ANONYMOUS: Message to the US Armed Forces - YouTube: ""
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Friday, July 27, 2012
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Genetically Modified Apples Newest GMO Creation
Genetically Modified Apples Newest GMO Creation:
'via Blog this'
After setting sights on creating a heavily modified apple that ‘never browns’ and doing their very best to hide the fact that they are indeed genetically altered, a biotech corporation known as Okanagan Specialty Fruits is now pushing for their new genetically modified apples to hit the market. The company recently submitted an application to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to launch their initiative to get the apples into your local grocery market and reap ‘improved industry sales’, but they made sure that the data was not available to the public.
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/genetically-modified-apples-newest-gmo-creation/#ixzz21hHv1tZJ
'via Blog this'
Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety
July 25, 2012
NaturalSociety
July 25, 2012
After setting sights on creating a heavily modified apple that ‘never browns’ and doing their very best to hide the fact that they are indeed genetically altered, a biotech corporation known as Okanagan Specialty Fruits is now pushing for their new genetically modified apples to hit the market. The company recently submitted an application to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to launch their initiative to get the apples into your local grocery market and reap ‘improved industry sales’, but they made sure that the data was not available to the public.Now, after providing virtually no information to the citizens of Canada and submitting only two pages of information on the product actually written by the company, Okanagan Specialty Fruits is now set on a United States release. On July 9th, the USDA posted the corporation’s request for approval on their website for the genetically modified ‘non-browning’ apples, giving the public 60 days to comment before ultimately making a decision.
The move has outraged many watchdog organizations, who have continued to highlight the fact that the initial submission to the Canadian government was ‘embarrassing’ in its utter lack of real information. Speaking on behalf of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, activist and biotech researcher Lucy Sharratt stated:
“The CFIA should be deeply embarrassed for wasting Canadian’s time on a false invitation to comment on the GM apple… the CFIA public comment period was always a sham because it was based on no data but this farce is now completely exposed.”
Genetically Modified Apples Opposed by 69% of Canadians
Unsurprisingly, Sharatt’s sentiments have been echoed by many Canadian citizens and activists. The crusade to bring genetically modified apples has been met with extreme activism from concerned citizens as documented by a number of new polls and surveys. Giving a powerful statistical concept of how citizens see the proposition of the modified apples, a consumer poll commissioned by apple grower associations based in British Columbia and Quebec revealed that 69% of Canadians simply do not want the genetically modified apple.
One reason that some citizens are concerned is the fact that biotechnology researchers have openly admitted that while only one gene is necessary to be altered to prevent browning in the apples, the change could likely affect a multitude of other genes in the process. And with unknown gene changes comes unknown consequences. In case you’re skeptical, even Monsanto’s top PhD researchers have openly stated to former Monsanto employee and whistleblower Kirk Azevedo that during the genetic modification process “other proteins that are being produced, not just the one we want, a byproduct of the genetic engineering process.”
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/genetically-modified-apples-newest-gmo-creation/#ixzz21hHv1tZJ
Monday, July 23, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Monday, July 16, 2012
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Monsanto rider: New bill could make biotech companies immune to courts — RT
Monsanto rider: New bill could make biotech companies immune to courts — RT:
'via Blog this'
Monsanto rider: New bill could make biotech companies immune to courts
Get short URL email story to a friend print version
Published: 11 July, 2012, 00:19
An activist from Friends of the Earth Europe wears a bee headband as another holds up a placard during a protest outside the Monsanto's office in Brussels (Reuters/Francois Lenoir)
TAGS: Protest, Politics, Law, USA, Agriculture
If passed, an amendment in the Agricultural Appropriations Bill will not just allow, but require the secretary of agriculture to grant permits for planting or cultivating GM crops – even if a federal court has given an injunction against it.
Basically, all Monsanto and other biotech companies have to do is ask and the industry gets its way. Issues like crop contamination, damage to farmers or consumers, courts orders or USDA studies all go out the window and the biotech industry cashes in.
