Dear Stacy,

I have noted that you make the claim that “we used to think that the dose makes the poison, but we now know that this isn’t true”. You are highly vocal in your efforts to sell your book and promote the “Campaign For Safe Cosmetics” and have used this claim in writing and in your presentations in the last couple of years, or so; manifesting itself in several slightly different ways, for example in this link, The Dose Makes the Poison? We Know Better Now.

As you know, “the dose makes the poison” is loosely taken from a quote from Paracelsus, the actual quote being “All substances are poisonous, there is none that is not a poison; the right dose differentiates a poison from a remedy.” This observation was made in the 16^th century, and has remained a central tenet of toxicology since that time. Your observation that this is no longer true is incorrect, and I struggle to understand how you feel that there is any reason to claim this. The only explanation to which I can give any serious consideration is that you don’t understand the concept of “dose” in the manner in which is employed in toxicology. For simplicity, you can consider “dose” as being equivalent to “exposure”.  Dose, or exposure, may be a single event, or it could be repeated ad infinitum. It remains a dose, and the dose, therefore, remains the poison.

You claim (in the link above):

Science has come a long way in that past five centuries [since Paracelsus]. Now we know: it’s not the dose that makes the poison, but also the timing of the dose, the size of the person and the toxicity of chemical mixtures — factors that aren’t considered in typical risk assessments.

This further compounds your lack of understanding of the meaning of “dose”. If you actually took the time to read a proper scientific study, you would see that the “dose” is always expressed in terms of weight of substance per kilo of bodyweight of the test subject per time period, e.g.  50mg/kg bodyweight/day. In other words, the dose means all the things you claim it doesn’t – quantity, timing AND the size of the person/subject species. (If a substance is suspected to have adverse effects during pregnancy, for example, it is generally tested at that stage in the test species, so the timing IS considered.)

Also, given that there are millions of chemical substances in existence, I am curious to know on what basis it would be decided which of the trillions upon trillions of different possible combinations should be tested in your quest to discover the toxicity of chemical mixtures. This is yet another example of the lack of understanding of the real world. If a particular combination of substances is suspected to be more toxic than the individual parts, for any specific reason, this could, and would, be tested.

I have no idea what constitutes a “typical risk assessment” in your world (that would be an interesting article to read), but I can give a typical risk assessment from the EU’s Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety (SCCS) that includes all of those things you say are omitted from these assessments – Clarification on Opinion SCCS/1348/10 in the light of the Danish clause of safeguard banning the use of parabens in cosmetic products intended for children under three years of age – all the studies considered in this extensive risk assessment quote the dose in terms of weight of substance per kilo of body weight of the test subject per time period.

This has not suddenly changed, and there is no “new thinking” as you attempt to suggest. Many toxicological studies are carried out on both a single dose basis and a repeat dose basis (to assess the effects of long term exposure), and have been for many decades. I hope that you will now stop claiming this as some wonderful new insight as it is simply not correct. Moreover, I trust that you will actually publish a retraction of your claim as it is clearly and totally incorrect, and serves only to mislead those who do not understand science.

Dene Godfrey

I must confess. One of my favorite things about being a chemist is getting to say long words and knowing what they mean. I loved learning the IUPAC system for naming chemicals.

That’s why I found ingredient lists on shampoos & conditioners baffling. I didn’t know what most of the chemicals were. They were similar to IUPAC terms, but not quite. It turns out that the cosmetic industry doesn’t use the IUPAC naming system. Instead, they follow their own system as laid out in the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) dictionary. This volume is produced by the main cosmetic industry trade group called the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC, formerly the CTFA but we’ll save that for another time).

List of Ingredients

The first thing to know about cosmetic ingredients is the ingredient list. In the United States, every personal care and cosmetic product is supposed to have their ingredients listed. In the business, we called it the LOI (list of ingredients). Any ingredient above 1% is required to be listed in order of concentration (by weight). At 1% or below, the ingredients can be listed in any order. Typically, preservatives and dyes are listed at the end. In a future post, we’ll show how this labeling requirement can help you formulate new products.

Any ingredient above 1% is required to be listed in order of concentration (by weight).

To be proper, companies are supposed to follow the naming conventions as laid out in the INCI.

Cosmetic Ingredient Naming Conventions

While many chemical names in the INCI seem arbitrary, there are some standard rules. The following will help you make heads or tails out of the ingredients on most LOIs. We can’t list all the conventions here, but we’ll point out the major ones and give examples.

