Formaldehyde

[Sparkles122]

Has anyone used a hair product, specifically a conditioner with the ingredient formaldehyde in it? I sometimes like to look over the ingredients in my products and im not sure how I missed this one when I was purchasing. The product im referring to is Bed Head Moisture Maniac conditioner. Is it ok to use products with formaldehyde in them? If so I’ll try it.

[sourgrl]

It's likely being used as a preservative in that product. I personally wouldn't use it given its carcinogenic history.

[lapushka]

I don't have it in any of my conditioners as far as I can tell, at least I never came across it so far, but formulations may vary country to country as well. I'm in the EU.

[Sparkles122]

I brought it back to the store. I have never seen that ingredient in any of the products I have used before

[lapushka]

I always check my ingredients, normally, before buying. I have caught sodium hydroxide in some products, but low on the list it acts as a pH regulator. So it's not as if there's straight-up lye in there. ;) Sometimes the amount that's in there is key.

[Sparkles122]

I always check my ingredients, normally, before buying. I have caught sodium hydroxide in some products, but low on the list it acts as a pH regulator. So it's not as if there's straight-up lye in there. ;) Sometimes the amount that's in there is key.

I have to start paying more attention. I usually have my kids so i get distracted sometimes lol

[andrea1982]

Formaldehyde preservatives are quite common in cosmetics. I am allergic to them! It took me into my 20's to figure this out. Most of my life I would be randomly allergic to products (rash, itching) even products that didn't have fragrance and were supposed to by hypoallergenic. I finally figured this out by going through the discarded box of products I had in my basement that I was allergic to, and trying to find a common ingredient, and sure enough, it was this.

WHAT TO LOOK FOR ON THE LABEL: Formaldehyde, quaternium-15, DMDM hydantoin, imidazolidinyl urea, diazolidinyl urea, polyoxymethylene urea, sodium hydroxymethylglycinate, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (bromopol) and glyoxal.

In North America where I live, it is mostly easy to avoid, as many of the major brands seem not to use it. For example Proctor and Gamble (Head and shoulders, pantene, herbal essences) don't use them. Unilever, however, does, so brands I can't use include Dove, tresseme, OGX, suave. Garnier and l'oreal seem to be okay too, but I don't like the fragrance in many of those. It seems certain brands have dropped them as well in recent years, some brands I couldn't use in the past are now formeldehyde free, including white rain, V05, natures gate.

Watch out for Salon brands, it seems that most of these contain the formeldehyde preservatives. Matrix biolage seems ok, but the rest of the salon brands are really hit or miss.

I don't know if formeldehyde is any less safe than other main stream preservatives such as parabens. I only wash my hair about 2-3 times per week, and they are rinse off products, so I tend not to worry to much about it. I avoid formeldehyde because I am allergic to it, not because I think it is unsafe in general.

[Caribbean_girl]

Formaldehyde causes cancer. Try your best to find a healthier alternative for you and your hair!

[lapushka]

Formaldehyde causes cancer. Try your best to find a healthier alternative for you and your hair!

All I can find is this:

"The EPA has classified formaldehyde as a "probable human carcinogen." National Cancer Institute researchers have concluded that, based on data from studies in people and from lab research, exposure to formaldehyde may cause leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, in humans"

With emphasis on "probable".

Not "certain".

If it were certain, I'm sure it would be pulled straight away.

[Sparkles122]

I didnt use and returned the product. Something about putting formaldehyde on my hair just didnt seem right

[MusicalSpoons]

Interestingly the EPA is a US agency; the US operates on a basis of 'prove it's harmful and we'll do something about it' whereas the EU and many other countries operate on a basis of 'prove it's safe and we'll let you use it'.

I also found this:

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified formaldehyde as carcinogenic to humans.

“Twenty-six scientists from 10 countries evaluated the available evidence on the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde, a widely used chemical,” said Dr. Peter Boyle, the Director of the Agency, which is part of the World Health Organization.

