Contrary
to popular misbelief, parabens are not diabolical chemical poisons
invented by mad scientists to inflict havoc on human health. Parabens
do have direct correlates in nature. In fact, all plants normally
produce p-hydroxybenzoic acid, albeit in small quantities
(Viitanen P et al, Plant Physiol, 136(4),
2004). Well-known plants known to significantly synthesise
parabens as defensive chemicals against attack by micro-organisms
include carrot, olive, cucumber, honeysuckle and ylang ylang
(Bach M et al, Plant Physiol, 103(2),
1993); (Aziz N et al, Microbios 93(374), 1998); Smith-Becker J et
al, Plant Physiol, 116(1), 1998); (Dweck A, “Natural Preservatives”,
Cosmet Toilet, Aug 2003). Plants known to
synthesise Methyl paraben include Granadilla (A
Naidoo, Natural Food Anti-microbial Systems, CRC Press, 2001);
Birthwort (Aristolochia kankauensis)
(Wu T et al, Phytochem, 36(4), 1994); Guan pepper (Piper
guanacastensis) (Pereda-Miranda
R et al, J Nat Prod, 60(3), 1997); Coprophilous fungus
(Guanomyces polythrix) (Macias M
et al, J Nat Prod, 63(6), 2000); Thale cress
(Arabidopsis thaliana) (Walker
T et al, J Agric Food Chem, 51, 2548, 2003) and Oca
(Oxalis tuberosa) (Pal Bais H et
al, Plant Physiol Biochem, 41(4), 2003). Plants
known to synthesise Propyl paraben include Mango
(Mangifera indica) (Chirawut
B, Sangchote S, 15th Australasian Plant Pathology Society Conference,
Deakin University, Geelong, 26-29 September, 2005),
and Verticillium spp, [filamentous fungi that inhabit
decaying vegetation and soil (read “organic”
produce)] (El Aissama A,
Mycopathologia, 144(2), 1999). Combined
sources of both contain methyl and propyl parabens include Cloudberry
(Rubus clamaemows) (Baardseth
P, Russwurm J, Food Chem, 3(1), 1978) and
Royal bee jelly (Ishiwata
H, Yamada T, Food Sanit, 50 (7), 2000). Methyl &
Propyl parabens are 100% nature identical to that consumed by millions
of individuals in perfectly natural foods.
According to the American Academy of Dermatology “The
best preservatives for sensitive skin are those containing parabens”
(2002 Prof Zoe Draelos, Summer Scientific
Meeting, New York, AAD, 2002). Methyl-paraben
and Propyl-paraben, as used by Gaia Organics are para-natural
compounds prepared from p-hydroxybenzoic acid, widely distributed
in many fruits and spices and also in black and green teas.
Benzoic acid occurs naturally in high concentrations
in gum benzoin from the Styrax tree and is naturally present in
many foods, including honey. Both parabens are
routinely used as preservatives in beer, fruit juices, jams,
and wine. (Timothy Paustian,
Microbiology Textbook, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004)
The benzoates, including sodium benzoate, are
widely used as antimycotic and antibacterial preservatives
in foods and beverages and exhibit little or no
toxicity in the concentrations used. The effects of orally
administered benzoates have been observed for well over a century
and large doses (up to 60 grams!) are well tolerated. The parabens
are allocated the same GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) status
as natural benzoic acid and the same maximum level is permitted
in food (in processed vegetables, baked goods, fats and oils and
in seasonings, to name just a few), approved by the US Food and
Drug Administration and other national agencies worldwide as a direct
food additive in amounts ranging from 0.0001% to 0.10%. Parabens
entering the human body are hydrolysed to the even more benign parent
compound, forms natural compounds and like the completely natural
benzoates, are eliminated in the urine. (Metcalf
D, et al, Food Allergy: Adverse Reactions to Foods and Food Additives,
Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1991)
The antimicrobial properties of the parabens are effective over
a much broader pH range than benzoic acid. The
acute and chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity
and mutagenicity of the parabens were extensively reviewed
by the Life Sciences Research Office of the Federation of American
Societies for Experimental Biology, which concluded that “there
were no short-term toxicological consequences in man and no long-term
toxicological consequences in rats greatly exceeding amounts currently
‘consumed’ in the normal diet” (Schmidt
A, Methylparaben & Propylparaben: Affirmation of GRAS status
of direct human food ingredients, Federal Register, 38: 20048-50,
1973). Methyl and propyl parabens have such
weak oestrogenic activity that no activity was detected
in vivo in classical uterotrophic assays using high dose oral or
subcutaneous rodent administrations (AFC
Panel, European Food Safety Authority, 13 July 2004).
