choose not to be victimized by fashion!

After sending around a couple big email messages about the
potential problems of hair dye ingredients and other cosmetics,
I thought I should make a web site with similar information.

There is a lot...

Take your time and think about it!

***Don't forget the original fashion victim site can be accessed with **no ads** at:

http://homepage.bluewin.ch/raronoff/



The latest news (27 October 2011) is that the only thing up to date on this mirror site is the Blog!

so, go to the blog please and send in more ideas for the EFV Prize 2011!!

Thanks!!

Older news (January, 2010) is that there has been some regulation by the EU, however it mainly is in terms of modifying concentrations and changing labeling. Indeed, even toluene and aminophenol derivatives are allowed, and the focus has remained primarily on allergic reactions.

Furthermore, there are still 31 ingredients that will not be decided upon until a new postponed deadline, 31 December 2010!

It seems that the EU schedule for their big cosmetics directive goes beyond 2015, so if we want to protect genomic integrity at all in this new decade, more education and new ideas will be necessary. In fact, to actually ban certain ingredients seems likely to require not only clearly demonstrated human risk, but directed animal testing, about which the logic is not at all clear...

I have put copies of some of this latest EU info into the mirror site. newdeadline tolueneandppd 'amendments'

Other news is that the domain name genomicintegrity.org has now been registered and applied to this old 'fv' site. I'd love to hear further ideas for what to do with this (and where - server space, anyone?)!

Recent news (December, 2009) was that the EFV Prize 2009 winner was chosen!

The winner, with his idea to drop so much worry about genotoxicity for the more positive idea of preservation of genomic integrity, is

...

Drum roll...

CP (aka the Professor) from Denmark!

He points out:

Genetic diversity is still key in the context of genomic integrity. What is important for preservation of genomic integrity is avoiding genetic contributions to disease and disability in oneself and one's children.

Protection of genomic integrity does not support the idea that there is only one good gene sequence for a particular activity... The healthy human genome as a patchwork shaped by mutation and recombination is probably correct. As more information about human genetics and disease accumulates, this could become more clear.

The Genomic Integrity concept is apparently close to a tipping point, I should note, with many pathways maintaining this implicated in cancer and other diseases and even a prospective BioMed Central open access journal of the same title!

Congratulations, CP, and thank you very much!

Honorable mention goes to:

PB from Wales, for his encouragement about a new hair color idea I've had... Maybe something could really come of it?!

Thank you all again for your input!

All the best over the holiday season to you and yours!

Recent news (November, 2009) was that there were only 6 days left until the EFV Prize Deadline!

Ideas to teach in a fun way that fashion victims (not the bad taste kind, the ones with real problems because of induced mutations in either themselves or their parents) do not have to be so very common.

Right now, you might think the fashion victims are very much in evidence - and perhaps exponentially increasing? More people are definitely dying their hair regularly. Which means more of the potentially genotoxic ingredients go right down the drain.

Could stopping 50 million more 'doses' of even semipermanent (aminophenol containing) hair dyes make a difference to the incidence of cancer? Maybe we should think about that a bit...

Other news (May, 2008) was that, although 22 ingredients were banned from hair dyes in 2006 by the EU, now only 14 were actually definitively banned. Which are the most important for effective dying? The ones performing the chemistry to help the coloring process also may be absorbed even to the point of affecting the DNA within cells. No wonder the hair dye execs (as the cigarette CEOs did before them) would stall the process of reason ...

Of course, some of the ingredients which are still allowed are the bad ones (i.e. potent mutagens/carcinogens). Even naphthalene derivatives are included. From my very first note (below, close to the end of this webpage) I pointed out this specific hazard. If during its manufacture someone is exposed, almost 100% of such workers get bladder cancer!

When web sites for 'non-toxic' hair dye formulations claim only 'trace amounts' of the aminophenols, naphthalenediol, etc. - it's silly. These things work in miniscule amounts, like hormones, etc... Too much (for actual toxicity of cells) can preclude the ability to make any significant effect in the case of carcinogens. An LD50 doesn't mean so much when talking about effects of DNA mutations.

I did contact the public health services here, and now am wondering how best to contact the school director, as the school nurse had recommended. Thanks for your help, Mathilde!

Here's a lighter-hearted look at everything! just because...

