Click here to view the embedded video.

1. A little bit won’t hurt. According to Stacy, representatives of the beauty industry have compared potentially hazardous chemicals to salt—a lot can be dangerous, but a little won’t hurt you. Stacy counters by saying the two are not at all alike. 1,4-dioxane, for example—which contaminates children’s bath products and has been linked to cancer—is often the result of other ingredients mixing together and reacting, to create something potentially dangerous. There’s no confusion that this sort of chemical could ever be “good for you” like salt.

2. Under certain conditions, exposure is minimal. Beauty industry representatives have compared some chemicals to caged tigers, asserting that they may be inherently toxic, but if used under certain conditions, they present no risk. Similar to the “a little won’t hurt” argument, this idea says that if you use the product as directed, and ignore the fact that exposure is difficult to determine—especially since we all use a myriad of products every day—there’s no harm. Again, we have no studies showing this to be the case. To the contrary, small studies are raising alarm as to the effects of long-term and repeated exposure to chemicals in cosmetic products.

3. The potency is low. Another argument is that the potency of parabens in products such as deodorants is a million times lower than in birth control. This seems like beating a dead horse—the same argument of “a little won’t hurt”—presented in a slightly different way. The concentration of parabens in any product is unknown, as companies aren’t required to disclose it on the label. And again, our total exposure is unknown, since parabens—hormone-altering preservatives—exist in a host of personal care products used by people every day.

4. Only kids under 12 should be concerned about lead. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics reported awhile back that several popular lipsticks contained traces of lead. The industry responded that since only adults use lipstick (not necessarily true), the dangers were minimal, as lead is most dangerous for children. Stacy counters with the fact that women bear children, and often use lipstick while they’re pregnant.

5. The FDA is taking care of it. A common argument, many in the industry come back to the idea that the laws we have are already good enough to protect the public. Stacy counters that the FDA has to authority to require companies to test their ingredients for safety, and no power to require recalls of unsafe products. According to the FDA, cosmetics are the least regulated products available.

Bottom line: Do we want to leave it up to the beauty industry to decide what’s best for us, or would we rather have organizations like the FDA—who aren’t interested in making profits from these products—regulate what’s in them?

What do you think about this ongoing debate? Please let us know.

Scientists call these substances “nitrosamines,” and they have long been associated with cancer. As far back as 1956, two British scientists found that “dimethylnitrosamine,” a nitrosamine, produced liver tumors in rats. Since then, 300 of these compounds have been tested and found to be carcinogenic in animals. Several nitrosamines are classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as probably human carcinogens.

Nitrosamines are fairly common because the compounds that make them—amines and nitrosating agents—occur commonly. Because cured meats contain amines, for example, and sodium nitrate, they often contain nitrosamines. The amount of sodium nitrate has been reduced over the years, and ascorbic acid (vitamin C), which inhibits the formation of nitrosamines, has been added to cured meat in the U.S. to lower the levels of nitrosamines in items like bacon.

Nitrosamines also form in small amounts when exposed to chloramine (a combination of chlorine and ammonia), the disinfectant used in most wastewater treatment plants. Yale researchers found that some dishwashing detergents and shampoos contain “quaternary amines” that can form nitrosamines when combined with chloramine, and unfortunately, the treatment process doesn’t get rid of them. In other words, when these substances are washed down the drain, they travel to water treatment plants where they mix with disinfectants, form nitrosamines, and can make their way back into our drinking water supply.

Scientists emphasize that their findings are preliminary, and that more research is needed. The overall concern is that the chloramines used in water treatment plants could be forming nitrosamines when combined with ingredients from detergents and shampoos. Scientists recommend that products be evaluated more carefully to determine which produce the highest level of quaternary amines, with the hope of reducing them.

So far, however, regulation is behind scientific research. The FDA has expressed concern about nitrosamines, stating they can be “rapidly absorbed through the skin,” and in 1996 encouraged cosmetic manufacturers to voluntarily remove ingredients that would form “NDELA”—a particular kind of nitrosamine. Yet the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in 2007 found that one in every 10 products still contains ingredients that can combine with others to form nitrosamines.

Until our regulatory agencies do more to protect us, you can protect yourself and your family by purchasing a filter for your tap water, and choosing organic and safe brands of shampoo and detergents. Try Aubrey Organics and Avalon Organics, and avoid ingredients like “DEA,” “TEA,” and “MEA” on labels, as well as quaternium, as these can break down into nitrosamines.

