Women are ready for any tricks to preserve their beauty. The main weapon is still cosmetics. For a long time people mixed very different substances, hoping that they will help to maintain the elasticity of the skin, to change the appearance in the right direction. At times cosmetics not only did not help, but even harmed the body.
But even today, these means are not completely safe substances. The mind immediately comes to mercury in the mascara, and lead in lipstick. But the site Chemists Corner, which thoroughly studies all the cosmetic products, has compiled a list of the most harmful ingredients used in such products. How really are these substances harmful?
A group of such substances in the chemical language can be referred to as “propylparaben”, “butylparaben” or “methylparaben”. These are often used preservatives, which are designed to stop the growth of microbes and bacteria. Such substances are quite resistant to temperature changes, their popularity is due to high efficiency. Parabens have long been a component of many cosmetics, proving, it would seem, its safety. However, the ubiquitous press unearthed that the situation with parabens is not so cloudless. Attention was drawn to studies in which it was proved that these preservatives can destroy hormones, which in turn is a direct way to breast cancer and heart problems. Indeed, there is a scientific study that determined the presence of parabens in breast tumors. Other data have shown that parabens can indeed affect estrogen, which affects the development of cancer. The opinion of the molecular biologist Filippa Darbre was important. She suggested that parabens could get into the tumors through a body spray, cream or deodorants. This can explain the fact that about 20% of all tumors in the breast develop next to the armpits. But since the appearance of the first studies in 2004, no follow-up has confirmed a direct link between breast cancer and parabens. Yes, and the analysis of the connection between the hygiene of the armpits and breast cancer has not shown clear data. In 2008, a review was prepared that took into account the data of 59 other studies. However, there were no scientific grounds for treating parabens as harmful. But there were studies that confirmed the possibility of accelerating the aging of the skin due to methylparaben applied to it and interacting with ultraviolet.
Formalin and diazodinyl urea.
These substances are also preservatives, like parabens. They are often referred to as formaldehyde donors. The fact is that during the chemical reaction they are the ones that give formaldehyde ions, which is known for its quick and successful confrontation with microbes. Today it is considered that this ingredient is quite scary – it causes skin irritation, causing the genes to mutate, producing cancer. But we need to distinguish between the donors of formaldehyde from it. The number of them in cosmetics is carefully regulated to ensure the safety of use even for those with skin that is very sensitive. Science also believes that the safety of using these donors lies in the question of their concentration and the person’s tendency to allergies. Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) experts concluded that formalin does not pose a threat to most consumers at all. In the final formula, its content was limited to 0.2% of the liberated formaldehyde. Such an amount will not allow an allergic or other reaction to occur, even in persons with a high sensitivity to such a substance. However, the tendency to allergies can still cause dermatitis. Studies have shown that a contact allergy to imidazolidinyl urea can cause dermatitis, these people also have an allergy to diazodinyl urea.
This substance became known thanks to advertisers who “lit” it in advertising antibacterial soap.Now everyone knows what an antibacterial substance is in normal and liquid soap, deodorants and toothpaste. However, there are some allegations that triclosan is a fairly toxic substance that affects the hormonal system. This leads to the appearance of chronic diseases, the appearance of abnormalities in newborns, damages the kidneys, spleen, etc. On this subject, several independent studies were conducted, which did not come to an unambiguous conclusion. The US FDA confirmed the safety and efficacy of triclosan, but recently returned to research after the information on the negative effects of the substance on the hormonal system of the test animals appeared. But to date in the information on triclosan on the official website of the FDA it is written that there is no scientific basis for repealing the recommendations of using products with it. In 2009, the Canadian Medical Association asked the government to ban the use of products with triclosan, since it is capable of creating hazardous by-products, in particular chloroform. There are suggestions that triclosan can react to chlorine in normal tap water, giving rise to potentially carcinogenic chloroform gas. But further studies have shown that the amount of chloroform released was insignificant even in comparison with its content in chlorinated water. Triclosan can additionally, during the reaction with chlorine, give derivatives that turn into dioxins over time. Although their number is also small, this is a cause for concern in the scientific community. After all, some dioxins are very toxic, negatively affecting the human endocrine system. In 2006, studies were conducted that showed that small doses of triclosan could affect the endocrine system of American frogs. Immediately to the light came the suggestion that triclosan can disrupt hormonal metabolism in the thyroid gland. Today, this substance is found in fish living near sewage emissions in breast milk. Sweden does not recommend the use of triclosan in toothpastes, where it was previously placed to prevent gingivitis. Since 1998 there is a scientific opinion of Dr. Stuart Levy that triclosan can potentially help to create a super bacteria that will be resistant to it. After all, bacteria evolve in the same way, becoming immune to antibiotics. Therefore, scientists believe that it is not worth using cosmetic triclosan. He can act like an antibiotic. But this assumption was overturned over time. There were studies, including Dr. Levy himself, who showed that triclosan has nothing to do with the resistance of bacteria. Everyone has long known that ordinary soaps cope with bacteria almost as much as advertised antibacterial with triclosan. What then is the use of it?
Sodium lauryl sulfate or sodium lauryl sulfate.
