21. PROPYLENE GLYCOL
Function: Solvent, penetration enhancer, conditions skin, controls viscosity and keeps products from melting in high or freezing when it is cold.
Present in: Many cosmetics and personal care products, read labels.
Health concerns: Alters skin structure, allowing other chemicals to penetrate deep into the skin and increasing the amounts of other chemicals that reach the bloodstream; animal studies show reproductive effects, positive mutation results, brain and nervous system effects and endocrine disruption.
22. SODIUM LAURETH SULFATE
Function: Surfactant, penetration enhancer.
Present in: Many cosmetics and personal care products, read labels.
Health concerns: Alters skin structure, allowing other chemicals to penetrate deep into the skin, increasing the amounts of other chemicals that reach the bloodstream; Irritant; animal studies show sense organ effects.
23. TOLUENE
Function: Antioxidant, solvent to improve adhesion and gloss.
Present in: Nail polish and hair dye.
Health concerns: Liver toxin; probable developmental, nervous system and respiratory toxin; possible cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, renal and sense organ toxin; possible carcinogen and reproductive toxin; irritant; highly flammable;
24. TRICLOSAN
Function: Anti-bacterial agent, deodorant, preservative, biocide. Reduces and controls bacterial contamination on the hands and on treated products.
Present in: Antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, mouthwashes, face wash and cleaning supplies. Restricted in Japan and Canada.
Health concerns: Probable endocrine disrupter and carcinogen; easily bio-accumulates to dangerous levels; irritant; animal studies show reproductive and other broad systematic effects; potentially contaminated with impurities linked to cancer and other significant health problems; studies have shown it can actually induce cell death when used in mouth washes.
25. 1.4 DIOXANE
Function: Penetration enhancer
Present in: Body lotion, moisturizers, sunless tanning products, baby soap, anti-aging products..
Health concerns: EPA classifies it as a probable carcinogen found in 46 of 100 personal care products marketed as organic or natural, and the National Toxicology Program considers it a known animal carcinogen. Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure to high levels of 1,4 dioxane has caused vertigo, drowsiness, headache, anorexia and irritation of the eyes, nose, throat and lungs of humans. It may also irritate the skin.
Posted by :: Emma Pezzack – www.futurenatural.com: the best organic beauty products in the world via Teens Turning Green
Thanks for putting this list together. Like you, I think it is best to avoid these ingredients. At the same time, I’ve been following the discussion about the Safe Cosmetics Act 2010, and the data put forth by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. I wrote a blog post about lead in lipstick, for instance. It seems the picture is not quite so black and white as I initially thought. Who doesn’t want safe cosmetics? But are we starting to emerge from the Environmental Working Group’s “Reign of Error?”
It’s a deeply complex topic Gaelle – you’re so right. I believe that we’re headed in the right direction and there desperately needs to be industry oversight and regulation – though the delays in getting anything worthwhile passed are frustrating. If the bills that are being introduced are constantly being slammed down, let’s all just agree that there are KNOWN toxins, based on science and fact, not sensationalism & heresay, that should be banned now, and with a sense of urgency.
Thanks for putting this list together. Like you, I think it is best to avoid these ingredients. At the same time, I’ve been following the discussion about the Safe Cosmetics Act 2010, and the data put forth by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. I wrote a blog post about lead in lipstick, for instance. It seems the picture is not quite so black and white as I initially thought. Who doesn’t want safe cosmetics? But are we starting to emerge from the Environmental Working Group’s “Reign of Error?”
It’s a deeply complex topic Gaelle – you’re so right. I believe that we’re headed in the right direction and there desperately needs to be industry oversight and regulation – though the delays in getting anything worthwhile passed are frustrating. If the bills that are being introduced are constantly being slammed down, let’s all just agree that there are KNOWN toxins, based on science and fact, not sensationalism & heresay, that should be banned now, and with a sense of urgency.
