Twenty-one years ago, when I was diagnosed with breast cancer, I racked my brain trying to figure out why. Neither my mother nor grandmother had cancer. I never smoked or drank. I was not overweight. My doctors had no explanation for why an otherwise healthy 38-year-old would have cancer.
Years later, I discovered a possible contributor: my daily use of personal care products.
I have the same morning routine as most women: I shampoo my hair and wash my face. I brush my teeth, put on moisturizer, deodorant, and finish with makeup.
It was the same routine for 40 years. But my daily regimen could be lethal.
Note here, Rep Primavera offers zero evidence that her cancer was caused by anything at all. Sorry about your cancer ordeal, but please don't use it as an excuse to foist this bill on us. Didn't she get the message from Obama about using sound science in government?Many products sold in the U.S. contain ingredients (such as formaldehyde, phthalates, and coal tar) that are linked to cancer and birth defects, even many of the "natural" ones. Men and women use an average of 10 products a day, including sunscreen, deodorant and aftershave.
I was surprised to learn that neither the FDA nor the state of Colorado reviews the safety or regulates what goes into products before they are placed on the shelves. In fact, only 11 percent of the chemicals have been tested for safety. How are consumers to know which of these ingredients are safe and which are dangerous? We shouldn't have to be chemists to shop for shampoo.
Why this bill at this time? The bill is the effort of the Women's Lobby of Colorado, sponsored in the CO State Legislature by Rep. Dianne Primavera. The Women's Lobby of Colorado is an endorsing organization of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, founded in part by The Environmental Working Group (did you get all that?!) The EWG has been collecting "evidence" to support its belief that cosmetics are unsafe (see the Campaign's database at Skin Deep for more details). While the campaign's goals were initially aligned with many small personal care products manufacturers, more recently their tactics have included misrepresenting overall risks and singling out manufacturers whose ingredient lists they didn't approve of--pressure akin to blackmail. Some of the companies who had signed with the group early on requested to be removed--and were initially ignored. (Read about Bella Lucce's experience.) The EWG's misinformation has spread to the general public, who are understandably nervous after recent public health scares involving contaminants in food, toys, and other products. The EWG is promoting the perception that personal care products are unregulated and are encouraging consumers to demand legislation to "rein in" the cosmetics companies. Though the EWG's work is pressuring legislators into taking action, they are tilting at windmills.
I guess I can add The Women's Lobby of Colorado to the list of suspect lobbying organizations.
This bill was just introduced to the House, and Senator Boyd says even if it doesn't pass this year, it's a good step to get the word out about these harmful ingredients.But writing a bill like this is plenty of reason to get voted out of office.
The anguished cries of left-leaning folk over the Citizens United ruling seem to me to be emanating from an alternate universe, so bizarre are they. This was a case about whether the state can suppress the distribution of an unflattering documentary about a powerful political candidate produced by a small group of private citizens. The crazy thing to me is that anyone ever thought that such a rule was not in blatant violation of the First Amendment. The extra-crazy thing is that four Supreme Court justices evidently think this kind of state censorship of political speech is hunky dory.Matt Welch distills it:
Citizens United, a conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit that has funded a dozen political documentaries over the years, produced a critical documentary about Hillary Clinton in 2008 entitled "Hillary: The Movie." By a decision of the federal government, which was enforcing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (known more broadly as McCain-Feingold), this piece of political speech was banned from television.
Let's boil it down to the essential words: Political documentary, banned, government. (emphasis by me, -W.)
I agree, the scary part is that four Supreme Court justices disagreed.
Dear Pat Robertson, I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I'm all over that action. But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I'm no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished. Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth -- glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven't you seen "Crossroads"? Or "Damn Yankees"? If I had a thing going with Haiti, there'd be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox -- that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it -- I'm just saying: Not how I roll. You're doing great work, Pat, and I don't want to clip your wings -- just, come on, you're making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That's working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract. Best, SatanEveryone knows Satan is busy working in Congress these days.
But the question remains: Was the murder last night really related to medical marijuana?
In news stories, police indicate the shooting was tied to a medical marijuana sale. And Denver Police Department spokesman Sonny Jackson, in a recent phone conversation, said the same thing: "I think the detectives are confident that the location [of the shooting] is involved in some capacity with medical marijuana."
But since the investigation is ongoing, Jackson can't relate the details as to why detectives believe such a thing -- and in an attention-grabbing situation like this, those details are key.
Hugo-award-nominated science fiction author Dr. Peter Watts is in serious legal trouble after he was beaten, pepper-sprayed and imprisoned by American border guards at a Canada U.S. border crossing December 8. This is a call to friends, fans and colleagues to help.Peter, a Canadian citizen, was on his way back to Canada after helping a friend move house to Nebraska over the weekend. He was stopped at the border crossing at Port Huron, Michigan by U.S. border police for a search of his rental vehicle. When Peter got out of the car and questioned the nature of the search, the gang of border guards subjected him to a beating, restrained him and pepper sprayed him. At the end of it, local police laid a felony charge of assault against a federal officer against Peter. On Wednesday, he posted bond
The charge is spurious. But it's also very serious. It could mean two years in prison in the United States, and a ban on travel in that country for the rest of Peter's life.and walkedwas taken across the border to Canada in shirtsleeves (he was released by Port Huron officials with his car and possessions locked in impound, into a winter storm that evening). He's home safe. For now. But he has to go back to Michigan to face the charge brought against him.