Personal Care Products, Pregnancy, and 'Forever Chemicals'

Thus the clowning of 'the experts™' continues, as Norway now considers telling pregnant women not to use these products while 'public health™' officialdom doesn't reflect on modRNA (ab)uses

Today I wish to draw your attention to a recently-published study about make-up and other so-called personal care products, their highly toxic ingredients, and pregnancy risks.

Entitled, ‘Personal care product use and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in pregnant and lactating people in the Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals study’, Amber M. Hall et al. have actually done some really helpful work. Published in Environment International, vol. 193, Nov. 2024, 109094 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.109094), we shall, in the following, discuss the paper’s main findings and, in a second step, get into the weeds of the self-clowning of Norway’s journalistic and public health ‘elite™’.

Emphases and [snark], as well as the translations of non-English text, mine.

---

Use Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’, Poison Your Infant

Background

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are ubiquitous chemicals routinely detected in personal care products (PCPs). However, few studies have evaluated the impact of PCP use on PFAS concentrations in pregnant and lactating populations [women; there, I fixed this for you].

Objective

We investigated associations between PCP use and PFAS concentrations in prenatal plasma and human milk.

Methods

We leveraged the Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals (MIREC) Study to evaluate the contribution of PCP use on PFAS concentrations in prenatal plasma (6 to 13 weeks’ gestation; n = 1,940) and human-milk (2 to 10 weeks’ postpartum; n = 664). Participants reported frequency of use across 8 PCP categories during the 1st and 3rd trimesters, 1 to 2 days postpartum, and 2 to 10 weeks’ postpartum [i.e., we asked women who used make-up etc. during pregnancy and after birth]. We used adjusted linear regression models to quantify percent differences and corresponding 95 % confidence intervals.

Results

In 1st trimester pregnant people [women], we found higher use of nailcare products (≥once a week vs. never: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA): 21 % [9.7 %, 32 %]; perfluorooctane-sulfonic acid (PFOS): 11 % [0.3 %, 23 %]), fragrances (daily vs. never: PFOA: 14 % [7.8 %, 21 %]; PFOS: 7.8 % [1.3 %, 15 %]), makeup (daily vs. never: PFOA: 14 % [5.8 %, 23 %]), hair dyes (never vs. 1-2 times during pregnancy: PFOA: 8.3 % [2.4 %, 15 %]), and hair sprays or gels (daily vs. never: PFOA: 12 % [5.0 %, 19 %], PFOS: 7.1 % [0.2 %, 15 %]) were associated with higher plasma PFAS concentrations [these highly toxic ‘forever chemicals’ enter the bloodstream]. Similar results were observed for 3rd trimester PCP use and 2 to 10 weeks’ postpartum human-milk PFAS concentrations [these highly toxic ‘forever chemicals’ also enter breastmilk]. In addition, we also found that people [women] using colored-permanent dye 1 to 2 days postpartum had higher Sm-PFOS (18 % [2.7 %, 35 %]), PFOA (16 % [4.3 %, 29 %]), and perfluorononanoic acid (17 % [3.6 %, 33 %]) postpartum human-milk concentrations [which isn’t that surprising, isn’t it?].

Conclusions

Our results show that PCP use may [my Italics] be a modifiable source of PFAS exposure in pregnant and lactating populations. These results along with growing scientific evidence can help inform PFAS regulation and guide individual choices to reduce PFAS exposure.

As to the integrity of the authors, well, the term ‘may’ used in the conclusions is mind-boggling in light of the actual findings during the 1st term:

• nailcare products: little, no use = .3-9.7% vs. regular use = 23-32%

• fragrances: never = 1.3-7.8% vs. daily = 15-21%

• hair dyes, sprays, or gels: never = .2-5% vs. regular = 15-19%

These highly toxic ‘forever chemicals’ enter the bloodstream at significantly—at times there’s a magnitude (X10) or higher level of exposure—rates.

Comparable findings are documented in 3rd trimester/2-10 weeks post-partum:

• use of colored-permanent dye 1 to 2 days postpartum: little, no use = 2.7-4.3% vs. 29-35% of exposed women had this toxic crap in their breastmilk

May? Are you f***** kidding me? ‘The Science™’ rears its ugly head once more, esp. since infants both in utero and post-partum can’t chose not to ingest these highly toxic forever chemicals.

What Do Hall et al. write about these Poisons?

