JohnWW
International Hazard
Posts: 2849
Registered: 27-7-2004
Location: New Zealand
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
'Natural' Consumer Products Contaminated with Cancer-Causing 1,4-Dioxane - OCA
The following is a recent post of mine on the Thechemistrycluster Yahoo group, in reply to a post about this compound:
From: "John W" <JohnWW@Xtra.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:35:59 +1300 (NZDT)
Subject: Re: 'Natural' Consumer Products Found Contaminated with Cancer-Causing 1,4-Dioxane, Groundbreaking Analysis Released By O.C.A.
Oh yes, as a chemical engineer, I know all about 1,4-dioxane, a sweet-smelling colorless organic liquid, an ether, used as an aprotic polar solvent,
and highly flammable. I used it as a solvent in reactions and analysis in organic chemistry and biochemistry laboratory classes at university. In the
laboratory, 1,4-dioxane is useful as a cryoscopic solvent for molecular mass determinations, and as a stable reaction medium for diverse organic
chemical reactions, especially those involving chlorinated or brominated hydrocarbons. It has the formula C4H8O2 and this cyclic molecular structure:
CH2-CH2
O< >O .
CH2-CH2
It has a melting-point of 11ºC and boiling-point of 101ºC, and is completely miscible with water and ethanol in all proportions, which is why it is
sometimes used in preference to other organic solvents. It is prepared industrially by the dehydration with sulfuric acid of 1,2-ethanediol,
HO-CH2-CH2-OH, which itself is most easily obtained by the alkaline hydrolysis of 1,2-dibromoethane. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,4-Dioxane
http://www.checnet.org/HealtheHouse /chemicals/chemicals- detail.asp?Main_ID=273
http://www.caslab.com/14dioxane.php
It is irritating to the skin of sensitive mucous membranes - nasal and throat passages and eyes. However, because aliphatic ethers like 1,4-dioxane
are fairly chemically inert, and do not react with proteins, I am somewhat surprised that it is called a "known human carcinogen". This is probably
primarily because of impurities in the industrial "technical" grade of the solvent, especially organic compounds having similar boiling-points and
molecular weights such as benzene and toluene and chlorobenzene, which are carcinogenic, and with which it is freely miscible.
See:
http://www.ocwd.com/_assets/_pdfs/1,4-Dioxane_Fact_Sheet.pdf
http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/ MSDS/DI/1,4-dioxane.html
http://www.safecosm etics.org/ newsroom/ press.cfm?pressReleaseID=21
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts18 7.html
http://clu-in.org/contaminantfocus/default.focus/sec/1,4-Dio...
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0326.htm
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/dioxane.html
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/chronic_rels/pdf/123911.pdf
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ roc/eleventh/ profiles/s080diox. pdf
http://www.scorecard.org/chemical- profiles/ summary.tcl?edf_substance_id=123-91- 1
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/acute_rels/ pdf/123911A.pdf
http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/ DioxaneRelease08 .cfm
http://www.safecosmetics.org/faqs/mvf_dioxane.cfm
Dioxins, of which the principal and most well-known one is 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro benzodioxin, are highly carcinogenic and teratogenic structural
derivatives of 1,4-dioxane. They are formed by an unwanted side-reaction at excessive temperatures in the manufacture from tetrachlorobenzene of the
herbicide 2,4,5-T (2,4,5-trichlorophe noxyacetic acid), used extensively in the Vietnam War, and formerly made and used widely here to kill gorse in
New Zealand.
John W.
--- "Jim S." <xxxxxx@xxxx.com> wrote:
Subject: ** 'Natural' Consumer Products Found Contaminated with Cancer-Causing 1,4-Dioxane, Groundbreaking Analysis Released By O.C.A.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022846.html
Natural Consumer Products Found Contaminated with Cancer-Causing 1,4-Dioxane in Groundbreaking Analysis Released By O.C.A.
By Mike Adams
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Key concepts: dioxane, cosmetics, and cancer
A cancer-causing compound called 1,4-dioxane has been found in some of the most commonly used petroleum-based cosmetics by a study commissioned by the
Organic Consumers Association, including products from Kiss My Face, Nutribiotic, Jason, Ecover, Citrus Magic, 365, Alba, Lifetree, Giovanni, Seventh
Generation, Method, Earth Friendly Products, Sea-Chi Organics, and many other brands. 1,4-dioxane (often just called dioxane) is a clear, colorless,
organic compound that's a
liquid at room temperature and is a known human carcinogen.