Lauryl sulfate is one of the main elements in almost all detergents. You can find it in shampoos, shower gels and even in toothpaste. The substance is classified as surfactant. Nevertheless, it is one of the most important “suspects” in the cosmetics industry. The harm of SLS can easily find information on the Internet. It is written that it can promote hair loss, cause cancer, it is even simply called the most dangerous chemical in skin care products and hair. Science cautiously believes that, like any other surfactant, SLS can actually cause skin irritation. Cosmetic Industry Review conducted detailed studies to find out the true effect of the substance. It turned out that SLS is able to deprive the skin of salt and fat. As a result, this leads to irritation of the eyes and skin and in animals. and some people. But the same reaction is possible for other cleansing ingredients, it all depends on their concentration.But in cosmetics, the use of which flows quickly and is accompanied by copious subsequent washing, the ingredient is generally safe. In those products that provide for prolonged contact with the skin, you should pay attention to the concentration of SLS. It should not exceed 1 percent. On the face skin, the presence of SLS will cause irritation one hour after exposure. As a result of contact with sodium lauryl sulfate, patients with atopic dermatitis should be avoided, as this can seriously aggravate the problem. And do not buy toothpaste with SLS, it can cause stomatitis.
This substance has the same bad reputation in the media as the previous one. Diethanolamine is referred to as a secondary surfactant (surfactant). It is added to the general formula of the cosmetic product, so that it gives a more pleasant foam, affecting the appearance. In pure form, diethanolamine is not used, its satellites are Cocamide DEA, Lauramide DEA and Stearamide MEA. In 1998, a study was published by the National Toxicological Commission (NTP), which found a link between the presence on the skin of diethanolamine and its derivatives with the appearance of cancer in laboratory animals. Instantly the press spread the news that diethanolamine is a hormone responsible for the formation of nitrates, which is then caused by cancer. The news about this caused real panic, some manufacturers even quickly changed the composition of their products. However, in fact, the “cancer” fever involving DEA has no serious scientific justification under itself. The said FDA still considers the ingredient to be safe, until the opposite is proven reliably. True, the very wording “embarrasses itself until it is proved otherwise”, so still carefully look at the composition.
This substance has long been used to moisturize the skin, as well as in styling products. However, petroleum jelly is already traditionally in the center of attention of controlling bodies, since it consists of a mixture of mineral oils and solid paraffinic hydrocarbons. In the press there are accusations that Vaseline causes cancer. It is no coincidence that this ingredient in the European Union is banned altogether. But the FDA believes that this ingredient is safe. In this case, it can be used even in the food industry. And in Europe, petroleum jelly is not prohibited in cosmetics.
This skin moisturizer also has a bad reputation with organic producers. Although, what can be more natural than mineral oil? After all, it is produced from extracted oil. Mineral oil is said to be contaminated with carcinogens, it dries the skin, causing its aging, stretches vitamins and clogs the pores. In the end, this tool is accused of provoking acne. But scientific articles dismiss all these accusations, convincingly proving their inconsistency.
This well-known moisturizer is often used in cosmetic formulas. The component is considered very useful, because it fits well with other ingredients, and in itself has valuable qualities. Fears are caused by the information that propylene glycol penetrates into the skin protein, destroying it. This is manifested in subsequent failures of the liver, kidneys and even the brain. The relationship between propylene glycol and the development of cancer is described. Charges to the humidifier are also related to the fact that it is also used as an antifreeze. But scientists from the FDA, NTP and CIR came to the conclusion that you should not worry about this tool. Propylene glycol even got the status of GRAS from the FDA, which means its safety even as food. No evidence of carcinogenicity of the substance, as well as the ability to influence genes, was found.
These substances are added to makeup so that they smell better and, accordingly, are sold. Today it is difficult to present cosmetics without an attractive fragrance, which is why the presence of the corresponding substances in the general formula is explained.Flavors have long been a part of paranoids in the category of dangerous means. They say that because of them there are allergic reactions, the head hurts, there are spots on the skin, coughing and irritation. It is believed that flavors badly affect the nervous system, causing depression. People become hyperactive irritable, other disorders in behavior are noted. Scientific research has indeed confirmed that flavors can be allergic. As a result, in Europe, some of them should be labeled as possible irritants. And in 2007, the American Contact Dermatitis Society even declared fragrances as the allergen of the year. Today, the safety of flavors is checked annually by independent IFRA scientists. There is a safe level of application of these substances, which manufacturers must follow.
These substances are responsible for the color of the cosmetics we use. Without pigments, they would be either boring yellow, or gloomy brown. And decorative cosmetics would not have come into being at all. Pigments are accused of the fact that their artificial origin leads to carcinogenicity. Science on this charge responds that pigments are most strictly controlled from all cosmetic ingredients. In America, each batch of colorants before the application is checked by the FDA for quantitative composition and safety.
Polyethylene glycol (PEG).
Cosmetics use this substance, since it can moisturize the skin, compact it, form an emulsion. PEG is useful because of its dissolving capacity. As a result, without this substance, many current cosmetic products would simply not be possible to produce. However, the press fears that polyethylene glycol may be carcinogenic. It is written that he unnecessarily dries the skin, causing her aging. But such accusations are already typical of any ingredients derived from oil. The answer to such speculation was given to the journal Toxicology in 2005. In the article on PEG, scientists clearly came to the conclusion, having studied all available information about this substance, that there should be no fears about its safety.
This ingredient in powder form is used in cosmetics to absorb moisture or as a filler. In fact, it is actually magnesian silicate in the form of a powder with the addition of water. The main complaints about talc are related to its possible association with ovarian cancer. Such data are given in a 1993 study from the US National Toxicology Program. However, a more detailed study of this document will lead to the dethronement of such a myth. The fact is that talc with non-asbestos fibers led to the formation of tumors in experimental rats after they inhaled this powder for 6 hours 5 days a week for 113 weeks. Subsequent studies of talc and all the information about it led to the conclusion that the conclusion was unambiguous and its safety in its intended use. The FDA assigned GRAS status to the powder, enabling it to be used to prevent lumps in table salt at a concentration of less than 2%.