TRILLIUM ORGANICS

Bubble & Bee Organic recommends Trillium Organics' Body Butter

2010-09-13T12:45:00.004-05:00

Bubble & Bee Organic website suggests trying Trillium Organics Body Butter as a safer alternative to Vegetable Emulsifying Wax NF products. Here is what Stephanie Greenwood had to say:

"There are some safer alternatives---Dr. Bronner's lotion uses vegetable gums to emulsify the lotion. The only problem with a water-based lotion is that they have to use a preservative in it. Bronner's uses a certified organic ethanol (alcohol), however, I've heard from a number of customers that it can be drying to the skin. (In order to use ethanol as an effective preservative you have to use it at at least a 15% concentration). So, I recommend looking for a water-free lotion or cream like these products:

Trillium Organics Organic Body Butter
Bubble & Bee Organic Body Butta
Nature's Paradise Hand Cream
Terressentials Hand Cream
Oracle Organics"

Thu, June 18, 2009 | [Stephanie Greenwood]

Read the full article here Bubble & Bee Organic Bath and Body

Shea Tins on Sale

2010-03-23T15:18:00.004-05:00

Trillium's Shea Tins are on sale now for only $3.99.

Our 1.5oz Shea Butter is a Best Body Oil/Creams nominee in the Total Beauty Awards. If you love our Shea Butter, cast your vote now at www.totalbeauty.com

Also check out our Limited Edition USDA Certified products at www.trilliumorganics.com. Only available while supplies last - choose from scents like Cinnamon Spearmint, Vanilla Cardamom and more!

Chemicals in Consumer Products: Safe Until Proven Toxic or Toxic Until Proven Safe?

2010-03-23T15:02:00.003-05:00

The Environmental Working Group’s 2004 study Body Burden – The Pollution in Newborns found a total of 287 chemicals in the umbilical cord blood of 10 newborns. This study has since spurred nationwide debate over the safety of chemicals used in consumer products. Under current law, chemicals used in consumer products are deemed safe until proven toxic, but in light of growing public concerns over the health risks associated with chemical exposure, lawmakers are being pressured to re-write chemical regulations and consider chemicals toxic until proven safe.

The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 is the environmental law that gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to obtain information on the risks of chemicals and to control those that it determines to pose an unreasonable risk. Having never been modernized since its inception, one of the many weaknesses of the outdated law includes allowing chemicals to be considered safe until proven toxic by the EPA, not toxic until proven safe by the manufacturer.

Chemical manufacturers are not required to show that significant data exists to fully assess a chemicals risk. The TSCA puts the “burden of proof” on the EPA to prove that the chemical is dangerous and “presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment”. Lisa Jackson, the new EPA Administrator, stated in an announcement on September 29, 2009 that “not only has the TSCA fallen behind the industry it’s suppose to regulate, it’s been proven an inadequate tool for providing the protection against chemical risks that the public rightfully expects”. She also states the TSCA rules make identifying a chemical from safe to toxic is “inordinately cumbersome and time-consuming” and “creates obstacles to quick and effective action”. Perhaps that is why since 1976, the EPA has only evaluated 200 chemicals for safety and issued regulations to control only five existing chemicals in a sea of more than 80,000.

In the late 80’s the EPA issued rules phasing out most uses of asbestos due to the health effects it had on so many Americans, only to have it overturned by the US Fifth Circuit Court of appeals. The court stated the EPA failed to clear many of the hurdles presented by the TSCA including showing that asbestos presented “unreasonable risk” and that banning and replacing it with a safer chemical was the “least burdensome approach”.

With mounting concerns over chemical exposure, the Obama administration is taking a different stance than its predecessor’s administration, which defended the effectiveness of the TSCA. The Obama administration plans to promote a new chemical law in Congress that puts the responsibility on industry to prove its chemicals are safe. In the meantime the EPA will begin to analyze and regulate 6 high-profile chemicals that have raised health concerns, bisphenol A, phthalates, brominated flame retardants, perflourinated compounds, parafins, and benzidine dyes. The EPA is also putting into effect 4 Chemical Action Plans, with the first scheduled for this past December with additional plans to be issued every 4 months thereafter. Although many will agree that it’s a step in the right direction, to put it into perspective, over 60,000 chemicals were grand fathered in at the start of the TSCA and 20,000 plus have been put into circulation since.

