Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) Dangers
"Both Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES) and its close relative Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) are commonly used in many soaps, shampoos, detergents, toothpastes and other products that we expect to "foam up". Both chemicals are very effective foaming agents, chemically known as surfactants.
Unfortunately, both sodium laureth sulfate and its cousin are also very dangerous, highly irritating chemicals. Far from giving "healthy shining hair" and "beautiful skin", soaps and shampoos containing sodium laureth sulfate can lead to direct damage to the hair follicle, skin damage, permanent eye damage in children and even liver toxicity.
Although sodium laureth sulfate is somewhat less irritating than SLS, it cannot be metabolised by the liver and its effects are therefore much longer-lasting. This not only means it stays in the body tissues for longer, but much more precious energy is used getting rid of it.
A report published in the Journal of The American College of Toxicology in 1983 showed that concentrations of SLS as low as 0.5% could cause irritation and concentrations of 10-30% caused skin corrosion and severe irritation. National Institutes of Health "Household Products Directory" of chemical ingredients lists over 80 products that contain SLS and SLES. Some soaps have concentrations of up to 30%, which the ACT report called "highly irritating and dangerous".
Shampoos are among the most frequently reported products to the FDA. Reports include eye irritation, scalp irritation, tangled hair, swelling of the hands, face and arms and split and fuzzy hair. This is highly characteristic of sodium laureth sulfate and almost definitely directly related to its use.
Click here to learn of the possible health effects of sodium laureth sulfate
So why is a dangerous chemical like sodium laureth sulfate used in our soaps and shampoos?
The answer is simple - it is cheap. The sodium laureth sulfate found in our soaps is exactly the same as you would find in a car wash or even a garage, where it is used to degrease car engines.
In the same way as it dissolves the grease on car engines, SLES also dissolves the oils on your skin, which can cause a drying effect. It is also well documented that it denatures skin proteins, which causes not only irritation, but also allows environmental contaminants easier access to the lower, sensitive layers of the skin.
This denaturing of skin proteins may even be implicated in skin and other cancers.
Perhaps most worryingly, sodium laureth sulfate is also absorbed into the body from skin application. Once it has been absorbed, one of the main effects of SLS is to mimic the activity of the hormone Oestrogen. This has many health implications and may be responsible for a variety of health problems from PMS and Menopausal symptoms to dropping male fertility and increasing female cancers such as breast cancer, where oestrogen levels are known to be involved."
www.natural-health-information-centre.com
------------
" Studies on SLS have shown that:" (Judi Vance, Beauty To Die For, Promotion Publishing, 1998)
1. "Shampoos with SLS could retard healing and keep children's eyes from developing properly. Children under six years old are especially vulnerable to improper eye development. (Summary of Report of Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc. conference."
2. "Sodium Lauryl Sulphate can cause cataracts in adults and delays the healing of wounds in the surface of the cornea."
3. "Sodium Lauryl Sulphate has a low molecular weight and so is easily absorbed by the body. It builds up in the heart, liver and brain and can cause major problems in these areas."
4. "Sodium Lauryl Sulphate causes skin to flake and to separate and causes roughness on the skin."
5. "Sodium Lauryl Sulphate causes dysfunction of the biological systems of the skin."
6. "Sodium Lauryl Sulphate is such a caustic cleanser that it actually corrodes the hair follicle and impairs the ability to grow hair."
7. "Sodium Lauryl Sulphate is routinely used in clinical studies deliberately to irritate the skin so that the effects of other substances can be tested." (Study cited by the Wall St Journal, 1st November 1998)
Ethoxylation: Ethoxylation is the process that makes degreasing agents such as Sodium Lauryl Sulphate (SLS) less abrasive and gives them enhanced foaming properties. When SLS is ethoxylated, it forms Sodium Laureth Sulphate (SLES), a compound used in many shampoos, toothpastes, bath gels, bubble baths, and industrial degreasants. The problem is, the extremely harmful compound 1,4-dioxane may be created during the ethoxylation process, contaminating the product. 1,4-dioxane was one of the principal components of the chemical defoliant Agent Orange, used to great effect by the Americans during the Vietnam War to strip off the jungle canopy to reveal their enemy. 1,4-dioxane is a hormonal disrupter believed to be the chief agent implicated in the host of cancers suffered by Vietnam military personnel after the war. It is also an oestrogen mimic thought to increase the chances of breast cancer and endometrial cancer, stress related illnesses and lower sperm counts.
