Ingredients of Controversy: The Parabens Panic

As more manufacturers and formulators develop an expanding range of cosmetic and personal care products to answer the call they’re getting from consumers worldwide, regulators around the world are beginning to exert their muscle when it comes to what they deem acceptable or unacceptable ingredients.

That’s all well and good. Regulation isn’t inherently a bad idea, just as open markets and capitalism aren’t evil. It’s when any system gets abused that problems start to show up and conflicts begin to stir. Sometimes, though, those conflicts might not have enough of a basis in truth to deserve the media frenzy and adverse consumer reactions that follow them.

Take, for example, the case of parabens.

When you Google “parabens,” Google will conveniently display related queries people have made. The first three on that list?

“Do all parabens cause cancer?” “Are parabens carcinogenic?” “What do parabens do to you?”

What kicked off all this concern? In 2004, a researcher found that metabolites associated with parabens were detected in breast cancer tissue samples. Parabens themselves, which are fully metabolized before they even enter the blood stream, were therefore mistakenly labeled as carcinogenic.

A moral panic quickly developed, fueled by media alarmists, even after the researcher who conducted the study responded to this frenzy by pointing out, “No claim was made that the presence of parabens had caused the breast cancers.” Since then, exhaustive global research on many fronts has shown how parabens are broken down and excreted harmlessly by our bodies, which puts lie to out-and-out claims that “parabens are carcinogenic.”

Some of that research?

• The FDA started studying the effects of parabens in response to the hue and cry around their potential estrogenic effect and link to breast cancer. Results? The FDA found parabens are safe for use in cosmetics, and there’s no reason for consumers to be concerned about products containing these ingredients.
• The American Cancer Society concluded that scientific and medical research doesn’t support any claim that the use of parabens in cosmetics increases a person’s risk of breast cancer.
• The European Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) confirmed that methylparaben and ethylparaben were safe at maximum authorized concentrations, and butylparaben and propylparaben as preservatives in finished cosmetic products were safe as long as the sum of their individual concentrations didn’t exceed a specified limit.

For an excellent scientific deconstruction of the half-truths and exaggerations about parabens, check out “Parabens: Myth and Reality,” a comprehensive article by Dene Godfrey in Cosmetics & Toiletries. As he sums it up,

Both Schellauf’s presentation and Bando’s research support the contention of many scientists in the cosmetics industry that the dangers of parabens in general, specifically butylparaben, have been exaggerated. They also assist formulators in defending their position, should they wish to continue formulating with parabens. This author has yet to find a credible, substantiated study that has identified any unacceptable risk from parabens; therefore, a sustainable argument exists for the continued use of parabens as preservatives in cosmetics.

Who’s responsible for the rabble-rousing?

We’re still left with the question, though: Why would some critics and media types, even other manufacturers, take aim at parabens, and continue to try to frighten consumers after it’s been shown there’s marginal scientific support for their assertions?

• In some cases, we’d have to guess it’s self-interest. Some websites that still relentlessly hype the unproven dangers of parabens are also, coincidentally, in the business of promoting an organics-focused or “natural” lifestyle. Never mind that they’re often out on a limb themselves, apparently, when it comes to the credibility of the claims they make about the products they’re busy promoting as alternatives to all those nasty, evil mainstream brands.
• Scare tactics draw eyeballs, unfortunately, so some news outlets and less-than-scrupulous pundits are willing to promote the “dangers” of parabens just to draw attention, sell ads, and profit from prevarications.
• Manufacturers and marketers who don’t utilize parabens, or who formulated non-paraben alternatives in response to consumer concerns, have made a point of labeling and promoting those products as being paraben-free. That, in turn, seems to give a kind of credence to a consumer’s own doubts, especially when it’s decision time at the store shelf.

For formulators and manufacturers, it’s frustrating. Half-truths and hysteria shouldn’t be dictating product decisions, which is why it’s vital for regulators and the legitimate news outlets to have a balanced perspective. If only to counteract the static being churned out by the more alarmist – or cynical and manipulative – members of the media, including so-called “influencers” whose motivations are only as deep as their pocketbooks.

If we lived and worked in a perfect world, where balance, clarity and fair judgment ruled the day, we’d have no need of organizations like the NACD to advocate for the points of view of formulators, manufacturers, and others in our industry. Unfortunately, episodes like the “parabens panic” show exactly why there’s a constant need for clear thinking, responsible and scientific dispassion and good old common sense from all sides…government, industry, and consumers alike.