What do you think of nitrosamines? Are you taking steps to reduce your exposure?

Photo courtesy ian via Flickr.com.

Click here to view the embedded video.

“Using her distinctive style of storytelling and animation,” writes Dara Olmsted of “The Green Blog,” “Leonard looks into what our cosmetics and bathroom products are made of (often toxic and untested chemicals) and why this is allowed in the U.S….Leonard pushes the precautionary principle—it’s best to err on the side of caution, especially when less than 20% of these chemicals have been tested for safety and there have been very few tests to determine how they interact with each other in our bodies.”

Here’s how you can help create awareness:

Spread the word about The Story of Cosmetics with anyone and everyone on Facebook or…
...tweet all about it,
…send an e-card,
…grab the embed code for your web site,
…or add a badge to your blog.

Also, if you’d like to help with the distribution of this ground-breaking new video (they still need funding!), make your donation here. Even $25 will help!

We would love to hear from you. Please share your thoughts about The Story Of Cosmetics video!

A recent study conducted by Dr. Elizabeth Brooks, a biological sciences professor at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, found that lipstick, moisturizer, and mascara testers were contaminated with E. coli, staph, and strep bacteria. The percentage of testers contaminated? A whopping 100 percent!

“We went to department stores, specialty stores, drugstores—everywhere,” said Brooks. “Wherever you see E. coli, you should just think ‘E. coli equals feces.’ That means someone went to the bathroom, didn’t wash their hands, and then stuck their fingers in that moisturizer.”

Gross, right? And it’s not like the makeup artists didn’t try to keep things clean. They replaced anything they saw contaminated (if a woman put lipstick directly on her lips, for instance) and scraped off product every night to supposedly reveal clean lipstick underneath, but it wasn’t enough.

If you’re going through cancer treatments, you need to imagine skulls and crossbones on any testers you come across. Most likely, your immune system is down from all the drugs, and you may also have a low white-blood cell count. All this puts you at higher risk of infection, so you just can’t afford to expose yourself to germs in makeup testers.

Other dangers potentially lurking at makeup counters? The herpes virus and pink eye. It’s all about germs traveling from person to person, with nothing standing in the way. Even the FDA warns women: “Don’t share or swap cosmetics—not even with your best friend. The risk of contamination may be even greater with ‘testers’ at retail stores, where a number of people are using the same product.”

If your immune system is strong, you can take some precautions that may protect you. For instance, if you want to try a lotion, use one you can squeeze onto your skin rather than dipping into a jar. You can wipe off the surface of makeup testers with a tissue dipped in alcohol, and always use disposable applicators and cotton swabs, never communal makeup brushes. Best of all are the little individual testers, which some brands have. But during cancer, it’s just best to stay away.

“Every makeup display we tested,” said Brooks, “always had disposable brushes and little pads to put on makeup.” And still they found 100 percent contamination. “Even when the ladies [behind the counter] are very diligent about dipping it in alcohol, they’re not lab technicians….Viruses are so small in comparison to bacteria it’s harder to get rid of a virus.”

Brooks advises customers to try lipstick on their hands, and to never, ever use a tester mascara. Otherwise, keep everything away from your eyes, nose, and mouth no matter what.

Have you changed your shopping habits since this study came out? Please share your thoughts.

Photo courtesy BMichael via Flickr.com.

Because of its high fat and protein content, breast milk attracts heavy metals and other contaminants, and shows the “body burden” a mother has been exposed to over her lifetime. Scientists test it periodically to measure the amount of chemicals in the average person.

The bad news is that we’re carrying around more chemicals than ever before. According to the “New York Times,” Swedish researchers first discovered flame retardants called PBDEs in pike fish in 1981. (PBDEs have been found to hinder development in animal studies.) They went on to study human milk and found that from the early 1970s, when PBDEs first appeared commercially, to 1998, levels in breast milk were doubling every five years. Worse, levels in American women were 10 to 100 times higher than European women.

