Talk:Paraben/Archive 1

Archive 1

looks like some pharma industry operatives have been at work at this page.

I wrote most of this article and I'm not in any way linked with the pharma industry. I just thought it was important to debunk some myths. Or is the American Cancer Society also owned by the pharma industry? - Karl Stas 17:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I reworded the last paragraph to make it sound more encyclopedic; maybe the rest of the article could use similar cleaning up. I would definitely suggest moving the (non)carcinogenic discussion into a section of its own, keeping the hard facts at the top and ongoing research separate —Patrick Bernier 02:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Singular versus plural

What is the Wikipedia policy on article titles in the plural? I had a hard time finding this page because I was looking for paraben, not parabens. Maybe we should move this article to Paraben? I've created a redirect for now.

I hesitated at first, but since the article start with "is a group", maybe it makes sense to keep the plural. —Patrick Bernier 02:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter who wrote the article? What is important is that the FACTS are presented IN CONTEXT. The implication of the first comment is that the pharma industry cannot do this, which is not the case. I amended the article in two ways - removing all mention of benzylparaben as it is never used, and hasn't been used for many years (and was only rarely ever used), and I have placed the claimed detection of parabens in breast cancer tumours in context as there are huge question marks over the validity of this work, from the rationale to the methodology and the interpretation of the results. Dene Godfrey (not from the pharma industry, but involved in parabens usage in personal care)7.3.06.

I am also dubious as to the validity of this article. When the major links are to pages about 'the truth about antipersperants' by Unilever, of all sources, I immediately discard any factuality. Unilever has no reason to publish any information against parabens, and why should they? All that is in it for them is loss of revenue... I believe this article needs much more attention.

Several points about the above comments:

1) Why remain anonymous? 2) Why automatically assume that Unilever are telling lies due to self-interest? It is possible to combine the truth with self-interest! If Unilever stopped using parabens in all of their products, they would use different preservatives, with no loss of revenue, so your comment is illogical. I think that you discard the truth because the article does not fit in with what you want to believe. If you really want good examples of articles where you should discard any factuality, I suggest that you visit a few of the "organic cosmetics" web sites. These contain dozens of examples of blatantly distorting facts due to self-interest. 3) One futher, minor, point - parabens are not used in antiperspirant products as they do not need preserving! Does this mean that you will now accept the accuracy of the article? Dene Godfrey 13.3.06

I am allergic to paraben and found paragraph 4 quite annoying. The comment about under arm products seems to be something of a non-sequitor. Since paraben is in many products that are on sale in every shop, I don' think that comment is relevant or fair. LC

The comment about parabens in underarm products is important and highly relevant because the lead author of the study on parabens in breast cancer tissue claimed that parabens migrated to the breast through use in underarm products. As they are not used in underarm products, this claim is clearly totally erroneous. Dene Godfrey 12.4.06

Please note that someone keeps adding Nipagin and Nipasol as synonyms for methylparaben and propylparaben respectively. These are trade names (and are not even accurate as they are Nipagin M and Nipasol M - ethylparaben is Nipagin A) and have no place in an encyclopedia. Also, I think that the precautionary principle section (which I have deleted) was not appropriate as it was far too political and not even accurate. It pushed the tired old myth that, somehow, large cosmetic companies are bad and don't care what harm they do to their customers (does it make sense to try to kill your customers?), and that small health food stores are good. Both are out to make a profit and both have their place in society; neither are perfect. Dene Godfrey 29.9.06

I agree with Dene Godfrey that the trade names are not really appropriate - I had added them back in thinking they were chemical synonyms rather than just trade names. And I agree that the "precautionary princple" section should be deleted for the reasons stated above. I have also partially restored an older version which combines the former "reports" and "studies" sections into a single more readable "safety" section for the following reasons:

• • There was significant redundancy in the sections
  • There was non-encyclopedic commentary and NPOV from both points of view
  • Changes were made to direct quotes from the scientific article to make the conclusions somewhat different than what the authors wrote
  • The criticism of grape seed extract was not very relevant to this article and more appropriate to the article about that topic (perhaps a brief mention of it can be added back in?)

From the recent vandalism to this page and the chemistry wikiproject and the name calling directed at me in the edit summaries, it's clear that one or more individuals do not have building an encyclopedia as their primary interest, but I'll ignore that for now and hope that discussion will take place here to work out differences instead of resorting to reverting, insults, and vandalism. --Ed (Edgar181) 10:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems there is a conflict brewing here. I'd like to make a few comments to help it resolve in the best way possible:

• Dene should get an account so that the page is readable.
• The NPOV principle is very important. However it does not mean "all POV's are included".
• Everything must be verifiable, especially anything where there is conflict.
• The article should represent primarily the concensus opinion of the scientific community.
• A couple of research reports that contradict the scientific concensus may be notable enough to be included but most likely as a minor note.
• It may be notable that there is a significant movement that claims certain things regardless of evidence based soley on socio-political grounds.

