Parabens are commonly used preservatives that provide antibacterial and antifungal properties. While some studies have claimed parabens may disrupt hormones or increase cancer risk, many experts argue these studies are flawed and the evidence does not support these claims. Parabens are found naturally in many plants and pose substantially less risk than naturally occurring endocrine disruptors when used in normal amounts as preservatives in cosmetics. The consensus among health and regulatory organizations is that parabens are safe to use as preservatives when used properly.

1. Parabens are a group comprised of various types for providing antibacterial, anti-
fungal and antimicrobial properties. They are methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl, isopropyl
and isobutylparaben.
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.”
Parabens (hydroxybenzoates) are one of most wrongly maligned ingredients in the
cosmetic industry. Most “natural” companies embelish a study done by Dr. Darbre
and implicate that using any cosmetic with parabens will put you at a higher risk of
breast cancer. The fact that only a handful of scientists felt any need to comment on
this study goes unmentioned.
They also would like you to believe that parabens are no good for sensitive and
eczema prone skins as they will cause allergies.
Parabens do have direct correlates in nature. In fact, all plants normally produce p-
hydroxybenzoic acid, albeit in small quantities. Well-known plants known to
significantly synthesise parabens as defensive chemicals against attack by micro-
organisms include carrot, olive, cucumber, honeysuckle and ylang ylang, mango,
raspberries and blackberries.
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. Most phytoestrogens show some beneficial effects on estrogen-
dependent disease. However, these can also promote tumour growth
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. Parabens offer substantially less risk than naturally
occurring endocrine active chemicals in the diet such as the phytooestrogen daidzein
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).

2. 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. 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).
Parabens are not carcinogenic or mutagenic.
The Darbre study showed that parabens can be absorbed through the skin and
accumulate in breast cancer tissue in their original form, without being degraded.
The study also did not identify the route by which the parabens entered the body. No
data was collected as to whether or not the patients from whom the tumours were
excised used personal care products that contained parabens. Scientists have also
proposed that parabens were present in the tissues samples only due to
contamination because they were also detected in the control samples, which should
have been clear of all traces of the compound.
For this, and several other reasons, this study has been largely discredited by many
cancer research organisations, and much of the rest of the scientific community.
One of the most frequently quoted facts about parabens is that they mimic oestrogen
and are endocrine disruptors. This is not true.
‘An endocrine disruptor is an exogenous substance or mixture that alters function(s)
of the endocrine system and consequently can cause adverse health effects in an
intact organism, or it’s progeny, or subpopulations.”
The cancer argument is based on the ability of parabens to mimic the hormone
estrogen, which is known to play a role in the development of breast cancers.
Laboratory research however has shown that they would have to be 500 to10,000
times more potent to do this, and even the strongest oestrogen mimetic out of the
parabens – butylparaben – is 100,000 times weaker than oestrogen.
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 associated with
exposure to estrogenic chemicals. 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).
Butylparaben showed oestrogenic activity 100,000 times weaker than oestradiol.
This has been wrongly interpreted as parabens mimic oestrogen. Oestrogenic
activity and oestrogenic mimickry are very different effects. Oestrogenic activity is

