-
Why isothiazolinones don’t have a bad reputation but parabens do?
Several studies proved isothiazolinones are irritant toxic and cytotoxic, especially to pets or aquatic life.
https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+8200
https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+8271
https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search2/f?./temp/~JIdGyG:4several countries restricted its use
EU
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1051_en.htm
Canada
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredient-hotlist-prohibited-restricted-ingredients/changes.htmlbut they don’t seem to get the same stigma in the pseudoscientific communit as parabens do.
Why is that? -
16 Replies
-
Still a molecule of choice for big multinationals, would still work in less sensitive markets.
-
They haven’t been accused of causing breast cancer in people. Nothing causes people to turn on an ingredient like cancer & breast cancer specifically.
To be fair, lots of people absolutely despise Isothiazolinones @Belassi
-
It look like parabens estrogenic activity was greatly exaggerated
Breast cancerNo evidence shows that application of consumer products containing parabens cause cancer.[10] Investigations by the American Cancer Society and FDA found that current levels of parabens in consumer products were not dangerous.[11][12] A 2005 review concluded “it is biologically implausible that parabens could increase the risk of any estrogen-mediated endpoint, including effects on the male reproductive tract or breast cancer” and that “worst-case daily exposure to parabens would present substantially less risk relative to exposure to naturally occurring endocrine active chemicals in the diet such as the phytoestrogen daidzein.”[2]Estrogenic activityAnimal experiments have shown that parabens have weak estrogenic activity, acting as xenoestrogens.[13] In an in vivo study, the effect of butylparaben was determined to be about 1/100,000th that of estradiol, and was only observed at a dose level around 25,000 times higher than the level typically used to preserve products.[14] The study also found that the in vivo estrogenic activity of parabens is reduced by about three orders of magnitude compared to in vitro activity.The estrogenic activity of parabens increases with the length of the alkyl group. It is believed that propylparaben is estrogenic to a certain degree as well,[15] though this is expected to be less than butylparaben by virtue of its less lipophilic nature. Since it can be concluded that the estrogenic activity of butylparaben is negligible under normal use, the same should be concluded for shorter analogs due to estrogenic activity of parabens increasing with the length of the alkyl group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ParabenAfter reading the references cited
I believe parabens may behave more like Selectrive Estrogen Receptor Modulators SERMs, having a very weak estrogenic activity on their own, but prevent the stronger estrogens from binding to the estrogen receptor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_estrogen_receptor_modulator -
@Gunther - yes, the case for parabens representing a danger in cosmetics is extremely weak. It makes a good scare story for small brands as a reason for consumers not to buy mainstream products. (Fear marketing). It also provides salacious stories for reporters who want to get more clicks. Fear stories are inherently more attention getting than stories about ingredients being perfectly fine to use.
-
I suspect it’s just easier to pronounce parabens, sulfates, or silicones than isothiazolinones.
-
I was at a seminar a couple of years ago where the a German dermatologist claimed the increase of sensitation to cosmetic products was due to that parabens are substituted by isothiazolinones…however isothiazolinone is now banned in EU in leave in products.
-
David said:I was at a seminar a couple of years ago where the a German dermatologist claimed the increase of sensitation to cosmetic products was due to that parabens are substituted by isothiazolinones…however isothiazolinone is now banned in EU in leave in products.
Parabens are allowed in the EU and Canada
at 0.4% methylparaben, 0.14% propylparabenI use them both at 75% of the maximum allowed by EU, and still have yet to find a formulation that fails challenge tests.
OTOH I don’t use natural extracts or natural ingredients that might rot. -
ngarayeva001 said:I suspect it’s just easier to pronounce parabens, sulfates, or silicones than isothiazolinones.
LOL, It makes sense.
-
@ngarayeva001
Usually it’s the more difficult to pronounce ‘chemicals’ that make people cringe, even if it’s a replacement for something ‘chemical’ that was made for chemophobics like them in the first place! (e.g. dipentaerythrityl hexa C5-9 acid esters (Lexfeel 350) for dimethicon 350 cSt.)
(The ‘if you can’t pronounce it, don’t use it”, or the ‘if you can’t eat it, don’t smear it’ kind of people)
-
@Doreen - true, but if the name is too complicated to pronounce that makes it harder to vilify. You’ll notice all the most vilified ingredients have short, snappy nicknames. parabens, silicones, mineral oil, petrolatum, talc, phthalates, etc.
-
Oh wow… I didn’t even know that talc is in the list!
-
Fearmongers gonna fearmonger.
http://www.safecosmetics.org/get-the-facts/chemicals-of-concern/talc/ -
@Gunther also if memory serves, the last SCCS review highlighted the fact that (some) parabens only acted as endocrine disruptors when injected directly into the bloodstream, and there was no evidence whatsoever that they would behave this way if they were ingested or applied to the skin
-
@Perry
I’ve overestimated them by thinking they can use >3 syllable words. :joy:
No wonder this group usually vilifies vaccines too! -
I never thought about it before, but after being exposed to all this misinformation about cosmetic ingredients I started reseaching GMO food. Not like I was particularly avoiding it before, but I heard that “it’s bad” and never challenged it. I observe the same pattern so far. No real proof that it’s dangerous but a lot of emotions and fearmongering.
Log in to reply.