Why are phtalates bad in perfume?
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:06 pm

Just wondering what it is about phthalates (misspelled in title, sorry) that makes them bad for health. Also, what other ingredients in commercial perfumes (dept stores, some independent beauty consultant brands, etc.) are bad for health?

free skin care · Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:26 pm

There have been studies linking high doses of some phthalates to reproductive problems in rodents and to damaged sexual development in neonatal infants. The US FDA/CFSAN's position, however is that it's not clear that phthalates have an effect on human health.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-phth.html

I wonder if Tangal or other industry experts can contribute more information?

free skin care · Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:01 pm

Very intersting. Also, what are people, who try to avoid it, use then?

free skin care · Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:32 pm

Well, avoiding wearing nail polish isn't as hard as say, houses with phthalates in paint, caulk or other adhesives. If they've got a real allergy to it, it would probably make life pretty difficult!

free skin care · Sun Nov 26, 2006 6:25 am

I have not personally researched that specific ingredient in a lot of detail, because the data I have seen does not create an issue to me.

My opinion, for what its worth, on that is similar to my opinion on other issues of this type.

I have posted on this exhaustively on another messageboard I moderate atwww.sunless.com. On that board I specifically address skincare products, selftanners and cosmetics, but the same general info applies. So bear with me on that. Wink

I cannot retype it now, both lack of time and sore wrists. But I will copy excerpts here, along with other links that can help one better judge “Real Risk vs Plain Fear” – so as a consumer one can better evaluate these things overall.

On some of the articles, go direct to the site, and you can download or view the entire article, which covers specific ingrediants and issues.

If this is truly a concern, I strongly suggest you do follow up on the added links, to me a well rounded understanding includes accurate knowledge from both sizes, so you can weigh them correctly. I fully support a persons right to use or not use a product, based on their opinion of its risks. I just feel it should be an "informed" decision.

Obviousely someone with an alergy concern or other health problem will need to weight Risks differently based on their situation and medical providers advise.

Heres a copy of a reply to a post, on another messageboard, from me – with added links. (I am Vicki)

Quote:

First, I agree with Chris’s comments. Smile

I also am quite irritated with the media's support of the “fear-mongering” alarmist type material put out by some individuals and websites based on “false science and speculation” not medical or scientific based data. And whose only purpose seems to be the “sales” of their books, products etc.

I certainly support anyones desire to be healthy and protect themselves, and their family. I live a very healthy lifestyle for this reason also.
But one must also differentiate between real fears/risks vs Media Hype/scares used to promote books/product sales, or newspaper sales. Material of this types cause needless fear and painic in well meaning caring people, who simply want to "do the right thing."

As a concerned consumer, you must learn to differentiate between the two, and realize, just because its "on the internet" does not make it truth. Wink

Otherwise you will find everything can be a cause for panic and fear, and you will never have peace.

So to pull all that in perspective – one must differentiate between “Fact vs. Fears”, and the motives, and financial backing of the alarmest people.

But rather then rehash that all here, I will direct you to the following links, which are in the FAQ post at the top of this board. (If this is of interest to you) This has been discussed often on this site, and we have a wealth of info here.

General and FDA issues-
http://www.sunless.com/phorum/read.php?f=3&i=30288&t=30284#reply_30288
http://www.sunless.com/phorum/read.php?f=3&i=30712&t=30710
http://www.sunless.com/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=245056&t=245053

Sunscreens, Cancers, Vit D, parabens, misinformation addressed (also see links above under General)
http://www.sunless.com/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=276710&t=276710
http://www.sunless.com/phorum/read.php?f=2&i=446174&t=445609

Are Cosmetics Safe? Also Parabens
http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.1226/pub_detail.asp
http://www.cosmeticscop.com/learn/article.asp?PAGETYPE=ART&REFER=SKIN&ID=152

Are Animal tests a valid indicator of human use risks?
http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.153/pub_detail.asp

Fact vs. Fears – how to tell the difference
http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.154/pub_detail.asp

Who is EWQ.org, and are they experts? Are they Unbiased?
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.381/news_detail.asp

Questions one should ask when reading the “claims”
http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.1130/pub_detail.asp

Is Natural truly best? Safest?
http://www.cosmeticscop.com/learn/article.asp?PAGETYPE=ART&REFER=SKIN&ID=133

Is Mineral Oil Toxic?
http://www.cosmeticscop.com/learn/article.asp?PAGETYPE=ART&REFER=SKIN&ID=47

Is Polethylene glycol toxic?
http://www.cosmeticscop.com/learn/article.asp?PAGETYPE=ART&REFER=SKIN&ID=49

Info on Keven Trudeau and his book from Quackwatch:
http://www.infomercialwatch.org/tran/trudeau.shtml

_________________________________________

Excerrpts from some of the links above:
http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.1226/pub_detail.asp

What's the Story? Health Claims Against Cosmetics
How Do They Look in the Light?

