Johnson & Johnson Baby Products BAD!

Written by

So your baby is born. Your happy, healthy and on your way with parent hood. Your child comes down with dry skin so you go to the local store and pick up some baby lotion. Of course you go with a brand name that you trust. Johnson & Johnson. A name that has been around for years. There products work and are safe. Or so you figure because your parents used them on you growing up.

Here is where you are wrong. Don’t trust a name just because they have been around for 30, 40 or 80 years. Companies change ingredients all the time. And many times use new ingredients which are yet to have been tested thoroughly enough to prove no side effects come from them in 5, 10 or 40 years.

If you have read any previous articles on this site. You might have seen the one about Parabens and the damage they can cause to the endocrine system. What is the endocrine system you might be asking. Well in a simple summary it is what controls testosterone and estrogen and helps regulate all that with it. It affects a BIG part of your life and ever day living.

I was using Johnson and Johnson Nourishing Milk Lotion on our son until I read the ingredients and seen what was in it. Here is a list
of the bad things I know of currently.

  • Dimethicone
  • Fragrance
  • Methylparaben
  • Butylparaben
  • Ethylparaben
  • Propylparaben
  • Isobutylparaben

Those are just a few of the ingredients I know of that cause harm in various ways to your children and your own self if you use these products.

Here is what they do.
A silicone derived emolient. Silicone emollients are occlusive – that is they coat the skin, trapping anything beneath it, and do not allow the skin to breathe (much like plastic wrap would do.)
Recent studies have indicated that prolonged exposure of the skin to sweat, by occlusion, causes skin irritation. Some synthetic emollients are known tumour promoters and accumulate in the liver and lymph nodes. They are also non-biodegradable, causing negative environmental impact.

  • Dimethicone
  • Dimethicone Copolyol
  • Cyclomethicone

Silicone was and still is used as breast implants. Tens of thousands of women with breast implants have complained of debilitating symptoms. Anecdotal evidence indicates silicone to be toxic to the human body. For more detailed information on the dangers of silicone simply key “silicone toxicity” into the Google search engine.

Paraben preservatives (methyl, propyl, butyl, and ethyl).
Used as inhibitors of microbial growth and to extend shelf life of products. Widely used even though they are known to be toxic. Have caused many allergic reactions and skin rashes. Highly toxic.

From Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS):

Parabens are also known to make you retain fat! YES THAT IS RIGHT. YOUR PRODUCTS ARE KEEPING OR MAKING YOU FAT!

This world needs to change. It should not just be about money and making a profit. It is time for everyone to take action. Start reading the labels on products you buy. If you don’t know what it is. Or cannot find out. DON’T BUY IT! There are safer natural alternatives that do not cause harm to you or your children.

Do one simple thing this week and it will change your life. Make a habit of reading ingredients on everything you buy. Become educated and don’t let companies poison us anymore.

Did you ever think that these companies might have a stack in making us sick? Johnson & Johnson make many products that treat disease. Breast disease and more. Take notice, take action!

Posted on: January 23, 2007

Filed under: news

Comments (16)


October 10th, 2009 at 2:03 am    

Great article! The awareness of just how dangerous these products can be needs to be brought to light. Do you really know what you’re putting on your baby’s skin? Or your own? Just a little Fyi, if you put a clove of garlic between your toes, you can taste it in your mouth within 15 minutes- go ahead, try it. The skin is our largest organ and absorbs anything we put on it- so lets make sure we educate ourselves on what we are using. I am an advocate for pure, safe, and beneficial products. I also believe in increasing public awareness. There are 450 chemicals banned in Europe, all of which are found in US products. The products in which I represent are botanically based and free of these parabens, chemical fragrance, dyes, and are also certified vegan. It’s too bad that even the most trusted, largest institutions are not educated on the products that they promote and falsely have people trusting and believing in. Knowledge is power.


March 29th, 2010 at 10:38 am    

The use of parabens as preservatives has nothing to do with profit. They are used because they work effectively and safely. The cost of the preservative in any final product is so tiny that it is no argument to suggest they are used purely on a cost basis. Parabens have caused A FEW skin reactions, generally less so than most other preservatives. It is incorrect to describe them as highly toxic. Please provide evidence to back up this claim, as it is far too easy to make scary statements, but without any evidence to support them, they are meaningless. I would be very interested to see the reference to the study that parabens make you fat. I have seen some silly comments about parabens in my time, but this must rank as one of the silliest. Sorry to be so blunt, but that one is beyond belief! The information you quote from the MSDS refers to the neat parabens. The effects in their concentrated form bear no relation to their safety when used in products. This is a poor scare tactic. You would not sprinkle glacial acetic acid on your food would you? It is highly corrosive, so I would not recommend it! However, in dilute form, it is perfectly safe and adds taste to your meal. It’s called vinegar. Your scare stories may cause concern amongst many scientifically naive consumers, but they are based on inaccurate information, and I think you should question the morality of spreading false information in this way.

A note to Alasda – may I suggest that, if you make statements of fact, that you actually check your facts first. The skin is indeed the largest organ in the body, but it does NOT absorb anything we put on it. This statement is simply completely wrong. One of the major functions of the skin is to do precisely the opposite of what you claim – it is a barrier to most things. If you stop and think about the logic of what you said, I hope you will see that this can’t possibly be true! Some things are absorbed through the skin, but it is a complete myth to suggest that everything is – we would not survive in the womb if this were the case, never mind after birth! There are NOT 450 chemicals banned in Europe that are used in US products, This is more nonsense bandied around the internet, I’m afraid. There ARE chemicals banned in the EU, but very few of them have ever been used in cosmetics.
If all these chemicals were as dangerous as blogs like this claim, the majority of the population of the western world would be terminally ill, or dead. There is far too much hysteria over cosmetics – it is unneccesary. The vast majority of cosmetics are safe. The least safe ones tend to be the ones made up by small, one-man bands that don’t understand the chemistry, or the industry. I care about the safety of the consumer – I am one, and my family and friends are too – but this sort of misinformation doesn’t help anyone. Knowledge is, indeed, power. You don’t appear to know very much, I’m afraid. I don’t like to be so rude, but there are too many people pretending to quote facts, when they really haven’t a clue what they are takling about. I will more than happily pursue any correspondance with regard to any claim or statement I have made here.


April 6th, 2010 at 7:53 pm    

Dene the skin does absorb what you put on it. That has been proven time and time again, so where do you get your information?

Parabens are harmful and I therefor consider them TOXIC! They may not be labled as so by the FDA or others but that does not mean they do not do damage, whether now or down the road after you and your children have been using it for 5 – 10 years. Anything that affects my body in a bad way is considered to be toxic. That includes Caffeine, sugar and more.

Paraben chemicals mimic your body´s own hormones and can have endocrine-disrupting action when they are rubbed into your body (absorbed by the skin) or consumed (washed down the drain and later drank from a glass of water from your cities well).

These disruptors interfere with your body´s endocrine system: your hypothalamus, your ovaries, your thyroid and more. I consider that to be HIGHLY TOXIC.

If you look at the high rate of these chemicals being added to products over the last 20 years and how peoples size has changed I am sure the link would be easy to find.


April 28th, 2010 at 7:28 pm    

Dont lie, you talk about facts like you have them all at hand but i dont see any refrances at all to provide evidance of the bogus claim that you are holding to, just a bunch of slander is all i see from you, it is you who appears to know very little…you obviously know nothing about human anatomy…it’s time for you to get schooled. Parabens are nither safe nor are they effective,{at least not beneficial to health}, the only effetiveness they have is in damaging the body. Real studies have shown that
the dangers of parabens are just beginning to surface. Weight gain, skin aging and certain types of cancer are now linked and are caused in part by parabens and other toxic chemicles used in shampoos soaps cosmetics lotions ect.

Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

It is a fact that up to 60 percent of whatever we place on our skin goes into our blood stream…that is a signifance percentange. Our skin litteraly drinks and absorbs through the millions of pours in the body.This is where the danger starts. A paraben is the most commonly used synthetic preservative in many cosmetics. They ensure a long shelf life by inhibiting the growth of harmful bacteria, yeast and mold. But they pose grave health risks with long term exposure

Paraben Dangers Are Minimized By Irresponsible Companies

When asked “Are parabens bad?” The cosmetic companies insist they are not harmful because they remain on our skin and are not absorbed into our bodies. But, recent studies found parabens in human breast cancer tissue. This raises obvious questions about their ability to accumulate in our bodies.Companies say they use some form of parabens to prevent bacterial and fungal contamination. Many don’t consider it harmful and have no qualms about adding it to their ingredient label. However, there is also evidence that parabens may disrupt the body’s hormone systems by duplicating the effects of estrogen.The dangers of parabens are being “swept under the rug” by these big companies.

Trade Secrets Used to Hide Paraben Dangers

Makers of cosmetics are required to list their ingredients unless it is fragrance and that is exempt as a “trade secret.”
However be aware that words like “natural “and “organic” do not mean paraben free. Read the label, and don’t be mislead by the front label. Among the ingredients, printed in small letters at the bottom of the back label is where you will find the parabens listed.

Parabens – How Bad Are They?

So…Are parabens bad? It depends on who you ask. Scientists say probably so, and they would like more testing. Big manufacturers who use them say they are absolutely safe. So why then do they hide the ingredients if that can? What is in the fragrance? You should take action to prevent exposure to chemicals that are toxic and dangerous. When a product ingredient is strongly suspected of being harmful to our health we should eliminate the use of this chemical and find a safe substitute to replace it. We should not expose ourselves to the dangers of parabens when safe alternatives do exist and are already being used by some cosmetic companies. Do a little research Dene and you will find that parabens are bad.

