QuoteReplyTopic: Yikes!! Posted: January 12 2000 at 2:37am
I just found the following (rather disturbing) information from a fax I received (unsolicited) from the Health Wise Fall 98 newsletter and thought that I would share."National Toxicology Program Reports Findings: Reported recently by Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Professor Environmental Science University of Illinois School of Public Health. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) recently found that repeated skin application to mouse skin of diethanolamine (DEA), or its fatty acid derivative cocamide-DEA, induced liver and kidney cancer. Besides this 'clear evidence of carcinogenicity,' NTP also emphasized that DEA is readily absorbed through the skin in organs, such as the brain where it induces chronic toxic effect. High concentrations of DEA-based detergents are commonly used in a wide range of cosmetics and toiletries, including shampoos, hair dyes and conditioners, lotions, creams, and bubble baths, besides liquid dishwashing and laundry soaps. Lifelong use of these products thus clearly poses avoidable cancer risks to the great majority of U.S. consumers, particularly infants and young children."Source: Cancer Prevention Coalition Contact: Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois Chicago, School of Public Health and Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition.They go on to say that according to their Material Safety Data Sheets propolene glycol (if overexposed) can cause liver abnormalities and kidney damage and Sodium Laurel Sulfate "penetrates your eyes, brain and liver and remains there long term. SLS can also damage your immune system, cause blindness, induce certain types of ulcers, and react with other ingredients to form potent cancer-causing compoud known as NDELA."To top it all off the aluminum in our deodorant and cosmetics can contribute to Alzheimer's disease according to The World Health Organization.Yikes! Is nothing safe anymore?
Clare
Members Profile
Send Private Message
Find Members Posts
Add to Buddy List
Newbie
Joined: December 28 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Status: Offline
Points: 10
I use deodorant and not antiperspirant, which contains aluminum. I think DEA is one of the "antibacterial" compounds found in many antibacterial products. I have seen it listed in antibacterial soaps.I just found the following (rather disturbing)> information from a fax I received (unsolicited) from> the Health Wise Fall 98 newsletter and thought that I> would share.> "National Toxicology Program Reports Findings:> Reported recently by Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.,> Professor Environmental Science University of Illinois> School of Public Health. The National Toxicology> Program (NTP) recently found that repeated skin> application to mouse skin of diethanolamine (DEA), or> its fatty acid derivative cocamide-DEA, induced liver> and kidney cancer. Besides this 'clear evidence of> carcinogenicity,' NTP also emphasized that DEA is> readily absorbed through the skin in organs, such as> the brain where it induces chronic toxic effect. High> concentrations of DEA-based detergents are commonly> used in a wide range of cosmetics and toiletries,> including shampoos, hair dyes and conditioners,> lotions, creams, and bubble baths, besides liquid> dishwashing and laundry soaps. Lifelong use of these> products thus clearly poses avoidable cancer risks to> the great majority of U.S. consumers, particularly> infants and young children."> Source: Cancer Prevention Coalition Contact: Samuel S.> Epstein, M.D., Professor of Environmental Medicine at> the University of Illinois Chicago, School of Public> Health and Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition.> They go on to say that according to their Material> Safety Data Sheets propolene glycol (if overexposed)> can cause liver abnormalities and kidney damage and> Sodium Laurel Sulfate "penetrates your eyes,> brain and liver and remains there long term. SLS can> also damage your immune system, cause blindness,> induce certain types of ulcers, and react with other> ingredients to form potent cancer-causing compoud> known as NDELA."> To top it all off the aluminum in our deodorant and> cosmetics can contribute to Alzheimer's disease> according to The World Health Organization.> Yikes! Is nothing safe anymore?
