A Chemist Takes Stephanie to Task on Phenoxyethanol
Mon, November 9, 2009 at 2:42 PM Recently one of our Chemical of the Day articles was featured in Utah Stories Magazine as a "Chemical of the Month" feature. After a local chemist read the article, he challenged Stephanie's stance on phenoxyethanol and wrote in to the magazine.
I have just yesterday become acquainted with Utah Stories - what a great idea! In harmony with your stated objective of telling the undistorted truth, I'd like to make a few comments about one of the articles in your October 2009 edition. As a professional chemist, the article "Chemical of the Month," discussing a cosmetic additive called phenoxyethanol is a near-perfect example of distorting the truth to fit a pre-conceived idea.
The author's very first paragraph points out that phenoxyethanol is made from phenol, which itself is made from benzene, a known carcinogen. Phenol is then treated with ethylene oxide, another known carcinogen, then with an alkali. She is technically correct, but it makes as much sense to describe a very common compound around the house as being made from the reaction of a poison gas used in World War I with a substance that spontaneously bursts into flame if it comes in contact with air. That common substance is of course sodium chloride - table salt. That phenoxyethanol is made from rather scary ingredients does NOT necessarily mean that the material itself shares any of the adverse properties of its constituents, any more than table salt is a poisonous gas.
She also gives the following: "EWG Risk Score: 4" without defining where the EWG Risk Score comes from or what it means. It turns out that the Environmental Working Group is a non-profit organization that searches available databases of ingredients in cosmetics to determine the risks associated with each ingredient. The results of that search are published on line, and also used to lobby Congress to pass legislation making cosmetics safer. A look at the actual EWG report (see here) on phenoxyethanol is most enlightening. Note that the EWG is very careful to define the differences between the ingredient itself and the products in which it is used. Here is their statement:
Research studies have found that exposure to this ingredient -- not the products containing it -- caused the indicated health effect(s) in the studies reviewed by Skin Deep researchers. Actual health risks, if any, will vary based on the level of exposure to the ingredient and individual susceptibility -- information not available in Skin Deep.
The author of your article states that phenoxyethanol's use is limited in Japan, but somehow does not mention what the EWG documents: the chemical's use is restricted to cosmetics - the very area in which the material is generally used in the US. What a surprise!
By the way, EWG defines their risk score of 4 (on a 1-10 scale) as meaning "moderate hazard." Now remember that the score is for the chemical itself in its most concentrated form, not for products using that chemical. Since toxicity correlates to dosage, using such a material at the very low levels common for preservatives (phenoxyethanol's function in cosmetics) means that the actual risks presented by this material are very, very low.
The author's obvious goal in her article is to tout her 'chemical-free' product line. Yes, phenoxyethanol is a chemical, no doubt about it. But it's a far more benign material than one would think if your only information came from Stephanie Greenwood! If she wants to sell a truly synthetic-chemical-free product line, she will have to quit using virtually all commercially-available fragrances, eschew purchasing glycerine, and go back to lard, olive oil, fireplace ashes, and herbs to make her soaps, creams, and potions.
Now, it's clear that there are some very dangerous synthetic chemicals around, and that prudence demands caution - but to insist that we go back to the 17th century technologically in order to escape all those terrible materials is not only silly but unnecessary. If you would be interested, I would be pleased to write a short article on some of the fallacies inherent in so-called 'chemical-free' materials.
Finally, I'd like to point out that I'm not an industry shill: my company, GreenFire Energy, is engaged in production of energy using advanced geothermal techniques, including a novel process that creates energy while at the same time sequestering CO2! Life is fun--and good technology is good for our planet and all of us who live on it.
Yours,
Alan D. Eastman, PhD
Vice-President, Technical Development
GreenFire Energy
5698 Park Place East
Salt Lake City, UT 84121
http://www.greenfireenergy.com/
Dear Alan,
Well, it looks like I've succeeded--I live to stir up a good debate about chemicals!
Thank you so much for offering your perspective on phenoxyethanol. I think it's wonderful that you've challenged my perspective in a thoughtful manner. First I have to say that I'm not an employee or paid by Utah Stories, so my opinion does not necessarily reflect that of the publication. Chemical of the Day is a blog that I run, and due to the popularity of a previously published excerpt, Utah Stories asked me to offer one of my chemicals to their readers as a Chemical of the Month. And while I carefully research my information and believe everything to be true, Chemical of the Month is more of an opinion piece than the other hard-hitting journalism found in the publication. We will make this more clear for future pieces. That said, I'll be happy to delve deeper in substantiating my claims against the chemical. I hold fast to my claims.