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are synthetic chemicals that have been used in consumer products and industrial settings since the 1950s due to their ability to resist oil, water, and heat (Buck et al., 2011, Glüge et al., 2020). These substances are environmentally persistent, ubiquitous, and are detectable in nearly 100 % of Canadians (Health Canada, 2024; Casal et al. 2017; DeWitt 2015; Lewis et al. 2015). Although the general population is typically exposed to PFAS through the ingestion of contaminated food, PFAS can also be found in drinking water, food packaging, cookware, furniture, and personal care products (PCPs) such as makeup, hair products, and nail polish (Ramli et al., 2020, Sunderland et al., 2019, Thépaut et al., 2021). Furthermore, once exposed, PFAS can bioaccumulate in humans, with some PFAS exhibiting half-lives of over 8 years (Rosato et al. 2023).

That doesn’t sound, well, ‘good’, isn’t it? The authors continue:

PFAS have been associated with a wide range of adverse health effects, including liver disease, adverse cardiometabolic and cardiovascular health, and various cancers (Bassler et al., 2019, Hall and Braun 2023, Meneguzzi et al., 2021, Steenland and Winquist, 2021). When exposed during pregnancy, PFAS may also contribute to adverse offspring health, including decreased birth weight, preterm birth, some neurodevelopmental disorders, and diminished vaccine response [oh, look at that: do PFAS induce pre-partum autoimmune disease?] in children (Gao et al., 2021, Gui et al., 2022, Hall and Braun 2023, Ho et al., 2022, Jeddi et al., 2022, Lee et al., 2021, Liu et al., 2024, Qi et al., 2020, Steenland and Winquist, 2021, Zhang et al., 2022). These health effects in offspring are in part due to the transplacental and lactational transfer of PFAS, facilitating exposure during gestation and infancy, respectively (Bloom et al., 2022, LaKind et al., 2022b).

From the Discussion by Hall et all.

In the MIREC Study, a prospective Canadian pregnancy and birth cohort, we found that more frequent use of hair sprays and gels, nail care products, fragrances and perfumes, makeup, and hair dyes was associated with higher plasma PFOS or PFOA concentrations, and more frequent hair spray or gel use was associated with higher plasma PFHxS concentrations. Similar trends were observed between prenatal and postnatal PCP use with PFAS measured in human milk. In addition, we found that individuals who used permanent hair color or partial highlights without bleach shortly after delivery had higher Sm-PFOS, PFOA, or PFNA human milk concentrations compared to non-users.

It is the dose that makes the poison, and regular use of PCPs resulted in higher levels of exposure of infants both in utero and post-partum.

Of studies directly measuring PFAS in PCPs, all of them have consistently detected PFAS in cosmetic products (Fujii et al., 2013, Harris et al., 2022, Schultes et al., 2018, Whitehead et al., 2021). For example, Fujii (2013) et al. evaluated 15 different cosmetic products, and 9 different sunscreens from different countries between 2009 and 2011 for 9 perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs), finding 87 % (13 of 15) of cosmetics and 89 % (8 of 9) of sunscreens contained a PFCA (Fujii et al. 2013). Another study tested 38 cosmetic products available in Canada between 2020 and 2021 for PFAS and detected at least one PFAS in all samples, including products where PFAS was not listed as an active ingredient (Harris et al. 2022). Although these studies did not specifically evaluate PFAS concentrations in serum, they demonstrate that PCPs could be important exposure sources for PFAS. These findings align with our observations in the MIREC Study, identifying positive PCP-PFAS associations among pregnant and lactating individuals [women].

In short: virtually everything that ‘the Science™’ has tested contains one or more of these highly toxic ‘forever chemicals’.

I recall when our first child was born, we specifically sought out stuff made of plastics that were BPA-free, but I now freely admit I had no idea that, while not a bad idea, it was probably also pretty useless:

My dear children, I’m so sorry—I had no idea I was poisoning you.

Here follow a few more choice quotes from the discussion section:

We investigated associations between the use of hair coloring products (highlights and permanent dyes) and postpartum human-milk concentrations, finding significant associations…

Differences in PFAS levels [exposure] may also arise from precursor degradation during the application of these products or during wear. To date, studies on relations between PCPs and PFAS that have included hair products have focused on shampoo and styling products, not evaluating hair dyes or highlights

These highly toxic ‘forever chemicals’ are in everything we put on our skin (mankind’s largest organ), and since these products bioaccumulate, using, e.g., shampoo, shower gel, styling products, and hair dyes in combination will result in higher exposure than using ‘only’ one or two of these products at any time.

Oh, good ol’ soap bar.

