DMDM Hydantoin

I have seen people commenting online that they want cosmetics safe enough to eat.  Well they have pretty much got their wish.  Not many cosmetics would suit the pallets of ladies or gentleman of a fine and delicate taste to be sure, but with the possible exception of underarm deodourants tucking into your personal care products is going to do you no actual harm in either the long term or the short term.

But the idea that what is safe to put on your skin can be inferred from what it is safe to eat isn’t a very good guide to action.  I can think of things I would not want on my skin that I am sure would be harmless to eat. There is one very good example that is quite memorable.  A lot of snake venoms will kill you if they get directly into your blood stream but can be swallowed without any harm at all.  I am pretty sure that I was taught at school that Queen Eleanor sucked the poison from the wound when a snake bit Edward I, saving his life.  Sadly, when I researched it for this post it turned out not to be true.

Snake bites are in any case mercifully rare, but here is something that you will definitely to come into encounter.  Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring material that we all come into contact with on a daily basis.  One source is the breakdown of carbohydrates to sugars by enzymes such as the ones in saliva.  It doesn’t matter if the source of the carbohydrate is a Big Mac or an organic apple straight off the tree.  Formaldehyde can usually be found in fresh fruit and vegetables from similar sources.  So up to a certain level the body is perfectly able to cope with formaldehyde.  On the other hand, a large dose would kill you instantly.  Prolonged exposure to levels higher than you normally experience can cause cancer – it is probably one of the main carcinogens in tobacco smoke.  It really is the perfect example of the dose making the poison.

So it is safe to eat low levels of formaldehyde and we all do so every day.    I have put a link to some published figures below. Pears have one of the higher values at 60 ppm.  A pear weighs about 100g and so when you eat it  you  are swallowing about 0.006g of formaldehyde in a few minutes.   The EU legislation on formaldehyde in cosmetics seems pretty reasonable on the face of it.  It is permitted at 2000 ppm as a preservative, with the proviso that you have to put a ‘contains formaldehyde’ warning on the pack.  Even the most determined beauty product lover will not get anywhere near as much formaldehyde into their body from a cosmetic than they will from eating a pear.

So if you subscribe to the if its good enough to eat it is good enough to go on my skin philosophy you should be very happy to use products with the EU’s maximum formaldehyde level in them.  Formaldehyde is one of the few chemicals that can easily penetrate the skin, but even so compared to the formaldehyde you are generating yourself and the formaldehyde that you are eating as part of your normal diet the liver is hardly going to even register the extra contribution getting in via your skin.

I am afraid you won’t be able to try this out though.  Formaldehyde is now almost unknown as a cosmetic raw material. This hasn’t always been the case. When I first started in the business in the early eighties it was still being used in some lines, but it was rapidly being dropped.  Formaldehyde as a cosmetic ingredient is basically a thing of the past, though it does crop up in a few formulations from time to time.

If you can somehow manage to find a cosmetic containing it I still would not worry unduly, formaldehyde is very volatile and any exposure you get is going to be of a very short duration.  I wouldn’t chose to put it on my skin but I doubt very much it would do you any harm.  But I think we were wise to stop using it.  Although it never posed a significant risk to end users, certainly less risk than spending time in the company of a smoker or being in a room with an open fire, I don’t think it is a sensible preservative.  For a start people who work in the factories who make cosmetics would be at risk of higher levels of exposure.  And the formaldehyde itself has to be made and transported.  So we have moved on to better alternatives.  Or have we?

One of the preservatives that has replaced formaldehyde is DMDM Hydantoin.   This is one of a number of preservatives that work by acting as formaldehyde donors.  So instead of adding formaldehyde itself you add a chemical that breaks down slowly over time to release a tiny amount of formaldehyde.  This solves the handling problem.  And if you follow the ‘safe enough to eat principle’ it is fine as well.  If you like lots of data you’ll be fine with this material too.  There is plenty of toxicity data on it and the CIR have given it a clean bill of health at the low level it is generally used at.   So on paper it should be fine. And there have been no issues with its use.