The Danger of Parabens
Five Types of Parabens Detected Intact in Human Breast Tumors
By Suzanne M. Snedeker, Ph.D.


Parabens have been used as preservatives since the 1920s. Chemically, parabens have a simple structure. They consist of a 6-member carbon ring with a hydroxyl group on one side (-OH) of the ring and a side chain called an alkyl ester on the opposite side of the ring. The side chains can be of varying lengths. Parabens are used to prevent the growth of bacteria in a wide range of consumer products, including a variety of foods and pharmaceutical drugs. The most prevalent use has been as a preservative in cosmetics, including facial and body cosmetics, skin care products, shampoos and conditioners, sunscreens, underarm products (antiperspirants and deodorants), colognes and perfumes, and soaps, including liquid hand soap. One of the most widely quoted sources of information on use, exposure and safety of the four most commonly used parabens was published in 1984 in a report authored by Elder (1). This report estimated that parabens were used in over 13,200 different cosmetic products.

Parabens have been widely accepted and used because of past reports of their effectiveness as preservatives, low cost, and rapid excretion from the body (both human and animal testing). However, recently some scientists have raised concerns that further assessment of parabens may be needed. This is based on recent evidence from over a dozen scientific studies indicating that several types of parabens can bind to the estrogen receptor and can cause estrogen-like responses when tested in laboratory animals or in a variety of tissue culture assays (see under Endocrine Disruption Bibliographies). In whole-animal studies, the estrogenic effects of parabens were not seen when fed to the animals, but only when applied to or injected under the skin. But, these were short-term, high-dose studies. Little to no information exists on whether use of products with low levels of parabens over many years results in accumulation of parabens in body tissues and whether there are or are not any health effects associated with use of paraben-containing consumer products.


The study by P. Darbre and colleagues (2) was conducted to assess whether any of the six parabens commonly used in consumer products in Europe could be detected in human breast tumors. The names of the parabens studied were: methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben, isobutylparaben, butylparaben and benzylparaben. The prefix (e.g. “methyl”) indicates the name of the side-chain structure of each paraben. In this study, 20 samples of human breast tissue were obtained from patients undergoing surgery at the Edinburgh Breast Unit in Scotland, UK. The samples were frozen, and then tumors were minced and homogenized to help break up the tissue. Solvents were used to extract the parabens from the tumor sample, followed by the use of thin-layer chromotography to isolate any of the parabens present in the samples. Another method called high-pressure liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry was used to identify the type and the concentration of each paraben. For each batch of samples, a blank was included that had no tumor tissue, which was run through the same extraction and detection procedure. The authors were surprised that the blank was not zero, but had some parabens. The authors thought parabens in the hand soap used by technicians or in the detergent used to clean the glassware may have contaminated the laboratory equipment. Blank values were subtracted from sample paraben values to correct for this problem. At least one type of paraben was detected in 19 out of 20 tumors. Methylparaben was the most commonly observed paraben (18/20) and was detected at the highest average level.


This study is the first report of the detection of parabens in human breast tumors. The authors are careful to point out that the results of this study do not show that any of the parabens caused breast cancer in these women. This study is not evidence of cause and effect. The study did show that five of the six parabens widely used in consumer products can be detected intact (not changed or metabolized) in human tissues. This is an important initial finding, but more research is needed to see if exposure to parabens does or does not affect breast cancer risk.

For instance, this study did not show if levels of the parabens in breast tumors were any different from nearby normal breast tissue in these women. Also, this study did not include any women without breast cancer. To evaluate breast cancer risk, a study would need to compare levels of parabens in women with breast cancer (cases) to women of similar age without breast cancer (controls). This study was very small, with only 20 tumor samples. A larger, case-controlled study would be needed to more fully evaluate whether parabens do or do not affect breast cancer risk. This study did have some other problems, such as the contamination of the blank samples mentioned above. Another problem reported was in the analytical method. An important way to measure the ability to accurately detect the chemical includes adding (spiking) a known amount of paraben to a sample to see how much of the known amount can be recovered from the sample. For instance, if you add 100 units, you would like to have a high recovery of over 90%. In this study, the recoveries of added paraben averaged just under 50%. Hence, the method used to extract the parabens from the sample needs to be improved.

This study has received attention in the popular press because the authors are interested in exploring the hypothesis of whether estrogenic parabens used in underarm products (like deodorants and antiperspirants) increase breast cancer risk. This study did not test this hypothesis. The results did show that intact parabens can be detected in human tissue. It did not however, make any attempt to find out the source of the parabens. The women who donated the tumor samples were not interviewed. In fact, no reports of their age or tumor status were included in this study. No information on other factors that may have influenced their breast cancer risk, or information on past use or patterns of use of products with parabens was obtained. It is not known if the major exposure was due to the parabens from food or via topical application of a certain type or a variety of personal care products.

Better studies are needed of whether or not long term use of paraben-containing consumer products affect human tissue levels. Given the ubiquitous nature of paraben use in consumer products and recent evidence of the estrogenicity of parabens, I would agree with other scientists who have called for a reassessment of the safety of parabens. Most of the risk assessments conducted on the safety of parabens were done before it was known that parabens can act as an environmental estrogen and before it was known that levels are detectable in human tissue. A recent study on the safety of propylparaben does acknowledge the estrogenicity of this chemical, but does not fully explore possible human health risks (3). More recent data is needed to update the 1984 study by Elder, which is one of the few reports estimating exposure to parabens from food, drug and cosmetic products. While use of parabens is widespread, product-to-product use is variable. In a survey of products in my own bathroom and kitchen, I found a type of paraben listed as an ingredient in liquid hand soap, two hand lotions, one out of three shampoos (the “natural” brand was the one with the paraben), one out of two hair conditioners, and three out of five sunscreens (including two made for use by children), but in none of the three antiperspirants that my family uses.

At this point in time we do not have information on whether or not paraben-containing products are used at a level that affects human health. But, research indicating that several parabens can act as weak environmental estrogens and the preliminary results of this study do support the need for more vigorous research in this area. Unlike other environmental contaminants, use of personal care products represents a choice made by the consumer and a choice by the manufacturer who determine the ingredients of the product.

1) Elder, RL. Final report on the safety assessment of methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben and butylparaben, Journal of the American College of Toxicology, vol. 3, pp. 147-209, 1984.

2) Darbre, PD, A Aljarrah, WR Miller, NG Coldham, MJ Sauer and GS Pope, Concentrations of parabens in human breast tumors, Journal of Applied Toxicology, vol. 24, pp. 5-13, 2004.

3) Soni, MG, GA Burdock, SL Taylor, NA Greenberg, Safety assessment of propyl paraben: a review of the published literature (Review), Food and Chemical Toxicology, vol. 39, pp. 513-532, 2001

Other Resources on the Danger of Parabens
Beckley-Kartey SA, Hotchkiss SA, and Capel M, “Comparative in vitro skin absorption and metabolism of coumarin (1,2-benzopyrone) in human, rat and mouse,” Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Jul 1997: 145(1): 34-42.

Byford, J. R., Shaw, L. E., Drew, M. G., Pope, G. S., Sauer, M. J., and Darbre, P. D. “Oestrognic activity of parabens in MCF7 human breast cancer cells,” Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 2002: 80, 49-60.

Darbre, P. D., Aljarrah, A., Miller, W. R., Coldham, N. G., Sauer, M. J., and Pope, G. S., “Concentrations of parabens in human breast tumors,” Journal of Applied Toxicology, Jan 2004: (24): 5-13.

Darbre PD, Byford JR, Shaw LE, Horton RA, Pope GS, and Sauer MJ, “Oestrogenic activity of isobutylparaben in vitro and in vivo,” Journal of Applied Toxicology, Jul-Aug 2002; 22(4): 219-26.

Darbre PD, Byford JR, Shaw LE, Hall S, Coldham NG, Pope GS, and Sauer MJ, “Oestrogenic activity of benzylparaben,” Journal of Applied Toxicology, Jan-Feb 2003; 23(1): 43-51.

Ema M, Kurosaka R, Amano H, Ogawa Y. “Comparative developmental toxicity of n-butyl benzyl phthalate and di-n-butyl phthalate in rats.” Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 1995; 28:223-228.

Ema M, Miyawaki E, Kawashima K. “Further evaluation of developmental toxicity of di-n-butyl phthalate following administration during late pregnancy in rats.” Toxicol Lett, 1998; 87-93.

Harvey, PW, Darbre PD, Endocrine disruptors and human health: Could oestrogenic chemicals in body care cosmetics adversely affect breast cancer incidence in women? A review of evidence and call for further research. Journal of Applied Toxicology, Jan 2004: (24): 167-176.

Kang, “Decreased sperm number and motile activity on the F1 offspring maternally exposed to butyl p-hydroxybenzoic acid (butyl parabens),” Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, March 2002; 64(3): 227-35.

National Research Council, “Hormonally Active Agents in the Environment,” NRC Report, Washington DC, National Academy Press (1999).

Oishi, S. “Effects of butyl paraben on the male reproductive system in mice.” Archives of Toxicology 2002: 76, 423-429.