Recent news (April, 2008) was that I have attempted to make a one page summary for posting around to inform people of this issue, both in English and in French. My plan is to finally go over with this in hand to the local hairdressers and talk to the apprentices and to the local school and talk with the school nurse. Ultimately, posting the flyer (or something like it) may help educate hair dye users and especially kids about this issue.

I will also add the link to the Spanish Unmasked flyer from the skindeep database folk... Thanks again!

Recent news (December, 2007) was that the EU's latest directive does seem to definitively ban 14 hair dye ingredients, but at least 42 more will be allowed until December 2009, with certain restrictions.  I was also pointed to a big EU document from last April by someone who signed the guest book (Thanks!) with loads of legalese and details about various ingredients (for many cosmetics too) for those of you who are interested in the nitty gritty or the legal end of this story.
Again no big media involvement or change in the shop shelves is noticeable.  However, lead in lipsticks might be something getting attention lately, so that should also help raise awareness in general, hopefully.
Basically, however, the 'take home' seems to be that one has to be responsible for oneself and as informed as possible...  Good luck to one and all!

Recent news (October, 2007) was that the winner of the EFV prize was chosen!
I was very happy to announce the winner of the EFV Prize (2007)!

(drum roll)

B.C. from the German part of Switzerland.

She wrote:
>
> Now to the hair dyes. I would try to spread the word through the hair
> trade channel, meaning the hairdressers. They themselves might not be
> interested in not colouring customers hair or tell them about the
> risks since they earn good money with it. However every student
> hairdresser in Switzerland does an apprenticeship and goes to school.
> The schools can't really teach their students something that is bad for
> the user or at least they need to make them aware of the risk. If you
> can get the teachers and than these young hairdressers believing in the
> scientific evidence you will be able to spread the word. However (it
> is) far from sure you will be able to convince them!
>
> Look at smoking and the evidence there and still people smoke and start
> smoking because everyone thinks it won't happen to them.
>


Thank you again, B. C., and congratulations!


Honorable mention goes to I.D. for her idea to follow up on the Nat allele (acetylation phenotype) link to hair dye use risk. Even for non-Hodkin lymphoma risk (low, except for those who used pre-1980 formulations, esp in comparison to the more recent bladder cancer findings) apparently this seems to still be holding up in epidemiological studies. See Morton et al. in the journal Carcinogenesis (2007) 28(8):1759-1764.

Thank you to everyone who gave me feedback and simply thought about this issue! Also, thank you to the people involved in the Skin Deep database, and for their Spanish translation of their Unmasked brochure! Hopefully, more translations will be made soon!

Thank you also to the people who signed the guest book (available via this mirror site, entry page: https://raronoff.tripod.com/ )

Maybe something about this is getting around a bit, in spite of all the other craziness in our world today.

I hope to hear from more people out there and will always be interested in more ideas to get this issue out, even if this year's prize has been awarded!


Recent news (August, 2007) was that the EFV prize deadline was extended, since so many had been away for summer holidays. It was time to get those creative ideas sent in, to not only help others make their fashion choices more wisely, but to win the first EFV Prize! Deadline: 30 September 2007!

Recent news (July, 2007) was that this 'mirror' site is basically all together, including the 'edition francaise' of this site. It furthermore includes a Guest book, in which you can give direct feedback. Hopefully the adverts won't be too problematic. (I must admit I find something funny about the automatic Google ad system, based on page content, which seems to be standard from this site.) However, watch out, because some of the ads are 'pop up' ones, that your browser might not allow, unless you change preferences... In the course of putting it all together, additionally, I realized that the Google language tools do quite well even for full web page translations, like this one. So, I include a link to one of these automatic translations into Spanish here also, and highly recommend these tools for anyone wanting another language, and not just the European ones (though of course they are good also for German, etc.).
Because these translations are based in silico, however, any feedback or corrections about them would be appreciated. Maybe some of this is a bit slangy, so I apologize in advance for any mis-translations, and hope these tools also continue to improve. They really are already very impressive. If there will be contestants for the EFV Prize (contest deadline 31 August!) in several languages, however, that would be even more so!!!

Recent news (June, 2007) is that I have been working on a 'mirror site' for this fashion victim info, also to include the promised French translation, in addition to too many ads - it is a lycos hosting thing 'tripod'...
Here is the link, but be warned, older browsers may not enjoy loading this...