Nonetheless I don’t use it myself, and I avoid using products that contain it.  I wouldn’t be troubled using a product preserved with formaldehyde itself.  But I am not happy with formaldehyde donors.  It seems to me that there is a risk that hasn’t been considered. If you have a molecule that can absorb into the skin which releases formaldehyde slowly, there is going to be formaldehyde around for quite a lot longer than using the stuff neat.  And this is not something that the skin is likely to have evolved any mechanism for dealing with.  Formaldehyde is quite likely to be toxic to the Langerhans Cells that are a key part of the skin’s defences.  In some ways Langerhans Cells themselves are a bit like bacteria.  DMDM hydantoin is definitely harmful to bacteria – that is why we use it – so I don’t find that too hard to believe.

An effect like this would be very hard to pick up in lab work or in subsequent screening.  The risk is that if the DMDM hydantoin compromised the skin’s defences it might well leave you more prone to developing skin cancer from exposure to light.  I freely confess that this is pure speculation on my part and I don’t have any actual evidence that this happens.  Indeed I am not sure how I would go about proving it if I had the time and resources.  But if I had to place a bet on which preservatives might turn out to be harmful in the long run I’d pick the formaldehyde donors ahead of the parabens and ahead of formaldehyde itself.

Incidentally when you see scare stories about formaldehyde in products nowadays, they are usually referring to products containing formaldehyde donors.  They always seem to be baby products as well, which is always a good way of getting more publicity.  What they have done is performed a test where the full amount of formaldehyde in the molecule is released in one go.   You can have any opinion you like about the safety of formaldehyde itself but the high figures that get quoted are irrelevant to anything since those figures only ever occur under the condition of the test.

The release of formaldehyde is the chief issue with this material but when it is breaking down other less well known materials are also released.  There are other preservatives that break down to release formaldehyde which also release other sensitising materials.  The quantities are low but even so I am not at all keen on the idea of biologically active breakdown products spontaneously forming on the skin.  DMDM Hydantoin hasn’t been shown to have this problem, but the molecule itself turns out to sensitise a reasonable number of people.  There is no such thing as a perfect preservative but this one seems to fall rather further short of perfection than most of them.

But there it is, a preservative I would happily eat but which I wouldn’t personally put on my skin.  It is probably safe enough, but I’d rather not take the chance.

References

WHO data on levels of formaldehyde found in food http://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/whatsnew/whatsnew_fa/files/formaldehyde.pdf

Contact Dermatitis. 2010 Oct;63(4):192-202. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2010.01770.x. Epub 2010 Aug 20. Preservatives in cosmetics: reactivity of allergenic formaldehyde-releasers towards amino acids through breakdown products other than formaldehyde. Kireche M, Gimenez-Arnau E, Lepoittevin JP.

Scary story about formaldehyde in bath products http://www.ewg.org/report/toxic-tub/31209

 

  • Dschoon

    Although I generally agree with the article and its message,
    this article perpetuates the myth that formaldehyde is a liquid. Formaldehyde
    is a highly reactive, anhydrous gas and not a cosmetic ingredient, nor does it
    penetrate the skin

  • http://www.eproimagecourses.com/ online makeup artist school

     A lot of snake venoms will kill you if they get directly into your blood stream but can be swallowed without any harm at all. 

  • http://www.makeup-artist-world.com/ makeup artists

    Great info and well informed about venom’s. Thanks

  • Janetrogers63

     What do you think about a detangler spray for dogs with this listed as the ingredient along with:   PURIFIED WATER EMUISION SIMETHICONE EMUISION DIMETHICONE COPOLYOL EMUISION CYCLOMETHICONE EMULSIFIERS DMDM HYDANTOIN

  • Dene Godfrey

    I disagree with your speculation on the possible dangers of formaldhyde exposure from DMDMH, Colin. As you yourself stated, the actual level of formaldehyde release is quite slow (although this will vary, depending upon the conditions on the skin surface). Formaldehyde is extremely reactive, and will react rapidly with proteins, of which there are many on and in the skin structure. It is extremely unlikely that any unreacted formaldehyde is around long enough to inflict measurable damage on the Langerhans cells because, after all, we are talking about extremely low concentrations of “free” formaldehyde being available at any one time. I am sure that this will have been seriously considered in the SCCS (or their previous incarnation) Opinion on the ingredient.