A safety assessment from a review of the published literature is
abstracted here: “Methyl-paraben and Propyl-paraben
are stable, non-volatile compounds and have been safely
used as antimicrobial preservatives in foods and cosmetics for over
50 years. There is no
evidence of accumulation via the gastrointestinal tract and dermis.
Acute toxicity studies indicate that the parabens are relatively
non-toxic by the oral route and mildly irritating to the skin. Following
chronic administration, no-observed-effect levels (NOEL) as high
as 1200-4000 mg/kg are reported and a no-observed-adverse-effect
level (NOAEL) in the rat is posited at 5500 mg/kg. The
parabens are not carcinogenic, mutagenic or clastogenic. Contact
sensitisation has occurred when parabens have been applied to damaged
or broken skin but high concentrations of 5-15% in patch testing
are needed to elicit reaction in susceptible individuals.”
(Soni M, et al, Food
Chem Toxicol, 39(6), 2001); (Soni M, et al, Food Chem Toxicol, 40(10),
2002)
The oestrogenic activity of parabens is so
weak that no more than a handful of scientists have even mentioned
the fact and only one team, basking in an inexplicable
glow of media attention, has suggested that their ubiquity might
represent any risk to consumers at all, which suggestion they admit,
remained unsubstantiated. In fact, due to lack of subsequent confirmation,
parabens have been off the scientific radar for several years now
and it is difficult to understand why parabens are still a pariah,
other than the ignorant or malicious agendas alluded to previously.
The following facts should put any possible risk into perspective.
The fact that the following have potent oestrogenic activity,
rests in scientific archives, the whereabouts of which those crying
wolf over parabens, remain blissfully unaware: alfalfa,
almonds, anise, apple, banana, barley, broccoli, cabbage, canola,
cauliflower, carrot, cherry, chickpea; clover, coffee, corn, cumin,
damiana, fennel, flaxseed, garlic, green bean, hop, lemon, lemon
balm, licorice, lima bean seeds, mint, oats, oregano, pea, pinto
bean seeds, pomegranate, plum, potato, rice, rice bran, rye, rape,
sage, sesame, soybean, split pea, sunflower seed, thyme, tumeric,
verbena, wheat, wheat bran, wheat germ, yam & yeast. Included
are the oils of olive, corn, safflower, wheat germ, soyabean, rice
bran, peanut and coconut. (Sob
M, Naturally Occurring Estrogens, in CRC Handbook of Naturally Occurring
Food Toxicants, Miloslav R (Ed), CRC Press, 1983); (Davis D &
Bradlow H, Sci Amer, Oct 1995); (Davis D et al, Nature Sci Med,
May/June 1997); (Zava D et al, Proc Soc Exp Biol Med, 217(3), 1998)
A number of botanicals have been identified as putative estrogenic
agents (Piersen C, Integrative Cancer
Therapies, 2(2), 2003). All of the abovementioned
foodstuffs naturally contain phytoestrogens. All are in fact endocrine
disrupters, ie. exogenous agents that interfere with the
production, release, transport, metabolism, binding, action or elimination
of natural hormones in the body. These effects are unpredictable,
are not well delineated and are often paradoxical, sometimes beneficial
or hazardous (Barrett J. Phytoestrogens,
friends or foes? Environmental Health Perspectives 104(5), 1996);
(Jacob D et al, Exp Biol Med, 226(4), 2001). Just
like the improperly maligned parabens, risk/benefit analysis is
dependent on dose and circumstances, not the mere name of a single
or group of chemicals (parabens), natural or otherwise.