Common Names

When they first came up with the INCI (originally called the CTFA Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary) in 1973, many cosmetic ingredients already had names. These common names were incorporated into the dictionary even though they didn’t follow any specific naming rules. Therefore, we use Glycerin instead of the more accurate Glycerol and Menthol instead of (1R, 2S, 5R)-2-isopropyl-5-methylcyclohexanol. Common names are also used for various natural ingredients like Lanolin and Beeswax.

Stem Names

Probably the most important thing to learn about naming cosmetic ingredients is to memorize this list of hydrocarbon stem names. It’s a bit different than the IUPAC.

So, if you have a 16-carbon alcohol, you call it Cetyl Alcohol instead of Hexadecanol. For an 18-carbon acid, you would use Stearic Acid instead of Ocatdecanoic acid.

Mixtures

You’ll run into names like Cocamidopropyl Betaine that don’t match any of the stem names. This is because the raw material uses coconut oil as a starting raw material. In these cases, you use an abbreviation of that starting material. Other ones you might see include Palm Kernel oil, Soybean oil and Sunflower oil. In a future post, we’ll show the fatty acid distribution of these materials.

Derivatives

The INCI tries to follow established conventions from other systems. For example, when you want to name an ether, you take the stem names from both fatty acids and add the term ether. Thus, a molecule made with a 14-carbon and 16-carbon chains connected by an oxygen would be called Cetyl Myristyl Ether. An ester of the same molecules would be Cetyl Myristate.

Nitrogen Containing

Hydrocarbons that contain nitrogen are amides and have the phrase included in their name. Therefore, Lauramide is used to describe a 12-Carbon molecule (Lauryl) that has a NH2 group on its end. If the Nitrogen has other hydrocarbons attached, those are also named. So, Lauramide DEA would be that same 12-Carbon molecule attached to a Nitrogen which also has Ethyl groups attached to it.  When these Nitrogen containing compounds are turned into salts, the suffix “-monium” is added. So, a 16-Carbon attached to a Nitrogen with three methyl groups is Cetrimonium Chloride.

Polymers

A variety of conventions are used to name polymers. For Nitrogen containing polymers, the term “Polyquaternium” is used. There is also a number associated with the ingredient but it doesn’t refer to anything chemically. It just happens to be the order in which the material was registered.

Other polymers use common abbreviations. PEG is Polyethylene Glycol. PPG is Polypropylene Glycol, etc. Then a number is included to refer to the moles of ethoxylation in the polymer.

Silicones

For silicone containing materials, terms like Dimethicone, Cyclomethicone and amodimethicone are used. Whenever you see some form of these words in a chemical name, you know there is some silicone in it.

Colorants

Ten years ago, you used to see the abbreviation FD&C in front of many chemical colorants. Today, however, the INCI has adopted a simplified method for naming colors. They just list the color followed by a number (e.g. Yellow 5). This doesn’t tell you anything about the chemical composition but you can get the structure by looking it up in the INCI. An alternative naming system is the EU one in which each colorant is assigned a 5-digit chemical index (CI) number. Yellow 5 in the EU is called CI 19140.

Miscellaneous Rules

There are many other rules that you’ll have to learn over time. To give you a flavor here are a few more.

1. Water is just called Water. (Not deionized or purified or anything else. Just water)
2. Fragrance is called Fragrance no matter what compounds are used to make it. This is changing but for now, it’s correct.
3. Botanicals use the Latin name of the plant or part plus the term Extract. So, if you use an ingredient taken from the leaf of a lemon, the ingredient is called Citrus Medica Limonum (Lemon) Leaf Extract.

Conclusion

The naming of raw materials in cosmetics share some characteristics with the IUPAC system you learned in Organic Chemistry. However, there are many differences and for some things it is impossible to determine the chemical structure from just the name. For more information, your best bet is to go to your company’s library (or your city’s) and take a look at the latest version of the INCI.

Do you have any ingredient naming questions? Leave a comment below and let us know.

What do we know about the safety of cosmetics?  We know that the FDA regulates cosmetics.  We know the CIR assesses the safety of ingredients by studying all of the available science in order to make their determination. They labor over the data and then meet in a public, open meeting, to discuss their findings.  We know there are scientific studies to support the safety of cosmetics.  We know that the activists don’t have the science.