Oishi, S. “Effects of propyl paraben on the male reproductive system.” Food and Chemical Toxicology 2002: 40, 1807-1813.

Okubo T, Yokoyama Y, Kano K, and Kano I, “ER-dependent estrogenic activity of parabens assessed by proliferation of human breast cancer MCF-7 cells and expression of ER alpha and PR,” Food Chemistry Toxicology, Dec 2001; 39(12): 1225-32.

Pedersen KL et al., “The preservatives ethyl-, propyl- and butylparaben are Oestrogenic in an in Vivo Fish Assay,” Pharmacology Toxicology, March 2000.

Routledge EJ et al., “Some alkyl hydroxy benzoate preservatives (parabens) are estrogenic,” Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 1998; 153: 12-19.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program, 10th Report on Carcinogens, 2002; pp. 116-19.

Yourick JJ and Bronaugh RL, “Percutaneous absorption and metabolism of courmarin in human and rat skin,” Journal of Applied Toxicology, May-Jun 1997; 17(3): 153-8.


April 28th, 2010 at 8:19 pm    

And its not just Parabens that we have to be weary of either.New research shows that {Triclosan} an antibacterial chemical found in common household soaps and detergents, may cause adverse health effects has prompted the Food and Drug Administration to take a closer look at the chemical, the Washington Post reports. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control, triclosan is so common that it is found in the urine of three quarters of the population, yet recent studies indicate that it does interfere with the body’s endocrine system—our glands and hormones—and potentially play a role in creating antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the Post reports.

Read more:

Meanwhile, a study from Yale researchers published this week in the journal Environmental Science and Technology also suggests that, once in the water supply, chemicals found in common soaps, shampoos and other household cleaners could potentially contribute to the formation of a cancer-causing compound. William Mitch, an associate professor of chemical and environmental engineering at Yale and an author of the recent study, emphasized in an email that, future research is necessary and his initial work only suggests the possibility that derivatives of common household products may lead to the formation of the harmful compound N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) which has been shown to cause cancer in lab rats and is considered a probable carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency. Yet, however preliminary, these findings and those highlighted in the Washington Post story add to growing concerns about our routine daily exposure to toxins in common products—as my colleagues at TIME recently reported, studies suggest that exposure to everything from asbestos to Bisphenol A (BPA) can have serious adverse health effects.

List of the More Widely Known Dangerous Ingredients in Body & Food Products

This list only contains the more widely known chemicals and additives in body and food products. There are thousands more in use. Many of the chemicals listed below are suspected or known carcinogens, toxins, hormone disruptors, poisons and contaminates.
Acesulfame K
Sugar substitute found in pudding, chewing gum, non-dairy creamers, instant coffee mixes, tea mixes and gelatin desserts. May increase cancer in humans.

Also known as Dimethylketone, 2-Propanone, Beta-Ketopropane. Inhalation of moderate to high amounts, even for a short time results in entry of acetone into bloodstream where it is carried to all other organs. Nose, throat, lung and eye irritant, headaches, confusion, increased pulse rate, effects on blood, nausea, vomiting and unconsciousness, coma. Shortens the menstrual cycle in women. Effects of long-term exposure include kidney, liver and nerve damage, increased birth defects, metabolic changes and coma. Found in nail polish remover.

Found in many nail care products. Known to cause cancers in humans and experimental animals.

Acrylamide, produced naturally in some foods when cooked at high temps. Manufactured for use in polyacrylamide gels, sometimes used as a treatment for drinking water and/ or wastewater. Acrylamide causes cancer in animals and in large doses, nerve damage in humans. Smoking is a major acrylamide producer as is frying, deep frying or extended micro-waving.

Implicated in oral cancer. Found in mouthwash, astringent, toothpaste, cleansers.

Alkyl-phenol Ethoxylades
May reduce sperm count. Found in shampoo and bubble bath.

Alpha Hydroxy Acid
Destroys skin cells and leaves skin more susceptible to damage from the environment and skin cancer. Actually ends up aging skin. Found in anti-aging facial creams and lotions.

Heavy concentrations may be linked to Alzheimer’s dementia. Aluminum is in many antiperspirants and prevalent in water supplies. Processed foods contain dietary aluminum.
Sodium aluminum phosphate appears in pickles, cheese and baking soda.

Ammonium Glycolate
A photosensitizer with potential to increase risk of sunburn and skin cancer by intensifying UV exposures in deep skin layers. This sensitizer can instigate immune system response that includes itching, burning, scaling, hives, and blistering of skin. It is also a penetration enhancer which alters the skins’ structure, allowing other chemicals to penetrate deeper into the skin, thus increasing the amounts of other chemicals that reach the bloodstream. Found in body products.

Ammonium Persulfate
Found in hair color and bleaching kit sensitizer – can instigate immune system response that can include itching, burning, scaling, hives, and blistering of skin, lung sensitizer – can instigate immune system response that can include asthma attacks or other problems with the lungs and airways.

Immune system toxin, respiratory toxicant, skin or sense organ toxicant, classified as toxic in one or more government assessments.

Genetically Modified, synthetic sugar substitute. People report dizziness, headaches and even seizures. Scientists believe it can alter behavior due to altered brain function. Long term effects of this genetically modified organism on human health has not been studied or tested. Found as a sweetener in foods and some body products, such as shaving gel. See our Genetically Modified / GMO Foods section for more information.

Benzalkonium chloride, cetrimonium chloride and lauryl dimonium hydrolysed collagen Found in hair treatment products. Both are toxic and allergenic.

Inhalation of high levels can cause headaches, rapid heart rate, tremors, confusion, unconsciousness and death. Hodgkin’s and Lymphomas result from inhalation. Used in detergents, drugs, pesticides and adhesives.

Benzoic Acid
Inhalation affects nervous system and is moderately toxic by ingestion. Severe eye and skin irritant. Used as a food preservative and in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics

Benzoic / Benzyl / Benzene
Contains carcinogens, endocrine disruptor, may cause birth defects. Found in shower gels, shampoos, bubble bath.

Benzoyl Peroxide
In acne treatments, bar soap, facial cleansers and food additives! Highly toxic/ irritant.

Bisphenol A or BPA
Toxic plastic chemical used as a can lining in brands of some infant formulas. Also found in water bottles, this chemical is used to produce polycarbonate and epoxy plastics. For babies, check food container labels and beware of polycarbonate plastic baby bottles. Chemical reactions can occur when plastic is heated.

Banned in other countries, these two preservatives are considered carcinogenic but remain in U.S. manufactured foods that contain oil as they retard rancidity. Found in foods and body products.

May break down into formaldehyde, may form carcinogenic nitrosamines. Found in body products.

Potential breast cancer risk and endocrine disruptor raising concern for impaired fertility or development, increased risk for certain cancers, itching burning and blistering of skin. Found in body products.

Causes cancer in animals. Used in cosmetics, inhalation could cause chemical pneumonitis.

Coal Tar Dyes – (includes D&C Blue 1, Green 3, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Red 33, etc.)
Even though their carcinogenicity has recently been proven, the 1938 Act includes a specific exemption for them. Severe allergic reactions, asthma attacks, headaches, nausea, fatigue, lack of concentration, nervousness, increased risk of Hodgkin’s disease, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Found in bubble bath, hair dye, dandruff shampoo, toothpaste and foods. For more information, see the Dyes Commonly Used in Food and Body Product Section.

Cocamidopropyl Betaine
May contain harmful impurities or form toxic breakdown products, itching, burning and blistering of skin. Synthesized from coconuts, this chemical is found in body products and may be labeled natural or organic.

Formerly the active ingredient in rat poison. A carcinogenic ingredient used in the manufacturing of deodorants, shampoos, skin fresheners and perfumes.

D&C Yellow 11
Found in: Lip gloss, polish remover, nail polish, bath oil/salts/soak, body spray, mositurizer, lipstick, styling gel/lotion, bar soap, after sun products, cologne, nail treatment. Color safe for external use only, found in ingested products, Color not approved for use around eyes, in eye products

DEA: Diethanolamine
A chemical used as a wetting or thickening agent in shampoos, soaps, hairsprays and sunscreens, blocks absorption of the nutrient choline, which is essential to brain development in a fetus.

An additive that tastes like butter causes a serious lung condition called bronchiolitis obliterans, or “popcorn workers’ lung. Found in foods, especially microwave popcorn.

Dibutyl phthalate (DBP)
A chemical used to keep nail polish from chipping, has been connected to cancer in lab animals as well as long-term fertility issues in newborn boys. Banned in Europe, but still in use in the U.S. Found in nail polish.

A silicone emollient, which coats the skin not allowing toxins out. May promote tumors and accumulate in the liver and lymph nodes. Found in lotions and creams.

Damage and weaken tooth enamel allowing more staining and discoloration to take place. Found in tooth whitening products.

Disodium EDTA
Harmful if swallowed or inhaled, causes irritation to skin, eyes and respiratory tract. Found in cosmetics.

Diazolidinyl Urea
Found in facial cleansers, shampoos and conditioners. Linked to neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity

DMDM Hydantoin
Contains formaldehyde , an ingredient linked to cancer, developmental and reproductive toxicity. Allergenic, can be an irritant to eyes skin and lungs. Common in manicure/pedicure products and hair treatment packages.

Found in some mascaras’s suspected as a cause of cancer in humans, based on studies of human populations or laboratory animals.

Suffocates skin by not allowing moisture in or out. Found in facial creams and body lotions.