Previous evaluations, based on the smaller number of studies available at that time, had concluded that formaldehyde was probably carcinogenic to humans, but new information from studies of persons exposed to formaldehyde increased the overall weight of the evidence, Dr. Boyle noted in a news release.

Based on the new information, the expert working group determined that there is now sufficient evidence that formaldehyde causes nasopharyngeal cancer in humans.

“Their conclusion that there is adequate data available from humans for an increased risk of a relatively rare form of cancer—nasopharyngeal cancer—and a supporting mechanism, demonstrates the value and strengths of the Monographs Programme [which convened the working group],” he said.

The working group also found limited evidence for cancers of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses and “strong but not sufficient evidence” for leukemia.
From https://journals.lww.com/oncology-times/fulltext/2004/07100/IARC_Classifies_Formaldehyde_as_Carcinogenic.27.as px

https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/86085/cancer-information/general-information-cancer-information/cancer-questions-myths/environmental-and-occupational-carcinogens/general-public-exposure-to-formaldehyde-does-not-cause-cancer/ says:

in 2006 (and again in 2012) the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified formaldehyde as carcinogenic (cancer causing substance) to humans. IARC is a part of the World Health Organisation which convenes international expert working groups to evaluate the evidence of the carcinogenicity of specific exposures. Additionally, in 2011, the US National Toxicology Program listed formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen in its 12thReport on Carcinogens.

However that comes from an article with the headline "General public exposure to formaldehyde does not cause cancer" so ... :shrug:

It should be noted that a lot of the research is focused on those with high levels of exposure, people working with significant amounts of it every day, e.g. industrial workers, lab techs, mortuary employees; and the research seems focused on inhalation or ingestion - the most common routes of exposure for those working with it. So I guess shampoo containing tiny amounts is most likely to be safe, but honestly I'm not sure I'd be willing to use it either! I'm glad you were able to return it as you didn't feel comfortable using it Sparkles122 :)

[Ylva]

As far as I know, the amount of formaldehyde that is used as a preservative in a product is, in one use, equal to the consumption of a fruit that naturally contains formaldehyde (for example a pear).

Of course, you could just go ahead and avoid that, and eat a pear instead. :)

[Alex Lou]

We're all exposed to low levels of formaldehyde every day. I believe building materials are the main exposure, so our homes. We should still avoid exposure when possible because it adds up. I'm not sure about cancer, but I was reading a while back that it can cause reproductive harm.

Probably the low levels used as a preservate are insignificant. On the other hand, not that hard to use a different product. I agree, it is off-putting.

[Joules]

Guys, come on. The fearmongering is getting out of hand, really. When scientists test chemicals on animals they inject them with huge amounts. So huge that regular people just can't get this kind if exposure in their daily lives. Unless you drink shampoo and conditioner for breakfast, lunch and dinner every day for years, you won't get cancer.

Pears contain formaldehyde and strawberries contain parabens. Those things aren't killing you, why do you think your conditioner would?

[lapushka]

I agree with Joules. If it were really that dangerous, it would not be available for purchase.

And I *know* what cancer can do. I have had 4 people, close to me, die on me, due to all sorts of cancer, breast (2), brain, pancreatic. It is a horrible disease, but IMMHO you either get it or you don't. I mean why do babies or small children get it. They haven't smoked nor been exposed to bad things. If you are predisposed, you are going to get it.

A product isn't going to change all that!
I have learned that much.

You can live a "careful" life and still get it. You can live 100 miles an H and be fine. It's the luck of the draw!

[MusicalSpoons]

I wasn't fearmongering, I was stating facts. The research was done on humans, but I did also point out that it's focused on exposure to large amounts (mostly via inhalation or ingestion) and even bolded the article title that they'd concluded general public exposure isn't harmful. It *is* classified as a carcinogen for humans, so if someone Googles 'is formaldehyde carcinogenic?' they'd find the answer YES with no context - but it's entirely likely they might not look any deeper to see that as a member of the general public they don't really have to worry.

