Personal care products and endocrine disruption: A critical review of the literature

Abstract

This article reviews laboratory and epidemiological research into the endocrine disruptive effects of components of personal care products, namely, phthalate esters, parabens, ultraviolet (UV) filters, polycyclic musks, and antimicrobials. High doses of phthalates in utero can produce “phthalate syndrome,” demasculinizing effects in male rat offspring due to impaired testosterone production by fetal testes. However, evidence linking phthalate exposure to similar effects in humans appears inconclusive. Furthermore, phthalate exposure derived from personal care products is within safe limits and its principal bioavailable phthalate, diethyl phthalate (DEP), does not produce “phthalate syndrome.” Parabens exhibit very weak estrogen activity in vitro and in vivo, but evidence of paraben-induced developmental and reproductive toxicity in vivo lacks consistency and physiological coherence. Evidence attempting to link paraben exposure with human breast cancer is nonexistent. Select UV filters at high doses produce estrogenic, antithyroid, and other effects in rats in vivo. Again, no evidence links UV filter exposure to endocrine disruptive effects in humans. Some polycyclic musks weakly bind to estrogen, androgen, or progestin receptors and exhibit primarily antagonistic activity in vitro, which for the most part, has yet to be confirmed in vivo in mammals. The antimicrobials triclocarban and triclosan evoke weak responses mediated by aryl hydrocarbon, estrogen, and androgen receptors in vitro, which require confirmation in vivo. Preliminary observations suggest a novel interaction between triclocarban and testosterone. In conclusion, although select constituents exhibit interactions with the endocrine system in the laboratory, the evidence linking personal care products to endocrine disruptive effects in humans is for the most part lacking.

Keywords::

• Antimicrobials
• cosmetics
• endocrine disruption
• parabens
• personal care products
• phthalates
• polycyclic musks
• triclocarban
• triclosan
• UV filters

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of the staff of Personal Care Products Council for proofreading the manuscript.

Declaration of interest

Raphael J. Witorsch and John A. Thomas are Professors Emeriti at their respective institutions. The work was funded by the Personal Care Products Council who compensated the authors for preparation of the review. The Personal Care Products Council was given the opportunity to review and comment on the paper. Dr. Witorsch serves as a consultant to one of the member companies of the Personal Care Products Council (Colgate-Palmolive Company). This consulting arrangement was initiated after the submission of the manuscript for review by the journal and did not influence the content of the paper. The review represents the individual professional view of the authors and not necessarily the views of the Personal Care Products Council.