Parabens in Perspective: A Response
Tue, December 14, 2010 at 6:39 PM Recently, Dene Godfrey of PersonalCareTruth.com published a five-part series called "Parabens In Perspective." His major point is that the claims against the safety of parabens is largely exaggerated, and suggests that parabens are safe to use.
This is my response to his series of articles and to a couple of questions Godfrey has posed to me in the comments on this blog.
A Summary of His Assertions
For your quick reference, I'll summarize his articles. Know that there is a lot more detail that he has written in the articles; if you would like to delve completely in, I've linked directly to the articles.
In Part 1 of his series, Godfrey cites a study from 1998 ("Some Alkyl Hydroxy Benzoate Preservatives (Parabens) are Estrogenic," Tox & Appl Pharm 154 12-19, Routledge et al). The study outlines the estrogenic activity of the different types of parabens. In vitro studies (tests on cell cultures) and in vivo studies (studies on rats) showed that parabens had very weak estrogenic properties. The strongest paraben, butylparaben, was 10,000 times weaker than oestradiol (our body's natural estrogen) when tested on cell cultures. Godfrey points out that in this study, rats dosed with methylparaben had no detected estrogenic activity. He states that at 40 mg/kg bodyweight/day, there was no observed effects when the rats were injected with butylparaben. Considering the low concentration of parabens used in cosmetics, he concludes that an average human would have to apply 60kg (roughly 100 lbs) of cosmetics every day to see any effect. Godfrey asserts that "it seems unreasonable to conclude that butylparaben poses no measurable risk in terms of potential hormone disruption by its weak oestrogenic activity."
In Part 2, Godfrey takes on the widely-publicized claims that parabens accumulate in breast cancer tumors. He deconstructs the 2004 study ("Concentrations of Parabens in Human Breast Tumours," Appl. Toxicol. 24, 5-13, Darbre et al.) that he claims started the major controversy. He points out that it's unlikely that antiperspirants would be the source of parabens, as most antiperspirants contain no preservatives. He also points out that the blood and lymphatic systems flow away from the breast.
Godfrey then summarizes a number of flaws found regarding the study, including problems with control groups and calculation errors or improprieties. He concludes, after much detail, that this study is "highly ambiguous, because it does not provide irrefutable proof of the presence of parabens in human breast tumours."
In Part 3, Godfrey critiques a 2000 study that examines estrogenic activity of parabens in aquatic life. ("The preservatives ethyl-, propyl-, and butylparaben are oestrogenic in an in vivo fish assay," Pharm & Tx 86, 100-113, Pedersen et al.) While the study does find that some parabens display estrogenic activity, Godfrey points out that the "concentrations of parabens tested are around 1 trillion times higher than typical environmental concentrations."
In Part 4, Godfrey taks about the difference between oestrogenic activity and estrogenic mimickry. Estrogen activity meaning how well a substance binds to an estrogen receptor, and estrogen mimickry meaning how it stimulates the receptor or creates estrogen-like responses within the body. He discusses three studies. One study looks at how parabens compare in gene expression with natural estrogen, one is a short term study of a topically applied cream on human skin and one is an animal study of injected butylparaben. The latter two studies found no effects of the parabens.
In Part 5, Godfrey talks about some test results from Dr. Darbre that are widely distributed on the internet, but not published in any peer-reviewed journal.
In Part 6, Godfrey deconstructs a paper that outlines a new methodology for testing the estrogenic nature of parabens.
Some Specific Responses
I have some specific responses for Parts 2 and 4 I'd like to touch on, and then I have a broader response that applies to much of the material Godfrey has set forth.
Response to Part 2:
A link to the abstract for the study he's discussing here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14745841
It is my opinion that Godfrey is sensationalizing the material a little. He says that this study "single handedly caused all the hysteria over the use of parabens that has continued to this day." According to his account, it seems as if Darbre shouted from the rooftops that parabens were definitely estrogenic and caused breast cancer. But not so. She concludes that her study "should open the way technically for more detailed information to be obtained on body burdens of parabens."
Here, harvey responds to many of the questions and comments that Godfrey and others have posed about Dabre's study. "Darbre et al. point out in reply that underarm cosmetics should not be taken to imply antiperspirants only; underarm cosmetics also include deodorants, moisturizers, lotions, and cremes also may be applied directly to the chest and breast, which is the tissue under study, rather than the underarm."
As Harvey points out, "Darbre has made it clear that finding the esters of p-hydroxybenzoic acid (parabens) in tumour samples should not be taken to imply causality of the tumours, and also that the source of the parabens required confirmation."
Godfrey has brought up the point that the blanks contained levels of parabens as well, with the intent to discredit the concentrations found in the tumour tissue. As Harvey points out: "The blanks serve as controls for laboratory procedures and analytical practice is to subtract any values to provide corrected concentrations of compounds in the samples under investigation. The finding of varying concentrations of a number of esters in the tumour samples and the subtraction of the appropriate blank control values was fully reported by Darbre et al. in their original paper and is also addressed in their reply."
That all being said, I do agree with Godfrey that there are a number of faults to this particular study and further research should be done with better controls and methodology. However, finding the faults of this study, as seminal as it may have been, does not negate other findings of multiple studies that parabens do display estrogenic-like activity within the body. Additionally, the scope should not be limited to breast cancer tissue, but to entire systemic effects.
