Dr Dingle's Blog / chemicals
Evidence from animal studies shows that prenatal exposure to bisphenol A (BPA), a ubiquitous endocrine-disrupting chemical, is associated with adverse reproductive outcomes in females and males. In females exposure during early gestation, a critical period for reproductive development, is of particular concern. The Anogenital distance (AGD) is a sensitive biomarker of the fetal hormonal balance and a measure of reproductive toxicity in animal studies. In some studies, the daughters of BPA-exposed dams have shorter AGD than controls.
The results of this study showed BPA was detectable in 94% of women. In analysis of the 381 eligible subjects, maternal BPA concentration was inversely associated with infant AGD-AC
In support of animal studies this human study shows that BPA may have toxic effects on the female reproductive system in humans, as it does in animal models. Higher first-trimester BPA exposure was associated with significantly shorter AGD in daughters, suggesting that BPA may alter the hormonal environment of the female fetus.
Bisphenol A (BPA) is a synthetic chemical widely used in consumer products, including food and drink containers, thermal receipts, medical equipment, and other plastic products. BPA is detectable in over 90% of the population in the United States, and may act on the endocrine system in numerous ways, including binding to and activating numerous nuclear and membrane endocrine receptors, and stimulating changes in estrogen, androgen, progesterone, and thyroid hormone activity.
Dozens of studies in humans have examined BPA exposure in relation to a wide range of health end points, including reproductive, perinatal, and pediatric outcomes. Many animal studies and in vitro studies show that many tissues and organ systems (including the mammary gland, prostate gland, adipose tissue, reproductive system, and brain) are sensitive to BPA. In animal and human studies, BPA can cross the placenta to enter fetal circulation. Because fetal development is a period of rapid cell proliferation and differentiation, tissue development, and organ growth, prenatal exposure to environmental chemicals such as BPA may be of particular concern.
Triclosan is another one of those chemicals that is finally on its way out even though we have known of its toxic effects for decades. After many decades of scientific scrutiny many companies are now removing TCS. Colgate removed triclosan from its Soft-soap liquid hand soaps and Palmolive antibacterial dish liquid in 2011. Unfortunately, the big companies still deny it is a problem but are phasing it out because of public concerns citing “changing consumer preferences and superior formulations”. Interestingly most of the research now shows it is not even effective in what it does.
Triclosan (TCS) is a biocide used as an antibacterial and antifungal agent in a number of consumer products such as toothpaste, mouthwash, disinfectants, soaps, hair products, skin creams (0.1%), feminine hygiene products, and cosmetics (Fang et al 2010, Dhillon et al Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015). Personal care products and cosmetics are the major source of exposure and studies on human subjects using TCS-containing cosmetics showed variable but significant amounts of TCS in their body fluids (Allmyr et al 2006, Sandborgh-Englund et al 2006) compared to controls.
Triclosan is also used as a preservative, fungicide, and biocide in household cleaning products and is infused into other household items such as kitchen utensils, cutting boards, kitchen wipes, mop heads, computer equipment, clothing, air filters, flooring, toys, bedding, and trash bags (Fang et al 2010). Research suggests that beyond its use in clinical applications (in hospitals) and toothpaste to prevent gingivitis (Gunsolley, 2006) there is questionable evidence that triclosan provides any extra benefit in other consumer products (Tan et al 2002). In 2001, a national survey detected triclosan and triclocarban in 76% of liquid soaps and 29% of bar soaps (Perenceivich et al 2001) whereas now it is likely to be in less than 10-20% of these products. However, as we have already seen many times, what is on the label is not always what is in the products and it has been detected in conventional dish liquid products at low concentrations, although it was not listed on the product labels.
Because of such widespread use in cosmetics, personal care and cleaning products TCS is one of the more frequently detected and highly concentrated contaminants in aquatic and terrestrial environments particularly in drinking water (Dhillon et al Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015). Triclosan was among the top seven organic wastewater contaminants found in samples from a network of 139 streams across 30 states by the U.S. Geological Survey (Kolpin et al 2002). Looking at the chemical structure of TCS implies that it may have chemical properties related to many toxic compounds, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), bisphenol A (BPA) and dioxins (Allmyr Sci Total Environ. 2008).
