Natural and Organic Products
You might expect a product labeled "pure, natural and organic" to be, well … pure, natural and organic. But you might be in for a surprise.
Unlike the food industry, there are no legal standards for organic or natural personal care products sold in the United States. This means that companies can, and often do, use these terms as marketing gimmicks. For example, the top-selling shampoo in the United States is Clairol Herbal Essences, which until recently claimed to offer users an "organic experience." However, there isn't much about this product that is either herbal or organic; it contains more than a dozen synthetic petrochemicals and has a moderate toxicity rating in Skin Deep.
Even top-selling brands in the natural products sector have been found to contain 1,4-dioxane, a synthetic chemical carcinogen.
New industry standards are emerging that may help consumers differentiate between the natural and not-so-natural products, but multiple standards with different meanings may not be helpful for consumers. For example, some require safety substantiation from a certifying body and others don't. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is advocating for a standard that means ingredients are both natural and safe for people.
What You Can Do
Encourage your favorite retailers and manufacturers of natural and organic products to clarify their use of the terms. Most importantly, be a critical consumer and remember that natural is a marketing term, not a legally binding description.
More Information
Science and health effects: 1,4-dioxane
Very few, if any, cosmetics or personal care products list 1,4-dioxane as an ingredient (i), even though an analysis by Campaign for Safe Cosmetics co-founder the Environmental Working Group suggests that it may be found in 22 percent of the more than 25,000 products in the Skin Deep database of cosmetics products (ii). That's because 1,4-dioxane is a frequent contaminant of common cosmetics ingredients (iii), but as a contaminant it is not listed among intentionally added ingredients.
Products That May Contain 1,4-dioxane
Because it is a contaminant produced during manufacturing, the FDA does not require 1,4-dioxane to be listed as an ingredient on product labels. Without labeling, there is no way to know for certain how many products contain 1,4-dioxane—and no guaranteed way for consumers to avoid it.
Most commonly, 1,4-dioxane is found in products that create suds, like shampoo, liquid soap and bubble bath. Environmental Working Group's analysis suggests that 97 percent of hair relaxers, 57 percent of baby soaps and 22 percent of all products in Skin Deep may be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane (iv). Independent lab tests co-released by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics in 2007 showed that popular brands of children's bubble bath and body wash contained 1,4-dioxane.
Besides sodium laureth sulfate, other common ingredients that may be contaminated by 1,4-dioxane include PEG compounds and chemicals that include the clauses "xynol," "ceteareth" and "oleth."
Where It Comes From
1,4-dioxane is generated through a process called ethoxylation, in which ethylene oxide, a known breast carcinogen, is added to other chemicals to make them less harsh. This process creates 1,4-dioxane. For example, sodium laurel sulfate, a chemical that is harsh on the skin, is often converted to the less-harsh chemical sodium laureth sulfate (the “eth” denotes ethoxylation), which can contaminate this ingredient with 1,4-dioxane.
Alternatives do exist, but many companies don't take advantage of them. Vacuum-stripping can remove 1,4-dioxane from an ethoxylated product, or manufacturers can skip ethoxylation entirely by using less-harsh ingredients to begin with (v). Organic standards do not allow ethoxylation at all. A study by the Organic Consumers Association (vi) shows that 1,4-dioxane is nonexistent in a variety of cosmetics produced and certified under the USDA National Organic Program, as well as other products.
Health Concerns
Research shows that 1,4-dioxane readily penetrates the skin (vii). 1,4-dioxane is considered a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (viii) and listed as an animal carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program (ix). It is included on California’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known or suspected by the state to cause cancer or birth defects (x). The California Environmental Protection Agency also lists 1,4-dioxane as a suspected kidney toxicant, neurotoxicant and respiratory toxicant.
It is highly unlikely that any one product containing 1,4-dioxane will cause harm on its own. However, repeated exposures from many different products add up. The same baby could be exposed to 1,4-dioxane from baby shampoo, bath bubbles and body wash in a single bath, as well as from other contaminated personal care products today, tomorrow and the next day. Repeated exposures to a single carcinogen, synergistic effects from exposures to multiple carcinogenic and mutagenic ingredients, and concerns about exposures at key points in development (such as pregnancy, infancy and puberty) are cause for concern even though little risk is evident from a single small exposure. Buy only natural, organic, non-toxic products.