Personal Care Truth will be celebrating its 2nd Anniversary in May. Kristin and I, PCT co-founders, have worked very hard in creating a place where truthful information, that is backed by scientific facts, are shared with consumers and industry people alike. We are grateful for the knowledgeable experts, and guest authors, who share in our vision to provide truthful information backed by scientific facts.  Our numbers speak volumes.  Since launching on May 17, 2010, our numbers reflect the following:

Unique Visitors  -  169,359

Page Views   -  2,650,006

Number of Hits  -  10,858,327

Number of Visitors  -  454,608

It’s obvious we have an audience and are gaining momentum.  We have combated the “vested interest” claim many times in our posts and comments. I’m here today to say we no longer care about the “vested interest” claims. Why? Because we know who started Personal Care Truth. As cosmetic manufacturers, we were, and still are, tired of the misinformation, hype and fear mongering by organizations, that did not, nor do they presently, have the science to support their outlandish claims.  Personal Care Truth has been called negative because we call out the fear mongers.  I see it as keeping them in check.  Why on earth shouldn’t we highlight the organizations spreading fear?  Their actions are the reason Kristin and I co-founded Personal Care Truth.  To allow them to spread misinformation, on a daily basis, and not be held accountable, is not a reality I want any part of.

Safe cosmetics are always on our minds and we are determined to make sure you have the truth so you can make an informed decision about the products you use on yourself and your family members.

Last year, I had the opportunity to interview F. Alan Andersen, Ph.D., with the Cosmetic Ingredient Review {CIR} and Don Havery with the FDA Office of Cosmetics and Colors, in regards to safe cosmetics. Today, I’m happy to share this interview with Lezlee Westine, President & CEO of the Personal Care Products Council {PCPC}.

What is the Personal Care Products Council?
The Personal Care Products Council is the leading trade organization representing the interests of more than 600 companies that develop and sell cosmetics and personal care products.  Our members provide consumers with cosmetics and other products like shampoo, sunscreen, deodorant, body lotion and many products that consumers trust and depend on every day.

Does the PCPC care about cosmetic safety?
Absolutely!  Thousands of scientific and technical experts in the industry are dedicated to testing, evaluating and monitoring these products for safety and efficacy.  Our industry works closely with lawmakers and regulators to ensure product safety compliance.  It is this continuing commitment to safety that has driven us over the years to advocate for additional funding and resources for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – the regulatory authority over cosmetics. More importantly, our members not only include some of America’s most trusted and beloved brands but are also consumers of their own products.

What is the one major misconception about PCPC?
While the vast majority of American consumers knows and trusts our member companies, a small but vocal and well-funded band of special interests has made a living by alleging that many ingredients in our products are unregulated.  This is patently false.

The stigma is that the PCPC only represents “big business.” Is this true?
No. We represent the full spectrum of businesses – from global companies to smaller “mom-and-pop” operations.  In fact, approximately half of our membership has sales of less than $1M in the U.S.  Furthermore, we have empowered tens of thousands of women and men who operate their own direct selling businesses.

What is the PCPC doing to inform consumers about the safety of their companies’ products? About the industry as a whole?  About the organization?
One of our most significant endeavors was creating a consumer safety web site, www.cosmeticsinfo.org. Recognizing that consumers want and expect more information and transparency about the products they use for themselves and their families, our goal was to provide real value to those who want to get the facts and the science – not the hyperbolic, emotional and inaccurate claims made – about our products.  The site is a comprehensive online resource for those looking for information about cosmetic product and ingredient safety or for those simply wanting more information about the products they use.

We also have been very aggressive in responding to misinformation that is promoted online and through the news media.  In 2011, we launched a three part video series to help balance some of the information about our products that lives on the Internet.  “Break through the Noise” is a video series meant to do just that – help consumers weed through the online “clutter” and see another point of view. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV2qB0pCQkM&feature=fvsr.

We have received positive feedback about the videos and hope to use more of this exciting platform in the future.  We are also engaged with our stakeholders on Twitter.

Who are the other faces behind the scenes of the PCPC?
The Personal Care Products Council has a dedicated professional staff that reflects the various needs of our membership.  Our staff consists of scientists, including toxicologists, chemists, and microbiologists, as well as public affairs and government affairs experts, lawyers and regulatory professionals and those working in international and global affairs.

Does the PCPC employ scientists to ensure cosmetic safety?
Not only do our scientists provide expertise to our members, they have been instrumental in helping bring common sense and perspective to the debate over product safety.  Our member companies also employ hundreds of scientists and technical experts who work to ensure the safety and efficacy of cosmetic and personal care products.

Is the Personal Care Products Council affiliated with the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR)?  If so, how?
The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) is an independent body of scientists and physicians that assesses the safety of cosmetic ingredients used in the U.S.  CIR and the Personal Care Products Council are separate entities, although PCPC funds CIR’s infrastructure – things like office equipment, administrative staff and other operational expenses.

