Toxin In Our Hair Products?

[ladiosaRosa]

Mods....I could not determine a 'products' forum to post this. If you deem it necessary to move this post or feel you want to ban it, please do so. I make no claims to debate either way, the content.

A close friend of mine works in a natural foods store/co-op. She shared with me, a notice that is circulating. I thought I would share it here.



"IMPORTANT

PLEASE READ


Information has come to us from the Organic Consumers Association that we here at the Co-op feel should be passed on to you as members and customers.


An independent study has found traces of the chemical 1,4-Dioxane in personal care ad household cleaning products labeled "natural" or having the word "organic" on their labels. Products certified organic under the USDA National Organic Program did not contain this toxin. 1,4-Dioxane is a by-product of other additives and is "known to the State of California to cause cancer" under proposition 65, and is also suspected as a kidney toxicant, neurotoxicant, and respiratory toxicant, among others, according to the California EPA.

Scientists do not know what, if any, cancer risk humans face from years-long use of products containing the chemical. The Food and Drug Administration, which regulates cosmetics, has set no standards for 1,4-Dioxane. the agency has periodically tested products for the compound since the late 1970's and says levels of it have substantially declined since then. The FDA says the current levels do not present a hazard to consumers, although they have advised the industry to reduce amounts in cosmetics as much as possible.

The toxin is present in products with synthetic ethoxylated ingredients. Look for the words: myreth, oleth, laureth, cetearth, any other "eth", PEG, polyethylene, polyethylene glycol, polyoxyenthylene, or oxynol, in their names.

Some of the leading brands found to contain 1,4-Dioxane are: Jason, Giovanni Kiss My Face, Natures's Gate Organics, Aura Cacia bubble Baths, Earth Friendly, Ecover, Grandpa's Pine tar shampoo, Planet Ultra, Seventh Generation, Shikai.

This list is not all inclusive. Not all products in each brand are problematic. Please use your own discretion and read labels to help you make your purchasing decisions. Brands found to be Dioxane free include: Dr. Bronners, Aubrey, Grateful Body, Answers From Nature, Beeceuticals, Avena, Carters, Kuumba, Heritage, Weleda, Btween, Home Health, Burts, and others.

Phone numbers for a few of the companys involved are:

Alba-1-888-659-7730
Aura Cacia-1-800-437-3301
Giovanni-1-310-952-9960
Jason-1-877-527-6601
KisMyFace-1-800-262-KISS
Nature's Gate-1-800-327-2012
Shikai-1-800-448-0298
You can also go to www.oca.org


The Co-op will be researching this issue and will provide more information as it becomes available." End.

[redcelticcurls]

I think that some of this is just overly alarmist, much like the paraben issue. it does help sell organic product lines though.



http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cosdiox.html

FDA has received questions on the subject of 1,4-dioxane, a contaminant that may occur in trace amounts in certain cosmetics. The following information has been compiled from responses to those questions, from the published scientific literature, and other public sources.
What is 1,4-dioxane?

The compound 1,4-dioxane is a contaminant that may be present in extremely small amounts in some cosmetics. It forms as a byproduct during the manufacturing process of certain cosmetic ingredients. These ingredients include certain detergents, foaming agents, emulsifiers and solvents identifiable by the prefix, word, or syllables "PEG," "Polyethylene," "Polyethylene glycol," "Polyoxyethylene," "-eth-," or "-oxynol-." However, 1,4-dioxane itself is not used as a cosmetic ingredient.

Is 1,4-dioxane in cosmetic products harmful?

The levels at which a chemical compound would be considered harmful in a cosmetic depend on the conditions of use (FD&C Act, section 601(a)). The 1,4-dioxane levels we have seen in our monitoring of cosmetics do not present a hazard to consumers.
Concerns initially were raised in the 1970s, when studies at the National Cancer Institute found an association between1,4-dioxane and cancer in animals when 1,4-dioxane was administered in high levels in the animal feed. However, the levels in cosmetic products are far lower than those found to be harmful in feeding studies and, for the most part, the types of products in which it is found are only in contact with the skin for a short time.
As a precaution, FDA followed up with skin absorption studies, which showed that 1,4-dioxane can penetrate animal and human skin when applied in certain preparations, such as lotions. However, further research by FDA determined that 1,4-dioxane evaporates readily, further diminishing the already small amount available for skin absorption, even in products that remain on the skin for hours. (Robert L. Bronaugh, "Percutaneous Absorption of Cosmetic Ingredients," in Principles of Cosmetics for the Dermatologist, Philip Frost, M.D., and Steven Horwitz, M.D., Eds. St. Louis: The C.V. Mosby Company, 1982)

What is FDA doing to assure that cosmetics do not contain unsafe levels of 1,4-dioxane?

