Do Chemicals in Cosmetics Accumulate in Your Body?

I have spent a lot of time over the last week looking at the coverage of the Story of Cosmetics video in the blogosphere, and sometimes challenging stuff written there.  I have to say it wasn’t a particularly productive thing to do.  For a start, not many of the things I posted ever appeared.  It seems that  a lot of them are happy to criticise without having any kind of debate about it.  I also noticed that the same things get said time and again, almost as if there is only a small group of people actually writing this stuff.

However not all my posts vanished without a trace.  One blog I found that did seem to be having a discussion was Organic Mania.  This seems to be run by a woman called Lynne who seems to be both passionate and well informed. And although she was broadly sympathetic to the EWG, she had obviously got some doubts about their methods.

She also was very interested in the question of the effect of long term accumulation of cosmetic chemicals in the body.  And she seems to have pursued the question with some tenacity.  I cannot improve on her own account of her attempts to get industry figures to answer questions on the subject so I suggest you simply follow the link to it at the bottom of this post. But her basic point was that nobody in the industry knows what is the long term effect of accumulation of cosmetic ingredients in the body.

I did reply at some length.  My reply never appeared, but in this case the explanation was probably not censorship.  I simply had more to say than her blogging software could cope with.

But it is a good point.  Even if the materials in personal care products are used at safe levels according to the data which we have available – which they are, with Google and a bit of patience you can check this for yourself – isn’t there a risk that over time the levels in your body will grow until they reach an unsafe level?

Posing this question shows a much better understanding of the way risk actually works than most of the critics of cosmetic safety you find online.

But who would know the answer to this one?  There isn’t any particular reason why the  people who manage cosmetic companies, or sell cosmetics and personal care products should know any more about the safety of the formulations themselves than the average person in the street.  They hire scientists like me to handle that side of things. So when you hear a spokesman on the media responding to a scare story, they are basically trusting what the guys in their labs have told them.  Lynne did not get a satisfactory answer from industry insiders.  I think that is because us guys in the labs are insiders inside the industry.

So to answer her question.

Do we know what the cumulative effect of the chemicals used in cosmetics in the body is?  Well compared to what you eat, it is pretty obvious that cosmetics can only make a tiny contribution to what is in your body.  The most dedicated of beauty junkies is not going to apply more than a few grammes of product a day.  Even if was all absorbed it would not even equal a mouthful of food.

However most of what you apply is simply not absorbed.  Rest assured the skin is an extremely good barrier.  That is why diabetics have to inject insulin rather than letting it soak through the skin and why snakes have to bite you in order to poison you.  This is actually a great shame for the pharmaceutical industry because transdermal patches would be a great way of delivering drugs if the skin didn’t do such a great job of keeping stuff out.

Even if they did get through the skin the bulk of chemicals used in cosmetics are not very different to those you eat in any case.  A chemical like say glyceryl monostearate might sound scary if you don’t know what it is.   But it is simply a fraction of a vegetable oil with a very slight chemical modification – and modification that your body carries out too.  The next time you eat some fried food you will probably be eating more glyceryl monostearate than would get into your body from a lifetime of applying skin creams.

Most cosmetic ingredients are derived from natural sources.  This has always been the case.  If they do get into your body, you have enzymes that can deal with them.  Your liver’s main reason for existing is to deal with toxins and it has plenty of tools to do the job.  This is just as well because even a very organic diet has plenty of toxins in it (or maybe especially an organic diet).  Fortunately we have evolved to deal with them.

I have said that the skin is a good barrier, but there are some chemicals that have the right properties to go through it.  But there aren’t many.  Nicotene is one, which is why you can buy nicotine patches.  Caffeine is another.  But very few drugs are available as patches because very can be made to penetrate the skin.  Very very few of the materials used in cosmetics will get through the skin.  But even then, just getting through the skin is not enough for a chemical to accumulate. If it is metabolised then the body will get rid of it quickly.  We are all familiar with how quickly the body deals with caffeine.  I am writing this late at night and I am well aware that my last dose is in need of replacement.

