Cleveland, OH | Indoor Air Quality | EZ Breathe Systems

Can Fragrances Make You Sick? | Minneapolis, MN

“Fragrance” can mean any of thousands of combinations of chemicals whose identities are not disclosed.

Miller is just one of countless Americans who are sensitive to “fragrance,” a cryptic category of ingredients manufacturers add to products from cleaning supplies to toiletries. This generic term encompasses thousands of combinations of chemicals that give consumer goods their odors, but the identity of those chemicals is rarely disclosed.

Click here for related information on how E-Z Breathe helps with fragrances, smells, and odors.

For decades, fragrance makers have insisted on treating their recipes as trade secrets, even as complaints about negative health effects have proliferated. A 2009 study, for example, concluded that nearly one-third of Americans were irritated by the smell of scented products on others, and 19 percent experienced headaches or breathing difficulties when exposed to air fresheners or deodorizers.

The fragrance industry, with projected global sales of $40 billion this year, insists it ensures the safety of its products through a rigorous system of self-regulation administered by its trade group, the International Fragrance Association. But Women’s Voices for the Earth, a small consumer advocacy group in Missoula, Montana, recently outlined some troubling flaws in the industry’s methods and identified scores of chemicals used in its mixtures as toxic substances.

The Fragrance Association’s North American branch declined to comment for this story, as did association member BASF, the chemical giant. Four other members—Phoenix Aromas & Essential Oils, Premier Specialties, Flavor & Fragrance Specialties Inc., and Bedoukian Research—did not return phone calls.

“There’s a real kind of state of ignorance on the part of scientists, on the part of researchers, on the part of consumers.”

“There’s a real kind of state of ignorance on the part of scientists, on the part of researchers, on the part of consumers, on what is in fragrance and how safe fragrances are for your health,” says Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research at Women’s Voices, whose mission is to eliminate toxic chemicals that predominately affect women. “We were trying to pick apart the claim that the industry is ensuring the safety of fragrance.”

This problem isn’t new. In 2005, California passed the Safe Cosmetics Act, which compels manufacturers to report any product containing ingredients suspected to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm. But the reporting database doesn’t include ingredients, including fragrance chemicals, that the companies identify as trade secrets—and experts worry some manufacturers are failing to comply altogether.

At the federal level, the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees cosmetics, doesn’t require manufacturers to prove in advance that their ingredients are safe—the FDA must demonstrate harm before requesting a recall. And while the agency compels cosmetics makers to disclose their ingredients, it, too, has a trade-secret exemption for fragrance or flavor chemicals. Products such as laundry detergents and air fresheners fall under the purview of the Consumer Products Safety Commission, which does not actively screen fragrances for safety.

“Government has failed to provide a real regulator…There are plenty of examples of where counting on the good graces of industry has wound up being a mistake.”

“Government has failed to provide a real regulator,” which is a problem, says Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group (EWG). “There are plenty of examples of where counting on the good graces of industry has wound up being a mistake.”

In May 2010, a coalition called the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics revealed the results of independent tests it commissioned on 17 popular perfumes, colognes, and body sprays. EWG analyzed the results: Each product contained more than a dozen undisclosed chemicals, including “chemicals associated with hormone disruption and allergic reactions,” the group reported, and other “chemicals with troubling hazardous properties or with a propensity to accumulate in human tissues.”

Earlier that year, under pressure from Women’s Voices and others, the International Fragrance Association released a list of some 3,000 chemicals used by its members. Women’s Voices presented its analysis this past November: Well over 1,000 of the listed ingredients, the group reported, also appear on official listings of worrisome chemicals. The United Nations, for instance, has more than one-third of the fragrance chemicals flagged with the word “warning” and explicitly labels 190 of them a “danger.” The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a division of the World Health Organization, lists seven of the ingredients as possible human carcinogens. Fifteen of the chemicals, Women’s Voices noted, are banned from cosmetics in the European Union.