Use of these products, which typically contain 0.1 to 0.3% of the compound, results in absorption through lining of the gastrointestinal tract and mouth, and through the skin (Bhargava etal Am. J. Infect. Control. 1996; Dann and Hontela J. Appl. Toxicol. 2011)
Given the prevalence of triclosan in the environment, it is not surprising that measurable levels have been detected in just about every person even if you don’t use products with it on the label (Casas et al 2011, Philippat et al 2014). TCS absorption and distribution are rapid in humans and detectable levels have been found in body fluids such as amniotic fluid, blood, breast milk and urine (Allmyr et al. Sci Total Environ. 2006, Philippat et al. Environ Health Perspect. 2013) and TCS was detected in 100% of urine and 51% of cord blood samples in pregnant women in 181 expectant mothers from New York (Pycke et al Environ Sci Technol. 2014). TCS was also found in human tissues such as adipose tissue, brain, liver and nails (Geens et al.2012). The high TCS concentrations in the tissues relative to the environmental concentrations suggests that TCS bio-accumulates and is distributed all through human tissues. Other chemicals such as Propylene glycol, which is commonly found in the same product, has been shown to increase skin absorption of TCS (Fang et al. 2014).
Moreover, TCS has been detected in amniotic fluid, indicating that TCS can enter the fetal environment through the placenta (Philippat et al 2013). Fetal life is considered a particularly vulnerable period for exposure to EDC’s because hormonal disturbances during organ development may introduce irreversible changes (MacLeod et al 2010). Studies on pregnant rats have also reported the greatest bioaccumulation of TCS was observed in the placenta and that the hormone disruption might subsequently affect fetal development and growth (Feng et al. 2016).
In the U S, about two-thirds of 90 girls surveyed, aged 6–8 year olds had detectable TCS in their urine (Wolff et al. 2007). Among some Chinese school children aged 3–24 years old, higher TCS levels in urine were reported among females than their male counterparts. 93 % of those between 18 and 24 years had detectable levels (Li et al. 2013). Interestingly, in one study triclosan concentrations were a factor of 2 higher in Australian serum than in the Swedish plasma samples (Allmyr et al. (2008) most probably due to the discouragement to use triclosan containing products by the Swedish government and the lack of concern from the Australian authorities. Samples collected around Australia were remarkably homogenous with little differences between various groups showing they all appear to have a high exposure.
Breastfeeding infants represents a major route of exposure to TCS. In highly industrialized countries elevated concentrations breast milk are common (Dayan 2007). This is a major concern because of their immature metabolizing pathways of infants makes them particularly vulnerable to the negative impact of TCS. Not to mention they may be relying on just one source of food. Moreover, levels of triclosan in breast milk may be increased by underarm cosmetic use, which presents a direct dermal route of exposure to underlying epithelial tissue (Darbre, Best Pract. Res. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2006) and a study of Swedish women who are users of personal care products containing triclosan had higher concentrations in milk and serum than women who use similar personal care products that presumably contain no triclosan (Allmyr et al. (2006) showing that personal care products containing triclosan were the dominant, but not the only, source of exposure to triclosan.
Similar to all the research on the other EDC’s the latest science has shown that even small doses of certain chemicals can significantly affect hormone functions, if they are delivered at the wrong moment. The endocrine-disrupting properties of TCS including its effects on estrogen, testosterone activity and disturbance of thyroid hormone action (Arancibia et al.2009, Crofton et al. 2007; Henry and Fair 2013; Jung et al. 2012; Schiffer et al.2014, Paul et al 2010, Rodriguez and Sanchez 2010, Rotroff et al 2010) has been shown to occur at concentrations typically found in the studies on humans and the environment (Foran et al Mar Environ Res. 2000).