Posted: Wednesday, November 9, 2005

The Health Claims Against Cosmetics
Cosmetics are health and beauty products such as toothpaste, antiperspirant, lipstick, eyeliner, and hand lotion. Many of us have used one or more of these products every day for many years without giving them a second thought. Recently, some activist groups have claimed that cosmetics pose dangers to our health, and may even be cancer-causing. Since these products are very common, it is important to evaluate the scientific accuracy of these claims. So, before you empty your medicine cabinet of all of that supposedly lethal lipstick, deadly deodorant, and toxic toothpaste, take a moment to consider the facts about cosmetics.

Do Cosmetics Cause Cancer?
Sometimes the health claims against cosmetics seem convincing because they cite studies showing the toxic effects of certain products on animals. While animal testing is a useful scientific tool in some respects, it is important to realize that these tests are often carried out in such a way that limits their relevance to human health.
It is important to remember that with any chemical, "the dose makes the poison." In other words, chemicals may be associated with tumor development when tested on laboratory animals at very high doses but not when administered at more commonplace levels. Tests carried out on laboratory animals often involve administering very high doses of chemicals over long periods of time. The doses that humans are actually exposed to when using cosmetics are dramatically lower. Furthermore, humans may only be exposed to the chemical in question in a diluted form. For example, a lab test may expose animals to a 100% pure product despite a typical cosmetic product only containing that chemical in a 5% ratio. Finally, the route of exposure in laboratory tests often does not match the way in which cosmetics are actually used. With the possible exception of lipstick, cosmetics are not routinely ingested. Therefore, to cite studies that show toxic effects in laboratory animals that were subjected to oral exposure is misleading. There is no sound scientific evidence that cosmetics as they are typically used cause cancer.
The Bottom Line: Animal tests alone are not necessarily reliable evidence of risk. There is no evidence that cosmetics as typically used cause cancer in humans.

Who's Making Sure Cosmetics Are Safe?
Some activist groups have complained that the industry is largely self-policing. This is true to some degree, as the Federal government does not subject cosmetics to the same premarket approval process that it uses for pharmaceutical products. This does not mean, however, that cosmetics are not carefully tested and regulated. The industry itself has an interest in rigorously testing chemicals on its own before marketing them -- safety testing is essential if a company wants to conduct business in the U.S. without the burden of product recalls, consumer complaints, and lawsuits. By law, any cosmetic that has not been adequately tested prior to marketing must bear the label "Warning: The safety of this product has not been determined." If a product does not have such a label, this indicates that the company has evaluated the product and certifies its safety.
In addition, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plays a significant role in ensuring cosmetic safety. The FDA has the authority to ban or restrict ingredients in cosmetics. If the agency is concerned about the safety of a product, it has the power to mandate warning labels on products, issue warning letters to cosmetic companies, and work with manufacturers to implement nationwide product recalls if necessary. The FDA has the ability to inspect cosmetic manufacturing facilities, to seize illegal products, and to prosecute violators of safety laws. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits the marketing of adulterated cosmetic products, placing the burden of safety directly on the cosmetic industry.
The Cosmetic Ingredient Review Board (CIR) provides another important mechanism for ensuring the safety of cosmetics. The CIR is an independent scientific body consisting of scientists who have been nominated by consumer, scientific, medical, governmental, and industry groups. Although the CIR receives funding from the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, it maintains total editorial and voting independence from this group. The CIR assesses the ingredients used in cosmetics, publishes its results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and makes recommendations to cosmetics manufacturers.
The Bottom Line: The FDA oversees cosmetic safety and has the power to remove unsafe products. The CIR tests and evaluates ingredients, and it is in the best interest of the industry to follow their recommendations.