Showing posts with label common soap. Show all posts
Showing posts with label common soap. Show all posts
Monday, May 24, 2010
Low-dose Exposures
Low-dose Exposures
Two decades of research indicate that very low-dose exposures to toxic chemicals can have profound health effects. This counters the long-held belief that “the dose makes the poison” – a rationale that underlies much chemical regulation, including the use of various chemicals in cosmetics (i). The inaccurate assumption that very small amounts of toxic chemicals are safe allows for the continued use of toxic chemicals in personal care products (ii). Buy only natural, organic, non-toxic products.
There are at least three key problems with this assumption. First, this assumes that low doses are truly safe, which may not be the case. Research on laboratory animals, cell cultures and wildlife suggests that in some cases low-dose exposures may have more profound effects than higher exposures (iii). Second, this assumption of safety at low doses overlooks the fact that many of the toxic chemicals that appear in cosmetics and personal care products tend to show up in several products an average person uses daily, and that many of these chemicals show up in other consumer products as well (iv). As a result, what seem like small exposures add up to larger doses.
Finally, a long-standing approach to chemical regulation looks at chemicals one at a time. However, daily life exposes individuals to a multitude of various ingredients. For instance, an Environmental Working Group report shows that women use 12 cosmetic products with 168 unique ingredients each day and men use 6 products with an average of 85 ingredients (v). These ingredients, in combination with exposures from other consumer products and pollutants in the air and water, add up to a phenomenal array of combined exposures, in effect adding up to hundreds of exposures every day (vi).
Research indicates that, in many cases, these exposures add up and work in combination to affect health in ways that may be more profound than single exposures. Taking in multiple chemicals can have an additive effect, whereby multiple small exposures add up to a lot (2+3=5), or a synergistic effect, whereby multiple exposures increase the toxic effects of one another (2+3=10) (vii). For instance, several studies have found that combinations of various chemicals with estrogenic properties may have additive (viii) or synergistic effects (ix).
In addition, the timing of exposure may moderate the effects of low doses, so that low doses at certain points in development – prenatally, during puberty, etc. – may have stronger or qualitatively different effects on health (x).
More Information
For more information about how small doses of chemicals impact our long-term health, visit The Endocrine Disruption Exchange.
i Gray, J (2008). State of the Evidence: The Connection between Breast Cancer and the Environment. San Francisco, CA: Breast Cancer Fund.
ii Environmental Working Group (2004). Exposures Add Up – Survey Results. Available online http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/exposures/php. Accessed August 19, 2008.
iii Gray, J (2008). State of the Evidence: The Connection between Breast Cancer and the Environment. San Francisco, CA: Breast Cancer Fund.
iv Environmental Working Group (2004). Exposures Add Up – Survey Results. Available online http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/exposures/php. Accessed August 19, 2008.
v Environmental Working Group (2004). Exposures Add Up – Survey Results. Available online http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/exposures/php. Accessed August 19, 2008.
vi Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003). Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
vii Gray, J (2008). State of the Evidence: The Connection between Breast Cancer and the Environment. San Francisco, CA: Breast Cancer Fund.
viii Ramamoorthy K, Wang F, Chen IC, Safe S, Norris JD, McDonnell DP, Gaido KW, Bocchinfuso WP, Korach KS (1997). Potency of combined estrogenic pesticides. Science 275: 405-6.
Foster WG, Younglai EV, Boutross- Tadross O, Hughes CL, Wade MG (2004). Mammary gland morphology in Sprague-Dawley rats following treatment with an organochlorine mixture in utero and neonatal genistein. Toxicological Sciences 77: 91-100.
ix Xie L, Thrippleton K, Irwin MA, Siemering GS, Mekebri A, Crane D, Berry K, Schlenk D (2005). Evaluation of estrogenic activities of aquatic herbicides and surfactants using a rainbow trout vitellogenin assay. Toxicological Sciences 77: 91-100.
