Talk:Paraben
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.. |
|||
Old discussions may be found at Talk:Paraben/Archive1
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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¶m5=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¶m5=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)
[edit] 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)