First of all, calm down. This report may be accurate, and I'm very glad you mentioned it here, and I will check up on it from a scientific standpoint, but there are many reasons to question the validity of this information. I'll list just a few.First, "Health Wise" is NOT a refereed scientific or medical journal. It is at best a popular-press newsletter. (I don't know who publishes Health Wise - it's possible that it could be put out by some sort of pharmaceutical company, which would lead me to question the fairness of its reporting.) The popular press has a tendency to misinterpret or overstate scientific findings on a regular basis. I *never* trust science reporting in the popular press - if something in the popular press catches my eye, I find out where the actual research article was published, and look at that. Science journalists as a goup get things wrong at least as often as not (although there are some excellent ones out there).Until I see this research published in a refereed scientific or medical journal, I'm not going to give it a whole lot of importance. I am giving it enough importance that I'm going to find out whether it has been published somewhere scientifically reputable. I will post what I find out.Another reason to be concerned - the organisation that is putting this information out (the "National Toxicology Program" - watch out for putting too much trust in such names; they don't necessarily have any official standing; the word "national" doesn't always mean anything significant) is headed by the researcher who claims to have proved this information. If he's the chair of the group, then the group's endorsement may mean no more than if he'd simply said it himself. Don't attach undue weight to it. I also have to wonder why an MD is a professor of environmental science - that's not exactly typical.This report is a prime example of irresponsible reporting. It does not describe what levels of DEA were used in the study, nor their relationship to the levels found in cosmetic products. They claim that "high levels" of DEA-based compounds are found in cosmetic products, but what is their basis for comparison? Often, studies of the type supposedly performed here are done with many times the levels of a compound actually encountered by any typical person.Let's also consider the choice of experimental animals. There are a wide variety of excellent reasons for using mice in studies such as this, but the data found in mice is not necessarily 100% applicable to humans. The immune system of the mouse is very different from that of the human, for example.To address the issues of propylene glycol - well, yes, overexposure to it can be dangerous. So can overexposure to most things. The key here, though, is overexposure, and the method of exposure, which is not mentioned in this report at all. I also have a few concerns about the reliability of their reporting - if they can't even spell the name of the compound correctly (it's "propylene", not "propolene"; and it's "sodium lauryl sulfate", not "sodium laurel sulfate"), I'm not at all convinced of their ability to read an MSDS correctly. However, if you're concerned, I'll take a look at the MSDSs for those compounds myself and let you know what I find.When judging these types of reports, one must also consider what the alternatives are. For example, in the case of sodium lauryl sulfate, which is found in many soaps and shampoos, what other options do you have? Lack of cleanliness is a lot more hazardous on any realistic scale than the sodium lauryl sulfate. Also consider the levels to which you are being exposed - generally quite low.As far as aluminum and AD, that link is merely suggestive and not conclusive. I wouldn't chew on foil, and I choose deodorant (which is aluminum-free in almost all cases) over antiperspirant, but I don't go overboard. Besides, you're a lot more likely to have problems from aluminum ingestion from baking powder than antiperspirant.> Yikes! Is nothing safe anymore?Things are no less safe than they ever were. It's just a question of knowing more about the dangers. As I said, I'll check out what reliable information is available on these subjects and let you know. Meanwhile, don't panic.Laura Janelswanson@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu
KAREN
Members Profile
Send Private Message
Find Members Posts
Add to Buddy List
Newbie
Joined: May 30 2002
Location: CALIFORNIA
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Thank you Laura Jane for your explanation.I agree with your assessment of "irresponsible reporting" and have seen it a lot. I also agree that you have to access your risks.I just had this discussion with my doctor who was freaking out because I was resisting some tests that she felt I needed. That lead to a big conversation about the dangers of X-Rays on the body. As she pointed out, so you avoid the x-rays and thus avoid tests like mammograms and then you die of breast cancer. Or you have a test with x-rays and maybe you get cancer. Who knows. It is all relative.So as you said...you have to weigh your risks and go the best direction you can.Thanks again for all the information.Karen> First of all, calm down. This report may be accurate,> and I'm very glad you mentioned it here, and I will> check up on it from a scientific standpoint, but there> are many reasons to question the validity of this> information. I'll list just a few.> First, "Health Wise" is NOT a refereed> scientific or medical journal. It is at best a> popular-press newsletter. (I don't know who publishes> Health Wise - it's possible that it could be put out> by some sort of pharmaceutical company, which would> lead me to question the fairness of its reporting.)> The popular press has a tendency to misinterpret or> overstate scientific findings on a regular basis. I> *never* trust science reporting in the popular press -> if something in the popular press catches my eye, I> find out where the actual research article was> published, and look at that. Science journalists as a> goup get things wrong at least as often as not> (although there are some excellent ones out there).> Until I see this research published in a refereed> scientific or medical journal, I'm not going to give> it a whole lot of importance. I am giving it enough> importance that I'm going to find out whether it has> been published somewhere scientifically reputable. I> will post what I find out.> Another reason to be concerned - the organisation that> is putting this information out (the "National> Toxicology Program" - watch out for putting too> much trust in such names; they don't necessarily have> any official standing; the word "national"> doesn't always mean anything significant) is headed by> the researcher who claims to have proved this> information. If he's the chair of the group, then the> group's endorsement may mean no more than if he'd> simply said it himself. Don't attach undue weight to> it. I also have to wonder why an MD is a professor of> environmental science - that's not exactly typical.