Parabens, sulfates: Why not be afraid of "scary" ingredients
The growing popularity of "clean beauty" together with the striking vitality of the myths about cosmetics contributed to the dissemination of opinions about the insecurity and even the harmfulness of the components that can be found in most of our cans. The most famous objects of opals are parabens and sulphates: it seems that in the cosmetics industry the labeling "SLS-free" today is used as a guard against falling sales. We tried to figure out where people's dislike for these substances came from and whether there are reasons for not trusting them in terms of cosmetic chemistry.
Text: Christina Farberova
Parabens
Parabens are chemicals that are used as preservatives and food additives. In cosmetics, personal care products and food, they act as a preservative: they do not allow microbes, mold and yeast to appear in the mass. Paraben-free cosmetics will turn into a fermented swamp within a few hours. In the early 80s, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Group (CIR) checked the safety of methyl-, ethyl-, propyl- and butylparabens and concluded that they were harmless to humans.
"Parabens are in different cosmetics: in lipstick, mascara and concealer, in Sanskrin, in toothpaste," says Alina Bayeva, cosmetic chemist and founder of the Bjarmia brand. "The war with these preservatives began in 2004, after the publication of the study, the authors of which found traces of parabens in some samples of breast cancer tumors. Since then, parabens have been placed on the black lists of eco-bloggers, and the manufacturers promptly removed them from the recipes so as not to wake dashingly and not incur the wrath of the buyers. "
The results of the 2004 study showed that parabens have estrogen-like properties. Estrogens are hormones that cause the growth and division of breast cells, both normal and malignant.. Some conditions of the female body (late menopause, sudden weight gain, lack of children) can increase the effect of estrogen on the body, and this is associated with an increased risk of developing breast cancer. This fact and worried scientists. Nevertheless, science knows that even the most “strong” of parabens - butylparaben - has weak estrogen-like activity (tens of thousands of times lower than the activity of estrogens, which are produced in the human body). Therefore, natural estrogens (or those taken as hormone substitutes) are more likely to play in the development of breast cancer, because their activity is many times higher than that of parabens.
The CIR company once again studied the opinion of the commission and confirmed the previous findings: parabens are safe as a cosmetic preservative
The European Commission's Consumer Safety Committee (SCCS) announced in 2011 that methylparaben and ethylparaben are safe in low concentrations: 0.4% if the substance is used separately, 0.8% if mixed with other preservatives. SCCS recommended reducing propyl paraben and butyl paraben levels: the sum of their individual concentrations should not exceed 0.19%. The industry took the decision to work, and reduced the concentration of parabens. The rest of the findings of the commission did not greatly affect the cosmetic industry, only in Denmark the government banned the use of propyl and butylparabens in cosmetics for children under three years old. The CIR company once again studied the opinion of the commission and confirmed the previous conclusions: parabens are safe as a cosmetic preservative. In 2012 they were again acquitted. True, the serenity of CIR and chemists, accustomed to working with parabens, did not last long. Half a year ago, the environmental organization Women's Voices, which is exploring toxic chemicals in cosmetics and household goods, asked to review the status of preservatives. So soon, probably, we will learn new facts about parabens.
But if these substances are harmless, why do cosmetics manufacturers still write "parabens free" on their packaging? “People still believe that parabens can cause breast cancer and endocrine disorders,” explains Alina Bayeva. “Therefore, the label“ without parabens ”on the label still reduces consumer anxiety when choosing a cosmetic.”
Sulfates
Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) and Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES) are surfactants that are often found in detergent formulations, washing gels, toothpaste, shampoos, shaving foams and even in food (FDA allows using SLS as food supplement). And the task of any surfactants is to foam well and remove grease and dirt. SLS copes with this better than others - it is cheap and effective, so manufacturers of cosmetics and personal care products use it.
“Why do sulfates be cursed? Molecules of any surfactant can be embedded in the lipid barrier of the skin and weaken it, make it permeable,” says cosmetic chemist, co-founder of the brands InnSkin and SKINIO, Victoria Sharapova. the barrier becomes a “sieve”, increasing the loss of moisture. This leads to flaking, irritation and dehydration of the skin. "
The CIR commission investigated both ingredients: for the first time in 1983 and again in 2002. The experts found out that SLS and SLES can irritate the skin if they remain on it in high concentration for a long time. Exposure of a solution of SLS in a concentration of more than 2% during the day can increase the transepidermal moisture loss of the stratum corneum and cause mild but reversible inflammation. The higher the concentration of sulfates and the longer they stay on the skin, the more likely the irritation. They also found that with prolonged use, sodium lauryl sulfate provokes comedones in rabbits, serious changes in the skin and damage to the hair follicles in rats. The authors of the study, published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, believe that the main problem — irritation of the eyes and skin under the influence of SLS — can be solved by properly developing formulas and relevant tests.
