Can Parabens Make You Fat?

I am delighted that you manage to find amusement in such a strange manner, Aromagal. Please read the article again, because I think you need to! This article was entitled “Do Parabens Make You Fat”, and that is the main claim that was being debunked. I did NOT make the claim that parabens are totally safe, and nor would I ever do this as it is simply not possible to make such an all-encompassing claim for ANY substance. I would, however, claim that parabens are safe for use in cosmetics and, in the case of methylparaben and ethylparaben, my claim is supported by the EU’s Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety – an INDEPENDENT panel of experienced scientists. In the case of the other parabens, this committee is evaluating further data that there requested in order to better judge the situation (this does NOT mean that they are not safe). No-one in their right mind would ever attempt to claim that any substance is safe solely on the basis of only two studies. Please do not “put words in my mouth” – you ascribe claims to me that I did not make!

Your rant about the funding of this site is a well-worn and very tired tactic to try to undermine the quality of the information, and this charge has been levelled several times (roam around the site and look at other posts). This is also a favourite tactic of the EWG. It is entirely disingenuous to assert “vested interest” to invalidate any argument put forward. Vested interest (should it exist) does NOT invalidate scientific facts. There is no comparison between the cosmetics industry and the tobacco industry. Google my name and see what you get – I have nothing to hide – I am not part of the “industry-funded PR tool” – I find your comments and insinuations both wrong and offensive to my personal integrity. You may like to note that Lisa and Kristin actually permit your type of rhetoric, whereas many sites that promote products using the weapon of negative marketing do not post my comments and permit their readers to see other points of view. If you cannot be constructive and reasonable, may I suggest that you stumble elsewhere in future – you are wasting your time here, we deal in facts and logic.

Dear Aromagal,

I am sorry if you could not find the usual stuff you want to find when you search google. And I regret you only wisely consider the hits that correpond to your ideas. But do not blame pesonalcaretruth.com for letting know what you do not like to be told. The info that you find here is accurate and based on facts.

But as your search has brought you here, and as you anyways wanted to comment (exposing yourself to open discussion, hopefully), I’ll try want to be of help to you.

If you are interested in “obesogens”, you should better google “sugar” (carbohydrates) or “fats” (this is no sarcasm). I do not say these are the only factors, but they are by far the major ones.
This is simply linked to the whole theory of evolution on this planet. Carbohydrates and fats taste good (i.e. are biologically rewarding) to humans and other animals because nature wanted them to. They were once selected for their inner properties: they are energetically very interesting and can be stored easily by living organisms.
Did you know that about 65-70% of the ATP (adenosine-5-triphosphate, the nucleotide we name the “fuel of cells”) produced is derived from fats and 30-35% from carbohydrates at rest?
Did you know that, during activity in general, as the intensity of the exercise increases, these proportions are shifted from fats to carbohydrates?
Did you know that during high intensity exercise, almost 100% of the energy is derived from carbohydrates (if enough supply is available)?
Fats and carbohydrates are very useful for animals as they provide all the energy supplies.

But let’s not overlook the genetic factors in the problem of obesity. Some populations, for example in Vietnam, China and Polynesia or America have experienced many repetitive famines in the relatively recent past that have made a genetic selection among them. The descendants of the survivors are more likely to exhibit a genetic profile that promotes energy conservation and allows them to pass through periods of famine. But what was an advantage in the past has become a disadvantage today; abundant food has become our daily life, and these people are now the main victims of obesity due to the fact they too easily store the calories of fats and carbohydrates.

With this post, I wish personalcaretruth.com not to only be considered “junk” in your eyes. Yo have a second chance to look at our info and to ask us questions. I hope you’ll grab it.