Prenatal or postnatal use of several PCPs (e.g., hair products, nail care products, and makeup) was associated with higher PFAS concentrations in human milk [wear make-up, poison your child; somehow, Big Tobacco—of which I’m not a fan of—must add black-label warnings to cigarettes but for ‘whatever™’ reason (sic), personal care products don’t: WTF?]…

We observed that branched PFOS isomers (Sm-PFOS) were more strongly associated with several PCPs including hair dyes, colored permanent dye, nail care products, and makeup use compared to linear isomers (n-PFOS). This observation was surprising as previous research has suggested that branched isomers are eliminated faster and measured at lower levels compared to linear isomers (Schulz et al. 2020). Furthermore, this finding was contrary to the only study to measure both branched and linear isomers of PFAS directly in cosmetics by Schultes (2018) et al. that did not detect any branched isomers in any of their tested Swedish cosmetics (Schultes et al. 2018) [this means that ‘the only’ other study looking at these toxins was, well, flawed, it would seem, but I admit not having looked at this one yet]. As branched and linear isomers have been observed to have different health effects, future research should consider individual PFAS isomers to better understand their impact on human health (Schulz et al. 2020).

In other words: use these products and find out what it might trigger in terms of ‘their impact on human health’.

Differences in the association between PCPs and PFAS across studies may be due to several factors. First, variations in the specific PCPs or PFAS evaluated may contribute to differences in findings [do we actually know what is in these products?]. Additionally, the chemical composition within a specific PCP category can vary significantly [i.e., companies don’t disclose the share of any ingredient, as opposed to, say, food labels], with some formulations containing higher concentrations of some PFAS or PFAS precursors compared to others (Fujii et al., 2013, Harris et al., 2022, Schultes et al., 2018, Whitehead et al., 2021). Furthermore, the frequency and duration of use for different PCPs may also result in varying levels of exposure.

In other words: we’re poisoning ourselves and our children, mostly unwittingly, but also by design as these companies apparently fail to accurately disclose the contents of their products.

Norway Recommends no Make-Up for Pregnant Women

What a surprising headline in state broadcaster NRK—as a direct reaction to the above-discussed study. Upon closer inspection, certain aspects are telling:

NRK was all-in on pushing the modRNA poison/death juice, especially on pregnant women, the elderly, and those otherwise at risk due to pre-existing health conditions.

In his piece, NRK ‘journo™’ Chris Veløy, which appeared online on 29 Nov. 2024, wrote the following lines:

Pregnant Women [sic] Recommended to Use Less Make-Up

Pregnant and breastfeeding women who use make-up, nail varnish, or hairspray have more forever chemicals in their blood and breast milk than those who do not use such products.

Researchers in Canada have followed around 2,500 women during or after pregnancy. They collected samples of blood and breast milk. The mothers then told them how often they used different skincare products.

Moisturisers and similar products were by far the most commonly used, while almost 9 out of 10 used make-up…

In all categories, except creams, the researchers clearly found more forever chemicals in the blood and breast milk of those who used the products more often.

For example, those who used make-up during pregnancy had 14% more of the harmful substances in their blood and 17% more in their breast milk.

What’s more, here are some clear words by one of the lead researchers:

‘People who are concerned about the level of exposure to these chemicals during pregnancy or while breastfeeding may benefit from cutting back on personal care products.’

That’s according to Professor Joseph Braun, who is behind the research.

The levels of forever chemicals in blood and breast milk in the study are based on data from several years ago and Canadian women. But the levels are quite similar to those measured in Norway [and, likely, elsewhere across developed countries].

A small study based on 144 Norwegians in 2017 showed that there was a link between forever chemicals in the blood and the use of sunscreen and lip gloss.

NRK then goes on linking to the following website EWG’s Skin Deep, which offers guidance on many contents of such personal care products.

Note that I have not been aware of this website, but my levels of awareness and wariness have increased significantly over the past few years.

You may recall my recent piece about, of all things, ‘snail serum’:

From the PRC with Slime

I looked up ‘snail serum’ in EWG’s Skin Deep database and found three products (but not the one I looked at in some detail for my piece).

None of this is good, but I’ll conclude this section by informing you that Mr. Veløy closes his piece by mentioning that ‘Norwegian authorities are working towards a European ban on all PFAS’.

That would actually be something good.

Bottom Lines

I’m on the final leg of my return journey, and I’ll certainly talk to my wife and daughters about the above study.

Please do the same, esp. if you know and love people who regularly, and without much, if any, thought use such personal care products.

Go back to regular, good ol’ soap bars, preferably without any artificial ingredients. For years, I’ve used only soap bars, but I never bothered to read the labels for reasons that I’m now very much embarrassed to admit: I thought soap is soap.

As I write this in a commuter train, there’s a group of five young women sitting next to me—all of them in their early 20s, university students, and very much wearing make-up and other of these personal care products.

While I remain unsure if I should tell them—I probably will once I’m done typing—my mission this afternoon will be to go through the bathroom closet with my children (aged 7 and almost 11) and learning about what we use without thinking about it even once.

Please help me spread awareness and share this widely.