Response to Part 4:
Here is a link to the abstract for the study in question: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17121429
From the abstract: "Some genes responded differently to parabens from 17beta-oestradiol, and furthermore, differences in expression of some genes could be detected even between the two individual parabens. Therefore, although parabens possess oestrogenic properties, their mimicry in terms of global gene expression patterns is not perfect and differences in gene expression profiles could result in consequences to the cells that are not identical to those following exposure to 17beta-oestradiol."
Godfrey interprets this as "In other words, parabens are NOT oestrogen mimics." But this seems to be too broad and quick of a generalization. One could also interpret the different "consequences to the cells" could be cell mutations. Just because the parabens didn't act exactly as estrogen, doesn't mean that they don't create deleterious effects that are similar to that of an overabundance of estrogen.
Regarding the short term study....this was just a short-term study and has no bearing on the long-term effects of chronic paraben use, even if the dose was higher than would be in a normal cream. No one uses a paraben lotion for just a few weeks; if they're using parabens, the exposure is going to be long-term from numerous products. The study applied a 2% paraben cream to test subjects. Considering the daily exposure a person could have to parabens with their shampoo, conditioner, hair gel, perfume, body lotion, face lotion, makeup, deodorant, hand cream, hand soap, etc, it's not out of the realm of possibility that one could have a daily dose close to that applied in the cream. Citing a short-term study doesn't mean that parabens are safe; cancer and other long-term side effects take years to develop.
Now for my broader response.
Our discussion
(This will eventually lead to my broader response) Godfrey started this discussion with me by commenting on my article about Grapefruit Seed Extract. He took issue with my assertion that benzene rings are harmful:
"Sorry, but whilst you actually talk a lot of sense about the GSE situation, you are totally misinformed about the benzene ring! Compounds with a benzene ring do NOT automatically mimic oestrogen. Benzene rings are so common in natural chemicals they are in thousands of different compounds in our own bodies, and everywhere else throughout the natural world. The benzene ring is one of the fundamental building blocks of many/most natural substances. Even just neat benzene alone does not mimic oestrogen! I do not understand where you get this information from!"
I replied:
Of course, not everything with a benzene ring is estrogenic. Numerous beneficial antioxidants and compounds contain benzene rings. Many of the building blocks of life are built of benzene rings.
Estradiol is one of those building blocks. The most active end of the estradiol molecule is the end with the benzene ring. Our estrogen receptors are built to fit this benzene ring, so when molecules with a single benzene ring on an end enters our bodies, it has the possibility to enter these estrogen receptors and thus stimulate the receptor molecule (thus acting estrogenically.)
There is much evidence that benzene acts estrogenically.
This study found that women exposed to benzene developed irregular menstrual cycles: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11025497
As did this study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11411330And this study found increased risk of breast cancer when exposed to benzene:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19366049It is well-known that polyaromatic hydrocarbons (benzene-based compounds) act estrogenically. Look at all of the known estrogen mimickers...parabens, phthalates, bisphenol A...they all have benzene rings at the end of the molecular structure. All estrogen mimickers have benzene rings or something very similar in shape.
If there were no evidence that GSE acted estrogenically, I wouldn't indicate it as such entirely based on the molecular structure. But there IS evidence of its estrogenic nature, and my point of bringing up the benzene rings is because it is that particular end of the molecule that is likely to be the culprit.
To which he replied:
I wish I could agree with you, but I can't! The first two references you quote are not connected with oestrogenicity; only to the disruption of the menstrual cycle, and there is not neccesarily any connection. The 3rd reference was highly equivocal in its claims, saying that it only moderately supported the claims - very different to full proof. The real part of the molecule that determines oestrogenicity is NOT the benzene ring, but the substituents attached to the ring. One example of this is the fact that 4-hydroxybenzoic acid (the major breadown product of all parabens) has NO measurable oestogenic activity, whereas butyl 4-hydroxybenzoate (butylparaben) has weak oestrogenic activity (100,000 times weaker than oestradiol), and this leads me on to another important point, Oestrogenic activity is NOT the same as being an oestrogen mimic, despite the slightly similar naming used. There is no real evidence that any parabens actually mimic oestrogen and, indeed, the stronger evidence suggests that parabens have significant differences in the effects on global gene expression (the indicator of oestrogen mimicry) compared with oestradiol. Oestrogenic activity is simply a measure of the affinity of a substances for oestrogen binding sites - it is the effect on global gene expression that is the real issue, and parabens are in the clear here!
To which I responded:
Dene--you mght find this study interesting click here
"It can be concluded that removal of the ester group from parabens does not abrogate its oestrogenic activity and that p-hydroxybenzoic acid can give oestrogenic responses in human breast cancer cells."
To which he responded:
I appreciate that you have found this "evidence", Stephanie, but it is important to avoid relying on a single study (especially one by Darbre whose track record with parabens studies is far from exemplary). There is one other study I have seen that also ascribes oestrogenic activity to p-hydroxybenzoic acid, but there are more studies that find none and, hence, the weight of evidence is in favour of p-HBA not having oestrogenic activity, further supported by the several studies that have shown a marked reduction in the oestrogenic activity as the carbon chain length gets shorter on the ester group. Every single study by Darbre since 2004 relies on her having "detected" parabens in human breast cancer cells. Her work was deeply flawed and highly inconclusive, but she has staked her reputation on parabens being an issue. Until there is actual proof that parabens cause problems, the jury remains firmly out on this, no matter what studies Darbre contrives to put together to support her hypothesis. Sorry if this sounds rather dogmatic, but if you check out those links I provided earlier, hopefully you will understand my scepticism.