(My own discomfort at it being in a cosmetic product is indeed emotion taking over rationality; empathising with someone else on that doesn't make me a bad scientist, it makes me human :wink:)

Edit: lapushka I agree people are likely either genetically disposed to have cancer or not, but carcinogens are linked with an unusual amount of people getting cancer compared to those who aren't exposed to those chemicals. It might be that carcinogens trigger something that you have to be predisposed for, I don't know. But I do know this classification is not something taken lightly, and for those working with carcinogens strict safety measures are taken to reduce the exposure.

In one of the articles about formaldehyde, they mentioned 'a supporting mechanism' for one type of cancer but they didn't have 'a supporting mechanism' for leukaemia and something else. Which means they've proven *how* it can cause the first type, but not the others, so they can't conclusively say it does cause leukaemia, only that it probably does. [Again, to be taken in the right context: high exposure, not small amounts in cosmetics!]

When I did Chemistry A level, we studied the mechanism behind sun exposure and skin cancer; there is a proven mechanism behind it on a molecular level - but again, not everyone has cancer as a result of sun exposure; those who do will have had different levels of exposure before it developed - but of course it's not the only cause of skin cancer; it's not a simple case of 'sun exposure = skin cancer'. That's one reason why I'm inclined to think there is an element of predisposition involved.

So I do take carcinogens seriously, if they've been definitively classified (because they're not making it up! You can't dismiss the research and scientific evidence), but also don't live my life *worrying* because it might never happen! [I too have seen many people close to me suffer, some of them survived and some of them didn't; for me it would be a waste to have lived life trying desperately to avoid all known and possible carcinogens only to develop some form of cancer anyway.]

[lapushka]

I wasn't fearmongering, I was stating facts. The research was done on humans, but I did also point out that it's focused on exposure to large amounts (mostly via inhalation or ingestion) and even bolded the article title that they'd concluded general public exposure isn't harmful. It *is* classified as a carcinogen for humans, so if someone Googles 'is formaldehyde carcinogenic?' they'd find the answer YES with no context - but it's entirely likely they might not look any deeper to see that as a member of the general public they don't really have to worry.

(My own discomfort at it being in a cosmetic product is indeed emotion taking over rationality; empathising with someone else on that doesn't make me a bad scientist, it makes me human :wink:)

I don't think it was directed at you. ;) I think it was directed at people stating things without backing things up. In general. I hate when that happens.

And it all depends what source you tap into what result you get.

If it was really a cancer risk, MusicalSpoons, it would no longer be used. Like I said, minute amounts. It's even in fruits and consumables. And what are you gonna do then? No longer eat? ;)

[MusicalSpoons]

I don't think it was directed at you. ;) I think it was directed at people stating things without backing things up. In general. I hate when that happens.

And it all depends what source you tap into what result you get.

If it was really a cancer risk, MusicalSpoons, it would no longer be used. Like I said, minute amounts. It's even in fruits and consumables. And what are you gonna do then? No longer eat? ;)

I think I was editing my post as you were replying and it ended up WAY longer than intended :doh: but I think the edit kind of answers that question :)

[lapushka]

Edit: lapushka I agree people are likely either genetically disposed to have cancer or not, but carcinogens are linked with an unusual amount of people getting cancer compared to those who aren't exposed to those chemicals. It might be that carcinogens trigger something that you have to be predisposed for, I don't know. But I do know this classification is not something taken lightly, and for those working with carcinogens strict safety measures are taken to reduce the exposure.

In one of the articles about formaldehyde, they mentioned 'a supporting mechanism' for one type of cancer but they didn't have 'a supporting mechanism' for leukaemia and something else. Which means they've proven *how* it can cause the first type, but not the others, so they can't conclusively say it does cause leukaemia, only that it probably does. [Again, to be taken in the right context: high exposure, not small amounts in cosmetics!]

