Parabens Continued...A Reply & Response.

Recently I posted an editorial on parabens, and in the resulting discussion one of my readers, Lulubelle of Bon Vivant Beauty, brought up a good point that I want to address. Since my commentary was more on the marketing aspect of the paraben controversy, I glossed over some of the concerns about this common family of preservatives. I am not a chemist or dermatologist, and being that the science on parabens is still emerging, I have generally left the issue to those who have greater access to the current literature on the subject. Still, my commentary has opened up some discussion (which I love) and I definitely don't want to ignore such a vital topic.

Though I discussed paraben sensitivities in my article, one of the prevalent concerns about parabens is the possible link to estrogenic activities. In her comment, Lulubelle mentions having looked at several studies, and though there is a mountain of research on the issue, the majority of the scientific literature I've seen doesn't exactly point to a direct cause and effect situation. One thing I've learned in my years of cosmetic research is how important it is to look at the parameters of a study and whether they realistically apply to humans.

One of the studies I found used to implicate parabens was done in fish (yes, fish) using a dose of 100-300 mg/kg. In case you didn't know (I didn't, luckily FutureDerm's Nicki Zovolo did the math for us!) that's about 24 times higher than a reasonable estimate of human exposure. Oh, and the fish were injected with the parabens; not exactly the same as slathering night cream on their... scales. This and other such studies contain information that sounds alarming when taken out of context, but so far have failed to concern me. But you don't have to take my word for it- this study published in Critical Reviews in Toxicology states: "it is biologically implausible that parabens could increase the risk of any estrogen-mediated endpoint". Couldn't have said it better myself.

The most eye-catching headline of late concerning parabens has been the discovery of parabens in breast cancer tissue. While that certainly sounds like a cause for concern, it's important to note that the authors of the study don't conclude that parabens are harmful in any way, only that further research is warranted. To date, In fact, the current scientific consensus is that parabens are safe for use in cosmetics in concentrations up to 25%, though typically they're only used at levels of 0.01 to 0.3%.

Here is some more interesting information on parabens:

• Despite internet rumors to the contrary, parabens are used legally in cosmetics in the EU, though some types of parabens (those that were not used in cosmetics) have been banned. Methylparaben and Ethylparaben can be used at a maximum concentration of 0.4% Butylparaben and Propylparaben are allowed at a use level of 0.19%.
• Evidence has shown that parabens do not accumulate in the system beyond 36 hours, meaning there is no logical risk of "build up" for the life time user.
• Parabens are 10,000 to 100,000 times weaker than natural estrogen in the body.
• We eat 10 times the amount of parabens in our food than what we're exposed to in our cosmetics.
• Parabens occur naturally in many plants, such as honeysuckle and cocoa. They are also found in fruits and veggies like carrots, coconuts, blueberries, olives, raspberries, and strawberries. According to cosmetic chemist Dene Godfrey, "If natural substances are extracted from plants that contain parabens, it follows that parabens may be present in the final cosmetic product". Using that logic, popular "paraben-free" brands like Burt's Bees, Dr. Hauschka, Korres, and Yes To (among many, many others) may not be telling the whole truth with their paraben-free claims.

Of course, I don't mean this (or really any of my posts) to be taken as a compendium of all available data; I simply wanted to present you with information on why I personally am not concerned about parabens in my cosmetics. Take this post as a bit more insight into what has informed the opinion I expressed in my previous post- that many companies are perpetuating a perhaps un-earned negative perception for profit. Of course, science is constantly evolving, and since parabens are a hot-button issue right now, I have no doubt that study in the area will be ongoing. As always, I'll keep an ear to the ground, and you know I'll let you know if I hear any rumbles!

Product Review:Burt's Bees Sensitive Skin Solutions

Recently, I was invited to participate in my first BzzAgent campaign and got the chance to try two new products from Burt's Bees. Both items were from the company's new Natural Skin Solutions for Sensitive Skin line. Burt defines sensitive skin as skin that shows signs of redness, irritation, stinging, dryness, itching, blotchiness, rashes or even skin that easily breaks out. Since I exhibit all of those symptoms (though luckily, usually not all at the same time) I certainly fit into the line's target demo.

The products I was sent were the Sensitive Facial Cleanser and the Sensitive Daily Moisturizing Cream. Both products, as with all products in Burt's Sensitive line, are fragrance-free, hypo-allergenic, allergy-tested and dermatologist-tested. It's important to remember though, most of those terms are marketing terms, not scientific ones. There's absolutely no regulation for use of the term hypo-allergenic, and all "allergy tested" and "dermatologist tested" tell us is that they were tested. The terms alone don't tell us what they were tested for, whom they were tested by, or even what the results are. Of course, having these terms doesn't automatically make the product bad, but it doesn't necessarily make the product better either.