> This report is a prime example of irresponsible> reporting. It does not describe what levels of DEA> were used in the study, nor their relationship to the> levels found in cosmetic products. They claim that> "high levels" of DEA-based compounds are> found in cosmetic products, but what is their basis> for comparison? Often, studies of the type supposedly> performed here are done with many times the levels of> a compound actually encountered by any typical person.> Let's also consider the choice of experimental> animals. There are a wide variety of excellent reasons> for using mice in studies such as this, but the data> found in mice is not necessarily 100% applicable to> humans. The immune system of the mouse is very> different from that of the human, for example.> To address the issues of propylene glycol - well, yes,> overexposure to it can be dangerous. So can> overexposure to most things. The key here, though, is> overexposure, and the method of exposure, which is not> mentioned in this report at all. I also have a few> concerns about the reliability of their reporting - if> they can't even spell the name of the compound> correctly (it's "propylene", not> "propolene"; and it's "sodium lauryl> sulfate", not "sodium laurel sulfate"),> I'm not at all convinced of their ability to read an> MSDS correctly. However, if you're concerned, I'll> take a look at the MSDSs for those compounds myself> and let you know what I find.> When judging these types of reports, one must also> consider what the alternatives are. For example, in> the case of sodium lauryl sulfate, which is found in> many soaps and shampoos, what other options do you> have? Lack of cleanliness is a lot more hazardous on> any realistic scale than the sodium lauryl sulfate.> Also consider the levels to which you are being> exposed - generally quite low.> As far as aluminum and AD, that link is merely> suggestive and not conclusive. I wouldn't chew on> foil, and I choose deodorant (which is aluminum-free> in almost all cases) over antiperspirant, but I don't> go overboard. Besides, you're a lot more likely to> have problems from aluminum ingestion from baking> powder than antiperspirant.> Things are no less safe than they ever were. It's just> a question of knowing more about the dangers. As I> said, I'll check out what reliable information is> available on these subjects and let you know.> Meanwhile, don't panic.> Laura Jane> lswanson@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu
As promised, I have checked out the available information regarding this story. I couldn't find Health Wise, so I can't speak for the article in that publication, but I can tell you about the National Toxicology Program and the original research.The National Toxicology Program is part of the National Institutes of Health, a government agency responsible for funding much of the biological research currently carried out in this country. It appears to be far more scientific than bureaucratic - its mandate appears to encompass the testing of common chemicals. It does not set policy - it passes the information it finds on to other branches of the government, such as (in this case) the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). These other branches of the government are responsible for reviewing the data obtained, possibly conducting further studies, and making decisions on policy.As for the study itself - well, as I expected, there is good news and there is bad news. First of all, the data are far from conclusive. There is absolutely no reason to go into a panic right now. There is, in my judgment, some reason for concern. I plan to keep an eye on the issue, but I'm not going to stop washing my hair, and I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time searching for a shampoo without DEA derivatives in it.The studies were actually conducted on both rats and mice and tested DEA (diethanolamine) and three DEA derivatives, those based on coconut oil (commonly found in shampoo), lauric acid, and oleic acid. Scientists applied the compounds to the skin of both rats and mice at various levels. Since the compounds were dissolved in ethanol, other rats and mice had ethanol only applied to their skin as a control, to be sure the ethanol was not having any effect that might be mistaken for an effect of the chemicals they were trying to test.The results, in brief, were that in mice, high levels of DEA over fairly long (for a mouse) periods of time somewhat increase the incidence of some types of tumors, although there was absolutely no increase in mortality. (That is, the mice didn't die from the tumors.) In rats, on the other hand, DEA appeared to have *absolutely no effect*, even at high levels. Which of these animals better represents human reactions to this chemical is, of course, still unknown. However, when evaluating this sort of study, you have to read carefully - high amounts of this compound were used, and *they were not washed off*.The DEA derivatives also appeared to cause a small increase in the same types of tumors in mice, and had no effects in rats. There is every reason to believe that this is due to small amounts of DEA which were used in preparing the derivatives which remained in each batch. If that is the case, it should be fairly simple to remove the contaminating DEA (which is completely unnecessary for the shampoo) and have perfectly safe derivatives, IF DEA is found to be harmful to humans (which is still far from being proven).At this point, the FDA is reviewing the studies, along with other information. What the FDA will decide is, of course, still up in the air. I suspect it may include further testing.If you're interested, the NTP has a web site at http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.govYou can view the NTP's report for non-scientists at http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/Liason/DEA.htmlIf you're interested in some more of the scientific details, you might go to http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/pub.html and do a search on "diethanolamine".The NTP statement on these results says, "Inquiries regarding the possible risks to humans or about consumer products should be directed to the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, telephone 1 800 FDA-4010." I haven't called them yet, but I probably will.I hope this is informative. If anyone has any more questions, please let me know - I'll do what I can to answer them.Laura Janelswanson@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Yikes!!
Topic Options
Post Options
Thanks(0)