I also would like to take the opportunity to announce a contest - (drum roll) -

the EFV Prize (End Fashion Victimization Prize)
an award will be given for the best strategy to target teens (ados they call them here)  and draw their attention to this matter of undesired consequences from their fashion choices.  Ideas with supplemental graphics will be particularly favored - a picture is worth...  
I plan to announce winners after a 31 August 2007 deadline, to commemorate a full year of my preoccupation with this topic.  Contestants, put on your thinking caps.  Any ideas, please let me know, and they will be considered! 
Please send them to me, at raronoff (at) bluewin . ch

Finally, green streaks in local hairdos have carried over into real summer.

A median age for hair dye initiation locally could be as low as 9... 


Recent news (May, 2007) was that the EU seems to target allergic sensitization, rather than genetic insults in their current proposed focus on dyes' toxicity...  This seems a  weak start, and would yield inconclusive results if DNA changes are involved (in which case, some second generation data would be crucial for an informative human study).  A year ago (March, 2006), genotoxicity was a primary focus, in contrast.  The opinion from June 2006 has not translated into changes in hair dyes here in Switzerland at least.  The industry has until Dec 2007 to submit safety data, it now seems.  In the meantime, green streaks have been revived in springtime local hairdos...  :)
I thus want to point again to an NIH presentation that goes back to biology basics to explain how little DNA changes can add up to serious consequences...  See slides 5-27 in particular.  This link was included near the end of the first big note I sent around, so is well worth bringing up to the front now - the powers that be need to sponsor appropriate studies to back up epidemiological results at this point.
I was also a bit surprised to find that the anti-vaccine sentiment in autism groups is very high (see Nature Neuroscience's recent editorial), when to me it seems so much more plausible that multifaceted genetic changes, perhaps primarily due to environmental insults, are more likely contributors to increased autism incidence since the '80s, rather than an actual neurotoxin like mercury.  Additionally surprising (although on an unrelated point), I found the demonstration of plastics-derived 'hormone mimetics' leaching into perfume components was from research by Greenpeace, not something put out in a big journal.  Some of you might have ideas as to why this is so...  This is another reason to try and see what information is really out there and which has just not (yet?) been determined.  Sources of funding are an undeniable influence on what is actually published.

Recent news (April, 2007) from here in Switzerland was that the new 'creme' formula of Castings, as touted by Penelope Cruz (who was great in Volver and hopefully will get the chance to consider the info in this site), re-filled the once emptier shelf of the local pharmacy.  This hair formulation still contains suspect ingredients, like aminophenol, shown above. 

The idea that environmental pollution from about 50 million people using hair dyes regularly is probably very significant has also been disturbing me.  When we use carcinogenic compounds to stain cells in the lab, for instance diaminobenzidine, we are very careful and inactivate them before proper disposal.  How our  home and salon use impacts our environment and the living creatures in it should also be considered when making fashion choices.

***


The following (originally sent around in Feb2007) was an update to a message I sent last fall (below) with information primarily related to choosing (perhaps unwittingly) to expose oneself to toxic chemicals in one's daily life.  I hoped it wasn't too much, to send more out especially about hair dye ingredients, but it looked like not much had (yet) changed, in spite of new EU regulations (which were instated in Dec. 2006 and spurred my first investigations into this all).  Because new rules anyway are not so helpful as information, and I kept noticing even more and also younger people following the fashion trends, I thought I should also distribute the note a bit more widely.  So, if you want to start with the first note, just scroll down a bit (though I hope it will be ok from here too).  If you are not at all interested,  just click your way somewhere else on the web... 

If you are interested and know others who might be too, please talk to people about this issue and tell people about this website!

*From this point, I will leave the note basically as I sent it in February...  **

I got carried away during the last summer holiday (August, 2006) about this all, but putting the following together helped a bit. 
The hair dye industry and perhaps the whole cosmetic industry (it now seems they too might use things that aren't strictly the best choice for a 'daily ritual') are too huge for me to perturb, I know. There have even been special seminars for the 'hair color executive' to get them ready for potential regulations of the industry, for instance in 2005.
Nothing has really changed yet in the pharmacies in Switzerland, which is a country that can often choose to follow EU guidelines, but isn't obliged to perhaps.  However, I noticed one emptier shelf (maybe they are not re-stocking the 'castings' from l'oreal, or maybe it is just selling out faster than Excellence?) in our local pharmacy.  A friend in Germany also checked for me, and at least aminophenol, a key problem ingredient is still included in hair dyes sold there, a real EU country.  Few things happen instantly...
Note, however, these ingredients all can go by various names and during actual hair dying, chemical reactions are going on, which generate further potentially hazardous products. Arylamine is one generic 'scientific name' for aminophenol, but 'coal tar dyes' or MMPD [for 4 methoxy phenylamine diamine] are other specific chemicals of concern.

