• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

CEH labs identified 98 cancer causing shampoos- some are american crew, paul mitchel

S

santz

Golden Member
so some names include boots, american crew, herbal essence, paul mitchel, etc

News Story
http://health.yahoo.net/articles/beauty/cancer-causing-chemical-found-98-shampoos-and-soaps

Full list of the 98 cancer causing shampoos here
http://ceh.org/making-news/press-re...arly-100-hair-care-and-personal-care-products

Excerpts
'In the lawsuit, which was filed in California Superior Court in Alameda County, the CEH accuses the companies of "knowingly and intentionally exposing individuals to cocamide DEA without first giving clear and reasonable warnings to such individuals regarding the carcinogenicity of cocamide DEA." '

'The compound, a chemically modified form of coconut oil—cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA)—is used as a foaming agent or thickener in soaps, shampoos, conditioners, and similar products.'

'Many of the products tested contained more than 10,000 parts per million (ppm) of cocamide DEA. In all, CEH identified 98 products with cocamide DEA among the ingredients, none of which carried the warning required by state law.'

Scary, i use boots!! lawsuits have been filed to put warning labels on those products
 
Last edited:
Carcinogens are in everything, including the food you eat. The fact that it's in shampoo doesn't tell you much without a safe level being determined. I don't know anyone that's gotten head cancer.
 
Actuality is that there is a cancer causing chemical in these products (not all are shampoos, even a children's bubble bath 😱 ) - not that these products cause cancer. Still not a good thing.
 
santz said:
Full list of the 98 cancer causing shampoos here
http://ceh.org/making-news/press-re...arly-100-hair-care-and-personal-care-products
Click to expand...

i thought that was all of them, but nope pert isn't on there



just put a warning on everything
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(1986)

There is no penalty for posting an unnecessary warning sign.[24] Because of the overuse of the vague warning, the ubiquitous signs ultimately communicate very little information to the end user.
Click to expand...
 
There's cancer in everything. You can get cancer just going outside the damn house -- mother effing sun...

I'm getting tired of keeping track of this crap🙁. I use "green" conditioner to wash my scalp -- bald.
 
It sucks that DNA is as "Do I look like I give a damn?" about accurate replication as it is - then cancer wouldn't be something to worry about at all.




But I guess that also leaves the door open for evolution to do its thing. It just doesn't seem terribly concerned about attrition rates.
"Three out of one hundred survived to adulthood. Mission accomplished!"
 
Last edited:
boomerang said:
Everybody with or that ever had cancer drank water.
Click to expand...
Uh oh...if homeopathy's correct, those water molecules that passed through their bodies will remember what cancer and carcinogens were like. And since it's been very extensively diluted since then, that means Earth's water supply is now extraordinarily good at causing cancer!
 
Last edited:
It's a major industry for ambulance chasers in California to find any harmful substance in any product and sue if there isn't a warning label.

For example, a jar of Planters that doesn't include a warning that the product may contain nuts. Or that it's not safe to eat HDMI cables or drink battery acid.

Warning: this razor blade is sharp!

Warning: this bullet may cause lead poisoning!
 
I'm hoping to get part of the settlement when the People of California vs. The Sun class action finally comes through.
 
Fenixgoon said:
did the study show it caused cancer in humans or in lab rats?
Click to expand...
Actually, neither.
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol101/mono101-005.pdf

The study showed it caused cancer in lab *mice* when 99% pure stuff, applied at a dosage of 200mg/kg of body weight, for 2 years.

However, they repeated the study with lab rats and there were no differences between the control group & the ones getting doused in this stuff.
I.e., the studies show that it DOES NOT cause cancer in rats. (pg 145 in that study.)

One thing I wonder about - since it was applied topically, was there any way to control for mice grooming themselves (licking themselves)? Edit: also in the study, they noted that the results were the same as when the mice and rats were treated with diethanolamine. The process of making the coconut oil diethanolamine condensate results in some of the plain diethanolamine to stay behind (i.e., it's a mixture.) Therefore, it's quite possible that it's not the cocamide diethanolamine that causes the cancer (only in mice, not in rats), but rather, remaining unreacted diethanolamine that's in the product.

The study also looked at other available data about the metabolism of lauramide dea. It does not result in the formation of free diethanolamine, and is not carcinogenic. Thus, it's quite likely (the study didn't say this) that technically, cocamide dea is not carcinogenic. But rather, there's a little bit of a chance that free diethanolamine that exists in that product as a result of the manufacturing process could maybe, possibly, be carcinogenic in humans.
 
Last edited:
Interesting jump to conclusions in California.

The studies show that there's a chance it's carcinogenic. California declares it a known carcinogen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top