Shop for herbs and other supplements on Amazon
(advertisement)

Siriporn's PueraraCare-Breast Serum

#21

Studies have shown that when skin treated with creams that contain methylparabens is exposed to ultraviolet rays (in normal sunlight! Hello summer) the skin cells died and there was considerable oxidative stress on the skin's tissue.
To me that doesn't seem like the safest thing to put in a product that goes on the skin... Especially not for someone like me who already has very sensitive skin.

And I think your real specialty is to be insulting, period.
Reply
#22

ARE YOU GOING TO STOP EATING BLUEBERRIES AND FRUITS AND VEGETABLES................IF PARABENS WERE SO BAD.......INDUSTRY WOULD STOP USING THEM. THE FDA WOULD TAKE THEM OFF THE MARKET. I KNOW THAT THE MD'S AND PHD'S AT THE FDA ARE BETTER TRAINED IN TOXICOLOGY THAN YOU ARE.....DO YOU NOT THINK THEY HAVE A PILE OF STUDIES ON PARABENS?

THERE ARE GOOFBALLS THAT COMDEMN EVERY PRESERVATIVE THAT COMES ALONG. THE PROBLEM IS CONSUMERS DON'T KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET TOX STUDIES.

AFTER ALL VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING IS TOXIC IF YOU USE WRONG....INCLUDING PURE WATER IF YOU DRINK EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES TOO RAPIDLY YOU DIE,,,,,,SO AGAIN MISSY .....
I WOULD CHALLENGE YOU ON YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULT

HOW MUCH PARABENS DID THEY USE? YOU ONLY USE 1/10 OF ONE PER CENT OF THIS DANGEROUS FRUIT COMPOUND....A PHYTOESTROGEN.

I CAN FIND 1000 TIMES MORE STUDIES CONDEMNING OTHER PHYTOESTROGENS

PARABEN ARE THE SAFEST AND MOST EFFECTIVE ON THE MARKET....IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT. THAT IS THE REASON THEY ARE SO WIDELY USED AND THE ONLY REASON....IF YOU LOOK HARD ENOUGH YOU CAN FIND A STUDY THAT CONDEMNS JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING..........SO WHAT!







Reply
#23

ITS ON THE HOUSE?


Int J Toxicol. 2008;27 Suppl 4:1-82.

[b]Final amended report on the safety assessment of Methylparaben, Ethylparaben, Propylparaben, Isopropylparaben, Butylparaben, Isobutylparaben, and Benzylparaben as used in cosmetic products.[/b]