Scranton, the scientist who authored the Women’s Voices report, points out that the Fragrance Association’s list gives no indication of how often and in what quantity each chemical is used, which makes it difficult to vet. “When I see styrene [a possible carcinogen] on the list of chemicals in fragrance, that’s a red flag,” she says. “Is it only used very, very rarely, in very small amounts? Possibly. Is it used in every fragrance that you come across? Then it’s going to be a problem.”

In a brief paper posted on its website, the Fragrance Association touts the industry’s ability to ensure “the highest levels of safety,” and insists that the industry adapts to new scientific findings “more quickly and efficiently through self-regulation as opposed to diverse legislation in different countries on different continents.” The association works with its research arm, the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, to produce standards it says are science-based.

“The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials is like a black box…None of their safety studies are publicly available.”

Women’s Voices cites several problems with this setup: First, the vast majority of fragrance safety studies are produced by the Research Institute—the Fragrance Association says it spends about $8 million a year on joint studies with manufacturers—or by the fragrance houses themselves. But the industry research is rarely published or peer reviewed, and there is no routine review of laboratory practices, Women’s Voices says, to ensure that results “have not been manipulated.”

Cleveland, OH | Fragrance Bottle | EZ Breathe Systems

Over the past year, however, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety has examined studies by the Research Institute and found repeated failings in its methodology—including incomplete data and invalid protocols.

The industry vets safety data and creates safety standards with guidance from a panel of “independent experts“—but the panel’s deliberations are off limits to the public. These standards, according to the Fragrance Association’s website, amount to 186 substances it has banned or restricted over the years, but Women’s Voices contends that the group does little to police its standards.

“The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials is like a black box,” says Janet Nudelman, the director of program and policy for the Breast Cancer Fund and director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “None of their safety studies are publicly available.”

The Research Institute did not argue with the findings of Women’s Voices but simply responded with a statement affirming that “the industry is committed to addressing consumers’ interests through a continuous health and environmental safety review.”

The Fragrance Association opposed a recent bill that would force manufacturers of cleaning products to disclose their top 20 ingredients.

But the industry remains opposed to greater transparency regarding the chemicals it uses. The Fragrance Association, for example, opposed a California bill—introduced last February by state Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles)—that would force manufacturers of cleaning products to disclose their top 20 ingredients on the label. In a letter to the assemblyman, the association said it was worried about counterfeiters.

Miller, the New York professor with fragrance sensitivity, says “it would be very helpful” for people like her if companies would come clean about what’s in their products. “Fragrance is not just some pretty concept,” she says. “It actually can be a fairly nasty combination of chemicals.”

Conatct EZ Breathe to have better quality indoor air today!

This story was reported by FairWarning, a nonprofit news organization focused on public health, safety and environmental issues.

Indoor Air Quality – 3 of the Most Common Household Air Pollutants | Philidelphia, PA

Indoor Air Quality – 3 of the Most Common Household Air Pollutants

According to EPA, you may be surprised to know that indoor air is much more polluted than the air outside. There are a wide variety of household pollutants that are responsible for this. The following are the most common pollutants that are compromising your indoor air quality and putting the health of your household at risk.

1: Mold

This is a fungus that produces spores that become airborne when the fungus is disturbed. These spores land on various surfaces around the home to establish new fungal colonies. Mold infestations are often the result of high levels of humidity.

Mold spores are difficult to control once a mold infestation has established itself in your home. They can trigger allergic reactions and worsen asthma symptoms. You may experience sneezing, red eyes and skin rash. We Can Help! Contact Us! (866) 822-7328

 

The best way to deal with mold is by getting rid of it. This is possible through mold remediation. You can prevent the establishment of an infestation by ensuring that humidity levels in the home are controlled and the home is ventilated. This is possible with a whole-home ventilation system.

2: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

These compounds are chemicals that evaporate into the air. They are present in paint thinners, glues, adhesives, finishes, upholstery and many other items in the home. VOCs can cause serious health problems including damage to the central nervous system, liver and kidneys in the long term.

It is difficult to control the levels of VOCs in the home because they are present in many of the products we bring into our homes. You can opt to limit bringing such products into the home and instead rely on natural or organic products. You should also ensure that the home is well ventilated to keep concentrations of VOCs at a minimum. The EZ-Breathe family of home systems can provide the relief, and best indoor air quality possible.

