Dangerous beauty

Dangerous Beauty

Mark Fearer

Nexus, 9/98

We know that a lot of things we put into our body are unsafe, but a growing mountain of evidence indicates what we put on it can be equally dangerous.

Ask what the biggest human organ is, and most of us do a quick mental check list (lungs? kidneys? heart?). But we're looking in the wrong place. Our skin is by far the largest organ, and the cosmetic and body product industry is doing it harm with a number of common ingredients that are cancer-causing agents, or just plain dangerous, say an increasing number of researchers, groups, activists and even the government itself.

This was one of the top ignored stories of 1997, according to Project Censored, as reported in two eye-opening articles in the political magazine, In These Times. But the issue has yet to take on significance in the mainstream media. That's not a surprise, given that the $20 billion cosmetics industry is a heavy advertiser in most magazines and on TV.

"A study by the respected, nonpartisan General Accounting Office reported that more than 125 ingredients available for use in cosmetics are suspected of causing cancer," said a statement from Senator Ted Kennedy's office, as part of his effort to legislatively reform the FDA's regulatory authority. "Other cosmetics may cause adverse effects to the nervous system, including convulsions. Still other ingredients are suspected of causing birth defects. A carefully controlled study found that one in 60 users suffered a cosmetic related injury identified by a physician.

"Consumers have suffered painful, permanent injuries from hair treatment products that have caught fire," the report continued. "They have suffered serious urinary tract infections from bubble bath. They have suffered life-threatening allergic reactions to hair dyes and severe chemical burns from skin creams and sun tan lotions. Cosmetics are being marketed in the United States which may pose a serious hazard to the public."

While the FDA classifies and sometimes warns about ingredients used in body products, it has no authority, staff, nor apparent interest in regulating those ingredients. With few exceptions, almost any substance can be used-and is, regardless of its safety.

Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is one of those chemicals. It's easy to gloss over in a long list of ingredients, and its certainly not one that has gotten much attention. SLS is a widely used industrial detergent or cleansing agent, found in garage floor cleaners, engine degreasers and car wash soap. But it's even more widely used as a major ingredient in cosmetics, toothpaste, hair conditioner and about 90 percent of commercial shampoos.

So what's the problem? In tests, animals that were exposed to SLS experienced eye damage, along with depression, labored breathing, diarrhea, severe skin irritation and corrosion and death, according to the 1983 Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, in the Journal of the American College of Toxicology. In human tests, skin irritation was documented; in fact SLS is used as a "universal standard, by which a measured percentage is evaluated to promote a given level of irritation and reaction," according to that same report.

The report is also bad news for children's eyes. "Studies indicated SLS kept young eyes from developing properly by possibly denaturing the proteins and not allowing for proper structural formation. This damage was permanent."

There is also significant evidence that SLS retards the healing process of eye damage, especially in infants and children.

Almost all toothpastes use SLS as a major ingredient, and not coincidentally warns it should be kept out of children's reach. "In case of accidental ingestion... contact a Poison Control Center immediately," reads a Colgate toothpaste warning. In fact, it's been reported that accidental toothpaste ingestion by children results in 11,000 calls to poison centers-the leading cause of all their calls.

And SLS stays in the body for up to five days, according to the American College of Toxicity report. "Other studies have indicated that SLS enters and maintains residual levels in the heart, the liver, the lungs and the brain, from skin contact. This poses questions of it being a serious potential health threat through its use in shampoos, cleansers, and toothpastes.

"Still other research has indicated SLS may be damaging to the immune system, especially within the skin. Skin layers may separate and inflame due to its protein denaturing properties."

Additionally, when combined with other chemicals, SLS can be transformed into nitrosamines, a potent class of carcinogens, which causes the body to absorb nitrates at higher levels than eating nitrate-contaminated food. Nitrosamines were recently found to be more carcinogenic than previously thought.

In These Times details how nitrosamines are formed through a dangerous combination. Nitrates used either as preservatives or through contamination in the manufacturing/storage process, combine with wetting agents such as SLS, or other chemicals.

As if that weren't enough, you wouldn't always know you're using SLS, since it has over 150 synonyms (including trade names), including lauryl sodium sulfate, sodium laureth sulfate, Conosulfate WN, Duponal, Product #75, Standapol WOA, Sulfopon, Sipex-the list goes on.

A different but equally controversial ingredient is propylene glycol (PG), a very common industrial chemical. It's a major ingredient in anti-freeze, airplane de-icers, lubricants, inks and detergents and is used in cigarettes, pet food, cattle feed, paint and polyester resins. But you'll also find it in baby wipes, skin lotions, beauty creams, cleansers, make-up, children's cough syrup, ice cream and bakery goods.

PG is highly valued for its ability to penetrate the skin, and is used widely as a topical preparation and a vehicle for other substances to penetrate the skin's layers. Depending on the concentration, it also causes irritant or allergic skin reactions, according to numerous studies dating back to 1952.

A Material Safety Data Sheet by one manufacturer, Arco Chemical Co. warns, "Overexposure to this material (or its components) has apparently been found to cause the following effects in laboratory animals: liver abnormalities, kidney damage."

Propylene oxide, used to manufacture propylene glycol, has been found to be carcinogenic in lab animals, and as much as 4.2 million pounds have been released into the air by manufacturers.

How natural is "Natural"?

Since there are no regulations about what is "natural," the term is often abused, with many products having the same dangerous ingredients as the products to which they are alternatives.

"It's very misleading to go into a health food store and buy shampoo that has sodium lauryl sulfate in it," says Susan Chicovsky, a distributor of alternative body products in Evergreen. "And many products have propylene glycol. To me, a natural food store sells products which contain natural, safe ingredients." She said that SLS and PG are neither, having seen her young daughter twice complain of eye problems after using shampoo that claimed to be natural.

According to The Energy Times, "The words 'from coconut oil' on a label sounds friendly enough but cocoamide DEA is a possible allergen if used in high concentrations, but is not often used at these concentrations. Another coconut oil derivative is sodium lauryl sulfate."

For consumers who want to understand and avoid many harmful ingredients, The Safe Shoppers Bible, by David Steinman and Sam Epstein, offers a layperson's version of the controversy along with a variety of alternatives to dangerous products.