So it is far from obvious that any cosmetic raw material accumulates in the body.  I can only think of a handful of materials that even have a chance to do so.  Of those only the parabens are not metabolised extremely quickly.  (I don’t want to talk about parabens again, after 8 recent blog posts my regular readers must be fed up of them by now.)

I have done some work trying to deliberately improve penetration through the skin.  It is an extremely hard thing to accomplish.  So in a nutshell, the answer to Lynne’s question about studies of the long term effects of accumulation of cosmetic raw materials in the body is that we don’t know because it doesn’t happen.

None of this means that cosmetic formulators are complacent.  There are a few materials that are absorbed into the skin and we need to be vigilant.  Previously unknown risks might come to light at any time.  We also have to have in mind that it is in the nature of cosmetics that most of them end up in water courses.  (This is the downside of the fact that they don’t actually get absorbed much.)    We need to keep an eye on what is going on and keep an open mind for risks that nobody has predicted.

For instance, I recently picked up on people criticising triclosan.  My first reaction was that it was yet another groundless scare story, but when I looked into it it turned out that there is a recently identified problem with triclosan interfering with water treatment plants.  I was really grateful to the environmental activist on Twitter who drew my attention to it.  But that also illustrates the way the world really is.  You need to look at data and use your brain to spot the problems.  And problems usually turn out to be something nobody is expecting.  The black and white world portrayed in the Story of Cosmetics seems to be emotionally satisfying to a lot of people.  But the real world is a lot more complicated and interesting.  And I am more than happy to listen to anyone with a passion for making it a better place, especially if they have thought of something that I haven’t.

_____________________________

From the UK, Colin Sanders has been a formulator of cosmetic and topical pharmaceuticals for 27 years. Over that time he has formulated nearly every category of product including shampoos, cosmetic skin creams, pharmaceutical skin creams, face masks, lip balms and so on. He has been an active member of the Society of Cosmetic Scientists since 1985 and in 1999 organised the first of the Formulate shows. His degree is in environmental science and he continues to take a keen interest in the impact of human activities on the planet. He regards himself as an environmental activist and all round green. When not in the lab, he writes a blog, Colin’s Beauty Pages with the intention of entertaining and hopefully informing users of cosmetic and personal care products with some insider insights, a bit of science and his own opinions.

Be Sociable, Share!

More about the author:  Guest posts are provided through article submissions. Read more from this author


Related posts:

  1. Crying Wolf about ‘Chemicals’ and Cancer {From NRO’s Critical Condition}
  2. The Truth About Chemicals {from the Daily Caller}
  3. Finally, I Have Worked Out What The Story of Cosmetics is Really About
  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Do Chemicals in Cosmetics Accumulate in Your Body? | Personal Care Truth or Scare -- Topsy.com

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for the article Colin. Let me add a few things (since I love physiology and toxicology). Besides the liver containing these detoxification enzymes, sometimes called cytochrome P450 enzymes, the skin also contains these enzymes. So besides the skin being a physical barrier to toxins entering the body, it can also detoxify compounds it comes in contact with. The first chemical reaction these P450 enzymes attempt is to add a hydroxyl group (-OH) to the compound. The reason for this is that it can make anything more water soluble so that compound is more likely to be removed from the body by partitioning into the urine. People don’t really give the human body enough credit for taking care of itself!
    One compound that does concern be however is Tinosan (silver). Silver is becoming more popular in cosmetics as a preservative as small companies look for what they consider a more natural preservative. There is very little scientific information right now on silver and its effects in the body and the environment. Silver is not metabolized by the body so it does indeed build up and it most likely builds up in the environment as well. As a heavy metal we could be in for a surprise several years from now when we discover its effects on the environment.

  • http://twitter.com/hipcop Francis

    I learn every time I visit your site! This is fascinating to me and thank you for sharing your work! Wish I had more to add but all this is new to me!

  • http://www.cactusandivy.com Lisa M. Rodgers

    Many thanks for your comments gal! Personal Care Truth is very honored to have such talented and intelligent people contributing to educate consumers. I hope you will continue to visit and become part of the conversation.