Expectations are high for the Jackson lead EPA, since in January of 2009 the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an investigative branch of the US Congress, released a statement concerning the EPA and its toxic chemical assessment “as a high
risk area of the government, susceptible to high levels of waste, fraud and abuse or in need of transformational change to achieve greater efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability.” GAO also stated regarding their reports that, "Neither Congress nor EPA has implemented the most important recommendations aimed at providing EPA with the information needed to support its assessment of industrial chemicals. Without greater attention … the nation lacks assurance that human health and the
environment are adequately protected."

“In this regulatory environment, where the consumer protections from environmental toxic exposure are clearly not in place, the only choice that a conscious consumer has is to purchase and use only products that have thrid party certification, such as USDA Organic or NPA Natural. Without that, the products could contain any number of toxic ingredients and consumers would be hard pressed to know what the dangers are,” states Karen Ciesar, Founder and Formulator, Trillium Herbal Company, Inc.

Cancer from the Kitchen?

2009-12-08T10:25:00.001-06:00

By Nicholas D. Kristoff
December 5th, 2009

The battle over health care focuses on access to insurance, or tempests like the one that erupted over new mammogram guidelines.But what about broader public health challenges? What if breast cancer in the United States has less to do with insurance or mammograms and more to do with contaminants in our water or air -- or in certain plastic containers in our kitchens? What if the surge in asthma and childhood leukemia reflect, in part, the poisons we impose upon ourselves?This last week I attended a fascinating symposium at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, exploring whether certain common chemicals are linked to breast cancer and other ailments.Dr. Philip Landrigan, the chairman of the department of preventive medicine at Mount Sinai, said that the risk that a 50-year-old white woman will develop breast cancer has soared to 12 percent today, from 1 percent in 1975. (Some of that is probably a result of better detection.) Younger people also seem to be developing breast cancer: This year a 10-year-old in California, Hannah, is fighting breast cancer and recording her struggle on a blog.Likewise, asthma rates have tripled over the last 25 years, Dr. Landrigan said. Childhood leukemia is increasing by 1 percent per year. Obesity has surged. One factor may be lifestyle changes - like less physical exercise and more stress and fast food - but some chemicals may also play a role.Take breast cancer. One puzzle has been that most women living in Asia have low rates of breast cancer, but ethnic Asian women born and raised in the United States don't enjoy that benefit. At the symposium, Dr. Alisan Goldfarb, a surgeon specializing in breast cancer, pointed to a chart showing breast cancer rates by ethnicity."If an Asian woman moves to New York, her daughters will be in this column," she said, pointing to "whites." "It is something to do with the environment."What's happening? One theory starts with the well-known fact that women with more lifetime menstrual cycles are at greater risk for breast cancer, because they're exposed to more estrogen. For example, a woman who began menstruating before 12 has a 30 percent greater risk of breast cancer than one who began at 15 or later.It's also well established that Western women are beginning puberty earlier, and going through menopause later. Dr. Maida Galvez, a pediatrician who runs Mount Sinai's pediatric environmental health specialty unit, told the symposium that American girls in the year 1800 had their first period, on average, at about age 17. By 1900 that had dropped to 14. Now it is 12.A number of studies, mostly in animals, have linked early puberty to exposure to pesticides, P.C.B.'s and other chemicals. One class of chemicals that creates concern - although the evidence is not definitive - is endocrine disruptors, which are often similar to estrogen and may fool the body into setting off hormonal changes. This used to be a fringe theory, but it is now being treated with great seriousness by the Endocrine Society, the professional association of hormone specialists in the United States.These endocrine disruptors are found in everything from certain plastics to various cosmetics. "There's a ton of stuff around that has estrogenic material in it," Dr. Goldfarb said. "There's makeup that you rub into your skin for a youthful appearance that is really estrogen."More than 80,000 new chemicals have been developed since World War II, according to the Children's Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai. Even of the major chemicals, fewer than 20 percent have been tested for toxicity to children, the center says.Representative Louise Slaughter, the only microbiologist in the House of Representatives, introduced legislation this month that would establish a comprehensive program to monitor endocrine disruptors. That's an excellent idea, because as long as we're examining our medical system, there's a remarkable precedent for a public health effort against a toxic substance. The removal of lead from gasoline resulted in an 80 percent decline in lead levels in our blood since 1976 - along with a six-point gain in children's I.Q.'s, Dr. Landrigan said.I asked these doctors what they do in their own homes to reduce risks. They said that they avoid microwaving food in plastic or putting plastics in the dishwasher, because heat may cause chemicals to leach out. And the symposium handed out a reminder card listing "safer plastics" as those marked (usually at the bottom of a container) 1, 2, 4 or 5.It suggests that the "plastics to avoid" are those numbered 3, 6 and 7 (unless they are also marked "BPA-free"). Yes, the evidence is uncertain, but my weekend project is to go through containers in our house and toss out 3's, 6's and 7's.