    • http://twitter.com/beautyscientist beautyscientist

      Small molecules at low concentrations can have surprisingly large biological effects. Look at the way ethylene ripens bananas. And how long it took for people to realise the role it played.

      • Dene Godfrey

        I agree, Colin, but that doesn’t meant that they all do. It remains purely speculative, with no actual evidence of harm.

        • http://twitter.com/beautyscientist beautyscientist

          I think I made it clear enough that it is speculation. But if I am right the evidence would be tricky to generate.

          • Dene Godfrey

            I only drew particular attention to the speculative nature of your observation because too many people have a tendancy to transmute such speculation into “fact”. I meant no offence, Colin, as I hope you appreciate! :-)

  • Adrienne

    This is a poorly written piece. First, you write it is not harmful in small amounts and then you write that you wouldn’t use a product containing it. Your speculation on skin cancer is purely unscientific. My brother has a PHD in chemisty and makes this stuff for a living. When I have any questions about ingredients I ask him. Someone like my brother would be more qualified to write this kind of an article. You worked in the beauty industry. So did my mother. My mother was an Avon lady and she didn’t know what was in the stuff ethier. lol So don’t write about something you know nothing about.

    • Dene Godfrey

      I am sure Colin (a highly respected cosmetic SCIENTIST in the UK) is perfectly capable of defending his own position without my support so, instead, I will ask you if you got your opinion of Colin’s article from your brother. If not, how did you work out that it is a poorly-written piece? And how much research did you do into Colin’s academic background before making your judgement on him?

      • Adrienne

        I am a writer. It is unclear and goes off in different directions. Writing an article is a lot like writing a paper for school. There needs to be a clear thesis and everything supports that thesis. This is even if you are writing about an event that happened for a local newspaper. No, I have not researched his background. His speculation on using preservatives in cosmetics and lotions causing skin cancer speaks for his unscientific background. He just speculated. He had done no research. If I was to write an article even suggesting that I would have the scientific studies mentioned that would prove that. It is nothing more than his opinion. No, I didn’t get my opinion from my brother. This is from what I know about writing. Right now online articles and blogs are the wild west of journalism. People write whatever they want to and people believe it. People would read something like this because they are concerned about the chemicals in products. The reader would most likely be a parent concerned for his or her children. Without any real information in the piece the writer is just scaring people. A piece is ethier journalism or an opinion. This does go off on different directions and unclear, even for an opinion piece.

    • beautyscientist

      Hi Adrienne, yes I dare say my article is not as well written as it would be if I were a professional writer. I don’t get as much time to practice and develop my writing skills as I would like. I don’t know the chemistry of DMDM Hydantoin as well as a PhD chemist involved in its manufacture presumably would, but my speculations were to do with the biological effect. I don’t see why your brother’s expertise would necessarily be helpful for this. But if you want to encourage him to write about it I would be interested in his opinion.

      The point of this post was to point out that being edible does not automatically equate to being safe for use on the skin. I pointed out that I had no evidence to support my idea. To quote myself “I freely confess that this is pure speculation on my part and I don’t have any actual evidence that this happens.” It seems a little harsh to criticise somebody for speculation when they are openly admitting that they are speculating.

      I don’t agree that I should keep things that bother me to myself though. To my mind, thinking through the risks of the chemicals that are used in cosmetics is a perfectly valid thing to do. What I am suggesting is rather difficult to test out at the moment, but maybe with better techniques in the future it will be possible to prove it one way or the other. It wouldn’t be the first time that a chemical thought to be safe turned out to have an unexpected downside.

      Thanks for your tips on how to write. I am grateful for any help.