The expert panel meets quarterly in open, public meetings where they release their findings and then those findings are published in the peer reviewed International Journal of Toxicology and on the CIR web site.  The FDA, the Consumer Federation of America and the Personal Care Products Council are non-voting members of CIR but have an active role in the discussion process.  No other body like it exists in the world.

In 2010, the PCPC introduced a statement in response to the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 that was introduced by Representatives Jan Schakowsky, Edward Markey and Tammy Baldwin. The PCPC proposed the following:

1.) Enhanced FDA Registration.  It requires that personal care products manufacturers that market their products in the United States comply with the following:

• Register with FDA all facilities where those products are manufactured.
• File with FDA product ingredient reports disclosing all of the ingredients used in those products; and
• Report to FDA any serious unexpected adverse event with a personal care product experienced by consumers.

2.) New Process to Set Safety Levels for Trace Constituents. When requested or on its own initiative, FDA would be required to establish safe levels for trace constituents in cosmetic ingredients and products.

3.) New FDA Ingredient Review Process. Once a request has been made, or FDA unilaterally determines action is warranted, the agency would be required to review the safety of any ingredient intended for use in a personal care product and set safety use levels for such ingredient on a specified timetable.

4.) New FDA Oversight of CIR Findings. FDA would be required to review current and future findings on the safety of cosmetic ingredients by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel and determine if these findings are correct. If there are instances in which it determines a CIR finding is not correct, FDA would determine by guidance or regulations if, or under what conditions, the ingredient can be used safely in personal care products;

5.) FDA-Issued Good Manufacturing Practices. FDA would establish industry-wide “Good Manufacturing Practices” requirements.

Is the PCPC planning to announce similar proposals in response to the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011?
First, our proposals were not a direct response to the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011. We have been advocating and working on measures to modernize regulations and bolster resources for the FDA to regulate our industry for some time now.  Ironically, the activists typically lag behind our efforts and on occasion will even co-opt our recommendations as their own.

That said, we are continuing to pursue our reform agenda in 2012.  As everyone knows, this past year has seen tremendous gridlock on Capitol Hill and that has made proceeding on our reforms in a bipartisan way somewhat difficult.  We are hopeful we can accomplish our goals through some form of legislation.

What is the PCPC’s response to people in the industry, and consumers asking why the “big guys” haven’t come out publicly in regards to the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011?
Our response is simple.  The industry has been advocating for many years that FDA regulation of cosmetics and personal care products be modernized and enhanced in a way that relies on sound science, is not overly burdensome to FDA or to business, and continues to allow the innovation and improvements to products that consumers want.

The bill introduced by Rep. Jan Schakowsky and others known as “The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010,” (H.R. 5786) is fraught with scientific, economic and public policy flaws.  Unlike industry’s proposal, H.R. 5786 is impractical, does nothing to advance public health and would severely limit product choices for consumers.  It also creates a massive federal bureaucracy to review safety information on ingredients like “water.”  It would eliminate most small cosmetic manufacturers because of its onerous regulations.

Is there anything else you would like our readers to know?
We appreciate their interest in our issues, our efforts on behalf of companies of all sizes, and share their concerns about product safety.  To fully understand safety issues, it is critical that people understand the connection between exposure levels and risk.  Critics of our industry employ a misleading tactic when they allege a particular product contains a chemical known to “cause cancer.”  This can be said of everything on the planet – from the water we drink to the foods we eat.   For example, we are accused of putting lead in lipstick.  However, what is never told is that lead is not intentionally added to lipstick but is naturally occurring in the water and pigments found in nature.  FDA has monitored and tested lipstick for lead and has concluded that the very low lead levels in lipstick are safe.  Consumers don’t hear that they would need to EAT two or three tubes of lipstick every day for more than 70 years to have an exposure level of any significance.

So our parting advice would be for your readers to inform themselves, look at the science behind the products they use and get the facts.

Thanks so much for allowing us to speak to them.

As I was reviewing my Google alerts, I was disturbed by all the fear about cosmetics, spreading like wild fire. Whatever happened to common sense? The body can be fickle and allergic reactions do exist. This doesn’t mean that the product you are using is not safe. It means your body doesn’t like it. So, what’s a guy or gal to do? Common sense would tell you to stop using the product. I’m allergic to aspirin and I found out the hard way. Growing up, I never had a problem with aspirin. Then, one day, in my late 20′s, I had an allergic reaction and went into shock. Did I sound the alarm that aspirin will kill you? No, I use common sense and don’t take it. Aspirin helps a great many people. Are they supposed to stop taking it just because by body rejects it?