Dr Samuel Epstein (Author and research Scientist) reports: "The best way to protect yourself is to recognise ingredients most likely to be contaminated with the1,4-dioxane. These include ingredients with the prefix word, or syllable PEG, Polyethylene, Polyethylene Glycol, Polyoxyethylene, eth (as in sodium laureth sulphate) or oxynol. Both polysorbate 60 and polysorbate 80 may also be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane. (Epstein, Dr Samuel, Safe Shoppers Bible, P.190-191)"
www.health-report.co.uk/sodium...te.html
------------
"...it is well known in Europe that sodium laurel sulfate causes softening of the gums and leads to gingivitis. "
www.webdeb.com/healthnews/sls.htm
"Both Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES) and its close relative Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) are commonly used in many soaps, shampoos, detergents, toothpastes and other products that we expect to "foam up". Both chemicals are very effective foaming agents, chemically known as surfactants.
Unfortunately, both sodium laureth sulfate and its cousin are also very dangerous, highly irritating chemicals. Far from giving "healthy shining hair" and "beautiful skin", soaps and shampoos containing sodium laureth sulfate can lead to direct damage to the hair follicle, skin damage, permanent eye damage in children and even liver toxicity.
Although sodium laureth sulfate is somewhat less irritating than SLS, it cannot be metabolised by the liver and its effects are therefore much longer-lasting. This not only means it stays in the body tissues for longer, but much more precious energy is used getting rid of it.
A report published in the Journal of The American College of Toxicology in 1983 showed that concentrations of SLS as low as 0.5% could cause irritation and concentrations of 10-30% caused skin corrosion and severe irritation. National Institutes of Health "Household Products Directory" of chemical ingredients lists over 80 products that contain SLS and SLES. Some soaps have concentrations of up to 30%, which the ACT report called "highly irritating and dangerous".
Shampoos are among the most frequently reported products to the FDA. Reports include eye irritation, scalp irritation, tangled hair, swelling of the hands, face and arms and split and fuzzy hair. This is highly characteristic of sodium laureth sulfate and almost definitely directly related to its use.
Click here to learn of the possible health effects of sodium laureth sulfate
So why is a dangerous chemical like sodium laureth sulfate used in our soaps and shampoos?
The answer is simple - it is cheap. The sodium laureth sulfate found in our soaps is exactly the same as you would find in a car wash or even a garage, where it is used to degrease car engines.
In the same way as it dissolves the grease on car engines, SLES also dissolves the oils on your skin, which can cause a drying effect. It is also well documented that it denatures skin proteins, which causes not only irritation, but also allows environmental contaminants easier access to the lower, sensitive layers of the skin.
This denaturing of skin proteins may even be implicated in skin and other cancers.
Perhaps most worryingly, sodium laureth sulfate is also absorbed into the body from skin application. Once it has been absorbed, one of the main effects of SLS is to mimic the activity of the hormone Oestrogen. This has many health implications and may be responsible for a variety of health problems from PMS and Menopausal symptoms to dropping male fertility and increasing female cancers such as breast cancer, where oestrogen levels are known to be involved."
www.natural-health-information-centre.com
------------
" Studies on SLS have shown that:" (Judi Vance, Beauty To Die For, Promotion Publishing, 1998)
1. "Shampoos with SLS could retard healing and keep children's eyes from developing properly. Children under six years old are especially vulnerable to improper eye development. (Summary of Report of Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc. conference."
2. "Sodium Lauryl Sulphate can cause cataracts in adults and delays the healing of wounds in the surface of the cornea."
3. "Sodium Lauryl Sulphate has a low molecular weight and so is easily absorbed by the body. It builds up in the heart, liver and brain and can cause major problems in these areas."
4. "Sodium Lauryl Sulphate causes skin to flake and to separate and causes roughness on the skin."
5. "Sodium Lauryl Sulphate causes dysfunction of the biological systems of the skin."
6. "Sodium Lauryl Sulphate is such a caustic cleanser that it actually corrodes the hair follicle and impairs the ability to grow hair."
7. "Sodium Lauryl Sulphate is routinely used in clinical studies deliberately to irritate the skin so that the effects of other substances can be tested." (Study cited by the Wall St Journal, 1st November 1998)
Ethoxylation: Ethoxylation is the process that makes degreasing agents such as Sodium Lauryl Sulphate (SLS) less abrasive and gives them enhanced foaming properties. When SLS is ethoxylated, it forms Sodium Laureth Sulphate (SLES), a compound used in many shampoos, toothpastes, bath gels, bubble baths, and industrial degreasants. The problem is, the extremely harmful compound 1,4-dioxane may be created during the ethoxylation process, contaminating the product. 1,4-dioxane was one of the principal components of the chemical defoliant Agent Orange, used to great effect by the Americans during the Vietnam War to strip off the jungle canopy to reveal their enemy. 1,4-dioxane is a hormonal disrupter believed to be the chief agent implicated in the host of cancers suffered by Vietnam military personnel after the war. It is also an oestrogen mimic thought to increase the chances of breast cancer and endometrial cancer, stress related illnesses and lower sperm counts.