As a biologist I am especially concerned about young kids using products which may really be dangerous...  Some 'temporary' dyes (STREEKERS) are specifically targeted at younger groups, though admittedly some of them (at least the one from the same company especially for those covering gray roots) now come with a special comb to help keep it off your skin...

One specific potential risk is that some of the ingredients or their byproducts could induce mutations (DNA changes) if absorbed. In ordinary body cells, these could in a worse case scenario contribute to cancer development, but in our specialized 'germ line' cells, i.e. the ones which will produce eggs and sperm, these could even affect future generations... 

Because I also found, after sending the first mailing, that henna has similar chemicals to those of the conventional hair dyes in the end, there really isn't an easy solution for those who are no longer so young... except for by changing attitudes somehow...   :)

One friend wrote after the first note that she'd already known about these EU bans in a different context: they also ban some chemicals that are essential to the perfume industry. Also, she notes a prevalence among most living creatures for something like the fashion victim thing, saying it 'probably goes even deeper than just human nature - think of the uncomfortable appendages lots of animal species carry around to impress the other sex... nevertheless i find it also upsetting that we women are supposed to cover our gray whereas men don't necessarily loose their appeal with hair (color)..' adding 'Definitely, this issue is worrisome... The big question probably is, where does the dangerous exposure set in.'
My point of view as a biologist says that the real problem about something which could induce DNA level modifications is :  sometimes one hit is enough for something significant - maybe not for generations, but even sometimes possible in a single lifetime (i.e. cancer).  These things were realized early, and discussions in the 70s on mutagenic hazards must somehow have been marginalized, so it is an issue rarely considered.  I wonder what has happened to one of these main authors, Patricia Z Barry, who was at Chapel Hill at least into the 80s...  It looks like her work in public health included safety belt studies, as well as genetic insults.  I wonder how the numbers for incidence of genetic disease from today would compare to those she cites at the beginning of this paper, and what her opinion is of it all...

With so many mutagens out in the environment, which we cannot avoid (and more being put out from factories and farms and in war zones etc., i.e. Cl- compounds like dioxin, pesticides leaching into water, and pulverized residues from depleted uranium weapons...), should our fashion choices expose us as well? 

Why, so many mothers ask, is incidence of allergy on the rise, autism at a new unprecedented level, not to mention various cancers?!  Although predispositions are still unclear, and I know that personal cosmetics seem unlikely to be the main problem, I really think it is fascinating that for the aminophenol there is some genetic link between the ability to metabolize a 'precarcinogenic' substance (for aminophenol, this is basically a benzene ring with a OH and an amino group, prime for interaction with DNA if absorbed) and the development of disease (bladder cancer was a primary example with some evidence from the earlier mailing, but who knows about what else will be found).  In that study, 'fast' N-acetyl transferase activity was associated with protection from disease.  A 'fast' cytochrome p450 was also protective in the studied population. On the other hand, peroxidases can activate these compounds to carcinogens , so perhaps low activity COX genes would also be protective...
(One way antioxidants could be healthy for you is by lowering or antagonizing peroxidase activity.)
I had some correspondance with one of the authors of this paper, which found this strong link to bladder cancer, and she sticks to the data. Although she didn't get personal, I saw that in her current staff pic, her hair is all gray, unlike in a previous one (she is most likely of Asian descent and very perky with her short gray hair . She was at USC, but seems mainly to be in Minnesota in addition to USC now)...  
Furthermore, meta-analysis supported their data...

Maybe those who wish to continue to use such products, even in the face of such data, can just hope to have a 'fast' metabolism (the acetylation of the aminophenol probably allows it to be cleared from the body) for pre-carcinogens! 
 