Contrary to popular belief from the fear mongers, cosmetics are safe. They are regulated by the FDA. Could the industry regulations use an upgrade? Most definitely. Spreading fear that there are “harmful chemicals” in cosmetics is nothing more than a way to boost the pocketbooks of the activists. They are preying on the fears of unsuspecting consumers and making a pretty penny doing so. Manufacturers are not adding “toxic” chemicals to their products. How much sense does that make? None. Why on earth would they put harmful ingredients in their products, knowing full well their family members will more than likely use those same products. Do you believe manufacturers are out to harm their family members too?

I urge you to do the research. Look for peer reviewed studies about ingredients in cosmetics. Natural does not always mean safe. Products that contain water must be preserved. Using a product that is poorly or not preserved, is more harmful to you than one preserved with a synthetic ingredient. When looking at a product label, know that ingredients are listed in descending order by dominance. Product labeling guidelines can be found on the FDA site.

When PCT first launched, we posted several articles per day. I’m sure it felt like we were bombarding our readers. Kristin and I were still running off the steam from the Colorado legislative session in regards to the Safe Personal Care Products Act, which was voted down based on no science. We have been keeping up with legislation to make sure consumers know the facts. What we learned from the Colorado legislative session is that the CFSC and the EWG don’t have the science, and they may never have the science. Here’s the truth, ‘Straight From the Horse’s Mouth‘.

Do you understand risk? Risk = Hazard + Exposure. Scratch a little deeper to understand risk more and how activists are scaring consumers with hazard. A recent discussion I started on LinkedIn ended up being centered around yet another video set out to scare consumers by using “The Precautionary Principle”. Check out this great post by Emily Caswell, ‘The Precautionary Principle: A Cautionary Tale‘.

Before you sound the alarm that cosmetics are harmful, do the research yourself. Look for peer-reviewed studies that support the results, not just because Dr. so and so said so. Demand to see the results.  Be open minded. In the end, only you are responsible for what you put on your skin, and that of your family members.

Personal Care Truth is looking forward to another great year! 2011 has been a roller coaster of a year in all aspects of our lives. The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 failed to go anywhere, and I am quite confident we have not seen the last of it. You can count on PCT to keep an eye on this far reaching piece of legislation to rear its ugly head in 2012. In the meantime, we will continue to provide truthful information about personal care products and cosmetics, backed by scientific facts.

As we say goodbye to 2011, Personal Care Truth would like to thank all who contributed to the site through their posts, comments and donations. Kristin and I never dreamed that PCT would reach the level of interest it has.

We introduced our Forum in the 4th quarter of this year, and we hope it will become a place where everyone will feel comfortable discussing the issues important to them, regardless of where they stand. Kristin and I have always supported complete transparency and open discussions. As we’ve mentioned numerous times, as long as our Blog Comment Policy isn’t violated, your comment will see the light of day.

Thanks again for making 2011 a fabulous year! Personal Care Truth wishes you and yours a Happy and safe New Year!

Personal Care Truth wishes you and yours

a safe and Merry Christmas!

]]> http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/12/merry-christmas/feed/ 0 http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/12/you-dont-need-a-market-shift-to-buy-safe-cosmetics/ http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/12/you-dont-need-a-market-shift-to-buy-safe-cosmetics/#comments Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:00:27 +0000 Guest http://personalcaretruth.com/?p=4845

The worrywarts at the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (a project affiliated with the Environmental Working Group) released their “Market Shift” report at the beginning of the month, and it contained what we’ve come to expect from these organic-obsessed activists. Whether they’re raising scares about pesticides later debunked by peer-reviewed studies, trumping up scares about drinking water, or charging that retinol (a.k.a. Vitamin A) in sunscreens can cause cancer, EWG and its allies use public scientific illiteracy and irrational fear of chemicals to push an organic, anti-corporate agenda. It’s worth keeping in mind that 79 percent of members of the Society of Toxicologists recently surveyed agree that EWG overstates the health risks of chemicals.

The new Campaign for Safe Cosmetics report claims that “industry [can] put virtually any chemical into cosmetics with … no monitoring of health effects.” This statement is misleading at best. The FDA regulates the labeling and manufacture of cosmetic products and must approve almost all color additives before products reach the market. The FDA is empowered to test samples of cosmetics to ensure proper procedures are being followed in response to public complaints. Under current law, cosmetics manufacturers are required to substantiate the safety of their products and the ingredients in them BEFORE they are marketed.  If FDA finds that an unsafe product has been marketed, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act provides for severe penalties for offending manufacturers, including fines, seizures, and prosecution.