Kortenkamp A (2006). Breast cancer, oestrogens and environmental pollutants: a re-evaluation from a mixture perspective. International Journal of Andrology 29: 193-198.
x Gray, J (2008). State of the Evidence: The Connection between Breast Cancer and the Environment. San Francisco, CA: Breast Cancer Fund.
Two decades of research indicate that very low-dose exposures to toxic chemicals can have profound health effects. This counters the long-held belief that “the dose makes the poison” – a rationale that underlies much chemical regulation, including the use of various chemicals in cosmetics (i). The inaccurate assumption that very small amounts of toxic chemicals are safe allows for the continued use of toxic chemicals in personal care products (ii). Buy only natural, organic, non-toxic products.
There are at least three key problems with this assumption. First, this assumes that low doses are truly safe, which may not be the case. Research on laboratory animals, cell cultures and wildlife suggests that in some cases low-dose exposures may have more profound effects than higher exposures (iii). Second, this assumption of safety at low doses overlooks the fact that many of the toxic chemicals that appear in cosmetics and personal care products tend to show up in several products an average person uses daily, and that many of these chemicals show up in other consumer products as well (iv). As a result, what seem like small exposures add up to larger doses.
Finally, a long-standing approach to chemical regulation looks at chemicals one at a time. However, daily life exposes individuals to a multitude of various ingredients. For instance, an Environmental Working Group report shows that women use 12 cosmetic products with 168 unique ingredients each day and men use 6 products with an average of 85 ingredients (v). These ingredients, in combination with exposures from other consumer products and pollutants in the air and water, add up to a phenomenal array of combined exposures, in effect adding up to hundreds of exposures every day (vi).
Research indicates that, in many cases, these exposures add up and work in combination to affect health in ways that may be more profound than single exposures. Taking in multiple chemicals can have an additive effect, whereby multiple small exposures add up to a lot (2+3=5), or a synergistic effect, whereby multiple exposures increase the toxic effects of one another (2+3=10) (vii). For instance, several studies have found that combinations of various chemicals with estrogenic properties may have additive (viii) or synergistic effects (ix).
In addition, the timing of exposure may moderate the effects of low doses, so that low doses at certain points in development – prenatally, during puberty, etc. – may have stronger or qualitatively different effects on health (x).
More Information
For more information about how small doses of chemicals impact our long-term health, visit The Endocrine Disruption Exchange.
i Gray, J (2008). State of the Evidence: The Connection between Breast Cancer and the Environment. San Francisco, CA: Breast Cancer Fund.
ii Environmental Working Group (2004). Exposures Add Up – Survey Results. Available online http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/exposures/php. Accessed August 19, 2008.
iii Gray, J (2008). State of the Evidence: The Connection between Breast Cancer and the Environment. San Francisco, CA: Breast Cancer Fund.
iv Environmental Working Group (2004). Exposures Add Up – Survey Results. Available online http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/exposures/php. Accessed August 19, 2008.
v Environmental Working Group (2004). Exposures Add Up – Survey Results. Available online http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/exposures/php. Accessed August 19, 2008.
vi Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003). Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
vii Gray, J (2008). State of the Evidence: The Connection between Breast Cancer and the Environment. San Francisco, CA: Breast Cancer Fund.
viii Ramamoorthy K, Wang F, Chen IC, Safe S, Norris JD, McDonnell DP, Gaido KW, Bocchinfuso WP, Korach KS (1997). Potency of combined estrogenic pesticides. Science 275: 405-6.
Foster WG, Younglai EV, Boutross- Tadross O, Hughes CL, Wade MG (2004). Mammary gland morphology in Sprague-Dawley rats following treatment with an organochlorine mixture in utero and neonatal genistein. Toxicological Sciences 77: 91-100.
ix Xie L, Thrippleton K, Irwin MA, Siemering GS, Mekebri A, Crane D, Berry K, Schlenk D (2005). Evaluation of estrogenic activities of aquatic herbicides and surfactants using a rainbow trout vitellogenin assay. Toxicological Sciences 77: 91-100.
Kortenkamp A (2006). Breast cancer, oestrogens and environmental pollutants: a re-evaluation from a mixture perspective. International Journal of Andrology 29: 193-198.
x Gray, J (2008). State of the Evidence: The Connection between Breast Cancer and the Environment. San Francisco, CA: Breast Cancer Fund.
