Войти
Регистрация
Если кратко, то, поскольку у меня нет ни соответствующего образования, ни времени, ни желания разбираться со всей этой ерундой, я выбираю себе авторитеты. Для меня это CIR (a не EWG), FDA, Рут Винтер, ПБ, если на то пошло.
Whereas CIR claims DMDM Hydantoin poses no threat threat, the nonprofit Environmental Working Group(EWG)5 rates it "High Hazard" in its "Skin Deep" Cosmetic Safety Database.
http://en.wikipedia..../DMDM_hydantoin
Dear Paula,
There is a website (http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep/ chemhealtheffect.php?chem_id=3200) that lists titanium dioxide as a carcinogen. Can you clarify if this is true or just another urban legend?
Curious, via email
Dear Curious,
The website you mentioned is from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) report. While I’m sure this organization had good intentions when they compiled their extensive list of unsafe cosmetic ingredients and the products that contain them, the sources and methodology they used to establish whether or not an ingredient should be considered a health concern was often faulty or problematic.
For example, one of the main resources they used to demonstrate an ingredient’s potential for causing cancer is the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 2004, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans and their Supplements: http://monographs.ia...l/allmonos.html. This list includes pure tannins found in tea based on animal carcinogenicity data from rats injected with the substance. It also lists coumarin, a common herb that is considered an antioxidant, as having cancer-causing properties based on animal studies. These studies don’t have anything to do with applying these ingredients topically on skin.
I couldn’t even find titanium dioxide on the IARC list, even though this was the source given. What concern does exist about titanium dioxide in some studies is one of inhalation in manufacturing settings where the mineral is processed. However, a fairly recent report in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (April 2003, pages 400–409) stated that “Although titanium dioxide (TiO2) is generally regarded as a nontoxic mild pulmonary irritant, some laboratory studies have reported lung adenomas [benign tumors] in rats exposed to high levels of TiO2. Limited data on health effects among humans exist. A retrospective cohort mortality study was conducted among 4,241 TiO2 workers who were employed for at least 6 months, on or after January 1, 1960, at four TiO2 plants in the United States.... Internal analyses revealed no significant trends or exposure-risk associations for total cancers, lung cancer, or other causes of death. Results from our study indicate that the exposures at these United States plants are not associated with increases in the risk of death from cancer or other diseases.”
Much of what the EWG reported was confusing or hard to interpret as their sources either didn’t include the actual substance being evaluated or they used animal and inhalation studies to the exclusion of any other medical or alternative medical literature. Rats being fed or injected with substances doesn’t relate to how it is used (or what effect it might have) when mixed in a cosmetic and applied on the skin.
http://www.cosmetics...111104-full.htm
Many of you are familiar with (or have asked me about) the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) "Skin Deep" report on the safety of cosmetics. I examined this report and one of my initial reactions was that the grassroots group did not provide substantiation to support their claims that specific ingredients were toxic, harmful, or unsafe as used in cosmetics. It seems the FDA felt the same way, because they denied the group's petition to have FDA remove from the market 356 products that EWG believes contain "suspect ingredients." The petition was denied because, just as in their original report, the group did not provide additional information or studies proving the ingredient(s) in question were unsafe. The FDA also commented that several of the ingredients EWG deems unsafe have been rigorously scrutinized and deemed safe as used (Source: The Rose Sheet, October 17, 2005, page 4). This isn't the last we'll hear from EWG: they debuted their new online database and updated safety report in late October, still without adequate substantiation for their claims (and no mention of the potential harm from many natural ingredients such as essential oils). As a consumer advocate reporting on the cosmetics industry, I find it gratifying to know that the FDA and I agree on the shortcomings of this unjustly alarming report that has definitely worked to scare consumers into thinking cosmetics are unsafe, or, worse, a significant health hazard.
http://www.cosmetics...041306-full.htm
Наверх
