• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About Experts
    • Amanda Foxon-Hill
    • Cindy Jones
    • Colin Sanders
    • Dene Godfrey
    • Doug Schoon
    • Katherine Corkill
    • Paula Begoun
    • Perry Romanowski
    • Robert Tisserand
  • About Us
    • About Kristin
    • About Lisa
    • Mission Statement
  • Contact
    • Submit Article
    • Submit Feedback
  • Press
  • Advertising
  • Resources
    • California Resources
    • Canada Resources
    • EPA Resources
    • European Union Resources
    • FDA Resources
    • Natural and Organic Resources
    • Other Resources
    • US Department of Health Resources
    • We Like
  • Support Us
  • Forum
    • Member Messaging

Personal Care Truth or Scare

cosmetic safety information based on scientific research

  • Ask the Experts
  • Information
  • Ingredients
  • Legislation
  • Personal Care News
  • Regulations
  • Science
You are here: Home / Archives for carcinogen

carcinogen

What’s in My Makeup Bag? — Junkscience

November 16, 2011 By Guest 3 Comments

The Oregon Environmental Council and the regional government for the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area recently released a survey of young women regarding their personal care product use, entitled What’s in My Makeup Bag? This report suggests that the young women are uninformed about the chemical risks posed by their makeup. But rather than offer women and the public-at-large sound and balanced information about cosmetics and health, the survey authors push misinformation and junk science.

CEI has already debunked most of their points in various publications, with particular detail to the cosmetics industry in our recent paper on cosmetics: The True Story of Cosmetics: Exposing the Risks of the Smear Campaign. Our report includes information on chemicals that greens never mention. For example, greens never point out how the chemicals they want to eliminate are necessary to prevent the development of dangerous bacteria or other pathogens in consumer products. You can learn more about that in The True Story of Cosmetics.

Take a look at the key chemical “villains” in the What’s in My Makeup Bag? report, and you will see how misguided the activist claims really are:

Claim about Parabens: “They [parabens] can mimic the hormone estrogen, and in animal studies, they have been linked to cancer and shown to interfere with reproduction at high doses.”

Reality Check:  So what? Rodents get cancer from lots of things when administered high doses — including carrots, broccoli, and lots of other healthy foods. Rodent studies are of limited value because human metabolic processes differ from that of rodents, and our exposures to parabens are thousands of times lower. Check the chapter, “The True Causes of Cancer,” in our The Environmental Source, and see why you need not fear trace chemicals. As for mimicking hormones, consider the fact that the potency of these chemicals is too low to have any impacts. The CEI study, Nature’s Hormone Factory, demonstrates that we have more to fear from eating peas, which contain far more potent “endocrine mimicking” chemicals — complements of Mother Nature. Of note parabens are chemicals used to ward off the development of dangerous bacteria. For more information on parabens see: The True Story of Cosmetics.

 

Claim about Fragrances: “We know that fragrances may contain allergens, sensitizers, neurotoxins and ingredients that interfere with hormones.”

Reality Check: Frankly Scarlett, some people are also allergic or sensitive to flowers or peanuts.  That does not mean the rest of us should not experience the joy of a lovely aroma! The simple fact is, everything is life is made of chemicals — some smell good, some don’t. What is wrong with taking the nicer scents from Mother Nature’s inventory and incorporating them into our consumer products? Nothing. There isn’t any compelling evidence that such scents at the low doses found in consumer products have serious adverse human impacts. In addition, the fragrance industry employs a host of privately funded scientific review panels to ensure a high level of product safety, which is detailed in a CEI paper on green chemistry scheduled for release later this week. After all, the goal of business is to gain repeat customers — not to poison them! Watch our website for details about the green chemistry paper. And again, trace exposures to fragrances or other chemicals are unlikely to have any hormonal effects on humans because both the doses and potency are too low. See Nature’s Hormone Factory.

Claim about Phthalates: “In animal and human studies, phthalates have been linked with a whole host of health concerns, including birth defects, asthma, early puberty and low sperm counts.”