Measuring the Pollution in People
Toxic chemicals in personal care products have been proven to have an accumulative affect in our bodies. For those with chronic illnesses, that burden becomes even greater. It is so important to avoid toxic chemicals as much as possible and lighten the load. Buy only natural, organic non-toxic products.
Measuring the Pollution in People
A number of striking studies (i) have shown that the man-made chemicals in our environment and in consumer products—including cosmetics—make their way into our bodies. Many of the chemicals found in cosmetics are absorbed by the skin into the body, and can be detected in blood or urine.
The length of time chemicals remain in the body varies from chemical to chemical and ranges from hours to decades. For chemicals that are excreted quickly, the fact that we can so consistently measure them indicates continual exposures that may have long-term effects on health.
Body Burden and Biomonitoring
Body burden refers to the levels of man-made chemicals in an individual’s body, generally measured through blood or urine. Large-scale biomonitoring programs that assess the levels of chemicals in a population or subset of a population would greatly support the ability of researchers to explore the links between exposures and disease. A gap in determining the long-term effects of chemical exposures upon disease has long been a lack of knowledge about chemical exposures and the intake of environmental toxins into the body. Ongoing biomonitoring programs would fill this vital data gap.
The Pollution in People
The largest U.S. body burden study to date measured the levels of 148 chemicals in approximately 3,000 people of varying ages, ethnicities and geographical locations (ii). This study, by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, detected a common sunscreen ingredient, benzophenone-3 (BP-3) in 96.8 percent of individuals (iii), and triclosan, an antibacterial agent often used in antibacterial soaps, in 74.6 percent of individuals (iv). A CDC study found residues of four different phthalates in more than 75 percent of subjects (v). Phthalates are found in numerous cosmetics, often as a constituent ingredient of fragrances. A 2008 study of teen girls by the Environmental Working Group revealed 16 hormone-altering cosmetics chemicals in their young test subjects (vi).
The CDC tests of 148 chemicals represents a very small percentage of the over 80,000 chemicals manufactured and the approximately 10,000 chemicals used in cosmetic products. The next edition of the CDC report, anticipated in 2009, will include measurements of 250 chemicals, an increase that still doesn't approach the total number of chemicals in commerce. Nevertheless, this and other studies illustrate that chemicals we use in an array of consumer products make their way into our bodies (vii). This knowledge also furthers our understanding of the links between the chemicals we use, the absorption of these chemicals into our bodies, and the known and probable health effects of these chemicals.
i.Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center (2005). Taking It All In: Documenting Chemical Pollution in Californians through Biomonitoring. Available online at http://www.commonweal.org/programs/download/TIAI_1205.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2006). Across Generations: Industrial Chemicals in Mothers and Daughters: The pollution we share and inherit. Available online at http://www.ewg.org/reports/generations/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2005). Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns. Available online at: http://www.ewg.org/node/17686. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2003). Body Burden: The Pollution in People. Available online at: http://archive.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden1/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
ii Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2005). Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. Accessed December 23, 2008.
iii Calafat AM, Wong LY, Ye X, Reidy JA, Needham LL. Concentrations of the Sunscreen Agent, Benzophenone-3, in Residents of the United States: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004. Environ Health Perspect 116:893–897 (2008).
iv Calafat AM, Ye X, Wong LY, Reidy JA, Needham LL. Urinary Concentrations of Triclosan in the U.S. Population: 2003–2004. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116:303–307 (2008).
v Silva MJ, Barr DB, Reidy JA, Malek NA, Hodge CC, Caudill SP, Brock JW, Needham LL, Calafat AM. “Urinary Levels of Seven Phthalate Metabolites in the U.S. Population from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2000,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 112(3): 331-338 (2004).
vi Sutton, R (2008). Teen Girls' Body Burden of Hormone-Altering Cosmetics Chemicals. Available online at http://www.ewg.org/reports/teens. Accessed October 10, 2008.
vii Commonweal and Breast Cancer Fund (2005). Taking It All In: Documenting Chemical Pollution in Californians through Biomonitoring. Available online at http://www.commonweal.org/programs/download/TIAI_1205.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2006). Across Generations: Industrial Chemicals in Mothers and Daughters: The pollution we share and inherit. Available online at http://www.ewg.org/reports/generations/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2005). Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns. Available online at: http://www.ewg.org/node/17686. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2003). Body Burden: The Pollution in People. Available online at: http://archive.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden1/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Measuring the Pollution in People
A number of striking studies (i) have shown that the man-made chemicals in our environment and in consumer products—including cosmetics—make their way into our bodies. Many of the chemicals found in cosmetics are absorbed by the skin into the body, and can be detected in blood or urine.