The human diet contains several nonsteroidal estrogenic compounds
structurally similar to natural and synthetic estrogens and antiestrogens.
Dietary estrogens are either produced by plants (phytoestrogens)
or by fungi that infect plants (mycoestrogens).
Consumers of non-organic
produce might take heart from the fact that high nitrogen fertiliser
applications reduce endocrine disrupter content and that plants
induce production of endocrine disrupters in response to attack
by insects, bacteria or fungi, which is just one of several reasons
why even bad conventional agriculture can be superior to even good
organics. While the estrogenic potency of synthetic estrogenic
chemicals is very limited, phytoestrogens are potent and
may trigger many of the biological responses that are evoked by
the physiological estrogens (Kuiper
G et al, Endocrinology, 139(10), 1998). The
natural endocrine disrupters genistein, coumestrol and
zearalenone (mycotoxin) stimulate the transcriptional activity
of estrogen receptors at considerably lower concentrations (100X)
than synthetics (Bernhoft
A, Endocrine Disrupters - Synthetic Chemical Contaminants and Natural
Compounds in the Diet, Lecture, Norwegian Acad Sci Letters, 1997).
Many of the phytoestrogens that occur in plants have not yet been
examined for their genotoxic potential. Some have been studied,
showing that Coumestrol (high concentrations in
clover and alfalfa sprouts, lower concentrations in sunflower
seeds, lima bean seeds, pinto bean seeds, and round
split peas), genistein (high in soy,
lower in other legumes, eg chickpeas) and zearalenone
(a heat-stable fungal mycotoxin, found on cereals grains
eg corn, wheat and rice) are clastogenic in cultured
mammalian cells and lead to genotoxic mutations. The genotoxicity
acts in concert with their hormonal activity to give rise to carcinogenic
effects. (Kulling
S, Metzler M. Food Chem Toxicol 35:605-13, 1996); (Metzler M et
al, Zeitschrift für Lebensmitteluntersuchung und Forschung,
206(6), 1998) On the other hand, flax mammalian
lignans (enterolactone and enterodiol) are anticarcinogens in epidemiological
and biochemical studies, are devoid of clastogenic potential and
not genotoxic (Kulling S et al, Mutat
Res, 416(1-2), 1998).
Most phytoestrogens show some beneficial effects on estrogen-dependent
disease. However, these can also promote tumor
growth (Hilakivi-Clarke
L et al, Oncol Rep, 6(5), 1999); (Newbold R et al, Cancer Res, 61(11),
2001) and cause developmentally adverse effects
(Delclos K et al, Reprod Toxicol,
15(6), 2001); (Jefferson W, Newbold R, Nutrition 16(7-8), 2000).
The risks and benefits of estrogenic or anti-estrogenic effects
depend on the target tissue and the timing and level of exposure.
A thorough analysis of the properties of these compounds is warranted.
(Mueller S et al, Toxicological
Sciences, 80(1), 2004) Let us heed the trusted modern
toxicological axiom pertinently observed and recorded by Paracelsus
in 1538: “All things are poison and nothing is without
poison. Solely the dose determines that a thing is not a poison.”
In spite of my methodically laying out the evidence of misinformation
on several topics, including some of the foregoing, engaging and
conveying this information to all parties early in 2005 (See “The
Biofilth Files: Have You Been Enchantricked?” here
and “The Essential Files: Are Your Toddlers Truly
Naturebabes?” here,
the Esse, Enchantrix, Naturebabes, Amba and other
websites still carry miscontextualised scare-mongering propaganda,
including about supposed endocrine disruption from paraben preservatives,
whilst their alternatives hypocritically comprise of far more and
far more potent endocrine disruptor materials. See our “Grapefruit
Seed Extract as Preservative Alternative to Parabens”
exposé here.
|