| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:42 am  |
What do you all think of the news that were presented recently about skin moisturizers promoting skin cancer in mice?
Several newspapers and websites brought these news lately. Scientists at Rutgers University, New Jersey, found that a common moisturizer, Dermabase, increased the production of tumors in mice that had previously been exposed to UV light. They then tested three other moisturizers all of which increased the production of tumors by an average of 69 %.
The significance of the finds for humans, has still to be established, the research team reports in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.
http://living.health.com/2008/08/14/moisturizers-skin-cancer/
I tend to take research that don't show actual effects on human with a grain of salt, but I cannot say I like these results. I hope that further research will be done to identify which ingredients in the common creams that might increase the risk of skin cancer. (If I were a mouse, I would certainly not use moisturizer on my fur after this study).
Any thoughts? |
_________________
Female, 40, Norway. Normal/dry skin, starting to see signs of aging. Staples: Glycolic acid cleanser, SkinCeuticals Phloretin CF, Revaleskin, NIA24. |
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:18 am |
I heard about this study, too. I do hope that they continue this research to try to determine whether this result is an artifact linked to using mice bred for particular susceptibility to tumorigenesis, whether any particular chemical or ingredient in the moisturizers is linked to this result, and whether there is some kind of physical compromise of the skin caused by moisturizers in general that is responsible for the increased tumor production.
Definitely a disturbing report, though I will probably continue to use moisturizers waiting for a followup. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:43 am |
The link below has more detailed info on the study.
I found this part interesting:
| Quote: |
The Conney team asked Johnson & Johnson to make them a "custom blend" moisturizer without two ingredients previously linked to skin irritation (sodium lauryl sulfate) and tumor promotion (mineral oil). The custom blend (on which Rutgers University and Johnson & Johnson hold a patent) did not promote skin cancer.
But not all of the products tested use these ingredients, so exactly what -- if anything -- might be linked to cancer isn't known. And it's certainly clear that mouse and human skin are very different.
http://www.webmd.com/melanoma-skin-cancer/news/20080814/moisturizers-up-skin-cancer-in-mice?page=2
|
|
_________________
No longer answering PM's due to numerous weird messages. |
|
havana8
Moderator
 
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 3451
|
|
|
Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:53 am |
| Thanks, Bethany, I was wondering what the ingredients in question *might* be. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:54 am |
| What's also clear from the study is that UV radiation is what is causing the tumors in the first place. So, whatever you do about moisturizers, don't forget the sunscreen and hats! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:21 pm |
This sounds scary actually.
If someone being sun-careless for long period of time then the moisturizers used after may end up doing more harm than good? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:28 pm |
| It wasn't the moisturizer exactly, it was the petrolatum/mineral oil and sodium lauryl sulfate that did it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:57 pm |
| edenfield wrote: |
| It wasn't the moisturizer exactly, it was the petrolatum/mineral oil and sodium lauryl sulfate that did it. |
Well. The researchers told that they don't know which ingredients in the creams that enhance tumor growth.
What is true, is that they also tested a "custom blend" cream without mineral oil and SLS and found that it did not promote skin cancer.
But not all of the creams that were tested in the study contained these two ingredients, and still they promoted growth of tumors.
"We really don't know what ingredients in these creams are doing that", lead researcher Allan H. Conney told. (Quoted from living.health.com) |
_________________
Female, 40, Norway. Normal/dry skin, starting to see signs of aging. Staples: Glycolic acid cleanser, SkinCeuticals Phloretin CF, Revaleskin, NIA24. |
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:23 pm |
| edenfield wrote: |
| It wasn't the moisturizer exactly, it was the petrolatum/mineral oil and sodium lauryl sulfate that did it. |
But these 2 ingredients were not in all the moisturizers. And the ingredients by themselves have not been known to be highly carcinogenic. They exist in alot of skincare products. So, yes, they may have played a part in the increased cancers, but there is something else going on too. And this is where you have to think out of the box. The mice had these moisturizers applied 5 days a week for 17 weeks. This is probably alot in mice years. I don't know how you equate it to humans.