This page should not represent a debate and allow equal space to both sides. It should be first and foremost about the chemical class, its uses (industrial and otherwise), reactions etc. There is room for health effects, perhaps a link to an MSDS and a summary of research in the area but that is not the main purpose of the article (yes, part of the purpose). Within this is the possibility of including evidence of adverse effects, but that is clearly far from the concensus opinion but still being investigated. I.e. there is a possibility of adverse health effects from long term exposure which remains largely unproven. This is the case for many, many chemicals (including natural products). There are many natural products that are more clearly linked to cancer such as banannas (radioactive) and over cooked meat (carcinogenic). If indeed there is some significant socio-politcal movement regarding parabens, yes it should be included (as NPOV, not as another POV).--Nick Y. 22:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature

To my knowledge, the accepted nomenclature for esters are alkyl-space-carboxylate. Should we shift all the pages (methyl, ethyl, etc) to that in accordance with wikipedia naming conventions? I tried to use google to check the hits for methyl paraben and they are not conclusive (1.23 M for methyl paraben and 1.11 M for methylparaben; 63,400 for butyl paraben and 300,000 for butylparaben). --Rifleman 82 23:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We tend to follow IUPAC. PubChem (Aargh .. when does my chemicalsources page finally come in place .. would be so handy here) for butylparaben gives IUPAC butyl 4-hydroxybenzoate (with a space), but both butylparaben and butyl paraben (a.o.). I think they should stay at butyl paraben/butylparaben, that is the name people would know. Space or no space .. no clue, maybe something for the chemicals wikiproject to think about? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

At the very least... the main article pages (not the redirects) should have consistent names? --Rifleman 82 00:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Conjugated pi system

Does the conjugated pi system play any role in the use of parabens? --HappyCamper 23:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably. There must be more known about the mode-of-action. I would not be surprised that these compound could be oxidised easily to quinoid structures. Would be worth a good search in pubchem libraries. Maybe 63.... would be willing to look up some information on these things? Would fit nicely into the chemistry part of the article. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Paraben Controversy Paragraph

There is definately some bad editing going on in this section. I believe that it is partially being propagated by instigation. Please don't react to POV biased editing by writing the other POV. Try to approach concensus. I wrote some fairly non-POV sentences only to be made into biased writing by instertion of choice words and phrases. This was then over reacted to with the opposite bias.--Nick Y. 18:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I see that you have removed the very POV sentences, I saw that they were readded by another editor. I am sorry, but I mainly reacted on that.

I am sorry, reviewing the history of your edits, and the next editor, I see where things went wrong, and why I rewrote the paragraph. But indeed, we'd better try and get to a concensus here. My explanation: Paragraphs about controversy are very difficult to keep non-pov. I tried to write the original paragraph from the controversy-point-of-view, why do people think there is a controversy, and then telling the opposite, hence, starting with that, and then stating that there is more proof against it. In stead of 'it has been proven untrue, but still people think it is true'. The latter form will meet more resistance from people who believe it is true, and will result in many POV edits, while . Also the use of names of specific groups ('grassroots campaigns') does not feel neutral to me (I had to look it up, it is apparently something American, but only one gets named, there will be many more, and there will be a lot of people who do not belong to any group who will believe it as well). I will have a second look (I see things get edited at the moment). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Could we please break up this run on sentence?? I think you would be hard pressed to find a sentence like this in any major encyclopedia. It isn't even proper English with a dependent clause after the semicolon.

• "Whereas the mainstream cosmetic industry believes that parabens, like most cosmetic ingredients, are perfectly safe based on their long term use and safety record and recent scientific studies[14], cosmetic campaigns raise awareness about safety concerns of potentially risky ingredients to avoid;[15] as their belief is that further research is necessary to determine the safety of parabens, as well as other preservatives, currently used in the marketplace (see also precautionary principle)."

I also have an issue with the phrasing of "cosmetic campaigns raise awareness about safety concerns of potentially risky ingredients to avoid" Not only is it meandering and unclear it also seems to be circularly self validating. They are concerned with raising awareness about the potential of there being safety concerns that people should be concerned about because of the potential risk. I am also not sure as to why this extremely broad statement is in this article. I would suggest at a minimum:

• "The mainstream cosmetic industry believes that parabens, like most cosmetic ingredients, are safe based on their long term use and safety record and recent scientific studies[14]. Public interest organisations which raise awareness about cosmetic ingredients believe that further research is necessary to determine the safety of parabens. (see also precautionary principle).[15]"

--Nick Y. 21:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Even with the NPOV modifications this page still reads with too much of an activist tone I think. --HappyCamper 14:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Paraben Controversy Section is now very short and to the point:

Since there is a noticeable movement away from parabens it is a relavent topic to cover in the article.

In addition the controversy section has been updated and modified to make it a NPOV paragraph now. There is commentary about the rejection of the controversial studies by the scientific community. Then the industry beliefs. Next, public interest organization views. And last of all, the concerns have led to a significant minorty shift from their usage by natural personal care companies seeking alternatives.

Since their is a concern and a controversy regarding parabens, it is Wikipedia's job to cover it. Thanks. --63.17.65.40 21:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Happy Camper when he says "Even with the NPOV modifications this page still reads with too much of an activist tone". The contraversy section is okay but some of the language in the above sections is written in a way which seems like a veiled effort to leave the uninformed reader with concern. For example the use of the word "rejected" has an implication of being somehow unfounded as in rejected out of hand. From what I have read there is pretty strong evidence that shows no correlation between breast cancer and deoderant usage. This doesn't preclude causation, but makes it very unlikely. It would be more accurate to say "has proven no correlation". It is our job as editors to make this distinction and it seems that there is an effort to blur this line and obfuscate the truth. I think perhaps it is important to note that most of this controversy actually emenates from internet mass e-mail circulations. --Nick Y. 21:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nick for the most part even though I like the word rejected in the article.

