I love this dangerous shampoo what can I do?

[Mufasa]

Hello folks!
Just wanted to pop in with a concern I had:
The other day I bought the Jojoba Farms Treatment Shampoo on a whim (what can I say, I'm a product addict) and tried it out when I got home. I didn't really look at the ingredients or the labels on the back because it was an ugly looking bottle and I in my previous experiences, the uglier the product, the better. Well, I tried it out with my regular conditioner and wowie my hair was shiny. I lost much less hair in the shower (which may or may not be a fluke). So today I took a better look at the ugly ol' thing and to my horror, I saw a Prop 65 warning on the side saying:
WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer) and birth defects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_disorder) or other reproductive harm.shudder:

The scientist in me is like, "whoa man calm down, everything causes cancer these days," but another part of me is like "Zoinks Scooby!!!!! That shampoo is dangerous"

Here are the ingredients: Deionized Water, Sodium C14-16 Olefin Sulfaontate, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Cocamide DEA, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Sodium Chloride, Jojoba Oil, Panthenol, Hydrolyzed Soy Protein, Hydrolyzed Keratin, Hydrolyzed RNA, Hydrolyzed DNA, Coltsfoot Extract, Yarrow Extract, Rosemary Extract, Sage Extract, Nettle Extract, Birch Leaf Extract, Birch Sap, Horsetail Extract, Calcium Pantothenate, Inositol, Ascorbic Acid, Citric Acid, Oleth-20, Methylparaben, Diazolidinyl Urea, Propylene Glycol, Butylene Glycol, Ethoxydiglycol, Fragrance, Caramel.

I'm pretty sure it's the Cocamide DEA. I know it's in a lot of personal care products and that I am probably overreacting. Just wanted to ask y'all what you think. If any scientists or muggles can help me overcome the trauma of this warning label, that would be great.

[Tosca]

https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredient/701516/COCAMIDE_DEA/ might be helpful

[hobbitlocks]

I would definitely second looking it up on the EWG website or maybe the Paula's choice website? It's more skin-care focused, but a lot of ingredients overlap and I find the website really useful for helping me understand warnings and recommendations and such.

(Warning: I'm totally going to rant here...) this is why the prop 65 warnings drive me NUTS. They are all over the place (there was one on my bus the other day? Like the bus was giving me cancer?) but they don't give you any information on the ingredient or substance in question- which makes it impossible for me to make an informed decision! In a lot of cases, substances that are perfectly safe in small doses are harmful in larger doses or if ingested, etc. But if I can't look up the exact substance, what can I do? If I were you, I would google it and see if anything worisome comes up, but otherwise keep using it! Thank you for letting me rant here... :)

[pailin]

You can label practically everything as cancer causing if you run the right type of study. That's the problem with those warnings.

[pailin]

I'll add, you need to think about your actual exposure to it. A basic principle of toxicology is, the dose makes the poison. There are substances shown to be possibly carcinogenic in turkey, and in peanut butter, and most of us would eat at least one of those, and give them to our kids. And I think it's perfectly safe to eat them (unless you're peanut allergic).

[Kirby-oh]

The state of California itself causes cancer. Has that theory been tested yet? :p

[PixieP]

It's probably the paraben the label refers to.

[lapushka]

Here are the ingredients: Deionized Water, Sodium C14-16 Olefin Sulfaontate, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Cocamide DEA, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Sodium Chloride, Jojoba Oil, Panthenol, Hydrolyzed Soy Protein, Hydrolyzed Keratin, Hydrolyzed RNA, Hydrolyzed DNA, Coltsfoot Extract, Yarrow Extract, Rosemary Extract, Sage Extract, Nettle Extract, Birch Leaf Extract, Birch Sap, Horsetail Extract, Calcium Pantothenate, Inositol, Ascorbic Acid, Citric Acid, Oleth-20, Methylparaben, Diazolidinyl Urea, Propylene Glycol, Butylene Glycol, Ethoxydiglycol, Fragrance, Caramel.

I'm pretty sure it's the Cocamide DEA. I know it's in a lot of personal care products and that I am probably overreacting. Just wanted to ask y'all what you think. If any scientists or muggles can help me overcome the trauma of this warning label, that would be great.

I see nothing wrong with the ingredients. :) But that's me. I've probably seen worse.

[Arctic]

Without googling all the ingredients, I see nothing alarming or out of ordinary there. Perhaps some of the plant extracts are the cause for the warning?

[PixieP]

http://www.besthealthmag.ca/best-looks/beauty/parabens-what-are-they-and-are-they-really-that-bad/

It's the methylparaben that is the cause for the warning, it's been a topic for years that prolonged exposure could lead to a higher risk of cancer and mess with hormones.

But there's probably parabens in a whole lot of other products you have. OP. They just didn't come with a warning label. I suggest you read up on parabens and decide for yourself if you stay away from them or not.