The length of time chemicals remain in the body varies from chemical to chemical and ranges from hours to decades. For chemicals that are excreted quickly, the fact that we can so consistently measure them indicates continual exposures that may have long-term effects on health.
Body Burden and Biomonitoring
Body burden refers to the levels of man-made chemicals in an individual’s body, generally measured through blood or urine. Large-scale biomonitoring programs that assess the levels of chemicals in a population or subset of a population would greatly support the ability of researchers to explore the links between exposures and disease. A gap in determining the long-term effects of chemical exposures upon disease has long been a lack of knowledge about chemical exposures and the intake of environmental toxins into the body. Ongoing biomonitoring programs would fill this vital data gap.
The Pollution in People
The largest U.S. body burden study to date measured the levels of 148 chemicals in approximately 3,000 people of varying ages, ethnicities and geographical locations (ii). This study, by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, detected a common sunscreen ingredient, benzophenone-3 (BP-3) in 96.8 percent of individuals (iii), and triclosan, an antibacterial agent often used in antibacterial soaps, in 74.6 percent of individuals (iv). A CDC study found residues of four different phthalates in more than 75 percent of subjects (v). Phthalates are found in numerous cosmetics, often as a constituent ingredient of fragrances. A 2008 study of teen girls by the Environmental Working Group revealed 16 hormone-altering cosmetics chemicals in their young test subjects (vi).
The CDC tests of 148 chemicals represents a very small percentage of the over 80,000 chemicals manufactured and the approximately 10,000 chemicals used in cosmetic products. The next edition of the CDC report, anticipated in 2009, will include measurements of 250 chemicals, an increase that still doesn't approach the total number of chemicals in commerce. Nevertheless, this and other studies illustrate that chemicals we use in an array of consumer products make their way into our bodies (vii). This knowledge also furthers our understanding of the links between the chemicals we use, the absorption of these chemicals into our bodies, and the known and probable health effects of these chemicals.
i.Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center (2005). Taking It All In: Documenting Chemical Pollution in Californians through Biomonitoring. Available online at http://www.commonweal.org/programs/download/TIAI_1205.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2006). Across Generations: Industrial Chemicals in Mothers and Daughters: The pollution we share and inherit. Available online at http://www.ewg.org/reports/generations/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2005). Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns. Available online at: http://www.ewg.org/node/17686. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2003). Body Burden: The Pollution in People. Available online at: http://archive.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden1/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
ii Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2005). Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. Accessed December 23, 2008.
iii Calafat AM, Wong LY, Ye X, Reidy JA, Needham LL. Concentrations of the Sunscreen Agent, Benzophenone-3, in Residents of the United States: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004. Environ Health Perspect 116:893–897 (2008).
iv Calafat AM, Ye X, Wong LY, Reidy JA, Needham LL. Urinary Concentrations of Triclosan in the U.S. Population: 2003–2004. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116:303–307 (2008).
v Silva MJ, Barr DB, Reidy JA, Malek NA, Hodge CC, Caudill SP, Brock JW, Needham LL, Calafat AM. “Urinary Levels of Seven Phthalate Metabolites in the U.S. Population from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2000,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 112(3): 331-338 (2004).
vi Sutton, R (2008). Teen Girls' Body Burden of Hormone-Altering Cosmetics Chemicals. Available online at http://www.ewg.org/reports/teens. Accessed October 10, 2008.