May contain lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic. Accumulates in body and contributes to bone disease. Carcinogenic. Found in toothpastes.

Suspected carcinogen and neurotoxin, it may be fatal if swallowed, absorbed through skin, inhaled or swallowed. Can cause spasms, edema, chemical pneumonitis and is extremely destructive to tissue of the mucous membrane, this chemical is found in many nail care products. Known to cause cancers in humans and experimental animals. Found in baby shampoo, bubble bath, deodorants, perfume, cologne, hair dye, mouthwash, toothpaste, hair spray, nail polish.

Fragrances (Synthetic)
Some perfumes / fragrances contain hundreds of chemicals. Some, such as methylene chloride are carcinogenic. Some cause brain damage or are neurotoxins. Avoid unless you can be sure they are not carcinogenic.

Glycolic Acid
Penetration enhancer which alters skin structure, allowing other chemicals to penetrate deeper into the skin, increasing the amounts of other chemicals that reach the bloodstream, skin or sense organs. As a sensitizer it can instigate immune system response that can include itching, burning, scaling, hives, and blistering of skin. Toxicant, neurotoxin, kidney toxicant, gastrointestinal or liver toxicant. Found in creams, lotions, cosmetics.

GMO/Genetically Modified Organism
Plants, animals or foods that have been genetically modified, genetically engineered or BT/Biotechnology modified. Genetic engineering enables scientists to create plants, animals and micro-organisms by manipulating genes in a way that does not occur naturally. Minimal testing shows that animals fed GMO feed, refuse to eat it. When force-fed the feed (corn, soy, tomatoes etc.) the animals developed stomach lesions and malformations of organs. GMO food is not labeled as such in the U.S. Almost all other countries have banned the use of GMO in food and body products due to insufficient testing. See GMO section for more information.

Hydroabietyl Alcohol
Found in styling gel/lotions. Unsafe for use in cosmetics according to the fragrance industry’s International Fragrance Association.

High Fructose Corn Syrup/HFCS
High fructose consumption has been fingered as a causative factor in heart disease. It raises blood levels of cholesterol and triglycerides. It makes blood cells more prone to clotting, and it may also accelerate the aging process. See Sugars, Insulin Resistance and Glycemic Index section for more information.

Hydrogenated/Partially Hydrogenated Oils
Hydrogenated oils contain high levels of trans fats. A trans fat is an otherwise normal fatty acid that has been radically changed by high heat. Trans fats are poison: just like arsenic. Partially hydrogenated oils will not only kill you in the long term by producing diseases like multiple sclerosis and allergies that lead to arthritis, but in the meantime they will make you fat! See Hydrogenated and Partially Hydrogenated Oils section for more information

A severely toxic and very powerful chemical. Banned in the United Kingdom, but still used in the U.S. Found in skin lightening products and hair dyes, this chemical alters the skins natural structure inhibiting the production of Melanin. Without natural protection, the skin is more susceptible to skin cancer. Prolonged use of Hydroquinone will thicken collagen fibers damaging the connective tissues. The result is rough blotchy skin leaving it with a spotty caviar appearance.

Used in cosmetics. Inhalation could cause chemical pneumonitis.

Imidazolidinyl Urea
This allergenic chemical finds its way into deodorants, shampoos, hand cream and some mascaras.

Potential breast cancer risk. Itching, burning and blistering of skin. Found in body products.

Isoproponal/Isopropyl Alcohol
Moderately toxic chemical causing flushing, pulse rate decrease, blood pressure lowering, anesthesia, narcosis, headache, dizziness, mental depression, drowsiness, hallucinations, distorted perceptions, respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting and coma. Used to clean/disinfect skin, lower temperatures. Found in some body products.

Kajoic Acid
A chemical that inhibits melanin production. Used in skin lightening products, it damages the skin and makes it more susceptible to cancer.

Can cause eyelashes to fall out. Found in mascara.

While lanolin itself is skin beneficial, it may contain carcinogenic pesticides such as DDT, lindane, dieldrin and other neurotoxins. Can cause rashes. Found in body products.

Can dry and damage skin. Found in bars of soap.

Magnesium Stearate / Stearic Acid
May contain phosphatidyl choline which collapses cell membranes and selectively kills T-Cells which breaks down the immune system. An execeptant that is used to bind medicinal tablets and make them smooth it is also used in pharmaceuticals, foods, talcum powder, ammunition, and as a drying agent in paints.

MEA: Cocamide DEA, Lauramide DEA, Linoleamide DEA, Oleamide DEA
NDEA (N-nitrosodiethanolamine) forms when DEA reacts with nitrosating agents or the actual addition of nitrite as a preservative. As there is no way to determine if NDEA has been formed, it is imperative to avoid all products containing DEA as it is a known carcinogen. Often used in cosmetics to adjust the pH, and used with many fatty acids to convert acid to salt (stearate), which then becomes the base for a cleanser.

Methylisothiazoline, or MIT
Causes neurological damage. Found in shampoo.

Methyl Methacrylate
May cause fingers and nails to inflame. Found in nail polish.

Potential breast cancer risk and endocrine disruptor raising concern for impaired fertility or development of fetus, and increased risk for certain cancers, itching, burning and blistering of skin. A close cousin of benzoic acid: poisonous and moderately toxic it is found in body products.

Mineral Oil
A derivative of petroleum, this additive clogs pores, locks in toxins, suffocates and dries skin and inhibits your skins natural oil production further increasing dehydration. Causes testicular tumors in the fetus, deposits accumulate in the lymph nodes and prevent absorption of vitamin A from the intestines. Found in blush, baby oil, lotions, foundation and creams.

Monosodium Glutamate/MSG
MSG is an excitotoxin, which causes nerve damage and allergic reactions. Found in hundreds of foods, often under other names. See our Monosodium Glutamate / MSG section for more information

Gasoline additive. Known as a “likely” human carcinogenic.

Neotame is a reformulated aspartame that will require smaller amounts than aspartame to achieve the same sweetness. Neotame, like aspartame, contains aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and a methyl esther. Animal studies reveal aspartic acid and glutamic acid load on the same receptors in the brain, cause identical brain lesions and neuroendocrine disorders, and act in an additive fashion. People who are sensitive to processed free glutamic acid (MSG) experience similar reactions to aspartame, and people who are sensitive to aspartame experience similar reactions to MSG. People who currently react to MSG and/or aspartame should expect to react similarly to Neotame. Found in soft drinks, pharmaceuticals, processed foods of all kinds.

Nitrate – Nitrite
While nitrate itself is harmless; it is readily converted to nitrite. When nitrite combines with compounds called secondary amines, it forms nitrosamines: extremely powerful cancer-causing chemicals. The chemical reaction occurs most readily at the high temperatures of frying. Nitrite has long been suspected as being a cause of stomach cancer. (See Sodium Nitrite)

Extremely powerful, cancer-causing chemicals formed at high temperatures when the preservative nitrite combines with compounds called secondary amines.

While fat-free, this additive has a fatal side effect: it attaches to valuable nutrients and flushes them out of the body. Some of these nutrients, called carotenoids, appear to protect us from such diseases as lung cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, and macular degeneration. Olestra replaces fats in ‘fat-free’ foods.

Padimate-O (PABA)
Nitrosamines, potent carcinogens, may form in products that contain Padimate-O. There is no way of knowing if they have formed. Found in cosmetics and sunscreens.

Possible carcinogen. Found in cosmetics and food.

Toxic flame retardant, used in baby bedding to slow advance of fire. Residue found in breast milk.

It is rocket science! Perchlorate is a by- product of rocket fuel, discovered in over 90% of the U.S. lettuce and milk supply. It interferes with thyroid function can cause thyroid cancer and or hypothyroidism.

PEG Stearates
Potentially contaminated with or breaking down into chemicals linked to cancer or other significant health problems. Found in cosmetics, creams and foods.

PEG (Polyethylene, polyethylene glycol, polyoxyethylene, oxynol: any ethoxylated compound, including SLES)
May contain ¼-dioxane which is a possible carcinogen, estrogen mimic and endocrine disruptor. Can only be removed from a product through vacuum stripping during processing. Avoid all ethyoxylated products as a precaution. Found in foods and body products.

PEG-12 Distearate
May contain harmful impurities or form toxic breakdown products linked to cancer or other significant health problems. Found in creams, lotions, cosmetics and foods.

PEG-80 Sorbitan Laurate
May contain harmful impurities or form toxic breakdown products linked to cancer or other significant health problems, gastrointestinal or liver toxicity hazards. Found in cosmetics, creams, lotions and foods.

May contain harmful impurities or form toxic breakdown products linked to cancer or other significant health problems. Found in foods, lotions, creams and cosmetics.

Petroleum (Petrolatum)
Suffocates skin and traps toxins in body, clogs pores. Found in lotions, skin creams, and body jelly.

PFOA or C8
Used when processing polytetrafluroroethylene (PTFE) or Teflon. This toxic chemical remains in animals and humans for indefinite periods.

Perflurooctanotane sulfonate. A fluorocarbon used in producing repellents and surfactant products, like stain resistant fabric.

Possible connection to reproductive or developmental harm to fetus, potential for reduced fertility, classified as toxic and an irritant, potential risks to wildlife and environment through excretion of body product toxins and disposal of cosmetics.