How Are Cosmetics Tested for Safety?
When a new product is being developed, scientists conduct an extensive review of the scientific studies that have already been published on its ingredients. When the existing literature does not provide adequate information about a product's safety, researchers may want to proceed with laboratory studies, either on humans, on animals, or in test tubes. Experiments that use skin as the primary route of exposure are the most helpful, since this is the most common way in which humans come into contact with cosmetic products. These tests determine both whether a product will cause irritation and its ability to move through the skin. It is also important to test the effects of one-time oral exposure, however, in case of accidental ingestion of the product.
Studies on cosmetic ingredients are performed with several goals in mind. Scientists attempt to identify any potential hazards of the product, including effects on the reproductive and respiratory systems, effects of the product on the eyes in case of accidental splash, and potential to cause cancer with long-term exposure. By identifying possible hazards, scientists can make a risk assessment for the product, which typically includes an extra margin of safety to protect against unexpected adverse effects.

The Bottom Line: Cosmetics undergo several types of safety testing before entering the market.

Specific Concerns: Phthalates and Parabens
Specific claims have been made against two classes of chemicals used in cosmetics: phthalates and parabens.

Phthalates, including dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and diethyl hexyl pthalate (DEHP): It has been suggested that phthalates may cause breast cancer, birth defects, and harm to the reproductive system. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), however, concluded that rat tumor data and long-term studies in animals measuring the effects of DEHP are probably of little relevance to humans because of the large differences in the way that rats and humans process chemicals. A recent study in a monkey species -- which is much closer to humans in body structure and function than rodents -- indicated that the monkeys were much less sensitive to DEHP exposure than rats. Similarly, the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, part of the National Institutes of Health's Toxicology Program, concluded in 2000 that "it has minimal concern about effects to human development and development of the reproductive system from current estimated exposure to DBP." The FDA agrees that there is no evidence that phthalates as they are used in cosmetics pose any safety risks. There is no compelling data to suggest that phthalates in cosmetics cause any kind of human cancer, including breast cancer.
Parabens: Some activist groups have expressed concern that parabens in cosmetics will mimic estrogen in the body. Specific concerns include the risk of breast cancer from parabens' estrogen-like effects. In fact, laboratory tests have shown that the actions of paraben are 1,000 to 1,000,000 times weaker than natural estrogen. Parabens do not accumulate in human tissue over time. Two recent studies could not establish a link between the use of underarm deodorants and breast cancer. Parabens have a long history of safe use and have been specifically recognized as safe by the FDA. The CIR reviewed the use of parabens in cosmetics in 1984 and concluded that they did not pose a risk to consumers. Several re-reviews since that time have come to the same conclusion.
The Bottom Line: The FDA and the CIR agree that there is no evidence that either phthalates or parabens in cosmetics pose a health threat.

Final Thought
Cosmetics have a long history of safe use by millions of people, and most of the recent claims of health hazards are overstated or unfounded. The cosmetic industry bears the main responsibility for the safety of its products. The results of safety tests are not always publicly available. Cosmetic manufacturers have internal processes and testing protocols designed to ensure the safety of the products they manufacture. In addition, the FDA oversees ingredient safety and has the ability to remove unsafe products from the market, and the CIR conducts ingredient testing and advises the industry on ingredient safety matters. Very few incidents of injury or illness from cosmetics have ever been reported, and most of these involve irritation or mechanical injury (such as scratching the eye with a mascara wand).
No data exist linking cosmetics with cancer, reproductive effects, or genetic damage in humans. Much of the anxiety surrounding the health "hazards" of cosmetics stems from misperception regarding how safety testing is done. High-dose tests performed on laboratory animals, especially rodents, are often misinterpreted when it comes to predictions about human health hazards, particularly since cosmetics usually only contain trace levels of the chemicals of concern.

