparticles caused single- and double-strand DNA breaks, in addition to chromosomal damage and inflammation in the mice tested - all factors that increase the risk of cancer.

Though nanoparticles cannot go through skin (so that means sticking to lotion sunscreens for instance), once ingested they can accumulate in different organs since the body cannot eliminate them. Their size allows nanoparticles to go anywhere in the body, even through cells where they could wreak havoc on a sub-cellular level.

Titanium dioxide nanoparticles were once considered non-toxic because they did not trigger a chemical reaction on their own. But as Robert Schiestl, professor of pathology, radiation oncology and environmental health sciences and senior author of the study explains, it is the surface reactions of accumulated nanoparticles that is particularly worrying.

"The novel principle is that titanium by itself is chemically inert. However, when the particles become progressively smaller, their surface, in turn, becomes progressively bigger and in the interaction of this surface with the environment oxidative stress is induced," he said.

"This is the first comprehensive study of titanium dioxide nanoparticle-induced genotoxicity, possibly caused by a secondary mechanism associated with inflammation and/or oxidative stress. Given the growing use of these nanoparticles, these findings raise concern about potential health hazards associated with exposure."

Nanoparticle production is big business, with two million tons being produced per year and destined for products ranging from paint, sunscreen, vitamins, cosmetics, toothpaste, food colorants and hundreds of other consumer products.

"It could be that a certain portion of spontaneous cancers are due to this exposure," says Schiestl. "And some people could be more sensitive to nanoparticles exposure than others... I believe the toxicity of these nanoparticles has not been studied enough."

In the meantime, the study states that it's not clear if exposure increases exponentially - so it may be "prudent to limit ingestion through non-essential drug additives [and] food colors."

Science Daily

Methylparaben, BHT and triethanolamine, oh my

And when I did (without ever finding a hair dye I actually wanted to recommend) what immediately caught my eye was a small purple box at the bottom of the home page. Mercury in Mascara? ran the headline. The last thing I wanted to poke in my eye was even a nano-particle of mercury. I followed the link.

And learned that just one brand of mascara, Paula Dorf's Cake Mascara for Eyes (in Raven and Foxy) had been found by EWG to have thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative used in vaccines and sometimes found in cosmetics. Yikes! As EWG puts it:

According to FDA, 'Mercury compounds are readily absorbed through the skin on topical application and tend to accumulate in the body. They may cause allergic reactions, skin irritation, or neurotoxic manifestations.' Mercury is considered particularly toxic to the developing brain during pregnancy, infancy and childhood. FDA has banned the use of mercury compounds in all cosmetics except those used around the eyes, where levels are limited to 65 parts per million (ppm). In 2007 the use of mercury in all cosmetics was banned in Minnesota.

Luckily, I could never remember using or buying Paula Dorf cosmetics, but the idea that a consumer could unwittingly purchase this product without knowing that thimerosal is mercury-based was horrifying. Thimerosal is suspected to have an as-yet unproven link to autism. I don't want it in my flu shot or any of my personal care products.

I searched for my mascara. In EWG's complex hazard rating system, my mascara scored a 5 for its hazardous potential (only one point better than the Paula Dorf, by the way). For the moment, I couldn't bear to toss it into the trash, though my Neutrogena Healthy Defense Daily Moisturizer (also hazard score '5') and a cake of Maybelline eye shadow (rating a hazard score of '8') got chucked in the trash immediately.

One reason products may rate a high hazard score in the EWG database is that they contain a chemical that is thought to be cancer-causing or endocrine disrupting. While it may be that tiny concentrations of these chemicals will do you no serious harm, the biggest problem is that we as consumers just don't know how to assess the risk of all these chemicals, as they are being used lawfully, and only a small percentage of them have been tested. Because the testing data is all over the place, EWG also provides a 'data gap' rating on products or ingredients.

Sean Gray, EWG senior analyst, describes the system like this:

"The "data gap" rating is a measure of how much is unknown about an ingredient. Not all ingredients have the same amount of safety data. For example, some ingredients may appear to have low hazards, but this may be due to the fact that they have not have been studied or assessed completely. Other ingredients may appear to have low hazards and have been thoroughly studied or assessed. This score helps differentiate between ingredients and products that have been studied to different degrees.

Consumers should be leery of products in our database with a very high data gap because they are acting as the guinea pig. But consumers should be even more leery of the products with very high hazard scores because these products carry known concerns. The best situation is a product with low scores for both pieces."

Of course, EWG assessment is not the final word on cosmetic safety. But I had previously read enough about methyparaben to know that I didn't want to smear it all over my face every morning, and the fact that less than 20% of the 10,500 ingredients in personal care products have been reviewed and tested for safety by the cosmetic industry's own panel was a wake up call.