I agree with Nick about the language could be toned down a bit. Also, it is important to note that the paraben controversy section should be simply and basic and not lengthened to a larger paragraph. I made the mistake before of having too much commentary. My recommendation is to limit that section to no more than 6 or 7 sentences tops. Thanks. --63.17.47.202 23:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur, could one of you try that, I am pretty busy at the moment with other wikipedia (or better, mediawiki) things. I hardly come to editing pages. I think the page has a nice setup now, though indeed the texts could be smoothened a bit. I'll keep an eye on it, and maybe do something myself, when I give up on php for a moment. See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. 63.17. When you reply to a subject, could you do that under the same header; when you view the page, click on the 'edit' to the right of the header you want to reply to, and then use an appropriate number of ":"s to indent your answer (in general one more than the previous text). And maybe you could reconsider to create an account, it makes you more anonymous (you don't have to use your own name, or tell anything substantial about yourself, if you don't want that), and gives you some extra tools and possibilities, and us an easier way of contacting you. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Dirk,

I am a good writer, however, taking the article to the next level is for experienced, skilled writers. I will leave it up to the pros if any minor adjustments need to take place. Also, I have opened this account. The article has been updated recently. I think it is fine now and well above average, especially when compared to other preservatives articles I have worked on including Potassium Sorbate. Fine tuning the article will be left up to sophisticated philosophers. The article before seemed to make an overeaching attempt to prove parabens are safe. Now, it is NPOV with the additional references, along with clearer written language I believe.

>>>Note: The 100,000 times sentence needs clarification.

The effect of butylparaben is approximately 10,000 to 100,000 times weaker than estradiol, measured at a dose level which was 25,000 times higher than is used to preserve products.[15]

The secend part of the sentence does not seem to make any sense to me. This sentence could use a better explanation. Maybe an additional sentence or two to clarify.

...measured at a dose level which was 25,000 times higher than is used to preserve products.[15]

Thanks. --Organic Flavor 19:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the bit about butylparaben being 100,000 times weaker than oestrodiol and also the 25,000 times higher than normal use concentrations. I used the 100,000 figure for this calculation rather than the 10,0000 figure, not to make it look better for butylparaben, but because the 100,000 figure was based on the in vivo work, and the 10,000 figure on in vitro. In vivo carries more weight than in vitro. The rationale behind the use of these figures was to illustrate that using an overdose factor of 25,000 to produce an effect 100,000 times weaker than the reference standard emphasises just how unlikely it is that butylparaben will have any adverse effect in humans, ie. that "normal" use concentrations, therefore, have an effect 2,500,000,000 times weaker than oestrodiol. Most people would think that was fairly safe and well within the terms of the "precautionary principle" that was added to the page and then, quite correctly in my opinion, removed. Dene Godfrey 6.10.06

Estrogenic Activity of Parabens

Hello,

I believe propylparaben has estrogenic activity as well. The more water soluble the paraben the less activity it has. Out of the 4 popular parabens (methyl, ethyl, propyl, and butyl), two are more fat-soluble type parabens. Since propylparaben has some estrogenic activity, the article needs to be updated. I can't find a specific study on proyplparaben but here is one recent study I found. This study clearer states about the more fat-soluble the paraben is the more estrogenic activity it has.

Parabens: A Review of Epidemiology, Structure, Allergenicity, and Hormonal Properties Parabens are the most commonly used preservatives in cosmetic, pharmaceutical, and industrial products. But what is the "paraben paradox?" from DermatitisContact, Atopic, Occupational, Drug, Jun 2005 Allison L. Cashman; Erin M. Warshaw

-->>>Pleaae check above study for "Estrogenic activity of propylparaben" inclusion in parabens article. Thanks. --Organic Flavor 20:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would expect that water solubility increases: Bu<Pr<Et<Me, so your statement that two are more fat-soluble appears to state the obvious. That said, iff you feel strongly that this material should be included, WP:be bold and do it! Do remember to cite the information you add properly though. The reference you had over there didn't really make sense because. I had to google the keywords to find this article.

For your convenience, I've typed the reference out; you can copy and paste it at the end.

<ref>Cashman AL, Warshaw EM. Parabens: a review of epidemiology, structure, allergenicity, and hormonal properties. Dermatitis. 2005 Jun;16(2):57-66; quiz 55-6. PMID 16036114 </ref>

--Rifleman 82 01:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Rifleman 82,

Thanks for your encouragement and elder words of wisdom from the heart -- as you are an experienced and knowledgeable Wikipedian.

I felt shy but I was bold with my contributions. I prefer to write detailed and explanatory sentences. Happy readings. --Organic Flavor 06:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am mystified over the inclusion of this section. This is not based on fact, but on someone's "belief" that propylparaben has oestrogenic activity. It also contains several errors. Neither propyl nor butyl are "long-chain" esters, having only 3 and 4 alkyl carbons respectively. It is not usual, in my experience to describe anything below around 6 or 7 carbon chains as "long". Methylparaben and ethylparaben are by no means "highly water soluble". Where has this information come from? Methylparaben is soluble to only 0.24% in water at 25 degrees C, and the solubility reduces through to butylparaben at approx. 0.02%. The writer is not aware of any specific study that has identified an oestrogenic response with propylparaben(because, as far as I am aware, no such study exists), so why is the section on the page? If you refer back to my comments concerning the strength of the oestrogenic response to in-use concentrations of butylparaben, it may be logically concluded that the safety factor for propylparaben contains far too many noughts to be of consequence (as, indeed, does that of butylparaben). I believe that this section should be removed. Dene Godfey 6.10.06

Hello Dene,

Please get a copy of the full text of the article and read it thoroughly. The longer the chain length the more estrogenic the effect. It is quite simple science. Instead of ERASING I recommend you be bold and enhance that section. If you believe propylparaben has absolutely no estrogenic activity at all then where is your solid proof. Thanks for your suggestions on improving that section for accuracy. --Organic Flavor 08:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Note for Dene: Also, the 100,000 times sentence that I believe you contributed to the article does not make much sense.