Hopefully, somone is taking note of all this, and maybe already a test for the 'safer' form of the linked genes (i.e. fast nat1, fast cyp450, low peroxidase) isn't far off (This is a hint to the hair color execs and/or biotech operations!  come on, someone, let's get these things developed... a home-test would be nicest, of course.  If you know someone who might help in this regard, please pass this on!).  Having a good home-test result should certainly help one make a decision of whether to follow the latest fashion trends!    For instance, my hairdresser had these new pink colors featured, and one local 'fall' hairdo I noticed after sending the first note off included rusty orange, green and yellow-blond highlights!
Fun - but maybe only really worth it if you can metabolize such products 'safely.'

I should also note that another friend is much more concerned by the hormone mimetic substances or 'endocrine disrupters' found in our environment, also highly prevelant and harder to avoid than a certain cosmetic...   This is another important problem...

Still, above all, try not to worry!  Worry isn't good for the gray hair ratios! 

Trying to stop covering up one's gray is very difficult, that is certainly a consensus.
Here is one gradual way to let the 'distinguished' edges come out first, so you can get used to the idea, while staying relatively normal in your 'coiffure':
An aminophenol formulation with absolutely no smell, and available at some health food stores (Herbatint) is packaged so there are two reclosable bottles.  With this, you can make up just a couple of tablespoons full at a time, and try filling in your root area just at the part, as the grey comes in maybe every six weeks or so, so the rest of the grey hair grows and ultimately won't have to be soo very short when/if you eventually decide to cut off more... This lowers dosages and may gradually get you comfortable with your own color. 

Everyone can 'be the girl with the hair' these days, but why risk it...

Some people ask things like, 'but if I don't smoke, doesn't it mean it's ok to keep covering up a bit more?' 
I already discussed DNA changes, and that hit probability uncertainty, but, furthermore, the longer one carries on covering gray, i.e. the greater percentage of white hairs there are, the harder it will be to stop without cutting off most everything to the roots, something very drastic!

These days, with even France cutting out public smoking, (the Swiss are again proving slower), with people often trying to be very healthy, eating organic foods, avoiding smoking and excessive alcohol consumption, it seems funny to knowingly choose to put something toxic at the base of your scalp for hours a year, where it might be absorbed and cause who knows what really...  Genetic changes, real mutations?  maybe. If we think the world situation is too crazy now to consider such issues, think again (as I mentioned in the first note, below) of the fall of the roman empire, and those lead combs they used with vinegar to dye their hair, which could perhaps have contributed to their demise.

Ok, I will again beg your indulgence, but try inputing your favorite face cream or shampoo or whatever in the Skin Deep database. Hopefully your product(s) will be in the 'green' (the safer end of their color code system)... You don't have to really sign in, just click the 'no, thanks' button and you get to the data base...


Best wishes!

sincerely,
Rachel 

p.s. I sent something pretty much like the following originally about 5 months ago.  Thanks to everyone who talked with me about this, or wrote back to me - some of whom I quote above.
p.p.s. I put this together on the premise that information is power. No battle for the good, i.e. against war, against modern trends like 'anti-bacterial' products (not just ordinary soap), against a politician's acts, or whatever, can be won instantly.  I encourage everyone to do what they can and follow their interests.  Here is a link to something inspirational.
p.p.p.s. Some might argue we should continue to do whatever we can to maximize the genetic variability within our gene pool, particularly in the face of large changes to our environment, to make sure of survival of the species, but we will not go into that sticky business...  :) 
p.p.p.p.s.  I started a french translation of this, but would one of you, please, let me know if you can double check it for me???


 
On 9/10/06, Rachel Aronoff wrote:

Dear All,

Who can ever know what to believe in our world?
What should one do in the face of information?  Often it is simpler to deny, but... It is for you to decide. 
But maybe some links can help...  Please pass this on to anyone you think might be interested.
The key subject of this message is absorption of dangerous chemicals from our world. 
Some things we can choose to avoid - others we just can't...
Unfortunately, personal care products are not necessarily well regulated.  
Some things we use routinely might actually be be absorbed by our systems to cause long term damage.
Surprised?  I was!  Aren't things like the FDA there to protect us?  (they can't just be helping business interests???)

Here is a bit of news which led to these further investigations:

22 hair dye ingredients are to be outlawed by the EU in Dec 2006.  115 (!) more ingredients are currently under consideration.

In the meantime the permanent hair dye market has been booming!!! 
*In 1997, projections of 50 million women a year dying their hair were made!