It’s good though, don’t you think that the labelling laws that are coming in ensure that all the ingredients will be disclosed. This makes it easier to make informed choices. You are right Emma, it’s crazy that known carcinogenics and other toxins are still used in todays formulations! Because of this I formulated my own range http://www.keshiorganics.com.au now I know EXACTLY what i am putting on my skin. For me that means NO NASTIES! xKaren
I couldn’t agree more about the labelling laws. As it stands companies do have to disclose ingredients on labels, apart from the generic ‘fragrance’ (which is an issue), but the problem is also with chemicals that are used for extractions and processing that don’t have to be disclosed on labels. It’s one of the things that the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics is trying to change – that all companies must disclose all ingredients (trace or not) that have been used in the manufacture of a product, and the products must be registered with a nationwide database that everyone will have access to. The Personal Care Council has agreed fundamentally but no legislation or guidelines have as yet gone into action. It’s nowhere near enough but at least it’s a start…
I’m totally on-board with the need for better labeling regulations and the drive to get poisons out of our personal care products. The problem with the Safe Cosmetics Act, though (as I understand it), is that everyday organic products, like olive oil, would fall foul of its provisions. It’s one of those things where the more detailed the analysis of the proposals, the more unworkable they appear to be. I’m no expert in this field and take guidance from people who clearly know more than me, and who are oriented the same way as I am with respect to living an organic lifestyle. Gay Timmons would be an example. Are there people or organizations you could recommend?
Gaelle, thanks again for your comments! There’s much misinformation about what the SCA would legislate, coversely there are some relevant concerns. I just wish we didn’t have to keep going back to the drawing board and could accomplish some kind of common ground on the most toxic ingredients. In terms of organizations or people – I’m not sure what you’re looking for? Like-minded people? Or specific places to get information you need?
Hi Emma
Thanks for your response. I am not looking for people who agree with me; rather, people who can point me to data to support their position. There is a post on the Essenttial U blog, for instance, called “The Lead Debate Made Simple.” It seems to shoot down the whole lead issue. I have not seen similar data from the other side of the debate. I’m assuming there must be some.
I’m totally on-board with the need for better labeling regulations and the drive to get poisons out of our personal care products. The problem with the Safe Cosmetics Act, though (as I understand it), is that everyday organic products, like olive oil, would fall foul of its provisions. It’s one of those things where the more detailed the analysis of the proposals, the more unworkable they appear to be. I’m no expert in this field and take guidance from people who clearly know more than me, and who are oriented the same way as I am with respect to living an organic lifestyle. Gay Timmons would be an example. Are there people or organizations you could recommend?
Gaelle, thanks again for your comments! There’s much misinformation about what the SCA would legislate, coversely there are some relevant concerns. I just wish we didn’t have to keep going back to the drawing board and could accomplish some kind of common ground on the most toxic ingredients. In terms of organizations or people – I’m not sure what you’re looking for? Like-minded people? Or specific places to get information you need?
Hi Emma
Thanks for your response. I am not looking for people who agree with me; rather, people who can point me to data to support their position. There is a post on the Essenttial U blog, for instance, called “The Lead Debate Made Simple.” It seems to shoot down the whole lead issue. I have not seen similar data from the other side of the debate. I’m assuming there must be some.
You should really check out this site for the real scoop on these ingredients..some listed here are correct, some however like hydroquinone and oxybenzone are NOT toxins along with Parabens, and this site points to the peer reviewd scientific research to prove that point beyond all doubts! hope this helps, http://www.cosmeticscop.com/learn-skin-care-facts.aspx#
If you look a little further into her website she has a full ingredient list dictionary with endless descriptions and saftey info on cosmetic ingredients! which i have found most helpful as well! also try joining her on facebook!
Thank you for the information and list of ingredients to avoid. I feel that the cosmetic industry is not regulated effectively and that companies can still get away with using dangerous/toxic ingredients in their products. The long term health implications of using these type of products can only be negative.
I formulate cosmetic products for a living. I could probably write a book on the science behind them. But instead could I just ask a question. When people like Amarya say we are allowed to ‘get away with using dangerous/toxic ingredients’, why do you think we would want to do that? Are we evil? Are we ignorant? Or is there some advantage to making dangerous things?