Organizations like Food Democracy Now are in a panic, calling all to petition against the bill, which they say “fundamentally undermines the concept of judicial review and would strip judges of their constitutional mandate to protect consumer rights and the environment, while opening up the floodgates for the planting of new untested genetically engineered crops, endangering farmers, consumers and the environment.”
Representative Peter DeFazio has been trying to push through an amendment that would kill the havoc-wreaking rider. He has the support of organizations like Organic Consumers Associations, Center for Food Safety and others. Their warnings have been circulating the web, gathering attention and support – but will they be enough to sway the House?
"Ceding broad and unprecedented powers to industry, the rider poses a direct threat to the authority of US courts, jettisons the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) established oversight powers on key agriculture issues and puts the nation's farmers and food supply at risk, " claimed the Center for Food Safety in a recent statement.
But how has such a rider even made it on to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill? According to Tom Philpot of Mother Jones, agricultural sub-committee chair Jack Kingston is responsible for inserting this pro-industry provision, which, many argue, has nothing to do with agricultural appropriations. Interestingly enough, Kingston was also voted “legislator of the year for 2011-2012″ by none other than the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto and DuPont.
The media is speculating that the House of Representatives will vote on the bill on July 23rd, after allegedly delaying the issue twice earlier this month. But one thing is certain – if passed, this one line in a 90-page document will mean Frankenfood for consumers, losses for farmers and huge profits for biotech companies that don’t appear to care much for anything else.
'via Blog this'
Monsanto rider: New bill could make biotech companies immune to courts
Get short URL email story to a friend print version
Published: 11 July, 2012, 00:19
An activist from Friends of the Earth Europe wears a bee headband as another holds up a placard during a protest outside the Monsanto's office in Brussels (Reuters/Francois Lenoir)
TAGS: Protest, Politics, Law, USA, Agriculture
If passed, an amendment in the Agricultural Appropriations Bill will not just allow, but require the secretary of agriculture to grant permits for planting or cultivating GM crops – even if a federal court has given an injunction against it.
Basically, all Monsanto and other biotech companies have to do is ask and the industry gets its way. Issues like crop contamination, damage to farmers or consumers, courts orders or USDA studies all go out the window and the biotech industry cashes in.
Organizations like Food Democracy Now are in a panic, calling all to petition against the bill, which they say “fundamentally undermines the concept of judicial review and would strip judges of their constitutional mandate to protect consumer rights and the environment, while opening up the floodgates for the planting of new untested genetically engineered crops, endangering farmers, consumers and the environment.”
Representative Peter DeFazio has been trying to push through an amendment that would kill the havoc-wreaking rider. He has the support of organizations like Organic Consumers Associations, Center for Food Safety and others. Their warnings have been circulating the web, gathering attention and support – but will they be enough to sway the House?
"Ceding broad and unprecedented powers to industry, the rider poses a direct threat to the authority of US courts, jettisons the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) established oversight powers on key agriculture issues and puts the nation's farmers and food supply at risk, " claimed the Center for Food Safety in a recent statement.
But how has such a rider even made it on to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill? According to Tom Philpot of Mother Jones, agricultural sub-committee chair Jack Kingston is responsible for inserting this pro-industry provision, which, many argue, has nothing to do with agricultural appropriations. Interestingly enough, Kingston was also voted “legislator of the year for 2011-2012″ by none other than the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto and DuPont.
The media is speculating that the House of Representatives will vote on the bill on July 23rd, after allegedly delaying the issue twice earlier this month. But one thing is certain – if passed, this one line in a 90-page document will mean Frankenfood for consumers, losses for farmers and huge profits for biotech companies that don’t appear to care much for anything else.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Consciousness TV | Top 12 Cancer Causing Products in the Average Home
Labeled Toxic Ingredient:
TALC, Carcinogenic and a risk factor for ovarian cancer; lung irritant.
Labeled Toxic Ingredients
BHA, Carcinogenic.
TALC, Carcinogenic; Lung Irritant.
TRIETHANOLAMINE (TEA), Interacts with nitrites to form carcinogenic nitrosamines.
LANOLIN, Often contaminated with DDT and other carcinogenic pesticides.