Your point about table salt is not lost on me. I'm assuming you're talking about the classic textbook reaction of hydrochloric acid (the poisonous gas) and sodium hydroxide (the substance that can burst in to flame). However, on a chemical level, it's not a fully accurate analogy. HCl plus NaOH is a simple reaction dealing with only four elements. When measured precisely, we know that these two chemicals will combine to solely create water (H2O) and NaCl (table salt). This is simple inorganic chemistry. All original bonds are broken and reformed to create new compounds.
The creation of phenoxyethanol is a much more complex process involving more than one chemical reaction. Not all of the chemical bonds of the original compounds are broken down and re-formed as in your table salt analogy. (For our non-chemist readers I'm going to offer some explanations). Phenoxyethanol starts out as phenol. Phenol is an aromatic hydrocarbon, meaning that it contains a benzene ring. A benzene ring is basically a chemical ring made out of carbon and hydrogen. The chemical benzene is a simple ring of six hydrogen atoms and six carbon atoms hooked together in a hexagon style shape like this:
Benzene is a known carcinogen.
Phenol is created when you take a benzene ring and substitute one of the hydrogen atoms with a hydroxyl group (an oxygen and a hydrogen):
Phenol
As you can see, it still retains the hexagon structure of the benzene ring. When a compound contains a benzene ring, it's called an "aromatic hydrocarbon." Because it is only one atom away from benzene, phenol still has many negative health effects. According to the World Health Organization, phenol "may cause effects on the central nervous system, heart and kidneys, resulting in convulsions, coma, cardiac disorders respiratory failure, collapse." It's also classified as a suspected carcinogen.
So, to make phenoxyethanol, you take phenol and you add ethylene oxide and an alkali. This reaction doesn't break down the benzene ring of the phenol, but just adds a longer "tail" to the structure.
Phenoxyethanol
Phenoxyethanol too is an aromatic hydrocarbon containing a benzene ring. In very simplified terms, this heavy tail makes phenoxyethanol less reactive than phenol or benzene, however it is still problematic. When ingested, phenoxyethanol is broken down in to glycolic acid, which is then broken down in to oxalic acid, which is toxic. In fact, the FDA recently recalled a nipple cream containing phenoxyethanol because of its toxic effects stating that phenoxyethanol can "depress the central nervous system and may cause vomiting and diarrhea, which can lead to dehydration in infants."
But the risk isn't limited to infants. Any time you have a benzene ring in a synthetic compound like this one, you have the risk of disrupting reproductive health. All three forms of estrogen (estrone, estradiol, and estriol) are made up of complex benzene rings. Estrogen receptors in the body are designed to react to these particular benzene rings. But when a synthetic chemical containing benzene rings enters the body, it binds to estrogen receptors and stimulates cells incorrectly or disrupts the biometabolic pathways. Each variation is going to interfere in different ways, some more strongly than others. Phenoxyethanol has been studied and it has been found to affect reproductive health (see here).
Getting back to the table salt analogy, I have one more point to make. Yes, theoretically, if you do combine hydrochloric acid with lye, you do get table salt. However, this probably isn't table salt you'd want to eat. The measurements and concentration of the two chemicals would have to be quite precise, otherwise you'd end up with salt contaminated with acid or lye. The same thing is true with phenoxyethanol. When you have phenol being treated with ethylene oxide, there is the risk that the end product is contaminated with ethylene oxide. In fact, many cosmetic ingredients are tainted with ethylene oxide (and subsequent byproduct, 1,4-dioxane).
One may argue that the exposure to phenoxyethanol and (subsequent dioxane contamination) is too small in cosmetic applications to affect health. You may say that you'd have to ingest gallons of the stuff to see the negative effects. Yes, perhaps using a lotion with a small amount of phenoxyethanol one time isn't going to make your body go haywire. But with cosmetic items we're looking at repeated multiple daily exposure. From the lotions, perfumes, makeups, deodorants, soaps, aftershaves, hairsprays, shampoos, conditioners, and other personal care items, we're exposing ourselves to gallons and gallons of chemicals every day, after day, after day. Not to mention the plastics around us like PVC, BPA and phlalates that are suspected to mimic estrogen, as well as pesticide residues from our foods. Perhaps isolated, exposing oneself to one chemical may not have terrible side effects. But over time these trace amounts do enter our bodies and do affect our health. If we can limit the toxic load that we're exposing ourselves to, why wouldn't we? For the most part, I do come from a "17th century" mindset. I don't use commercially-produced fragrances because most of them are aromatic hydrocarbons. I don't use synthetic preservatives or emulsifiers. I do, for the large majority, only use natural and organic herbs and oils in my products. The closer I am to making something the old-fashioned way, the better.
Perhaps my article was one-sided. But I feel it's not inappropriate. Billions of marketing dollars are spent every year by multi-national corporations to argue otherwise.