3: Carbon monoxide

Carbon monoxide is one of the biggest pollutants. It is often released as a result of common activities in the home including cooking and heating the home. Carbon monoxide is odorless and colorless. It can be deadly in high concentrations.

You can reduce the levels of carbon monoxide in the home by venting stoves, heaters and dryers. You should also ensure that the entire home is well ventilated to reduce the concentration of carbon monoxide in the home.

Investing in a whole home ventilation system can help to reduce exposure to the above mentioned air pollutants and improve indoor air quality a great deal.

 

Why Winter Makes Indoor Air Quality Worse

Why Winter Makes Indoor Air Quality Worse

Homes are built to be energy- (and therefore cost-) efficient by holding heat in during the winter time and keeping heat out during the summer. Winter weather prompts homeowners to tightly seal any cracks in insulation that could allow cold drafts into the home. This, in turn, also seals off the home from any fresh air and raises the concentrations of allergens, pollutants and chemical concentrations in the home.

Add Stack Effect…It gets Worse!

indoor air qualityThe same force that causes hot air balloons to rise in to the sky is present in all of our homes. This “stack effect” draws air up from the lowest levels through floors, doors, windows, and up from the basement and/or crawlspace commonly called “chimney effect”. This stack effect or chimney effect is very powerful during the winter heating season actively introducing basement/crawlspace air up into the living environment contaminating the quality of indoor air.

40% of the air we breathe in the living spaces was once basement/crawlspace air!

Effects of Poor Indoor Air Quality

Immediate effects of poor indoor air quality can show up after just a single exposure and include headaches, dizziness, fatigue, and itchy eyes, nose, and throat. Asthma and chemical sensitivities can also be aggravated by exposure to indoor pollution. Allergic responses to pollutants in the air can last for months on end as the air quality continues to worsen. Chronic sensitivities may also build up after repeated exposures.

Although it remains uncertain what levels or periods of exposure are necessary to bring on serious health effects from indoor air pollution, long-term effects of indoor air pollution include respiratory disease, heart disease, and cancer.

Improving Indoor Air Quality

The EPA recognizes two basic strategies to improve indoor air quality: source control and ventilation improvements.

Improving indoor air quality through source control involves removing the sources of pollution. Gas emissions, like those from a poorly maintained stove, for instance, can be adjusted in order to lower their emissions; asbestos can be sealed or enclosed. Often, source control is a more cost-conscious way to remedy poor air quality, however source control is not always possible or practical.

Increased ventilation is an easy and effective way to control poor indoor air by bringing fresh indoor air into circulation. Especially because most heating systems do not bring fresh air into the home. Whole home ventilation systems not only create a path of escape for the myriad of pollutants trapped inside our homes, but also make room for better air to be introduced. Solution by dilution. Increase the amount of fresh air entering the building envelope is an effective way to improve the quality of indoor air

You can easily check to see if your home might have ventilation problems. Condensation on walls or windows, stuffy air, moldy areas, or dirty heating or cooling equipment are all indicators. Odors (which are most notable upon entering the home from outdoors) are also an indication of poor ventilation.

When performing many home improvement or hobbies, it’s especially important to be aware of the need for proper ventilation. Without ventilation, pollutants such those emitted during painting, welding, sanding, or even cooking, can add toxic elements into your home environment.

To learn more about the benefits of ventilation click here: https://ezbreathe.com/about/why-ez-breathe/

Toxic Chemicals Are Hiding In Your House Dust

When was the last time you dusted your house?

Your answer could reveal a lot about your home habits, but the findings of a new study might have everyone upping their game — and potentially keeping wet wipes and hand sanitizer nearby at all times.

Researchers at George Washington University say 45 toxic chemicals are found commonly in your house dust, with 10 of them lurking in 90% of homes across the country.