I first heard about this study from Dr Huber. It was his opinion that the way we apply topicals, and that includes moisturizers, SS, actives on a nonstop daily basis, several times a day sometimes is promoting protein inflammation, which is a precursor of cancer. This explains the increasing occurrence of skin cancer, despite the widespread knowledge and use of SS. The concept of applying topicals as a routine, day in and day out did not exist until about 50 years ago. It is very much like a drug model (take these pills each day until you are better). He feels skincare should not be equated to a drug model, because aging is not a disease. The skin just doesn't benefit after awhile from daily applications of alot of topicals, especially very strong actives.
He believes as more and more evidence of the negative aspects of applying the same topicals on a daily basis comes to light, the whole skincare industry will be in for a major change. Probably won't happen for a very, very long time though. His beliefs are at odds with current thinking, so I doubt things will change overnight. It may never change. It is certainly in the skincare industry's interest for people to use things on a daily basis forever. It's more profitable.
So, that is Dr Huber's take. I just put it out as his theory. He may be totally wrong, and it may be something else having to do with the mice themselves. We will probably never know, but it's something to think about and I hope the scientists continue to search for the answer and not let it drop. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:36 pm |
| boski wrote: |
| He believes as more and more evidence of the negative aspects of applying the same topicals on a daily basis comes to light, the whole skincare industry will be in for a major change. Probably won't happen for a very, very long time though. His beliefs are at odds with current thinking, so I doubt things will change overnight. It may never change. It is certainly in the skincare industry's interest for people to use things on a daily basis forever. It's more profitable. |
And there we have it....profitability.
We already follow a drug model regarding illness as pushed by Big Pharma (ex: take drugs for Type 2 Diabetes instead of strictly limiting carbs), so it makes complete sense that we will be "pushed" to do the most profitable thing for skin care as well.  |
_________________
No longer answering PM's due to numerous weird messages. |
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:10 am |
sodium lauryl sulfate is also used in tooth paste, and not just the cheap ones...
but as its known as "irritating", those tooth pastes usually fail consumer tests, when they also focus on physiological compatibility ...
http://www.dermstore.com/articles/article_100.htm
| Quote: |
| For years now, Sodium Lauryl Sulfates have been getting a bad rap in the press, including rumors that this foaming compound may cause cancer. These myths have been debunked by a variety of reputable research companies, agencies and groups including the American Cancer Society. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:50 pm |
Would Sodium Laurel Sulfate used in shampoos & cleansers be ok as it's going to be rinsed out in a few minutes?  As far as I know, SLS is usually used to produce a foam in shampoos & cleansers. I rarely see it in a moisturizer. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:54 pm |
| The Rutgers article I read stated it was the sodium lauryl sulfate and the petrolatum...sorry I haven't read the full study yet hehe |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:54 pm |
Also it looks like they were irradiated with UV light, so it might just mean that we need to use creams with SPF during the day.
We already know that lip gloss etc increase your risk of sun damage on the lips due to the reflectance. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 25, 2008 2:31 pm |
I never liked to use commercial products because of all the things they put in there... that's why I always use natural oils for everything.
For my body I use coconut oil and carrier oils and for my face I use oils and copper peptides, the only time I use a product is when I wear sun screen |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:14 pm |
sodium lauryl sulfate seems to be ok - in general, when even the american cancer society checked it ?
when checking "phoebes site" http://phoebe.pn-np.net/ it is inci in about 20 moisturizers, mostly pretty much on the end of the list, except for some of:
OBAGI  |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:07 pm |
| racheli wrote: |
sodium lauryl sulfate seems to be ok - in general, when even the american cancer society checked it ?
when checking "phoebes site" http://phoebe.pn-np.net/ it is inci in about 20 moisturizers, mostly pretty much on the end of the list, except for some of:
OBAGI |
I wouldn't put too much faith into anything the ACS says. There are inherent conflicts of interest in the way it is structured and is financed. It maintains alot of relationships with major pesticide companies, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics companies, and other big business entities whose main goal may not be to prevent cancer at all, but is to profit from sales of their products or drugs. They realize the stamp of approval by the ACS on any product can be a big selling point.