  • http://www.cactusandivy.com Lisa M. Rodgers

    This is why I love you Cindy! You are a wealth of knowledge and you ROCK! So thrilled you are an expert on Personal Care Truth!

    Thanks for adding so much to the conversations on PCT. The more truthful information that is posted, the better. We’ve got to educate consumers so they can make informed decisions instead of buying in to the misinformation and fear mongering circulating on the web!

  • http://www.sunshineconsultingltd.com/ Todd Weiss CFA

    Good stuff Lisa and nice to see you doing hard researched and basing opinions on facts. As Francis said, I learn something new with each post. Keep it up. TW

  • http://twitter.com/beautyscientist beautyscientist

    I hadn’t realised that the body’s detox process started in the skin. Thanks for that Cindy I will look into that further. It doesn’t matter how long you study the skin for you still keep getting surprised by just how much it does.

    • http://www.cactusandivy.com Lisa M. Rodgers

      Thanks again for your article contribution Colin! I’m looking forward to adding more of your posts in our quest to educate consumers.

  • http://www.cactusandivy.com Lisa M. Rodgers

    Thanks Todd! Greatly appreciate you stopping by and leaving your comments!

  • Anonymous

    This is really helpful – an antidote to the hysteria that is being whipped up by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Thank you.
    At the same time, how we eat and how we beautify ourselves reflect core values that affect our relationship with the world. I think there is evidence of growing, and much needed, change in that regard, and it is a change (dare I say “movement”) that is being led by consumers, not by scientists.

  • http://www.facebook.com/melodys.small.art Melody Lea Lamb

    Wow, that was a lot of information and an amazing amount of your time, energy and investigation went into accumulating it all! Thanks for enlightening us.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RM6FYXYOF2F6DPIXTOEKXA3724 Bruce

    Colin,
    As usual your points are well thought out and a pleasure to read. I too understand your frustration with comments never making it to the light of day. As we all know that those who control the media control the way information is conveyed – yet a whole other topic for a whole other discussion.
    You bring up some excellent points. Some of which often seem to be ignored in the debate about cosmetic safety. One is that we truly do not know about the long-term effects of many of the materials in commerce today. I have talked to many toxicologists and most will agree there are no good tests available to prove or disprove chemical safety. Teratogenicity (the capability of producing fetal malformation), for one, is not a test any sane person would approve of on humans. Not to mention it could be 40-50 years before any partially conclusive evidence is gleaned. This lack of an ability to test has put unsafe materials into commerce. DES (Diethylstilbestrol) was in commerce for 30 years before being removed and being linked to many health issues. Thalidomide is another example. These are extreme examples, but they do illustrate your point: we just don’t know. Many of the chemicals in commerce today are safe, but can you truly blame one for questioning the safety of things unknown? This questioning is the basis of the precautionary principle.
    You also mention parabens. Parabens have been vilified in recent studies for having estrogenic properties, and hence “cause cancer”. Some of these studies on closer examination have been less than convincing. Yet looking up methyl paraben in what I consider the chemical bible, the Merck Index (I happen to have the 11th edition), there is a reference to finding it in the secretions of female dogs in estrus. Once again, not conclusive to being estrogenic, but certainly enough to make you wonder why nature put it there.
    My favorite point you made was: What happens to all the things that wash off? There are some great penetration enhancers(DMSO, EtOH), but I agree most of the products we put on our skin do not make it much further than the top few cellular layers of said skin. If they are not absorded and processed by our body, where do they go? I would not be the first to suggest they go into our water system and the environment at large. Triclosan is a great example of an environmental hazard with widespread use in our industry. EDTA is another huge environmental concern; the safety data on EDTA as used in cosmetics is impeccable, however it is a suspected aquatoxin and many papers have been published on its adverse effects on the environment. These are things the CIR and the SCCP (which I love btw) never truly address, at least in my knowledge of their assessments on chemicals.
    Lets take the environmental concern one step further… How are these molecules synthesized? What reactants go in, and what products come out? Are those reactants from a renewable source? Are these byproducts safe? How much pollution did the energy needed to make these materials pollute our world? We live in a closed system; lets look at the whole system. Is the work that is being done to create the products we use depleting resources for our prosperity? Are we altering the ecosystem by disposal of such products? Will using these products harm future generations? These are the questions I ask myself before I make each decision about any material used in my formulations. We all ,in my opinion, should think about how these choices may (or may not) effect the rest of the planet.