The study was conducted by the Organic Consumers Association in www.OrganicConsumers.org
conjunction with Dr. Bronner's (www.DrBronner. com) and David Steinman, author of "The Safe Shopper's Bible." It sought to determine the levels of
1,4-Dioxane in one hundred different consumer products, ranging from dish soaps to shower gels.
Around fifty of the products tested were found to be contaminated with 1,4-Dioxane, while another fifty (or so) were found to be free of the
cancer-causing chemical.
Companies whose products were found to be free of 1,4-Dioxane include Dr.Bronner's, Aubrey Organics, Burt's Bees, Desert Essence, Dr. Hauschka,
EO,TerrEssential, Zia Fresh, Avalon Organics, and other companies.
Some companies had products in both categories, meaning some of their products were found to be contaminated with 1,4-Dioxane while other products
from the same company were found to be free of 1,4-Dioxane. These companies included Alba, Jason, Kiss my Face, Method, Nature's Gate, Origins,
Shikai, and others.
In response to the results indicating the contamination of many consumer care products, the Organic Consumers Association' s Executive Director,
Ronnie Cummins, said, "The labeling and formulation practices of these companies are so unsupportable, we wonder sometimes if the garbage manager is
in charge of the products development and R&D."
Ronnie Cummins took part in a press conference yesterday that announced the findings. NaturalNews was there to record the press conference, and we've
posted the 28-minute announcement as an audio file (MP3) at: http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Podcasts.html
(see Health Ranger Report #12). We also took numerous photos, which we'll post in a follow-up article on this topic. Also, we're conducting a live
interview with Ronnie Cummins today, and we'll be posted the complete audio of that interview shortly.
The Toxicity of 1,4-Dioxane
1,4-Dioxane is classified as an ether and is a known eye and respiratory tract irritant that readily penetrates the skin. The chemical is primarily
used in solvent applications during manufacturing. Most notably, it appears as an accidental byproduct of the ethoxylation process in cosmetics
manufacturing. It often appears as a chemical contaminant in cosmetics and personal care products such as deodorants, shampoos, toothpastes, and
mouthwashes.
The National Toxicology Program considers dioxane to be a known animal carcinogen. The Environmental Protection Agency classifies this cancer-causing
petrochemical as a probable human carcinogen, based on the "induction of nasal cavity and liver carcinomas in multiple strains of rats, liver
carcinomas in
mice, and gall bladder carcinomas in guinea pigs," according to a 2003 E.P.A. report. Common sense tells us that the chemical is also carcinogenic to
humans. Conducting such tests on humans to determine the actual level of carcinogenicity, however, would be highly unethical, so those tests have not
been done. That's why 1,4-Dioxane is technically called a "probable" human carcinogen. But everybody in the industry knows it's a cancer-causing
chemical.
Dioxane is on California's Proposition 65 list of chemicals known or suspected by the state to cause cancer or birth defects. According to researchers
at the Environmental Working Group (E.W.G.), a recent assessment of ingredients in 15,000 cosmetics and other personal care products found that 22 %
of all products may be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane. The group's research on personal care products is available at: http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep
Cosmetics: An industry of Death
Based on the presence of dioxane in common ingredients of a wide array of products that the cosmetics industry uses, an E.W.G. analysis of government
and industry sources shows that at least 146 cosmetic ingredients may contain harmful impurities linked to systematic cancer and other serious health
impacts.
A 2004 online survey found that 20% of people who use cosmetics and personal care products every day are potentially exposed to all of the top seven
carcinogenic impurities -- hydroquinone, ethylene dioxide, 1,4-dioxane, formaldehyde, nitrosamines, PAHs, and acrylamide.
All of these chemicals are common in personal care products, yet none are restricted by government safety standards. In other words, it's perfectly
legal for cosmetic companies to poison the population with known cancer-causing chemicals, all with the nod of approval from the F.D.A.
Of the potential contaminants in cosmetic products, hydroquinone was ranked the leader in impurities, as it is often found in products used daily by
94% of women and 69% of men. This chemical is currently under review by the F.D.A..
Cancer-Causing Chemicals In "Organic" and "Natural" Products
What these recent findings by the Organic Consumers Association reveal, however, is that 1,4-Dioxane is not only found in conventional consumer care
products; it's also found in so-called "natural" or "organic" products. Even the Whole Foods 365 brand was found to be contaminated with 1,4-Dioxane,
along with the Jason brand, Kiss My Face, and many others.
This, says Cummins, is a great disservice to the natural products industry and the consumers who support the industry. When consumers shop for
"natural" or "organic" products, they pay a premium, and they expect those products to be free of cancer-causing chemical contaminants like
1,4-Dioxane.
These findings underscore the importance of researching the companies and products you're buying, even if they claim to be "organic" or "natural."
