Phthalates Used In Personal Products - Are They Safe?

[Guest]

Chemicals' toxicity debated
PHTHALATES ARE USED IN PERSONAL PRODUCTS
By Julie Sevrens Lyons


They're in soap. And hair spray. Baby toys. Hand lotion. Deodorant. Vinyl upholstery. Nail polish. And perfume. Chemicals known as phthalate esters are so prevalent, in fact, that most personal hygiene products and soft PVC plastics contain some -- and most Americans have traces of the compounds circulating inside their bodies, according to government reports.

But can they hurt us?

European regulators believe so, and have banned some from children's toys and cosmetics, labeling them ``toxic substances.'' California legislators are pushing for the removal of some phthalates and for better disclosure of product ingredients.

Yet federal officials and product manufacturers insist the risk to humans remains low. Toiletries and cosmetics have been used safely for decades, they say.

Who is right?

In a sense, both sides are, scientists say.

``There's not enough human data to say they are safe and don't cause health effects. But, on the other hand, there's not a lot of human data showing they do,'' said Russ Hauser, a Harvard associate professor of occupational health, who is among the few researchers to have studied phthalates in humans. Hauser's team found that some phthalates may cause sperm abnormalities.

Phthalates -- which keep nail polish from chipping and perfumes from losing their scent -- are without a doubt ubiquitous in American society.

Research results

Research has consistently demonstrated that laboratory animals experience developmental and reproductive problems when exposed to high levels of some phthalates, levels that are usually 100 to 1,000 times greater than those people come into contact with.

``The question is, are the levels humans are exposed to potentially hazardous?'' Hauser said.

The answer remains elusive.

The concerns have fueled a flurry of legislation in California this year, with politicians weighing in on the pros and cons of di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and dibutyl phthalate.

One bill, AB 319, would ban phthalates from children's toys and feeding products. A second, SB 484, would require cosmetic manufacturers to report to the state Department of Health Services all ingredients that may cause cancer or harmful reproductive effects.

A third, AB 908, would have prohibited the use of two phthalates in products sold in this state, but it failed to garner enough votes before the Assembly health committee last month.

Even the staunchest of environmentalists are not suggesting a bar of soap or a bottle of nail polish can kill you.

``But I'm not just using one bottle over time,'' said Jeanne Rizzo, executive director of the San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Fund, which is calling for the voluntary removal of some phthalates from products.

Indeed, the average American woman puts 12 beauty products on her skin each day, according to the Environmental Working Group, a Washington advocacy organization.

Not every soap, shampoo, sunscreen or skin lotion contains a phthalate. But about two-thirds of all personal hygiene products tested do, according to an analysis released by the Food and Drug Administration this month. Hair sprays, deodorants, nail products and hair mousse were consistently found to contain two or more.

And because manufacturers are not required to list on labels ingredients that give a product its fragrance -- a primary purpose of some phthalates -- many consumers will not even know their hand cream or deodorant contains them.

Widespread exposure

Scientists know that phthalates can enter the human body through our skin, nose or mouth. In fact, of nearly 2,500 people studied by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than three-fourths were found last year to have phthalates in their urine, ``suggesting widespread exposure in the United States.''

While the substances are thought to stay in our system for 12 hours or less, ``if you use that product daily or twice daily,'' Hauser said, ``you're going to be continuously exposed.''

Women of childbearing age were found in one government study to have elevated levels of phthalates, raising concerns that unborn babies -- considered especially vulnerable to toxins -- could be at risk for health defects. ``In a perfect world, all those chemicals we're putting on our skin each day could be safe. But we don't know that to be true,'' said Lauren Sucher, a spokeswoman for the Environmental Working Group. The organization found that 89 percent of the thousands of ingredients used in personal care products have not been evaluated for safety.

Unlike drugs, personal care products are not subject to FDA approval, and the agency generally does not test them.

But manufacturers are responsible for substantiating the safety of their products, and industry-supported studies have deemed phthalates safe at current concentrations. Even in slightly higher amounts, the substances pose no risk to people, they claim.

Products defended

``Cosmetics are safe, have been safe, will be safe,'' said Gerald McEwen, vice president of science for the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association. ``They have a long history of safe use.'' Lab rats are not humans, and they don't respond to toxins in the same way that people do, McEwen said.