    Conforming to what the popular image of beauty is, has never been without risk. I just would like to see those risks confined to those who make the choice to follow that belief.

    A pleasure as always Colin
    Bruce

    • DayDreamer

      Bruce, It is refreshing to find someone of your green mindset here!! I know in an earlier post I read you mentioned wanting to discuss things in a more neutral setting. Is there a forum that you frequent? I would love to learn more about the environmental impact of many of the cosmetic ingredients discussed her and pronounced to be “safe” on the basis of no science for causing human illness or death. The environmental impact of ingredients that pollute our air and water is just as important to me as whether or not those ingredients will immediately (as in the case of synthetic fragrances) cause me to be ill or just contribute to illness over time. Thank you for all you have contributed to the many discussions here — your posts are the ones that made me finally post myself!

      • Sarah

        Unless I’m mistaken, Colin Sanders is also of a green mindset. I guess I wonder about your description of the site as not being “neutral.” While nobody can be completely neutral in their views, I get the impression it’s a place where people are welcome to respond to articles with data or even opinions to the contrary. Your suggestion sounds a little as though you are saying that the site has an anti-”green” agenda, and that isn’t my impression. But I might have misunderstood what you were saying.

        • Colinsanders

          Yes you are quite right Sarah, I am definitely a shade of green. Not a deep green perhaps, maybe a pale lime. The posts on here are all originally written for my own blog, and they sometimes lose a bit by being taken out of context. For example I have written a lot about parabens and it is certainly not the case that Dene and I see that particular issue in the same light.

          I have a feeling that Bruce and I are not so far apart in our attitudes. The sticking point is the Environmental Working Group to whom Bruce is sympathetic. I detest them for their outrageous fear mongering, as do many others. I also feel that they are letting down the environmental movement generally, and that goes way beyond cosmetics. Rachel Carson gave us the model – passion, eloquence and solid science. The EWG fall down on every count.

          • Anonymous

            I get the impression that a lot of the article writers and commenters here have “green” streaks! These streaks seem not to be seen. Phillippe is against being dependent on oil, right? Sagescript I believe lives on a farm and grows her own plants. Cactus & Ivy – same as Sagescript. Dene brought up the point of growing crops for food vs. cosmetics and he really doesn’t like comments about people throwing out their products into the landfill. Colin, you are the one who got me to read “Silent Spring.” Stephanie is Bubble & Bee, isn’t she? No one can accuse her of not being “green”!

            Tina S (gloria..)

          • Colinsanders

            Well when you put it like that TIna, yes we are rather a green lot. Good. I hope you enjoyed Silent Spring.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1051543778 Stephanie Greenwood

            [Just to be clear, I'm merely a commenter on this site, not a contributor.]

          • Anonymous

            Not a direct contributor,no, but and indirect..absolutely. :)

            Tina S (gloria)

          • Dene62

            Why not, Stephanie?

          • Sarah

            I also notice that you and others on the site are very clear to distinguish environmental impact concerns from direct exposure human safety concerns, and make the point that muddling these two concerns does no service to either issue.

        • Sarah

          That said–if I truly thought my views were in the minority, I wouldn’t have a particularly thick skin about it. It takes courage to express what you expect may be an unpopular viewpoint.

      • Philippe Papadimitriou

        Hey there,

        Bruce is a person I like and respect. We share many more views than it seems. As I said earlier, there is only one truth, but many ways and different angles to look at it.

        Bruce is not the only person here asking for some more environmental respect. And he is definitely not the only person within the industry to fight for this cause. Many suppliers, particularly for raw materials and complex ingredient are now working on grey energy and carbon footprint, for example. There is a company in France which is now carbon neutral on all steps from production to delivery, for example. There also is a German raw material manufacturer which is the first to be carbon negative in production..! These are only examples and things are improving by the day.