To which I replied:
So it is your opinion that all studies with Darbre's name should be thrown out?
To which he replied:
lol - in my wildest dreams! But seriously . . . not at all - just treated with great caution. Her 2004 study on parabens in breast tumours would certainly be a genuine candidate for permanent removal from the scientific literature - and I don't make that statement lightly - it really was that bad in so many different respects. The remainder just need to be seen in context. Some of the concentrations she uses are much higher than she "detected" in the 2004 study, and some of the studies are carried out on cells that are specifically designed to be cancerous and are mostly of academic interest rather than having any real practical value. Although it was not a published study, the work by Darbre to which I referred in Part V of the parabens series I gave you links to was anoher example of extremely poor science from this researcher.
To start off, I have a bit of biochemistry to discuss. Let's look at how estrogen is regulated in the body.
Where my discussion really begins
Estrogen is actually not a single compound, but a group of compounds. There are three major types of estrogen: estradiol, estrone, and estriol. Estradiol is the most predominant estrogen in non-pregnant women before menopause. All of these compounds have a similar basic structure.
Estriol
Estradiol
Estrone
You'll notice that they all have the same basic shape, just with some differences on the "d ring" (the pentagon shape on the right.) On the left side of the molecule diagram, you'll notice on all of them, a ring with an OH sticking out of it. The ring is known as a benzene ring. The OH is known as a hydroxyl group. When you put them together, you create a phenol.
Estrogens are fat-soluble molecules, residing largely within our bodys' fat stores. To remove estrogen from the body, an enzyme called estrogen sulfotransferase will take away the OH group from the phenol, and add a sulfonate group. This makes the estrogen molecule biologically inactive and water-soluble. This water-solubility makes it easy for the body to flush out through the bloodstream. (Source) So, the balance of hormones within the body are largely dependent upon the function of sulfotransferase.
Estrogen Sulfotransferase is part of the SULT1 family, also known as phenol transferases. (source) These enzymes are designed specifically to react with phenol groups, substituting taking away the hydroxyl groups and adding sulfonate groups instead. (I say "react," but for you chemists that are reading this, know that I mean "catalyze. I'm trying to make this as simple as possible.)
So, when a foreign chemical with a phenolic structure enters the body, it reacts in the estrogen sulfotransferase, stealing the sulfonate group from the enzyme. (Source) It would make sense that this would affect natural estrogen levels because this means one less sulfonate group that a natural estrogen can take. So, that estrogen molecule would stay active in the body's fat because it cannot become water-soluble and be excreted. It would make sense that in this way that xenoestrogens can actually cause the buildup of estrogen within the body. (From now on, I'm going to refer to estrogen sulfotransferase by its shortened name, SULT1E1). Another theory is that when foreign phenols enter the enzyme, it gets "stuck" in it, and slows down the reaction--thus creating a buildup of estrogen. (Source) It's also possible that a part of the foreign molecule could damage the enzyme. Either way, it is known that when SULT1E1 is deactivated, it leads to a buildup of estrogen. This study found that SULT1E1 was largely deactivated in breast cancer cells.
Triclosan, a phenolic chemical, is known to deactivate SULT1E1. (Source)
Bis-phenol A is known to deactivate SULT1E1 activity. (Source)
Notice the phenolic-like structure
PCBs are a group of chemicals that are known to strongly affect endocrine function and hormones and do inhibit SULT1E1 function. (Source)
So now, let's look at the structure of parabens.
Le t's look at the most active paraben, benzyl paraben
Notice how it, too has a phenol group and an additional benzene ring (no wonder it's so active.)
And guess what---it, and all other forms of parabens affect SULT1E1 activity! (Source) The study that found this, also points out that it's the enzyme directly in the skin that reacts with the parabens.
Quote from the study: "Overall, these results suggest chronic topical application of parabens may lead to prolonged estrogenic effects in skin as a result of inhibition of estrogen sulfotransferase activity. Accordingly, the skin anti-aging benefits of many topical cosmetics and pharmaceuticals could be derived, in part, from the estrogenicity of parabens."
(Note to Godfrey: This study was not done by Dr. Darbre or anyone who works with her.)
So, now, let's go back to Godfrey's articles. This sheds a new light on things.
Godfrey focuses a lot on absorption in his articles. The notion that parabens actually react with the skin to promote built-up levels of estrogen puts these studies in to a new perspective. Parabens in breast cancer tumors as discussed in part 2 is kind of a moot point now...who cares if the parabens are in the tumors of not--it was the parabens that inhibited the SULT1E1 action, thus increasing the estrogen levels in the body, thus promoting the tumor growth. Their presence of parabens in the actual tumor becomes secondary.
And now what about parabens affinity for estrogen receptors, as discussed in part one? If parabens don't have a strong affinity for estrogen receptors, who cares? It's generally agreed that BPA is a xenoestrogen. In this study, BPA didn't bind very strongly with estrogen receptors, but it stimulated the growth of breast cancer cells. The study pointed towards sulfonation as the cause. All evidence points towards parabens acting in the same way.
