Guest guest Posted January 6, 2003 Report Share Posted January 6, 2003 Patti, I'm one of the chemists can give you info on whether this stuff is a carcinogen or not (personally, I highly doubt it), but I can tell you Bioterge 804 and 804M are put out by Stepan http://www.stepan.com/Products/proprod.asp?cat=53 I have not used the 894M but I use the 804 all the time. I love it. It bubbles more and holds the bubbles far more the amphosol CG (which I also use). If you want good info on any of these surfactants right away or any chemicals for that matter, that you can rely on..try doing a search on Medline .. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search & DB=PubMed ..You'll find the research that has been done on them there. Sutton Subject: Bioterge 804 M Hi! Can anyone give me any feedback good or bad about the ingredients in this product? The product is Bioterge 804 M and the ingredients are: SODIUM C14-16 OLEFIN SULFONATE, SODIUM LAURETH SULFATE, COCAMIDE MEA. The ingredients in the Bioterge 804 are: SODIUM C14-16 OLEFIN SULFONATE/SODIUM LAURETH SULFATE/LAURAMIDE DEA. Now, I am not a chemist, but I've read about the diethanolamine (DEA) being a possible carcinogen. I think the Bioterge 804 M has better ingredients, but I'm actually better versed in Geography and controversial political views than in chemical ingredients. So I thought I could ask the experts here. I'm asking, because I would like to put together a shower gel type of product. Their is also Amphosol CG, which I could try as well. Which is cocamidopropyl betaine I believe. Oh, I am finding some of these things on the soapandcandleco.com website and then trying to find the manufacturer from there. Can anyone give me any pointers? Thank you all for your help! ~Patti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2003 Report Share Posted January 6, 2003 >Now, I am not a chemist, but I've read about the diethanolamine (DEA) being a possible carcinogen. That is correct. But the scientific community is still testing. The original work was conducted by the NIH's National Toxicology Program (NTP) and reported in 1998. If you search Google for diethanolamine " national toxicology program " you'll find additional information on those studies. Some concerns have been expressed regarding the validity of the NTP testing protocol used in these studies. The protocol requires that groups of rice and mice to have their backs shaved and then receive dermal applications of Diethanolamine, Cocamide DEA, mide DEA or Oleamide DEA. Prior to application, the test materials were diluted with ethanol. This process was continued 5 times a week for 104 weeks. For example, in the Cocamide DEA study, " groups of 50 male and female B6C3F1 mice received dermal applications of 0, 100 or 200 mg coconut oil diethanolamide condensate/kg body weight five times a week for 104 weeks. " Of course, a similar test was also conducted on male and female rats. The effect of ethyl alcohol in the absorption or carcinogenicity of DEA is unknown. Ethanol has been identified as a high tumor risk, and increases the risk of cancer in laboratory animals. The dermal site on the test animals was not covered. Could the animals have ingested the test materials while grooming themselves? Ingestion of DEA could result in the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines. Apparently, the mice used in this study had a predisposition for cancer. According to the CMA, " the mice used in this study had an extremely high background incidence of liver cancer. The untreated, control mice not exposed to DEA had a background rate of liver tumors of 66-78% " . Other protocol concerns relate to the animal feed used in this study and the obesity of the test animals. The CMA reported that several analysis of the animal feed used in the study showed a high level of bacteria (in excess of the NTP standards), which could have resulted in higher nitrite level, a factor contributes to the formation of nitrosamines which are known to cause cancer. Cocamide DEA has been a minor ingredient in soap and rinse off products for many years and there has been no evidence, until now, that this is an unsafe practice. In December 1996, the Cosmetic Toiletries and Fragrance Association's (CTFA) Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) panel concluded " that Cocamide DEA is safe as used in rinse-off products and safe at concentrations of equal to or less than 10% in leave on cosmetic products. " (J Am Coll Toxicol, Vol 15, No. 6, 1996 p 527-542). Obviously, this is a very serious matter. The NTP, FDA, CIR and the CMA are carefully evaluating the new studies and test data on DEA and Cocamide DEA and will determine if there is any real risk to consumers. Referring to DEA and its fatty acid conjugates, the FDA has stated that they believe 'that at the present time there is no reason for consumers to be alarmed based on the usage of these ingredients in cosmetics. " All that having been said, I think the damage has been done and a certain segment of the population will not buy products that have DEA on the label. mide DEA was my favorite amide to formulate shampoos and bath gels. I think this is one of those cases where public perception, and not science, will create the reality. Maurice -------------------------------------------------------- Maurice O. Hevey Convergent Cosmetics, Inc. http://www.ConvergentCosmetics.com ------------------------------------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2003 Report Share Posted January 6, 2003 Thank you very much for the information on DEA! ~Patti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.