How To Tell If They're Safe
How can consumers tell if products are truly free from 1,4-Dioxane? As David Steinman noted in the press conference, all the products tested that
carried the U.S.D.A. Organic seal of approval were found to be free from 1,4-Dioxane. Solooking for the U.S.D.A. certified organic seal is currently
the best way to protect yourself from this cancer-causing chemical.
Also, the O.C.A. has urged consumers to read ingredients labels, and avoid all consumer care products made with the following ingredients (or words in
the ingredients) :
• Myreth
• Oleth
• Laureth
• Cateareth (or other "eth")
• PEG
• Polyethylene
• Polethylene Glycol
• Polyoxyethylene
• Oxynol
Read more from the O.C.A. at: www.OrganicConsumers.org
Zero Safety Testing Required For Cosmetic Ingredients
The F.D.A. currently does not require safety testing of cosmetic products or their ingredients. The cosmetic industry polices the safety of its own
products, and this safety panel is run and funded by the industry's trade association. In other words, very little testing actually occurs because the
government does not mandate this testing, and potentially hazardous ingredients can slip through the cracks. There is also no financial incentive for
the cosmetic industry to raise questions about the safety of its own products.
Contamination with 1,4 dioxane is shockingly widespread. It is found in:
• 97% of hair relaxers
• 82% of hair dyes and bleaching
• 66% of hair removers
• 57% of baby soap
• 45% of sunless tanning products
• 43% of body firming lotion
• 36% of hormonal creams
• 36% of facial moisturizers
• 35% of anti-aging products
• 34% of body lotion
• 33% of around-eye creams
Recent laboratory tests "revealed the presence of 1,4-Dioxane in products such as Hello Kitty Bubble Bath, Huggies Baby Wash, Johnson's Baby Wash,
Scooby-Doo Bubble Bath, and Sesame Street Bubble Bath. The tests also found the carcinogen in Clairol Herbal Essences Shampoo, Olay Complete Body
Wash, and many other personal care products," according to a Feb. 2007 EWG press release.
The F.D.A. has been measuring 1,4-dioxane levels since 1979, but because the agency has little authority or enforcement capacity over the cosmetics
industry, it has worked with manufacturers to reduce levels on a voluntary basis only.
"Regrettably, 1,4-Dioxane contamination is just the tip of the iceberg," said Jeanne Rizzo, R.N., executive director of the Breast Cancer Fund which
is a founding member of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. "Because the F.D.A. does not require cosmetics products to be approved as safe before they
are sold, companies can put unlimited amounts of toxic chemicals in cosmetics."
I strongly recommend that consumers choose products free of these chemicals and impurities. To avoid 1,4-dioxane, read the ingredients and avoid any
of the 56 cosmetic ingredients that can contain the contaminant, including "sodium laureth sulfate" and ingredients whose names include "PEG,"
"xynol," "ceteareth," and "oleth."
Be sure to listen to the full press conference of this groundbreaking announcement at: http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Podcasts.html
Straight talk: the Health Ranger's opinion on all this:
Let's be honest here: Many of the so-called "organic" product companies are frauds. They put the word "organic" or "natural" in their company name or
product names, but in reality, they're using cheap, low-grade, contaminated ingredients that actually promote cancer. These companies should be
ashamed of
their behavior.
I urge NaturalNews readers to boycott the companies whose products were found to be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane. When these companies apologize for
their behavior, recall their products, and reformulate their products to be free of this cancer-causing chemical, then we can lift the boycott on
their products. But for now, I urge all NaturalNews readers to boycott the Jason brand of products, Earth Friendly Products, Alba, Method, Giovanni,
and even Nutribiotic (which is a company that makes other products I fully support, actually). These companies need to clean up their act and
eliminate 1,4-dioxane from their consumer products.
There is no excuse for putting "natural" products on the market that are contaminated with 1,4-dioxane. These companies have been caught like Gov.
Spitzer, except that their products are screwing everybody! They need to apologize, announce programs to eliminate 1,4-dioxane, and work to regain
consumer trust. Until they are willing to do that, I say avoid their products.
In the meantime, use the soap I've always recommended: Dr. Bronner's. There no soap more honest, pure, and natural. Dr. Bronner's has remained on the
top of my list of recommended products for years, and as these recent test results show, Dr. Bronner's soap is not contaminated with 1,4-dioxane.
Watch NaturalNews.com for more information about this breaking story.