vii Commonweal and Breast Cancer Fund (2005). Taking It All In: Documenting Chemical Pollution in Californians through Biomonitoring. Available online at http://www.commonweal.org/programs/download/TIAI_1205.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2006). Across Generations: Industrial Chemicals in Mothers and Daughters: The pollution we share and inherit. Available online at http://www.ewg.org/reports/generations/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2005). Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns. Available online at: http://www.ewg.org/node/17686. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2003). Body Burden: The Pollution in People. Available online at: http://archive.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden1/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Hazardous Chemicals in Holiday Cosmetics Stink
The holidays are upon us and the scent of cosmetic gift baskets is in the air--especially at Bath & Body Works. The retailer's holiday Sugar & Spice, Glittery Gumdrop and Twisted Peppermint products contain a lot of "fragrance," a mystery ingredient often made from dozens--even hundreds--of individual chemicals that don't appear on ingredient labels and that may be more naughty than nice for your health.
The Skin Deep cosmetic safety database lists fragrance as a cosmetic ingredient to avoid whenever possible. Because of a giant loophole in federal law, companies are not required to list on product labels any of the chemicals in a fragrance mixture. Fragrances can contain neurotoxins, allergens and phthalates, chemicals that have been linked to reproductive problems, testicular cancer and early puberty in girls--which is, in turn, a risk factor for breast cancer.
Fragrance, as your nose knows, is a major ingredient in these Bath & Body Works holiday wares. But it's not the only ingredient we're checking twice: Sodium Laureth Sulfate, a main ingredient in the Sugar & Spice 3-in-1 Body Wash, is often contaminated with a hidden carcinogen called 1,4-Dioxane; and the Glittery Gumdrop lotion contains at least two parabens, chemicals that act like estrogen in the body and have been found in breast cancer tumors.
If young girls are on your holiday shopping list, steer clear of Bath & Body Works' American Girl line, marketed to tweens. The American Girl Truly Me Glistening Shower and Bath Wash warns on its back label: "Excessive use or prolonged exposure may cause irritation to skin and urinary tract." No surprise, then, that this bath wash and American Girl Shimmer roll-on fragrance contain skin irritants, organ sensitizers and suspected carcinogens. Exposure to these chemicals at critical windows of development, like pre-puberty, can be especially harmful.
The 1,500+ Bath & Body Works stores nationwide will be bustling this season with holiday shoppers buying fragrant lotion or soaps. Please tell Bath & Body Works that you don't want to give or receive toxic body products this holiday season »
Click here to buy chemically free products
The Skin Deep cosmetic safety database lists fragrance as a cosmetic ingredient to avoid whenever possible. Because of a giant loophole in federal law, companies are not required to list on product labels any of the chemicals in a fragrance mixture. Fragrances can contain neurotoxins, allergens and phthalates, chemicals that have been linked to reproductive problems, testicular cancer and early puberty in girls--which is, in turn, a risk factor for breast cancer.
Fragrance, as your nose knows, is a major ingredient in these Bath & Body Works holiday wares. But it's not the only ingredient we're checking twice: Sodium Laureth Sulfate, a main ingredient in the Sugar & Spice 3-in-1 Body Wash, is often contaminated with a hidden carcinogen called 1,4-Dioxane; and the Glittery Gumdrop lotion contains at least two parabens, chemicals that act like estrogen in the body and have been found in breast cancer tumors.
If young girls are on your holiday shopping list, steer clear of Bath & Body Works' American Girl line, marketed to tweens. The American Girl Truly Me Glistening Shower and Bath Wash warns on its back label: "Excessive use or prolonged exposure may cause irritation to skin and urinary tract." No surprise, then, that this bath wash and American Girl Shimmer roll-on fragrance contain skin irritants, organ sensitizers and suspected carcinogens. Exposure to these chemicals at critical windows of development, like pre-puberty, can be especially harmful.
The 1,500+ Bath & Body Works stores nationwide will be bustling this season with holiday shoppers buying fragrant lotion or soaps. Please tell Bath & Body Works that you don't want to give or receive toxic body products this holiday season »
Click here to buy chemically free products
Friday, August 24, 2007
Harmful effects of Sodium Laurel Sulfate (SLS)
Sodium Laurel Sulfate (SLS)
It's cheap...It foams a lot...It thickens with salt.