PARABENS, Contact dermatitis.
FRAGRANCE, Wide range of unlabeled, untested, and toxic ingredients; contact dermatitis.
Labeled Toxic Ingredients:
FD&C BLUE #1, Carcinogenic, SACCHARIN, Carcinogenic, FLUORIDE, Possibly carcinogenic.
Labeled Toxic Ingredients:
FORMALDEHYDE, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic; contact dermatitis and sensitizer.
POLYSORBATE 80, Generally contaminated with the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane.
FD&C RED #4, Carcinogenic.
FRAGRANCE, Wide range of undisclosed ingredients; contact dermatitis.
Labeled Toxic Ingredients:
QUATERNlUM-15, Formaldehyde-releaser; carcinogenic; neurotoxic; contact dermatitis and sensitizer.
DIETHANOLAMINE (DEA), Carcinogenic; also interacts with nitrites to form a carcinogenic nitrosamine.
PHENYLENE-DIAMINES, Includes carcinogens and other ingredients inadequately tested for carcinogenicity; contact dermatitis.
PROPYLENE GLYCOL, Contact dermatitis.
FRAGRANCE, Wide range of undisclosed ingredients; contact dermatitis.
NOTE: Also evidence of causal relation to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma and other cancers
Unlabeled Toxic Ingredients:
CRYSTALLINE SILICA, Carcinogenic; eye, skin and lung irritant.
NOTE: Carcinogenicity of silica is admitted in 1994 Material Safety and Data Sheet (MSDS).
(Manufacturer claims to have reduced silica levels since 1993.)
Unlabeled Toxic Ingredient:
CRYSTALLINE SILICA, Carcinogenic; eye, skin and lung irritant. (Carcinogenicity is denied in Material Safety and Data Sheet.)
Labeled or Unlabeled Toxic Ingredient:
ORTHOPHENYLPHENOL (OPP): Carcinogenic; irritant. (Carcinogenicity is denied in Material Safety and Data Sheet.)
Labeled Toxic Ingredient
PROPOXUR, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic.
Labeled Toxic Ingredient
SODIUM 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE (2,4-D), Carcinogenic with evidence of casual relation to lymphoma, soft tissue sarcoma and other cancers ; neurotoxic; reproductive toxin.
Unlabeled Toxic Ingredients
BENZENE HEXACHLORIDE, Carcinogenic.
DACTHAL, Carcinogenic (can be contaminated with dioxin); irritant; strong sensitizer.
DIELDRIN, Carcinogenic; xenoestrogen.
DDT, Carcinogenic; xenoestrogen.
HEPTACHLOR, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic; reproductive toxin; xenoestrogen.
HEXACHLOROBENZENE, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic; teratogenic.
LINDANE, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic; damage to blood forming cells.
HORMONES: Carcinogenic and feminizing.
ANTIBIOTICS: Some are carcinogenic, cause allergies and drug resistance.
Labeled Ingredient
NITRITE, Interacts with meat amines to form carcinogenic nitrosamines which are a major risk factor for childhood cancers.
Unlabeled Toxic Ingredients
DDT, Carcinogenic; xenoestrogen.
DIELDRIN, Carcinogenic; xenoestrogen.
HEPTACHLOR, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic; reproductive toxin; xenoestrogen.
HEXACHLOROBENZENE, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic; reproductive toxin.
ANTIBIOTICS: Some are carcinogenic, cause allergies and drug resistance.
RECOMBINANT BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE and IGF-1: Also, risk factor for breast, colon and prostate cancers.
Safer Alternative:
rBGH-free Organic skim milk
Unlabeled Toxic Ingredients
Linear alkyl sodium sulfonates (LAS) or ‘anionic surfactants’, carcinogenic, reproductive toxins
Petroleum Distillates, carcinogenic, cause lung damage, lung inflammation and damage to mucous membranes.
Phenols, toxic to central nervous system, heart, blood vessels, lungs and kidneys.
Sodium hypochlorite (household bleach): When it reacts with organic materials in the environment, carcinogenic and toxic compounds are created than can cause reproductive, endocrine and immune system disorders.