Now what about absorption? Absorbtion in to the bloodstream seems to be a moot point too. If 100% of the lotion with parabens is absorbed in to the skin, 100% of the parabens is absorbed in to the body. The skin IS the body. Godfrey seems to disregard the skin as a functioning organ. We've now learned that it plays an integral function in hormone regulation. Think about it...if you peel off your skin, what's directly underneath it? Fat. What's stored in fat? Estrogen! What you put on your skin has the potential to directly affect your hormones, especially now considering the presence of SULT1E1 in the skin.
Now, what about gene expression as discussed in part 4? Again, somewhat a moot point, as the main "estrogenic" function of parabens is through SULT1E1 deactiviation.
What about the study cited in part 5 about parabens' direct effect on breast cancer cells? The parabens didn't stimulate the growth of the cells in the study. Well...if parabens' direct estrogenic properties are not strong...who cares? Putting parabens directly on breast cancer cells is a closed system. It doesn't take in to account how the body actually works. We DO know that estrogen stimulates breast cancer growth (and other reproductive cancers). If the parabens increase estrogen levels, as we have seen they have the potential to do, they do have an indirect causal relationship.
What about the study in part 5 about the rats that were injected with parabens and saw no effect? The parabens were injected, not applied to the skin, so it bypassed much of the SULT1E1 activity because it did not come in contact with the skin or the fat. (Other organs do have SULT1E1, so this sheds special light on the importance of the SULT1E1 activity in the skin.) Additionally, it has been found that rats metabolize parabens much more quickly than humans, so a rat model is not the most accurate. (Source)
So, that just leaves the short-term study discussed in part 5. What about the human subjects that received a 2% paraben cream and saw no change in levels of hormones?
First of all, there's no baseline--Parabens are so ubiquitous that test subjects likely were using them before they participated in the study. Second--and this is a biggie that Godfrey fails to mention--all of the test subjects were MEN! The study was so short-term, and because men produce such a small amount of estradiol, there was not enough time for the estrogen levels to build up due to SULT1E1 inhibition. The study did find changes in estradiol levels, however, they did not contribute the changes to the creams for some reason. This study obviously has no bearing on the effects that parabens would have on WOMEN. (It makes me wonder why they would only use men in the study...perhaps to get the result they wanted?)
So, now let's look at Godfrey's point that the skins enzymes break down the parabens in to the metabolite 4-parahydroxybenzoic acid.
Even if the parabens were broken down in to this metabolite, it still has the possibility to react with SULT1E1. Take a look at its chemical structure:
Notice, again, the phenol group.
And indeed, one study (albeit by Dr. Darbre) has shown 4-parahydroxybenzoic acid to act estrogenically in breast cancer cells. The activity was weak, but it was there nevertheless. No studies have been done on 4-parahydroxybenzoic acid's effect specifically on SULT1E1 function, but it has been shown to affect the right phenolic structure to be a strong possibility. (Source) (Source) SULT1E1 is designed specifically to remove the OH group from the phenol and substitute it with a sulfonate.
The function of SULTs have only been recently discovered and studied in the last five years. Much more is needed to be done to study this enzyme, as increasing its function could lead to a cure or at least a great preventative measure for breast and other reproductive cancers. But SULT activity should be considered when analyzing the estrogenic activity of a chemical, not just the affinity for estrogen receptors or gene expression activity. (Source)
Yes, there is conflicting information about parabens. Yes, there is bad science out there. But there is also good science, and plenty of it. There is a large stack of studies out there that show that indeed chronic dermal exposure to parabens has a strong potential for negative consequences to our health. For Godfrey's benefit, here is a list of a few non-Darbre studies:
Japanese study about Propyl paraben on the male reproductive system: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12419695
Japanese study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18717622
Chinese study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17086725
Portugese Study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19007877
Japanese study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11696396
Perhaps Godfrey is willing to give parabens an innocent-until-proven-guilty benefit. (Perhaps because that's his job, selling parabens.) But when it comes to my health, I'm not willing to take that chance. The theories are backed with positive results in labs. The chemistry makes sense. If Godfrey doesn't think there's enough evidence out there regarding the oestrogenic or mutagenic or generally deleterious effects of parabens, it's his perogative to use them. But as a woman who has struggled with estrogen dominance my entire post-pubescent life, I personally want to take every measure that I can to ensure my continued health. I have personally felt the benefits of removing parabens, pesticides, petrochemicals, and phthalates from my life. Call me a cautionary. Even call me a scare-monger. Call me what you will, but at least I'm no longer experiencing menstrual bleeding for five months straight. My uterus is no longer enlarged with adenomyosis. My skin has cleared. I no longer use an asthma inhaler. To me, that's more powerful than any study or discussion. Until proven innocent, parabens are guilty in my book.
Reader Comments (18)
Stephanie, I am impressed with the fervour and depth with which you provide responses to my points. I could spend many, many hours in further discussion on each and every point (such as quoting studies by Oishi, which were considered so incomplete that they were discounted by the SCCP in their 2008 opinion on parabens). But this is all redundant now, and it has been made redundant, in my opinion, by the recently published SCCS (as they are now known) final opinion on parabens, which gives new maximum concentrations of propylparaben and butylparaben (0.19% total) and reconfirming the 2008 opinion that methylparaben and ethylparaben are safe up to 0.4% (each).