Accumulates in the body; proven damage to liver, lungs, kidneys and reproductive systems. Appears in vinyl flooring, plastic wallpaper, perfume, hair spray, deodorant, nail polish, hair gel, mousse, body and hand lotion. Look for it in children’s toys, as; DEHP, BBP and DBP.

Polyethylene Glycol /PEG
Moderately toxic, eye irritant and possible carcinogen. Many glycols produce severe acidosis, central nervous system damage and congestion. Can cause convulsions, mutations, and surface EEG changes. Found in cosmetics, body products, foods, lotions.

Possible carcinogen. Found in lipstick, mascara, baby soap, eye shadow.

Used in cosmetics. Inhalation could cause chemical pneumonitis .

May contain harmful impurities or form toxic breakdown products linked to cancer or other significant health problems. Found in body products.

Potassium Bromate
An additive that increases the volume and crumb of bread, is banned worldwide except in the U.S. and Japan. Considered carcinogenic.

p-Phenylenediamine (PPD)
Very toxic substance, used in hair dyeing, shampoo’s and hair spray. Highly carcinogenic, developmental and reproductive toxicity, it is allergenic and can cause skin irritation issues.

Propylene Glycol
Kidney damage, liver abnormalities, inhibits skin cell growth, damages cell membranes causing rashes, surface damage and dry skin.

Absorbed into blood stream and travels to all organs. Many glycols produce severe acidosis, central nervous system damage and congestion. Can cause convulsions, mutations, and surface EEG changes. It is derived from petroleum products. The Material Safety Data Sheets on propylene glycol warns against contact with eyes, skin and clothing. It also says inhalation can cause irritation of nasal passages, ingestion can cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.

Research also shows that it alters cell membranes and causes cardiac arrest. Found in shaving gel, lotions, shampoo, conditioners, foods, deodorant.

Potential breast cancer risk and endocrine disruptor raising concern for impaired fertility or development, and increased risk for certain cancers, itching burning and blistering of skin, gastrointestinal or liver toxicity hazard. A close cousin of benzoic acid: poisonous and moderately toxic. Found in body products.

PVC/ polyvinyl chloride
When produced or burned, this common plastic releases dioxins, may cause cancer, affect immune and reproductive systems.

Quaternium-7, 15, 31, 60 etc.
Toxic, causes skin rashes and allergic reactions. Formaldehyde releasers. Substantive evidence of casual relation to leukemia, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other cancers. Found in body products.

Sodium Chloride
Table salt (processed at high heat). Eye irritation, some hair loss, and dry and itchy skin. Found in shampoo as a thickener.

Sodium Hydroxymethylglycinate
Potentially contaminated with or breaking down into chemicals linked to cancer or other significant health problems. Found in facial moisturizer, facial cleanser, facial treatments, skin fading and lightening products, anti-aging products, eye makeup remover, concealer, makeup remover, around eye cream, acne treatment, shampoo, conditioner, styling lotion and gel, styling mousse and foam, hair spray, hair relaxer, tanning oil and sunscreen, after tanning products, body cleanser and wash, body exfoliants, body firming lotion, baby soap, baby lotion, baby wipes, baby bubble bath, pain and wound products, hand sanitizer.

Sodium Nitrite
Makes meat look red rather than gray, and gives meat an overly long shelf life of months. Clinically proven to cause leukemia, brain tumors and other forms of cancer.

Contains several naturally occurring compounds that are toxic to humans and animals. Soy foods block calcium and can cause vitamin D deficiencies. One health agency estimates than 100 grams of soy protein provides the estrogenic equivalent of the pill. Processing and all modern soy foods contain MSG, which cause neurological problems. Soy products inhibit thyroid function, which may lead to fatigue and mental issues. Infants on soy formula are vulnerable to developing autoimmune thyroid disease when exposed to high amounts of isoflavones over time. These Isoflavones have been found to have serious health effects, including infertility, thyroid disease or liver disease, on a number of mammals. Long term feeding with soy formulas inhibits thyroid peroxidase to such an extent that long term elevated thyroid stimulating hormone levels can also raise the risk of thyroid cancer. It is said that two glasses of soy milk a day over the course of a month contains enough of the chemical to change the timing of a woman’s menstrual cycle. Only eat soy if it has been fermented: such as soy, misu and tamari and if it is labeled as organic or non-GMO. See our Genetically Modified Foods section for more information

SLS (Sodium Lauryl Sulphate)
Builds up in heart, lungs, brain and liver from skin contact and may cause damage to these organs. Corrodes hair follicles and may cause hair to fall out. Damages immune system. Contain endocrine disruptors and estrogen mimics. Impairs proper structural formation of young eyes. May contain carcinogenic nitrosamines. This is a detergent derived from coconut oil and may be labeled natural or even organic. Found in toothpaste, soap, shampoo, body wash, bubble bath, facial cleansers.

SLES (Sodium Laureth Sulfate)
Ether mixtures may contain carcinogenic nitrosamines. Avoid ethoxylated compounds as a precaution. May form 1.4 dioxane, a potential carcinogen, endocrine disruptor and estrogen mimic. Allows other chemicals to penetrate skin more deeply and enter bloodstream. May cause hair loss when applied to scalp. Found in shampoo, toothpaste, bubble bath, body wash, soap.

Stearalkonium Chloride
Toxic and causes allergic reactions. Used in hair conditioners.

Can cause reactions in asthmatics, and lead to death. Sulphites are now banned on all foods except raw potatoes, wine and dried fruit.

Carcinogenic when inhaled, may result in fallopian tube fibrosis. Found in blush, condoms, baby powder, feminine powders, foot and body powders.

At one time in most vaccines for children. Still believed to be in many vaccines. This form of organic mercury, functions as a preservative. It is highly toxic as it metabolizes into methylmercury.

TEA: Tea, Triethanolamine
TEA causes allergic reactions including eye problems, dryness of hair and skin, and could be toxic if absorbed into the body over a long period of time. These chemicals are already restricted in Europe due to known carcinogenic effects (although still in use in the U.S.)

Repeated skin applications of DEA-based detergents resulted in a major increase in the incidence of liver and kidney cancer. Found in shampoos, skin cream, bubble bath, shaving gel, conditioner, lotions.

Poison to humans. Hallucinations, bone marrow changes, may cause liver and kidney damage and birth defects, endocrine disruptor and potential carcinogen linked to brain cancer. Irritates respiratory tract. Found in nail polish and cleaning products.

Found in a lot of antimicrobial soaps and toothpaste products, it can react with chlorine in the tap water to create Chloroform. This is a toxic chemical that can give you cancer. If you breathe enough chloroform, you will die. When you wash your hands with antibacterial soap that contains Triclosan, you are getting the fumes emitted from this chemical reaction.

Vinyl chloride
Used to create PVC (polyvinyl chloride) a known carcinogen. Often found in toys. Children chewing on toys can release toxins into their bodies. * see PVC

Zinc Stearate
Carcinogen. Found in blush and powder foundation

Many people take for granted household soaps and shampoos, incorporating them in their daily routines–and those of their infants. However, studies conducted by the American College of Toxicology prove that even a .08 percent of some chemicals found in these household products can cause skin irritation and other complications, and yet some products contain up to 30 percent of these chemicals. Learn more about the dangers of household shampoos and soaps to protect your health, and that of your family.

Sodium Laureth Sulfate
Sodium laureth sulfate is a chemical that appears in shampoo and soap. Studies have linked it to hair follicle damage, and potential permanent damage to the eyes and skin. The American College of Toxicology reports that “concentrations of 10 to 30 percent caused skin corrosion and severe irritation.” The college also found that some soaps contain up to 30 percent sodium laureth sulfate, a chemical that the liver has trouble metabolizing.

Phthalates are another chemical found in shampoos and soaps, including products designed for babies. These chemicals, specifically dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), have been shown to lower testosterone in males a study published in the International Journal of Andrology by Dr. Shanna Swan. Dr. Swan found that the boys with higher levels of phthalates in their blood did not display interest in “male typical” games like play fighting and trucks. According to Dr. Swan, “early exposure to phthalates can influence brain development” and can be “associated with genital changes in boys, including smaller genitals and incomplete descent of the testicles.”

A Parable of Parabens
A toxic family that could be
poisoning your skin!

If you are becoming a bit of a ‘toxic-chemical-spotter’ then ‘parabens’ will no doubt be on your hit-list of ‘key-chemicals-to-avoid’.

It is simply astounding that so many common products – bought off-the-shelf by unsuspecting customers still contain these chemicals that now clearly have such a bad reputation.

The paraben family – Ethylparaben, Methylparaben, Butylparaben and Propylparaben – are often found ‘hanging-around’ together – in the heart of the chemical cocktails that adulterate many of our skincare, bodycare and hair care products.

Because personal care products – such as shave gels, body lotions, hand cremes, even toothpaste as well as many others – often contain oils and other potential ‘perishable’ ingredients, parabens are a commonplace preservative used to extend a products shelf-life.

The problem is though that these synthetic chemicals – which, for the ‘chemistry scholars’ amongst us are actually esters of hydroxybenzoic acid – are actually rather nasty!

Implicated in a diversity of health problems!

The paraben family have all been known to cause allergic reactions in certain sensitive individuals. Indeed – where laboratories have undertaken ‘animal testing’ (which, naturally we do not condone) parabens have been shown to be clearly ‘toxic’ if ingested.

As far as humans go – the ongoing ‘chemistry experiment’ that we all partake in whenever we use chemical-based personal care products – has led to the conclusion that parabens can act as ‘endocrine disrupters’.