I would like you to clarify that section. I do not want to erase your contributions but rather enhance, clarify, and/or discuss. For the uninformed reader the 100,000 sentence is hardly understandable. Please add one or two more sentences or better clarification for all readers to understand. The uninformed reader does not understand that sentecne at all. Thanks Dene. --Organic Flavor 08:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Second Note: What do you mean by far too many naughts? The bottom line is that propylparaben is more oil soluble, thus producing an estrogen effect. This is quite simple. If you disagree maybe you can clarify that section IF you can you can prove your case or add an explanantion with a reference that propylparaben does not have any estrogenic activity, otherwise my info may remain and could be improved my an informed Wikipedian as yourself. --Organic Flavor 08:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the point Dene has is that Bu paraben has negligible estrogenic effect already. Pr paraben is comparatively less lipophilic, which by your reasoning will be even less lipophilic (assuming lipophilicity is the sole determinant). Perhaps all this should be combined into one section "Estrogenic effect of parabens" and discussed there, because alone they are not quite remarkable. --Rifleman 82 08:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree: It may be a good idea to combine both paragraths. I welcome any editor to jump into the article and make the necessary edits.--Organic Flavor 08:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Organic Flavor. Thanks for your feedback. I will certainly try to get hold of a copy of the paper to which you refer. I am not disputing the possibility of longer chain lengths being increasingly estrogenic, although there must come a point where the chain length causes steric hindrance and reduces the ability to bind to the estrogen receptor sites. My main point is that butylparaben is so incredibly weakly estrogenic (by a factor of 2,500,000,000 compared with estradiol at normal use levels), that propylparaben, with its shorter chain length, will be even weaker - hence the too many noughts comment. Putting this in context, there seems to be no controversy over the fact that we regularly ingest phytoestrogens in our daily diet, some of which have activities ranging from 1,000 to 100,000 times weaker than estradiol.

I have amended the sentence concerning the 100,000 times factor and, hopefully, clarified it by also expanding on it. I hope this is acceptable to everyone.

Finally, thanks to Rifleman for the support! Dene 6.10.06

Hello Dene,

My decision to add the "Estrogenic Acitivity of Propylparaben" has a two-fold reasoning behind it. The first reason, is to explain that other parabens also have an estrogenic effect (which is a scientific fact), although propylparen has a somewhat of a weaker effect than buytlparaben. But since it still has an estrogenic effect it is important to explain. The second reason was to explain how some parabens have an estrogenic effect and others have virtually no effect. The article was lacking an explanation to why some parabens have an estrogenic effect and others have virtually no detectable estrogenic effect. I believe the main contributing factor is quite obvious, the chain length solubility factor is the determining measure. Also, I hope you will clarify any of the details for accurracy if you think any changes need to happen. I look forward to reading your edits for a better and more precise parabens article if you think any improvement in factualization is necessary. Thanks You. --Organic Flavor 17:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't get access to the link (my library only has the journal, Contact Dermatitis). I would rewrite it if I could get the fulltext but since I can't, I won't risk misinterpreting what little text there is here.

Comment: About it being 2.5 billion times weaker. Weaker with reference to the same weight? Molarity? Also, is the dose-response linear over such a wide range? Or is this an extrapolation? I'm not a toxicologist but in spectroscopy, there's only a narrow band where concentration and response are linear or approximately so. --Rifleman 82 17:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

Please click on the link to get to the yahoo search page for anyone who wants to read the parabens study for propylparaben referenced in the article. Click on number 2 results. http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Parabens%3A+A+Review+of+Epidemiology%2C+Structure%2C+Allergenicity%2C+and+Hormonal+Properties+Parabens+&fr=yfp-t-500&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8 Thanks. --Organic Flavor 18:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with saying something (in this case) is estrogenic is that many people will automatically think that it is highly dangerous. The point I am trying to get across is that there must surely come a point beyond which the effect is so weak as to be totally insignificant. It is my estimation that 2.5 billion times weaker must be way beyond that point. It all comes down to most people confusing a hazard with risk. Estrogenicity is undoubtably a hazard, but when the effect is as weak as that of Bu paraben, the risk is non-existant. Officially, a risk of 1 in 1 million is classified as not significant. To answer Rifleman, I would guess that the comparison refers to a weight for weight measure but, to be honest, at that extremely low activity level, I don't see that it matters. This is not my field of expertise either, but I have discussed this in great detail with a toxicologist, so I think I am on fairly safe ground with most of this. I would argue that there is a strong dose response correlation, because the effect is achieved by the molecule binding to the estrogen receptor sites. You would expect that the more molecules you have present, the greater the effect. Clearly, if you achieve saturation of the binding sites you lose the correlation, but a NOEL (No Observed Effect Level) was established in that study, so it cannot be argued that the saturation point may be acheived at a lower dose than that cited in the study as being estrogenic, at least, not significantly lower. One very important factor that I have not included in my risk assessment calculation is that the in vivo study used subcutaneous injection, bypassing the documented breadown of the ester by enzymes in the skin. One study determined that only 4% of the Bu paraben applied actually passed throught the skin intact. If you want to multiply 2.5 billion by 25 to get a figure closer to reality, please do so, but I'll settle for Bu paraben being safe. This is the biggest issue for me - I see that study as proving the safety of the molecule as I would settle for a safety factor in the billions every time. I am in much more danger every time I step out of my front door or, indeed, just sitting here typing!

We were in edit conflict a few moments ago, but I have now had chance to check out your reference. I have seen this paper before, and I am not impressed. They include benzylparaben as being widely used and this is totally wrong. It is not used in personal care. If they can get that simple fact wrong, I don't have a lot of faith in the overall paper. The reference to propyparaben goes back to the Routledge study. Routledge only tested Pr paraben in vitro and it was found to be weaker than Bu paraben. The fact that he didn't bother testing Pr paraben in vivo is probably due to the likelihood of there being insufficient activity to measure. I think I am right in saying that 100,000 times weaker than estradiol is around the limit of detection. Dene 6.10.06

Hello Wikipedians,

I have made the necessary minor adjustments to the "estrogenic activity of propylparaben" section. I think it is fine now. The section can remain independant or combined with the other section on butylparaben. I will leave that up to experienced edtors to determine -- route of action. The new section could be called Estrogenic activity of parabens or Hormonal activity of parabens or just keep both sections separate. If anyone disagrees it is important to provide the valid references for their beliefs. I provided the solid reference for easy to understand reading. And, I recommend if any clarifications needs to be done to the new section is to be bold with your editing. Good luck.