[No authors listed]
Abstract
Parabens is the name given to a group of p-hydroxybenzoic acid (PHBA) esters used in over 22,000 cosmetics as preservatives at concentrations up to 0.8% (mixtures of parabens) or up to 0.4% (single paraben). The group includes Methylparaben, Ethylparaben, Propylparaben, Isopropylparaben, Butylparaben, Isobutylparaben, and Benzylparaben. Industry estimates of the daily use of cosmetic products that may contain parabens were 17.76 g for adults and 378 mg for infants. Parabens in cosmetic formulations applied to skin penetrate the stratum corneum in inverse relation to the ester chain length. Carboxylesterases hydrolyze parabens in the skin. Parabens do not accumulate in the body. Serum concentrations of parabens, even after intravenous administration, quickly decline and remain low. Acute toxicity studies in animals indicate that parabens are not significantly toxic by various routes of administration. Subchronic and chronic oral studies indicate that parabens are practically nontoxic. Numerous genotoxicity studies, including Ames testing, dominant lethal assay, host-mediated assay, and cytogenic assays, indicate that the Parabens are generally nonmutagenic, although Ethylparaben and Methylparaben did increase chromosomal aberrations in a Chinese Hamster ovary cell assay. Ethylparaben, Propylparaben, and Butylparaben in the diet produced cell proliferation in the forestomach of rats, with the activity directly related to chain length of the alkyl chain, but Isobutylparaben and Butylparaben were noncarcinogenic in a mouse chronic feeding study. Methylparaben was noncarcinogenic when injected subcutaneously in mice or rats, or when administered intravaginally in rats, and was not cocarcinogenic when injected subcutaneously in mice. Propylparaben was noncarcinogenic in a study of transplacental carcinogenesis. Methylparaben was nonteratogenic in rabbits, rats, mice, and hamsters, and Ethylparaben was nonteratogenic in rats. Parabens, even at levels that produce maternal toxicity, do not produce fetal anomalies in animal studies. Parabens have been extensively studied to evaluate male reproductive toxicity. In one in vitro study, sperm were not viabile at concentrations as low as 6 mg/ml Methylparaben, 8 mg/ml Ethylparaben, 3 mg/ml Propylparaben, or 1 mg/ml Butylparaben, but an in vivo study of 0.1% or 1.0% Methylparaben or Ethylparaben in the diet of mice reported no spermatotoxic effects. Propylparaben did affect sperm counts at all levels from 0.01% to 1.0%. Epididymis and seminal vesicle weight decreases were reported in rats given a 1% oral Butylparaben dose; and decreased sperm number and motile activity in F(1) offspring of rats maternally exposed to 100 mg/kg day(- 1) were reported. Decreased sperm numbers and activity were reported in F(1) offspring of female rats given Butylparaben (in DMSO) by subcutaneous injection at 100 or 200 mg/kg day(- 1), but there were no abnormalities in the reproductive organs. Methylparaben was studied using rats at levels in the diet up to an estimated mean dose of 1141.1 mg/kg day(- 1) with no adverse testicular effects. Butylparaben was studied using rats at levels in the diet up to an estimated mean dose of 1087.6 mg/kg day(- 1) in a repeat of the study noted above, but using a larger number of animals and a staging analysis of testicular effects-no adverse reproductive effects were found. Butylparaben does bind to estrogen receptors in isolated rat uteri, but with an affinity orders of magnitude less than natural estradiol. Relative binding (diethylstilbesterol binding affinity set at 100) to the human estrogen receptors alpha and beta increases as a function of chain length from not detectable for Methylparaben to 0.267 +/- 0.027 for human estrogen receptor alpha and 0.340 +/- 0.031 for human estrogen receptor beta for Isobutylparaben. In a study of androgen receptor binding, Propylparaben exhibited weak competitive binding, but Methylparaben had no binding effect at all. PHBA at 5 mg/kg day(-1) subcutaneously (s.c.) was reported to produce an estrogenic response in one uterotrophic assay using mice, but there was no response in another study using rats (s.c. up to 5 mg/kg day(- 1)) and mice (s.c. up to 100 mg/kg day(- 1)) and in a study using rats (s.c. up to 100 mg/kg day(- 1)). Methylparaben failed to produce any effect in uterotrophic assays in two laboratories, but did produce an effect in other studies from another laboratory. The potency of Methylparaben was at least 1000x less when compared to natural estradiol. The same pattern was reported for Ethylparaben, Propylparaben, and Butylparaben when potency was compared to natural estradiol. In two studies, Isobutylparaben did produce an estrogenic response in the uterotrophic assay, but the potency was at least 240,000x less than estradiol. In one study, Benzylparaben produced an estrogenic response in the uterotrophic assay, but the potency was at least 330,000x less than estradiol. Estrogenic activity of parabens and PHBA was increased in human breast cancer cells in vitro, but the increases were around 4 orders of magnitude less than that produced by estradiol. Parabens are practically nonirritating and nonsensitizing in the population with normal skin. Paraben sensitization has occurred and continues to be reported in the case literature, but principally when exposure involves damaged or broken skin. Even when patients with chronic dermatitis are patch-tested to a parabens mix, parabens generally induce sensitization in less than 4% of such individuals. Many patients sensitized to paraben-containing medications can wear cosmetics containing these ingredients with no adverse effects. Clinical patch testing data available over the past 20 years demonstrate no significant change in the overall portion of dermatitis patients that test positive for parabens. As reviewed by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel, the available acute, subchronic, and chronic toxicity tests, using a range of exposure routes, demonstrate a low order of parabens' toxicity at concentrations that would be used in cosmetics. Parabens are rarely irritating or sensitizing to normal human skin at concentrations used in cosmetics. Although parabens do penetrate the stratum corneum, metabolism of parabens takes place within viable skin, which is likely to result in only 1% unmetabolized parabens available for absorption into the body. The Expert Panel did consider data in the category of endocrine disruption, including male reproductive toxicity and various estrogenic activity studies. The CIR Expert Panel compared exposures to parabens resulting from use of cosmetic products to a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 1000 mg/kg day(- 1) based on the most statistically powerful and well-conducted study of the effects of Butylparabens on the male reproductive system. The CIR Expert Panel considered exposures to cosmetic products containing a single parabens preservative (use level of 0.4%) separately from products containing multiple parabens (use level of 0.8%) and infant exposures separately from adult exposures in determining margins of safety (MOS). The MOS for infants ranged from approximately 6000 for single paraben products to approximately 3000 for multiple paraben products. The MOS for adults ranged from 1690 for single paraben products to 840 for multiple paraben products. The Expert Panel considers that these MOS determinations are conservative and likely represent an overestimate of the possibility of an adverse effect (e.g., use concentrations may be lower, penetration may be less) and support the safety of cosmetic products in which parabens preservatives are used.
Reply
#24

Ugh... Okay this is my last post because fighting with some argumentative stranger on a forum is a massive waste of time and energy, but I digress...

Yes I am aware that methylparaben can occur in blueberries (although they're actually derived from benzoic acid which you clearly know is a chemical that commonly occurs in plant life and it is used as a preservative and plasticizer) and that for the most part they haven't been proven unsafe/safe for humans, however if you care to inquire about my reasoning behind not using parabens instead of making ridiculous assumptions then you wouldn't be so quick to attack or "educate" people...

I don't use parabens not only because I don't believe that they've been proven to be innocuous (especially from long term exposure) or the fact that I have extremely sensitive skin and have a negative reaction to products containing parabens, but also because it poses a risk to aquatic life. If you want to be kind to marine ecosystems, you will not use parabens, simple as that. If you believe that it's the safest preservative that exists and that the FDA has never approved the use of certain products/ingredients without sufficient data supporting the safety for human consumption/use, that's your opinion and I won't ridicule you for that even though I completely disagree.