That is to say that any of the paraben quartet may interrupt the working of the endocrine system. The endocrine system is a system of glands that occur throughout the body, which release important hormones to regulate and control certain important functions. These functions include growth, sexual development, and the production of sperm in males, and ova in females.

The endocrine glands include: hypothalamus, pituitary, pineal gland, thyroid, parathyroid, pancreas, adrenal, ovary, and testis. Disruption of the crucial functions of these glands can lead to many, varied health problems. It is for instance recognized that fertility in the general population of Western countries – like the UK and US has fallen dramatically in recent years. Just how much this problem has been contributed to by the pervasive use of parabens is impossible to calculate…but it is simple to say…we should ALL avoid using products that contain this unpleasant family of chemicals!

Kick them out of your neighborhood!

As if further evidence was needed that parabens are the sort of family you don’t want in the neighborhood of your bathroom. They have also been shown to trigger contact dermatitis – that unpleasant, uncomfortable and visually distressing condition of the skin that can be so difficult to ‘settle’ and which can flare-up so easily when provoked by such as these chemical nasties!Parabens, through the evidence of finding them in tumour biopsies, have also been implicated in possibly increasing the risk of breast cancer…All-in-all…the message is…if you see one or more of the family of parabens hanging around in your usual personal care products…”bin them”… and change to 100% natural, and preferably certified organic products…which are SURE to be chemical free.

The bottom line is that no matter what pathetic dis-informants like Dene say, who try to play down the dangers of toxic chemicles…parabens and other toxic chemicles are not safe and the end result of anyone who continues to use toxic products will be sickness and death.

What Is Your Skin Absorbing?
When you place a skin care product on your skin, your skin is absorbing the product. If the product has synthetic or toxic chemicals in it, your skin will absorb these toxins and you won’t feel a thing. Although your skin is meant to be a protective barrier, it can absorb the ingredients in many skin products because the skin is porous. If your skin care products contain harsh or toxic ingredients then your skin will absorb them. Chronic use of chemical laden ingredients will cause the body to store the chemicals.

Storing toxins, synthetic chemicals and other harsh ingredients in the body is not god for you. The body may not be able to digest or break down some of the chemicals and the chemicals may become stored in the body fat or even the brain. With enough accumulations of toxins in the body, illness can occur.

Avoid Putting Harmful Chemicals On Your Skin
Take the time to read the label on the cleansers, skin care and bath products. Unless you are buying all natural skin care products, the label on most commercially sold skin care and bath products will include a list of ingredients that you may not recognize. Since you and your family use cleansers, skin care products, the skin care and bath products on a daily basis, it is important that you do not apply chemical laden ingredients on your skin for long periods of time if you want to avoid an accumulation of chemicals in your body.


April 28th, 2010 at 8:33 pm    

Dene is quoted as saying the following bogus statements…I WILL ONLY QUOTE A FEW SO THAT YOU CAN GET AN IDEA OF THE SCALE OF DECIET THAT HE USES.

LIE # 1> The use of parabens as preservatives has nothing to do with profit

LIE # 2> Parabens are used because they work effectively and safely

LIE # 3> The cost of the preservative in any final product is so tiny that it is no argument to suggest they are used purely on a cost basis

LIE # 4> Parabens have caused A FEW skin reactions, generally less so than most other preservatives

LIE # 5> There are NOT 450 chemicals banned in Europe that are used in US products, This is more nonsense bandied around the internet, I’m afraid. There ARE chemicals banned in the EU, but very few of them have ever been used in cosmetics

Dene also said “If all these chemicals were as dangerous as blogs like this claim, the majority of the population of the western world would be terminally ill, or dead”

Anwser: Dene, take a REAL CLOSE look around you, there are more sickly terminally ill and dying people now day’s then there ever has been before… WHY?morgellons,Fibromyalgia cancer chemtrails vaccines soap products ect…DUUUH


May 27th, 2010 at 12:24 pm    

I shall ignore the rude comments about me, and consider some facts:

There is a sort of inverse parallel with the controversy over the film Monty Python’s Life Of Brian (for those old enough to remember the 1970s). Thousands of people accused the film-makers of blasphemy, despite never having seen the film. In the case of Darbre’s 2004 study, many people believe in the findings implicitly – without ever having read the study!

I have read this study in careful detail many times, and I pose the following questions:

i) Was the rationale behind the study correct?
ii) Was the study carried out using sound experimental design?
iii) Was the interpretation of the results accurate and logical?

Was the rationale behind the study correct?

Dr. Darbre was informed several years prior to this work that very few deodorant products contain any preservatives, let alone parabens. A survey identified 3,324 new deodorant products launched in the 6 months preceding this study, only 12 of which contained parabens. This fact makes nonsense of the claimed adverse effects of parabens in deodorant products, although it cannot rule out a connection between parabens and breast cancer in isolation. Subsequently, when challenged with this information in an interview (Daily Mail, Jan. 13, 2004 p. 45) Dr. Darbre rather disingenuously said “most deodorants no longer contain the parabens because many manufacturers removed them 3 years ago”. This is simply not correct, as most deodorant products have never required preservation – there was no sudden change in industry practise in 2001. She has also since claimed that parabens have been removed from underarm products as a result of her study – also not true.
Dr. Darbre also claimed that the substances used in underarm products could migrate to the breast, thereby causing cancer. It is well-established that the blood and lymphatic systems flow away from the breast, so it is biologically implausible that substances would migrate in the opposite direction.

Both the central tenets of the rationale behind the study have no factual basis.

Was the study carried out using sound experimental design?

Benzylparaben is rarely used in personal care products, and the results were, unsurprisingly, all negative for this compound and may be discounted. All the blanks showed an apparent paraben presence and, on subtraction from the breast tissue reading, many gave a negative result leaving us with the novel concept of “negative parabens”. This occurred in 26 out of 120 data points (over 20%) – a significant number and sufficient to cause concern over the validity of the results. The presence of parabens in the blank samples was attributed to “the ubiquitous use of parabens as preservatives even in laboratory detergents and personal care products of the operators”. Parabens are not normally used as preservatives in detergent products, so this source of contamination is unlikely, but it may well come from the operators. One of the blank samples contained higher concentrations of parabens than 12 of the 20 tissue samples tested and, therefore, is it not possible that all the parabens detected were resulting from the personal care products used by the operators? The ratio of the parabens detected in the blanks was broadly similar to the ratio found in the tissue samples, which suggests that the source of the parabens was the same in both cases. It is difficult to imagine that the all the very different ratios and combinations of parabens used in the huge number of different personal care products should mysteriously average out to be similar in breast tumour tissue as it is in the contaminated blanks in this study. This suggestion is supported by several studies that have determined that parabens are completely absorbed, metabolised and excreted by mammals within approximately 24 – 48 hours. Furthermore, to assume that subtracting the blank data from the tissue sample gives an accurate paraben level in the breast tissue is not logical as it implies that parabens are present on the glassware used for the blank samples at exactly the same concentrations on the glassware used for the tissue samples. This cannot be assumed when one considers the wide variability of paraben concentrations within the blank samples themselves from between 19.6 – 61.4 ng/g. This is proven by the presence of so many negative values that are, of course, impossible. The mean total paraben concentration identified in the blank samples was 33.8ng/g and, whilst the mean concentration from tumour extracts was 54.8ng/g, the higher levels may be attributed to additional paraben contamination during handling and processing of the tissues that does not occur with the blank samples.

The use of only 20 tumour samples is extremely limiting in terms of statistical analysis, particularly in view of the enormity of what is being claimed for the results.

The medical history of the tissue donors was not considered as, as parabens are used as preservatives in several cancer treatments, this is a serious shortcoming.

There was no control using healthy human breast tissue for comparison.

The procedure should have been refined such that all blank samples contained no detectable parabens, and using many more tumour samples, so it is my conclusion that the study was not carried out using sound experimental design.

Was the interpretation of the results accurate and logical?

The conclusions of the study claim proof of bioaccumulation of parabens in human breast tumour tissue. Leaving aside whether or not the parabens were actually present in the tumour tissue, it is simply not possible to establish bioaccumulation using only one data point. This can only be achieved by monitoring over a period of time and observing an increase in the concentrations present and this study uses only a single data point. If the parabens truly are present in the tumour tissue, they may be simply background levels present during the metabolic process. The report then draws a comparison between parabens and PCB’s and OCP’s, quoting mean levels of 20, 267 and 707ng/g tissue respectively as further evidence of bioaccumulation of parabens (and wrongly claiming that these levels are similar – they differ by more than an order of magnitude). I believe that this proves precisely the opposite. Human exposure to parabens must be several orders of magnitude greater than exposure to PCB’s or OCP’s, yet the latter have significantly higher residual levels than parabens. If parabens were bioaccumulative, this would be reflected in mean levels significantly higher than PCB’s and OCP’s.