Burt's Bees Sensitive Facial Cleanser ($10 for 6oz) is a rich cream cleanser that is designed to cleanse skin without causing irritation or stripping skin of its natural protective barrier.

I found this cleanser to be gentle and non-drying, and while it's not greasy, I do think it's a formula best left to drier skin types. The cleanser contains plenty of emollient ingredients, and while it does rinse away mostly with water, I felt like it left a waxy film behind. A peek at the ingredients shows several potentially comedogenic ingredients, notably the coconut and cotton oils. This may not be as big of a deal in a rinse-off cleanser, but it's certainly something break-out prone individuals should be aware off. I also felt like this cleanser lacked a little bit in the makeup removal category; I definitely saw traces of foundation left behind after cleansing.


Burt's Bees Sensitive Daily Moisturizing Cream ($15 for 1.8oz) is non-SPF hydrator that has a nice not-too-thick, not-too-thin lotion consistency.

It smooths on easily and leaves skin feeling slightly balmy, though on my dry skin it was not at all oily. I actually feel like this is just on the borderline of not being rich enough for my dry skin, and would guess that the formula would be best for normal skin that is not excessively oily or excessively dry. I like the pump bottle: its opaque, airtight design keeps antioxidants and soothing ingredients at peak performance, and it was very easy to control the amount coming out of the tube. Pumps are also more sanitary than jars, an important consideration for all skin types.

I did notice that both versions of the Sensitive moisturizers (this one and the Night Cream, which I did not test) have corn starch listed quite high on the ingredient list, which I find concerning. Corn starch is used as a thickener, skin protectant and absorbent in skin care, but is also abrasive, which is not good for anyone with sensitive skin. It also can promote fungal and bacterial growth, which is why it's generally recommended that acne prone skin types avoid it- the corn starch actually feeds the bacteria that cause acne!

One last thing I have to concede is my confusion of Burt's use of "Cotton Extract" and the claims that the brand makes surrounding it. While the picture of cotton on the label certainly conjures up feelings of comfort and gentleness, I couldn't find any evidence that this "extract" (more commonly known as cottonseed oil) functions as anything but an occlusive emollient. While occlusive ingredients (even basic petroleum) may help to keep skin hydrated and promote healing, I think more is implied by Burt's claims. Sure, eliminating irritation may make skin softer and reduce redness (which would, in turn, make skin appear more even-toned) BUT irritation is not the only cause of such symptoms. If you have such issues in the absence of actual irritation, cotton extract won't do a thing for you. 

Despite the exaggerated marketing, Burt's Bees Sensitive Skin solutions seem like a decent choice for those with sensitive skin who are looking for reasonably priced, no-frills skincare. Personally, I would have liked to see more protective antioxidants, and soothing anti-irritants and anti-inflammatory ingredients, but there's something to be said for the less-is-more approach. The less that's in the product, the less of a chance there is of reacting to it!

The products featured in this review were submitted for promotional consideration by a representative of the company. What does this mean? I didn't pay for it. My commitment is to you- my readers- and to myself (it's called integrity, I like to have it). The opinions expressed on Outinapout.com are my own, based on my own research and experience; I am not paid in any way nor is the final outcome of the post influenced by any outside party.

Green and Mean:Pushing "Natural" Cosmetics

Have you started to feel the pressure of going green with your beauty routine? Are you wondering if your choice of shampoo is poisoning you, or if your lipstick is ruining the earth? Or are you, like me, sick of having to wade through the high waters of toxic misinformation permeating our society at the moment?

In this case, I'm referring to cosmetics companies who are trying to guilt us into using their products with all the finesse of a Jewish mother of 4 (or a Catholic mother of 8) by insinuating that their "natural" skin care products have an advantage over skincare that is chemically engineered. Case in point: Burt's Bees.

If you've flipped through a beauty magazine in the past few months, then perhaps you've seen their current ad campaign, which focuses on using scare tactics to imply that using natural products is somehow better for you. They do so by juxtaposing the benefits of their product's key ingredient with more commonly found ingredients.

Let us consider the advertisement for Burt's Bees Replenishing Lip Balm which pits it's beeswax base against petrolatum, a base found in tons of popular lip soothers, from ChapStick to La Mer-even cult favorite Rosebud Salve. (In fact, most major companies, including MAC, Estee Lauder, Murad, Cargo, Laura Mercier, Philosophy, Peter Thomas Roth, and more, make lip products that are petrolatum based.) According to the ad, beeswax forms a "hydrating barrier that keeps lips moisturized" while petrolatum "moisturizes with an oil based film." Notice how Burt's uses nice words like "hydrating barrier" to describe their lip balm ingredient, but describes the competitor's as an oily "film"? Really, it's semantics, but by using a word commonly associated with the grime on your bathroom wall, they attempt to plant a negative bias in the consumer's head without using any pertinent factual information.