Whether or not I actually sell parabens (I do) is rendered irrelevant by the simple fact that it is not my sole role - I sell virtually every other EU-approved preservative and several "secondary" preservatives - the "vested interest" card just doesn't work here.
The bottom line is that the team of independent experts (ie scientists who are employed by the EU Commission because they know what they are talking about) have determined that parabens are safe, within the concentration limits described. They know considerably more than I do about the toxicology, and I for one am prepared to accept that they may be right about parabens. Why do so many people seem to be so willing to listen to amateurs and professional scaremongers in preference to the SCCS? I don't feel I need to offer any further response to this question - parabens are safe for use in cosmetics - end of story!
Thanks for reading, Dene. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about this one! :)
It is not only me with whom you disagree, though, Stephanie - more importantly, you are disagreeing with the SCCS. I can accept people disagreeing with me - I don't claim to be The Expert in toxicological matters, but I find it difficult to understand why you think the SCCS are wrong and you are right.
And, just for the record, as you seem to be misrepresenting me a little:
1) Darbre DID shout her results from the rooftops - she was interviewed by several national newspapers and on national TV - that study DID start the ball rolling! I would say that this constitutes "shouting from the rooftops"!
2) I will allow Darbre credit for clearly stating that her 2004 study did not provide a causal link between parabens and breast cancer, but that did not stop the lunatic fringe from totally rewording the findings and going on to claim that the study PROVED a link. I appreciate that Darbre cannot be held responsible for these people totally twisting her findings, but she is responsible for one of the worst ever scientific studies.
3) Harvey was one of the peer reviewers - of course he will defend the use of blank controls, but he is not totally correct in what he claims. The use of blank controls can differ from study to study. My main issue with the detection of parabens in the blanks was the fact that the concentrations in the tissues were statistically the same (as were the ratios of the component parabens) - it is simply not logical to assume, therefore that the blanks were contaminated, but the tissues were not. To fail to even consider that the tissues were also equally contaminated was an inexcuseable act of omission. What I did not include in my article was the fact that the calculation employed (tissue concentration minus blank concentration) resulted in 20% of the data points being negative (excluding the benzylparaben results as they were all zero, not surprisingly). You cannot have "negative parabens" - and that is a high incidence of impossible results.
I fully stand by all my assertions, and feel totally vindicated by the SCCS opinion. As I have said in another forum, I am no longer engaging in discussions on parabens after the next week or so, as the SCCS opinion is all that is required. I will now continue to do my "day job" of selling my full range of preservatives (including many "secondary" preservatives) and continue to prove that I never had any vested interest in parabens from a commercial point of view. I have only ever been interested in the science, and the truth.
re: 1) Okay, I can see your point there. I was purely going off of what was written in the study.
re: 2) I can appreciate your viewpoint, there.
re: 3) I do agree with you there...this study does seem to have numerous flaws. However, her study is a moot point in light of the other mechanisms whereby parabens can affect hormones (affecting SULT activity).
You are very welcome to trust your scientific committee. There are plenty of suspect ingredients that they've approved for use. Their opinion on Triclosan is "we'll wait and see and study it more." Like I said, you're welcome to trust others with your health; I will trust the research that I've done. Why take an unnecessary risk?
Thanks for your kind consideration of my further points. We could go back and forth forever on this, and I realise that I will never change your mind, although I write more in the hope that anyone else reading your blog will take my comments into consideration, even if you won't! :-)
Just as a final (?) point, perhaps the SCCS did adopt a "wait and see" approach to triclosan, but that should not be extrapolated to their approach to parabens. Their final opinion is just that - final - not "we need more information" - they are satisfied that the data they have reviewed leads to the conclusion thay have published - a totally different scenario to triclosan. With respect, are you qualified to fully understand the studies you have researched? I don't consider myself to be sufficiently qualified to understand much of the scientific literature, especially with respect to the detail of the mechanisms involved - I check with experts when I am writing articles outside my own area of expertise. Reading the literature is very different to understanding it, as I hope my Personal Care Truth articles have demonstrated.
If there is something that I don't understand, or can't back up, I don't write it. Period. You'll see that I've listed each source for each major point that I've made. And if I someone can prove me wrong about something, I always write a retraction, and will be happy to do so. I have battled it out with chemists and doctors plenty of times, and can hold my own in a discussion. I am able to call upon my own educational background in biology and advanced chemistry when comprehending and digesting this material. Without full comprehension, I wouldn't have been able to write the article that I have.
Just curious to know who pays for his study and site?
Stephanie, I'm with you on this... Only because I have oodles of personal experience with estrogen effects... And autoimmune issues... And as soon as I stopped using chemicals, cosmetics, etc. I seemingly became better. ;). While my doctor still can't figure it out, I totally know it was the chemical overload in the products that I was using.
@ Lane - I am sorry, but the tired old "vested interest! implication is both wrong and totally insulting to my personal integrity. "His study" is not paid for by anyone - "he" does most of "his" work in "his" own time - it is currently 10.20pm as I write. Even if there was some element of vested interest (and if you could be bothered to read the full discussion, you would see that I have already addressed this!), facts are facts.But I must offer you my congratulations,as you seem to be better informed than your doctor. Why do you bother visiting him/her, when you obviously know much better? Chemical overload is not a recognised medical term - what does it mean? Having personal experience of any particular medical problem does NOT qualify you as an expert!