One of the most questionable aspects of the interpretation of the results is the use of a “corrected average level of parabens” suggested on the basis that 4 of the 20 tumours contained more than twice the true average level of total parabens and that only a 50% recovery of parabens was achieved during the analytical procedure. The “corrected average level” of 100ng/g was calculated using only the 4 highest results (and is, therefore, a gross distortion of the true figures), then doubling the figure based on the claim of 50% recovery. The recovery figure is based on spiking samples with benzylparaben and detecting 48.5% of the material on analysis. Benzylparaben was used because it was not otherwise detected in any of the samples. It is strange logic to base the % recovery on the one compound that was not detected and then to assume that all the esters have the same recovery factor. Benzylparaben is an aryl ester – the remainder all being alkyl esters – and the least representative of the group. It should not have been used to determine the recovery rate. It is also likely to have the lowest % recovery, leading to a greater distortion of the data. As methylparaben was present at 62%, this would have been best used to indicate the true recovery rate, but I would expect a difference in recovery for all esters as their solubility profiles are substantially different. The use of benzylparaben alone is both illogical and lazy. To assess the true analytical recovery, each individual paraben should have been tested. It is not methodologically acceptable to take the 4 highest results from a data series and use them to argue a case – this is distortion. Removing the highest and lowest data points as being the least representative would have been acceptable, but this was not done.

The distorted corrected average level of 100ng/g was then used as a comparator against studies (Okubo, T, Yokoyama, Y, Kano, K, Kano,I, Food Chem. Toxicol. 39, 1225 – 1232 (2001); Byford, J. R, Shaw, L. E, Drew, M. G. B, Pope, G. S, Sauer, M. J, Darbre, P. D, J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. 80, 49 – 60 (2002); Darbre, P. D, Byford, J. R, Shaw, L. E, Horton, R. A, Pope, G. S, Sauer, M. J, J. Appl. Toxicol. 22, 219 – 226 (2002); Darbre, P. D, Byford, J. R, Shaw, L. E, Hall, S, Coldham, N. G, Pope, G. S, Sauer, M. J, J. Appl. Toxicol. 23, 43 – 51 (2003)) that found levels of c. 150ng/ml of n-propyl, n-butyl and iso-butylparaben stimulated growth of oestrogen-dependant MCF7 human breast cancer (HBC) cells. This results in yet further distortion as the distorted average is then being compared with results for, essentially, different compounds as 62% of the total paraben level was methylparaben and a further 10% was ethylparaben, for which there are no data on their effect on MCF7 HBC cells. Therefore, only 28% of the comparator figure is an acceptable comparison as, based on many other studies, methyl and ethylparaben are significantly less likely to exhibit any oestrogenic effect than the higher esters. A more reasonable comparison would be to take the propyl and butylparaben components from the “uncorrected” average to give a figure of c. 5.6ng/g, which is significantly lower than the 150ng/g level claimed to stimulate growth of MCF7 HBC cells.

In the light of all the above factors I have to conclude that the interpretation of the results of the study was neither accurate, nor logical and grossly distorted.

All the points I have made above are based on fact and logic, and I challenge anyone to read this and then claim that Darbre’s study was good science. Is there any wonder that “mainstream scientists” dismiss this study? Much of the concern over parabens is based on this study having allegedly detected them in human breast cancer tissue, and there should be a huge question mark over the relevance of some of the adverse claims being made on the basis of this study.

Congratulations if you managed to read all of this, and I apologise for the length of the posting, but I feel that all this is relevant to the discussion.

Finally, for now, if you think that the skin absorbs everything put on it, how come people manage to swim in water for so long without becoming totally waterlogged? Ask any dermatologist about how much the skin can absorb – don’t rely on my word for it!


May 28th, 2010 at 12:48 pm    

@Grammatoncleric82 – for some reason, your last post had not appeared when I submitted my last one, so I had not seen your further accusations. You have no right to call me a liar. You know nothing about me and, whilst you may say that the comments I make are wrong, I will not accept being called a liar.

I know nothing of your background either, but I suspect that you have never worked in the cosmetics industry, as your comments about my lies clearly demonstrate. My 5 “lies”, (according to your definition) are not lies in the least, and I am interested to understand on what basis you think that I am wrong, because you are making some rather sweeping statements in the way you condemn me. You make no attempt to justify your strong condemnation of each of thsoe points, and I think that I deserve an explanation as to why you think I am lying.

You are very good at cutting and pasting large swathes of text from (presumably) internet sources, but much of what you have posted is taken out of context, and some of it is simply inaccurate or wrong. You have posted so much information, it is not possible to address the comments on every substance, but they are mostly comments on the hazards of each chemical listed. It is not possible to assess safety on the basis of hazard alone – an understanding of the exposure is essential. Something that is toxic in high doses can be perfectly safe to use at lower concentrations. Fact.

A useful source of well-presented, non-hysterical information on various aspects of cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients may be found

I strongly recommend this site – it also demonstrates how to conduct discussions without resorting to gross insults.

Finally – there may well be more terminally ill and sickly people around these days. Could this possibly be because we are all living a lot longer, and there are more people actually alive than ever before? If this “toxic soup” that we allegedly live in is so bad, how come more than 6 BILLION of us have managed to survive for so long (and live longer than ever before)? This argument just does not stack up!


May 29th, 2010 at 3:16 am    

Expert comments
regarding latest reports on parabens and breast cancer

“The findings of parabens in tumour samples are additional results in line with the general hypothesis that there may be a link between oestrogenic compounds commonly used in underarm cosmetics and other consumer products and breast cancer. The results alone, however, do not suggest that these chemicals caused the tumours in these patients. Darbre et al.’s findings invite several questions: how did the parabens get into the breast, are they persistent and could they do harm? The answers require further research.”

Philip W. Harvey and David J. Everett
General considerations and conclusion from the Editorial of the Journal of Applied Toxicology where the research was published

“We are all exposed to all kinds of chemicals but it doesn’t mean that they all cause cancer. The question is here whether the chemicals would have an impact on the hormones, and also what level you would see in a healthy breast tissue. A causal link has by no means been proved.”

Karol Sikora, Professor of Oncology at Imperial College London
The Observer
Sunday, 11 th January 2004

“Although this is an interesting study the sample size is very small. No causal link has been found between underarm cosmetics containing parabens and breast cancer. There is also no robust population-based evidence to suggest a link. Should any notional risk exist it would be insignificant when compared to other avoidable environmental risks for the disease, such as obesity.”

Dr Richard Sullivan, Head of Clinical Programmes at Cancer Research UK
The Sun, The Star, Daily Mail, The Independent, The Observer
Monday, 12 th January 2004

“This extremely small study does not demonstrate a direct or causal link between deodorant or anti-perspirant use and developing breast cancer. Further research is needed to establish the source of the chemicals found in the breast tumour samples and what, if any, the relationship is to breast cancer.”

Delyth Morgan, Breakthrough Breast Cancer
Daily Mail, Daily Mirror

Monday, 12 th January 2004

“We conclude from our results that the above mentioned paraben esterase III of keratinocytes (a skin enzyme that breaks down parabens) is sufficient to completely hydrolyse the traces of parabens that may enter the skin from topically applied ointments.”

C. Lobermeier, C. Tschoetschel, S. Westie and E. Heymann
Hydrolysis of parabens by extracts from differing layers of human skin.
Biol.Chem. 377(1): 647-651 (1996)


June 1st, 2010 at 2:30 pm    

Do you believe every research study, article or book every published is completely true?

How many so called researchers/companies that write these studies receive GENEROUS donations from the companies that want these studies written. .. more than you know.

You can argue and post what you think is fact all you want. But if you look around you and see millions dying of different types of cancer and look at what is different in the world from 100 or 200 years ago. Then you will see a link.


June 2nd, 2010 at 3:49 am    

@Sara, I take your comment to suggest that, if there is the slightest hint of self-interest/company sponsorship in any study, then it is virtually invalid. This, I believe, is unduly cynical. If you are sufficiently well-informed/well-educated, it is often possible to work out for yourself what is believable and what is not. Take my analysis of Dr. Darbre’s 2004 study as an example. This clearly has little scientific merit, yet a lot of people accept it (mainly because they have never read it in detail, if at all, and it suits their purpose to believe it). Your use of the word GENEROUS was unneccessary – you almost imply bribery! No company would spend any more money than is required ot carry out the study. I agree that it is possible to design a study in favour of the desired result, but it is much less simple to completely falsify the results. It doesn’t need company sponsorship to produce a completely invalid study – Darbre proved that.

With regard to the studies carried out by researchers, you say to Kayla that there are “more than you know” – implying that YOU know, but she doesn’t. How do you have this information? How do you know that Kayla doesn’t know?

Your comment about millions dying from cancer has no scientific basis whatsoever and is invalid – there is no link to synthetic chemicals (or parabens in particular)simply from the fact that the world is different and that many thousands more synthetic chemicals are around. If you take the time to read the statements on the websites of ALL the major cancer research organisations (who do NOT have a vested interest in synthetic chemicals), you will see that they say that lifestyle is probably the major contributory cause to cancer in modern society. Many of the synthetic chemicals you and others like you abhor have contributed towards increasing the life expectancy from around 40 years (200 years ago) to around 80 years today. As I said in an earlier post, can you please explain how, despite the “toxic soup” of synthetic chemicals, as some have described it, we currently share this planet with 6 BILLION people – more, much more than at any other time in human history. Link? Perhaps the presence of so many synthetic chemicals is beneficial to humans. There is a stronger link to my argument that there is to yours!


June 2nd, 2010 at 3:08 pm    

Just to be a little more precise on this population argument – the world’s population in 1810 was 900 million. It is now 6.45 billion – an increase of more than seven-fold.