“What is particularly galling about the “Dirty Dozen”, emphasized Ralph Nader, “is that these toxic chemicals don’t have to be there. Yet these corporations continue to expose people to health hazards unnecessarily”.
Current product labeling provides no warning for cancer and other chronic health risks. Food is labeled for cholesterol, but not for carcinogens. Cosmetics are labeled for major ingredients, but not for those that form carcinogens or contain carcinogenic contaminants. Except for pesticides, household products contain no information on their ingredients.
Cancer rates are skyrocketing. Currently, more than one-third of all of us will develop cancer in our lifetime, and one-fourth will die from the disease. Many cancers are due to avoidable exposures to industrial carcinogens in the food we eat, and the cosmetics and household products we use.
For more information, see: Steinman, D. and Epstein, S.S.
The Safe Shopper’s Bible, Macmillan/IDG 1995, New York, NY (800-434-3422)
Epstein, S.S. The Politics of Cancer Revisited, East Ridge Press 1998, Hankins, NY (845-887-6467).
Friday, July 13, 2012
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Consciousness TV | Hidden Chemicals In Popular Perfumes and Colognes
Consciousness TV | Hidden Chemicals In Popular Perfumes and Colognes:
'via Blog this'
Makers of popular perfumes, colognes and body sprays market their scents with terms like “floral,” “exotic,” or “musky,” but they don’t disclose that many scents are actually a complex cocktail of natural essences and synthetic chemicals – often petrochemicals.
A new analysis reveals that top-selling fragrance products—from Britney Spears’ Curious and Hannah Montana Secret Celebrity to Calvin Klein Eternity and Abercrombie & Fitch Fierce —contain a dozen or more secret chemicals not listed on labels, multiple chemicals that can trigger allergic reactions or disrupt hormones, and many substances that have not been assessed for safety by the beauty industry’s self-policing review panels.
The study of hidden toxic chemicals in perfumes comes on the heels of report by the President’s Cancer Panel, which sounded the alarm over the understudied and largely unregulated toxic chemicals used by millions of Americans in their daily lives. The Cancer Panel report recommends that pregnant women and couples planning to become pregnant avoid exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals due to cancer concerns. Hormone disruptors that may play a role in cancer were found in many of the fragrances analyzed for this study.
A rose may be a rose. But that rose-like fragrance in your perfume may be something else entirely, concocted from any number of the fragrance industry’s 3,100 stock chemical ingredients, the blend of which is almost always kept hidden from the consumer.
“This monumental study reveals the hidden hazards of fragrances,” said Anne C. Steinemann, Ph.D, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Professor of Public Affairs, University of Washington. “Secondhand scents are also a big concern. One person using a fragranced product can cause health problems for many others.”
For this study, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a national coalition of health and environmental groups, commissioned tests of 17 fragranced products at an independent laboratory. Campaign partner Environmental Working Group assessed data from the tests and the product labels. The analysis reveals that the 17 name brand fragrance products, topped by American Eagle Seventy Seven with 24, Chanel Coco with 18, and Britney Spears Curious and Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio with 17:
Fourteen secret chemicals not listed on labels due to a loophole in federal law that allows companies to claim fragrances as trade secrets. American Eagle Seventy Seven contained 24 hidden chemicals, the highest number of any product in the study.
Ten sensitizing chemicals associated with allergic reactions such as asthma, wheezing, headaches and contact dermatitis. Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio contained 19 different sensitizing chemicals, more than any other product in the study
Four hormone-disrupting chemicals linked to a range of health effects including sperm damage, thyroid disruption and cancer. Halle by Halle Berry, Quicksilver and Jennifer Lopez J. Lo Glow each contained seven different chemicals with the potential to disrupt the hormone system.
The average fragrance product tested contained 14 secret chemicals not listed on the label. Among them are chemicals associated with hormone disruption and allergic reactions, and many substances that have not been assessed for safety in personal care products.