_________________________________________

From
http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.153/pub_detail.asp

Of Mice and Mandates
Animal Experiments, Human Cancer Risk, and Regulatory Policies

Posted: Wednesday, July 1, 1998

Executive Summary
Laboratory animals have been used for many years to determine whether chemicals in foods, pharmaceuticals, and other products might cause cancer and other health problems in human beings; and animal testing continues to play a role in determining the safety of products for human use. Yet an increasingly sophisticated understanding of cancer formation (carcinogenesis) — along with growing doubts about how confidently we can infer human health effects from test results in quite different animal species — has begun to change both scientific assessment practices and the legal and regulatory requirements based on them.
In the real world people constantly encounter many known carcinogens, both synthetic and natural, without developing cancer. These substances appear in air, water, and foods; indeed, some are generated naturally within the human body itself. Five hundred years ago the Swiss physician Paracelsus introduced the basic toxicological concept that a substance's poisonous capacity depends on the dose. Vitamin A, for example, is necessary in small quantities for vision but at much higher doses is toxic to the liver and heart.
This concept is often lost sight of in the interpretation of results from animal tests involving very high doses of a single test agent. A new perspective is warranted in light of the huge cost of animal testing and in light of the all-too-common misinterpretations of the results of animal tests with respect to their predicting of human health risk. In developing that new perspective, we should consider the following points:

• Toxicity testing using animals plays an essential role in the development of drugs, industrial and agricultural chemicals, consumer products, food additives, and cosmetics. When properly conducted and interpreted, animal testing will continue to be a valuable source of information on the potential toxicity of chemicals to humans.
• Differences in physiology and anatomy between humans and mice, rats, and other species often make it difficult to apply animal results confidently and directly to human health. Animal testing should not be viewed as sufficient, in the absence of additional supporting data, to predict risk to humans.
• Some products have been labeled carcinogenic solely as a result of unrealistically high doses having been force fed to laboratory animals. Excessive focus on unrealistic, theoretical carcinogenicity risks of some products diverts resources and attention from documented threats to human health.
• Improved means of interpreting animal test data — along with emerging testing alternatives, increasing understanding of the process of cancer causation, and changes in risk-assessment methodology — will permit a more critical, real-world view of risks to human health.

_________________________________________

From
http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.1130/pub_detail.asp

Good Stories, Bad Science: A Guide for Journalists to the Health Claims of "Consumer Activist" Groups
By Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D.

Posted: Friday, June 10, 2005

The media frequently report claims by nonprofit consumer groups about alleged health hazards in our food supply and our environment. Often these claims are coupled with suggestions for specific actions to reduce the purported risk of disease or premature death by avoiding or reducing exposure to the allegedly harmful substance.
The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a consumer education group directed and advised by over 300 leading scientists and physicians, has reviewed many such reports and claims. After carefully considering the scientific evidence, ACSH concludes that it would be in the best interest of the American consumer if the media treated such reports with a greater degree of skepticism than is currently employed.
Supposedly, the public claims and warnings that these activist groups make are based on scientific evidence. But in general, there is no independent peer review of their claims or recommendations. The groups publish the reports themselves, often via press release or paid advertisements. Often, the claims are extrapolations from small studies or animal studies, and lack strong supporting evidence. This is not the way mainstream science works.
Scientists working in academic institutions, for example, submit their work to journals that then have the papers reviewed by other scientists with appropriate expertise. Such papers must clearly delineate the methods used to obtain the published results, as well as the statistics used to analyze them. Both will be examined and criticized by reviewers. If a body of work does not pass muster, it will either be rejected for publication, or the author(s) will be required to revise it, and perhaps supply additional information, before it is published. A scientific paper of high quality may be revised and reviewed more than once before publication. While this process isn’t always perfect, it is the best procedure we have to insure that the scientific information presented to the public is based on valid data that are analyzed in an appropriate manner. Its value has been shown decisively over decades of experience.
Additionally, reputable scientists understand that a single report, wherever it may be published, is not “proof” of a theory or hypothesis. Experiments or observations must be replicated by independent research in order to be considered valid. Often, however, advocacy groups don’t wait for confirmation before sounding an alarm that may be based on poorly designed or single studies, or on studies that are performed only on laboratory animals. When disapproving of a product or chemical, they may cite anecdotal, unsupported reports of ill effects, neglecting to validate the data. Or, they may cite data selectively, choosing only those data that support the point(s) they wish to make.
Another feature of many of these groups’ alarms is direct extrapolation of data from high-dose animal tests to predict disease risk in humans. The assumption is that any chemical, food, or product that causes harm to animals in high-dose testing situations must also harm humans, even if the typical human exposure is orders of magnitude less than those used in the animal tests.
While animal testing is certainly a valid and necessary means of examining the possibility that a chemical might be harmful to humans, a finding of harm in such tests does not automatically mean that humans exposed at much lower doses will also be harmed. More information, such as typical or expected toxicity and human exposure, must also be factored into any assessment of risk to humans. Further, the possibility that any chemical or compound is harmful to humans is strengthened if it is found to be harmful to more than one species of experimental animal. Thus, finding that a compound is toxic or carcinogenic at high dose to laboratory rats, but not to mice or rabbits, would weaken the argument that humans might be affected (for more information on animal testing, see the ACSH publications “Of Mice and Mandates” at http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.153/pub_detail.asp and America’s War on “Carcinogens” at http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.992/pub_detail.asp ).
Yet, such scientific facts are only rarely mentioned, and then as caveats at the end of a story.
Parents of babies and young children often are the group most concerned about potential health risks stemming from foods or environmental exposures. A common attention-grabbing ploy is to paint a particular risk as especially harmful to babies or young children. Thus, the NRDC promotes their study of children’s exposure to diesel exhaust, and the PCRM inveighs against the drinking of milk by children. Public health policy, however, should be based on competent risk assessments, not hyperbole.
In this report, ACSH reviews claims by four self-styled consumer groups and evaluates the scientific veracity of some of their statements. Further, the report proposes some guidelines and follow-up questions for the media to use in assessing the scientific quality of health-related claims.
ACSH considers statements by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), the Environmental Working Group (EWG), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) as examples of claims about health concerns that are not grounded in sound science yet have been widely covered by the media.
BELOW IS A TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THE FULL REPORT, WHICH CAN BE ORDERED -- OR DOWNLOADED FOR FREE -- AT THE RIGHT MARGIN.