EWG might not feel that these tests constitute “monitoring” because science isn’t confirming the activists’ worries. (There’s a reason CSC and EWG talk about “chemicals” and not reported cases of actual harm.) In response to a CSC scare campaign targeting lipsticks for containing small traces of lead, the FDA conducted scientific tests to determine if the lead levels posed a threat. The FDA concluded, “We do not consider the lead levels we found in the lipsticks to be a safety concern.” It also was scathing in its assessment of the CSC’s journalist-bait marketing of their report, calling CSC’s comparison of lead limits for candy to lead found in lipstick “not scientifically valid.” (After all, you ingest candy. Hopefully nobody’s eating lipstick.)

CSC also touted research showing “chemicals with the potential to disrupt hormones” in teenage girls’ urine samples. Unfortunately for the scaremongers, the FDA throws cold water on CSC’s desired implications from one such chemical class, phthalates: “FDA noted that the CDC survey report in 2001 was not intended to make an association between the presence of environmental chemicals in human urine and disease.” The agency concludes, “FDA does not have compelling evidence that phthalates, as used in cosmetics, pose a safety risk.” Science-based research, 1; un-contextualized scare campaigns against polysyllables, 0.

The moral of these scare campaigns is, yet again, that the dose makes the poison. Following the scare trends of oft-debunked activists is not going to ensure that consumers are any safer; instead, consumers should know the truth about scientific research.

_____________________

Personal Care Truth has permission from The Center for Consumer Freedom to re-post this article. To read in its original posting, click here.

In a recent blog post an Environmental Working Group (EWG) research assistant suggests that lavender oil may be unsafe, saying: “the science is still evolving and safety can’t be assumed.” The science is still evolving? Isn’t that true of anything? Are we just sowing the seeds of doubt here?

I have written a number of posts about the EWG and sloppy science. Their modus operandi involves highlighting negative information, along with liberal use of the phrase “has been linked to”. Factual information is so often distorted that their reputation in scientific circles is all but worthless. I have never read an EWG report in which both sides of an argument are presented. The problem I have with this approach is that the EWG audience is consumers, who have neither the scientific training nor the knowledge and expertise to challenge what is being said. In spite of this many do, because they instinctively feel that something is not right.

Skin allergy
Lavender oil “has been linked to” allergic reactions, it’s true. But how strong is that link? After all, if you look hard enough, you will find at least one allergic reaction report for almost every substance used in cosmetics. Cherry picking a few negative studies is not a useful way to help consumers assess product safety. What we need is a comparative rating that clearly flags high-risk ingredients, along with practical safety guidelines.

“Allergy epidemics” have occurred in the past, most often with preservatives. As use becomes more extensive, adverse reactions escalate, and eventually the substance is either banned or restricted. In spite of widespread use, this is not happening with lavender, which has been the most popular essential oil for aromatherapy use since the 1970s.

The EWG post is written by Swati Sharma. She tells us that: “Despite its ubiquity in cosmetics, researchers in Japan who compared eight essential oils found that lavender caused the greatest number of skin allergies.” No it did not, unless you only look at two of the nine years of the study! The Japanese researchers tested six essential oils, one absolute and two essential oil constituents. The essential oil that produced the greatest number of adverse reactions was ylang-ylang (tested at 5%), followed by geranium (tested at 20%) followed by lavender (also tested at 20%). And since all the other substances were tested at either 5% or 2%, the relative risk of each cannot be compared anyway. The higher the test concentration, the greater will be the number of reactions. And, the Japanese subjects were all dermatology patients “suspected of cosmetic dermatitis”, an especially high-risk group.

Considering that the lavender oil was patch tested at 20% in a high-risk population, and that only 1.4% (21 of 1,483) of patients had an adverse reaction, this does not suggest a significant allergen. Other research points to lavender oil presenting a very low risk. When 50 healthy volunteers were patch tested with the undiluted oil, there were no reactions (Meneghini et al 1971). Similarly, none were produced in 25 volunteers tested with lavender at 10% (Opdyke 1976 p451). In a study of 200 dermatitis patients in Poland, none were sensitive to 2% lavender oil (Rudzki et al 1976). In a Danish study, two of 217 dermatitis patients (0.9%) tested positive to 2% lavender oil (Veien et al 2004). Tested at 1%, lavender oil produced no reactions in 273 dermatitis patients (Meneghini et al 1971).