FDA has been monitoring this issue since the late 1970s. We periodically monitor the levels of 1,4-dioxane in cosmetic products, and have observed that the changes made in the manufacturing process have resulted in a significant decline in the levels of this contaminant. (Roderick E. Black, Fred J. Hurley and Donald C. Havery, "Occurrence of 1,4-Dioxane in Cosmetic Raw Materials and Finished Cosmetic Products," Journal of AOAC International, 84 (3), 2001, pp. 666-667)
FDA has not established or recommended a specific limit on the level of 1,4-dioxane in cosmetics. We have provided guidance to manufacturers alerting them to the health concerns and how to minimize 1,4-dioxane by means of a process called "vacuum stripping" at the end of the polymerization process. This information has been posted on our website in the Cosmetic Handbook for Industry: Cosmetic Product-Related Regulatory Requirements and Health Hazard Issues. We also provide FDA inspectors with information on this procedure in our Guide to Inspections of Cosmetic Product Manufacturers (http://www.fda.gov/ora/inspect_ref/igs/cosmet.html) so that when they conduct inspections they will know what to look for and what questions to ask.
If FDA were to determine that a health hazard exists, it would advise the industry and the public, and would consider its legal options for protecting the health and welfare of consumers.

[icydove]

Great, I just bought a bottle of Giovanni :rolleyes:

I take these kinds of things seriously, including the use of parabens. I'm not worried about one ingredient as much as I'm concerned about the cumulative effect of all these "minor" toxins used continuously.

[birthmarkie]

This is a website someone recently posted, which I have been using as a guide: http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/.

[ladiosaRosa]

I think that some of this is just overly alarmist, much like the paraben issue. it does help sell organic product lines though.(snip)

Thanks, redcelticcurls. It's always good to hear the flip scoop on these issues.


Great, I just bought a bottle of Giovanni :rolleyes:

I take these kinds of things seriously, including the use of parabens. I'm not worried about one ingredient as much as I'm concerned about the cumulative effect of all these "minor" toxins used continuously.

I feel the same way about that 'cumulative' effect thing, icydove.

At my age, I don't get as alarmed over these things though I think it's a serious matter. I worry that if harm is inevitable, it will be worse for younger people. Just my opinion.

I have a couple of bottles of Giovanni in my 'stash'. I've just recently determined that my hair ends love KissMyFace and I probably have other conditioners on hand that this might pertain to. I have 2 bottles of Tate's Miracle Conditioner that I bought to use as a body/hand lotion but have discontinued because of parabens. I think I'll use it on my hair as a conditioner. I'll probably continue to use the products I have on hand.

[Kirin]

Dr. Bonners? I didnt know pure castille of soaponified oils had chemicals. Matter of fact, it doesnt. Its that product that made me re-read the whole thing, and see how alarmist it really is.

When I'm told that pure soap is somehow going to give me some horrid cancer, I think I'm about done

Putting aside chemical hair dye, relaxers and perms..... I no longer worry horribly about the basic shampoo and conditioner, at all.

I've spent about the last month trying to "de - chemical" my life....really, trying to embrace what i shouldn't use, whats harmful..... its actually just too much for me and i found it utterly frustrating. Even the "best" natural shampoos, i read the lable, they are no better than what I buy for 99 cents except for perhaps EO's.

LOL, I'm not a chemist, I'm an artist / housewife / minister.

I applaud those that can go the extra mile, do all that research and learning, and wipe out all the bad things from their regimes and routines..... but for me, I just have to "let it go".... I'm so much more relaxed.

Oops..... read original information wrong, dont know how i got that backwards for the products.

[Hypnotica]

The thing is, we are constantly exposed to all kind of substances everywere. It's a part of life in this age.

[ladiosaRosa]

Dr. Bonners? I didnt know pure castille of soaponified oils had chemicals. Matter of fact, it doesnt. Its that product that made me re-read the whole thing, and see how alarmist it really is.

When I'm told that pure soap is somehow going to give me some horrid cancer, I think I'm about done

Putting aside chemical hair dye, relaxers and perms..... I no longer worry horribly about the basic shampoo and conditioner, at all.