Note to Dene: I think you are now questioning the validity of the study. I think the study clearly states the obvious. The longer the chain length equals the more the estrogenic effect. As I stated before, this is simple science. Thanks. --Organic Flavor 19:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

By no means am I questioning the validity of the study! However, with respect, I have to question your interpretation. The study did not produce in vivo data on Pr paraben. Its main claim is that Bu paraben is weakly estrogenic. This claim is made, essentially on the basis of the in vivo results. The probable reason that no in vivo trial was carried out on Pr paraben was because the test would not detect activity, bearing in mind that the in vitro study showed Pr paraben to be 3 times weaker than Bu paraben. By extrapolation, an in vivo test may have shown that Pr paraben is at least 300,000 times weaker than estradiol, if it is possible to detect down to that level. I repeat my points from an earlier comment - in vivo data outweighs in vitro, and at what point do you decide that the effect is, essentially, non-existant? What I am questioning is the presentation and interpretation of the results. It is all too easy to test any compound at any level - at a sufficiently high test concentration it is inevitable that some adverse effect will be observed. Even water has an inhalation hazard, for example! To entitle a paper "Some Alkyl Hydroxy Benzoate Preservatives (Parabens) Are Estrogenic" is not ideal. The authors present the results and, effectively, walk away, leaving others to put the results in context - ie. a risk assessment, which is what I have been trying to do. Unfortunately, the majority of observers never get beyond the headline (ie. the title of the paper). I see this modus operandum as somewhat irresponsible. It is, effectively, doing only half a task. My point is, surely, proven by the fact that you continue to insist on the inclusion of Pr paraben, when I have done the risk assessment for Bu paraben and shown the huge dilution factor involved. My main argument is that it is highly contentious to label Bu paraben as estrogenic when its relative strength (at normal use concentrations) compared to estradiol is considered, and as, by your own admission, Pr paraben must be even less estrogenic, then to label it is such is greatly misleading, especially to the "scientifically uninformed". Expressing this concept in a very different manner; if aspirin were as potent an analgesic as Bu paraben is an estrogen-mimic, a person would need to ingest 3 times their own body weight in pure aspirin to cure a headache. I disagree with the inclusion of the section covering Pr paraben, and it does not read clearly at all. I will not attempt to delete it, however, as I feel I am too close to the argument. If anyone else agrees with my assessment, then please feel free to remove it. Dene 7.10.06

Hello Dene,

I noticed you mentioned propylparaben has a 3 times weaker effect than butylparaben (but it still has an effect). You have already proven my point. I explained the longer chains have estrogenic activity which are ---> butyl and to a lesser extent propyl. Your above statements are in agreement with my contributions to the parabens article. Thanks. --Organic Flavor 07:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: I think we are all in agreement that 'propylparaben' has an estrogenic effect. That said, I merely explained that propyl has an estrogenic effect -- to a lesser extent which is true. Any reader will understand what is ---> to a lesser extent means. Thanks. --Organic Flavor 08:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Organic Flavor,

Sorry, but you still seem to be missing my point! The fact that Pr paraben was measured at 30,000 times weaker than estradiol, compared with Bu paraben at 10,000 (ie 3 times weaker)in the in vitro study does not prove your point. I have already stated that in vivo data are more realistic (not more accurate, as you stated) in relation to living systems. My point is that, based on the risk assessment of the in vivo data, Bu paraben is not sufficiently estrogenic to be of concern, and Pr paraben, by reasonable extrapolation from the in vitro data, even less so. Neither molecule, therefore, should be termed estrogenic because, by any reasonable standards it would be impossible to replicate the effect observed in the Routledge study in "real life". In order to achieve the 200mg/kg dose level (the Lowest Observed Effect Level) in the study, a human would need to apply 120kg of a cosmetic product (containing Bu paraben at 0.01% - a fairly high level) to the skin, and it would have be totally absorbed with no ezymatic degradation en route. To use an analogy, 20 x 100mg paracetamol tablets will cause irreversible liver failure; to insist that Bu paraben is estrogenic is equivalent to saying that just licking a paracetamol tablet will result in the same effect. In summary, to all intents and purposes, neither Pr nor Bu paraben can exhibit an estrogenic effect in practise. To insist in attaching the estrogenic label misleads the ill-informed layman.

Once more, thanks to Rifleman, for an excellent amendment. Dene 7.10.06

Yes, thanks to Rifleman. Dene45 wanted to erase ALL the info I recently contributed to the parabens article. However, instead of erasing it is much better to clarify, discuss and rewrite. My info is still in the article; now it is merely reillistrated in better detail thanks to bold editing by Rifleman 82. Remember, instead of removing sentences just be bold and clarify. Instead of being mystified be bold! Thanks. --Organic Flavor 16:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the 100,000 times sentences may not be accurate.

Hello,

Here is a link that provides the informative facts.

Click on link for reference: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-para.html

FDA is aware that estrogenic activity in the body is associated with certain forms of breast cancer. Although parabens can act similarly to estrogen, they have been shown to have much less estrogenic activity than the body’s naturally occurring estrogen. For example, a 1998 study (Routledge et al., in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology) found that the most potent paraben tested in the study, butylparaben, showed from 10,000- to 100,000-fold less activity than naturally occurring estradiol (a form of estrogen). Further, parabens are used at very low levels in cosmetics. In a review of the estrogenic activity of parabens, (Golden et al., in Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2005) the author concluded that based on maximum daily exposure estimates, it was implausible that parabens could increase the risk associates with exposure to estrogenic chemicals.