Research by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel -- a group supported by the cosmetics industry -- found that people detoxify phthalates more quickly than rats. And even the most appearance-obsessed Americans aren't exposed to the same levels of the substances as lab animals.

The government has made studying phthalates a top priority. But from the research it has carried out, ``we don't have any compelling evidence that phthalates as used in cosmetics pose a safety risk,'' said an FDA spokeswoman.

Since 1999, the European Union has prohibited the use of phthalates in children's toys. Last year, a new ban went into place in European countries barring two phthalates from cosmetics, too.

A grass-roots movement is under way in the United States to encourage cosmetic manufacturers to replace potentially hazardous ingredients with safer alternatives within the next three years. So far, more than 100 companies, including Revlon and Estée Lauder, have agreed to do so. Most are small makers of natural products.

``If companies can make personal care products without ingredients linked to cancer . . . or birth defects, shouldn't they? To me, that's just common sense,'' said Sucher of the Environmental Working Group.

``I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of the creaminess in my hand lotion,'' she said, ``if it means it will be free of chemicals linked to serious health problems.''

[moushou]

I appreciated your post, as I've been thinking a lot about what I put on my body since my Mom's diagnosis of cancer. My conclusion is really simple - if there's a question of the safety and I have other options, then why chance my personal health? I checked out the thinkbeforeyoupink website, which is a great source for natural alternatives in the skin care realm. I don't have to chance my health for a lotion or cleanser and that makes sense to me. The line I use is mostly organic, no parabens or phthalates, completely vegetarian and it just plain works. I've tried Geranium Sap Cleanser, Orange Blossom Toner, Oma Serum No. 1, Raw Honey Mask and Aromatic Body Serum.

[ebeth33]

I think there are far worse than PHTHALATES

The one I'm dealing with is SLS I developed and ITCHY scalp and some thinning at the corners of my forehead, I have washed my hair everyday for the past 30 years and I've never noticed any itchy scalp, but since I noticed some thinning I tried to wash less, that's when my scalp would itch to the point I couldn't sleep! I have since found an SLS free shampoo and am proud to have gone 4 days without washing or itching after just 3 shampooings with the Giovanni smooth as silk shampoo. It lathers great and it's getting oh so shiny.

[megabuff]

ARE FOAM AND BUBBLES WORTH BAD HEALTH?
The Truth about Sodium Lauryl Sulfate

Do you enjoy a shampoo with a rich lather? A shaving cream that
really foams? How about relaxing in a tub full of bubbles? These
may seem like some of life’s simple, innocent pleasures…until
you look at WHAT is causing all that foam and lather. Once you
find out, you may decide it’s not so simple or pleasurable after
all.

Check the labels of your shampoo, soap, facial cleanser, shaving
cream, body wash, or shower gel: Do you see either Sodium Lauryl
Sulfate (SLS) or Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES) listed? Or one of
their cousins: Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate, Sodium Myreth Sulfate,
etc.? Most manufacturers use these anionic detergents because
they produce a lot of foam very inexpensively. But SLS is so
strong that it’s also used to scrub garage floors. Some studies
have shown the potential for SLS to increase the absorption of
cancer causing chemicals like formaldehyde. The American College
of Toxicology says SLS stays in the body up to five days. Other
studies show it easily penetrates the skin and enters and has
the potential to maintain residual levels in the heart, liver,
the lungs, and the brain. Yet SLS is found in most cleansing,
foaming products—even in most toothpastes where it is readily
absorbed through the membranes of the mouth! (Note: SLS may be
disguised in pseudo-natural cosmetics with the parenthetical
explanation "comes from coconut." Let's save the coconut from
defamation of character!)

One woman who examined labels found that all the shampoos she
checked had SLS—even ALL the health food store brands she looked
at. Many listed Sodium Laureth Sulfate as the first ingredient
on the label, meaning it’s the single most prevalent ingredient.
So this lady called one company to complain that their product
contains a substance that may predispose people to cancer. Their
response was, "Yes, we know about the research but there is no
proof so this is the most cost effective chemical to use. Unless
it is banned we will continue to use it. We need SLS to produce
foam." Back to top

Try contacting some manufacturers yourself: The typical
responses might be:

(1) Denial: "It’s completely safe."