[lapushka]

Plenty of my products contain parabens. I think almost all of them. Maybe that's why they keep past 10 years. ;) That's a good thing for me, with all my backstash. :p

Maybe it pays not to have such a big stash, because formulations and regulations may change and the products might get better or improved on. :shrug:

[diddiedaisy]

I don't think I've ever seen warnings on beauty products in the UK. In all honesty though I'd probably ignore it anyway if I liked the product. My kids are more likely to put me in an early grave than my shampoo!!!! :)

[Chromis]

I don't think I've ever seen warnings on beauty products in the UK. In all honesty though I'd probably ignore it anyway if I liked the product. My kids are more likely to put me in an early grave than my shampoo!!!! :)

The UK has higher standards for ingredients than the US does to start with.

[diddiedaisy]

The UK has higher standards for ingredients than the US does to start with.

That's true, I suppose it can vary quite a bit from country to country. I read the linked article and found it quite interesting. A while ago I remember reading something about high levels of oestrogen in the uk water supply due to oral contraception. I'm not sure how we could avoid unwanted chemicals in this day and age. Even plastic water bottles have chemicals you will ingest.

[Mufasa]

Thanks everyone, you've given me a lot to think about. I want take a hard look at my hair are products and although I want to go a safer/more natural route, previous dalliances down that road have caused my hair to look like a dandelion. If it came down to it, I would rather have parabens than microbes or fungi growing in my personal care products because that's just naaasty...

Having said that, I compared the herbal essences shampoo that I had been using before this new one on EWG and my oh my it was even worse! Much worse! Horrible! I think that is more deserving of the warning label than the jojoba farms shampoo, but it doesn't have one perhaps because the manufacturer didn't intend to sell it in California?? who knows what's going on here...

Anyway, since my hair got along so well with it I was thinking about trying the natures gate jojoba shampoo next and was wondering if anybody had tried it (product addicts always think ahead to find their next fix)

[lapushka]

Thanks everyone, you've given me a lot to think about. I want take a hard look at my hair are products and although I want to go a safer/more natural route, previous dalliances down that road have caused my hair to look like a dandelion. If it came down to it, I would rather have parabens than microbes or fungi growing in my personal care products because that's just naaasty...

Ditto!

I had a shampoo (more natural one) go bad before its expiry date, so yeah. That was my "dabble" into more natural stuff; ended right there. The brand was Lavera, if you're curious.

[Jadestorm]

Though I LOVE using all natural products (not just for my body and hair, but in general), I don't mind regular products either as long as they're not tested on animals. If mine had a warning like that on it I would be put off for sure, to be honest. But then again... as you say: almost everything is said to potentionally be harmful these days. So using your own judgement is the best you can do. I would avoid this product if you were trying to get pregnant, because of the specific warning.

[lapushka]

Though I LOVE using all natural products (not just for my body and hair, but in general), I don't mind regular products either as long as they're not tested on animals. If mine had a warning like that on it I would be put off for sure, to be honest. But then again... as you say: almost everything is said to potentionally be harmful these days. So using your own judgement is the best you can do. I would avoid this product if you were trying to get pregnant, because of the specific warning.

Oh yeah, definitely. But in other States the same bottle might not have the same warning, and so I'm sure pregnant women *are* using it. Or, the shampoo might have a different formulation there, IDK.

[Mufasa]

Ditto!

I had a shampoo (more natural one) go bad before its expiry date, so yeah. That was my "dabble" into more natural stuff; ended right there. The brand was Lavera, if you're curious.

Exactly! I remember when Badger Sunscreens (a "natural" company) had to recall their sunscreens because baby sunscreen lotions had microbial contamination with "Pseudomonas aeruginosa and the fungi Candida parapsilosis, Candida xestobii, Fusarium oxysporum lycopersici." Here's the link if anyone's interested: http://www.badgerbalm.com/t-recalls.aspx

It's a difficult balance I guess. I know people that have used chemical filled products all their lives and have still lived into their 90's, though so I'm not THAT worried, but the label did put me off

[Mufasa]

Though I LOVE using all natural products (not just for my body and hair, but in general), I don't mind regular products either as long as they're not tested on animals. If mine had a warning like that on it I would be put off for sure, to be honest. But then again... as you say: almost everything is said to potentionally be harmful these days. So using your own judgement is the best you can do. I would avoid this product if you were trying to get pregnant, because of the specific warning.