10,000 to 100,000 times is definately more accurate! "I don't get it." Why leave out the part 10,000? There needs to be a bit of clarification here I think. Leaving out the part 10,000 from the parabens article is just obfuscating the truth! I hope this helps. Thanks. --Organic Flavor 07:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no obfuscation. Once more, in vivo data carries far more weight than in vitro ("in life", rather than "in glass") for what I hope would be obvious reasons. As the 100,000 figure was generated from the in vivo study, that would be deemed to be more scientifically relevant. This is why is used the 100,000 figure, but in reality, even if you insisted on taking the 10,000 figure, after doing the multiplication to take into account the 25,000 times overdose factor, we still end up with 250,000,000. Is it worth the bother? It still sounds safe to me. Dene 7.10.06

Hello Dene,

I understand now. You believe the vivo data is more precise. Thanks for the clarification. --Organic Flavor 07:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag

An anon editor has put a POV tag on this article but has not explained why. I will remove the troll tag. We do not need to debate the facts again contributed by many many editors. Message for anon editor. Please cited yours sources and explain your reasoning what if anything you dispute. Wikipedia is about verifiable facts not opinion. --Organic Flavor 21:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I see POV problems in the opening paragraph and added the last sentence referring to research on GSE being effective, but language is still POV, IMHO. "probably explains why parabens are so commonplace" ugh. Looks NPOV to me.

I also question the references used. Specifically, I think the Occurrence section is questionable. I've checked out all three references and they do not refer to parabens. They might lead to research on antimicrobial agents found in nature (See ref #3), but not parabens occuring naturally. I don't see any connection with Ref #4 and #5. No, I'm not a bio-chemist. -- Peace! JSM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.163.19 (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added a POV tag to this article. Specifically, the article grossly violates the Fairness of Tone by such statements as: One controversial scientific study reports that parabens were found in samples of breast tumors.[10]

In this example, the word "controversial" is unnecessary, as is detailed in the NPOV:Let the facts speak for themselves section. This type of descriptive language appears throughout the article.

Furthermore, in reviewing a number of the citations, I fail to find a number of the statistics in the articles themselves. Instead they appear to be original research conducted by editors (violating the Wikipedia pillar on No Original Research). A number of the statements lack citations.

I'm having real trouble seeing Phillipa Darbre debating herself as illustrated in the citations. As a researcher looking at the links between breast cancer and paraben exposure, she is not about to critique her own work. Based on my limited research, I suspect that portions of this article mis-characterize other's work. Certainly, characterizing something as a "review" as in citation 12 is not appropriate; it is merely a search of Australian Health Ministry website.

I am not NPOV here and would prefer that other less openly biased editors address these shortcomings. There are many ways to neutrally detail the long history of paraben use, low toxicity under classical endpoints, irritating and allergic responses, and the existing strengths and shortcomings of the science surrounding weakly estrogenic chemicals. Ultimately, this article makes judgments, and Wikipedia is about providing and citing facts to allow others to come to their own conclusions. Kmarkey (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Only research that suggests parabens might have safety problems were qualified as "controversial", whereas there is controvery on both sides of the argument. So I have removed the two instances of that word. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Estrogenic activity of parabens; paraben controversy

Reading this article, I get the impression that there's scientific consensus that all parabens are considered safe for use as preservatives i cosmetic products. I believe that's not true, at least not in Europe, and I believe that the Wikipedia article on parabens should include this aspect.

The EUs Scintific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP) have reviewed the safety of parabens twice since Jan 2005. Both reviews ends up with the same conclusion: Methyl and ethyl paraben are considered safe; Propyl, Isopropyl, Butyl and Isobutylparaben are not. The SCCP doesn't conclude that the four last mentioned parabens are "dangerous", but that more data is needed to say anything certain about their safety.

The newest SCCP opinion published in October 2006 had the same conclusion. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_sccp/docs/sccp_o_074.pdf

Based on these SCCP opinions, I suggest that someone updates the Wiki article on parabens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.159.119.164 (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Furthermore (I wrote the last unsigned message as well): The chapter "Estrogenic activity" claims that parabens are unlikely to penetrate into the tissue and remain intact. Not true, or at least arguable. A Norwegian safety assessment on parabens (VKM, 2006) states that about 50 % of the butyl paraben applied can penetrate the skin in its original form. The VKM safety assessment is available (in English) on this URL: http://www.vkm.no/eway/library/openForm.aspx?param1=16683&param5=read.

Can parabens accumulate in human tissue? That's also arguable. Butyl paraben has an estimated LogKow of 3,47 (Epiwin v 3.12). Substances with Logkow < 3 are generally considered to be lipophilic. Generally, lipophilic substances might accumulate in human tissue. As far as I know it's neven been proven that butyl paraben DOESN'T accumulate in human tissue (please correct me if I'm wrong.). Hence, the Wiki article on parabens should not state that parabens doesn't accumulate, in my opinion. HLindahl 12:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

One group of workers established that only 4% of butylparaben absorbed through the skin remains intact; the remaining 96% is hydrolysed by esterases in the dermis/epidermis. (Bando, H, Mori, S, Yamashita, F, Takakura, Y, Hashida, M, J. Pharmaceut. Sci. 86, 759 – 761 (1997). Various studies have shown that all the parabens are completely metabolised/excreted, so there is little reason to believe that they can accumulate in human tissues. Dene 193.128.151.25 14:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

HLindahl 08:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC) I am aware of that study, but newer studies come do very different conclusions. The Norwegian "Scientific Committee for Food Safety" evaluated the use of parabens i cosmetic products in 2006. The conclusion on dermal absorption, based on studies from the industry (beiersdorf AG and duPont), was as follows:

"The Panel regards the new data on skin penetration of butyl paraben sufficient for the determination of the SED for a worst case human exposure. This information indicates that a considerable fraction (50%) of the unmetabolised butyl paraben, following dermal use, is systemically available."