The EPA is working to gradually reduce the production of PBDEs, but the concern doesn’t end there. Researchers have found a myriad of other chemicals in human breast milk, like DDT (the banned pesticide that still lives in our environment), PCBs (man-made compounds used in electrical equipment and as flame retardants), PVC (commonly known as vinyl), dioxin, mercury, lead, benzene, arsenic, and more—all dangerous chemicals that can affect the nervous, endocrine (hormone), and reproductive systems, and that may be carcinogenic. In other words, things we’re exposed to every day, like household cleaners, furniture, carpeting, paint, pesticides, fuel, preservatives, personal-care products, and smoke can all make their way inside us, and subsequently, inside our children.

“Children born to mothers with high PCB levels can have their IQ reduced by up to six points compared with those born to women with low PCB levels,” write Guy Dennis and Jonathan Leake of the British paper “Sunday Times.” These children may also have behavioral problems.

It’s true that scientists later reported that the levels of chemicals in these studies is actually lower than that found in the air most city dwellers breathe inside their homes. That doesn’t necessarily make moms breathe easier, however, particularly as reports roll in of indoor pollution and it’s potential affects on health. Do we want to be putting that toxic burden on our newborns?

“The question for me as a mother,” says Florence Williams, author of the “New York Times” article, “is not at what threshold of exposure will my baby be harmed, but why are we manufacturing common products made with these toxins at all?” Williams goes on to report that according to Sandra Steingraber, visiting scholar at Ithaca College, “There is almost no example of a toxic chemical in breast milk that doesn’t have a non-toxic substitute.”

Is the answer to stop breastfeeding? According to all reports, no. Breastfeeding Medicine says that despite the toxins, breast-fed babies scored significantly higher than formula-fed babies on tests of mental development. Apparently, the antioxidants and other nutrients in the milk are not only good for children, but seem to be at least partly protective against the effects of the chemicals. In addition, breast milk helps babies develop stronger immune systems. And formula, which has fewer PCBs than human milk, is no chemical-free alternative—it still has BPAs (used to line cans) and phthalates.

Of course, breast milk without chemicals would be better than breast milk with chemicals, and that’s why Stacy Malkan at “Not Just a Pretty Face” has launched a nationwide effort to get toxins out of breast milk, called “Making Our Milk Safe (MOMS).” The group is working to build a movement of mothers to speak out against toxins in an effort to encourage change.

In the meantime, you can take the following steps to protect you and your baby:

• Limit your exposure to paints, glues, furniture strippers, nail polish, and other products with fumes.
• Avoid having your clothes dry cleaned while you’re pregnant, or air out the clothes outside of the house.
• Eat organic whenever possible. Thoroughly wash and peel non-organic produce.
• Eat fresh rather than processed foods.
• Avoid fried foods. Remove skin and excess fat from meat and poultry.

What do you think of these studies on breast milk? Have you changed your habits to protect your children?

Photo courtesy MidniteSonnet via Flickr.com.

Over the past few years, however, there has been concern about “dioxins” in these products, and what health dangers they may present to women. Dioxin is a by-product of the chlorine bleaching process and other manufacturing processes used to produce paper and rayon products. Tampons, for example, are usually made of cotton and rayon—rayon being a synthetic fiber made from wood pulp. During that process, dioxin is created. Up until the late 1990s, a chlorine bleaching process that also produces dioxin was used on both the rayon and cotton used in tampons. (Today’s bleaching process is chlorine free.)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reported that dioxins are known to cause cancer in animals, and probably in people. They say that because dioxins are widely distributed throughout the environment, most people have detectable levels in their tissues, and that “this background exposure is likely to result in an increased risk of cancer.” Even lower levels of exposure can cause changes in hormone systems, alterations in fetal development, and the suppression of the immune system. Research on monkeys has linked dioxin exposure with increased risk of endometriosis, a painful disease in which uterine tissue is found outside the uterus, often leading to infertility.

New bleaching methods have reduced the dioxin in these products, but it’s still detected in tampons—even those made with 100% cotton. Dioxin is also found in the air (because of pollution), water, and ground, so it may be getting into the cotton or wood pulp raw materials. The amount is very small, and in a 2002 study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, researchers concluded that even if all the dioxin in tampons were absorbed into the body, the exposure would still be thousands of times less than what people get through the food they eat, and noted that tampons sold in health food stores were not safer than brand-name products.

