tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7533359987449375283.post8473348919833594900..comments2024-01-18T01:52:42.210-07:00Comments on Sterling Minerals® Skin Care Guide: Having A Bad Hair Day?Katherine@SterlingMineralshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09487912837691962695noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7533359987449375283.post-81503492228740995722009-07-10T19:56:06.188-06:002009-07-10T19:56:06.188-06:00You're welcome Charmaine! You know me from pa...You're welcome Charmaine! You know me from past articles, I am sure. I try to never leave a stone unturned. I am relentless in pursuit of facts and research! ;~D <br /><br />And you are correct, it is an ingredient that can be easily substituted for another. It is strictly personal preference on what a consumer wants in their personal care products. Me, personally, I don't throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. One funky ingredient not a problem, but a combination of many with risks would then give me pause!<br /><br />Take care and I thoroughly enjoyed providing you with the information. I am a research-aholic don't you know?! Feel free to pose questions at anytime over any concern you may have.Katherine@SterlingMineralshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09487912837691962695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7533359987449375283.post-81030463642246118072009-07-10T18:39:54.160-06:002009-07-10T18:39:54.160-06:00I think I could say you answered my question as th...I think I could say you answered my question as thoroughly as expected. :-) I appreciate you taking the time to share what you've discovered, since I only remember hearing the negatives on it when it first was reported in the late '90s. (I only included the link that came up right away in my search on Cocamide DEA to give you an idea of what I had heard about it in the past.) <br /><br />Anyway, interesting to see how the information has evolved to not be as problematic as was initially indicated. However, seeing that many hair care products don't contain DEA (most likely brands that are obtained from health-food type stores), I'm just assuming that over the past decade, other viable alternatives took the place of the so-called questionable ingredient and were able to perform well regardless. <br /><br />Thanks again for your insights!Charmainehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17581858164687841224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7533359987449375283.post-58599118858449701442009-07-10T08:56:52.176-06:002009-07-10T08:56:52.176-06:00I also found a description of further evidence fro...I also found a description of further evidence from Paula Begoun a well known consumer advocate in debunking myths and disseminating information about all the ingredients available in the cosmetic industry. She also weighs both sides to the argument in many cases and doesn't allow personal sentiment to cloud the facts.<br /><br />Diethanolamine(DEA)A Colorless liquid used as a solvent and pH adjuster. Also used as a lather agent in skin- and hair-care products when coupled with a foaming or detergent cleansing agent. In 1999 the National Toxicology Program (NTP) completed a study that found an association between cancer and tumors in laboratory animals and the application of diethanolamine (DEA) and certain DEA-related ingredients to their skin (Sources: Study #TR-478, Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Diethanolamine, CAS No. 111-42-2, July 1999—http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/; and Food Chemistry and Toxicology, January 2004, pages 127–134). For the DEA-related ingredients, the NTP study suggested that the carcinogenic response is linked to possible residual levels of DEA. However, the NTP study did not establish a link between DEA and the risk of cancer in humans. According to the FDA (Source: Office of Cosmetics and Colors Fact Sheet, December 9, 1999), “Although DEA itself is used in very few cosmetics, DEA-related ingredients (e.g., oleamide DEA, lauramide DEA, cocamide DEA) are widely used in a variety of cosmetic products. These ingredients function as emulsifiers or foaming agents and are generally used at levels of 1% to 5%. The FDA takes these NTP findings very seriously and is in the process of carefully evaluating the studies and test data to determine the real risk, if any, to consumers. The Agency believes that at the present time there is no reason for consumers to be alarmed based on the usage of these ingredients in cosmetics. Consumers wishing to avoid cosmetics containing DEA or its conjugates may do so by reviewing the ingredient statement required to appear on the outer container label of cosmetics offered for retail sale to consumers.” A study from 1999 on the potential effects of DEA involved applying a pure concentration of this ingredient directly to mouse skin for a period of 14 weeks (minimum) and 2 years (maximum). The study reported no evidence of carcinogenicity when low doses (50–100 mg per kilogram of body weight) were used. Internal changes to organs (liver, kidneys) and external signs (inflammation, ulcers) were found as the dosages of DEA increased (up to 800 mg was used) (Source: National Toxicology Program Technical Report Service, volume 478, July 1999, pages 134–212). Although the results of this study are interesting, it is still unrelated to how DEA is used in cosmetics products and how consumers use them. In most instances, our contact with DEA in any form is brief, and most likely is not cause for alarm.<br /><br />Well that is pretty much it, and it is clear I could have written an entire article on the subject, but it was better to address this to a pointed question rather than pose the question and answer on an ingredient I don't use in my product line as a separate article.<br /><br />Interesting data and thanks again, Charmaine!Katherine@SterlingMineralshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09487912837691962695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7533359987449375283.post-81818593669723579472009-07-10T07:09:20.273-06:002009-07-10T07:09:20.273-06:00The information I wanted to provide exceeded the a...The information I wanted to provide exceeded the allowed amount for each comment so I broke it into two separate comments. Cont'd below:<br /><br />The CIR Expert Panel’s decision to reevaluate the safety of Cocamide DEA in cosmetics and personal care products was based on occupational studies indicating that this ingredient may have sensitization potential. However, the CIR Expert Panel determined that these studies were not relevant to cosmetic use. Furthermore, the CIR Expert Panel agreed that its original conclusion on Cocamide DEA should be clarified relative to use of this ingredient in rinse-off and leave-on products. Clarification of the original conclusion is based on the results of a skin irritation test in which volunteers were tested with a surfactant solution containing 10% Cocamide DEA, the highest concentration tested in predictive patch tests. Based on this test, the CIR Expert Panel concluded that Cocamide DEA was safe as used in rinse-off products and safe at concentrations of less than or equal to 10% in leave-on products. The CIR Panel reaffirmed that Cocamide DEA should not be used as an ingredient in cosmetics and personal care products containing nitrosating agents.