_________________________________________

From here
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.381/news_detail.asp

EWG Fears Toxic Toiletries

By Deborah Gopstein

That's toxic toothpaste you're using, or so says a consumer health advisory recently issued by the Environmental Working Group (EWG). The study claims that one out of every hundred popular cosmetic products contains ingredients identified by the government as toxins and/or carcinogens. This information, while meant to "heighten consumer awareness," actually exploits a fallacy and accomplishes little more than unnecessarily frightening the public.
The EWG, an alarmist group, constantly puts fourth empty claims to the media, lacking any scientific or medical basis, creating phony health scares. When collecting data, rather than relying on peer-reviewed research, EWG tends toward hyperbole. In the case of this report for example, information is taken from the EPA and other regulatory agencies about chemicals that cause cancer in laboratory animals.

As always, it is important to note that "the dose makes the poison." The "carcinogens" that the EWG states are hazardous are administered to animals in extremely high, nearly lethal doses. Now, unlike the EWG, let us consider the amounts of these chemicals in soaps, shampoos, foundations, and all-natural skin peels. The quantity of chemicals found in these products is minuscule, nowhere near an amount shown to be toxic to people. As explained in the American Council on Science and Health's peer-reviewed literature (see, for example, http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.195/pub_detail.asp ), rapidly improving technology enables scientists to detect infinitesimal amounts of chemicals in the environment. The same is true of cosmetics. There is no scientific evidence to indicate that trace amounts of these chemicals in cosmetics are detrimental to a consumer's health.
The EWG proposes introducing new regulations in the cosmetic industry. There is no need. Even naturally occurring chemicals can cause cancer in laboratory animals in tremendous quantities. However, this doesn't mean that foods containing these chemicals are laced with poison. Nor is your mascara.
Olivia James, a model for sixteen years, thinks that her son's medical condition, hypospadias, might be linked to the demands of her profession. Claiming that excessive make-up application caused her son's birth defect is quite a stretch, but the EWG sees it as perfect material for their report.
A report like this one from the EWG diverts America's attention from real health concerns like smoking. On EWG's website, http://www.ewg.org/ , consumers can get a rating of their favorite cosmetic products and see how dangerous each one's ingredients are. The ratings, a series of check marks indicating safety violations, cancer fears, and unstudied ingredients, are missing a crucial category: legitimate health risks. But then again, if real health threats were the purpose of this report...there wouldn't have been any report at all.
Deborah Gopstein is a research intern at the American Council on Science and Health.

Visitor Responses

Peter (June 21, 2004)
Great article. I ran across that EWG page the other day. As I was looking at the list of "Unstudied Chemical" list (I suppose a list of chemicals that might be harmful) I noticed: Sodium Chloride. Yup, nothing needs more study than good ol' table salt.

free skin care · Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:09 am

Wow, Tangal, that information and all of those links are very helpful! Thank you for taking the time to post that.

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.