Because of its widespread environmental contamination many studies have been done on aquatic species show the same type of results. In a study on toads TCS exposure not only resulted in delayed growth and development but also caused birth defects in the animals embryos, and the developmental effects of TCS at high concentrations may be associated with disruption of the thyroid (Chai et al Ecotoxicology. 2016). Another study on tadpoles exposed to TCS developed into smaller froglets and had malformed legs (Helbing et al 2006 Aquatic Toxicology). In humans, recent studies have shown an increasing number of potential birth defects. In a study of 520 male newborns, prenatal triclosan exposure was inversely associated with prenatal growth parameters at week 33 and was statistically associated with reduced head circumference at birth (Philippat et al 2014). In another study prenatal TCS exposure was associated with reduced head and abdominal circumference at birth (Harmer Lassen,et al 2014 Environ Health Perspect)
Increasing evidence suggests that triclosan plays a role in cancer development, perhaps through its estrogenicity or ability to inhibit fatty acid synthesis (Dinwiddle et al 2014, Lee et al. 2012), Rodricks et al. 2010; Winitthana et al.2014; Wu et al.2014; Yueh et al.2014). Including breast cancer (Lu and Archer 2005, Lee et al Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2014) and liver tumours. Numerous studies have now investigated TCS’s estrogenic action in cultured cancer cells, animals and human and have shown estrogen activity. The results of these studies suggest that TCS affects cancer cell proliferation, particularly in the presence of estradiol. In male rats, TCS exposure led to decreases in serum testosterone, sperm production and male reproductive gland weight (Kumar et al Reprod Toxicol. 2009) as well as reduced ability to reproduce.
During the last decade, there has been a remarkable and unexplained increase in the prevalence of asthma. Some have hypothesized that widespread use of antimicrobial ingredients such as TCS may be a contributing factor. This concept is based on the hygiene hypothesis, which proposes that lack of pathogen exposure during development can alter the usual development of the immune system by eliminating or changing the commensal microbiota. But also for the potential of these antimicrobial products to alter the gut microbiome which is so important for the development of the immune system.
There are also increasing evidence of TCS-induced allergic reactions in humans. Dermatitis following prolonged use of TCS-containing hand washes (Wong and Beck 2001) or when further exposed to sunlight after use (Schena et al. 2008) have been recorded. Similarly, blisters were known to have erupted in the mouth and on the lips of human subjects following prolonged use of TCS-containing toothpaste (Robertshaw and Leppard 2007). A study conducted between 2003 and 2006 found a positive association between elevated urinary TCS levels and allergy or hay fever diagnosis, and concluded that TCS may negatively affect the immune system (Clayton et al 2011). A more recent study using data from 860 children obtained from the 2005–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found levels of urinary TCS was positively associated with allergies and food sensitization (Savage et al 2012). Another study also found that skin exposure to TCS in the presence of an allergen can augment the allergic response to that allergen (Anderson et al Toxicol Sci 2013).
TCS is known to have a negative impact on β cells in the pancreas which impacts on insulin synthesis and function and ultimately contributing to diabetes (Pi et al.2007). Its negative effect on the power house of the cells, the mitochondria may also be a contributing factor to diabetes (Ajao et al 2015).
For the last 50 years we have been brainwashed into thinking we need to apply more and more chemicals onto our skin and hair to make us look healthier and younger without even a second thought for what those chemicals are and they are really doing to us. In today’s technological advancements the increased use of chemicals in our homes and environment is out of control.
The majority of consumers are not concerned with the ingredients they are using, they trust the Governments who they think carefully regulate these chemicals and the manufacturers and the suppliers to provide safe products or they simply do not recognise the chemical substances written on the labels. Public awareness about the potentially harmful formulations of cosmetics is very poor
While the cosmetic industry and other funded agencies continue to justify using chemicals that potentially cause adverse health effects by stating these are at significantly low levels and do not pose a threat to human health and Consumers are led to believe the ingredients have been adequately tested and safe for use. In reality, most of the chemicals that are in these have been barely tested and the magnitude of their potential adverse effects is unknown. And this is without mentioning the increasing occurrence of asthma or our increasing affliction with twentieth-century diseases: multiple chemical sensitivity, auto-immune disorders such as chronic fatigue syndrome and allergies. These questions will not be answered for a very long time, as the study of toxic substances is still in its infancy. It relies on the crude method of using test animals and extrapolating these results to humans. Even if we could do all the tests we needed, it would take us hundreds of years and unimaginable amounts of money just to carry out the testing we do at present, on existing chemicals.
Many of the ingredients used in these products are also industrial chemicals, solvents and petroleum by‑products which have safety warnings about their use and exposure. It is not just the chemicals of concern but we are using more and more of these products, from an earlier age and for a longer period of time. With each successive generation exposed to the media we apply more chemicals more times than ever before in human history.
