The truth about Sodium Laureth Sulfate?

[amcal]

I've been reading on most natural websites that SLS's are carcinogenic and to be avoided at all costs. So, we've gone shampoo free, are actively looking at all our other products to make sure that they don't contain SLS. I'm also making shampoo bars etc. Then, I run across this website on the American Cancer Society's website
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/co...nd_Trouble.asp

So, what's true? Obviously SLS's are still chemicals and we're trying to go as natural as possible so we're still avoiding them. And obviously, these products contain lots of other chemicals and natural is better. Just wondering if anyone had any info supporting the claim that SLS's are hazzardous to your health. I'm asking because I'm trying to get my family to go to more natural products and they're just not buying that these are so dangerous.

[pilesoflaundry]

I wonder also since snopes.com says it is false also :

http://www.snopes.com/toxins/shampoo.htm

I'm not saying it doesn't irritate some people as all chemicals do but maybe it's not deadly?

[plantspirit]

frankly, i highly doubt that anyone REALLY knows what these chemcials do to you... we've only been using them for a hundred years at BEST, and there havent been long term studies done. sure, dosing a rat with large amounts is one thing...but continued use over time... ove ra lifetime...probalby has it's effects....
AND THEN, there is the whole problem of the PRODUCTION of the chemical. even if it isn't problematic for us on our body....it probably produces loads of toxins in the production, that are probably releaseed inot he environment somewhere downthe line.

frankly i dont' believe much of what the goverment tells me is true.... just me though...
( like ephedra , comfrey etc etc....)

[kchapman]

From what I have read, the fact that SLS is harmful is a rumor and unsupported. It is the findings of Dr. Keith Green of the Medical College of Georgia that has been misreported by companies looking to profit from the fact that they use ammonium lauryl sulphate instead of SLS. " The Medical College of Georgia threatened legal action against the company that appears to be most responsible for perpetuating the false information"

There is a website http://www.oehha.org the Office of Environmental Health Assessment that keeps a list of toxic chemicals.

As of yet SLS is not listed....

[sistermama]

I figure, why use products with any weird chemicals, when I can easily find ones that don't have them? Asbestos was once considered a totally safe substance.

[Peppamint]

Originally Posted by sistermama

I figure, why use products with any weird chemicals, when I can easily find ones that don't have them? Asbestos was once considered a totally safe substance.

Well said!

I also agree with plantspirit about the production of these chemicals.

[pilesoflaundry]

kchapman, thanks for that link I looked up a few other things.

Sorta OT but can anyone explain this to me?
http://tinyurl.com/23qas

It's what came up when I did a search on propylene glycol, says something about the liver being a target organ but I can't understand the rest of the date numbers and how I can find out more. I know it's a form of antifreeze- it's listed as the 'pet safe' type on the bottle.

And it's also listed as an ingredient in the bottle of infant tylenol I have in the house just in case. I wonder if they just started putting it in there because I know it wasn't before but I happened to notice they changed the picture on the box so I checked the ingredients yuck! I wonder now if it isn't the combo of tylenol and alcohol that can cause liver damage but the actual crap in the tylenol.

[Pam_and_Abigail]

My sister and I are looking into this too. There's even stuff here about it being false:

http://www.tomsofmaine.com/toms/ifs/sls.asp

wondering about this

[MellowMama]

Here are a few links about this. I don't know who to believe, but I'm trying to eliminate SLS as well as other possibly harmful chemicals from my home. I like using natural products better anyway.

http://www.livingnature.com/ourprodu...ements.html#06

http://www.aubrey-organics.com/about/treat_10synth.cfm

http://www.evansgarden.com/articles/...redients1.html

[Meiri]

Asbestos was once considered a totally safe substance.

Asbestos is natural.

I don't look at it from a chemical versus natural perspective. That's a false dichotomy IMO since everything is a chemical when you get right down to it. We are made up of many "chemicals" and chemical reactions are occuring in our bodies constantly: digestion being a big one, oxygen exchange being another.

I try to look at what is safe versus less safe versus dangerous. There are loads of perfectly natural substances (chemicals made by Nature Herself) that will kill you just as surely as anything from a manufacturing plant. There are loads of manufactured substances that save lives.

Take as you will.

[xenabyte]

When I found Tom's of Main kids toothpaste in the little containers like the 'half toothpaste/half mouthwash' in grape, with no floride, I was so happy. The DS loved it. But then I saw they have SLS in it So of course they are going to say it's safe.

Then I found that JASON's brands didnt, and I love the sea fresh mint, and powersmile peppermint, but not exactly a mild taste a kid likes. So I'll have to keep looking. I have the kids toothpaste from Burt's Bees, but the taste isn't great (the lavendar is wierd, and the cinnamon one kinda burns even my mouth! (I test everything on me first). The orange flavor is ok, kinda bland, and the DS won't use it unless forced, and I don't want to do that, and cause mental blocks/issues with brushing teeth being a bad experience. At the moment, he begs me to let him brush several times a day...and I want to encourage it!

I think the only thing they know for sure about SLS is that it can accumulate in the body and in certain organs, but not if it's toxic to accumulate...erm....ok.... :

And I was just so happy to find floride free stuff! JASON is also making a new gel, but it has floride. So I guess they are caving to the populace asking for it....Ick...

[melissa17s]

Can I ask a question... is the sls being bad related to the Cocomide DEA and MEA being bad? I remember a few years ago, both were in the news for being linked to cancer, so we found one shampoo that did not contain them. The reason I ask is because both are generally derived from coconut... and I did not hear about the sls until this thread. I notice the Jason's handsoap does not contain the sls.