I'm not exactly sure if it was tested on animals but I do know that even companies that claim to not have tested on animals still use research in the formulation of their products that was acquired from the testing of animals from years back. Although it's not continuing the cycle of animal cruelty, it is still, in a sense, using the animal cruelty of the past done by others if that makes sense. Not sure if you are interested, but here is an interesting artical: http://www.xovain.com/how-to/cosmetic-chemist-interview

[yahirwaO.o]

The state of California itself causes cancer. Has that theory been tested yet? :p

You have a funny humour!!!! :puppy:

[Carolyn]

Since it works great for you, I would go ahead and use it. I never use the same products twice in a row so I never worry about harmful ingredients. Like a lot have said, everything causes cancer. I wouldn't worry about it.

[calmyogi]

Well the restaurant apple bees has the same warning on their take out bags.... Idk if that makes it better or worse.

[althara]

The Stabucks' in California have a prop 65 warning because they sell coffee, which contains acrylamide. I really wouldn't worry about it. That law is almost entirely useless.

[Bill D.]

It's not true that everything causes cancer, but I can see why people think that.

There are any number of reasons why one individual study can give erroneous or spurious results. That's why good scientists never use the results of a single study to claim something is true or false. They will make appropriate mealy-mouthed statements that the newest results are interesting and may indicate something new, and that more studies are needed to really confirm these initial findings.

But that doesn't make a good story! The new media simply do not understand (nor do they want to understand, because truth is usually very *boring*) how science works. Instead we get the reporter or anchor implying or stating outright that these latest finding are now scientific truth.

And human nature being what it is, sometimes a scientist will get carried away with enthusiasm or perhaps self-promotion, and will read far too much certainty into the findings of a single study. PR departments for universities are far worse, as their foremost goal is self-promotion and that's best served by amping the certainly and importance of the findings way up. Look what our scientists at University X just did! Aren't we the greatest and most worthwhile educational and research institution, worthy of loads of private and public support?

And then there are the food companies, who will take a single study of unconfirmed value and use its results to promote a massive new fad like oat bran or whatever. By the time the initial results are debunked, millions have been made in profits while consumers are left feeling cynical and cheated. But the cheaters got their profits!

No wonder people think that everything causes cancer or that scientists are always changing their mind. There are too many interested parties with strong motivations out there distorting the day-to-day workings of science for their own self interest.

Bill D.

[Asha]

I ordered my wedding shoes online. They shipper to me from California. Lo and behold on the outside of the shoe box was that exact label.

[Ellethwyn]

http://www.besthealthmag.ca/best-looks/beauty/parabens-what-are-they-and-are-they-really-that-bad/

It's the methylparaben that is the cause for the warning, it's been a topic for years that prolonged exposure could lead to a higher risk of cancer and mess with hormones.

But there's probably parabens in a whole lot of other products you have. OP. They just didn't come with a warning label. I suggest you read up on parabens and decide for yourself if you stay away from them or not.

I like to steer clear of a lot of chemicals, including parabens. My health is very important to me. I was majorly overexposed to chemicals most of my life:mad:, so i'm quite physically sensitive to them.




It's a difficult balance I guess. I know people that have used chemical filled products all their lives and have still lived into their 90's, though so I'm not THAT worried, but the label did put me off

I think quality of life is more important than living to a very old age like 90. Most 80 - 90 year olds I know who used chemical filled products all their lives have many health issues.

[lapushka]

I think quality of life is more important than living to a very old age like 90. Most 80 - 90 year olds I know who used chemical filled products all their lives have many health issues.

Yeah, but then it is quite normal to have a number of health issues at that age. That's what old age is. Not everybody, in fact, very few, people live to be 80 or 90 in perfect health. And it's not always what they used product-wise, it's life-style, environment, diet, the lot!

[Jadestorm]

I'm not exactly sure if it was tested on animals but I do know that even companies that claim to not have tested on animals still use research in the formulation of their products that was acquired from the testing of animals from years back. Although it's not continuing the cycle of animal cruelty, it is still, in a sense, using the animal cruelty of the past done by others if that makes sense. Not sure if you are interested, but here is an interesting artical: http://www.xovain.com/how-to/cosmetic-chemist-interview Yes, I am aware of that. (but thanks for posting the article nevertheless) It's afwul, but in a way I'm already glad we're finally at a point that at least there's a ban on testing on animal for cosmetics (such a shame it's only for cosmetics) in Europe (in some parts of the world those tests are 'required' :rolleyes:). And the producers and companies that aren't testing their new products for Europe on animals anymore might STILL be doing animal testing for their other lines of products that are meant specifically for certain countries.
We still have such a long way to go when it comes to protecting animals from harm though. It saddens me so very deeply. At least we're moving forward, but it's going waaaaaaaaaaaaay to slowly.

[mariazelie]

https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredient/701516/COCAMIDE_DEA/ might be helpful

I love this website!

[lapushka]

I love this website!

I don't even bother checking my products on sites like that - would drive me nuts. :lol: I think I'd have a lot of "dangerous" stuff. I mean, except for all natural, they're going to find fault with just about anything.