Our exposure to personal care products and cosmetics continues to increase each year. According to the Environmental Working Group, woman will have around 185 chemicals on her skin daily, and a man will have around 85. A study on how much we use these products found today's usage of personal care products and cosmetics around 6 times more than in 1983 and it is likely to be even higher now. The average woman now uses around 12 cosmetics and up to 25 different products, with more than 25% of women using 15 or more a day exposing themselves to more than hundreds of different chemicals every day. While the average male uses half this. The study found for example that liquid foundation is applied daily by 68.7% ‑ 74.8% of woman and 23.4% of woman applied the product twice a day on a daily basis. 65.3% ‑ 82.9% of people use shampoo daily and 26.6% use it twice a day.
Right now, research shows that these products can be produced with lower and lower toxicity. They can also be designed to work - to have real benefits without causing harm. In fact, some manufacturers are already committed to these principles. Buy safer products or stop buying hazardous ones. This may force the big multi-nationals to respond by manufacturing with safer ingredients, gradually removing the most toxic; but only if we, the consumers, use our market pressure, and take our money elsewhere. Ironically, we hold the ultimate power. Knowledge, and positive action based on that knowledge, is the way towards creating the changes we want. I did my PhD on formaldehyde exposure in the early 1990’s. It was clear then that this chemical caused a lot of problems and caused cancer in animals and probably humans. It was not until around 2013 that most of the big manufacturers said that they were now going to remove this chemical more than 20 years too late. In large, this can be attributed to the self-regulating nature of the cosmetic industry and the inadequate government regulatory bodies to protect the welfare of consumers.
The cosmetic industry is one of the largest and most profitable enterprises around the world generating large profits. Despite economic difficulties in the world, profitability of the cosmetic industry has been steadily increasing by about 5% each year and it has been predicted that this trend will continue into the future. Cosmetics and personal care products have become an essential part of the daily grooming routine of millions of people around the world. Personal care products are a 40 billion dollar industry in the United States, and worldwide worth more than $200 billion each year and increasing. This success can be explained by the use of powerful marketing techniques to influence the general public into buying cosmetic products. The cosmetic industry has played a significant role in shaping and reinforcing societal perceptions of physical appearance and personal hygiene. As a multibillion dollar industry, companies’ fork out massive expenditures on advertising, harping on the idea that one must be image conscious, and thus continue to consume cosmetic products. The modern market for personal care products is all-inclusive from females to males, from infancy to old age. With the ubiquitous availability of products that come in an overwhelming amount of different types, indulging in cosmetics has become a necessity, or so we are led to believe by the industry.
Unfortunately, with so much money and profits at stake the cosmetic and personal care industry is not without its greed and lack of scruples. To highlight this In September 10, 1997 hearings on the FDA reform bill (HR 1411), Senator Edward M. Kennedy stated: "The cosmetic industry has borrowed a page from the playbook of the tobacco industry by putting profits ahead of public health." Consumers are generally misled by advertising campaigns and fancy packaging as to what chemicals are contained in their skin care products. Many ingredients are promoted to improve the condition of the skin whilst their harmful effects are omitted.
The regulators whose job it is to protect our health play down the actual and possible effects of cosmetics and personal care products as they have to tow the bureaucratic line. They may acknowledge that some people react to chemicals in products and that the numbers affected are probably increasing. They may also acknowledge that some of the ingredients ‘might be toxic’. The regulator’s position is that these chemicals are safe until it is proven that they are doing harm. This extraordinary position has failed people who are already seriously ill and will continue to protect the manufacturer, not the consumer.
Another study adds to evidence that environmental chemicals can contribute to obesity. The study examined prenatal and early childhood exposure to BPA and found children at 7 years of age put on significant more weight if there mother was exposed to BPA. However, the researchers did not see an association between body fat and BPA levels in the children at ages three or five. The researchers suggest that this may be a time of heightened vulnerability to the chemical.