When I did Chemistry A level, we studied the mechanism behind sun exposure and skin cancer; there is a proven mechanism behind it on a molecular level - but again, not everyone has cancer as a result of sun exposure; those who do will have had different levels of exposure before it developed - but of course it's not the only cause of skin cancer; it's not a simple case of 'sun exposure = skin cancer'. That's one reason why I'm inclined to think there is an element of predisposition involved.

So I do take carcinogens seriously, if they've been definitively classified (because they're not making it up! You can't dismiss the research and scientific evidence), but also don't live my life *worrying* because it might never happen! [I too have seen many people close to me suffer, some of them survived and some of them didn't; for me it would be a waste to have lived life trying desperately to avoid all known and possible carcinogens only to develop some form of cancer anyway.]

And the bold is what it was about here in the first place, right? Not high amounts, just cosmetic use. So there is no reason for this thing blowing up the way it has, IMO.

[Joules]

Cancer is like a plain crash. There never is just one cause, there's always a number of factors that when combined become disastrous. Genetic predisposition, stress levels, immune system, lifestyle choices (including even sleep patterns) can all lead to cancer in one way or another, but for some reason only shampoo and deodorants scare people.

[lapushka]

Cancer is like a plain crash. There never is just one cause, there's always a number of factors that when combined become disastrous. Genetic predisposition, stress levels, immune system, lifestyle choices (including even sleep patterns) can all lead to cancer in one way or another, but for some reason only shampoo and deodorants scare people.

Yes, it's about putting things into perspective. I agree with you on that. Good point!

[MusicalSpoons]

And the bold is what it was about here in the first place, right? Not high amounts, just cosmetic use. So there is no reason for this thing blowing up the way it has, IMO.

True. I think it blew up due to the blanket statement, which technically was correct but irrelevant in the context :)


Cancer is like a plain crash. There never is just one cause, there's always a number of factors that when combined become disastrous. Genetic predisposition, stress levels, immune system, lifestyle choices (including even sleep patterns) can all lead to cancer in one way or another, but for some reason only shampoo and deodorants scare people.

Very true!

[lapushka]

True. I think it blew up due to the blanket statement, which technically was correct but irrelevant in the context :)

Which is generally why I dislike statements like that with no backing, just "xyz causes cancer". I mean. That is fearmongering. Very scary thing to do and quite unnecessary.

[MusicalSpoons]

^ agreed. Though it was interesting researching it a bit :o

[lapushka]

^ agreed. Though it was interesting researching it a bit :o

Isn't it always? :D I love to research various things as well.

[Chromis]

I don't have it in any of my conditioners as far as I can tell, at least I never came across it so far, but formulations may vary country to country as well. I'm in the EU.

Formaldehyde is not allowed in cosmetics, nail products, and toothpaste in the EU. The EU has banned or restricted over 2000 chemicals from cosmetic products compared to over 500 in Canada and only 8 in the US so to compare yours with theirs is not quite like with like. Even the same product often will have different formulations in different countries, so you can't assume even then!

The European Union follows a hazard based assessment model, which means that if there is a known hazard associated with a chemical it is more likely to be banned or restricted. The difference in Canada is, that even if we know a chemical has health risks associated to it, the risk based method means it can still be used in consumer products if the risk to exposure is considered low enough. The US is very, very slow to change their rules. As a pretty decent example of this - Use of lead-based interior paints was banned in France, Belgium and Austria in 1909. Much of Europe followed suit before 1940. It took the U.S. until 1978.

This sometimes goes the other direction as well, I look for non-US sunscreen because other countries allow more effective filters and formulas that aren't so greasy and gross feeling!

[Sparkles122]

I suppose in my original post I wasnt really thinking about the long term possible side effects of formaldehyde but more along the lines of “this is a strong chemical used to preserve dead bodies, should I really be putting it on my hair?” Im not discouraging others from using it. If you would like to put formaldehyde containing products on your head, by all mean do so. I just thought about it shortly after making the post and decided not to. The place i purchased from welcomes returns and took it back no problem. That was actually the first hair product I have ever seen with that ingredient in it, so I dont think avoiding it should be a problem for me at all with future hair purchases.