        Many formulators I know have rejected some ingredients they previously used. There is green in the industry, much more than you think. Education is the key and this is one important aspect of PCT as well.

  • http://greenskincareblog.com/ Kristin Fraser Cotte

    I’m always amazed (and pleased) with the quality of information our experts put forth in such an interesting and readable format. So glad to have you aboard Colin, you bring a wealth of info to PCT.

    Cindy, you are full of great info as usual. Thanks to all of our incredible experts!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Fatin-Khawarizmi/100000541803855 Fatin Khawarizmi

    As the skin is transpiring it is absorbing so we should be very careful about the creams we are applying !
    A very interesting topic !

  • http://twitter.com/beautyscientist beautyscientist

    The skin is pretty selective about what it absorbs Fatin. We would have a job staying alive if that wasn’t the case.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2XS3KNVKOWWVKXASL7C2HUT44M Casey

    Energetically speaking (I do energy healing), do we know how chemicals affect us energetically. Yes, the body is wonderful at healing itself, but that process does get impeded due to stress and dis-ease in the body. Emotionally, Mentally, and Spiritually, how is it effected, which then will manifest into the Physical.

    Now to get out of the metaphysical part of it, I believe too, getting away from the synthetic chemicals and adding any more of them or more so then what is naturally there, has something to do with sustainability and doing what we can towards honoring mother earth.

  • Dene Godfrey

    Good point(s), Cindy. The skin also contains esterases (as does the blood), and these contribute to the breakdown of . . well, esters (such as parabens, for example).

    I think that you are probably right about the likelihood of silver accumulating on the environment as it is not a very reactive metal. Additionally, I have recently seen a presentation on sustainability that mentioned that there is only about 18 years worth of (known) silver deposits remaining. To put any of that remaining resource into cosmetics seems a waste to me!

  • http://twitter.com/RichardBejah Richard Bejah

    It’s funny whenever you try to do something out of the ordinary and stretch peoples understanding there is ALWAYS reluctance of many to change… Keep Up the good fight my friend! RICH :0)

  • http://www.soapyhollow.com DeAnne

    I’m grateful that you took the time to write all this out. I anticipate that I’ll be referencing it a lot in the future. I’ve been arguing similar points for a long time, especially in reference to “anti-aging” serums and creams, and how it just isn’t physically possible for those products to do what those products claim that they do. Even the lab studies from the companies themselves show that effects are at best short lived.

    There’s some really fascinating stuff going on with nanotech, skin absorption and vaccines, but as yet, most of that science is dedicated to medical issues, rather than cosmetic ones. There’s a lot of micronized (rather than nano) components available, but I find a lot of those more problematic than the problem they purport to try and solve. Micronized zinc oxide in mineral makeup, for example; there’s a ton of research showing that zinc shouldn’t be inhaled, yet rather than using something benign like corn starch or something similarly inert and teaching the consumer how to properly apply the product, companies have chosen to use micronized zinc because it gives better coverage.

    But back to absorption; this is one of those myths that’s been impossible to beat back into the closet, because it is spread by so many people, many of whom really want to believe that their $100 serum actually does something other than irritate their skin.

  • Pingback: The Cosmetic Industry is Under Attack | Personal Care Truth or Scare

  • http://www.thebeautynerd.com Connie {the beauty nerd}

    Great article Colin – I am glad you are able to provide such an open-minded viewpoint about this contentious issue. Hopefully over time, we all will become more educated about how these ingredients affect our body. I will be tweeting this :) !

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1051543778 Stephanie Greenwood

    One thing that I would like to quickly like to say is that we must not forget that our skin IS our body. As you’ve all heard many times, it is our largest organ. (okay, about 103 of you just stopped reading right now…but don’t! I have something valid to say!)