The results of this study suggest that prenatal BPA exposure may contribute to developmental origins of adiposity and findings are consistent with several prior studies, raising concern about the pervasiveness of BPA. Other human studies have found a similar link between BPA exposure and signs of child obesity. BPA has been shown to alter the body’s metabolism, increasing weight gain and making it difficult to lose weight. In a study of 1,326 children, girls between ages 9 and 12 with high BPA levels had double the risk of being obese than girls with low BPA levels, validating previous animal and human studies. The chemical can alter the body’s metabolism and make it harder to lose weight. Girls with high levels of BPA, two micrograms per litre or more, were twice as likely to be obese as girls with lower levels of BPA in the same age group. Girls with very high levels of BPA, more than 10 micrograms per litre, were five times more likely to be obese, the study showed.
Animal studies have found prenatal BPA exposure linked to offspring obesity. When pregnant rats are exposed to BPA it increased the fat mass in offspring, even later in life. In animal experiments, a mother’s exposure to BPA is produced the same outcomes that we see in humans born light at birth: an increase in abdominal fat and glucose intolerance. However, BPA affects rodent fat cells at very low doses, 1,000 times below the dose that regulatory agencies presume causes no effect in humans.
BPA, a common plastic additive, can leach out of can linings and into the food and studies show that just about everyone has traces of the chemical in their body. Ninety-four percent of the women in this study had BPA in their urine.
Parabens are one of the most widely and heavily used antimicrobial preservatives, which until recently, were found in up to 99% of cosmetics and toiletries. Typically, more than one paraben is used in a single product and they are often used in combination with other chemical preservatives and are commonly used in facial moisturisers, lipsticks, eye‑shadow and mascara, body sprays, deodorants, hair removal creams, shaving gels, body lotions, face creams, sunscreens, toothpastes, cleansers and shampoos. It is probably easier to say what they are not found in.
Unfortunately, multiple studies have also identified parabens in most of the personal care and cosmetic products analysed even if they were not mentioned on the label. In a study of personal care products methyl paraben was detected most frequently and at the highest concentrations. The highest concentration was in an “alternative” sunscreen. Of the 11 conventional samples with detectable parabens, 10 included products with “paraben” on the label. Nevertheless, in “alternative” products, the study found parabens in 7 products, including 3 sunscreens, that did not list parabens on the label. One study of the 215 common cosmetic products tested 93% contained parabens. Not only are they not be listing parabens on the label but manufactures may hide the chemical under the word ‘fragrance’, a collective term which covers over two thousand chemicals (Williams, 2004) or as the research shows they may not even label them as ingredients.
Parabens can be absorbed through application on the skin and able to enter the blood based on their fat loving (lipophilic) properties. As the vast majority of cosmetic products containing parabens are usually applied to the skin, it can be a major source of exposure. Average exposure to parabens is estimated to be around 76 mg per day which includes 1 mg daily from food, 50 mg from cosmetics and 25 mg from pharmaceuticals. Between 20 and 50 times more is taken in through the skin than food. As a result, extensive distribution of parabens in human samples, including milk, urine, semen, breast tissue and blood, has been reported over the past decade and widespread studies have now shown 2 or 3 or more paraben in 99% of the general population in many countries around the world.
Paraben absorption can also be enhanced by the presence of other chemicals such as ethanol, menthol and propylene glycol, which occur in a many commonly used cosmetic products Because parabens tend to accumulate they can be found in elevated concentrations in some tissues. In one study after eight hours of contact with skin 60% of methylparaben, 40% of ethylparaben and 20% of propylparaben were found to have permeated across the skins surface.
A number of studies have now shown higher paraben concentrations with increasing use of PCPs used in the past 24 hours. In particular, the use of colognes and perfumes has been associated with increased methylparaben concentrations in both adults and 8–13 year old children. Other PCPs associated with increased methylparaben concentrations include lotions, colored cosmetics (hair dye, foundation, blush, eye shadow, eye liner, or mascara), aftershaves and nail polish in adults and hair care products and deodorants (girls only) in children.
Many studies have now linked parabens to reproductive, endocrine, respiratory and other health problems including cancer, birth defects, infertility, contact allergies, and a host of other problems. Many studies have suggested possible chronic health effects of parabens, including increased risk of breast cancer and prostate cancer through estrogenic activity, and possibly increased risk of skin cancer. Parabens have also been linked increases in estrogenic activity in children, leading to decreased fertility in males early puberty in females including early breast development.
Natural estrogens act in target cells by binding to estrogen receptors which function to regulate gene expression. However, parabens have the ability to remain longer within the body and accumulate than their short‑lived natural counterparts. Studies have also found the estrogenic effects of parabens at doses at the same levels reported in many studies.