Pregnant Women’s Bodies Polluted With Chemicals Found In Consumer Products

2009-12-02T10:54:00.000-06:00

Pregnant Women’s Bodies Polluted With Chemicals Found In Consumer Products

The “Earliest Exposures” study, a research project conducted by Washington Toxics Coalition in collaboration with the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center and the Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition found pregnant women’s bodies were polluted with chemicals found in consumer products.

This first-of-its kind study investigated the living environment of nine fetuses through testing the blood and urine of the nine mothers taking part in the biomonitoring study. Tests measured the levels of five chemical groups, including phthalates, mercury, perfluorinated compounds or “Teflon chemicals,” bisphenol A (BPA), and the flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol A.

The women, all in their second trimester, were all found to have BPA, phthalates, mercury, and “Teflon chemicals” in their bodies. Cause for concern is that these toxic chemicals, known to disrupt development and hormonal systems cross the placenta and are absorbed by the fetus. They not only hinder fetal development, but the growing fetus has limited ability to detoxify these foreign substances.

Of the more than 80,000 chemicals found in consumer products today, only approximately 200 have been tested for safety since the inception of The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. Until more strict regulations govern the use of ingredients in consumer products, consumers can take an active role in lowering their toxic exposure. Start by purchasing Phthalate and BPA free products, switching from flame retardant clothing and bedding to organic, and substituting conventional body care for third-party certified organic body care.

Karen Ciesar, Founder and Formulator of Trillium Organics states,

“I am sadly not surprised at these findings. The pervasiveness of petrochemicals in the modern world makes avoiding exposures a task which requires research and vigilance. Luckily, there are many non-profit organizations dedicated to informing consumers, some of my favorites are; SafeCosmetics.org (searchable database of cosmetic safety), Healthystuff.org (searchable database of family product safety), HealthychildHealthyworld.org, a comprehensive and informative site about environmental exposures, OrganicConsumers.org (an activist website about all issues surrounding Organic, food, personal care and fibers). It takes some time and effort to find safe products for your family, but every green purchasing choice you make increases your child’s chance at a healthy future in a greener world.”

Trillium Organics has recently been endorsed by the Organic Consumers’ Association as a “brand to trust” in their recent BUYcott campaign, Trillium Organics has been a leader in the movement for clean, safe personal care since 1994.

No More Toxic Tub...

2009-11-18T09:19:00.000-06:00

No More Toxic Tub

Getting Contaminants Out of Children's Bath & Personal Care Products
by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics
March 12th, 2009

Despite marketing claims like “gentle” and “pure,” dozens of top-selling children’s bath products are contaminated with the cancer-causing chemicals formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, according to the March 2009 Campaign for Safe Cosmetics report, "No More Toxic Tub."

This study is the first to document the widespread presence of both formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane in bath products for children, including baby shampoos, bubble baths and baby lotions. Many products tested contained both chemicals.

What We Found

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics commissioned an independent laboratory to test 48 products for 1,4-dioxane; 28 of those products were also tested for formaldehyde. The lab found that:

17 out of 28 products tested – 61 percent – contained both formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane.
23 out of 28 products – 82 percent – contained formaldehyde at levels ranging from 54 to 610 parts per million (ppm).
32 out of 48 products – 67 percent – contained 1,4-dioxane at levels ranging from 0.27 to 35 ppm.

Health Concerns

While a single product might not be cause for concern, the reality is that babies may be exposed to several products at bath time, several times a week, in addition to other chemical exposures in the home and environment. Those small exposures add up and may contribute to later-life disease.

Formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane are known carcinogens; formaldehyde can also trigger skin rashes in some children. Unlike many other countries, the U.S. government does not limit formaldehyde, 1,4-dioxane, or most other hazardous substances in personal care products.

Where They Come From

The chemicals were not disclosed on product labels because they're contaminants, not ingredients, and therefore are exempt from labeling laws.

Formaldehyde contaminates personal care products when common preservatives release formaldehyde over time in the container. Common ingredients likely to contaminate products with formaldehyde include quaternium-15, DMDM hydantoin, imidazolidinyl urea and diazolidinyl urea.

1,4-dioxane is a byproduct of a chemical processing technique called ethoxylation, in which cosmetic ingredients are processed with ethylene oxide. Manufacturers can easily remove the toxic byproduct, but are not required by law to do so. Common ingredients likely to be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane include PEG-100 stearate, sodium laureth sulfate, polyethylene and ceteareth-20.