(2) Avoidance: "You'll have to talk to someone else" or "We
can't talk about that."

(3) Ignorance: "I've never heard about that."

Most people selling products with this and other harmful
ingredients really just don't know. The FDA has a GRAS list
(Generally Regarded As Safe), and almost everything is on there,
so most people selling these products just focus on the
marketing hype and what the product is supposed to do for skin
(clean it, make it feel soft, etc.). Sadly, of the 7000
ingredients used on the skin, only 5-6 have been tested for
LONG-TERM safety, and none have been tested TOGETHER. Currently,
125 are strongly suspected carcinogens, 20 cause adverse nervous
system reactions, and 25 are connected to birth defects.

So why exactly is SLS so bad?

Here are what tests show about Sodium Lauryl Sulfate:

(1) SLS PENETRATES EYES AND TISSUES. Tests show that SLS can
penetrate into the eyes as well as systemic tissues (brain,
heart, liver, etc.) and shows long-term retention in those
tissues. Especially when used in soaps and shampoos, there is an
immediate concern relating to the penetration of SLS into the
eyes and other tissues. This is especially important in infants,
where considerable growth is occurring, because a much greater
uptake occurs by tissues of younger eyes, and SLS changes the
amounts of some proteins in cells from eye tissues. Tissues of
young eyes may be more susceptible to alteration by SLS[1]

(2) SLS FORMS NITRATES: When SLS is used in shampoos and
cleansers containing nitrogen-based ingredients, it can form
carcinogenic nitrates that can enter the blood stream in large
numbers. They can cause eye irritations, skin rashes, hair loss,
scalp scurf similar to dandruff, and allergic reactions.[2]

(3) SLS PRODUCES NITROSAMINES (potent carcinogens that cause the
body to absorb nitrates at higher levels than eating
nitrate-contaminated food like hot dogs or lunch meat): Dr.
David H. Fine, the chemist who uncovered NDELA contamination in
cosmetics, estimates that a person would be applying 50 to 100
micrograms of nitrosamine to the skin each time he or she used a
nitrosamine-contaminated cosmetic. By comparison, a person
consuming sodium nitrate-preserved bacon is exposed to less than
one microgram of nitrosamine. [3]

(4) SLS STRIPS MOISTURE AND OIL FROM THE SKIN. According to the
Journal of Investigative Dermatology, SLS produced skin and hair
damage, including cracking and severe inflammation of the
derma-epidermal tissue. Skin layers may separate and inflame due
to its protein-denaturing properties.[4]

(5) SLS IRRITATES SCALP AND MAY PROMOTE HAIR LOSS[5]

(6) SLS CAN DAMAGE DNA IN CELLS—according to Japanese
studies.[6]

CONCLUSION:

SLS and all its cousins are very harsh detergents that strip the
skin's moisture barrier (which is linked to immunity and skin
health) and causes serious health problems during testing on
animals. It is linked to harming children's eyes, denaturing
protein (thereby possibly contributing to hair loss or
thinning), and combines with DEA, MEA and TEA (often found in
the same shampoo) to form nitrosamines, a potent carcinogen.
Since it is only included in products because of its potent
foaming action, the question you must consider is:

What’s more important: the foam or your health?

You CAN choose healthful alternatives: Dare To Care What Touches
Your Skin and Hair!

References for above information:

[1] Green, Dr. Keith. Detergent Penetration into Young and Adult
Eyes. Department of Ophthalmology Medical College of GA, Augusta
GA [2] Hampton, Aubrey. Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients.
Organica Press Metarasso, or Hampton, Aubrey. Natural Organic
Hair and Skin Care. Organica Press, Tampa FL [3] ibid. [4]
Journal of Invest. Dermatology, 32-581, 1959 "Denaturation of
Epidermal Keratin by Surface Active Agents" [5]Wright, Camille
S. Shampoo Report. Images International, Inc. 1989 [6]Vance,
Judi. Beauty to Die For. Promotion Publishing, San Diego, CA
1998. Page 23.