We are exposed to dioxin in many ways. Most of us get it from the food we eat—from animal fats in beef, pork, fish, milk, and dairy products. Exposure to coal powered power plants, residential wood burning, backyard burning of household waste, forest fires, and other waste processing can also contribute to the dioxin burden we carry. In comparison, tampons may seem like a drop in the sea, but according to Dr. Philip Tierno, director of clinical microbiology and diagnostic immunology at the New York University Medical Center, even trace amounts are cause for concern because tampons come in contact with some of the most absorbent tissue in the body. The effects of dioxin are cumulative—it hangs around inside us for years. A woman may use over 16,000 tampons in her lifetime, so no wonder we’re concerned!

At this point, since current studies show little difference between brands of tampons and sanitary pads, our best action to take is to encourage policy changes in how dioxin is regulated. (You may want to look for all-cotton tampons that are unbleached, or switch to pads, since they have less contact with sensitive tissues.) In 1989, British women launched a publicity campaign to halt the use of chlorine gas bleaching processes and won. We, too, can write to our representatives and participate in community efforts to spread the word about dangerous chemicals in our everyday products.

Have you changed the products you use during your menstrual cycle as a result of these concerns? Please share your story.

Photo courtesy Mieke Miwian via Flickr.com.

Many have questioned whether Corexit is safe. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified the 2-butoxyethanol in the dispersant to be one of the reasons why Exxon Valdez cleanup workers experienced respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney, and blood disorders. On May 19, 2010, the EPA gave BP 24 hours to choose less toxic alternatives to Corexit, but so far BP has refused to change, citing safety and availability concerns with alternatives. The EPA asserts that the quantities of Corexit that BP is using in the gulf will create unprecedented damage to organisms underwater, say nothing of its toxicity to humans.

According to “Natural News,” the EPA has also revealed that Corexit contains dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, a detergent chemical found in laxatives. It was interesting to us at Cinco Vidas that Corexit contains propylene glycol, which is also used as a solvent or moisturizer in personal care products and cosmetics. It’s one of our ingredients to avoid, because it’s drying and can cause allergic reactions and eczema, particularly for cancer patients going through chemotherapy. (Watch out for “PEG” or “PPG” on the label.) Worse, it’s known to consume oxygen while degrading in surface waters, robbing aquatic organisms of the oxygen they need to survive. Is this really something we should be dumping into the gulf?

Many question the wisdom of using a dispersant at all. Since it doesn’t get rid of the oil, why make it harder for marine life with the addition of toxic chemicals? Dispersants also make it more difficult to clean up the oil, since it’s harder to see. Worst of all, we don’t know what the long-term consequences will be of using so much of these chemicals in our waters. It’s like a giant science experiment out of control. Is it a coincidence that the company who produces Corexit—Nalco Holding Company—is associated with BP and Exxon? Is this why, so far, no alternatives have been tried?

We hope the EPA will be able to do something to improve this situation. In the meantime, we urge you to help however you can. If you’re not sure where to send your relief dollars (or goods), we’ve put together some links below. For example, Matter of Trust is taking donations of all kinds of hair, fur, fleece, and feathers to help build “booms” to keep the oil off the beaches.

• Matter of Trust: You can donate money, or hair, fur, fleece, feathers, and more. They’re even asking for pet hair and fur. (www.matteroftrust.com)
• National Wildlife Federation: They are working to help alleviate some of the stress on wildlife. Click here.
• International Bird Rescue and Research Center: If you spot oiled wildlife, call the Wildlife Reporting Hotline at 866-557-1401. Donations will go to ongoing programs and to cover the cost of future rescue efforts.
• The National Audobon Society: If you want to volunteer, these guys are training people to respond to the spill. They’re also looking for people to report on birds.
• Save Our Seabirds: You’ll find a wish list of material donations on this site. They also have instructions on what to do if you find an oiled bird.
• Oil Spill Volunteers: If you want to help with the cleanup, check out this site. It will lead you to contact information in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and Alabama.

What do you think of the thousands of gallons of dispersants being dumped into the gulf? Please share your thoughts.

Photo courtesy Deepwater Horizon Response via Flickr.com.

According to John Warner of the University of Massachusetts-Lowell, the fundamental idea of green chemistry is that the designer of a chemical is responsible for considering what will happen to the world after the agent is put into place. However, so far, young chemists haven’t learned that message. “Astonishingly,” writes Stacey Malkan in her book Not Just a Pretty Face, “no university in the United States requires chemists to demonstrate knowledge about the health and environmental impacts of the chemicals they create—not one.”