[lapushka]

Formaldehyde is not allowed in cosmetics, nail products, and toothpaste in the EU. The EU has banned or restricted over 2000 chemicals from cosmetic products compared to over 500 in Canada and only 8 in the US so to compare yours with theirs is not quite like with like. Even the same product often will have different formulations in different countries, so you can't assume even then!

The European Union follows a hazard based assessment model, which means that if there is a known hazard associated with a chemical it is more likely to be banned or restricted. The difference in Canada is, that even if we know a chemical has health risks associated to it, the risk based method means it can still be used in consumer products if the risk to exposure is considered low enough. The US is very, very slow to change their rules. As a pretty decent example of this - Use of lead-based interior paints was banned in France, Belgium and Austria in 1909. Much of Europe followed suit before 1940. It took the U.S. until 1978.

This sometimes goes the other direction as well, I look for non-US sunscreen because other countries allow more effective filters and formulas that aren't so greasy and gross feeling!

To tell you the truth, I often feel (not only on this) that the EU acts rather rashly - but that is just a subjective feeling, not more. I could not begin to start talking regulations.

I have heard that about sunscreens and the few filters the US allows. A good channel to watch on YT maybe "Dr Dray". She waxes so positively about EU sunscreens for the reasons you mention and she reviews them.

[MusicalSpoons]

^ I'm slightly the opposite; I'm grateful to know for sure that the products allowed to be on sale are either completely safe or safe at reasonable levels of use (e.g. even water is harmful if you drink far too much in a short period of time!) It seems more people than ever are sensitive to more substances, so why raise the risk unnecessarily?

(I don't get involved in politics but this issue is one thing I'm mindful of regarding US trade negotiations for after Brexit - if certain conditions [particularly regarding food imports] pass as part of deals, I will be doing some research into the relevant chemicals and methods. I don't live in fear, nor do I plan to worry excessively, but I also can't afford for anything to make me more ill unnecessarily :shrug:)

[Lady Stardust]

^ I'm slightly the opposite; I'm grateful to know for sure that the products allowed to be on sale are either completely safe or safe at reasonable levels of use (e.g. even water is harmful if you drink far too much in a short period of time!) It seems more people than ever are sensitive to more substances, so why raise the risk unnecessarily?

(I don't get involved in politics but this issue is one thing I'm mindful of regarding US trade negotiations for after Brexit - if certain conditions [particularly regarding food imports] pass as part of deals, I will be doing some research into the relevant chemicals and methods. I don't live in fear, nor do I plan to worry excessively, but I also can't afford for anything to make me more ill unnecessarily :shrug:)

MusicalSpoons I’m worried about the same thing with regard to trade deals. I also like the protection that we currently have with the EU in many areas...sorry I don’t want to derail the thread but it’s impossible to read a thread like this without thinking what might happen in the future.

There are plenty of ingredients and materials that were widely used when I was growing up which are no longer considered to be safe. I remember standing in Boots when I was about 13 checking that spray cans didn’t contain CFCs, as their impact on the environment was big news at the time.

[Kalamazoo]

Personally, I have always had a lot of allergies to a lot of things that didn't bother a lot of other people, so if something might possibly be a problem, I need to err on the side of caution.

When I was about 5, I had an asthma attack that put me in the ER, under an oxygen tent, overnight. When I got home, Daddy told me, "You might be really sick right now, but some day, if you never smoke or drink, you'll be a lot healthier than other folks who do."

So I have become an increasingly devoted health food nut through the years. And I have attended funerals of friends my age & younger who weren't health food nuts.

And you have to remember how many decades the smoking industry fought tooth and nail to prevent the USA's FDA from coming to a firm conclusion that smoking causes cancer.