Stephanie thank you for all your hard work. Truth is becoming more and more rare these days. 2+2=5. Right is wrong. Wrong is right. Our health is something we have to fight for these days.
You are an expert.
My doctor says to slather these "doctor recommended" OTC creams onto our little baby's dry skin that are so filled with chemicals that it got me thinking. That led me to find a better way. This blog is part of that.
Quality information is priceless.......
It seems, Stephanie, that you are on to a winner here. You have an audience that knows better than their doctors in both Lane and Jeff, and they are willing to trust you as an expert, despite no formal listing of your qualifications, nor any proof of past scientific achievements. I can be dismissed as having a vested interest, and yet the fact that you sell "organic" products and slate synthetics doesn't seem to qualify as vested interest. If only your followers were not so willing to blindly believe anything that happens to fit in with their beliefs. Jeff is willing to credit you with being an expert with "quality information". He has no obvious basis on which to make that assessment, other than he seems to be better qualified than his own doctor (again, why does he waste the time in visiting, if he knows better?), so is clearly qualified to spot the mistakes you make and correct them in his own mind. I DO accept that you have some chemical and biological knowledge, but you DO make mistakes, sometimes because I think that you think you understand more than you actually do. I appreciate that your blogs are significantly better than the vast majority of beauty blogs, but your dogged determination to deny the supporting science regarding parabens does you little credit.
The capacity for people to allow themselves to be misled never ceases to amaze me.
I have looked at several other "chemical of the day" reports, and there are several mistakes, and a huge loading of personal opinion. People are more than welcome to agree with your opinion (especially noticeable whenever a benzene ring is present) but they should be aware that it is just that - YOUR OPINION. No science.
Just for your information (or rather, your readers information) there are now 10 parts to "Godfrey's" parabens series. By only covering the first 5, you have missed the best bits.
(And, just for Jeff, EVERYTHING is chemical - even Stephanie's products).
So...you're relegated to hurling personal insults now...I see. Well, if you actually have any constructive or informative comments to share, I'll be happy take them in to consideration. I'm always willing to correct mistakes and to flesh out current information. I never said that I don't make mistakes--obviously I do, as every human does. The best way to learn is by correcting one's mistakes.
Yes, everything is a chemical, we understand the semantics. In the context of the argument, though, you know what one means when they say "chemical." I've recently written about this subject, answering the question and comments of another industry person making the same point. http://chemicaloftheday.squarespace.com/qa/2011/1/6/what-is-natural.html
"your dogged determination to deny the supporting science regarding parabens does you little credit." Now this is just silly. The safety of parabens have not been proven. Show me a study that proves that parabens have no biological effect on the human body. There is none. However, there are piles of studies showing estrogenic and other effects. Just because you've picked apart a handful of them in your series doesn't mean that many more don't exist. If parabens are so safe, why did the SCCS recommend that they only be used at less than .19%? Yes, I understand margins of safety et al, but if there were absolutely no risk from them, why would there even be a restricted concentration? We wouldn't be even having this conversation. I wouldn't be arguing with you if the SCCS came out and said, "nope, all of the piles of studies of parabens are false and you can use them as much as you want." But they didn't. They said, based on our analysis of the current data, we are lowering our recommended concentration from .4% to .19%. Even when used at a .19% concentration, first of all, how are consumers to trust that it's been used at this concentration? There is no regulation or oversight. Yes, you may argue that it's not needed at more than that concentration, but how do consumers really know that a company didn't make a mistake and use 1.9%, or a batch was contaminated so an unruly business just added more preservative to make up for it. There is such thing as the "precautionary principle." The possible risks of parabens outweigh the benefits. As you know, as a professional preservative developer and representative, there are plenty of other options. I understand it's a personal defeat for you to spend years of your life developing and marketing proprietary blends of parabens, just to have them become nearly obsolete as more health information comes out. But please respect that some people like to eat organic foods, use organic products, and avoid synthetic "chemicals" that have suspected risks, without needing to hurl personal insults at people. Western Medicine fails us so many times. Have a cut finger and need stitches? Go to a doctor and they'll take care of you. But have a hormonal imbalance, mysterious illness, hidden allergy...good luck finding a conventional doctor that will give you the time of day. They'll throw you a prescription for an anti-anxiety med and send you on your way. Just because someone questions a doctor who refuses to spend more than 30 seconds to help you..that, to me sounds like someone who actually cares about their health, not someone who's trying just to act smart or be bullheaded. They actually want to get BETTER. What a novel concept.
Hi,
I thought that was a great posting. The SULT's theory is an interesting one - and I hope you follow it up with any reports on studies that back up or disprove your notion.
I think that I am like a lot of people visiting your blog, a sceptic when it comes to scientific safety pronouncements.....Parabens are 100% safe....until another scientist comes along and says they're not.
So just because the SCCS says they are safe at the recommended levels doesn't automatically mean people are going to abandon their dearly held beliefs in paraben harm.
In fact, I recall a recent study on political beliefs that if you challenge someone's deeply held beliefs with evidence to the contrary, these beliefs merely become more entrenched.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/064786861r21m257/fulltext.html
So Dene may be on to a loser here when he tries to argue paraben safety as assured by experts on a site that is a bit of a mecca to scepticism, even if that scepticism is irrational - in fact especially if it is irrational!