Since we're talking about an oil based product here, essential oils would be sufficient to keep it from going rancid, so in my opinion parabens aren't the best option for extending this products' shelf life. Vitamin A, C & E are also excellent preservatives in certain products along with potassium sorbate and a handful of others I can't recall at the moment (once again this is only my opinion based on my own research.)

Just because something is derived from a natural source doesn't mean that the finished product is safe... With so much conflicting information out there coupled with the fact that I have very sensitive skin, I prefer making my own products; yes they do have a much shorter shelf life but that's fine by me as long as I can avoid contact dermatitis and other unpleasant side effects that I endured when using certain commercial products. When I do buy commercial products I am very particular about which ingredients are suitable for me because in the end it's my body and I'll decide what I want to expose myself to based on my own research not what some biased stranger so declares.

Anywho jennifer5519pm, have a lovely day and best wishes in the future. Ciao.
Reply
#25

jennifer5519pm:
woah, I said nothing about ingesting methylparabens. You are getting way too riled up over what? I wrote that it is not the most ideal thing in a product that goes topically on the skin assuming that the skin will be exposed to sunlight. Your reply makes absolutely no sense, as I said nothing about toxicity, just the actual effect it will have on your skin if you apply it there and go out into the sun. Has nothing to do with phytoestrogens.

Oh and I believe the low cost of production of parabens play a very big part in their widespread use in everything, not just how "fantastically safe and great" they are. There are other compounds out their that work just fine as preservatives other than parabens... But this is becoming a tiny bit off topic, so I'm going to leave this at that. I just wouldn't be using the serum a lot if I were going out to sun myself. You of course may do whatever you want =)
Reply
#26

Geez Jen. We get it you know a thing or two but why sit here and purposely fight and try and make people feel stupid. You are a forum bully. How about instead of rubbing your knowledge in people's faces you actually try and HELP them. Why do you even come to this site? Are you actually interested in NBE or just belittling people?
Reply
#27

This is directed to Janet...........her profound comment about parabens was
"ACK"

Incidentally this is a definitive tox study for parabens....the conclusion is they are safe in the levels used in cosmetics....they are used for as anti bacteria and ant-mold.....oils are susceptible to mold when people do not put the top on for long periods of time....the oils draw moisture from the air.

You are right Gilly just because something is natural it does not make it safe, however people consuming fruits and vegetables with these compounds in the food is highly suggestive. The purists are always POO POO ING CHEMICALS......synthetic man made molecules that don't occur in nature, natural molecules are generally more benign..........I just thought some people need to be provoked to think and learn something!


Reply
#28

Jennifer,

If you would like to provoke people to think and to learn, perhaps try using more constructive language and a more docile tone. There is no need for hostility on this forum. We are all trying to learn here. Your negativity and rash comments do not contribute as efficiently as you may believe. Communicate effectively, please.
Reply
#29

I have to say I have been revved up recently about preservatives and a few things where people are given a forum and spread things around that just are not true.

I will give you an example: I saw Jessica Alba the popular actress on Pierce Morgon talking about her efforts working with a company trying to make safe products for consumers. She was saying that Europe is very strict and this country allows thousands of chemicals on the market. "It is hard to find safe products " etc etc....She and others need to stick with their given advocation. I am not saying she is stupid because she is not but she sure is acting stupid and there is a difference. Thank god in heaven we are not europe.......At what point do you get sick of the gov't regulating everything we do? I don't mind someone attacking something but they better know what their talking about.


About 10 years ago there was this blue goof ball on TV condemning coconut oil use in popcorn at the theater. "It's bad for you, it's saturated, it raises cholesterol etc, etc. The food police came along and the movie theaters, at least many were pressured not to use it.

The reality however is that coconut is not bad for you, its actually very good for you. It effects you cholesterol positively.........

Don't you get sick of societies jerks attacking this and that and the only thing the're doing is blowing smoke up everybody's arss?

Next issue: go to BURGER KING OR MACDONALDS and ask for peanuts on your sunday.......can get anymore..........how bizarre........they are scared of some jerk suing them....where does it end?






Reply
#30

(30-04-2012, 01:31)jennifer5519pm Wrote:  I have to say I have been revved up recently about preservatives and a few things where people are given a forum and spread things around that just are not true.

Next issue: go to BURGER KING OR MACDONALDS and ask for peanuts on your sunday.......can get anymore..........how bizarre........they are scared of some jerk suing them....where does it end?

The local Dairy Queen ice cream stores have a sign on their windows, walk up and drive through "Products used in this facility may have been exposed to peanuts, contact the manager of the store for more information". Guess so they don't get sued by someone having a allergic reaction to peanuts?







Reply

Shop for herbs and other supplements on Amazon
(advertisement)




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)



Shop for herbs and other supplements on Amazon
(advertisement)


Breast Nexus is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.


Cookie Policy   Privacy Policy