Help! There's an Industrial Solvent in my Shampoo
by Jeff McIntire-Strasburg, St. Louis, MO on 02.19.07
While "gentle" and "no more tears" are terms we've learned to associate with products like baby shampoo, a recent study by the Environmental Working Group claims that another one might be appropriate for the list: carcinogenic. The study, released on February 8th, found that the compound 1,4-dioxane is present in 22% of personal care products, including baby washes and shampoos. What is 1,4-dioxane? According to a US Environmental Protection Agency "Chemical Fact Sheet,"
1,4-Dioxane (also called dioxane) is a flammable liquid. It may form explosive chemicals, especially when anhydrous (very dry). It is produced in large amounts (between 10 million and 18 million pounds in 1990) by three companies in the United States. ... Companies use dioxane as a solvent for paper, cotton, and textile processiong and for various organic products. It is also used in automotive coolant liquid, and in shampoos and other cosmetics.
Yeah... exactly the kind of stuff you want included in bath time. Dr. Devra Davis, head of the Environmental Oncology Center at the University of Pittsburgh and a professor of epidemiology at their Graduate School of Public Health, tells Public Radio International's Living on Earth that the compound isn't put directly into these products, but rather results from a chemical reaction between ethylene-oxide and Sodium Laureth Sulfate, both fairly common ingredients. Despite the fact that substance has been identified as a probable human carcinogen, the US Food and Drug administration doesn't require its removal because it's considered an "incidental ingredient."
Arguments will certainly ensue (in fact, they already have) about the safety of the levels of 1,4-Dioxane in these products, and we're bound to see a debate parallel to the one over arsenic in drinking water from several years ago. A representative of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association takes the standard line that we're surrounded by potential hazards, so in the big picture, this one is relatively minor. Dr. Davis notes, however, that we really don't need to have this argument: "It can be completely removed by what's called vacuum stripping. This is something that is completely avoidable."
Because the FDA doesn't regulate "cosmetic products," the best course of action for consumers concerned about this is compound is educating oneself: EWG has an interactive product safety guide to find out which products are free of 1,4-Dioxane and other nasty chemicals, and Scorecard.org points to a wealth of web-based resources on the compound. We've also got the scoop on chemicals and more in women's personal care products. ::Environmental Working Group via Living on Earth (via jillian at Daily Kos) and the Dallas Morning News
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Nano Silver in Your Underwear? 600 Products With Nanoparticles Are Barely Regulated
- Galapagos and US Teachers Collaborate to Develop Environmental Education Programs
- Universities Taking the Initiative to Reduce Their Carbon Footprint
- Risk of Developing Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Linked to Environmental Threats
>>the US Food and Drug administration doesn't require its removal because it's considered an "incidental ingredient."
Legalities and loopholes. Why does industry only do the right thing when forced to - as a last resort? One could easily become a cynic...
Thanks for another good post Jeff.
Great book about all the toxins in what we eat, wear, drink...etc. "the 100yr. lie"
VERY disturbing
EVERYTHING is a probable carcinogen, or at least that isn't too far off. Sodium and chlorine can kill us, better not eat salt. How much is in there and how much is considered a problem? Is it in 100% of all the tested products?
The salt issue is a valid one - here, yet again, it's our interference that takes a healthy item and makes it unhealthy. Natural salt (rock, or sea) is loaded with essential trace minerals, including the essential sodium. But, just like we do with wholegrain wheat, for example, we strip it down to the bare bones, and then have to add stuff to give it a usable consistency. See this on salt.
We don't seem to know when to leave well enough alone.
Why does my government want to protect me from the wrath of homosexual marriage and yet ignore the placement of toxins into household goods?
It's been often times said that the consumer speaks with the pocket book. Companies put these things in their products for their own reasons. They continue to sell their products because many consumers don't care what is in the products they buy. If you, as a consumer, don't want to expose your children to these chemicals, I suggest you not buy products you suspect contain them. Try organic soaps.
EVERYTHING is a probable carcinogen, or at least that isn't too far off. Sodium and chlorine can kill us, better not eat salt.
You've got to be kidding me. Basic chemistry would tell you that there is a huge difference between inhaling chlorine gas and eating table salt. One is toxic and the other is a delicious food condiment (when used in small amounts).
1, 4-Dioxane is 1, 4-Dioxane whether used in industrial applications or in your shampoo.
Greenskeeper! You are making me giggle at work. Although your point is very very valid.
Unfortunately, this article makes no mention the number one -- and most widely-used "industrial solvent" ever -- water.
While the author makes great use of hysterical tactics, he seems to be ignorant of the fact that virtually every substance in the universe is a potential toxin. Whether it's water, plutonium, or marmelade -- anything can be toxic, depending on the dose and manner of exposure.
Answer me this: if we are so increasingly inundated by "toxins" and "carcinogens" -- why has the average human lifespan in industrialized parts of the world doubled in the last century? Why is it that infant mortality has decreased to the point were it has become an anomally? If everything is so carcinogenic, then why haven't cancer rates increased in the past three decades?
My guess is that a much greater threat to modern human health -- mental health, at least -- is not these imaginary toxins, but gullible individuals succumbing to irrational phobias.
Unfortunately, this article makes no mention the number one -- and most widely-used "industrial solvent" ever -- water.
While the author makes great use of hysterical tactics, he seems to be ignorant of the fact that virtually every substance in the universe is a potential toxin. Whether it's water, plutonium, or marmelade -- anything can be toxic, depending on the dose and manner of exposure.
Answer me this: if we are so increasingly inundated by "toxins" and "carcinogens" -- why has the average human lifespan in industrialized parts of the world doubled in the last century? Why is it that infant mortality has decreased to the point were it has become an anomally? If everything is so carcinogenic, then why haven't cancer rates increased in the past three decades?
My guess is that a much greater threat to modern human health -- mental health, at least -- is not these imaginary toxins, but gullible individuals succumbing to irrational phobias.
......actually cancer rates are at all time highs showing up
more and more in young adults in children...despite medical advances...
You claim everything is a toxin with the right dosage.perhaps immediatly but if u drink water in moderate amounts everyday of your life and you drink 1,4-dioxane in moderate amounts everyday of your life Which do you think think is less likely to have long term effects?
Someone shouldnt have to spell out to you why people dont compare water and marmalade to toxic substances..
Congratulations. Your article is now featured on The Stupidity Tracker.
http://www.stupiditytracker.com/2007/02/20/help-theres-an-industrial-solvent-in-my-shampoo/
You should stop with the scaremongering.
There's a whole lot of gunk in our toiletries, for info and alternatives check out ... www.greenhouseorganics.co.uk
Hey, it's time to panic guys! I heard there's some substance X in product Y, and since I don't know anything about substance X, I'm going to freak out and become a vocal detractor of product Y and the horrible, fascist company that makes it!
Right? Right?!
WHO IS WITH ME?
Thank you Drag; I was about to write a lenghthy comment, but you said it simply enough.
Ohnoes, nobody called the companies fascist, but perhaps you are on to something. You are welcome to continue using untested, chemical concoctions that are used by most of the consumer product industry for their cost-effectiveness. Enjoy your dioxane! Too bad we can't still buy lead paint... it makes for such pretty colors.
Thanks for this article. Scaremongering or valid concerns? Well, I believe consumers should be made aware of issues like these, and from there, make up their own minds.
It's easy to get scared by articles like these, but I also think that if something is really dangerous for humans, it won't be sold in the store either.