However, that trend is changing. With today’s environmental concerns propelling green innovation in industry, we’re becoming more aware of the toxins we’re exposed to. Studies have shown us that toxic chemicals, even when used in small amounts, can build up in our rivers, streams, and body tissues, causing all sorts of trouble. Enter a new philosophy.

“Green chemistry,” according to the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) in Europe, is the chemistry of the future. Basically, it refers to the idea of developing technologies for synthesizing non-toxic ingredients and products designed to degrade into wastes that won’t hurt humans, wildlife, or the environment. The RSC says that green chemistry ensures both processes and end products are clean and safe, and that it aims to conserve energy and raw materials. “By rethinking chemical design from the ground up,” writes Elizabeth Weise for “USA Today,” “green chemists at universities and in private industry are developing new ways to manufacture products that fuel our economy and lifestyles, without the damages that have become all too evident in recent years.”

According to Toxic Beauty author Samuel Epstein, M.D., green chemistry “is now being applied to the production of cosmetic and personal-care product ingredients from a variety of organic sources, particularly plant oils and vegetables, as well as to the synthesis of ingredients, including soy-based sunscreens, preservatives, and detergents.” This is great news for us, as it means that some companies are catching on to the fact that effective products can be made in such a way as to remain safe for humans and the environment.

Listed on the University of Oregon’s website are the 12 principles that makeup the philosophy of green chemistry, created by Paul Anastas, Ph.D. and former director of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) green chemistry program, and John Warner, Ph.D. and director of the green chemistry program at the University of Massachusetts. We’ve summarized them here.

The 12 Principles of Green Chemistry

1. Prevent waste.
2. Maximize atom economy.  (Basically, this means maximizing the incorporation of materials used to result in few wasted atoms, which means the process is more efficient.)
3. Design less hazardous chemical synthesis. (Methods used generate substances that possess little or no toxicity—in other words, few to any toxic by-products.)
4. Design safer chemicals and products.
5. Use safer solvents/reaction conditions. (The use of solvents to create chemical reactions is to be reduced, and in cases where it’s needed, less hazardous solvents are recommended.)
6. Increase energy efficiency.
7. Use renewable feedstocks. (Chemical transformations should use raw materials that are renewable, like agricultural products or the wastes of other processes rather than fossil fuels.)
8. Avoid chemical derivatives.
9. Use catalysts. (Catalysts help create reactions and reduce waste and unwanted side reactions.)
10. Design for degradation. (Chemical products should be designed to break down into products that won’t harm the environment.)
11. Analyze in real-time to prevent pollution. (Methods should be developed to monitor the progress of a reaction to know when it is complete or to detect any unwanted by-products.)
12. Minimize the potential for accidents.

Have you heard about green chemistry? Let us know what you think.

Photo courtesy Pixels of Green en Jan via Flickr.com.

According to Science News, about 2/3 of American cattle raised for slaughter are injected with hormones to make them grow faster, while dairy cows are given a genetically engineered hormone called rBGH to increase milk production. The USDA and FDA claim these hormones are safe, but the European Union (EU) begs to differ. They’ve banned the use of six growth hormones and have prohibited the import of hormone-treated beef since 1988. In 2002, an EU scientific panel reviewed a series of 17 studies on the six banned hormones and concluded that eating beef from cattle raised on growth hormones is a potential health risk.

As we’ve mentioned in previous posts, exposure to any sort of hormone can be dangerous, as they can interfere with our own natural hormones, potentially causing developmental problems and altering DNA. IGF-1, a growth factor and intermediary by which rBGH acts, has been linked to colon cancer by the Consumers Union. “It is the same as human IGF-1, and there are elevated levels of it in cows and milk,” says Jean Halloren of the Consumers Union. “It could affect the tissues it touches in the colon, to cause colon cancer.” Samuel E. Epstein of the University of Illinois has warned about possible breast cancer from the increased IGF-1 levels, showing that IGF-1 increases the growth of breast cells in the lab.

The list of health-related problems stemming from hormones doesn’t end there. Researchers from Tufts University assert they may cause girls to reach puberty earlier than usual, making them more susceptible to breast cancer. In 2003, CBS News reported on research conducted at the Ohio State University, where scientists mixed beef from hormone-treated cows with human breast cancer cells and saw significant cancer-cell growth. Andrea Martin, founder of the Breast Cancer Fund, commented, “It’s really a matter of women waking up and demanding to know what is in their products and in their food.”