3. simply a measure of the relative power of a substance to bind to oestrogen receptors
in the body. It is expressed as a comparative figure to oestradiol. Once it is bound it
may just sit there and no nothing or it may mimick oestrogen.
It is the comparison of the effect on global gene expression that determines the
extent to which a substance truly mimics oestrogen....
“the majority of genes were not regulated in the same way..... although parabens can
mimic the action of oestrogen on the expression of some genes, their mimicry is not
perfect across global patterns of gene expression and differences in gene
expression profiles could result in consequences to the cells which are not identical
to those of 17β-oestradiol”
Other studies suggested (Oishi) that PP and BP may 0produce adverse reproductive
effects in young male rats when given via the dietary route for 8 weeks. This study
showed lower sperm count etc. However an attempt to reproduce those results
FAILED. Even though they used the same protocol and rat strain.
Another study injected PP or BP subcutaneously into pregnant mice during day 1-4
of pregnancy at doses up to 35mg/animal/day. The study found no adverse effects,
whereas 17B-estradiol produced the expected termination of pregnancy.
In another study which examined the systemic exposure to parabens after oral,
topical and subcutaneous administration....the results were “Our results suggest that
the topical use of parabens does not produce a significant systemic exposure to the
parent compounds, but to a metabolite PHBA which is non-toxic, ubiquitous in
human nutrition, an essential and natural constituent of plant and mammalian
organisms and possesses no or neglible oestrogenic activity.”
Another study examined whole body topical application of 2% butylparaben. Normal
concentration is 0.02% so it used 100 times more. Researchers than measured the
concentrations of various hormones – reproductive, thyroid and concluded that the
concentrations achieved did not with hormone levels. Butylparaben does not affect
the reproductive and thyroid systems. Butylparaben does not accumulate in the
body and is excreted in the urine intact.
What about sensitivity?
As far as parabens causing allergies, contact sensitisation has occurred when
parabens have been applied to damaged or broken skin but high concentrations of
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). These amounts they are referring to do not occur in cosmetic use.
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.)

4. Parabens are used in cosmetics because they have been shown to be very effective
and are stable under heat. The majority of consumers have no allergies to them.
In addition, the American Cancer Society has concluded that there is no good
scientific evidence to support the claim using cosmetics containing parabens
increases an individual’s risk of developing breast cancer.
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).
The Scandinavian Society of Cosmetic Chemists (SCANCOS) defended the safety
of parabens at its Sustainable Cosmetics Conference, held Nov. 5-6, 2009 in Malmö,
Sweden.
Florian Schelauf from Colipa presented the findings from a study in 2009 on rats.
The study was performed at the request of the Scientific Committee on Consumer
Safety for more data on the longer parabens propyl and butylparaben, following
research that claimed the commonly used preservative may affect the reproductive
and hormonal systems of the body.
According to Schellauf, butylparaben is largely metabolized before entering the
systemic circulation, allowing only trace amounts of the substance to be present in
the blood stream after topical application. This research refuted studies claiming that
parabens absorb into the skin and accumulate in the body, possibly causing cancer.
Schellauf's research drums up support for the safety of the effective preservative.
parabens - 4-hydroxybenzoic acid - is present in all living cells - it is an essential
component of the respiratory process, and life on earth could not exist without this
compound.
The study showed that parabens are well absorbed after oral administration but only
partially absorbed after dermal exposure. In addition the compounds are fully
metabolised before they enter the blood stream. Blood plasma tests highlighted only
the presence of the paraben metabolite p-hydryoxybenzoic acid and no
concentrations of the parabens themselves, regardless of which paraben was used
and how it was applied (oral, dermal or subcutaneous).

5. p-hydryoxybenzoic acid does not have any oestrogenic effects and is found widely in
plants and human food, so trace exposure in the human organism poses no health
risk.
The study confirms the results of a number of research studies, which concluded
from their work that parabens are metabolised rapidly and to a large extent in living
organisms and therefore cannot exhibit any adverse effects.
In conclusion Schellauf stated that "PHBA is not known to have any estrogenic
special effects and is found extensively in plants and human food, so trace exposure
in the human organism cause no health risk."
"The study confirms the results of a number of research studies, which concluded
from their work that parabens are metabolised rapidly and to a large extent in living
organisms and therefore cannot exhibit any adverse effects," - said industry trade
body Colipa.
From this aspect, there is no need to panic. The real point of the situation is that
much of the concern spread over their use is based mainly on a claim to have
detected them in human breast cancer tissue. This study has been widely ridiculed in
the scientific community, as the results were wrongly interpreted, and it is by no
means conclusive that parabens were actually present in the tissues (given that they
were also found at similar concentrations in the "blank" controls!).
The FDA supports the use of Parabens as does the European Union....and under
regimented testing by the cosmetics directive of the European Union they too, found
no direct correlation of Parabens and cancer.
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).