Taken together, these results show that two of 690 dermatitis patients (0.3%) reacted to lavender oil when patch tested at 1% or 2%. However, extrapolating from patch test data on dermatology patients to the general population is notoriously difficult (especially since the conditions of patch testing exaggerate risk) and the actual number of people with adverse reactions to lavender is very much less than 0.3%. Over a 15 year period (1986-2000) there have only been five cases of lavender oil allergy reported worldwide (Brandão 1986, De Groot 1996, Keane et al 2000, Schaller & Korting 1995, Selvaag et al 1995) and three were people with multiple allergies. This is in contrast to millions of bottles of undiluted lavender oil being sold to consumers per annum, and millions more personal care products containing lavender oil.

From all of the above we can conclude that a 20% concentration of lavender oil might be risky for Japanese consumers with cosmetic allergies, but 2% is not a risk to anyone, and even undiluted lavender is safe to use on healthy skin. Not only is lavender a very low-risk skin allergen, it possesses anti-allergic properties. Topically applied, the oil inhibited immediate-type allergic reactions by inhibiting the release of histamine from mast cells (Kim et al 1999). How is this possible? Probably because in most cases, allergies only occur from the use of oxidized lavender oil. The unoxidized oil is anti-allergic, and is even moderately antioxidant (Wei and Shibamoto 2007).

Oxidation
Sharma tells us that linalyl acetate, a major constituent of lavender oil, can oxidize in the presence of atmospheric oxygen, “forming allergens that can cause contact dermatitis” (Sköld et al 2008). Indeed it can, as can linalool, the other major constituent of lavender oil (Sköld et al 2004). However, these are theoretical risks, not actual risks, and lavender oil oxidation is a process that takes many months, even years. What this research suggests is that products containing lavender oil should be protected from oxidation by the addition of antioxidants, and that very old products should be discarded. The International Fragrance Association (IFRA) does not have a regulation for lavender oil, but it does for linalool. Referring to linalool-rich essential oils, the IFRA guideline recommends the addition of an antioxidant: “The addition of 0.1% BHT or a-tocopherol has shown great efficiency” (IFRA 2009).

Next, Sharma informs us that “lavender oil may be toxic to human skin cells” though curiously no reference is given (it’s Prashar et al 2004). I addressed this issue in a previous post about lavender, in which I explain how we know that the oil is not a skin irritant, and is not toxic to skin cells when applied to human skin.

Hormone disruption
Finally, Sharma raises the question of lavender oil and hormone disruption, an issue I have also addressed previously, in this article. To sum up, there was no established link between lavender oil and breast growth in three pre-perbertal boys, but lavender oil did show a weak in vitro estrogenic action in two (of the four possible) types of in vitro test for estrogenic activity (Henley et al 2007). None of this establishes that lavender oil disrupts hormones. To quote Diel et al (1999): “…even a combined use of several in vitro test systems is not able to predict the occurring action of a substance in the organism.” In other research, lavender oil was significantly toxic to human breast cancer cells (Zu et al 2010) suggesting that it would prevent breast cancer, and not increase risk.

Summary points
Consumer products containing lavender oil may benefit from the addition of an antioxidant, such as alpha-tocopherol. This should be used at 0.1-0.2% (note that using more is not more effective).

Bottles of lavender oil, or products containing lavender oil, that are more than 12 months old (after first use) should be discarded if they no longer smell fresh.

There is a theoretical risk of skin allergy from lavender oil, but this risk is extremely low. Restricting the percentage of lavender oil in leave-on products (skin creams, lotions, gels) to 2% would be over-cautious, but combined with the addition of an antioxidant, will make a product super-safe.

Lavender oil has a weak in vitro estrogenic activity, but there is no reason to believe that this translates to a hormone-disrupting effect in humans.

References
Brandão FM 1986 Occupational allergy to lavender oil. Contact Dermatitis 15:249-250

De Groot AC 1996 Airborne allergic contact dermatitis from tea tree oil. Contact Dermatitis 35:304-305

Diel P, Smolnikar K, Michna H 1999 In vitro test systems for the evaluation of the estrogenic activity of natural products. Planta Medica 65:197-203

Keane FM, Smith HR, White IR et al 2000 Occupational allergic contact dermatitis in two aromatherapists. Contact Dermatitis 43:49-51

Henley DV, Lipson N, Korach KS et al 2007 Prebubertal gynecomastia linked to
lavender and tea tree oils. New England Journal of Medicine 365: 479-485

IFRA 2009 Standards, including amendments as of October 14^th 2009. International Fragrance Association, Brussels. http://www.ifraorg.org

Kim HM, Cho SH 1999 Lavender oil inhibits immediate-type allergic reaction in mice and rats. Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmacology 51:221-226