Philippe Papadimitriou

@ Echo, thanks for taking the time to read the article, and for your question, which is entirely reasonable. If you want deeper science around this subject, please take a look at the other articles I have since posted on parabens:

http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/11/parabens-in-perspective-an-introduction/comment-page-1/#comment-1288

http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/11/parabens-in-perspective-part-i/

http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/11/parabens-in-perspective-part-ii/

http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/11/parabens-in-perspective-part-iii/

The best, and most concise answer I can give is that butylparaben (the only one with measurable oestrogenic acivity) is used at concentrations typically around 0.01 – 0.05%. It does NOT mimic oestrogen (see the links above) and, so, is not considerd to be remotely connected to cancer of any type.

Echo,
This is an interesting new angle to consider the question.

Let me first of all inform you that most physiological responses are not linear for dose-response answers and may often be “trickier” than physical or electrical ones.
In the present case, a substance binding to a receptor is not systematically a substance activating it. In EU regulations, hormones are not accepted in cosmetic formulations (as ingredients, I mean). A such, ingredients used which share common caracteristics to hormones or whose chemical structure is close have to be shown to not stimulate hormones’ pathways. I personally had to request many documents to one supplier two or three years ago regarding an ingredient partly designated as “sterol” as INCI (common designation for packagings) to show the authorities of Portugal in this regard.

Then, to come back to what I started above, if a substance binds to a hormone receptor, it may also bind to another site than the « active site » (i.e. the one where the messenger substance -here, the hormone- binds). Some substances may bind elsewhere on the receptor structure and not change anything (the binding can be temporary or even definitive – but receptors also have their turnover or their time of use, if you prefer); some other may bind elsewhere and limit the binding of the hormone, totally inhibit its binding, favor the binding, co-activate the message cascade to a higher degree, etc. If the substance binds to the receptor on the active site (“competitive binding”), it may either activate or inhibit the following cascade, to many different degrees. The resulting extent of this competitive binding (affinity) might modulate the expected message in one way or the other. One substance binding to a receptor in tubo or in vitro might sometimes never have the chance to reach the receptor in vivo as it may not be stable enough to come close to it in the new environement, it might be metabolized or may enter the organism but not the right organ (the case of the brain-blood barrier, for example).

All of this, and maybe more, to let you know your comparison with ampers and a deadly amount of electricity is no match to such an issue.

Studies on parabens have shown these substances to very poorly bind oestrogenic receptors. This, at all sites. Their influence on hormonal pathways is thus shown to be insignificant.
The route of administration (offered as the « epxosure »), the dose, the systems used, the methodologies and may other factors converge to a safe profile of parabens in terms of oestrogenic activity (in properly conducted studies ..and poor ones). This is still not perfect, but this is much enough scientifically speaking.
This is the take-home message of Dene’s series of articles.

But I see another message here somewhere in his numerous articles. One that many do not see, I suppose…
Many studies have been conducted on parabens and knowledge on these preservatives is quite well-advanced. If one compares the state of knowledge on other substances, such as newer preservatives -often offered as ‘safe’ alternatives to parabens- or many plant extracts, such oestrogenic or toxicological aspects on the general profile of the ingredient are simply missing. Whatever the profile of parabens, more needs to be done and collected on other substances !

It is important that many studies are being conducted on parabens, but their case is not unique. I regret that some scientists insist on showing that parabens are « not so safe » when they should better consider other ingredients that are this time very badly known and still, much used. Scientist involved in such supposed toxicological studies should in my opinion better study the toxicology of furanocoumarins/furocoumarins/fucocoumarins, for example. These are regulated substances (1ppm max in any finished product), but no one knows about this regulation. Don’t you think this really is a problem (even if the regulation is not worldwide) ?
If these are only permitted up to 0.0001%, this definitely means they are much more poisonous than parabens as « the dose makes the poison » (I am not speaking about oestrogen activity now). Do you think it is important that people start to be aware of these other substances ? Do you think the EWG skin deep data base should mention them (browse the words and you will be astonished by the hits you get) ? Don’t you think it is time to address other safety issues than parabens ? new issues ?

Echo, the end of this post does not regard your well-formulated question, but opens another debate. Sorry, my intention was not to apostrophize you on this issue.

Regards,

Phil