I realise and understand and believe the above - and yet even I am sceptical about parabens, and being fairly normal, would rather use a product that doesn't include them. I know they are fairly safe in limited doses, and I'm glad the SCCS has lowered these levels, so I can still occasionally use a proper shampoo when the latest natural one turns out to be an itchy dandruff inducing dud!
Anyway, I didn't mean to post about my own irrational beliefs or my lack of a proper scientific method when it comes to shopping for personal care products, but to the issue of vested interests.
Dene gets quite upset when he's having a debate and someone mentions that he sells parabens. His argument is that he sells other types of preservatives too, so just because he is one of the Internet's foremost debunker's of paraben myths and comes across as a bit of a paraben cheerleader - he shouldn't be tarred with this vested interest brush.
Well, I'm sorry, if you sell Parabens for a living, and I would assume (hopefully without making an ass out of myself) that they are a decent proportion of Dene's turnover, then you have a powerful incentive to talk about the positives and downplay the negatives.
That's not to say that's what Dene does, I have no evidence to suggest that he does, he tells us that he doesn't, and I'd prefer to believe him if I could. I really don't think he should get upset about it when people raise the issue, but should instead have a pithy and complete reply that puts people at their ease.
But Dene has a valid point that Stephanie has a vested interest in highlighting the negatives in parabens. She makes and sells a range of organic products - an industry that has been hugely boosted by paraben scares and general distrust of scientific safety pronouncements.
In fact I think it is fair to say that the Chemical of the Day blog's primary purpose is to highlight the dangers (real of otherwise) of ingredients in mainstream personal care products and push them towards "safer" alternatives.
I don't have a problem with that approach - marketing is marketing, and you go for your competitive niche. I think also that you have are providing a great service in profiling chemicals and helping to inform people.
But....and it is a big but....I really dislike the "naming and shaming" of companies that happen to use an ingredient profiled.
That just strikes me as naked commercialism and pure scaremongering, especially when there isn't any strong evidence to suggest it is harmful.
And I think that is a real shame, because I've read this blog for a while now, and while it might have started out as a bit of mischief to promote your own products, I think the diligence and research that goes into your blog posts has made it so much more than your typical company blog.
I think you are doing yourself a disservice and tarnishing your reputation by taking the name and shame approach - and I think it prevents people from taking you as seriously as they should.
That's my two cents. But I would like to say I find your blog a great read, and hope you keep up the great work.
@ Anon - you are clearly a reasonable, rational person, and I concur with most of your comments, and I apologise to Stephanie for what are being construed as personal insults (but can you please be specific as I can't find a single personal insult). I don't always get upset when the vested interest charge is used - I DO understand the need to be a little sceptical due to my connection with parabens - but I DO get upset when I refute the charge and it is ignored and repeated. The % of my sales that are parabens is irrelevant - I sell the alternatives and can make more profit doing so. I should NOT be defending parabens on a commercial rationale for this very reason, and that is why I do this in my own time (mostly). For a more detailed explanation of why I don't like "vested interest" check out this link - it also better explains my own position:
http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/01/vested-interest/
This is my "pithy and complete reply", but will it put people's minds at rest on the issue?
Anon is right when he/she states that this blog is a good one - it is certainly better than the vast majority of the blogs I have visited, but that is relative. There are several errors, both of fact and of context. I try to point these out when I spot them. Parabens are not my raison d'etre - I will try to correct many of the insidious internet myths that abound - "the skin is like a sponge", "nautral is safe" , "trust in Skin Deep" etc. It just happens to be the case that there is more on parabens than these other topics, but I put up a similar level of argument on these matters also.
@ Stephanie - your use of the reduced concentrations of propylparaben and butylparaben is not an argument that will stand scrutiny - it doesn't change the actual safety of parabens in use, no matter how you manipulate the data. I have covered precisely this point in my final(?) parabens article, rather than repeat it here:
http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/01/parabens-in-perspective-part-x/#
To suggest that ANY limitation of concentration can be seen as demonstrating danger in use despite that limitation is wrong and you disappoint me greatly, as you usually have a better argument that this. Are you really suggesting that something with a restricted concentration should not be used? Don't take acetaminophen (I may have misspelt this - it is known as paracetamol in the UK) or aspirin the next time you have a headache - or any other drug for that matter!
The semantics of the use of "chemical" are important, as the term is used to denote danger in most cases. This is wrong, so it should not be assumed that chemical means synthetic chemical, and the term "chemical free" should never be used.
I don't understand why so many people who sell natural products (and I have NO issues with the concept itself) feel the need to sell them on the back of so much misinformation and negativity. Sell them on their positives, not the (wrongly)perceived negatives fo other substances. This implies that there is not a good enough story for them to stand on their own merits.
Hate to quibble Dene since you were so generous with your remarks about my reasonableness above, but I think that if you are attempting to demonstrate impartiality when it comes to the parabens debate, then the proportion of your revenues earned from selling parabens is quite important to people when they are trying to judge whether your views might be tainted by financial incentives.
To give you an example, if McDonalds had responded to a food scare in their beef by saying their burgers were completely safe and you could take their word for it, because they also sell salads, which are more profitable than burgers, so they are completely impartial without vested interest....you might think they were misrepresenting their position.