Reality Check: Greens have been after phthalates for decades despite scant evidence of any problems from use in consumer products, and amidst considerable evidence that these products include many important public health and other benefits. CEI  debunked such claims a decade ago, but greens won’t let the issue go despite the paucity of evidence that these chemicals pose any health problems.  More recently, a study on PVC safety conducted by the European Commission’s Health and Consumer Directorate-General concluded: “So far, there is no conclusive scientific evidence that DEHP [a category of phthalates] exposure via medical treatments has harmful effects in humans.” Again, see Nature’s Hormone Factory.

Claim about Formaldehyde: Formaldehyde is “is known as a probable human carcinogen. It can also cause skin and lung irritation.”

Reality Check: A problem with many governmental cancer classifications is they don’t mean very much. They don’t bother to consider actual risk levels to humans based on exposure and dose. Formaldehyde is a concern for workers exposed to high levels of the substance over long periods of time — exposure that can be managed by proper worker protection practices to bring risks close to zero. But most humans are exposed only to trace levels every day in our food (mushrooms and many food naturally contain formaldehyde) and air (cooking and consumer products release trace amounts). There is no evidence that these trace exposures have any serious adverse public health impacts. Instead, formaldehyde has health benefits in cosmetics where it acts as a preservative, preventing adverse reactions related to spoilage. See the case study in the appendix of The True Story of Cosmetics.

Claim about BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole):
“The U.S. National Toxicology Program, a part of the National Institutes of Health, has classified BHA as ‘reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen’ based on evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.”

Reality Check: Again, if that’s a problem, we also need to stop eating carrots, apples, and more foods because they have the same effect. There are some serious problems associated with the murky science at the National Toxicology program. CEI will be releasing a study in a couple weeks documenting these issues. In the meantime, there’s no need to panic. BHA is a preservative used to ensure products don’t pose health problems related to spoilage.

Claim about Oxybenzone: What’s in My Makeup Bag? says that this chemical “is a potential hormone-disrupting chemical linked with endocrine disruption, cell damage and low birth weight when used by pregnant women.”

Reality Check: Again, if you believe that, don’t ever eat soy or other legumes, which are thousands of times more potent “endocrine mimickers,” as detailed in Nature’s Hormone Factory. The sad reality is, if people follow the advice of the greens on this one, some could  die from skin cancer. Oxybenzone is a key ingredient in sunscreens. According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, claims about oxybenzone are not only wrong, they could be dangerous if fewer consumers use sunscreen as a result. See more details in The True Story of Cosmetics. Also, see my blog post on green hype related to sunscreen.

Image credit: stevendepolo on Flickr.
What’s in My Makeup Bag? – Junkscience
by Angela Logomasini

Personal Care Truth received permission from CEI to re-post ‘What’s in My Makeup Bag? – Junkscience’ on our site.

Filed Under: Information Tagged With: Angela Logomasini, BHA, carcinogen, chemicals, formaldehyde, junk science, makeup ingredients, oxybenzone, parabens, Personal Care Truth, phthalates, preservative, safe cosmetics, sunscreen

What is a Carcinogen?

September 3, 2010 By Cindy Jones 8 Comments

I know cancer has probably touched everyone’s life (as it has mine) and prevention is certainly easier than a cure. I spent many years of my life studying cancer and the process of carcinogenesis and even have a few papers to show for it. The intense interest that the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and Environmental Working Group have in banning carcinogens brings up the question as to what exactly is a carcinogen and how dangerous are they? Even though we of course want to protect ourselves as much as possible from cancer, it is not correct to think that anything that is a carcinogen causes cancer. Many of the damaging effects of carcinogens are actually countered by anticarcinogens that might occur side by side especially in fruits and vegetables. As a farmer and herbalist I need to speak up when someone says they want to ban all carcinogens.

Cancer is a little understood and complicated process that occurs in a multistep progression taking 20 years or more, which explains why it is more common as we age. It is a disease of cell growth. The normal mechanisms that stimulate and inhibit cell growth are changed in a way as to allow the cell to grow uncontrollably.

There are four definable phases of carcinogenesis (cancer development); initiation, promotion, progression and malignant conversion; each stage lasting years. Testing for carcinogens is just as complicated because different cellular changes occur during each stage.