“We wanted to identify which chemicals were present at the highest exposure in homes,” said Dr. Ami Zota, an assistant professor of environmental occupational health who led the study. “Some chemicals were in virtually every dust sample.”

chemical-in-homes

To read the full article by CNN, please visit http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/14/health/toxic-chemicals-house-dust/index.html

 

‘Fragrance’ Making Us Sick?

Fragrance Making Us Sick- EZ Breathe“Fragrance” can mean any of thousands of combinations of chemicals whose identities are not disclosed.

Miller is just one of countless Americans who are sensitive to “fragrance,” a cryptic category of ingredients manufacturers add to products from cleaning supplies to toiletries. This generic term encompasses thousands of combinations of chemicals that give consumer goods their odors, but the identity of those chemicals is rarely disclosed.

Click here for related information on how E-Z Breathe helps with fragrances, smells, and odors.

For decades, fragrance makers have insisted on treating their recipes as trade secrets, even as complaints about negative health effects have proliferated. A 2009 study, for example, concluded that nearly one-third of Americans were irritated by the smell of scented products on others, and 19 percent experienced headaches or breathing difficulties when exposed to air fresheners or deodorizers.

The fragrance industry, with projected global sales of $40 billion this year, insists it ensures the safety of its products through a rigorous system of self-regulation administered by its trade group, the International Fragrance Association. But Women’s Voices for the Earth, a small consumer advocacy group in Missoula, Montana, recently outlined some troubling flaws in the industry’s methods and identified scores of chemicals used in its mixtures as toxic substances.

The Fragrance Association’s North American branch declined to comment for this story, as did association member BASF, the chemical giant. Four other members—Phoenix Aromas & Essential Oils, Premier Specialties, Flavor & Fragrance Specialties Inc., and Bedoukian Research—did not return phone calls.

“There’s a real kind of state of ignorance on the part of scientists, on the part of researchers, on the part of consumers.”

“There’s a real kind of state of ignorance on the part of scientists, on the part of researchers, on the part of consumers, on what is in fragrance and how safe fragrances are for your health,” says Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research at Women’s Voices, whose mission is to eliminate toxic chemicals that predominately affect women. “We were trying to pick apart the claim that the industry is ensuring the safety of fragrance.”

This problem isn’t new. In 2005, California passed the Safe Cosmetics Act, which compels manufacturers to report any product containing ingredients suspected to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm. But the reporting database doesn’t include ingredients, including fragrance chemicals, that the companies identify as trade secrets—and experts worry some manufacturers are failing to comply altogether.

At the federal level, the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees cosmetics, doesn’t require manufacturers to prove in advance that their ingredients are safe—the FDA must demonstrate harm before requesting a recall. And while the agency compels cosmetics makers to disclose their ingredients, it, too, has a trade-secret exemption for fragrance or flavor chemicals. Products such as laundry detergents and air fresheners fall under the purview of the Consumer Products Safety Commission, which does not actively screen fragrances for safety.

“Government has failed to provide a real regulator…There are plenty of examples of where counting on the good graces of industry has wound up being a mistake.”

“Government has failed to provide a real regulator,” which is a problem, says Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group (EWG). “There are plenty of examples of where counting on the good graces of industry has wound up being a mistake.”

In May 2010, a coalition called the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics revealed the results of independent tests it commissioned on 17 popular perfumes, colognes, and body sprays. EWG analyzed the results: Each product contained more than a dozen undisclosed chemicals, including “chemicals associated with hormone disruption and allergic reactions,” the group reported, and other “chemicals with troubling hazardous properties or with a propensity to accumulate in human tissues.”

Earlier that year, under pressure from Women’s Voices and others, the International Fragrance Association released a list of some 3,000 chemicals used by its members. Women’s Voices presented its analysis this past November: Well over 1,000 of the listed ingredients, the group reported, also appear on official listings of worrisome chemicals. The United Nations, for instance, has more than one-third of the fragrance chemicals flagged with the word “warning” and explicitly labels 190 of them a “danger.” The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a division of the World Health Organization, lists seven of the ingredients as possible human carcinogens. Fifteen of the chemicals, Women’s Voices noted, are banned from cosmetics in the European Union.