"We hope that when people become outraged about the chemicals in their personal care products that they will take action," says Sean Gray. "Nearly 90% of the ingredients used in cosmetics have not been studied for safety in cosmetics. Switching to products with lower hazard scores doesn't solve this problem. In fact, the unknown factor often increases as you find products with lower hazard scores. The only lasting solution is a policy change. Consumers should write to Congress and demand better regulation. They should write to the maker of their products and demand better products. And they should tell their friends and family that the cosmetics company can put anything they want into the products."

Though the bulk of my makeup bag has slimmed down considerably after my encounter with the Skin Deep database, I still haven't been able to toss the mascara, though I know I'll never buy that brand or anything made by that company again. The 'safest' mascara in EWG's database by Coastal Creations, while it looks good and gets a '0' score (the only mascara in the database to do so), is a whopping $25. Way beyond my budget for mascara. For the time being, I may just have to go naked, at least on my eyelashes.

What about you? What's in your mascara, and how much are you willing to pay for a 'safer' alternative?

Update: When researching Paula Dorf's mascara with thimerosal, I realized that big-name and fancy mascaras were running from $18 - $22 dollars and up, so I bit the bullet and ordered the '0' hazard mascara found at Coastal Creations, and went ahead and chucked my to-remain-unnamed silver tube.

Read more about safe cosmetics at TreeHugger and Planet Green
Sephora Natural Mascara Thickens and Lengthens Lashes
Mercury...in Your Mascara?
Tarte eyeQuatic Waterproof Summer Essentials is Sunny With Chance of Showers

1. Fragrance

Examine the fine print of most personal-care product labels and you're bound to find "fragrance" (or, if you want to get fancy, "parfum") jostling for room with its multisyllabic brethren. Because they're considered trade secrets, fragrances fall into a colossal loophole in federal law that doesn't require companies to disclose the potentially hundreds of chemicals in a single product's olfactory-tickling formula.

This simple term can obscure hinky substances tied to myriad health problems, from allergies to endocrine disruption. In 2002, three-quarters of the 72 products tested by the Environmental Working Group contained phthalates, plasticizer chemicals linked to birth defects, feminization of infant boys, liver and kidney damage, and infertility. None of the products, which included brands like Cover Girl, Pantene, Dove, L'Oréal, and Revlon, had the word "phthalates" listed on their bottles, which is even more insidious.

2. Polyethylene glycol

Polyethylene glycol, better known by its acronym, PEG, isn't a single ingredient but a class of ethylene glycol polymers that moisturize, keep products stable, and enhance the penetration of other ingredients, both good and bad. PEGs are typically followed by a number correlating to how many units of ethylene glycol they comprise, in the form of say PEG-4 or PEG-100; the lower the number, the more easily the compound is absorbed into the skin.

While PEGs can be mild irritants, they're less than desirable primarily because they help traffic funky chemicals across your epidermis, including a slug of impurities they're often contaminated with. According to a report in the International Journal of Toxicology by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, pollutants found in various PEG compounds include ethylene oxide (used to manufacture mustard gas), 1,4-dioxane, polycyclic aromatic compounds, and heavy metals (lead, iron, cobalt, nickel, cadmium, arsenic).

3. Nanoparticles

Photo credit: Smithsonian Institute

Largely untested, these extremely minuscule particles are usually undeclared on product labels, even though they can be absorbed directly into the bloodstream. In addition to bronzers, eye shadows, and lotions, you can also find them lurking in a large number of sunscreens that use micronized particles of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which form physical barriers against UV rays. It's on this battlefield that the "nano wars" are at their most feverish.

Although the EWG, after poring over 400 peer-reviewed studies, concluded that the benefits of small-scale zinc and titanium sunscreen ingredients outweighed the potential risks, a recent report by Friends of the Earth, Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports), and International Center for Technology Assessment had a different take. "Consumers must be aware that nanomaterials are being put into sunscreens with very little evidence about their safety and relative efficacy," notes Ian Illuminato, one of the report's co-authors, citing a 2007 Consumer Reports test that the EWG found at odds with its own investigation—at least for liquid sunscreens.

Powdered sunscreens or sprays, which can be inhaled, are a whole different story, however. The high surface area—and high reactivity—of tiny particles of zinc and titanium can provoke inflammatory responses, oxidative stress, and cell damage.