    An ingredient does not have to pass in to the bloodstream to have an effect on the body. As a few of you (Dene and Sagescript) pointed out, our skin contains enzymes that metabolize chemicals. One of these enzymes is estrogen sulfotransferase. It has been found that when certain chemicals having similar chemical structures to estrogens are applied to the skin, they react with the estrogen sulfotransferase enzymes. Specifically one called SULT1. The job of this SULT1 enzyme is to remove the hydroxyl group from a molecule and add a sulfonate group. This makes the molecule water-soluble so it can then be excreted from the body. Normally, this sulfonate group is given to an estrogen molecule to help flush it out of the body. Our balance of hormones is highly dependent on these SULT enzymes. If they are under-functioning, it leads to a buildup of estrogen–a condition called estrogen dominance syndrome. (Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16454694)

    Many personal care chemicals have been found to inhibit SULT function.

    Triclosan inhibits SULT function: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19299018

    Parabens inhibit SULT function: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17306434

    Other chemicals found in packaging inhibit SULT function:

    PCBs inhibit SULT function: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10803601

    BPA inhibits SULT function: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16931338

    The study of estrogen sulfotransferases is a very new field, and we are learning more about their function every day. This function explains how, while a chemical may have very weak activity in estrogen receptors, it can still lead to estrogen dominance or fuel the growth of reproductive cancers.

    • Dene62

      Stephanie, the study you cited on parabens claims only a “possible” link to the already documented weak oestrogenic acivity of BUTYLPARABEN. The other parabens are generally accepted as having virtually no oestrogenic activity. This is not additional information, in effect, but it is only identifying a POSSIBLE explanation for the effects observed and reported by Routledge et al in 1998. In other words, this is nothing new, and is covered by the SCCS Final Opinion On Parabens (2011).

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1051543778 Stephanie Greenwood

        I have to commend you for sticking to your guns. :)

        • Dene62

          Thanks Stephanie – I appreciate that, but is my train of thought not logical? The SULT mechanism does not appear to be a separate mechanism, but possibly THE, or one of the mechanisms by which any oestrogenic acivity of butylparaben is operating.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1051543778 Stephanie Greenwood

            That’s what I’ve been primarily arguing…

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1051543778 Stephanie Greenwood

            Here’s a quote from the 2007 Prusaciewics study:
            “Two parabens were chosen for this experiment, one weak inhibitor (methylparaben) and one relatively strong inhibitor (butylparaben). The potency of methylparaben in NHEK culture was similar to that observed in vitro (Figs. 2 and 5). Methylparaben displayed only 20% inhibition under either set of conditions. This amount of inhibition cannot be neglected, because even a modest elevation in estradiol could increase the estrogenic signaling in the skin.”

            So while, yes, other parabens are notably weaker, they still are active. And, as a person who struggles with an excess of estrogen, I work to do all I can to protect myself from these possible effects.

    • Philippe Papadimitriou

      Stephanie,

      I see this SULT topic is still interesting to you. I agree that some work should be done here.
      I didn’t know about Triclosan and SULT. An additional reason for me to avoid this and to let know it is NOT a good option (but I already have many others).

      On the parabens issue with SULT, I had sent you an e-mail to which you never responded. It took into account many parameters that you were forgetting -in my humble opinion- to let you see the affair from a different angle. It may be the right time for you to answer if you think I was wrong. That doesn’t change anything to the problem and the science remains valid; it is just that it may highly probably not be important enough a factor in the endocrine system because of cosmetic products exposure. Do you still have this message?

      Do you know how the SULT gene is activated to produce the enzyme? Do you know if there is a feedback loop for more enzyme to be produced or for the message of enzyme production to stop? Important points in my opinion and I wasn’t able to find info on this.

      Then, even if it remains true, there is not much to link between Bisphenol A (BPA) or Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and cosmetics, even in packaging.

      For you information, PCBs “were widely used for many applications, especially as dielectric fluids in transformers, capacitors, and coolants. Due to PCB’s toxicity and classification as a persistent organic pollutant, PCB production was banned by the United States Congress in 1979 and by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2001.” (source: Wikipedia). I have never heard of any link between such a component and comsetic packaging. I would appreciate if you can locate anything linking PCBs and usual plastic materials used for packaging (whose source, petrochemistry, -except for glass- is neither sustainable, nor favored by me, but that’s another story).