I represent no company, and am not selling either product, so I'm not scared to give you the facts. Oil is not bad. Skin is naturally moisturized and protected by the oil that is produced in our very own bodies. Petrolatum has been proven safe, gentle and effective in study after study. It repairs the barrier of damaged skin and helps to reduce inflammation and water loss, and it does so about as well as the skin's own natural defenses. Beeswax is a thickener that contains some emollient properties. Like petrolatum, it helps to seal in the skin's own moisture, which makes the skin feel softer and more soothed. Unlike petrolatum, it does not help to heal the skin or do anything to reduce inflammation.

Another comparison that Burt's Bees makes is that beeswax is "naturally replenishing", while petrolatum is non-renewable. I'd challenge this notion by pointing out that there have been alarming declines of bee populations in recent years; since we don't know why bees are disappearing, we don't know how to fix it, and thus, can not really say that beeswax is infinitely renewable. Petrolatum is a by-product of oil refining (or in Burtspeak: "derived from crude oil") which means that as long as we're drilling for oil, we'll have petrolatum. As much as I'd like to think we're close to independence from fossil fuels, I think we all know that's far from a reality.

Another tactic Burt's Bees uses is comparing it's apples to the competitor's oranges. The ad for their Naturally Ageless Day Lotion compares their key ingredient, pomegranate, to dimethicone, which is found in many leading anti-aging products on the market. Burt's tries to turn you against products that contain dimethicone by pointing out that while pomegranate is a powerful antioxidant, dimethicone is a silicone "film" (there's that nasty word again!) that temporarily fills in lines. No arguments here; both statements are factual, but the side by side comparison is meant to lead us, the consumers, to the impression that the Naturally Ageless Lotion protects the skin while the competitor's offering is filled with worthless ingredients that only offer a temporary pay-off.

In fact, dimethicone is added to anti-aging products for the exact benefits that Burt's Bees condemns- it makes the skin soft and smooth, fills in pores and fine lines, and helps to lock in moisture. It is not, as is implied in Burt's advertising, added to serums to provide protection. Any anti-aging product worth it's salt has SEPARATE antioxidants added to fight the damaging effects of the environment. Some, like Murad Energizing Pomegranate Moisturizer SPF 15 and Cosmedicine Global Health Face UVA/UVB, SPF 30 use both dimethicone and pomegranate extract, proving that the two ingredients are not mutually exclusive.

While there are several more versions of the "natural-vs-chemical"campaign that I could debate, I don't want to belabor the point. Sure, I could talk about the ad where they compare the buttermilk in their Baby Bee lotion to parabens, which are preservatives. I might ask why you would even want a lotion that contains a volatile dairy ingredient that has no proven benefits. I'd probably point out that preservatives keep products from spoiling- something I would want to ensure, especially on my baby's delicate skin. I could tell you that this baby lotion that Burt's Bees calls "gentle" contains Sodium Borate, an ingredient that was determined by Cosmetic Ingredient Review to be "Not safe for use on infant skin." But hey, it's natural, so it's got to be good, right? In short, no. Might I remind everyone that Poison Ivy is all-natural too? I might even offer some personal testimony by slipping in the fact that Burt's Baby Bee Buttermilk Lotion actually broke my baby out in hives (that added fragrance sure does make it smell good though!) I could do this, but I think that qualifies as beating a dead horse. I could do all of these things, and more, but I think you get the point.

Though the "natural is better" marketing ploy is certainly not new, Burt's Bees' recent campaign seems to have taken it to a new level. If you weren't aware of this trend, scan the face mags on your coffee table. If you're lucky, you may even run across "The Burt's Bees Guide To Your Well Being", a 6 page digest of the ad campaign I've been talking about (speaking of which, isn't a bit ironic that a brand touting their "commitment to The Greater Good" is printing up 6 page magazine inserts? That's a lot of wasted recycled paper and soy ink!)

I encourage you to really think about the relevancy of the comparisons that are being made. Be aware of marketing tricks that lead you to assume benefits that the company can't overtly claim because they have no proof to back it up. Use the internet as a tool of truth- sites like PubMed, Paula Begoun's Cosmetics Cop (check out the ingredient dictionary), and Cosmeticsinfo.org are out there so that we don't have to take their word for it. Knowing something is true because you've seen the proof is so much more powerful than thinking something is so simply because someone else says it is. But don't take my word for it...

*EDIT*

In the year since I wrote this, I've come to question the bias of the Environmental Working Group, who runs the Skin Deep database. I no longer trust it as an impartial source. I have removed my recommendation of their database, and added a link to PubMed, the online archives of the US National Library of Medicine.