Dr Samuel Epstein (Author and research Scientist) reports: "The best way to protect yourself is to recognise ingredients most likely to be contaminated with the1,4-dioxane. These include ingredients with the prefix word, or syllable PEG, Polyethylene, Polyethylene Glycol, Polyoxyethylene, eth (as in sodium laureth sulphate) or oxynol. Both polysorbate 60 and polysorbate 80 may also be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane. (Epstein, Dr Samuel, Safe Shoppers Bible, P.190-191)"
www.health-report.co.uk/sodium...te.html
------------
"...it is well known in Europe that sodium laurel sulfate causes softening of the gums and leads to gingivitis. "
www.webdeb.com/healthnews/sls.htm
posted by:
|
-
Panic in the Organic Aisle (Sodium Lauryl Sulfate and more...)
Mon, August 25, 2008 - 1:28 AMArticle taken from Yogamates
www.yogamates.com/news/479/
You might expect a shampoo labeled “pure, natural and organic” to be, well, pure, natural and organic. So you may have been shocked — and not a little ticked off — to learn that many of your favorite natural body care products contain a nasty petrochemical linked to cancer.
The bad news broke in March at the Natural Products Expo in Anaheim, California, with the release of product tests that found 1,4 dioxane, a probable human carcinogen, in 46 out of 100 personal care products marketed as “organic” or “natural,” including top-selling brands such as JASON Pure Natural & Organic, Giovanni Organic and Nature’s Gate Organics. The tests were conducted by author David Steinman and the non-profit organization Organic Consumers Association (OCA).
The timing of the release — in the midst of the world’s largest natural-products trade show — was no doubt calculated for maximum splash to capture the industry’s attention. That it did. And the waves haven’t stopped since.
After the press conference, lawyers for Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps — makers of products that tested clean of 1,4 dioxane (and financial backers of the tests conducted by Steinman and OCA) — threatened legal action against several companies. After discussions ended in a stalemate, Dr. Bronner’s filed lawsuits in April against 10 manufacturers and three organic certifiers for their use of alleged “fraudulent organic claims.”
In May, the California Attorney General’s office filed suit against four manufacturers of products that tested highest for 1,4 dioxane, for failing to warn consumers about exposure to a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer, as required by the state’s Proposition 65 law (see sidebar).
Two separate questions are swirling in the tempest: Should “natural” body care products contain toxic petrochemicals? And how organic should “organic” personal care products really be? Opinions are aligned on the first question and run the gamut on the second. But one thing is certain: the storm that has been brewing behind the scenes in the natural products industry for years is now out in the open, forcing manufacturers to confront some difficult issues that will define the future of the burgeoning $15 billion industry.
1,4 Wha?
Busy with three kids, David Steinman’s wife didn’t have time to worry about toxic products. So he worried for them all. “Maybe it’s because I know too many secrets,” wrote Steinman, in his book A Safe Trip to Eden (Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2007).
Secrets like the truth behind the claims made by American companies like Johnson & Johnson. The leading baby product manufacturer states on its website that its products are clinically tested to ensure they are “mild and gentle enough for newborns.” This is why the company replaced the harsh cleanser sodium lauryl sulfate with the gentler sodium laureth sulfate. Lauryl is converted to laureth by adding the petrochemical ethylene oxide (a known breast carcinogen). This conversion process, called “ethoxylation,” typically leaves a residue of 1,4 dioxane in the products.
Steinman decided to send his children’s favorite bath products to a lab to test them for 1,4 dioxane. The results were released in early 2007: Most of the two dozen products tested positive for 1,4 dioxane, including Sesame Street character bubble baths and even the iconic Johnson & Johnson’s baby shampoo. The chemical was not listed on any of the labels.
Many conventional baby products, it turns out, are made with petroleum-derived chemicals that are either toxic or prone to contamination. As Steinman puts it, “We’re so addicted to oil that we’re bathing our children in it.”
Most consumers have faith that the natural sector — with its emphasis on purity and health — is immune to this condition. But Steinman’s second round of tests revealed many natural products carried the same toxic secret as the regular brands: 1,4 dioxane was in the products and not on the labels, in some cases at levels far higher than their conventional counterparts.