The study is available in English on http://www.vkm.no/eway/library/openForm.aspx?param1=16683&param5=read.

Put together with studies that finds parabens in human blood, tissue and urine, it seems to me very likely that parabens can penetrate the skin. Since butylparaben is lipophilic (LogKow 3,47 in Epiwin), it's not impossible that the substance may accumulate in human tissue.

This section as is is horrendously written, the bit about the "it may be calculated estimation estrogenic activity" being a prime example, hormones do not follow linear kinetics, and even if they did, the "in-article" calculation is a woeful, grade-schoolish addition. And having already established that parabens can accumulate in human tissue, the calculation is rendered useless. Can someone with deeper pharma knowledge really do up this article better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.230.33 (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a question relating to parabens

Is it possible that in a production process of a product, a natural product, a natural occurrence will develop methyl paraben? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.127.75 (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Methylparaben is a naturally occurring material in some plants and animals. IIRC Crysanthamums contain it, as do the vaginal secretions of dogs in oestrusValueaddedwater (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Convoluted wording?

Some parabens are found naturally in plant sources such as methylparaben from the fruit of the blueberry shrub, where it acts as an antimicrobial agent.

Why is this worded 'from the fruit of the blueberry shrub', instead of simply, 'in blueberries'? Dforest (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is awkward and have reworded the sentence. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Fix neutrality with a cost/benefit analysis?

With regard to the dispute about the articles neutrality, it seems reasonable that

• There should be more discussion of what specific benefits this class of chemical has versus other substances used for the same purpose, instead of just what they are used for.
• There should be a table of other estrogenic substances that the average person can use to determine just how much they should really worry about this one, if they are going to be worried about their exposure to such things.

I don't have either of these references on hand at the moment, but I think that would go a long way towards making the article more neutral, particularly since it would explain well why these compounds are used regardless of the slight doubt we now have as to their safety. Zaphraud (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the neutrality would best be fixed by referring to risk assessments rather than just referring to single studies. It's very easy to write a misleading article if you just refer to single studies. Risk assessments are conducted by expert panels, and reach cocnlusions based on many studies, including industry-funded studies that aren't made public.

Both the SCCP (EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Products) and the Norwegian Committe on Food Safety have conducted comprehensive risk assessments on parabens. Both have reached the conclusion that based on current knowledge, it's impossible to stat wheter propyl- butyl- isopropyl- and isobutylparabens are safe as they are used today, while methyl- and ethylparaben are considered safe. I believe this should be the main point in the Toxicology-section of this article. As it is written today, it's very misleading.

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_sccp/docs/sccp_o_074.pdf http://www.vkm.no/eway/library/openForm.aspx?param1=16683&param5=read —Preceding unsigned comment added by HLindahl (talk • contribs) 10:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternatives?

Would it be useful to have a section that covers alternatives used by cosmetic companies, such as Ethylhexylglycerin - this site [1] although not usable as a source indicates Ethylhexylglycerin as an alternative. 89.240.7.86 (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

How does it work?

How do parabens kill bacteria and fungi? Seems like something very relevant is missing in this article. 92.242.177.66 (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Foods containing Parabens

This article touched on what Parabens are, how they are formed and the contraversy around them. I did not notice information as to what foods / food comapnies might use them or what skin product companies use them. This information would be very helpful to the common person who would like to avoid them or at least be aware of them. Thank you Wikipedia, for all of your effort to present the truth! Job well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.168.21 (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Parabens are so widely used in foods, cosmetics, and other products that it would be impractical to indicate which foods/products contain them or which companies use them. Currently, the article contains a couple of sentences in the introduction indicating how they are used (They can be found in shampoos, commercial moisturizers, shaving gels, personal lubricants, topical/parenteral pharmaceuticals, spray tanning solution, makeup, and toothpaste. They are also used as food additives.) but I agree with you that it would be helpful for the article to expand upon this in the main text. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Out of topic portion?

The last paragraphs of the heading "BREAST CANCER" reads:

A further systematic review in 2008 examined 59 earlier publications (19 in depth) for answers to the questions: -Are there experimental or biological arguments supporting a potential link between the use of deodorants/antiperspirants and breast cancer? -Does the use of deodorants/antiperspirants have any effect on the increase in the risk of breast cancer? -Could a causal relationship between the use of deodorants/antiperspirants and breast cancer be accepted? They found "no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis was identified and no validated hypothesis appears likely to open the way to interesting avenues of research." They conclude "Au final, il semble possible d’affirmer que cette question ne constitue pas un problème de santé publique et qu’il apparaît donc inutile de poursuivre les recherches sur ce sujet." (Finally, it seems possible to affirm that this question does not constitute a problem of public health and that it appears therefore useless to pursue the research on the subject.)

By checking the original work, as per the link provided in the page, one can read, in the abstract "Compte tenu du fait que les parabènes ne sont généralement pas présents dans les déodorants/antitranspirants, les recherches du groupe de réflexion se sont recentrées uniquement sur la question des sels d’aluminium" (i.e. "In view of the fact that parabens are generally not present in deodorants/antiperspirants, the reflection group’s search related purely to the question of aluminium salts"). (emphasis added)

It seems therefore that the last paragraphs quoted above are not relevant to the issue of Parabens/breast cancer and could be deleted or moved to another portion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.64.134.242 (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference 19 relevance to parabens

I had a question of relevance about the section that starts with "A further systematic review in 2008 examined 59 earlier publications..."