Also in the ranks of undisclosed ingredients are chemicals with troubling hazardous properties or with a propensity to accumulate in human tissues. These include diethyl phthalate, a chemical found in 97 percent of Americans (Silva 2004) and linked to sperm damage in human epidemiological studies (Swan 2008), and musk ketone, a synthetic fragrance ingredient that concentrates in human fat tissue and breast milk (Hutter 2009; Reiner 2007).
The federal government is equally uninformed. A review of government records shows that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not assessed the vast majority of these secret fragrance chemicals for safety when used in spray-on personal care products such as fragrances. Nor have most been evaluated by the safety review panel of the International Fragrance Association or any other publicly accountable institution.
Fragrance secrecy is legal due to a giant loophole in the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1973, which requires companies to list cosmetics ingredients on the product labels but explicitly exempts fragrance. By taking advantage of this loophole, the cosmetics industry has kept the public in the dark about the ingredients in fragrance, even those that present potential health risks or build up in people’s bodies.
Ingredients not in a product’s hidden fragrance mixture must be listed on the label. As a result, manufacturers disclose some chemical constituents on ingredient lists but lump others together in the generic category of “fragrance.” In fact, “fragrances” are typically mixtures of many different secret chemicals, like those uncovered in this study. On average, the 17 name-brand fragrances tested in this study contained nearly equal numbers of secret and labeled ingredients, with 14 chemicals kept secret but found through testing, and 15 disclosed on labels.
Some chemicals that are disclosed on the labels of the products in the report also raise safety concerns. They include sunscreen and ultraviolet-protector chemicals associated with hormone disruption (Schlumpf 2004) and 24 chemical sensitizers that can trigger allergic reactions (European Commission Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products (EC) 1999).
To make matters worse, FDA lacks the authority to require manufacturers to test cosmetics for safety, including fragranced products, before they are sold to consumers. As a result, people using perfume, cologne, body spray and other scented cosmetics like lotion and aftershave are unknowingly exposed to chemicals that may increase their risk for certain health problems.
Product tests initiated by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and subsequent analyses, detailed in this report, reveal that widely recognized brand-name perfumes and colognes contain secret chemicals, sensitizers, potential hormone disruptors and chemicals not assessed for safety:
Secret chemicals: Laboratory tests revealed 38 secret chemicals in 17 name-brand products, with an average of 14 secret chemicals per product. American Eagle Seventy Sevencontained 24 secret chemicals, nearly twice the average found in other products tested.
Multiple sensitizers: The products tested contained an average of 10 chemicals that are known to be sensitizers and can trigger allergic reactions such as asthma, wheezing, headaches and contact dermatitis. All of these were listed on product labels. Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Giocontained 19 different sensitizing chemicals that can trigger allergic reactions, more than any other product tested.
Multiple hormone disruptors: A total of 12 different hormone-disrupting chemicals were found in the tested products, with an average of four in each product. Three products each contained seven different chemicals with the potential to disrupt the hormone system: Halle by Halle Berry, Quicksilver and Jennifer Lopez J. Lo Glow. In each product, six of these chemicals mimic the hormone estrogen, and the seventh is associated with thyroid effects. Some of these potential hormone disruptors were listed on labels; others were undisclosed and were uncovered in product testing.
Widespread use of chemicals that have not been assessed for safety: A review of government records shows that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not assessed the vast majority of fragrance ingredients in personal care products for safety. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), an industry-funded and self policing body, has assessed only 19 of the 91 ingredients listed on labels or found in testing for the 17 products assessed in this study. The International Fragrance Association (IFRA) and the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM), which develop and set voluntary standards for chemicals in the “fragrance” component of products, have assessed only 27 of the 91 ingredientslisted on labels or found in testing for the 17 products assessed in this study, based on a review of assessments published in the past 25 years.
Here are some of the most common ingredients:
Amylcinnamaldehyde- Irritating to eyes, respiratory system, and skin
Pinene- Sensitizer, inhalation exposure to high concentrations associated with irritation of the respiratory airways.
