There was some big news in the cosmetic world when industry giant Procter & Gamble announced that it would be reformulating all of its Herbal Essences shampoos to reduce the level of a known “toxic” chemical.
According to this Cosmetics Design story, P&G made a deal with an environmental activist to reduce the level of 1,4-dioxane in Herbal Essences shampoo to avoid being sued.
Reportedly, the environmental activist group found that Herbal Essences contained 24 parts per million (ppm) of 1,4-dioxane. In California, the compound is allowable up to 10 ppm.
Shampoo Contaminant
1,4-dioxane is not an ingredient companies put in their formulas on purpose. It is a contaminant that is left over from the process that “ethoxylates” surfactants to make them less harsh. (Like when Sodium Lauryl Sulfate is converted to the less harsh Sodium Laureth Sulfate). For more on the safety of shampoos see the post Mid Brain wrote on “Baby Shampoos Are Safer Than Soup.”)
Is Herbal Essences More Safe?
No.
While 1,4-dioxane is nasty stuff, the levels that it is found in shampoos is not high enough to have an impact on people’s health. The thing that environmental activists always seem to ignore is that it’s not just the toxicity that matters…It’s the DOSE that matters.
All chemicals, including Natural Spring Water, can be toxic or lethal at a high enough exposure level. 24 ppm of 1,4-dioxane has not been shown to have any affect on people (or rats for that matter).
Why did P&G Reformulate?
More than anything, decisions in the cosmetic industry are driven by PR. If something is good PR for the company, they’ll do it. If it’s not, they won’t. Herbal Essences has been struggling to maintain market share and this news that it will be “safer” will certainly help boost sales.
Perhaps a clever ploy by P&G?
Although it disturbs me that they have to resort to this kind of fear marketing. It simply serves to make people more suspicious and fearful of perfectly fine cosmetic and beauty products.
But at least it keeps us cosmetic chemists employed.
It does make me wonder however…Why aren’t they reformulating Pantene or Head and Shoulders? They use the same basic surfactants and would certainly have the same level of 1,4-Dioxane?
Hmmmm?
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
“Why aren’t they reformulating Pantene or Head and Shoulders? They use the same basic surfactants and would certainly have the same level of 1,4-Dioxane?
Hmmmm?”
Perhaps Pantene and Head&Shoulders sell rather well so the don’t need any kind of pushing..
also this toxin is illegal in Europe and I checked my UK Herbal Essences and this ingredient is not on the list. So they basically produce two formulas? That seems like a waste
Ally, it’s not listed on the ingredients of the American-made bottles either. As the Brains said, it’s a by-product of the refining process and sinced it’s not an additive, it doesn’t have to be listed.
alright, but since it’s forbidden in EU how to they go around that by-product being created? or do they just ignore the law?
thanks btw for explanation
“Although it disturbs me that they have to resort to this kind of fear marketing. It simply serves to make people more suspicious and fearful of perfectly fine cosmetic”
That’s just what I thought when I saw news of this. It only reinforces the idea that certain products are toxic, when most times they are perfectly safe in concetrations found in cosmetics.
If 1,4-dioxane is a byproduct of ethoxylation from sodium lauryl sulfate to sodium laureth sulfate, then using less sodium laureth sulfate would reduce the level of the dioxane.
It would follow common sense to use the minimum amount of shampoo sufficient to get hair clean to reduce exposure (and also help your wallet).
Note that the contaminant 1, 4 Dioxane is a by product of the “eth” ingredients, including Propyethenol, Ethylene glycol, Polyethylene, Oleth, Myreth and Laureth.
Yet another reason to avoid P & G. I just wrote a post this morning about their animal testing. I’ll be linking to this article!
{ 2 trackbacks }