Debbie,

quote:

In the same way the word ‘toxin’ could be used by a scientists to describe water, as if we drink enough water in one go it could kill us.

At last you are getting there!! Indeed most people don't drink enough water to cause harm in the same way that most people don't take in enough chemicals from cosmetics to cause harm. I'll say it just one more time "IT'S ALL TO DO WITH THE DOSE"
I can't believe you really think all those references are by independent unbiased authors...just check out their affiliations. Oh and by the way, I will repeat again (in case you didn't read the earlier threads) I have no connection with the cosmetics industry, or indeed any other industry,I'm a retired government research scientist with 30 years experience in toxicology. I shall also retire from this rather tedious thread now and let Daffodils and Sammy be the voices of reason.

quote:

Originally posted by profnick:
Debbie,

quote:

In the same way the word ‘toxin’ could be used by a scientists to describe water, as if we drink enough water in one go it could kill us.

At last you are getting there!! Indeed most people don't drink enough water to cause harm in the same way that most people don't take in enough chemicals from cosmetics to cause harm. I'll say it just one more time "IT'S ALL TO DO WITH THE DOSE"

And as we know the scientific community has no clear idea of what a long term safe dose is for combinations of these ingredients and are learning all the time. Hence new published research can clearly state a link between hormonal changes in the boys and phthalate levels in their mothers (Katharina M. Main et al. 2006) but cannot isolate the source of the contamination, simply referring to building materials and furniture, and the use of consumer products including cosmetics.

As a research scientist of 30 years I’m sure many of the ‘facts’ you believed in at the beginning of your career were proved to false by the time you retired? Does that not indicate that science is not an discipline but one that is slowly but constantly learning and changing its ideas?


Human Breast Milk Contamination with Phthalates and Alterations of Endogenous Reproductive Hormones in Infants Three Months of Age
Katharina M. Main, Gerda K. Mortensen, Marko M. Kaleva, Kirsten A. Boisen, Ida N. Damgaard, Marla Chellakooty, Ida M. Schmidt, Anne-Maarit Suomi, Helena E. Virtanen, Jørgen H. Petersen, Anna-Maria Andersson, Jorma Toppari, and Niels E. Skakkebæk
Environ Health Perspect. 2006 February; 114(2): 270–276

Debbie,
Just before I go, I also checked out your web site and wondered if maybe you could answer a question for me? The first product I looked at was a Baby Oil which contains lavender essential oil. Now you don't say what its concentration in the oil is but as lavender oil contains 45% linalool which one of 26 "potential allergens" under EU legislation, then if the lavender oil is present in the baby oil (which is a leave-on product)at greater than 0.01%, which it almost certainly is, the presence of linalool must be indicated on the label according to the European Cosmetics Directive (76/768/EEC), which is implemented in the UK by the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations.

quote:

Originally posted by profnick:
Debbie,
Just before I go, I also checked out your web site and wondered if maybe you could answer a question for me? The first product I looked at was a Baby Oil which contains lavender essential oil. Now you don't say what its concentration in the oil is but as lavender oil contains 45% linalool which one of 26 "potential allergens" under EU legislation, then if the lavender oil is present in the baby oil (which is a leave-on product)at greater than 0.01%, which it almost certainly is, the presence of linalool must be indicated on the label according to the European Cosmetics Directive (76/768/EEC), which is implemented in the UK by the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations.

Thank you for this info, we will seek clarification on this issue and will let the manufacture know.

BTW Linalool from essential oils, as used by the brands we stock, appears to be safe: http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ingredient.php?ingred0...query%3Dlinalool+%26


Debbie

quote:

Originally posted by Henrys Mate:

Hi Sammy (and others from the laboratory), I've been trying to follow your posts (even though I'm not a scientist) and have found what you've said to be interesting reading, but I'm not quite sure I've understood your point.

From a personal point of view, I was fascinated by the programme, not because much of it was news to me - I read Cosmetics Unmasked about 5 years ago - but because so many people were surprised that big companies put cheap ingredients into hugely profitable products.