SLS, more commonly known as Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, (a common foaming ingredient found in everything from shampoo, body wash, bubble bath and toothpaste) is the culprit in thousands of complaints to the FDA. According to Ruth Winters, author of “A Consumer’s Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients” the FDA has received reports from consumers that include reactions to SLS such as eye and scalp irritation, tangled hair, swelling of hands, face and arms, and split and fuzzy hair.
But this isn’t the worst of it. SLS is a wetting agent, or surfactant, whose purpose is to reduce the surface tension of the water thus allowing the shampoo to spread easier and penetrate more easily. It is a cheap ingredient and mixed with Sodium Stearate, usually composes approximately fifty percent of a shampoos ingredients. About forty percent is water and the other 10 percent is preservatives, fragrance and color. Many shampoos that claim to have herbal extracts usually include them in the water content - which is fine. However, with all the other chemicals, the risks far outweigh the benefit these herbs provide.
Judi Vance, a pioneer in the fight to educate consumers about the chemicals contained in most personal care products and author of “Beauty to Die For” has done exhaustive research on SLS. Here are some of the results of her findings: There are four categories of detergents. They include Anionic, Nonionic, Cationic and Amphoteric. Amphoteric and Anionic are the types found in most shampoos, conditioners and lotions. Anionic are the cheapest and foam the best while Amphoteric are the mildest group and are used in shampoos for their conditioning abilities. Their sibling, the Nonionic group, are used in spray-on oven cleaners. But here is where the problem lies.
A study citied in the Wall Street Journal (November 1, 1988) linked SLS to cataracts and nitrate absorption (nitrates are carcinogens-or cancer causing substances). Apparently, this absorption occurs when the SLS becomes contaminated with NDELA (N-nitrosodiethanolamine) during processing. This contamination comes about as a result of SLS coming into contact with any number of chemicals including TEA (triethanolamine) which is a commonly used ingredient in shampoos as a detergent. The equation looks like this: SLS + TEA = NDELA (a nitrosamines and a recognized carcinogen). What bothers us is that while many companies claim that SLS is a safe ingredient (the jury is still out on this) the problem is what we refer to as the “chemical cocktail”. When these ingredients come into contact with one another, some will bond forming cancer causing nitrosamines. This is where the danger lies.
To be realistic, there is no way that the FDA could possibly test all the combinations of chemicals available. So, while some chemicals may be mild or classified as safe independently, once you combine them, dangerous things can happen. Just because SLS supposedly comes from coconuts doesn’t mean the molecular structure isn’t potentially damaging. There is a lot of information available on SLS - it is very controversial these days. The presence of the “chemical cocktail” is a very real and ticking time bomb.
Read labels and choose alternatives. Many companies have developed products that foam just as or nearly as well as many large scale commercial products. And just because a product claims to be natural (they can say the product is natural if it contains SLS since it’s derived from coconuts) doesn’t mean it’s safe. Read labels, research and ask questions. Other names for sulfates include sodium laureth sulfate, ammonium lauryl sulfate. If you see sulfate in the ingredients, don't use it!
Industrial Use, Personal Care Product, Harsh Floor Cleaners, Engine Degreasers, Car Wash Detergents, Laundry Detergents, Toothpaste, Shampoos, Body Gels, Bubble Baths, Facial Cleansers, Baby Wipes, Baby Shampoos & Bubble Baths
SLS can damage the immune system; causing separation of skin layers and inflammation of skin.
-Journal of the American College of Toxicology; Vol. 2, No. 7, 1983
SLS penetrates into the skin and into the eyes, and is also held in the brain, heart and liver. A single drop stays in the brain and body for a few days - Doctor's worry: Is your baby safe?
-By David L. Kern, New health and longevity
SLS denatures proteins of eye tissues - impairing eye development permanently.
-Dr. Keith Green, PHD, D.Sc., Medical College of Georgia
SLS is a mutagen. It is capable of changing the information in genetic material found in cells. SLS has been used in studies to induce mutagen in bacteria.
-Higuchi, Araya and Higuchi, school of medicine, Tohoku University: Sendai 980 Japan
SLS is a potent carcinogen when contaminated with a nitrosamines.
-FDA Report 1978
It's cheap...It foams a lot...It thickens with salt.