      Regarding BPA, this is somehow no news. BPA is already known to interfere with the endocrne system. By the way, PBA is not used in cosmetic packaging to my knowledge but rather for polycarbonate (CD, DVD) or epoxy resins (polyepoxydes glues). Once again, if you find any relevant article linking BPA and cosmetic packaging materials, let me know and be sure I will be on your side.

      I am not in the favor of PBA (do not know much about PCBs), but I here speak about personal care and cosmetics. There surely is something to do to avoid many pollutants, but let us not link everyone of them to cosmetic products.

      Looking forward to your news.

      Take care,

      Phil

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1051543778 Stephanie Greenwood

        Hi Philippe–I tried to e-mail you long ago but my e-mail kept bouncing back. Is there another e-mail address that you have that might work better? I gave up on responding because it wasn’t going through.

        My highlighting BPAs and PCB were not specifically to target cosmetic use or packaging, but to simply highlight other compounds that interfere with SULT function.

        Regarding a feedback loop, that would be an interesting thing to look at. If I get a spare moment I’ll see what I can find.

        • Philippe Papadimitriou

          Hello Stephanie,

          I am sorry if my firewall does not let your messages through. I have another e-mail account and I shall send you a message out of it.

          The feedback loop is very interesting for most of the substances you list. I doubt anything is published on this (too new) though I haven’t checked.

          NB: You highlighted BPA and PCBs with a “found in packaging”. If this wasn’t supposed to be written, I am happy to have set the record straight.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1051543778 Stephanie Greenwood

        Yes, I’ve tried again to respond to your e-mail, but it has bounced back again.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nathan-Rivas/100001195250784 Nathan Rivas

      Oy, Stephanie, still with your SULT theory! It is an interesting one, but you’ve yet to link any credible data to explain how you’ve arrived at your conclusion. These are the same citations, and you haven’t yet understood the impact of variables on SULT 1E1 like Lys105 and His107, which would substantially alter the possibility of your theory. I was hoping for a new approach when I saw your repost, but alas!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1051543778 Stephanie Greenwood

        Ah, hello Nathan. I’m sorry, but it’s not my theory–I can’t take credit for the findings of other people. You’ll have to argue with the authors of the papers I’ve linked to above.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1051543778 Stephanie Greenwood

          Looking briefly in to Lys105 and His107 variables and I cannot find any studies on the topic. Perhaps you can steer me in the right direction, or explain your theory?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1051543778 Stephanie Greenwood

            Here is a diagram for you, Nathan. This isn’t my diagram, but one from the article. http://www.facebook.com/media/set/fbx/?set=a.10150161948409691.300468.57225504690&saved#!/photo.php?fbid=10150161948414691&set=a.10150161948409691.300468.57225504690&type=1&theater

            Parabens reacting with SULT enzymes in the skin is not my theory. You’ll have to argue with JJ Prusakiewicz et al. :)

          • Colinsanders

            If I can join in on this one. I am very skeptical of structure based arguments, and I am very skeptical of extrapolating from cell cultures. I am afraid I can’t regard the paper on parabens by Prusakiewicz as anything more than slightly indicative of where future work might profitably be done. When you strip away the jargon it boils down to ‘here’s an idea’ and ‘it might just work’. But even then, the paper is proposing that parabens are having a beneficial effect on the skin. If that were true, I am sure we would have noticed by now. Sorry to disappoint you Stephanie. I doubt very much that parabens will be the next anti-aging sensation. But it is nice to come across someone who is even more positive about parabens than Dene.

  • http://personalcaretruth.com Lisa M. Rodgers

    @summertimebluesandgreens {Tina} -

    Contrary to popular belief, PCT has many experts that are “green”, some more than others. The one thing I’d like to repeat is that we understand not everyone will agree with our point of view, and we welcome differing of opinions and beliefs. The discussions are healthy for both sides of the isle, in my opinion. The only thing that PCT stands firm on is that we do not believe that the EWG/Skin Deep Database and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics are credible sources for truthful information backed by scientific facts.

    To all commenters – please do not leave replies to 72/Kerrie9/Jammin, because she will not longer be able to reply.