I've spent about the last month trying to "de - chemical" my life....really, trying to embrace what i shouldn't use, whats harmful..... its actually just too much for me and i found it utterly frustrating. Even the "best" natural shampoos, i read the lable, they are no better than what I buy for 99 cents except for perhaps EO's.

LOL, I'm not a chemist, I'm an artist / housewife / minister.

I applaud those that can go the extra mile, do all that research and learning, and wipe out all the bad things from their regimes and routines..... but for me, I just have to "let it go".... I'm so much more relaxed.


(snip) Brands found to be Dioxane free include: Dr. Bronners, Aubrey, Grateful Body, Answers From Nature, Beeceuticals, Avena, Carters, Kuumba, Heritage, Weleda, Btween, Home Health, Burts, and others.


Kirin.....might you have mis-read the notice?

[Kirin]

oooooooooooh okay my bad........

Jeeze, why did i read that as the opposite?? Thats what freaked me out!

I have pnumonia currently, that could explain my dimentia, sorry!

[Sari]

Kirin, Dr Bronner' is listed in the safe category. Am I reading this right?

[BrianaFineHair]

Grandpa's Pine Tar Soap clears ups the eczema on my son's hands. Nothing else has helped.

The main thing I look out for are alluminum, sulphates, and parabens - in any form. I've read studies where paraben was found in biopsied breast cancer tissue. How in the world did it get there?

I prefer to use products that are natural or pretty darn close like certified organic EO, vinegar, natural oils, and baking soda.

[alys]

I'll keep my opinionated self out of this debate, for the most part, but will add these comments -
I challenge aynone that takes what the FDA proclaims at face value. The FDA is not some mother-hen-in-the-heavens just looking out for all of us simple humans below. They are a corporate machine, the same as any other large, multi-billion dollar branch of govorment.

The environmentalists of the 60-70's were called 'alarmists' in response to thier 'raving' about this so called 'global warming'....Las Angeles could have afforded to heed those scientists advice, to say the least.

Concerened parents of Thalidomide babies were called 'alarmists' after thier children were born with flaps instead of limbs. Other parents still taking the fertility drug Thalidomide I'm sure wish they heeded those concerns sooner.

The only thing I find alarming is the vast number of people who continue NOT to question the CRAP that is being fed to them, by anyone, most especially the FDA. The FDA spends a proportional 1 MINUTE of their day testing/regulating the entire Costmetics Industry. I'm not banking on them anytime soon.
What other explanation can cover the rise in disease and obesity and general unhealthiness of the US population, other than diet and consumption/exposure to odd chemicals and compounds that are not naturally occuring??? The FDA is supposed to regulate this and keep us safe and it's done a POO POO job IMHO.

Done with the rant thanks for letting me vent

quickly edited for sp

[Buddaphlyy]

I'm sure there are toxins in the air I'm breathing at this very moment. But if I tried to cut air out of my life, I'm sure I'd die. An report from an organics based group is warning us about the dangers of chemicals in certain products. This may just be me, but they might be biased and are trying to push an agenda. I really am not surprised or all that concerned.

[dancingbarefoot]

You can also go to www.oca.org (http://www.oca.org)


Am I the only one wondering what the Orthodox Church has to do with this? :confused:


What other explanation can cover the rise in disease and obesity and general unhealthiness of the US population, other than diet and consumption/exposure to odd chemicals and compounds that are not naturally occuring???

I'm not one to take the FDA's word as absolute truth, but what other explanation do we need for increased obesity than diet? It's easy to blame everything on chemicals, but there's also been a general decrease in activity and increase in food consumed. :twocents:

[ladiosaRosa]

Originally Posted by ladiosaRosa http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/showthread.php?p=26710#post26710)
You can also go to www.oca.org (http://www.oca.org/)



Am I the only one wondering what the Orthodox Church has to do with this? :confused:
(snip)

Uggghh. That has to be incorrect URL. I think they were meaning:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/..... for the Organic Consumers Assoc.

I didn't realize because I reached the website from a Google search. Thanks for catching that and mentioning, DBF.

[ladiosaRosa]

A tiny observation: I'm a little surprised by the atmosphere of 'debate' on this thread. I posted the notice only to inform those who might be interested. It was not a judgment on one organization's honesty over another's nor a judgment as to whether members are right or wrong to heed or ignore the notice.

[Raederle]

Thanks for the corrected link. I wandered around the site, and found some interesting reading.