A number of studies have suggested that products containing parabens that are regularly used around the breast area, are contributing to the increase in breast cancers. In particular, products such as deodorants and anti-perspirants applied to, and left on the underarm area for long periods, thus able to absorb through the skin and accumulate in the underlying tissue. Studies show that around 54% of incidences of breast cancer were located around the underarm area.
In addition, an analysis of breast tissue samples collected during mastectomy performed for primary breast cancer showed that at least one paraben was detectable in virtually all samples (99%) because estrogen is known to play a central role in the development, growth, and progression of breast cancer. The mechanisms by which parabens contribute to breast cancer is now well established and shows they enable multiple cancer steps. Of great concern is also that combinations of different parabens can produce additive effects on proliferation and most paraben containing products have multiple parabens in them. They can act synergistically to increase breast cancer gene expression and the presence of multiple estrogen receptors and other areas where they can bind in breast tissues may even increase the activity of parabens.
The influence of paraben on estrogen activity may be exacerbated by the fact that many personal care products containing parabens are applied directly around the breast area, as is the case with underarm deodorants and body moisturisers. Clinical studies over the last decade have indicated the majority of breast cancers occur in the upper‑outer quadrant of the breast near to the underarm area where products are applied. Not only are these products then able to be directly absorbed but regular re-application can promote the bioaccumulation of paraben in breast tissue. Underarm cosmetics can penetrate the skin more efficiently as they are applied to an area which usually has nicks and abrasions, caused by shaving and other forms of hair removal. The frequent application of these PCPs and the fact that they are left upon the skin of the breast region means that the dermal area is constantly and regularly exposed leading to accumulation in the underlying tissues.
Studies as early as 1983 have suggested links with negative reproductive effects. This study found that six preterm infants had significant concentrations of methyl paraben and its metabolites present in their urine. While more recent studies have found that exposing pregnant female mice to small levels of environmental estrogens could lead to a termination during early pregnancy.
Male bits and Mens issues
In recent decades reproductive and developmental problems have become more prevalent—for example, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that male reproductive problems, including undescended testicles and hypospadias, doubled between 1970 and 1993. A rising concern has emerged regarding possible adverse effects of chemicals in cosmetics and PCPs on human reproduction outcomes. In developed countries about 15% of human couples are affected by infertility, almost half of these cases attributed to men, through low sperm motility or/and sperm count. Since they tend to mimic female hormones, these compounds especially affect male reproductive function.
Products containing parabens have been linked to negative effects on the male reproductive system and that exposure to paraben, particularly butyl paraben, while in the womb and in young males can lead to decreased testosterone levels and reduced sperm counts. Parabens appear toxic to the mitochondria and adversely affect mitochondrial function in the testes. The daily sperm production and the efficiency in the testes decreased dramatically in the test groups who received parabens. The sperm counts in the studies decreased in a dose dependent manner, that is the higher the paraben levels the lower the sperm counts. Other studies have also shown exposure to pregnant female rats led to male offspring with decreased testes, seminal vesicle and prostate gland weights, as well as decreased sperm count and motility.
Parabens have also been associated with allergic reactions (sensitisation); commonly rashes, swelling and itchiness and contact dermatitis (skin inflammation). An extensive range of adverse effects on the skin have been reported, including changes to cell structure, changes to gene expression, protein synthesis and cell death, following one month daily application of paraben based formulations. Studies are also showing chronic skin application of parabens may lead to prolonged estrogenic effects in skin. Estrogens are very important hormonal regulators in the skin and function to preserve collagen content, which supports and maintains elasticity thickening of the skin and wound healing. Daily application of products containing methylparaben to the skin found that the methylparaben remained unmetabolised on the skin and affected the ability of the skin act as a protective barrier so dermatological disorders, skin irritation and skin allergies often follow. Short term application to the skin of animals resulted in edema, which is swelling due to a collection of fluids, desquamation, which is a shedding of the skin, and erythema, which is a reddening of the skin due to dilation of the blood vessels. Similar affects have also been observed in human studies.
Overall this is a group of chemicals that we really do need to avoid but even reading the labels does not guarantee there will be no parabens.