    Keep the dialogue up!

    Lisa

  • Dene62

    I refrained from commenting on the mention of parabens when this was first posted but, after all the recent (hyper)activity, I have changed my mind! I am not sure exactly what Colin means by “extremely quickly”, but there is no evidence to suggest that any of the parabens remain within the body for much more than about 24 hours. They are mostly broken down on passage through the body, and very little intact parabens are detected on excretion.

    On a broader issue, there is much mention of absorption, but none of complete penetration, and there is a difference. Some substances that may be absorbed into the upper layers of the skin never actually fully penetrate and are either washed off, or slough off in the natural course of shedding skin. This happens, in part, with the parabens, as they have been detected in household dust which is, of course, mostly human skin cells.

    • Anonymous

      Oh no, so does that mean that when we breathe in dust with human skin cells (that’s gross, by the way! :) ) that we have another paraben exposure route?

      • Dene62

        Relax, Tina! lol I don’t have any specific data, but I doubt that breathing in household dust would cause any measurable increase in paraben exposure – not that it should be an issue anyway! The average use of cosmetics is estimated to be just over 17g/day (COLIPA figure – COLIPA is the European body the represents all the national trade associations), and I would be surprised if you enhaled even 0.1g of dust – it all depends on your house, and your skin (and how much you breathe! lol).

        I am not sure why you consider breathing in dead skin cells to be gross – they were once a part of you – think of it as recycling!! ;-)

        • Sarah

          Aren’t parabens in food and some medications as well as topicals?

          • Sarah

            This was one of the reasons that I thought it was weird that everyone was so up in arms about them being detected in urine. Because I understood that people ingest parabens as well as putting them on their skin, so I thought it shouldn’t be a surprise if they were found in urine.

          • Dene62

            Parabens are not widely used in foods (except in Japan), and they are completely broken down in the stomach (stomach juices being highly acidic), so no intact parabens would be found in urine as a result of ingestion. Our bodies actually produce the main breakdown product that is common to all parabens – 4-hydroxybenzoic acid (4-HBA) – without it neither we, nor any other living organism, could survive as it plays a part in the respiration process in every living cell. 4-HBA is found in urine, not only due to exposure to parabens, but also due to our normal bodily functions. The presence of 4-HBA in urine is sometimes confused with parabens exposure, but it is not possible to determine how much is due to parabens and how much would have been present anyway, unless someone, one day, carries out a radiolabelled study – and that is highly unlikely.

            I hope that makes sense!

          • Sarah

            Yes, that does make sense. Thanks for the clarification.

        • Anonymous

          LOL! Thank you Dene!! Phew!

          You know, it’s really tough to get teasing across in comment sections (picture an attitude here with a great big teasing smile, I’m back to normal.)

          Still…breathing in dead skin cells and what we eat and the stuff in our water…ewwwwww
          (do not take seriously, lol)

          Tina S

  • http://twitter.com/RealizeBeautyEd AmandaFoxon-Hill

    The potential for bioaccumulation of cosmetic ingredients (in complex mixtures) is interesting. I have always felt (gut feeling really) that the fact that most cosmetic products end up in our waterways rather than through our skin is most likely to be our biggest problem as you are right, the skin is a formidable barrier. Chemicals that can accumulate in water and/ or soil can and do come back at us through the food chain and that is probably why we do sometimes find chemicals in our bodies. However, chemicals get into the water and soil in many different ways and from a multitude of industries so I have always found the emphasis placed on cosmetics somewhat disproportionate to the risk (I attribute this to the fact that the cosmetics industry is an emotive, feel-good industry).
    It is important that we advocate for the use of ‘greener’ chemistry (that is at least readily biodegradable, non-eco toxic and minimum environmental impact through manufacture) wherever possible as a way of reducing the environmental risk of ingredients getting into the food chain. When it comes to safety we really do need to think about the planet first and our skin second as I, like everyone else eat much more than I slater on.
    A healthy planet = healthy people!
    Thought provoking article and one at the heart of truly ‘safe’ cosmetics.