4. Phenoxyethanol

Photo credit: sakura_chihaya

A ubiquitous preservative, even in products touted as "all-natural" or "organic," phenoxyethanol is classified as an irritant by the European Union and a restricted substance in Japanese cosmetics. According to its Material Safety Data Sheet, which refers to 100 percent concentration, phenoxyethanol is not only harmful if inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through the skin, but it can also cause reproductive defects and nervous system damage. In cosmetics, concentrations are typically less than 1 percent, but your exposure to the ingredient could be compounded depending on how often it rears its head in the products you use.

Let's put it this way, if phenoxyethanol is awful enough for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has a spotty record at best when it comes to championing public interest, to put out a consumer alert warning that it can "depress the central nervous system and may cause vomiting and diarrhea" in infants, it's probably wise to steer clear of this bad boy.

5. Triclosan

Photo credit: monsieurlui

Triclosan is an antibacterial compound that runs rampant in many cleansers, deodorants and other personal-care products that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies as a probable human carcinogen. Linked to cancer, developmental defects, and liver and inhalation toxicity, overuse of this hormone-disrupting pesticide—yes, pesticide—can also result in strains of drug-resistant superbacteria.

Plus, triclosan tends to bioaccumulate in the fatty tissues of people and animals, which explains why it's been detected in our blood and breast milk. Acutely toxic to several types of aquatic life, triclosan can also degrade into a form of dioxin, a class of known carcinogens. New research also shows that triclosan in tap water can react with residual chlorine from water disinfection to form myriad chlorinated byproducts, including chloroform, a human carcinogen.

6. Petrolatum

Photo credit: John Keane

Oh, where to begin? This gelatinous substance, also known as petroleum jelly, is derived from crude oil. Its popularity as an emollient largely stems from its extremely low cost. (Vaseline, for instance, is pure petrolatum.) There are cosmetic reasons to eschew the goop: The oily film that sits on the surface of your skin can aggravate acne and slow down cell turnover (read: cause you to prematurely age). But beyond that, petrolatum is also particularly susceptible to contamination by baddie chemicals like 1,4-dioxane, a probable human carcinogen, no thanks to unregulated manufacturing procedures.

In any case, Canada isn't a fan: Beyond the border, Environment Canada classifies the substance as a possible carcinogen, a possible mutagen, and a suspected environmental toxin.

7. Quaternium-15

Photo credit: Getty Images

Considering that quaternium-15 is a known human toxicant, it's astounding that you can find it in "extra-gentle" bubble bath and "extra-sensitive" baby wash. Used as a preservative, quaternium-15 is not cancer-causing in and of itself but breaks down to release formaldehyde, which the EPA classifies as a probable human carcinogen.

Because it's also an allergen, quaternium-15 can cause contact dermatitis in sensitive skin. And if you're allergic to formaldehyde, chances are you're also allergic to quaternium-15.

1. Many skincare products contain chemicals toxic to the skin

A mind-boggling array of products contain chemicals that sensitize skin and trigger skin problems such as rashes, redness, acne, and other symptoms of contact dermatitis, says Malkan, who notes that doctors often misdiagnose these problems as eczema and prescribe drugs such as steroids or immunosuppressants. Then, of course, there are the toxic chemicals that are known or suspected causes of long-term health effects such as asthma, infertility, learning disabilities, and cancer—ingredients that companies persist in including despite the fact that they "already know how to make great products without these hazardous chemicals," she says.

2. Companies that donate to breast-cancer research still use carcinogens in their products

Every October, we're barraged with a cavalcade of pink-ribbon products promoting breast-cancer awareness and research. The biting irony: Many of them may actually be contributing to the same disease they purport to seek a cure for.

Cosmetics companies, including Estée Lauder, Revlon, and Avon, are some of the worst offenders, touting rosy-hued wares that include known reproductive toxins, hormone-disrupting chemicals, and carcinogens. In fact, as part of the Cosmetics, Toiletries and Fragrance Association trade group, the companies opposed a California bill that would require cosmetics firms to disclose their use of chemicals linked to cancer or birth defects.

"They say it's 'just a little bit' of carcinogens in any given product," says Malkan, "but these carcinogenic exposures are adding up, and these companies are part of the problem. The beauty industry is a huge customer of the chemical industry. When these companies decide to be true pink-ribbon leaders, and true champions for women's health, they will refuse to buy carcinogens from the chemical companies and they will demand and develop safer green chemistry technologies."

An ounce of prevention
In 2007, the Silent Spring Institute and Susan B. Komen for the Cure released a scientific review identifying 216 chemicals that cause breast cancer in animals, many of which are commonly found in our homes. Some of the most widespread mammary gland carcinogens include 1,4-dioxane (found in detergents, shampoos, and soaps), perfluorooctanoic acid (used to manufacture Teflon), vinyl chloride (used to make PVC), and atrazine (a herbicide banned in Europe but widely used in the United States).