As far as I can see, you're pointing out that something might, potentially, be harmful (I'm referring to bacteria in creams here specifically), but you don't know of any cases where it has proved so. Is that right or have I misunderstood completely?

I think this is a very valuable issue, there are published scientific research papers suggesting potential health problems with ingredients like parabens, phthalates etc but what documented cases are there of people becoming infected from bacteria growing in their skin care products?


Debbie

I think this is a very valuable issue, there are published scientific research papers suggesting potential health problems with ingredients like parabens, phthalates etc but what documented cases are there of people becoming infected from bacteria growing in their skin care products?

Thanks Debbie,

I just think that the same argument applies to people who buy jams and preserves from WI stalls at county shows for example. That jam could potentially contain bacteria I suppose, but I've never heard of it. And again, from a personal point of view, I trust that stranger at the county show more than I do the Nestle corporation (just to pick one out of the hat).

Debbie,
Thanks for your answer. I'm sure you're right that the linalool is relatively harmless. The only point I'm making again, is that because there is some (not very good) evidence that linalool may cause allergies,(although strictly speaking;sensitivity), the EU took the precautionary step to make manufacturers or ditributors, declare it. I'm only pointing out that one has to be consistent. If one thinks that we should adopt the precautionary principle for (say) phthalates, (and I actually agree with you), then one must adopt the same approach for linalool. Again the only point I'm making is that there is no distinction between "man made" and "natural". By the way if your manufacturer needs chapter and verse on the regulations I can point them in the right direction, (that's where the "government" part of "government scientist" comes in useful sometimes.

Hi Sammy

We ensure our manufactures are all assessed and passed by Trading Standards who as I understand it look at their processes and check their labels. Our manufacturer’s are also fully insured.

The article you have used to highlight bacteria in cosmetics, actually refers to cosmetics such as lipsticks, blushers, or eye shadows used as samples by the general public in retail outlets. The only thing it proves is the potential ineffectiveness of the synthetic preservatives that you say will prevent bacterial growth!!

It is completely irrelevant to the discussion on ‘natural’ preservatives and is not a documented case of anyone catching anything!

Debbie

Debbie, I'm sick of going round and round in circles.
If you'd bothered to read some of the articles, or even searched yourself, you'd know that there have been documented cases in hospitals of people having severe infections from poorly preserved products. These have been reported to the relevant authorities. You only seem to read what you want to read.

Attack seems to be the best form of defense in your case.

quote:

Originally posted by sammyk6:
Debbie, I'm sick of going round and round in circles.
If you'd bothered to read some of the articles, or even searched yourself, you'd know that there have been documented cases in hospitals of people having severe infections from poorly preserved products. These have been reported to the relevant authorities. You only seem to read what you want to read.

Attack seems to be the best form of defense in your case.

I have read the articles. One is entitled: “GUIDE TO INSPECTIONS OF COSMETIC PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS Note: This document is reference material for investigators and other FDA personnel. The document does not bind FDA, and does no confer any rights, privileges, benefits, or immunities for or on any person(s).”

Please copy and paste the part that proves there have been documented cases of infection caused by personal care products using ‘natural’ preservatives.

Another article you mention as proof is called: Organisms in cosmetics FDA Consumer, March, 1990 it talks about cosmetics such as lipsticks, blushers, or eye shadows used as samples by the general public in retail outlets.

The third link is useless as a citation as it is not verifiable by the average reader.

I’m just waiting for you to cite published verifiable sources for some of your claims.

Debbie

Sammy, as I understand it, you are frustrated as you claim some of the products that I sell, are inadequately preserved and as justification you cite sources that discuss reports of staphylococcal infections in hospitals from use of contaminated hand creams and hand lotions and the studies conducted on eye area cosmetics etc

These articles refer to cosmetics in general and therefore cannot be used to justify your argument that products using ‘natural’ preservatives are ‘inadequately preserved’ or increase the users risk of infection.

If these articles suggest anything it would be that there is a risk in using any product around the eyes or while in hospital!