The first stage, initiation, involves a change in the genetic makeup of a cell. This change can and does occur randomly or when a given chemical interacts with DNA causing a mutation in the genetic code. Chemicals that cause mutations are known as genotoxins. One important test done to determine if a chemical is a genotoxin is the Ames test. The Ames test, developed by Dr. Bruce Ames in the early 1970’s, is used because it is a rapid and fairly easy screen for DNA mutation. The test uses a single celled bacteria as the indicator organism; an already a mutated strain of Salmonella typhimurium. Chemicals being tested are incubated with the bacteria in petri dishes. If the bacteria shows growth in a certain selected media, then this is evidence of DNA mutation or genotoxicity and the chemical can be classified as a carcinogen.

What are some problems with this? Well, lets name just a few:

1. Bacterial cells and human cells are quite different. If you remember back to high school biology; bacteria are prokaryotes and human cells are eukaryotes.

2. Human organisms have enzymes that work to detoxify and eliminate mutagens before they can cause damage to the DNA. These enzymes are particularly prevalent in the liver and skin.

3. The nuclei of human cells have in place mechanisms for repairing DNA that is mutated; proofreading mechanisms.

4. For cancer to occur there must be more than one mutation occurring in the DNA. Mutations must occur in specific classes of genes that regulate cell growth (or death) and multiple mutations must occur over a period of many years.

5. When and if cancer cells develop as a result of multiple mutations, they express an antigen that is recognizable by the immune system so they can be removed and destroyed.

6. The doses used in the Ames test are very high doses that might never occur in humans.

7. As explained above, cancer requires multiple mutations in specific classes of genes before a cell actually transforms into a cancer cell; not just one mutation.

Everyone has mutated and transformed cells in our body at all times. When DNA becomes mutated, the cell first tries to correct that mutation. Because there are many genes that affect cell growth; those that speed up growth and those that inhibit growth, there are many safeguards in place to prevent a cell from growing uncontrollably and becoming cancer. If those safety mechanisms do fail there are mechanisms in place to cause death in a transformed cell. In other words, that one cell is sacrificed for the good of the entire organism. This process is called apoptosis.

Dr. Ames himself sought to ban many synthetic substances in the 70’s because they were mutagenic in the Ames test. However, he later reversed his position saying that there is no scientific evidence that small doses of these synthetic chemicals cause human cancers. Part of his reversed opinion was the finding that many plants (fruits, vegetables, and herbs) also contain chemicals that are mutagenic. He said “There are over 1,000 natural chemicals in a cup of coffee, and only 22 have been tested. Of these, 17 are carcinogens.”

Ames realized that regardless of whether chemicals are synthetic or naturally occuring they cause cancer when fed to laboratory animals at extremely high doses. He also found that this was a very politically incorrect conclusion. The environmentalist activists, Ames said “have a religion” that says that corporations are behind an exploding epidemic of cancer. This religion was promoted by handful of doctors (Samuel Epstein of the University of Illinois at Chicago), by a media looking for headlines, and by celebrity spokespeople such as Jane Fonda and Meryl Streep. “The idea that chemical companies are giving consumers cancer just isn’t true,” he said. The main cause of cancer is old age. EPA allows for synthetic pesticides.”

Dr. Ames also does not think that low levels of pesticide residues eaten by consumers are harmful. However, the amounts farmhands are exposed to are different and strict rules should be in place to reduce exposure for them and for chemical workers. With only 9% of Americans eating the amounts of fruits and vegetables they should the cost of eliminating synthetic pesticides would further decrease the amount of fruits and vegetables ingested. Since fruits and vegetables are one proven way to decrease cancer risks this would increase the risk of cancer. Dr. Ames is a well known and well respected scientist and even at the age of 82 he is still Professor of Biochemistry at UC Berkley doing nutrition and aging research.

Information about Bruce Ames came from Michael Fumento’s site:

http://fumento.com/cancer/ames.html

For more information on the Ames test see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxE9sYatPAs
http://www.henriettesherbal.com/faqs/medi-5-4-ames.html

Perhaps in another blog I will address other tests used to identify carcinogens.

