Sham-Poo

For anyone who wants to know, Skin Deep, the Environmental Working Group cosmetics database at www.cosmeticsdatabase.com will tell you anything you can possibly find out about your daily care products. Unfortunately this is not a whole lot. Here in the US we don't know much about what goes into our chemical concoctions. We work on the same assumption as our criminal justice system, holding chemicals innocent until proven guilty. The book Exposed by Mark Schapiro will tell you more about our relationship with our chemical industry and will probably make you want to move to Europe, or even to Mexico, where they are beginning to reverse the tide of toxics back toward our borders.

I did this assignment a couple years back and found that my Paul Mitchell Tea Tree shampoo carries a "moderate" risk of 5 out of 10 (10 being worst). The entire brand has product ratings from 4 to 9.

The ingredients are as follows:

Water (Aqua); Sodium Lauryl Sulfate; Sodium Laureth Sulfate; Oleamidopropyl Betaine; Cocamidopropyl Betaine; Mentha Piperita (Peppermint) Oil; Melaleuca Alternifolia (Tea Tree) Oil; Linoleamide DEA; Cocoamide DEA; Bisamino PEG/PPG-41/3 Aminomethyl PG-Propyl Dimethicone/Hedychium Coronarium (White Ginger)/PEG-12 Dimethicone; Bisamino PEG/PPG-41/3 Aminoethyl PG-Propyl Dimethicone/Algae/Aloe Barbadensis Leaf/Anthemis Nobilis/Lawsonia Inermis (Henna)/Simmondsia Chinensis (Jojoba)/Rosmarinus Officinalis (Rosemary)/PEG-12 Dimethicone; Lavandula Angustifolia (Lavender) Oil; Triticum Vulgare (Wheat) Germ Oil; Panthenol; Glycol Stearate; Polyquaternium-7; Tetrasodium EDTA; PEG-150 Distearate; DMDM Hydantoin; Iodopropynyl Butylcarbamate; Citric Acid; Blue 1 (CI 42090); Yellow 5 (CI 19140)

Surprisingly, henna, chamomile, and peppermint oil, which I would have considered benign, are listed in the database as slightly dubious (risk factor: 2-4). Even aloe vera has been shown to cause mutation in non-mammalian cells. Seeing as many of you, like me, have probably drunk chamomile tea or slathered aloe vera on sunburns without increased rates of mutation, I'm going to take this warning with a grain of salt.

As for the rest, I can't even begin to compute, so, for the sake of my brain, I'm removing from the list repeats, water, natural oils, anything that recognizably comes from a plant, and ... there:

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate; Sodium Laureth Sulfate; Oleamidopropyl Betaine; Cocamidopropyl Betaine; Linoleamide DEA; Cocoamide DEA; Bisamino PEG/PPG-41/3 Aminomethyl PG-Propyl Dimethicone/PEG-12 Dimethicone; Panthenol; Glycol Stearate; Polyquaternium-7; Tetrasodium EDTA; PEG-150 Distearate; DMDM Hydantoin; Iodopropynyl Butylcarbamate; Citric Acid; Blue 1 (CI 42090); Yellow 5 (CI 19140)

Slightly more manageable, but only slightly. I'm still getting crossed eyes.

Now for the badder of the bunch - the real trouble-makers are DMDM Hydantoin (7) and Cocamide DEA (6). Having already researched DMDM, I'm going to focus this time on Cocamide DEA.

As a potential carcinogen (based on animal studies and limited evidence from a 2002 US EPA report), it seems this chemical would be used sparingly. Yet because the product is meant to be washed off after application and kept away from the eyes, its use in this shampoo is legally acceptable.
From its designation as a foam booster/viscosity increasing agent, I can only gather that its primary purpose in shampoo is to make it bubbly, and make it thick. This is only a little ludicrous when you consider that these properties have nothing to do with the performance of the product and only to do with our preconceptions, and that there are other perfectly effective products out there without the free extras.
Go consumers. All I can say is - you have the power to tell companies they don't meet your preconceptions of what is safe and ecological in their products.

I, for one, am switching to Dr. Bronner's.