What should one do?  Stock up on old favorites?  No!  Think!
Of course, some of you may never have dyed your hair. 
Some of you may additionally remember your mother hiding the fact that she used hair dye. 

White hair is caused when hair follicles run out of melanocytes - there should be no stigma attached to it. 
Nonetheless, we cover our gray, not only women, nowadays. 
If at 25 years, grey comes in, are we destined to dye  - and perhaps die in the process - until we are too old to manage?
(not to be too melodramatic about it)  :)
Furthermore, and potentially more dangerous, these days, more and younger kids of both sexes dye their hair regularly. 
Fashion trends shouldn't be dangerous, right? 

However, there is an ancient history of poisons for 'beauty' aids:
Belladonna was used for making eyes 'bright.'
Lead-based skin powders (Britain's Queen Elisabeth might have used this?) and other heavy metals have been used widely in makeups.

Do your personal care products carry hidden dangers?

Here, if you are interested in looking up things you use regularly, is a link that can help make you and others aware of these unknown dangers.
(Particularly of note, try the link to the Skin Deep data base.)


Have we become fashion victims?  Western society in particular?
Nowadays, fashions are such that people sometimes can't sit down or even walk in their clothes without some sort of discomfort.  You know, those low rider problems.  Nuff said.  Why is this?  It's not just because it's fun to show your underwear...  Form fitting fitness fashion is one exception (although possible use of petrochemicals or chemicals which mimic hormones in the environment for the production of fabrics for such clothing lines might be questionable).  The other exception is the many who chose to dress comfortably no matter what the fashion. Nor are they restricted from enjoying most aspects of fashion, including different hair colors.  Additionally, stripy or spiky hair fashions are in, leading to broad and regular use of colouring products, esp. in younger generations.  (Tattoos are another hot trend, also hitting earlier.)  What can be done?

Choosing to follow a fashion trend should not mean choosing a particular poison...

But, some hair dye ingredients (especially those in permanent hair dyes, like arylamine derivatives or aminophenol) have been strongly linked to bladder cancers.

2002 work of Manuela Gago-Dominguez, M.D., Ph.D., researcher in preventive medicine at the Keck School and USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center and lead author of the study.
with Drs Ronald K.Ross (deceased) and David W.Hein, who served as consultants for Clairol, a hair-dye manufacturer.

Very interestingly, this work demonstrated a genetic link between the development of cancer and the genes which can metabolize such chemicals
"in women with certain slow genes (the "NAT2 slow" phenotype), exclusive permanent hair dye use was associated with a nearly tripled risk of bladder cancer.
Among women with other slow genes (the "CYP1A2 slow" phenotype), exclusive permanent hair dye use was associated with a 2.5-fold increased risk. Finally, among non-smoking women with a third type of slow genes ("NAT1 slow" genotype), exclusive permanent hair dye use was associated with a 6.8-fold increased risk".

for any biochemists or biologists:
cytochrome P450 is cyp1a2
n-acetyltransferase is nat1

and thus the following is also significant (furthermore, in the way it avoids mention of hair dyes?)!
1: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Oct 6;96(19):1425-31.   Link
Alkylaniline-hemoglobin adducts and risk of non-smoking-related bladder cancer

These chemicals are really causal -
if 15 people synthesizing it are exposed, and all get the given cancer, it seems to be a clear and present danger in putting it on your own head!
(like naphthalene derivatives...)
There is furthermore an interesting point about smokers getting bladder cancer from same ingredient. (Note: nicotine itself is dangerous mainly as something addictive which then gets people to ingest the other carcinogens produced by smoking cigarettes...)

Perhaps more epidemiology can provide answers -
it seems in these days of big databases, epidemiology is much more powerful now.

Clearly absorption is occuring for significant increased risk of bladder cancer.
Here's something else on biological function after absorption:
1: J Mol Biol. 2006 Aug 18;361(3):482-92. Epub 2006 Jun 30
Arylamine N-acetyltransferase Aggregation and Constitutive Ubiquitylation

Ok, let's take a moment think about chemicals in general.  (Remember even water is one...)