I did read your vested interest blog post - and I hear your frustration that people turn off their ears when they hear you sell parabens for a living, instead of listening to the merits of your arguments.
That said, I also see discussions where one person starts to question the scientific credentials of the other, and then suggest they are unqualified to hold an opinion on the subject being discussed, regardless of the arguments or evidence being offered. I'm afraid you are guilty of that one, as are a number of people on both sides of this debate.
When it comes to parabens, unfortunately Dene, you have to compete with the likes of:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/beauty/article-1197700/ARE-YOUR-TOILETRIES-TOXIC-From-soap-shampoo--daily-shower-bad-you.html
I really don't see how a 10-part series on parabens can hope to persuade consumers of their safety, when a short and snappy - apparently balanced and informative article read by millions stokes the flames.
@ Anon - No need for apologies - you have your views and you are free to express them. You don't have to agree with me just because I compliment you! The proportion of parabens in my total sales IS irrelevant because I can make greater profit from selling the alternatives. The higher the proportion of parabens sales, the better off I would be if Imanaged to persuade people to change to one of the alternatives. I never intended this to be about me, and it is wrong that this alweays happens. If there is a hint of vested interest, the CLAIMS should be investigated more closely, NOT the person!
Your claim of a balanced article from The Daily Mail (known throughout the UK as The Daily Scare) doesn't bear close scrutiny.
"Alcohol, which is often added to cosmetics, can stimulate the penetration of parabens into the skin and also the conversion of methylparaben to butylparaben, which, with propylparaben, has the greatest hormone disrupting properties in men and women."
Alcohol is NOT added to all that many cosmetics but, more importantly, alcohol CANNOT aid the conversion of methylparaben to butylparaben. This is total nonsense. If alcohol (ethanol) did anything, it wouold convert methylparaben to ethylparaben. Not a very good basis for a credible article.
"Traditional argument is that our skin doesn't absorb parabens. Not so says Dr Barbara Olioso, a professional chemist who acts as an independent adviser for brands formulating cosmetics without chemicals. 'Research shows that between 20 and 60 per cent of parabens in cosmetics may be absorbed by the body,' she says. 'They have been found in urine, which proves parabens travel through our systems.'
Dr Olioso's concerns are shared by Tony Tillbrook, who invented the wetsuit in 1957. Tillbrook has launched a paraben and sulphate-free range of bath and body products. "
Firstly, the study quoted by Barbara is not totally relevant - see
http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/01/skin-is-our-largest-organ/#.
Barbara Olioso makes a living out of selling !natural" products and is a notorious "parabens denier". She refuses to even accept that they exist in nature, despite the many credible scientific references to support this claim. Her claim regarding the "traditional scientific argument" is also not true, There are studies going back decades that have demonstrated a low level of skin absorption - she has been told this by me, but she continues to use this as some sort of "evidence" against parabens which, in itself, it is not! I am not surprised that Tony Tillbrook shares her view - he sells "parabens free" products. For a balanced article, it looks very much like tipping over to me - against parabens. Why is it that I am accused of vested interest, and my information undermined, but these people are, apparently, balanced?
I have been planning to stop commenting on blogs, and this discussion seals it. There is no point. I try to share correct information and hardly anyone can see past the "vested interest" - despite that fact that my VI is actually less than that of those quoted in the Daily Mail article. I don't need any of this. I am happy with my own position and feel totally justified with my lack of VI (maybe a hint of bias, but that's very different). In the grand scheme of things, if you want to believe that parabens are dangerous and that skin is like a sponge, or whatever other internet myths fit in with your beliefs, that's fine by me. I've tried - I can do no more. I am not sulking, and I wish you (and all other contributors) well.
Jeez - I think we broke him!
My point was that the article was "apparently balanced". I used the word "apparently" deliberately.
There are some issues with it:
- it mentions the SCCS is considering paraben safety, but a year later hasn't published anything to say that the SCCS has ruled them safe. I doubt you will see one, because their readers aren't interested.
- it is written by a freelance beauty journalist not a science editor
- it is a puff piece for a new natural beauty brand, so I expect a lot of the content was on their press release - since the writer doesn't have a scientific background, she's going to listen to the expert Dr giving her the facts.
But my point was...how can you compete with the Daily Mail informing millions about paraben safety concerns, when you put your responses to the article here...on a blog where the editor and vast majority of the readership actually think the Mail is on to something.
I am, indeed, a broken man! lol
You are totally correct about the Daily Mail. I stand no chance of competing against their reports, especially when you consider that they never publish ANY of my comments on their various "anti-cosmetics" articles on their web page. :-(
I'm going to let you two have your own conversation here...but just wanted to quickly respond to the comment/question "I really dislike the "naming and shaming" of companies that happen to use an ingredient profiled." It's true--I do call out companies and products by name. And I do see the point that you're making. But here's the thing...so many companies illegally use the term organic, or pose as being "green" or "natural" without really, truly, being natural or organic. They need to be exposed for what they really are. Many consumers will look at a bottle of shampoo, see a picture of lavender and the word "organic" and think that they're getting a completely organic product...when in reality, they're getting a detergent-based shampoo filled with quaternary ammonium compounds and preservatives and maybe some organic lavender hydrosol thrown in there for label appeal. I feel that these companies need to be exposed for what they are and certain ingredients and product should be called to attention. I have no shame in shaming and naming.