Lin longs to learn about Ammonium Hydroxide: I’ve noticed it in several skincare products (like Neostrata AHA gel) and I’m worried because I read on a medical website that Ammonium hydroxide is a toxin and is found in many industrial products and cleaners such as flooring strippers, brick cleaners, and cements. And worst of all they warn you not to get it on your skin or in your eyes. Why is this toxic chemical in cosmetics?
The Right Brain lends a hand:
Thanks, Lin. Consumers should be asking questions like this to find out if their cosmetics are safe. But believe it or not, a lot of cosmetic (and food products!) contain ingredients that can be harmful at high concentrations. It’s actually perfectly safe to use ingredients like this as long as they’re formulated properly. Here are three reasons occasions that it’s ok to have toxic chemicals in cosmetics.
1. Present at low levels
The ingredient can be added to the formula at such a low level that it has no negative effect whatsoever. Some preservatives are irritating when applied directly to the skin. But when used at very low levels in a product they are much more easily tolerated by most people.
2. Used up in a reaction
The ingredient can be used up or reacted so it`s not actually present in the finished product in a harmful form. Ammonium hydroxide is a good example of this type: it reacts with acidic materials in the formula and is neutralized to form a safe salt.
3. It’s not abused
The ingredient can be dangerous if abused, but is safe if used properly. For example, a hair relaxer is very dangerous if you swallow it or get it in your eye. But when you use this toxic product properly, there’s usually no problem. (Although some people do find relaxers irritating.)
The Beauty Brains bottom line:
Obviously, we’re being a little tongue-in-cheek here. We’re not saying that ALL toxic ingredients should be treated as safe. We’re just saying that you shouldn’t over react to something you read on website when the information is provided out of context. Ammonium hydroxide is not something you have to worry about in your skin lotion.
Similar Posts:
Loading ...
Anne-Marie Says:
Thank you for your common sense posting. Wow! Finally someone that understands that not all chemicals are a cancer agent when used properly. In my line of work, parabens are the current fear and consumers seem to be more fearful of parabens then say, the proven-killers like the McDonald’s they eat every week or the fact that they’re 50 pounds overweight because they don’t work out. Thank you for your web site; I read it almost every day and really enjoy it.
Ellen Says:
My questions is this: Even though many toxic chemicals may be “safe” if used properly, how would you address the question of what happens when these chemicals build in our bodies over time? While it’s true that an infrequent chemical exposure may not be harmful at the time if exposure, after years of exposure, these chemicals do build up in our fatty tissues and present an undue toxic load. Your thoughts?
thebeautybrains Says:
Ellen: Thanks for your comment! Before you worry about harmful exposure, you have to consider three factors: First, the chemical has to be able to get INSIDE your body. Most chemicals used in topical cosmetics don’t penetrate through the skin so they never get into your blood. Second, even IF they get into your body, they have to bioaccumulate in fatty tissue. This happens with some materials (mercury poisoning works this way, for example) but many chemicals don’t build up this way. Third, the chemical has to have some kind of negative effect on the body.
SageMother Says:
It’s good to see some level headed talk regarding these substances.
I think people are losing their ability to think rationally about the way the body actually processes many substances. They fail to evaluate the source of frightening information and th motive behind the disemination of certain views.
Kudos!
Left Brain Says:
Thanks for the comments. It’s good that not everyone is afraid of chemiclas.
Better living through chemistry!
Patricia Says:
I’m not really sure if I would be so inclined to agree with your opinions on this matter.
Realistically, the Federal Food, Drug, And Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) does not require pre-market safety testing, review, or approval for cosmetics. And when I last checked, the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety found 884 chemicals that were in use in cosmetics that have been reported as toxic substances.
And again, last I checked, the FDA has committed an astonishing NO resources towards assessing the safety problems of those chemicals which have been found to cause genetic damage, biological mutations, and cancer in these products.
And as for the permeability of the skin, I’m sure the arguement holds true for some chemicals, that they are far too big to get through our skin and into our blood steam. But when we’re dealing with a number like 884, some of them are bound to get through. One that immediatley jumps to my mind is the cosmetic preservative butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), which absorbs about 13% of it’s mass in our skin and beyond.
So, to me, it seems like there’s far too little evidence to be firm in a decision either way. We’re really acting on faith that companies won’t poison us. And personally, I don’t give them that much credit.
Concerned Says:
Did you know only 11% of the ingredients used in personal care and cosmetic products are actually tested for safety? In fact, it is up to the manufacturer whether they decide to test their products for safety or not. Did you know manufacturer’s do not have to put the ingredients of fragrance on their labels because these are considered “trade secrets”? The FDA also has no power to recall any cosmetic or personal care products off the shelf. This article is just full of lies. We don’t know what these toxins do to our bodies, but we do know that many of the ingredients in personal care products and cosmetics has been linked to skin allergies, irritation, cancer, and more. Gee, but I guess if its at low levels, it’ll only kill me slowly.
thebeautybrains Says:
Concerned, what lies are you specifically talking about?