http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm#board |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:52 pm |
| edenfield wrote: |
| It wasn't the moisturizer exactly, it was the petrolatum/mineral oil and sodium lauryl sulfate that did it. |
I have read this many times and make a point of trying to buy cosmetics and skin care that do not have these in them. Better to be safe IMO. I use Jurlique's moisturiser  |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:56 pm |
| boski wrote: |
| racheli wrote: |
sodium lauryl sulfate seems to be ok - in general, when even the american cancer society checked it ?
when checking "phoebes site" http://phoebe.pn-np.net/ it is inci in about 20 moisturizers, mostly pretty much on the end of the list, except for some of:
OBAGI |
I wouldn't put too much faith into anything the ACS says. There are inherent conflicts of interest in the way it is structured and is financed. It maintains alot of relationships with major pesticide companies, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics companies, and other big business entities whose main goal may not be to prevent cancer at all, but is to profit from sales of their products or drugs. They realize the stamp of approval by the ACS on any product can be a big selling point.
http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm#board |
Another article about the little known relationship between ACS and Neutrogena, a major sunscreen mfr. There are more connections between ACS and other sunscreen mfrs I'm sure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/health/10skin.html?scp=28&sq=sunscreen&st=nyt |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:04 pm |
Here's another article I got by email about this subject:
A new study published August 14, 2008 revealed that Mineral Oil and Sodium Lauryl Sulphate, found in many common skin moisturizers, caused mice that were exposed to UV radiation to develop more, and larger skin cancer tumors.
This study is the work of Dr Allan Conney and researchers of Rutger University's Susan Lehman Cullman Laboratory for Cancer Research. They exposed specially bred albino mice to UV radiation twice a week for 20 weeks to examine the development of Basal Cell and Squamous Cell Carcinomas, or non-melanoma skin cancers. Then a portion of the mice were treated with over-the-counter moisturizers, such as Eucerin, Dermabase, Dermovan and Vanicream.
What they found was that mice treated with the moisturizers had increased tumors, and larger tumors, which developed at a faster rate than mice that were not treated with moisturizers. After further research, they concluded that Mineral Oil and Sodium Lauryl Suphate may have caused the increase in skin cancer tumors.
However, these studies were performed on mice only. Drugs that have caused a certain reaction in animals do not always have similar effects in humans. Further, more research must be done to verify these results and its effect on human skin.
To help prevent skin cancer in the first place, always remember to practice good sun protection, like wearing a wide-brim hat and long sleeves, and using sunscreen with a minimum SPF 15. Apply sunscreen at least 30 minutes before going outdoors, and look for products containing physical sunscreens, such as Titanium Dioxide. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:04 pm |
Lovemore,
You're way too young for copper peptides. Avalange, another member at this board, had a terrible experience with copper peptides and she's older than you. Be careful! Or just wait a couple of decades for copper peptides, there's enough other skin care products you can use that are safe. At this stage I think copper peptides will be doing a whole lot more harm than good.
| lovemore wrote: |
I never liked to use commercial products because of all the things they put in there... that's why I always use natural oils for everything.
For my body I use coconut oil and carrier oils and for my face I use oils and copper peptides, the only time I use a product is when I wear sun screen |
|
_________________
24 yrs old. favorite sunscreen right now: Burnout [now 35] |
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:59 pm |
| Thanks Nimue... I had a feeling copper peptides was what was making my skin super dry like never before... Eh.. but since it has no expiration date i'll keep it around incase i'll ever need it for scars |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:47 am |
I second what Nimue have said!!
Lovemore, at your age you should concentrate on prevention, NOT correction! you have not much to correct yet! and you have no no reason to use such a strong product, more to that while much older people having such different results from it!!
Please do a search on this sad story of Avalange, she wrote it as a warning to other people, and it took her about a year to recover! |
_________________
31, combo - oily, breakout-prone, fair complexion, sensitive and prone to rosacea |
|
|
|
| Tue Aug 05, 2025 8:26 pm |
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. |
|
 |
|