Ammonia or hydrogen peroxide are commonly used with hair formulations  
Everyone knows anti-oxidants are what's good for you nowadays, right?  So, oxidizers must be bad for you.  Peroxide oxidizes...
Think about it: oxidation is bad for your DNA and other cellular component molecules -> this is the reason why anti-oxidants are recommended!
Still, neither ammonia or hydrogen peroxide are normally thought of as 'dangerous' chemicals...  (often about hair products, though, ammonia is considered more 'harsh')

Some ingredients might be difficult to categorize.
i.e.
if something is a free radical scavenger and there is no evidence for carcinogenicity in humans (phenylmethyl pyrazolone), maybe it is no problem.
but if it is required for a chemical reaction of the hair dye mix, which generates a potential carcinogen, then of course it is another story.

There are always questions still at where to draw the line, for instance:

if there is no evidence for cancer linkage in humans, but clear roles in chromosomal effects in lower organisms, it might be wise to avoid a compound.

if there is an LD50 (the lethal dose at which 50% of subjects are affected) at some level, it may be a certain compound which should be avoided.

(this next paragraph was added for the new message)
Aminophenol is not the only ingredient from hair dyes with an LD50.  Just for the record, the LD50 for aminophenol is 375 mg/kg in rat (oral).  For the chemical formula, etc., click on 4-aminophenol.  Resorcinol and 4 aminodiphenylamine (two other ingredients from hair dyes) have LD50s of about 300mg/kg and 400mg/kg in rat respectively...  Just as a contrast, an average adult dose of paracetamol (aspirin substitute) is 500mg, so it would take a lot more of these purified hair dye ingredients to kill half the test rats!  (argh, another reason not to use this stuff?)

Here is one of the early modern scientific studies showing mutagenesis (changes in DNA molecules) by hair dyes:
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1975 June; 72(6): 2423–2427.
Hair dyes are mutagenic: identification of a variety of mutagenic ingredients.
Bruce N Ames, H O Kammen, and E Yamasaki

There is a NIH page summarizing the current bladder cancer scenario - a pre-carcinogen is modified in the liver into a potent carcinogen active in bladder...
Compelling evidence that aromatic amines, like 4-aminobiphenyl (in some hair dyes) can result in bladder cancer in workers has also been amassed.
See this great slide summary including these topics (slides 31 and 32, for instance illustrate activation of the arylamine pre-carcinogen), but also going right back to biology basics to help understand gene variation, environmental exposure (to compounds which can ultimately affect DNA), and cancer development.

to get back to where to draw the line in fashion choices:
If an ingredient is considered an 'inert' element, but can be metabolized to create a reactive product, obviously it should not be thought innocuous...

Another thing to consider in terms of fashions: what about the super bright hair dyes (are there any added risks from these?  might they contain extra heavy metals or???)

If each ingredient is associated with different risks, though, how can we 'add them up' and apply them to our own lives? 
This is another cool thing about the 'skin deep' database, numbers are derived for relative risks!

Here is the conclusion of some of the the hair dye industry's research

Food Chem Toxicol. 2004 Apr;42(4):517-43.   
Toxicity and human health risk of hair dyes.

Nohynek GJ, Fautz R, Benech-Kieffer F, Toutain H.

L'Oreal Research and Development, Worldwide Safety Department, 25-29, quai Aulagnier, 92600 Asnieres, France. gnohynec@recherche.loreal.com

Hair dyes and their ingredients have moderate to low acute toxicity. Human poisoning accidents are rare and have only been reported following oral ingestion. Contact sensitisation to hair dyes has been a safety issue, mainly as a consequence of unprotected professional exposure. Although the use of hair dyes has dramatically increased in industrialised countries during the last decades, the prevalence of sensitisation to hair dyes in the general and professional populations has stabilised or declined. In vitro genotoxicity tests on hair dye ingredients frequently had positive results, although their correlation with in vivo carcinogenicity for the chemical class of oxidative hair dye ingredients (aromatic amines) is uncertain. Positive in vivo genotoxicity results on hair dyes are rare. Studies in man found no evidence of genotoxic effects of hair dyes or their ingredients. On the basis of mechanistic studies, some in vivo positive hair dye ingredients (p-aminophenol, Lawsone) have been shown to pose no or negligible risk to human health. Although a recent case-control epidemiology study suggested an association of hair dye use and bladder cancer, a number of other studies, including prospective investigations on large populations, found no or negative correlations for bladder or other cancers. Although in vivo topical carcinogenicity studies on hair dye ingredients or commercial formulations yielded no evidence for systemic toxicity or carcinogenicity, oral carcinogenicity studies on hair dye ingredients at oral doses up to the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) suggested that some ingredients are carcinogenic in rodents. Human systemic exposure to various (14)C-labelled oxidative hair dyes under conditions of use was below 1.0% of the amount applied. Conservative risk assessments suggested no or negligible cancer risk, including for ingredients that were found to be positive in oral carcinogenicity studies. The results of reproductive toxicity studies and epidemiological investigations suggested that hair dyes and their ingredients pose no risk of adverse reproductive effects. In conclusion, the weight of evidence suggests that consumer or professional exposure to hair dyes poses no carcinogenic or other human health risk