<br /><br />You will also find valuable information provided within this same article from the FDA and EU along with links to complete articles on Nitrosamines and Diethanolamine (DEA).<br /><br />Also another source that I pay close attention to is the MSDS since they must provide testing and reports of any negative aspects of an ingredient. Although it can be an eye irritant and possible skin sensitizer in industrial exposure, they still report no toxic chronic effects on organs and no Carcinogenicity during exposure under normal conditions.<br /><br />Watchdog groups and others with an agenda behind their findings are always suspect in my book and I don't take what they offer as science, but cherry pick minimalistic case studies to try to substantiate a weak argument.<br /><br />If you are having great results with Aubrey and Avalon products then use them because they work, but not because certain product manufacturers use scare tactics to emphasize as a reason to use their products without providing case study statistics. All that ever really matters is what is important to you the consumer. It is ultimately your decision as to what you want to use on your body or put in your body. <br /><br />But an ingredient that is clearly being used as a thickener rather than a surfactant based on the location of this ingredient on the list, does not create a concern for me, personally. The first 2-3 ingredients on any product label will be the majority of the overall profile of what is being used on the skin. All other ingredients beyond this scale are used for support and to enhance those ingredients to improve efficacy and performance of the personal care product you desire. And the fact it is a rinse off product, creates very little pause in me to worry about such an insignificant ingredient way down on the ingredient list. <br /><br />Thank you so much for providing this article and information. It is articles and questions like these that keep me on my toes and to make sure that information is disseminated accurately.Katherine@SterlingMineralshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09487912837691962695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7533359987449375283.post-24750531389142667562009-07-10T06:45:19.274-06:002009-07-10T06:45:19.274-06:00My research on Cocamide DEA was a simple one. I a...My research on Cocamide DEA was a simple one. I am not usually concerned about an ingredient that is being demonized by those on the internet that are clearly promoting either their own or others products that are stating they are free of this ingredient.<br /><br />Although the article that you provided Charmaine is well written, the information it provides is unsubstantiated and is a recycled version of 100's of versions on the internet. I Googled this ingredient and it wasn't any surprise to see the same information sprinkled throughout the pages. I have also learned to be suspicious of articles when they begin with touting a company's products as getting it right, to only follow it up with the purchase information at the end.<br /><br />I focus on the larger picture and always investigate both sides of the issue. Something I have always provided to my customers. In this case again, they are showing studies that were done on rats, and humans are not rats. There DNA is completely different from ours and their skin is so much thinner. They are also exposing these rats to concentration levels that exceed the boundaries of what you would find in a personal care product. There are no known studies to date proving this is a carcinogen in humans, unequivocally. They also are not providing substantial information as to case study references and the fact that this information is based on large manufacturing undiluted doses, not the amount one would typically use in the actual personal care product. The location of this ingredient on the list would suggest it is in a concentration of 1-5%.<br /><br />Furthermore, there is not a concern as to this ingredient being carcinogenic alone but only when nitrosamines are present as in the use of nitrates found in preservation of foods, and they are also found in our environment. Cosmetic manufacturers are aware of this as the FDA reports and through buffering agents and using proper storage containers, nitrosamines do not form as long as the product does not turn acidic. It still would be in a minimal amount and not enough to worry about since, though rare, they are 1 part per billion in testing when found in personal care products.<br /><br />The FDA and Cosmetics Directive of the European Union have no restrictions on this ingredient and the EWG concurs with stating there are no bioaccumulative effects in humans showing this to be carcinogenic even though they also represent this with a 65% data gap. Only in the use of combining it with nitrosating agents was a concern shown as possibly being able to penetrate the skin but without actual case studies of mutagenic effects.<br /><br />The paragraph below was taken from one of my valued sources, and feel free to copy and paste it into your web browser and then enter in the ingredient in search box.<br /><br />http://www.cosmeticsinfo.org/Katherine@SterlingMineralshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09487912837691962695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7533359987449375283.post-47108938950042510502009-07-09T20:54:52.516-06:002009-07-09T20:54:52.516-06:00After your positive review, I was ready to go out ...After your positive review, I was ready to go out and buy some! But, then I noticed that one of the ingredients listed is Cocamide DEA. I remember there being a study done stating that DEA is a suspected cancer-causing agent and have avoided it since then. <br />http://www.astrostar.com/Toxic-Shampoos.htm<br /><br />I know you're very savvy about toxic ingredients in cosmetics, so am wondering if you've investigated to find that Cocamide DEA isn't as much of a concern as was first made out to be?<br /><br />Thus far, I've been using Aubrey Organics and Avalon Organics for hair care products and have been pleased with them.Charmainehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17581858164687841224noreply@blogger.com