It sounds like you must’ve read and taken to heart everything written by the lawyers over at the Environmental Working Group. Did you know that the FDA just recently seized millions of dollars worth of a cosmetic produced by Jan Marini because it had an unapproved chemical in it? So much for your “no power” theory. Why don’t you find some sources that aren’t so biased in favor of what you already believe?
If the cosmetics we are using every day were killing us, why is it that life expectancy continues to go up as cosmetic use increases?
There are much more dangerous things to worry about like smoking, drinking and dying in car accidents than the ingredients in cosmetics.
Patricia, two questions.
1. What is the source of your statement that 13% of BHT is absorbed through the skin?
2. What evidence do you have that it is harmful when absorbed as such?
I guess it comes down to what level of risk you are willing to accept. We don’t really need to use cosmetics so if you wanted to remove all risk, stop using them. All of them. They are not needed. But if you want to look, smell, and feel better, then you’ll just have to open yourself up to the potential that some compounds used in cosmetics may cause you harm when used over the course of your lifetime.
Concerned Says:
Ok fine, we’ll be unbiased. Maybe you should focus on the the fact that only 11% of ingredients used in cosmetics are tested for safety and that fragrance ingredients do not need to be stated. Would you sleep with a guy that was only tested for 11% of the known STDs? Well, enjoy herpes or AIDS or whatever else is out there.
Left Brain Says:
Actually, fragrance ingredients do have to be listed if they are known irritants. Ingredients like Limonene, Linalool, and Citronellol are all components of the fragrance that are listed on cosmetic labels.
The fact that only 11% of cosmetic ingredients has been tested is false. More likely 99%+ of the ingredients have been tested. They just haven’t been reviewed by the CIR.
Cosmetic manufacturers require safety data on every single ingredient they get from raw material suppliers. Without it, they would have to do much more animal testing on finished formulas and no one wants to do animal testing if they don’t have to.
The companies that I’ve worked for always required a dossier of safety data on every ingredient that went into the formula.
The CIR reviews ingredients on a prioritized basis. So, if they collected data on something like Coconut Oil, they make the assumption that other similar ingredients like Palm Kernel Oil or Soybean Oil would react similarly. We can use our brains and knowledge of chemistry to logically determine what may represent a serious risk or not.
You’re question about STD is a “straw man” logical fallacy and doesn’t apply here. Although, I suspect that almost no guys are regularly tested for STDs.
Thanks for your comments and concerns. No one wants people to be using products that will harm them. The scientists in the cosmetic industry formulate responsibly and the FDA requires everyone to have proof on hand that what they are selling is safe.
*btw from the EWG site: “…only 13 percent of the 10,500 ingredients in personal care products have been reviewed for safety by the cosmetic industry’s own review panel”. Where did you get the erroneous 11% number?
Concerned Says:
“The industry’s self-policing safety panel falls far short of compensating for the lack of government oversight. An EWG analysis found that in its 30-year history, the industry’s self-policing safety panel has reviewed the safety of just 11 percent of the 10,500 ingredients used in personal care products. FDA does no systematic reviews of safety.” From the EWG website on cosmetic safety.
thebeautybrains Says:
Show me the link. Because on this page of their website they say
http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/press.php
“By law, the government cannot mandate safety studies of cosmetics products or their ingredients, and only 13 percent of the 10,500 ingredients in personal care products have been reviewed for safety by the cosmetic industry’s own review panel.”
Concerned Says:
http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/whythismatters.php
Concerned Says:
As to the “look, smell, and feel better” comment, there are tons of SAFE all-natural cosmetics out there that are so MUCH BETTER than the toxic ones. So why take a risk when you don’t have to. This beauty blog is such bull because they act as if you don’t have a choice. Use toxic cosmetics or be ugly, smelly, or whatever. YOU HAVE ALTERNATIVES AND IT IS YOUR CHOICE AS TO WHETHER YOU NEED THEM OR NOT. The beauty industry is always trying to convince women that they need to do things to themselves, put on more makeup, or whatnot to be beautiful. Ladies, confidence is true beauty. Forget this beautybrain idiocy.
Concerned Says:
Bottom Line: You do not need cosmetics to “feel better” about yourself or to feel beautiful!
Concerned Says:
By the way, life expectancy increased because of improved health care and advances in the medical field, not because people started putting on cosmetic products everyday.
thebeautybrains Says:
So the EWG sloppily puts 13% on one page of their website and 11% on the other. Is this what passes for quality control? Which is it?
Everyone has a choice. You don’t need to use ANY cosmetic. You can stay clean enough to prevent disease with just soap and water.
You are correct that the beauty industry is trying to convince people to buy things they don’t really need. Just like almost every other industry.
The “Natural” arm of the beauty industry is also trying to get people to buy things that they don’t need. There is no proof that these cosmetics are “safer” and they are just as unregulated as the entire cosmetic industry. In fact, most natural products are put out by small companies who follow even less stringent production rules.
You are correct too that life expectancy increases aren’t related much to cosmetics. They are mostly related to all the SYNTHETIC, non-natural cures developed by the pharmaceutical companies. If we leave it up to nature and natural cures, we’d be dying much earlier in life.