well well. 
MetaAnalysis of some of the epidemiological data apparently also says the danger that hair dye will give you cancer is not significant.
Diet is more important for protection from cancer, says a UK cancer organization...  All these points could be valid.
Still other concerns of hair dye use come from a very different perspective, just for a vivid contrast:
look for hair dye in this article...

And this also highlights another point about fashion - it can be political!  extremely so, though few would say so today...
As the west gets more revealing,
the east (well, not China, which seems to generally want to be western) or maybe the moslem arab world, becomes more hidden...
more trouble...  More points of divisiveness...  (Oh well, at least women behind the veil are also sisters in this concern - they too cover their gray. We have so many common causes, really!  :)
Note, this does not go into the question of having surgery to fit to some notion of beauty... 
That these questions can be asked just shows the broad divides in the world. While one society just struggles to survive, perhaps indeed while dreaming of being a California surfer, others look forward to low cost breast surgery.  Is it all ok?  I can't say.

None the less...
Here's a 2005 link, that I think makes a good general summary.
This is from before the EU change of mind (to outlaw ingredients).

***Esp. for young people***  Don't rush blindly along the fashion path!

Still?
Can it be?
The end of
no...
not...
Grecian Formula?
Yes, maybe?, the lead-acetate based formulation notably allowing those such as Ronald Reagan (maybe only according to urban myth) to retain their raven locks into old age was finally (? or just in Canada - Amazon.com has it) outlawed. 

This is from one forum's web page:
A very short biochemistry of lead acetate's function in the product... lead acetate reacts with sulfur elements found in the hair to produce the desired color. It actually isn't a very novel idea. The name ... probably came from the fact that this same idea was utilized in the Greco-Roman period when men and women used lead combs dipped in vinegar (acetic acid) to color their hair. Using lead in hair dyes have not been totally regulated by the FDA because the govt branch has not been given enough information to alert consumers to its harm. However, I think the FDA has mandated that each dye containing the neurotoxic heavy metal (LEAD) state that users should not use it on their eyebrows, mustache, or any other hairs besides the ones coming out of the scalp. (I would heed to this or better yet NOT use it at all).
(thanks, S. Evans)

Of course, everyone knows lead isn't good for you.  It's a proven neurotoxin (neurons are the cells in the brain, and toxins are poison) causing, in addition to other ailments, even madness.  A lack of absorption into the system was one excuse used to allow it to be sold as a regularly used personal hair product. Now...
The company may slightly be changing?
Yes, now, there is new
Grecian formula news!?  5 minute stuff that is safer!  even for men's moustaches...
A women's product Just-5 has also been developed.  It is not based on the progressive dying by lead acetate, but when I got the full the ingredient list, I saw it has the aminophenol, resorcinol, phenylenediamine, etc etc....  similar to another popular cover-up dye L'Oreal's Castings, which is not really a semi-permanent hair color, btw, leaving strong root lines when the color grows out.  Also the men's one, Grecian 5, has these ingredients  (though you may not think so at first, since the ingredient list is truncated on the Amazon site!!!)

So, what can one do?  What should one do?  Bladder cancer frequency was generally on the decrease, but overall cancer statistics and the knowledge of their chemical causes are staggering.

For those of you more interested in your pets than your neighbors.
Innocents are exposed every day to unknown dangers. 
Get to know something about these dangers, and see how you can make things better for yourself and all.

In the meantime, see how the hairline is going, and decide how to deal with it...  :)

Best wishes to one and all.
Rachel

Preverenges, Switzerland  9 Sept. 2006 (Happy birthday, Mom!  -> but please don't tell her I ever considered coloring my hair!  She worries about aluminum in deodorants and alzheimer's disease!)




Top