What You Can Do

Contrary to industry statements, there are no regulatory standards that limit formaldehyde, 1,4-dioxane or most other toxic chemicals in personal care products sold in the United States. There are signs the U.S. is gearing to catch up, but for now it's up to consumers to consider carefully before they buy. Here's some suggestions for safeguarding your family's health:

Simplify: Select products with fewer ingredients and no synthetic fragrance or dyes, and use fewer products overall.
Choose safety: Search EWG's cosmetic safety database, Skin Deep, to learn more about the products you use and find safer alternatives. Also check out EWG's Safety Guide to Children’s Personal Care Products.
Read labels: Select products for baby and yourself that don't contain the ingredients listed above, which are commonly contaminated with formaldehyde or 1,4-dioxane.
Tell manufacturers that safety is important to you: Use our Web site to write to Johnson & Johnson about their product, Johnson's Baby Shampoo.
Take action! Can’t memorize these lists? Nobody can. If harmful contaminants and ingredients weren’t allowed in products, you wouldn’t have to. Tell Congress you want safe cosmetics for babies, adults and everyone in between.
Spread the word: Send an e-card letting friends and family know about this report.

2009-11-09T09:44:00.000-06:00

An amazing letter from one of our customers....

"Thank you! I have been using your body polish for the past
year and wanted to share with you the impact it has made in my life.

I am 39 years old and have dealt with a skin disorder since I was 9. I
have a condition called Keratosis Pilaris. A protein called keratin-
usually a protective element of our skin that aids in immunity, builds
up in the openings of hair follicles in the skin. This produces small,
rough patches, usually on the arms and thighs. The treatment for it is
no treatment. It just maintains the condition until the condition self
resolves or it will reoccur. In my case I have never had a product
work. These treatments are made of at least one of: salicylic acid,
lactic acid, urea, or corticosteroids accompanied by a host of
chemicals, preservatives, and alcohols. After learning more about this
disorder in recent years, I started seeking a more natural way of
caring for my skin and I found your body polish. I said thank you at
the outset because, for the first time in nearly 30 years, my skin is
nearly free of scarring and is making significant steps to being nearly
clear of new erruptions. This is huge! I spent most of my life hiding and
ashamed of my arms; resigned to always having scars. Your polish has
started a significant change in my skin and my life. The level of
purity of your product is what I attribute to the change. I examined
other similar products and many still contained products that could
accumulate on the skin or dry the skin. Those are two things that would
have made matters worse.

Please keep making such a great product. My life and skin would
definately not be what they are today if it weren't for product like
yours."

The Ingredient Inquisition.....

2009-11-04T11:26:00.000-06:00

Here is a great question we recently received from a curious visitor to our website.....

"I have a general question about preservatives in your products, or I should say, the lack there of. I've noticed that in many of your ingredient lists, I cannot find any preservatives listed. Most of the cosmetic industry uses some type of preservative in their products, whether it be parabens, formaldahyde or other chemical compounds to prevent the growth of bacteria and fungus. How is it that YOUR products do not need preservatives? If there are in fact preservatives, can you point them out to me? Honestly, I love the fact that there are so few ingredients in your products, and I can pronounce and recognize what they are. But according to research, it is sometimes more harmful that a product does NOT have preservatives , than one that does have them. There is a greater risk with the preservative free products to harbor harmful bacteria and fungus that can be introduced when the product is used. Can you please explain this to me..."

That is both and excellent observation and question! Here's my response......

"We do not use preservatives, other than Vitamin E and Rosemary Extract in our oils.
I design our products to be inherently stable. The thing is, we do not mix oil and water and then try to prevent mold, yeast and bacteria growth with preservatives. Instead, we keep oil with oil, and ask you to mix them with water from your own shower or bath. All of our products are guaranteed fresh for two years from the date of manufacture unopened, and one year after opening. We never ship a product that is older than 6 months from the manufacture date, unless it is purchased from our discount section.
I personally do not like any chemical preservatives. I believe they interfere with the healthy flora that your skin has naturally occuring on its outermost layer, the acid mantle.
We are certified organic, and no chemical preservatives are allowed under the USDA organic rule, so rest assured that we are not bending the truth on this one. Trillium's products are clean, third party certified and personally guaranteed. There is nothing hidden in "extracts" purchased from third parties or other tricky tricks commanly used by other un-certified natural, so called "organic companies".
True, we don't make products in every category in the world, but the products we do make are "Certified Stupendously Pure!"
- Karen Ciesar Owner and Formulator of Trillium Organics