Meneghini CL, Rantuccio F, Lomuto M 1971 Additives, vehicles and active drugs of topical medicaments as causes of delayed-type allergic dermatitis. Dermatologica 143:137-147

Opdyke DL 1976 Monographs on fragrance raw materials. Food & Cosmetics Toxicology 14 supplement

Prashar A, Locke IC, Evans CS 2004 Cytotoxicity of lavender oil and its major components to human skin cells. Cell Proliferation 37:221-229

Rudzki E, Grzywa Z, Brud WS 1976 Sensitivity to 35 essential oils. Contact Dermatitis 2:196-200

Schaller M, Korting HC 1995 Allergic airborne contact dermatitis from essential oils used in aromatherapy. Clinical & Experimental Dermatology 20:143-145

Selvaag E, Holm JO, Thune P 1995 Allergic contact dermatitis in an aromatherapist with multiple sensitizations to essential oils. Contact Dermatitis 33:354-355

Sköld M, Börje A, Harambasic E et al 2004 Contact allergens formed on air exposure of linalool. Identification and quantification of primary and secondary oxidation products and the effect on skin sensitization. Chemical Research in Toxicology 17:1697-1705

Sköld M, Hagvall L, Karlberg AT et al 2008 Autoxidation of linalyl acetate, the main component of lavender oil, creates potent contact allergens. Contact Dermatitis 58:9-14

Sugiura M, Hayakawa R, Kato Y et al 2000 Results of patch testing with lavender oil in Japan. Contact Dermatitis 43:157-160

Veien NK, Rosner K, Skovgaard GL 2004 Is tea tree oil an important contact allergen? Contact Dermatitis 50:378-379

Wei A, Shibamoto T 2007 Antioxidant activities and volatile constituents of various essential oils. Journal of Agricultural & Food Chemistry 55:1737-1742

Zu Y, Yu H, Liang L et al 2010 Activities of ten essential oils towards Propionibacterium acnes and PC-3, A-549 and MCF-7 cancer cells. Molecules 15:3200-3210

The quest for eternal youth has seen us climb the tallest of swiss mountains for sweet apples and diving the depths of the vastest seas for mineral rich cellulite busters but good as these things are, some people feel like this is all just too much effort.  No, these days the lazy beauty buff is heading to their local lab for a spot of biotechnology!

Biomimetic peptides sound scary  and complex but they need not be and with a little bit of science know-how paired with close observation of nature some amazing things are indeed possible. So let’s take a closer look:

Quick Biology Lesson:

Amino Acids come in 22 standard shapes and sizes and these join together to form peptides and proteins.  Amino Acids are critical to many metabolic processes and are essential for our health and vitality. Some are made by the body and others (essential amino acids) can’t and have to be supplied by the diet.

Peptides.  The word peptide comes from the Greek word ‘to digest’ which is appropriate as peptides generally break things down or initiate one reaction or another.   The cosmetics industry have found many jobs for these chemicals including turning off pigment production, up-regulating cell regeneration and stimulating circulation but more about that later. Peptides are bigger than amino acids and are highly specific in their action but they are smaller than Proteins.

Proteins are coiled up chains of peptides and as such they are very large. Their structure can be damaged by heat or pH change so these molecules are quite sensitive. Proteins are very useful in cosmetics where we use them to help maintain a healthy skin structure.

Nature VS Science

The cosmetics industry has been watching the effects of these powerful chemicals on the skin for years and have, over the past few years developed techniques for making nature-identical peptides in the lab.  These ‘laboratory-prepared’ peptides look, feel and act the same as those made naturally in the body. In other words they mimic nature – BIOMIMETIC.  They are usually made using naturally sourced amino acids and are made under very clean and tight manufacturing processes.

So, if they look natural and our bodies can make them why bother buying them?

As we age our biological processes slow down. Coupled with environmental factors such as sun and wind damage our skin processes may slow down way before their time.  Therefore the only way to up-regulate or BOOST the skins rejuvenation processes is to stimulate it by adding or doing something to it.

And can these ingredients work?

There are lots of different biomimetic peptides on the market and while some have brilliantly detailed and thorough clinical trial data to back them up others don’t.  On top of that the ability of the active to work is largely dependent on it reaching the target site in the skin and this comes down to both the skill of the chemist and the practical constraints of the formulation – it has to be cost-effective, feel good and be relatively easy to make and reproduce.

So do they work?

Given the right circumstances YES and you only have to google peptides in cosmetics to see how many brands are using this technology.

So what’s next?

The cosmetics industry is always evolving ways of creating actives that work faster and better than before so who knows but one thing is for sure, the future is probably going to come out of a test tube and I’m all for that.