SLS, more commonly known as Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, (a common foaming ingredient found in everything from shampoo, body wash, bubble bath and toothpaste) is the culprit in thousands of complaints to the FDA. According to Ruth Winters, author of “A Consumer’s Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients” the FDA has received reports from consumers that include reactions to SLS such as eye and scalp irritation, tangled hair, swelling of hands, face and arms, and split and fuzzy hair.
But this isn’t the worst of it. SLS is a wetting agent, or surfactant, whose purpose is to reduce the surface tension of the water thus allowing the shampoo to spread easier and penetrate more easily. It is a cheap ingredient and mixed with Sodium Stearate, usually composes approximately fifty percent of a shampoos ingredients. About forty percent is water and the other 10 percent is preservatives, fragrance and color. Many shampoos that claim to have herbal extracts usually include them in the water content - which is fine. However, with all the other chemicals, the risks far outweigh the benefit these herbs provide.
Judi Vance, a pioneer in the fight to educate consumers about the chemicals contained in most personal care products and author of “Beauty to Die For” has done exhaustive research on SLS. Here are some of the results of her findings: There are four categories of detergents. They include Anionic, Nonionic, Cationic and Amphoteric. Amphoteric and Anionic are the types found in most shampoos, conditioners and lotions. Anionic are the cheapest and foam the best while Amphoteric are the mildest group and are used in shampoos for their conditioning abilities. Their sibling, the Nonionic group, are used in spray-on oven cleaners. But here is where the problem lies.
A study citied in the Wall Street Journal (November 1, 1988) linked SLS to cataracts and nitrate absorption (nitrates are carcinogens-or cancer causing substances). Apparently, this absorption occurs when the SLS becomes contaminated with NDELA (N-nitrosodiethanolamine) during processing. This contamination comes about as a result of SLS coming into contact with any number of chemicals including TEA (triethanolamine) which is a commonly used ingredient in shampoos as a detergent. The equation looks like this: SLS + TEA = NDELA (a nitrosamines and a recognized carcinogen). What bothers us is that while many companies claim that SLS is a safe ingredient (the jury is still out on this) the problem is what we refer to as the “chemical cocktail”. When these ingredients come into contact with one another, some will bond forming cancer causing nitrosamines. This is where the danger lies.
To be realistic, there is no way that the FDA could possibly test all the combinations of chemicals available. So, while some chemicals may be mild or classified as safe independently, once you combine them, dangerous things can happen. Just because SLS supposedly comes from coconuts doesn’t mean the molecular structure isn’t potentially damaging. There is a lot of information available on SLS - it is very controversial these days. The presence of the “chemical cocktail” is a very real and ticking time bomb.
Read labels and choose alternatives. Many companies have developed products that foam just as or nearly as well as many large scale commercial products. And just because a product claims to be natural (they can say the product is natural if it contains SLS since it’s derived from coconuts) doesn’t mean it’s safe. Read labels, research and ask questions. Other names for sulfates include sodium laureth sulfate, ammonium lauryl sulfate. If you see sulfate in the ingredients, don't use it!
Industrial Use, Personal Care Product, Harsh Floor Cleaners, Engine Degreasers, Car Wash Detergents, Laundry Detergents, Toothpaste, Shampoos, Body Gels, Bubble Baths, Facial Cleansers, Baby Wipes, Baby Shampoos & Bubble Baths
SLS can damage the immune system; causing separation of skin layers and inflammation of skin.
-Journal of the American College of Toxicology; Vol. 2, No. 7, 1983
SLS penetrates into the skin and into the eyes, and is also held in the brain, heart and liver. A single drop stays in the brain and body for a few days - Doctor's worry: Is your baby safe?
-By David L. Kern, New health and longevity
SLS denatures proteins of eye tissues - impairing eye development permanently.
-Dr. Keith Green, PHD, D.Sc., Medical College of Georgia
SLS is a mutagen. It is capable of changing the information in genetic material found in cells. SLS has been used in studies to induce mutagen in bacteria.
-Higuchi, Araya and Higuchi, school of medicine, Tohoku University: Sendai 980 Japan
SLS is a potent carcinogen when contaminated with a nitrosamines.
-FDA Report 1978
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)