Filed Under: Information, Science Tagged With: cancer, carcinogen, cell growth, chemicals, cindy jones, DNA, Dr. Bruce Ames, environmental working group, genotoxins, Personal Care Truth, synthetic pesticides, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

Zero Tolerance

August 30, 2010 By roberttisserand 4 Comments

Toxicology is tough to grasp. It’s full of jargon like No-Adverse-Effect-Levels, Uncertainty Factors, and Acceptable Daily Intake. But, the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics has a simple solution – “Let’s not debate how much lead should be allowed in lipstick – just get the toxic chemicals out of our products!”

Yay! Go for it! – prohibit all the chemicals that have been “linked to” adverse effects such as cancer, neurotoxicity or birth defects. Don’t allow them to be used in any amount! Cool! I’m up to here in poison already!  Anyway, why DO cosmetics companies put lead in lipstick? Could it be because lead is naturally present in the iron oxide pigments that are used in almost all red lipsticks? Could it be that it’s only there in low parts per million? I guess I could try green lipstick…

Benzo[a]pyrene is not a cosmetic ingredient as such either, and actually I have no idea how much might be found in a typical cosmetic. What I do know is that it’s one of the most notorious carcinogens known. It’s one of many found in cigarette smoke. It’s totally bad, evil, nasty, and will give you cancer.

It’s also in everything you eat. Yes, everything, including vegetable oils. So, the zero-tolerance approach means no more vegetable oils in cosmetics. Or any other foody ingredients. No more coffee scrubs, no more chocolate body butter. The fact that the benzo[a]pyrene is only there at 1 or 2 parts per billion is irrelevant, right? We don’t want carcinogens in our cosmetics!!

Mmm…what else…Ah yes, fruits and fruit extracts. They all have acetaldehyde in them, in low parts per billion or parts per trillion. Acetaldehyde is another carcinogen. And fruits have benzo[a]pyrene too! I want NO MORE PRODUCTS with fruit extracts!! Antioxidants be damned!

And have you heard about phthalates!? I know, they are so…bad! And they are in everything, especially plastics, like the plastic tubing used in extracting citrus oils, which then leach out one part per million of di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate into the essential oil. Even the certified organic ones. Who knew? So long citrus oils…

According to the CFSC, we should be watching out for linalool, because, as it says on the Skin Deep database, linalool is a “possible human immune system toxicant”. OK, so only 13 people out of 25,164 patch tested had an allergic reaction, but that’s not zero, and I want zero risk! I deserve it! Who knew that an allergic reaction counted as “immune system toxicity”, but I guess you could call it that if you really want to scare the shit out of people, and anyway skin allergy is an adverse reaction, and who needs that? Not me.

So, please, NO MORE ESSENTIAL OILS! OK, maybe that’s an exaggeration, after all, linalool is only found in about 90% of essential oils, so some oils would still be OK. Unless they contain limonene, because that’s another “immune system toxicant.” OK, but that still only prohibits about 99% of essential oils. Maybe patchouli oil would still be OK…

Wow, this is difficult. I wonder if, instead of lay people and attorneys writing cosmetics legislation, it should be written by people who DO understand toxicology? Even better, people who understand toxicology AND natural products? I’m just saying…

Filed Under: Information Tagged With: cancer, carcinogen, chemicals, cosmetic ingredients, cosmetics, essential oils, liptstick, natural, Personal Care Truth, robert tisserand, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, toxicity, vegetable oils in cosmetics

Primary Sidebar

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

Sign Up For Updates Via Your Inbox

Support Personal Care Truth

Recent Comments

  • Dene Godfrey on A Closer Look at Sodium Hydroxide
  • Gilles Bkk on A Closer Look at Sodium Hydroxide
  • bold on Activated Charcoal – Particle Sizes
  • michael on The Impermeable Facts of Skin Penetration and Absorption

Archives

Copyright © 2019 Personal Care Truth • Design By Eco-Office Gals

Disclaimer • Privacy Policy • Legal and Terms of Use