I was reading the English abstract from reference 19 and it seems to focus specifically on deodorants/antiperspirants instead of parabens. Specifically, it states: "In view of the fact that parabens are generally not present in deodorants/antiperspirants, the reflection group’s search related purely to the question of aluminium salts." Does this imply that any conclusions from that particular work are not relevant to the topic of parabens and breast cancer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.9.7.156 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't notice that the previous topic already brought this up. Not sure how to remove a topic, or if I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.9.7.156 (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

2008 Amended Pubmed report not included?

I was surprised to find this 2008 pubmed article absent from the sources. (Did I somehow miss it?) It's the most recent data on the topic I've been able to find. It states, basically, that parabens do act as very weak estrogenics, but then goes on to give a list of qualifiers that would seem to eliminate any cause for alarm. I'm not a chemist, though, so someone more qualified should check it out and add the substantive information to the Paraben page. 105.228.50.105 (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I came across this, too, which points out the flaws in Darbre's methodology, current and past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.228.50.105 (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Commercials about Parabens

There are several cosmetic firms advertising that their products are 'Paraben Free.' That may be, but in relation to the Wiki page about pareben I noticed that there are several references to the possible carcinogenic effect of paraben and a possible link between early puberty in girls and paraben. These advertisements and the early reference to these suspicions in the wiki page make me worry about the neutrality of the page. Korporaal1 (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is unbalanced

This article focuses heavily on the toxicity/controversy related to the use of parabens, but doesn't even contain a section about its uses and benefits. There are only a few little hints about these topics in the introduction. Regulatory agencies worldwide allow the use of parabens in many types of products, so the scientific consensus must be that there is a positive risk/benefit ratio. Whatever benefits there might be, the reader isn't going to learn much about them reading this article. Wikipedia is currently misleading its readers with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.91.231 (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Source(s) ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking. 173.49.91.231 (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You wrote "the scientific consensus must be that there is a positive risk/benefit ratio". What source backs that up? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of regulatory agencies is to approve products that have a positive risk/benefit ratio and to proscribe the use of those that don't. The problem I have with the article is that whoever wrote it did not bother to include details about why parabens are approved and why they are used. By focusing essentially only on the risk and not on the benefits, this article is unbalanced. 173.49.91.231 (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced indeed, I added a very important reference to the "Paraben and breath cancer" paragraph and someone overwrote it and removed it. This is an NIH article: Shawn P, Chaoshen Y, Abderrahmane T, Environ Health Perspect; DOI:10.1289/ehp.1409200[2]

Someone removed this scientific sourced reference and added a sentence about "spam emails". Is NIH a source for spams? Who ever did this, aren’t you embarrassed of yourself?

This is probably someone with some political power in wikipedia as s/he locked the article from changes just after removing the new reference. Big black point, in my view, to this person and to wikipedia system that allows that. [[[Special:Contributions/79.182.146.8|79.182.146.8]] (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)]

The added article was primary research, so not a reliable source according to our medical sourcing guidelies. The material about spam emails is however well-sourced and relevant. Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There are review articles, too. I will add at least one of them. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm getting reverted for a sentence saying that more research was needed, citing the latest review article on the subject. I'll quote the end of the abstract here: "As an enabling characteristic parabens can cause DNA damage at high concentrations in the short term but more work is needed to investigate long-term, low-dose mixtures. The ability of parabens to enable multiple cancer hallmarks in human breast epithelial cells provides grounds for regulatory review of the implications of the presence of parabens in human breast tissue." That says quite explicitly that more research is needed, and goes beyond that by raising the possibility of regulatory review. So what's the problem? Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Very many research papers say "more research is needed" - it's a truism and out-of-context is misleading, which is why MOS:MED says we shouldn't say it. If there are good sources which say something of substance, we can use them ... Alexbrn (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Lots of misleading references to an email

This article infers there was spam email about parabens. The actual cited spam email is about anti-perspirant's main mechanism of action locking toxins in your body. It makes no mention of parabens at all.

The anti-perspirant email is already covered in the deodorant article. It doesn't make sense here, so I'm removing it. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of U.C. Berkley Study

Apparently there have been a series of anonymous edits adding and removing a U.C. Berkley study on Paraben introduced in vitro. If this is a controversial study, I suggest that evidence of that be included in the article and contrasted against it (instead of just removing the text.) Does this sound like a reasonable compromise? Edit warring is not getting anywhere. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the study is controversial per se, but because it is a primary report of in vitro research, it does not meet criteria outlined in WP:MEDRS for sources to support biomedical claims. If this research has been followed up with in clinical study or if there has been scientific review articles covering it (I have looked, but am unable to locate any), then it may be worth considering mentioning in this article. But at this stage, it appears to be too preliminary to be covered in the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

After further research, I'd have to agree these results were not sufficiently studied to be included in this article. --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Unbalanced

This article is currently heavily unbalanced, with nearly its entire focus on negative aspects of parabens. I see from the "This article is unbalanced" section above that this has been a problem at least since 2014. The comment, "This article focuses heavily on the toxicity/controversy related to the use of parabens, but doesn't even contain a section about its uses and benefits. There are only a few little hints about these topics in the introduction. Regulatory agencies worldwide allow the use of parabens in many types of products, so the scientific consensus must be that there is a positive risk/benefit ratio. Whatever benefits there might be, the reader isn't going to learn much about them reading this article. Wikipedia is currently misleading its readers with this article" still applies today. In fact, the problem has simply worsened since it was pointed out years ago. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The sentence "No effective direct links between parabens and cancer have been established" in the introduction of this article is misplaced. It is a fact in the "Have you stopped beating your wife" genre. --Tannkrem (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)