OK, it doesn't work that way for everyone. Jeanne Calment gave up smoking at age 121 & still lived to be the Guinness Book of World Records winner for longest-living person before dying at age 122.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/jeanne-calment

And George Burns joked that, at his age, he needed as many preservatives as he could get, so he avoided health food! He lived to be 100.

But with my allergy/asthma history? Formaldehyde? No thanks.

[Joules]

I think comparing formaldehyde in cosmetics to smoking is a bit extreme. Way back in the day people treated coughing with heroin, let's compare it to preservatives too. Dangers of smoking aren't even remotely comparable to dangers of preservatives in shampoos, are they?

Of course people have allergies and sensitivities. But I don't believe there are many cases. There's still the vocal minority-silent majority thing going on. People who have had reactions to sulfates or formaldehyde tend to be a lot more outspoken than those who just use their shampoos, don't even pay attention and don't go on the internet to express their love to chemicals.

[The-Young-Maid]

While this is a complex issue; I tend to side with the EU's, "Prove to me it's safe then you can use it." Instead if the US, "Prove to me it's harmful then we'll consider restricting it." I agree that the level of exposure to certain potentially hazardous ingredients is mostly negligible... short term. Companies can say things are perfectly safe in low amounts, but they don't consider long term use or even compounded use with other products. It's really the wild west over here most of the time.

I think it's best to avoid what you can *reasonably* because there are so many other times when you don't have a choice. I'm not saying this because people should freak out about what they put in/on their bodies. It's just the unfortunate truth here in the states that people need to educate themselves and not blindly believe what the package says. I really envy you guys across the pond that can trust whats on the shelf but here we can't do that.

Take the Johnson + Johnson lawsuit. J+J sold baby powder (talc-based) for decades. It was also aware of possible (asbestos) contamination but continued to use the talc anyway. Eventually women sued J+J for ovarian cancer and other asbestos related cancers/illnesses. J+J had to pay $417 million... One of the women said if there had been any warning on the bottle she would have stopped using it. "The company has no legal obligation to put such a label on its product. Because talcum powder is legally considered a cosmetic, it does not have to undergo a review by the US Food and Drug Administration like a drug would. But it would have to be properly labeled with ingredients and other information, and the product "must be safe for use by consumers under labeled or customary conditions of use," according to the agency.
Some other talc-based powders on the market carry labels that mention possible risk of ovarian cancer after frequent application in the female genital area."

Think about how many of us, myself included, use face powder daily... which includes talc. Or how many of our parents used this baby powder on us without knowing of any risks? Talc itself is not the devil. But it is easily contaminated and as consumers it's pretty impossible for use to find out where everything in a product was sourced. We don't have the power to make informed decisions. Obviously J+J is an extreme example of corporations run amuck but it's something to consider when you go shopping.

If I could use nothing but a shampoo bar and coconut oil in my hair I would in a heartbeat because thats one less thing to worry about. But of course my hair has different needs lol Please believe me when I say IM NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORIST.

TLDR; Use whatever you want. Lots of conflicting info and you'll drive yourself mad trying to figure out all the loopholes companies have. Like the classic, hide everything as "fragrance".

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/21/health/johnson-and-johnson-talc-verdict/index.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-27/johnson-johnson-settles-oklahoma-talc-cancer-case

[Caribbean_girl]

All I can find is this:

"The EPA has classified formaldehyde as a "probable human carcinogen." National Cancer Institute researchers have concluded that, based on data from studies in people and from lab research, exposure to formaldehyde may cause leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, in humans"

With emphasis on "probable".

Not "certain".

If it were certain, I'm sure it would be pulled straight away.

You're right! I just don't trust them.

[Kalamazoo]

Here's an interesting article:

http://glamorganicgoddess.com/the-dirty-thirty-a-list-of-bad-ass-ingredients-to-avoid-like-the-plague-or-rather-cancer/

Title: "The Dirty 30 | A List of Bad-Ass Beauty Ingredients To Avoid!"