June 23rd, 2010 at 10:47 pm    

@Dene…The info in this forum alone proves that what you are promoting is a lie. The diffrence between you and I is that i give solid refrances…you dont. You admit that there are more sick people in the world today but then procede to blame it all on age. What about the millions upon millions of people who die every year due to supposed unknown illnesses like cancer ect, and thousands upon thousands of young people who die each day,…you didnt mention that…why not? Ohh let me guess all thoes contless people who suffer from fibromialgia morgellons cancer ect it is all beacuse of age. What you call facts are nothing more then a conflitc of intrest.You are simply repeating the lie. Your job is to play down and undermine the dangers that are apperant.

Here are the real facts that the cosmetics industry does not not want the people to know.

These are just a few of the ingredients found in commercial body soaps.

Your morning shower is actually a hazardous chemical shower. If you’re not choosing your body soaps carefull they are..most bathing products are made of animal products{Pig fat ect} a dead product…the skin is alive and can never be revitalized by using a dead product.
What are these chemicals, and are they really necessary for cleanliness? no thet are not.If you’re concerned about reducing the amount of dangerous chemicals and toxins you expose your body to, you need to know about typical body soaps.Eliminating processed foods, choosing organically grown, pesticide-free produce, and seeking out hormone-free meats from pasture fed animals is a wonderful start – but it’s not enough!
You can’t completely escape all the toxins your body is exposed to in our modern world, but you can make better choices wherever possible.
Do Unto Your Skin as You Would Into Your Body!Give serious thought to what you’d put on your skin — as much as you would to what you’d put into your mouth. Why? Your skin covers up to 20 square feet of your body and is a living, breathing organ. It is your body’s first line of defense against harmful substances.
Your skin is a protective mechanical barrier for your internal organs and muscles. It also excretes waste products and excess salts from your body through sweat and tears.Your skin is also meant to absorb substances that are good for you, like Vitamin D from the sun, or healing herbals, and essential oils.
So of course, your skin can also absorb substances that are BAD for you!{Wich dene denies}When your skin absorbs harmful chemicals, their toxins can lodge into your cells, tissues, and muscles, and eventually overwhelm your entire immune system. A weakened immune system can no longer do its’ real job of defending you against disease-causing viruses, bacteria, fungal infections like candida yeast, cancer, and many other serious conditions. Most important, doing everything you can to remove dangerous toxins from your body is essential if you want to create healthy babies! For more information on why some toxins could even be a cause of autism, ADD and other disorders, read: Why Your Body Needs to Cleanse, (and The Surprising Signs That it Cleansing) Part I Common chemicals in body soap can cause the following health risks1:

Benzaldehyde: Depresses the nervous system, brings on dizziness, vomiting, and sudden drops in blood pressure if inhaled.
Benzyl Acetate: Eye and lung irritant, and known carcinogen that has been associated with pancreatic cancer.
Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLS): Breaks down fats, and impairs the skins ability to maintain moisture. Classified as a “mutagen” meaning it can alter genetic material in cells.
Ethanol: On the EPA’s hazardous waste list! Can irritate the respiratory tract and cause vision impairments and loss of muscle control
Linalool: Narcotic substance that can harm your respiratory system and motor activity. Can also attract bees, which would be a problem for those of you allergic to bees.

Again, this is just a short list to give you an idea. The good news is, you have plenty of healthy natural soaps to choose from! Here are some tips for picking the best body soaps:

Feed your skin the best natural ingredients with these body soaps:

Dr. Bronner’s liquid soap for your body, hair and even your laundry!
Khadi natural body soaps for herbs that relieve tension, heal your skin and relax your moods with aromatherapy!
Read ingredient labels! Avoid animal or petroleum based soaps with artificial fragrances, or chemicals.
Look for natural soaps with organic herb, or plant based ingredients. They should contain pure essential oils, olive, palm or coconut oils as a base.

Miracle II soap is the best…it cures everything, including cancer.

Natural soaps are also better for our planet because they don’t harm the environment after they go down the drain!
We especially like these Khadi handmade body soaps with natural ingredients and pure essential oils proven to have healing effects on the skin:
Neem Tulsi Soap has skin healing properties.

Sandal Turmeric Soap is naturally cooling.

Rose-Sandal Soap relieves tension and tired muscles.

Jasmine Cheese Soap is relaxing, stress relieving and anti-depressive.
Try any of the Khadi natural body soaps for a dose of skin health AND aromatherapy!

Other great options are:

Dr. Bronner’s soaps which are organic,100% natural, scented with essential oils, and eco-friendly.
Thursday Plantation Tea Tree Skin Care Soap which is especially good for you if you suffer from acne, psoriasis, or any other skin infection.

Next time you take your morning shower, love the skin you’re in by “feeding” it a healthy diet of natural soap! It’s just one more way to support your overall good health AND the health of our planet.

1 “Coming Clean-The Hidden Dangers in Common Soap” by Siegel-Maier, Karyn. Originally published in Better Nutrition Magazine

And one last thing that the commercial cosmetic industy wont tell you is that any soap with Parabens in them deplete the bodies Magnesium levels…turing the bodies Ph into acidic instead of Alkalin.


June 23rd, 2010 at 10:52 pm    

@Dene.On Cosmetics…They’re banned in Europe because of safety concerns, but they’re still widely used in this country. Some clinical studies link phthalates to cancer and birth defects and a federal lab in the RTP is revealing why you should be concerned about the beauty secret. “They have to put tons and tons of makeup on you because of all the lights,” said Olivia James, former model.
James spent 15 years living the glamorous life.”You know you’ve got someone working your hair, and you’ve got someone working your face,” James said. “There’s someone painting your nails.”James was a New York model.”Not just your face but your body was covered with a lot of corrective makeup, whether that’s foundation, concealer, um, very thick consistency, um, to make it look as perfect as possible,” said James. She thinks all that makeup was filled with chemicals called phthalates, and she’s convinced it led to a birth defect in her son, Darren. Something called hypospadias when the urethra does not form correctly. “I felt very guilty, as a mother,” she said. “You want to do everything you can to have a healthy happy child.”Dr. Earl Gray is a researcher in RTP. In his lab, he’s found evidence phthalates produce the very birth defect her son has.”We’ve studied about 13 or 14 different phthalates and of that group eight of them are positive for these kinds of effects,” said Dr. Gray. Gray works with the EPA. He’s doing some of the world’s leading research on the impact of phthalates. “There are also a lot of studies, human epidemiological studies, that have shown associations between phthalate exposures and cancers,” he explained. Those studies show a connection to breast cancer and testicular cancer. In 2005, FDA researchers tested 48 different products everything from body lotion, hair spray and deodorant to nail polish, body wash and shampoo. They looked for four different phthalates and found them in a total of 32 products or 66 percent, but the same study said there was no basis to regulate phthalates in the U.S. at that time.”I think consumers would have a very difficult time in deciding the products to not use, to avoid,” Gray said.
That’s because Dr. Gray said phthalates aren’t always included on the label.
In Europe, it’s easy to avoid phthalates. Two of them have been banned since 2004. Cosmetic companies have reformulated their products. “I personally take offense to that, that you can reformulate it for another country but you know, you can’t do it for us, our money is green just like anyone else,” James said.
Burt’s Bees is a natural cosmetics company headquartered in Wake County. Burt’s refuses to use phthalates.
“I do believe it’s putting people at risk because there’s enough evidence through a lot of research that they are carcinogens,” said Celeste Lutrario, Burt’s Bees. Lutrario spends a lot of time in the lab as head of research and development. She said it’s harder to make products without phthalates, but it’s the right thing to do. “They don’t need to be in them, and the fact is Europe has formulated without them, we’ve formulated without them, so they don’t need to be in the products,” said Lutrario.A trade group called The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association disagrees.
It says: “The use of phthalates in cosmetics and personal car products is supported by an extensive body of scientific research and data that confirms safety.”The FDA and EPA have examined phthalates used in cosmetics and have not restricted that use. But Dr. Gray says that could change. Federal officials are now scrutinizing his research. “The EPA has, is beginning, to do risk assessments on some of the phthalates.”For now, James is on her own crusade to convince people to stay away from phthalates. “Whenever I’m in the store, and I see the young girls they’re putting the makeup on. They’re trying them on, and you see pregnant women, and they’re putting makeup on and I just want to shake them. “Three cosmetic companies have recently announced they’re removing phthalates from their nail polish. They are Essie, OPI and Sally Hansen.

This isn’t just a concern for women.

In 2005, the CDC found breakdown chemicals from two of the most common cosmetic phthalates in almost every member of a group of 2,800 people.
An advocacy group said it has obtained ingredient lists for nearly 15,000 personal care products.
In January, Consumer Reports tested eight perfumes, and it said the products all contained phthalates.


June 23rd, 2010 at 11:06 pm    

Of course im sure that Dene would also contend that Vaccines are perfectly safe and harmless and that Floride is good for you and Chemtrails are just jet fuel exuast and that MSG and HFCS is also harmless and that Aspartame is safe to consume ect. I could be wrong but it appears to me that Dene is employeed by the cosmetics industry…so natuarly he or she is goin to defend it to the ut most…beacuse it is denes livelyhood…i am threatining denes livelyhood by waking others up to the truth…GOOD.


June 23rd, 2010 at 11:10 pm    

Question by Dene “Finally, for now, if you think that the skin absorbs everything put on it, how come people manage to swim in water for so long without becoming totally waterlogged? Ask any dermatologist about how much the skin can absorb – don’t rely on my word for it!

Anwser = Even a 3rd grader knows that the Body is made up of 75% water…we are naturally water logged.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.