Perhaps my article was oversimplified. I simply did not have the room in a one page article to get down to the molecular level in an explanation, nor do most readers want a lesson in organic chemistry. So, I've written my blog and this article in an easy-to-digest format for readers' easy reference.
I apologize for not explaining what the EWG Risk Score was. This was an excerpt from my blog, and my blog readers are already familiar with the resource and look to this resource as a baseline for making decisions. I'll correct this for any future articles.
Alan, I applaud your efforts at GreenFire Energies. I am for technologies that clean our world and make it a better place. I would welcome an article explaining the fallacies of "chemical-free" products, as most of them that claim to be "natural" or "organic" still contain synthetic chemicals.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Greenwood
[Stephanie Greenwood]
On November 12, "Violet" wrote:
Once again, another person who doesn't understand a thing about chemistry scaring the public. Phenoxyethanol is NOT a known carcinogen, regardless of what its precursors are. (And your response, Stephanie, on Utah Stories just made you look all the more ignorant, since you don't even know that hydrochloric acid is NOT a poisonous gas, and is not what Dr. Eastman was referring to...that would be chlorine.) People who do not understand how chemistry works or do their own research (on more than just EWG websites) should not listen to people who just stick their names on products that they have developed and made by contract manufacturers. Really, we should all go back to parabens, since we chemists KNOW there's nothing wrong with them, despite what the scaremongers (who get all their information from "informative" websites like this one) may want you to think. Absolutely infuriating.
And Stephanie responded:
Hi Violet! Thanks for commenting on my post.
A few points....
1. Regarding the Hydrochloric Acid as a gas: When the chemist said the substance that "spontaneously bursts into flame" I automatically thought he was talking about lye because my mind is so focused on the world of soap-making! (I see I missed the part about "when exposed to air." Lye only spontaneously combusts when introduced to water). I knew he was talking about chlorine gas as the poisonous gas, but adding chlorine gas to lye creates sodium hypochlorite, not table salt. So, the closest thing that fit was hydrochloric acid, so I gathered that's what Dr. Eastman was talking about (chlorine, the poisonous gas, in its ionic form). Upon a closer examination of his article, I see that he was simply talking about chlorine gas and pure sodium (the pure sodium was the spontaneously combusting material). Reacting pure chlorine gas and pure sodium is so rare in practical applications (because it's so explosive) that I didn't consider it as a possibility. In the real world it's much more common to combine these two elements when they're in their acid or alkalai state for safety reasons. We're still talking about sodium and chloride combining though--my model just has some ancillary hydrogen and oxygen molecules. And my point is still valid--even more so: the creation of phenoxyethanol is not as simple as the inorganic reaction between sodium and chlorine. But I'm glad that I have you chemists here to keep me on my toes with these technicalities. ;)
2. My post did not state that phenoxyethanol was classified as a known carcinogen.
3. My research extends well beyond that of EWG...perhaps you missed the links in my original article or did not fully read my rebuttal. In fact, I have an article on my blog all about doing your own research and not just relying on the EWG Cosmetics Database.
4. It seems you are insinuating that Bubble & Bee Organic uses a contract manufacturer. We proudly make our fabulous products by hand in our own USDA Certified Organic facility.
You're definitely entitled to your opinion. Everyone should make their own choices about his or her health. Just as people can choose to drink high fructose corn syrup and eat hydrogenated oils, they can use parabens, phenoxyethanol and other sketchy chemicals on their skin. Some people choose to use caution when it comes to their health and eat organic, whole foods, and use organic, whole ingredients on their skin. It's just a personal choice. For the people that do choose to go the organic route, I offer my expert opinion and research to help people decipher between what's natural and what's not. Our readers are generally well-educated and have the ability to complete the same research I provide. I simply save them some time and try to make it approachable. It's a confusing world of personal care products out there, and so many companies lie about the ingredients in their products. My readers also know that as more data is presented we are not above changing our opinions or even pointing out an error when we make one.
To my readers: It appears that "Violet" is a chemist and possibly in the industry (since she's familair with the concept of "contract manufacturing."). Perhaps she has a line of her own, or works for another cosmetics company. I frequently run in to this attitude from other industry people. Right now the cosmetics industry is under fire from a lot of sources, so these chemists and industry people are in defense mode. From the new crackdown on fake "organic" products, to the legislation being pushed by the Environmental Working Group, these companies are concerned because they're constantly being challenged about these issues. I'm not out to bring down any companies, but to simply inform people of the risks. It is harder to make money in this business when you adhere to the strict self-imposed organic standards that we do. Other companies are scared that they will be forced to operate under the same standards and won't be able to sell their watered-down products loaded with preservatives at an 80% profit margin any more.