Is This true?

[naj]

Hi everyone,
I just found this while browsing.
http://cosmeticmagazine.com/managear...p?c=120&a=1734
Is this true? Anyone know anything more about how toxic these really are. Almost all shampoos and conditioners have these chemicals.
Worried.
Naj

[CrazedArtist]

There are lots of chemicals, natural and otherwise, that are toxic if you eat them or inject them or inhale them in large quantity, but have negligible effects when used on the outside of your body.

That's why the FDA approves ingredients for certain uses and not others. You can use toothpaste but that doesn't mean you should eat it, etc. etc. Even water has an LD-50 level and a material safety data sheet.

We use tea tree oil in our hair, for example, but it's horribly toxic to cats. I'm not going to eat it... but I'm not going to throw it away, either. Many essential oils are perfectly fine on your hair but toxic if you drink them.

(edited to add this paragraph) That article singles out "petrochemicals" as bad, but remember, baby oil and vaseline are petrochemicals too. People rub those into their skin at full strength every day and leave them on all day and do just fine. I wouldn't worry about a shampoo that gets rinsed out just because it has a few petrochemicals in it. The plastic bottle is a petrochemical, too.

My point is... personally I wouldn't switch to a natural shampoo out of fear. I would switch to it if it worked better, or if I felt better about it for some other reason (the fun of a homemade item, for example.)

Also, "chemicals" aren't inherently unnatural. Everything's made of chemicals, and many are naturally occurring. People back in the 80s were afraid of monosodium glutamate, and yet your average tomato or spinach leaf has TONS of naturally occurring glutamate. Adding salt doesn't transform them into scary toxins. But, I digress...

[StarShine]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Aubrey Hampton is a fear monger. He grossly exaggerates how "highly toxic" these chemicals are in order to sell his products. He rants about parabens, while using synthetic citricidal as a preservative when it only works because it is contaminated with synthetic preservative, namely parabens. He says they are bad for people with sensitive skin, when actually they are actually more mild than other syn preservatives. It has a lot to do with how much and how often you use chemicals. You are exposed to tons of toxic chemicals and heavy metals everyday; even if you went all natural with hair and skin care, you are still at risk. I'm all for going all natural, but you should do it because you want to make a healthier choice for yourself and your environment, not out of fear tactics coming from a "green" company.

[naj]

Crazedartist,
ah, i feel like calling you genius!
Beautiful explanation. Thanks for that. Kinda reassured.
Thanks so much.
Naj

[cortese]

You know, 99% of these articles are junk. They just love scaring people with DEATH IN YOUR MEDICINE CABINET! articles, but the true, reliable information isn't likely to be found in these articles. I'd really just stop reading them ...

[rainkitty]

The other way that I look at this is as evaluating a level of risk. There are some risks that are acceptable to me, such as driving a car. (This is a huge risk compared to, say, the risk of being struck by lighting, or the risk of winning the lottery.) I have moved towards reducing my paraben use, for example. Parabens have what I would call a moderate amount of evidence showing that they can be harmful to people. By reducing my use of them, I may be making myself healthier in the long run - a lot like choosing to eat low-fat ice cream so I don't gain weight! Something like propylene glycol doesn't have as much evidence against it; it's related, chemically, to a harmful chemical, but water's related to hydrogen peroxide, and one's fine to drink while the other's not. If I can find a product that works as well for the same price without the propylene glycol, great. If I can't, I'm not going to fuss about it. I'll spend a little more to avoid parabens - but not a ton more. You have to weigh the available evidence, which is very different in regards to a lot of chemicals, against your tolerance for risk. You can't eliminate all your risk - just try to budget it, if you will, into the best uses that you can. I drive; I don't skydive. It's like that.

I particularly like the site http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep/?key=nosign for their assessments of products. You can see exactly what ingredients make them say a product is higher risk or lower risk. For example, titanium dioxide, an excellent physical sunscreen against UVA and UVB that is present in most mineral makeup, has a mild risk level associated with it because if industrial workers inhale it persistently (we're talking LOTS of exposure here) it can cause some lung trouble. In my mind, that's not an issue for the way I use mineral makeup - I dust some on my face, I don't huff it. So I can look at a product that has a low level warning because of TiO2 and decide that I think it's actually pretty safe. EWG also gives pretty good examples of the kinds of evidence that exist or don't exist about each class of ingredients.

Cheers,
RainKitty

[ruirui]

I would say that if you don't get any adverse reactions from using products with such chemicals in them, then it is probably fine. People have been using commercial skin/hair/body care products for at least 100 or more years, and I don't think I've heard of anyone dying from daily use of shampoo or something like that yet.

[Mamid]

Monoxide Dihydrate is a very toxic material. It kills all the time.

But guess what it is - Water!