Terpineol- May cause ataxia, headaches, depressed central nervous system
Benzaldehyde- Harmful if swallowed, exposure causes sore throat, rash, and eye pain
Benzophenone- Disruptive to hormones and thyroid
Benzyl Acetate- Carcinogen, possibly a cause of pancreatic cancer
Benzyl Alcohol- Causes headache, nausea, and dizziness
Benzyl benzoate- Disruptive to hormones
Benzyl cinnamate- Irritant, dangerous for the environment
Benzyl salicylate- Disruptive to hormones
Beta ionone- Possible carcinogen
Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)- Disruptive to hormones and thyroid, possible carcinogen
Cinnamyl alcohol- Irritating to skin and eyes,
Coumarin- Carcinogen, toxic to liver and kidneys, used to kill rodents, common ingredient in cigarette tobacco products
Diethyl phthalate (DEP)- causes abnormal development of reproductive organs in male babies and sperm damage in adult men
Ethanol- EPA hazardous waste list, causes central nervous system disorder
Ethyl Acetate- Narcotic, on EPA hazardous waste list
Eugenol- Sensitizer, allergen
Farnesol- Skin irritant, allergen
Formaldehyde- Air pollutant, carcinogen, exposure causes wheezing, allergic reactions, skin rash
Galaxoide- toxic to the endocrine system
Terpinene- Causes central nervous system disorder
Lilial (Butylphenyl methylpropional)- Disruptive to hormones, allergen
Limonene- Carcinogen, causes central nervous system disorder
Linalool- Narcotic, causes central nervous system disorder
Lyral- Allergen, causes eczema
Methylene chloride- Banned by the FDA, carcinogen, EPA hazardous waste list, causes central nervous system disorder
Musk ketone- Disruptive to hormones
Myrcene- possible carcinogen
Octinoxate (Octyl methoxycinnamate) – Disruptive to hormones and thyroid
Oxybenzone- Disruptive to hormones
Toluene- Carcinogen
Tonalide- toxic to the endocrine system
Products were tested by Analytical Sciences, an independent laboratory in Petaluma, California. The lab found, in all, 40 chemicals in the tested fragrance products. Thirty-eight of these were secret, or unlabeled, for at least one of the products containing them, while the other two were listed on all relevant product labels. Ingredient labels disclosed the presence of another 51 chemical ingredients, giving a total of 91 chemical ingredients altogether in the tested products, including hidden and disclosed ingredients combined. Of the 17 products tested, 13 were purchased in the U.S. and four in Canada.
When sprayed or applied on the skin, many chemicals from perfumes, cosmetics and personal care products are inhaled. Others are absorbed through the skin. Either way, many of these chemicals can accumulate in the body. As a result, the bodies of most Americans are polluted with multiple cosmetics ingredients. This pollution begins in the womb and continues through life.
Numerous other products used daily, such as shampoos, lotions, bath products, cleaning sprays, air fresheners and laundry and dishwashing detergents, also contain strongly scented, volatile ingredients that are hidden behind the word “fragrance.” Some of these ingredients react with ozone in the indoor air, generating many potentially harmful secondary air pollutants such as formaldehyde and ultrafine particles (Nazaroff 2004).
People have the right to know which chemicals they are being exposed to. They have the right to expect the government to protect people, especially vulnerable populations, from hazardous chemicals. In addition to required safety assessments of ingredients in cosmetics, the laws must be changed to require the chemicals in fragrance to be fully disclosed and publicly accessible on ingredient labels.
Here is a list of perfumes that contain dangerously high levels of toxins that may cause cancer, migraine headaches, dermatitis, respiratory illness, hormonal disorders, and organ failure:
Abercrombie & Fitch Fierce
American Eagle Seventy Seven
AXE Bodyspray For Men – Shock
Bath & Body Works Japanese Cherry Blossom
Britney Spears Curious
Calvin Klein Eternity (for men)
Calvin Klein Eternity (for women)
Clinique Happy
Coco Mademoiselle Chanel
Dolce & Gabbana Light Blue
Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio
Halle by Halle Berry
Hannah Montana Secret Celebrity
Jennifer Lopez J. Lo Glow
Old Spice After Hours Body Spray
Quiksilver (for men)
Victoria’s Secret Dream Angels Heavenly
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