###
About the author: Mike Adams is a consumer health advocate with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public. He has authored more
than 1,500 articles and dozens of reports, guides, and interviews on natural health topics, reaching millions of readers with information that is
saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to write
articles about any product or company. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of super-bright L.E.D. light bulbs that are 1000% more energy
efficient than incandescent lights. He's also the founder and C.E.O. of a well known email mail merge software developer whose software, 'Email
Marketing Director,' currently runs the NaturalNews email subscriptions. Adams is currently the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a
501(c)3 non-profit, and enjoys outdoor activities, nature photography, Pilates, and adult gymnastics.
[Edited on 19-3-08 by JohnWW]
|
|
|
solo
International Hazard
Posts: 3975
Registered: 9-12-2002
Location: Estados Unidos de La Republica Mexicana
Member Is Offline
Mood: ....getting old and drowning in a sea of knowledge
|
|
An eye opening revelation John......thanks for sharing......solo
It's better to die on your feet, than live on your knees....Emiliano Zapata.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Damn, sometimes I wish I thought it's as detrimental as these people say it is but I think about the fear mongering society we live in and become
skeptical. I understand it's carcinogenic but many things are that we consume everyday, they're just no so bad.
Remember, nearly all chemicals California claims is some sort of cancer, mutation or whatever hazard.
I believe all this but I'm just skeptical because of the kind of society we live in. I mean, UV light is a carcingoen so we had better stop going
outside! How long before people start saying shit like that?
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
prole
Hazard to Self
Posts: 94
Registered: 4-8-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Jeez, I thought that chemicals known in the state of California to cause cancer cause cancer only in the state of California
|
|
|
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
The real problem here is that the overwhelming majority of people
have not learned to think quantitatively. As we all know, the
amount of chemical is important to determining effects so one
cannot simply say that something causes cancer or is
poisonous in some other way without specifying in what
quantities.
Hence, if someone only uses small amounts of make-up
occasionally, the quantities encountered will be far lower
than what is needed to make one sick, so all is well.
However, if one goes around fully plastered with make-up
all day, then it would be wise to check that the amounts
of chemicals one is exposing oneself to are still below
the threshold of danger and perhaps wear less make-up
or switch to a different type if the exposure to noxious
substances is uncomfortably large.
Another thing to consider is timescale. For instance,
while a sufficiently large dose of HCN or H2S is instantly
lethal, a sufficiently small dose is perfectly safe because
these chemicals are converted into non-poisonous
chemicals. By contrast, while metals such as Pb or
Hg are not so bad in the short term, the problem is that
there is no good mechanism to excrete them so they
accumulate in the body.
I think that listing ingredients on packages is a good idea,
but it needs to be done right --- simply saying that a
product contains poisonous ingredients is pretty much
meaningless. Rather, I would like to see this done as
with food, where one sees and assay listing the
amounts of various biochemicals present and
compares them with recommended daily intake.
On boxes of makeup and the like, the could be an assay
of hazardous ingredients along with a comparison
of amounts present with maximum exposure limits.
This way, just as health-conscious consumers now
carefully add up the amounts of vitamins and other
nutrients in food to make sure they balance their
diets, so too safety conscious consumers could
assess their exposure to toxins in an
intelligent fashion.
The biggest problem with slapping labels saying that
products contain chemicals known to the state of
California to cause cancer on most everything,
including the famous California sunshine, is the
"cry wolf" problem. Once people get passivated
by all these warnings, they are not too likely to pay
attention when some really dangerous chemical
comes along, thus counterproductively increasing
their overall risk.
[Edited on 18-3-2008 by microcosmicus]
|
|
|
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enhanced
|
|
Only 10 of the products contained over 10 ppm. The highest concentration is in dishwashing detergent. Perhaps you drink dishwashing detergent,
shampoo, and bubble bath. I don't.
Don't get me started on the media and its constant uncritical presentation of "studies show...".
[Edited on 18-3-2008 by S.C. Wack]
|
|
|
smuv
National Hazard
Posts: 842
Registered: 2-5-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Jingoistic
|
|
Ethylene glycol is not produced via 1,2-dibromoethane, it is produced by the hydration of ethylene oxide. This is important, as I think it provides a
hint as to where the dioxane comes from; my guess is from polyethylene glycols present in the products. Polyethylene glycols are made industrially
by passing ethylene oxide and water over either an acidic or basic catalyst. Under these conditions, it is possible some ethylene glycol could
dehydrate forming dioxane as well.
|
|
|
Boomer
Hazard to Others
Posts: 190
Registered: 11-11-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Wasn't it in California that some agency wanted to ban dihydrogenmonoxide, the substance that kills more people than any other?
Reminds me of my old chem teacher. Washed his hands in benzene for a lifetime, then died of a heart attack.
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