"The public health impacts of reducing exposures would be profound even if the true relative risks are modest," the researchers wrote. "If even a small percentage is due to preventable environmental factors, modifying these factors would spare thousands of women."

3. There are no safety assessments required for cosmetic products sold in the U.S.

Photo credit: islandfreedom

The United States has no safety standard for cosmetics. Period. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require companies to prove that personal-care products are safe for use before they put them on store shelves.

The industry's attempt to police itself hasn't fared any better: Only 11 percent of cosmetics ingredients have been assessed by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel, a self-regulating body that is the only publicly accountable institution that reviews cosmetics ingredients for safety in the United States.

"It's time for wholesale reform of the cosmetic safety laws in the U.S., which is far behind other countries such as Europe and Canada," says Malkan. "The current system of self-regulation in the U.S. is a complete failure—it fails to protect health and it fails to inspire innovation."

The big cosmetics companies, she adds, continue to use the same polluting technologies and toxic formulas they developed decades ago, rather than innovate the next generation of safer, nontoxic products. "This will change only when new laws are put in place that hold the beauty industry accountable for the chemicals they use, and give consumers the information they need to make safer choices," she says. Until then, the beauty industry is "operating in a virtual Wild West." In other words, anything goes.

4. Many personal-care products contain toxic chemicals not listed on labels

Photo credit: otodo

Trying to avoid phthalates? What about 1,4-dioxane or formaldehyde? Good luck with locating these and other toxic chemicals in the product fine print. Sheltered behind ambiguous terms like "fragrance" or smuggled in as trace contaminants or the byproducts of chemical processing, these hidden hazards sail by undeclared because loopholes in our ingredient-labeling laws exempt companies from listing them.

Sidestepping undercover toxins is no easy feat, but Malkan suggests examining labels for chemicals that are likely to be contaminated, including urea, quarternium-15, PEG compounds, and sodium laureth sulfate. The Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep database is another great resource for researching the contents of your products and how likely they are to be tainted. "But it's important to do more than just read labels, we also have to consider which companies we can trust," she says. "Which companies are standing up for what's right? Unfortunately, none of the major mainstream cosmetics companies have committed to removing carcinogens or other harmful contaminants."

5. Not one of the mainstream beauty giants has signed the Compact for Safe Cosmetics pledge

 
Photo credit: houseoftext

More than 1,000 companies have signed the Compact for Safe Cosmetics, a voluntary pledge to remove known and suspected toxic chemicals from their products and replace them with safe alternatives within three years, in addition to publicly reporting their progress. Missing in action are the world's largest makers of cosmetics and personal-care products, including L'Oréal, Revlon, Estée Lauder, Avon, Mary Kay, and Procter & Gamble.

Still, many of these major cosmetics firms have developed their own "green" product lines. "The Origins brand by Estée Lauder, for example, brags that it is free of a long list of hazardous chemicals," says Malkan. "So if Estée Lauder has already figured out how to make products without the harmful chemicals, why do they continue to use those chemicals in all their other product lines?"

1. Get your coffee fix

Don't toss out the coffee grounds that brewed up your morning pot of java. A handful of moist grounds (organic is preferable) makes a fantastic facial exfoliant or all-over body scrub. Not only do the grounds physically slough off dead skin cells with remarkable finesse, but the remaining caffeine also tightens and firms pores, resulting in impossibly smooth skin. For dry skin, add 1-2 tablespoons of cold-pressed extra-virgin olive oil.

2. Wash your makeup tools

Dirty makeup brushes and sponges are hotbeds of bacteria and grime. Allowing them to fester in their filth and then rubbing them all over your face is the quickest path to clogged pores, zit outbreaks, and the gnashing of teeth. Wash your tools at least once a week with a spot of shampoo and warm water to get them as good as new.

3. Find appeal in peels

For an instant, couldn't-be-easier moisturizer, says Donna Maria Coles Johnson, owner of Make Your Own Cosmetics, in the January 2008 issue of Natural Health, scrape off the inner peel of a banana, apply it to your face, and then rinse off after 15 minutes.

Other fruit and vegetable peelings to try (use the inner, fleshy part): Potatoes, which can help reduce puffiness; citrus (oranges, lemons, grapefruit) for its powerful astringent properties; avocado, for plumping up your complexion; and pineapple, to brighten skin instantly.

4. Give yourself a facial massage

Photo credit: Getty Images

Massaging your face increases circulation to your epidermis, improving the firmness of your skin while loosening muscles locked in habitual lines and wrinkles. When you're scrubbing your face, or even applying your usual toner or moisturizer, start at your chin and sweep your hands upward toward your cheeks, eye area, and forehead.