[softee4baby]

No matter how many people I speak with they all have different opinions on SLES and SLS. Much of the information they have is just urban myth. It is based on a email hoax that circulated the net around 1998-99. It has been proven there is no scientific evidence based on this hoax. But like most hoaxes, it gains steam as it is passed from person to person. As of TODAY, there is no science proving that these products are carcinogenic. I am someone who makes Natural and Handmade products for Body Care, and my family use everything I produce. I'm not goint to try and sell everyone on the benefits of SLS SLES, just point out a couple of things.

What are they?
These Products are surfactants, they are meant to create bubbles. They are meant to help aid in removing oil and grease. They are all meant to be rinsed off of the skin and hair. That part is important!

SLS - SODIUM LAURYL SULFATE

According to American College of Toxicology, 'SLS does cause severe irritation and epidermal changes to skin on experimental lab rats....' furthermore they go on to support the use of SLS as safe for use in 'discontinuous, brief use, followed by thorough rinsing..'

SLES - Sodium LAURETH Sulfate

'...exert emulsifying action to remove oil and dirt from hair and skin...produces eye and/or skin irritation in lab rats....and in some human test subjects...similar to other detergents effects....SLS has not evoked adverse responses in other toxilogical testing...are safe as used in present cosmetic products'

In these experiments SLS and SLES is applied to the skin in concentrations and left on the skin to determine reactivity. SLS does appear to have more of an adverse reaction to test skin patches. These tests were done with concentrations of 1,2-5 % in solution.

Check USDA and Canadian Government websites where they dispell the myth

and this link helps....

http://www.ctfa.org/Content/Navigati...net_Rumors.htm

Now a simple test, take your everyday 'commercial bar of soap', rub on your arm and let sit for...say an hour or two. Chances are it will start to irritate your skin. The same test, using PURE NATURAL Essential Oils or Heaven forbid BLEACH. I'm not saying to try any of these tests or experiments. I just want to point out that there are two sides to one story. Like most things in our everyday life, you need to guide yourself accordingly. Being informed and educated is your best bet as a consumer.

If you don't want to use SLS and SLES you can definitely find many great products that don't contain sufactants.

I try to use everyday natural products for my family. For starters simply using a pure REAL BAR of soap. Make sure it is non detergent based. For your hair, Use a shampoo bar! NO SLS OR SLES found in there. Great for washing you hair and skin. Hope this helps a little bit....

[Mere]

You know what I just saw that contains Sodium Lauryl Sulfate? Dr. Bronner's Sal Suds!?!?! Hmm...I do all my laundry with Sal Suds, and I'm not sure what to think of this bit of information...

[CairaJade]

The statement that SLS is carcinogenic is completely unsubstantiated and evidence of how quickly the internet can give credence to baseless rumors and spread falsehoods. It is a mild skin irritant and pretty much no worse than any other artifically produced "chemical" in most commercial products (source MSDS).

Now on to the word chemical. I know exactly what you ladies are referring to, and I too wish to eliminate all unnecessary artifical and questionable compounds from my home. I make many of my own bath products, use only vegetable soaps, clean with vinegar, and read labels. But, everything is a chemical. Water is a chemical. Even the most "natural" of products are made entirely of chemicals. Soap, completely natural vegetable-based soaps, are perfect examples of a true chemical - any substance produced through a chemical reaction. Fat+alkali=saponification, which yields soap. I'm just urging all of us to choose our words carefully, not trying to nitpick semantics. It's bad enough that many think we're nuts for rejecting elements of mainstream culture, we don't need to injure our cause by using questionable facts and poor science.

Other have pointed out very good relevant facts - that long-term studies have not been done, that its production undoubtably has detrimental side effects, especially to the environment, etc. If that's enough to steer you away from certain substances, so be it. But also keep in mind that some of the most toxic "chemicals" and poisons on Earth are "natural." Natural does not always equal good, and artifical does not always equal bad. The best we can do for ourselves, for our families, and as stewards of this plant is to be a smart consumers and make good, educated choices. Don't eschew something on an internet rumor alone.

[3 little birds]

I was under the impression that SLS's are petroleum based. If so, it is good enough reason for me to avoid them.

[Meiri]

Petroleum comes straight out of Mother Earth....natural.

[3 little birds]

I guess I am confused. Because something is natural it's ok to put on your skin or ingest? Petroleum products block pores, preventing toxins from escaping.

I also believe that petroleum serves a purpose in the earth, so avoiding removing it from the earth is important to me.

Soy is natural, but when processed into products, it loses it's health benefits.

JMO.

[Peppamint]

Originally Posted by Meiri

Petroleum comes straight out of Mother Earth....natural.

So is poison ivy, but I run screaming.

[Meiri]

So is poison ivy, but I run screaming.

I agree!:LOL

3littlebirds, my point is that just because something is natural does not mean it's safe AND just because something is not entirely natural does not mean it's unsafe.

As CairaJade pointed out EVERYTHING is chemical, including US and our bodily processes. The tone here is that if something is "chemical" then it is automatically something to be avoided at all cost, nevermind that science has not supported the supposed danger of the chemical under discussion.

This carries over to many threads on this site and it's frustrating. There are things we should avoid, most definately. I have started paying attention to the types of plastics used in the containers we have here because of discussions at this site, but I have no plans to toss Every piece of plastic we own just because they're *gasp* plastic. There are levels of danger and levels of safety, but that doesn't come across here.

In fact it looks to me like the discussion of the dangers just kept rolling along despite a few posters pointing out the Science of this stuff and what is known, despite a couple of us pointing out the reality of "chemicals" versus "natural".

I think this bears repeating: "It is as fatal as it is cowardly to blink at facts because they are not to our taste."~John Tyndall, and yes it does cut both ways. I bear it in mind frequently along with "what will you do once you know?" as I learn new things here and elsewhere.