Scranton, the scientist who authored the Women’s Voices report, points out that the Fragrance Association’s list gives no indication of how often and in what quantity each chemical is used, which makes it difficult to vet. “When I see styrene [a possible carcinogen] on the list of chemicals in fragrance, that’s a red flag,” she says. “Is it only used very, very rarely, in very small amounts? Possibly. Is it used in every fragrance that you come across? Then it’s going to be a problem.”

In a brief paper posted on its website, the Fragrance Association touts the industry’s ability to ensure “the highest levels of safety,” and insists that the industry adapts to new scientific findings “more quickly and efficiently through self-regulation as opposed to diverse legislation in different countries on different continents.” The association works with its research arm, the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, to produce standards it says are science-based.

“The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials is like a black box…None of their safety studies are publicly available.”

Women’s Voices cites several problems with this setup: First, the vast majority of fragrance safety studies are produced by the Research Institute—the Fragrance Association says it spends about $8 million a year on joint studies with manufacturers—or by the fragrance houses themselves. But the industry research is rarely published or peer reviewed, and there is no routine review of laboratory practices, Women’s Voices says, to ensure that results “have not been manipulated.”

Over the past year, however, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety has examined studies by the Research Institute and found repeated failings in its methodology—including incomplete data and invalid protocols.

The industry vets safety data and creates safety standards with guidance from a panel of “independent experts“—but the panel’s deliberations are off limits to the public. These standards, according to the Fragrance Association’s website, amount to 186 substances it has banned or restricted over the years, but Women’s Voices contends that the group does little to police its standards.

“The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials is like a black box,” says Janet Nudelman, the director of program and policy for the Breast Cancer Fund and director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “None of their safety studies are publicly available.”

The Research Institute did not argue with the findings of Women’s Voices but simply responded with a statement affirming that “the industry is committed to addressing consumers’ interests through a continuous health and environmental safety review.”

The Fragrance Association opposed a recent bill that would force manufacturers of cleaning products to disclose their top 20 ingredients.

But the industry remains opposed to greater transparency regarding the chemicals it uses. The Fragrance Association, for example, opposed a California bill—introduced last February by state Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles)—that would force manufacturers of cleaning products to disclose their top 20 ingredients on the label. In a letter to the assemblyman, the association said it was worried about counterfeiters.

Miller, the New York professor with fragrance sensitivity, says “it would be very helpful” for people like her if companies would come clean about what’s in their products. “Fragrance is not just some pretty concept,” she says. “It actually can be a fairly nasty combination of chemicals.”

This story was reported by FairWarning, a nonprofit news organization focused on public health, safety and environmental issues.

Kitchen As A Pollution Hazard

Kitchen As A Pollution Hazard- EZ Breathe

Kitchen As A Pollution Hazard

By midmorning, the smell of hot peanut oil dissipated and inside the tightly sealed laboratory known as Building 51F, a pink hamburger sizzled in a pan over a raging gas flame. Overhead, fans whirred, whisking caustic smoke up through a metallic esophagus of ductwork.

Woody Delp, 49, a longhaired engineer in glasses — the Willie Nelson of HVAC — supervised the green bean and hamburger experiments. He sat at a computer inside a kitchen simulator, rows upon rows of numeric data appearing on his screen, ticking off the constituents of the plume sucked up the flue. A seared hamburger patty, as he sees it, is just a reliable source for indoor pollution.

“I can claim Alice Waters’ influenced the recipe,” he said. “It’s all fresh and local.”

But Dr. Delp and his colleagues aren’t really interested in testing recipes. They are scientists at the Energy Department’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the morning’s experiment concerned another kitchen conundrum, a fight against physics: how to remove harmful contaminants caused by cooking.

Find out why installing the EZ Breathe Ventilation System is beneficial to your home.

Simply put, cooking is an act of controlled combustion — you set oil, fat, and carbohydrates on fire. As a health hazard, incinerating hamburgers and green beans may pale in comparison with lighting wood or coal fires indoors, the leading environmental cause of death and disability around the world. Yet frying, grilling or toasting foods with gas and electric appliances creates particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. (Acrolein, which most cooks recognize as the smell of burnt fats or oils, was used in grenades in World War I because it causes irritation to the lungs and eyes.)