We haven’t even hit on the environmental effects yet. Growth hormones remain in the meat we eat and in the manure left behind by the cows, where they can contaminate water supplies and fertilizers used to grow fruits and vegetables. Lou Guillette, a biologist at the University of Florida, examined the effects of hormones from cattle feedlots that had contaminated surrounding waters, and found serious damage to the reproductive systems of fish downstream.

What about the cows themselves? Dairy farmers have reported increasing cases of severe mastitis after beginning rBGH injections. Other farmers had similar problems with their stock, along with hoof diseases, open sores, and internal bleeding. According to Barney Harris Jr., retired professor, Dairy Science Department, University of Florida, cows forced to produce unnaturally high quantities of milk often suffer malnourishment.

What can you do to protect yourself, your family, and the environment? The Environmental Working Group (EWG) suggests you buy organic dairy and meat products that carry the certified organic seal, as these products are not allowed to use growth hormones. Some good brands: Organic Valley and Stonyfield Farm. You can also check out the Eat Well Guide for a listing of sources for hormone-free beef and dairy products. Sustainable Table also offers a rBGH-free dairy list to help you find hormone-free brands in your state.

Do you have any favorite hormone-free brands of beef and dairy? Please let us know.

Photo courtesy Socially Responsible Agricultural Project via Flickr.com.

Recent research has been delving into what exactly is in the dust that collects on our furniture, floors, and countertops. You probably already know that it contains traces of human skin, pet dander, hair, and the like. However, scientists at the Silent Spring Institute in Massachusetts examined indoor air dust in 120 homes, and found phthalates, phenylphenol (disinfectant), 4-nonylphenol (detergent metabolite), and flame retardants, even the carcinogenic intermediate of a flame retardant banned in 1977. (Flame retardants are now found in computers, TVs, and furniture.)

They also found 27 pesticides, including DDT, and reported that the concentrations exceeded government health-based guidelines for 15 of the compounds. These are all chemicals that have been linked to cancer, reproductive problems, and hormone disruption, by the way.

Another study conducted by health officials in Canada found lead in house dust, and warned of the dangers to young children, who swallow more contaminants because they often play on the floor and tend to put their hands in their mouths more often than adults. Scientists at the University of Arizona found that around 60 percent of floor dust comes from the soil tracked in on the bottom of our shoes. If someone lives or works near a contaminated site or industrial plant, the dust could contain toxins. Worse, indoor dust can contain more toxins than outdoor soil, because of the lack of wind, rain, and sunshine to break them down and whisk them away.

Most of us know that household dust can cause allergies. Now, with these reports coming out, we find it can also expose us to toxins that could negatively affect our health and the health of our children. This is in addition to the toxins we’re regularly exposed to in the environment, at our work places, and from daily products.

Though scientists have yet to determine the exact risk presented by these household toxins, we already know they’re not good for us. So how can you cut down on the contaminants in your home? The EWG recommends you take the following actions:

• Vacuum frequently with a machine that has a HEPA filter.
• Wet mop tile and wood floors to prevent dust from accumulating. (Dry mopping kicks up dust that can resettle.)
• Buy furniture that is filled with down, wool, polyester, or cotton as these are unlikely to contain added fire retardant chemicals.
• Regularly wipe furniture down with a wet or microfiber cloth, and stay away from synthetic sprays that only add more chemicals.
• Caulk and seal cracks and crevices in the home to prevent dust from coming in.
• Use filters on your forced-air heating and cooling systems and change them regularly.
• Regularly dust your electronic equipment.
• If you have children, pay special attention to their play areas.
• Leave your shoes at the door and use a natural doormat.
• If you have foam products made between 1970 and 2005—like stuffed/upholstered furniture, nursing pillows, padded high-chair seats, portable crip mattresses, baby changing pads, and chair cushions—replace anything with a ripped cover or foam that is breaking down, as these can contain fire retardant chemicals.
• Choose home electronics free of fire retardant chemicals—many manufacturers carry them now. Ask before you buy.
• Clean up thoroughly after any home-improvement project.
• When buying things that will “live” in your home, stick to natural products whenever you can, like wood, cotton, down, and wool.
• Consider getting a high-efficiency HEPA filter air cleaner for certain rooms in your home.

Have you become more conscientious about household dust? Please share your ideas.

Photo courtesy DuctTapeandDenim via Flickr.com.