Debbie

This is the publication from the Medscape citation:
Linda B Sedlewicz BS (2005)
Cosmetic Preservatives: Friend or Foe?
SKINmed 4 (2), 98–100.

Here are the relevant sections from the articles:

ADEQUACY OF PRESERVATION
Cosmetics need not be sterile, however, they must not be contaminated with microorganisms which may be pathogenic, and the density of non-pathogenic microorganisms should be low. In addition, cosmetics should remain in this condition when used by consumers. Some cosmetics, i.e., those containing more than about 10% ethanol, propylene glycol, glycerol, etc., and cosmetics in self-pressurized containers, are self-preserving and are not likely to become contaminated with microorganisms.
The hazard of inadequately preserved cosmetics to human health has been amply demonstrated by reports of staphylococcal infections in hospitals from use of contaminated hand creams and hand lotions and the studies conducted on eye area cosmetics. Regardless of whether a cosmetic becomes contaminated during manufacture or during consumer use, the hazard is twofold, namely, (1) the direct effect of microorganisms on human health and (2) the circuitous effect on human health due to product contamination and spoilage, product separation, or formation of harmful microbial metabolites.
Microbial contamination of cosmetics during manufacture was a major issue during the 1960's and early 1970's. Since then, significant progress has been made by the cosmetic industry towards implementation of sanitary manufacturing practices, more rigorous microbiological control, and the development of better-preserved cosmetic products. However, the problem of adequacy of preservation of cosmetics to prevent contamination during consumer use continues to be of concern to the Agency, particularly with respect to cosmetics coming into contact with the eye.

Moldy Oldies
Contaminated makeup is the result of either inadequate preservatives or product misuse. But contamination doesn't necessarily translate into serious injury for the user.
"Cosmetics are not expected to be totally free of microorganisms when first used or to remain free during consumer use," according to a 1989 FDA report on contamination of makeup counter samples in department stores. The report was based on a survey which found that over 5 percent of samples collected were seriously contaminated with such things as molds, other fungi, and pathogenic organi sms.
Every time you open a bottle of foundation or case of eye shadow, microorganisms in the air have an opportunity to rush in. But adequately preserved products can kill off enough of the little bugs to keep the product safe.
Occasionally, however, a product will be seriously contaminated. According to FDA data, most cases of contamination are due to manufacturers using poorly designed, ineffective preservative systems and not testing the stability of the preservatives during the product's customary shelf life and under normal use conditions.

This last sentence is the whole crux of the matter.

I can understand your frustration Sammy, but these articles refer to cosmetics in general and therefore cannot be used to justify your argument that products using ‘natural’ preservatives are ‘inadequately preserved’ or increase the users risk of infection.

As Pete has just said to me; the essential point for him is that in his 42 years of life he has never known anyone who has contracted an infection from a skin care product, but blood relatives including his aunt, uncle, both granddads and mum have died of cancer. It just dawned on him one day that he has a family history of cancer and as such feels that it would be sensible and wise to ovoid contact with carcinogenic substances where ever possible. He knows and understands that he cannot entirely eliminate potentially carcinogenic substances from his life, but he can choose not to plaster them all over his body when he has a shower or shaves.

Don't patronise me, Debbie. You're just not getting the point and we're all fed up of having to explain. The articles are describing cosmetics in general, which is what we're talking about here.
How about some articles to prove essential oils, vitamin E and GSE are TOTALLY safe for use in cosmetics?

quote:

Originally posted by sammyk6:
Don't patronise me, Debbie. You're just not getting the point and we're all fed up of having to explain. The articles are describing cosmetics in general, which is what we're talking about here.
How about some articles to prove essential oils, vitamin E and GSE are TOTALLY safe for use in cosmetics?

Sorry you feel patronised Sammy, but the point I am trying to make is that while there are no studies proving essential oils, vitamin E and GSE are totally safe for use in cosmetics, there are no studies suggesting that the products using them cause or increase our risk of infections, or that the ingredients themselves (as used in personal care products) might accumulate in our bodies and increase risks of cancer or be harmful to any of our bodies major systems.