For additional face-lifting techniques, visit Planet Green.

5. Get steamed

Photo credit: Getty Images

Stave off acne with a weekly steam facial open to pores, boost circulation, and flush out toxins. All you need is a pot of water, a stove, and a towel. (If you want to get fancy, you can throw in a handful of herbs like lavender, calendula, chamomile, or thyme.)

Bring the water to a boil, reduce the heat and let simmer for 5-10 minutes, then place the pot on a trivet on a kitchen table or countertop. Drape the towel over your head like a tent and lean your face over the steaming pot—but not so close that you scald yourself. Hold this position for 5 minutes, then rinse your face with cool water to close your pores.

6. Take shorter, cooler showers

Photo credit: Getty Images

Hot water whisks away the water-retentive fatty substances in your skin, leaving it dry—or in serious cases, cracked. If the idea of a cold one leaves you shivering, try a warm shower instead of a scalding one. (Bonus: You'll also save on heating bills.) Alternatively, lather up, rinse, and skedaddle out of there instead of staying longer than necessary.

7. Get moving

Photo credit: Getty Images

Although we no longer have to hunt wild game to put a rack of ribs on the table, our bodies weren't designed to sit behind a desk all the livelong day. Instead of parking your caboose in front of the PC or television, get outside and bust a few moves.

Keeping our muscles toned isn't just a matter of body-sculpting, it also helps the blood transport vital nutrients to cells in the body, while whisking away damaging toxins. Exercise can also dampen the testosterone-related hormones that result in those nerve-wracking breakouts.

8. Avoid sweets

Photo credit: Getty Images

For a sweeter-looking countenance, sidestep the sugar. Sugar and highly refined carbohydrates, like white bread, white rice, French fries, and sugary sodas, can speed up zit formation, as well as aging. The culprit? A chemical process known as glycation—a result of sugar breaking down and hooking up with protein molecules—that diminishes the elasticity of collagen in your skin.

9. Hydrate yourself

Photo credit: Getty Images

Our last tip is an oldie but goodie. Remember to drink plenty of water, around six to eight glasses a day, to rid your body of toxins. The smaller the chemical burden your body has to deal with (pesticides, synthetic chemicals, heavy metals), the more energy it has left for cellular renewal.

Jennifer Yang of the Globe and Mail writes about the issue:

A growing body of research is showing that antibacterial products can cause bacterial resistance, thus decreasing the effectiveness of antibiotics. The most common ingredient in antibacterial products is a chemical compound called triclosan, which was invented more than 35 years ago and used by doctors during surgical scrubs.

But as the chemical creeps into more and more household products, it's also causing bacteria to become more resistant - not just to triclosan, but also other antibiotics such as isoniazid, a drug used to treat and prevent tuberculosis.

The environmental effects are serious as well:

Research has shown that over 95 per cent of products containing triclosan are disposed of through residential drains. Unfortunately, the compound is also extremely stable, so it tends to stick around in the environment.

According to Mike Layton, program manager with advocacy group Environmental Defence, triclosan can react to chlorine in drinking water and form chloroform, which is a carcinogen. And when triclosan reacts with light, it can actually form poisonous dioxins, he says.

She asks Dr. Kapil Khatter, who is also president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment about the stuff and whether we need it.

"Really all you need is soap and water and the alcohol rubs that are available," Dr. Khatter said. "There isn't any benefit to going to these other products - there's only potential harm."

But that doesn't stop manufacturers from putting it into many products, including this list from Food and Water Watch, all of which you should avoid:

Neutrogena Deep Clean Body Scrub Bar
Lever 2000 Special Moisture Response Bar Soap, Antibacterial
CVS Antibacterial Hand Soap
Dial Liquid Soap, Antibacterial Bar Soap
Softsoap Antibacterial Liquid Hand Soap
Cetaphil Gentle Antibacterial Cleansing Bar
Clearasil Daily Face Wash
Clean & Clear Oil Free Foaming Facial Cleanser
Dawn Complete Antibacterial Dish Liquid
Ajax Antibacterial Dish Liquid
Colgate Total Toothpaste
Right Guard Sport Deodorant
Old Spice Red Zone, High Endurance and Classic Deodorants
Vaseline Intensive Care Antibacterial Hand Lotion

More on Triclosan:
There’s A Frog Disruptor In My Soap
Antibacterial Cleaners Do More Harm Than Good
"Frog Disruptor In My Soap", Revisited
Why Is There Still a Frog Disruptor In My Toothpaste?
Germ Fighters Lead to Hardier Germs