Emissions of nitrogen dioxide in homes with gas stoves exceed the Environmental Protection Agency’s definition of clean air in an estimated 55 percent to 70 percent of those homes, according to one model; a quarter of them have air quality worse than the worst recorded smog (nitrogen dioxide) event in London. Cooking represents one of the single largest contributors, generating particulate matter (formally known as PM2.5) at concentrations four times greater than major haze events in Beijing.

“Because we’re used to the smell, we don’t think of it as an issue,” said Jennifer M. Logue, 32, an air quality engineer at the Berkeley Lab. “When you live in a small building, you cook a lot and don’t use your range hood, which may not be very effective anyway, then you’re probably going to have a problem with pollutants from cooking.”

Recently Dr. Logue estimated the long-term health effects expected from hundreds of chemicals found in average homes. Her 2012 study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, used a common epidemiological metric known as disability-adjusted life-year to show that the population-wide health impact of indoor pollutants is on a par with that of car accidents, and greater than that of traditional concerns like secondhand smoke or radon.

“It’s well over violence,” she said. “It’s not a small risk.”

Federal policy and financing tends to focus on research outdoors — air quality, drinking water, wastewater, hazardous waste sites and soil contamination. “We haven’t had that regulatory driver for the indoor environment, and yet the indoor environment is probably the most important environment in terms of human health,” said Richard L. Corsi, an engineer and professor at the University of Texas at Austin.

“If you look at just the dose of toxic chemicals we take into our bodies during our lifetime that are of environmental origin, it’s dominated by the air that we breathe and the surfaces that we touch indoors,” Dr. Corsi said.

The Berkeley Lab’s research is driven, in part, by renewed efforts to tighten building envelopes and save on energy costs. Airtight buildings keep outdoors out, but they also trap contaminants. Efforts to mask odors — incense, candles, and air fresheners — exacerbate the hazard. After all, indoor combustion creates more pollutants that linger in tightly sealed spaces; and, formaldehyde, for example, is formed when ozone reacts with gases, especially scenting agents, plug-in air fresheners and cleaners.

Since people aren’t likely to stop cooking, the lab aims to come up with science-based ventilation standards. “People don’t need to radically change their lifestyles,” Dr. Logue said. “We need to change the building codes so that everyone gets a venting range hood.”

Current ventilation standards — the V in HVAC — represent a best engineering judgment. There’s never been much science involved in determining how well range hoods and other ventilation systems should work in terms of human health. Existing metrics for performance, most notably the Energy Star rating, measure energy use, not the impact of the appliance on human health.

And while it’s difficult to rid a home of the semi-volatile organic compounds that leak out of, say, a couch over a long period of time, volatile compounds from fire and water vapor can be removed with an effective kitchen fan. “A lot of homes don’t have that,” said Brett Singer, the lab’s director. “Secondly, a lot of the ones that do, people don’t use them, and thirdly, even if they have it and even if they use it, a lot of them don’t work very well.”

When they tested seven different commercially available range hood designs, Dr. Singer and Dr. Delp found that the airflow and the amount of burner exhaust and cooking contaminants whisked away — the so-called “capture efficiency” — varied from 15 percent to 98 percent. (Dr. Singer refers to recirculating hoods, only somewhat jokingly, as “forehead greasers.”)

Inside the kitchen simulator, fresh air whooshed through the room — an exchange rate of about 12 times per hour, nearly 40 times the amount circulating in an average home. But the experiments hadn’t generated much appetite. One lab assistant, Omsri Bharat, passed on the burgers because she is a vegetarian, and the other, Marcella Barrios, a science teacher, admitted to having packed a lunch.

Dr. Singer is optimistic that new scientific standards might even change habits inside actual homes. “We want people to cook,” he said. “The health of America will probably get better. We just want to make sure all those pollutants, vapors and moisture from cooking get vented outside.”

Peter Andrey Smith
The New York Times
07/22/2013