Why not list some of the ingredients you prefer so we can see what studies exist on their safety? That is after all what the program was discussing. You would then have a chance to defend your use of the ingredient and say why in your professional opinion the ingredient was safe and the studies invalid.


Debbie

I'm tired of this discussion now and am not going to continue trying to defend myself and science to someone who isn't listening and can't actually defend themselves either. I think it's a truce.

Hi
I completely agree with Debbie, please tell us more about the preservatives you use and why you think they will not accumulate in our bodies, or in the future be found to be harmful?

My family started buying more naturally based products, or what ever you want to call them, after my sister joined the list of family members (grandparents) to develop to cancer. Luckily she survived but she made most of us listen to her views about ‘cancer chemicals’ as she calls them. Now many of my friends check the ingredients lists too. Just for the record none of us have had skin infections or eye infections, not even conjunctivitis!

There weren't the amount of chemicals around when your grandparents were younger, so I don't think you can prove that their cancer was due to chemicals. The fact that your sister developed it too suggests it is due to genetic reasons. There are plenty of reasons why cancers develop, some due to chemicals yes.

My preservative has been deemed acceptable in certified organic skincare products and is used in both human and mammalian pharmaceuticals. This means it has been through extensive testing prior to being accepted for use in these products.

No-one can say for certain which ingredients will be found to be unsafe in the future but I prefer not to take the risk of using a poorly or unpreserved product. Bacterial infections develop a lot sooner than some chemical reactions and can rapidly spread throughout the body if not treated quickly.

The fact that your family haven't had skin or eye infections means nothing. How do you know for certain that the products you use don't have some hidden ingredients that the manufacturers prefer not to mention?

Oh this is very entertaining, the industry apologists only able to come up with articles that show people have been infected by mainstream products, but use that as an example of how "natural" products (with non-synthetic preservatives) are unsafe. How very unscientific.

Either come up with the evidence Sammy or stop making the claims. This TV programme whatever other failings it might have showed that people's bloodstreams are choc full of synthetic chemicals that have no business being there. That's down to the chemical and cosmetic industries.

As for whoever claimed that water and synthetic chemicals are somehow analagous and that "it's all in the dose", the point about water is that we need it to survive, on the other hand we can manage quite well on the whole without synthetic chemicals that are marketed to us under the guise of skincare, cosmetics or cleaning products. Of course the survival of industrial chemists who can't persuade people to buy their products might be threatened if people started paying attention to what we are actually being sold.

Mainstream products that were either poorly preserved or not preserved at all. Showing that preservation in mainstream or natural products is paramount. Think outside the box.

Mr TeezyWeezy,
Think you've got the wrong message here. If you care to go back and read the posts my message is that there is no difference between natural and synthetic when it comes to chemicals. I also get rather fed up with repeating that I am not connected to the cosmetic industry. I just want to see the science presented accurately. Our bodies have been choc full of chemicals since we evolved,(yes natural ones but still chemicals capable of causing harm) and we have evolved systems to deal with them. If you take small doses of aspirin (derived from a natural chemical but no doubt now a synthetic), you will cure your headache; if you take lots you'll die; fact. I agree that if you don't want to choose to expose yourself to chemicals in cosmetics then stop using them.
For a list of the chemical constituents of natural products and their effects on biological systems have a quick look at the USDA Ethnobotanical and Phytochemical Database and search something like "lemon".
http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke/

One other misunderstanding seems to surround "bioaccumulation". The vast majority of both natural and synthetic chemicals are metabolised (broken down) by enzymes in the body and do not accumulate. Thus there is never any need to "detox" because we are never "toxed" in the first place; the kidneys and liver see to that quite adequately.

quote:

Originally posted by sammyk6:
Mainstream products that were either poorly preserved or not preserved at all. Showing that preservation in mainstream or natural products is paramount. Think outside the box.

Stop being disingenuous. You are changing the terms of the argument. You and others have repeatedly claimed that products with non-synthetic preservatives are unsafe compared to products with synthetic preservatives. You haven't provided any evidence to back up your claims, all you've shown is that some products with synthetic preservatives are unsafe.