For example, sulphates won't fit curly people - they “fluff” hair. For atopic or reactive skin, they are also not desirable, but for oily will be just right
CIR experts believe that sulfates are safe for human health in products that are quickly applied and washed out just as quickly: in shampoos, cleansing gels, household chemicals. The consumer does not need to keep them on himself for several hours, and the manufacturer - to put more than 1% in the composition. Other results of tests on animals (comedones in rabbits, damage to hair follicles in rats) CIR recommends taking into account when developing cosmetic products.
"Is it possible to replace SLS / SLES in cosmetics with something? It is possible, but there will be less foam and lower cleaning capacity," says Victoria Sharapova. "There are alternative surfactants, but the consumer properties of the product often suffer because of glucosides and poorly distributed, sodium lauryl sarcosinate and cocoamphoacetate foam worse, and therefore, worse purify, which is critical in the case of oily or seborrheic scalp. You can also balance SLS and SLES in other, more benign surfactants. In this case, the remedy will be much softer. "
What to do? Take that sulfates are safe for human health. But, like any other component - whether it is vitamin C or retinol - someone may not be suitable. For example, sulphates won't fit curly people - they “fluff” hair. For atopic or reactive skin, they are also not desirable, but for oily will be just right. You can buy products without sulfates - there are many of them, but instead of SLS and SLES there will be other surfactants in the composition. You can buy the usual products with sulfates, follow the instructions and do not keep lotion, shampoo or foam on the skin for too long.
Triclosan
While consumers loudly curse sulphates and parabens, one more of the disputed ones remains in the shadow - triclosan. It is often used in antibacterial soaps and hand gels, antiperspirants, and toothpaste. Triclosan serves as a cosmetic biocide (inhibits the action of microorganisms), deodorant and preservative. It is easily absorbed into the skin and mucous membranes, it is deposited in tissues and fluids. In September 2016, the FDA prohibited the use of triclosan in liquid and solid soap, but allowed the addition of toothpaste, hand sanitizers and mouthwashes. The European Union has limited the maximum concentration of triclosan in cosmetics and personal care products: it should be no more than 0.3% in toothpaste, hand soap, shower gels and powder.
Scientists are still studying how triclosan affects human health and the environment. Some studies have shown that high doses of triclosan reduce the level of thyroid hormones in rats. Others have identified the possibility of developing skin cancer after prolonged exposure to triclosan in animals. While these hypotheses have not been confirmed.
“FDA and EMA studies have not proven that triclosan in soap or in cosmetics provokes cancer, allergies and antibiotic resistance,” says Ekaterina Shimanovskaya, PhD Life Sciences in Vienna Biocenter. “But there are studies that indicate that triclosan can activate p16 protein that slows down cell division. This is bad: cells must divide, renew. There are also observations that triclosan affects the increase in liver size in rats and leads to reversible allergic reactions in pigs, but again in elevated concentrations and with prolonged zdeystvii ". According to Shimanovskaya, there is no scientific research proving that triclosan is dangerous to human health. But it is already known that the use of products with triclosan leads to the metabolism of this substance in the human body. And if, due to the use of soap, triclosan simply accumulates in the upper layers of the skin, then with toothpaste and oral aids it is quickly absorbed into the blood through the mucous membrane.
It is already known that the use of products with triclosan leads to the metabolism of this substance in the human body.
CIR and SCCP also studied the safety of triclosan and decided that it could be used in regulated concentrations: today it is 0.3% in Europe, Canada and Australia, 0.1% in Japan. The problem is that it is still unknown to science whether this ingredient is beneficial to consumers. For example, antibacterial soap with triclosan is no better than usual: it does not kill more germs, it does not make hands cleaner. Studies have shown that it works more efficiently only when the bacteria “bathe” in it not twenty seconds (namely, so long the World Health Organization advises to wash hands), but nine hours in a row.
So far, the fact that triclosan causes cancer or allergies, disrupts the thyroid gland, has not been proven, but anti-bacterial soap should not be abused. "From a scientific point of view, a healthy and neat person is generally better to wash only with water: it is good for the environment (fewer fish and microorganisms will die in the reservoirs), and for those" good "bacteria that live on our skin (mouth, stomach, and in the intimate zone) and bravely protects against harmful bacteria, ”adds Yekaterina Shimanovskaya.“ But nevertheless, ordinary soap is suitable for hand washing and will be safer for the environment. "
PHOTO:kaowenhua - stock.adobe.com (1, 2, 3)