“These companies got caught with their pants down,” says David Bronner, president of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps and longtime critic of natural brands who make misleading organic claims. “There is an expectation they’re held to a higher standard, and they’re not living up to that expectation.”
In Bronner’s view, products claiming to be “organic” should not contain carcinogenic petrochemicals, and should instead meet the criteria of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program — a standard created for food that some companies feel is too strict for personal care products.
The objective of the Bronner’s lawsuits — which names, among others, Estee Lauder, Hain Celestial and Stella McCartney’s 100% Organic (which doesn’t contain 1,4 dioxane, but which, contrary to its name, isn’t 100 percent organic, according to Bronner) — is straightforward: “We’re saying either formulate [products] to live up to your organic claims, or drop your claims.”
Alas, unlike the food sector, where products must abide by standards in order to use the words “organic” or “natural” on labels, the natural products sector is poorly regulated. In the absence of legal criteria for using those words, some manufacturers of personal care products are making their own definitions.
Putting The Natural Back In Natural
The good news is, even before the 1,4 dioxane story broke, companies and retailers within the natural products sector were taking steps to eliminate ethoxylation.
In March, Whole Foods launched its new Premium Body Care Standard, a seal awarded to 1,200-plus products sold in the store that meet a high bar for ecological integrity. Products with the seal can’t use ethoxylated ingredients, synthetic fragrance or some 250 problematic chemicals. Prior to the launch, Whole Foods admitted that its own 365 brand didn’t yet meet the Premium Standard but was being reformulated. (The brand’s shower gel tested positive for 1,4 dioxane and Whole Foods has been named in the Attorney General’s lawsuit.)
A slew of other recently or soon-to-launch private standards for natural or organic products also ban ethoxylation and synthetic fragrance, including the OASIS organic standard named in the Dr. Bronner’s lawsuit. In Bronner’s view, OASIS is an acceptable standard for natural personal care products but not strong enough for organic certification, because it allows the hydration and sulfation of ingredients, as well as some synthetic preservatives.
The debate over the meaning of organic now heads to court. But the road ahead is looking straighter for the natural products industry. With new standards challenging companies to remove 1,4 dioxane, synthetic fragrance and other noxious ingredients from their product lines, the natural sector will be better able to differentiate itself from the Johnson & Johnson’s.
And efforts to raise the bar ever higher will no doubt continue. “We need to put the natural back in natural and keep organic organic,” says Ronnie Cummings, president of Organic Consumers Association. “We have to get to the point where the green economy is the economy, and we’re not going to get to that point without strong standards.”
Stacy Malkan is a co-founder of the national Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and author of the award-winning book Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry (New Society Publishers, 2007; NotJustaPrettyFace.org)
Resources
These four popular natural products, from manufacturers named in the Attorney General’s lawsuit, tested highest for 1,4 dioxane. While two of the four companies (Whole Foods and Citrus Magic) have publicly committed to reformulating their ingredients, we’ve listed alternatives that tested 1,4 dioxane-free to try in the meantime. For a full list of the winners and losers in the 1,4 dioxane debacle, visit organicconsumers.org.
Whole Foods 365 Everyday Value Shower Gel: 20.1 ppm* (substitute EO Nourishing Shower Gel or ZIA Fresh Cleansing Gel With Sea Algae instead)
Alba Passion Fruit Body Wash: 18.2 ppm (try Burt’s Bees Body Wash, Desert Essence Body Wash or Terr- Essential Organic Cool Mint Body Wash instead)
Citrus Magic 100% Natural Dish Liquid: 97.1 ppm* (swap for Aubrey Organics Earth Aware Household Cleanser)
Nutribiotic Super Shower Gel Shampoo with GSE (fresh fruit): 32.2 ppm (for a cleaner clean, try EO Voluminizing Shampoo, Dr. Hauschka Apricot and Sea Buckthorn Shampoo or Head Organics Clearly Head Shampoo)
*parts per million
How to Avoid 1,4 Dioxane
Because it is a contaminant (not intentionally added to products), 1,4 dioxane is not listed on product labels. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry recommends avoiding cosmetic products that contain ingredients that could be contaminated with 1,4 dioxane, since there is no way to know the level of contaminants in the products. It may be in products that contain the following ingredients or partial ingredient names: sodium laureth sulfate, sodium myreth sulfate, PEG, polyethylene, polyethylene glycol, “oxynol,” “ceteareth,” or “oleth.”
You can also use the advanced search in the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database (cosmeticsdatabase.com) to look for products without contamination concerns.
According to the OCA product tests, all products carrying the USDA organic certification or the German Natural “BDIH” certification were free of 1,4 dioxane.
