Natural Products with Corporate Owners

I see a lot of people checking out my post on which companies perform animal testing, and thus I wanted to make sure to spread the news. It seems many small companies which make green products, and often don’t test on animals, have been bought up by larger companies that do.

In 2006 Tom’s of Maine was purchased by Colgate-Palmolive.

In 2007 Burt’s Bees was purchased by Clorox.

There was a third one, however, I can’t recall what it is at the moment. I am not suggesting to those who read this blog that they refrain from purchasing Burt’s Bees or Tom’s of Maine. I leave the choice to each individual, as they have to decide what they want to support. I haven’t made up my own mind yet. I think continuing to purchase green products owns by corporations will help send the message that this is what we want, so perhaps the corporations will lessen their production of harmful chemicals. However, I also realize that if I buy these brands, knowing they test on animals, then I am sending a message of a different kind. It’s not an easy decision. I just like consumers to be informed.

I welcome posts on other green products which are owned by corporations, so that people can be informed. I also welcome discussion on which side of the argument y’all are on.

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate

Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is catching heat within the natural living communities and many folks have sworn off using products containing it, but is it really something to be cautious of?

SLS is a naturally derived (from coconut and/or palm kernel oil) foaming agent which is used in car wash soaps, engine degreasers, and floor cleaners. It can also be found in many cosmetic items such as shampoo, soap, and toothpaste and in household cleaners like laundry detergent. It is popular with many manufacturers because of the cheaper production cost and effective cleaning process. Per The Children’s Health Environmental Coalition, The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association discourages use of sodium lauryl sulfate in products intended for prolonged use, unless in low concentrations. There are studies (according to this website which states Linda Chae as a reference for these facts) that suggest SLS penetrates the eyes and tissue (like organ tissue), and causes retention which can affect a person’s (especially infants and children) growth and vision. The website also states that SLS creates nitrates which enter the blood and cause problems such as hair loss, skin rashes, dandruff, etc., and causes the production of nitrosamines. It is also reported that the use of SLS in toothpaste can cause canker sores, though the connection to mouth ulcers is so far unfounded. The inhalation of SLS can lead to extreme choking, and thus is a hazard.

Tom’s of Maine, a popular natural care manufacturer, is very adamant that SLS is completely safe and rebukes the assessment that SLS can cause canker sores or is linked to cancer, liver disease and other medical problems. These statements are also reinforced by Snopes.com whom relays that “…three different agencies — the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have all rated SLS as being non-carcinogenic.” The Cosmetics Database lists the toxic level of SLS as 2 (low hazard), but also states the compound to be linked to cancer and other medical problems.

So it seems that there is no definitive answer concerning SLS. While the government offices and other reputable sources say SLS is harmless, there are studies and voices which state otherwise. Of course, that is just what the studies now show and we all know that sometimes chemicals and drugs deemed perfectly fine one year can come back in later years and be attributed to all sorts of nasty things or vice versa. I’m by no means suggesting people should be afraid, but I do believe in keeping informed and knowing the risks.

There is also a component called sodium laureth sulfate, or sodium lauryl ether sulfate (SLES) that is considered the weaker cousin of SLS. It seems many people confuse the two, which may be able to explain why there is such a lack of solid evidence on whether SLS is harmful. The two compounds are similar, but different enough. A concern with SLES is that is can be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane which is considered to be a probable carcinogen by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (and leads me to wonder why the Cosmetic Database rates SLES as a 3 or 4 on the hazard scale, while SLS is only a 2).

It is the advice of this blogger to stay away from both chemicals, and their counterparts (the websites linked to in this article give lots of alternative names for SLS and SLES as well as products which use them). When it comes to chemicals with this much uncertainty I would rather play it safe than sorry.