Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related

4540 readers

313 users here now

Health: physical and mental, individual and public.

Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.

See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.

Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.

Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.

Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.

Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Awa@lemmy.world

WhoRoger@lemmy.world

RoyalEngineering@lemmy.world

Personal care products are awash in unlabeled toxic chemicals, study finds (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 month ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/health@lemmy.world

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Even products labeled ‘eco’, ‘green’ or ‘natural’ can contain dangerous compounds including Pfas

Common personal care products widely contain unlabeled toxic chemicals, results from a new peer-reviewed study suggest. The testing of more than 110 items ranging from shampoo to baby lotions found evidence of unlabeled toxic chemicals in about 85%.

Many contained multiple ingredients known to be carcinogens or health hazards, and even 26% of products labeled “eco”, “green” or “natural” contained at least one dangerous compound. The products averaged more than three times as many chemicals than were listed on labels.

It is unclear whether the products are intentionally adulterated, or unintentionally contaminated. Either way, the findings raise further questions about the safety of everyday goods already under scrutiny for their health risks, and the authors say the study highlights the need for stricter oversight, including mandatory testing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Bgugi@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

The title of the article is ignorantly misleading, and the core paper is intentionally misleading. They very explicitly state that their grading is not based on dose or exposure, only on detection with a threshold of 1 ppm. The fun thing about positive/negative testing is that if you have a sensitive enough test you can find just about anything.

There's a good reason they're not naming-and-shaming: this study was performed by the "nonprofit arm" of the company "million marker." Their products include similar scattergun tests trying to take advantage of people, particulalry vulnerable couples experiencing fertility issues. Their website is full of pseudoscientific and tautalogical claims, implying health benefits while being careful not to promise anything: "The good news is that if you follow our recommendations and eliminate the sources of exposure, you can dramatically decrease your exposure levels." Their "services" also include elimination coaching: naming products to avoid undermines the core message of the study: "this problem is EVERYWHERE... and only we can help."