Your Toothpaste is not Full of Carcinogens

Stop Brushing Your Teeth with Carcinogens

The Food Babe took an uneducated strike at toothpaste of all things last week, writing a fearmongering post about how you are brushing your teeth with carcinogens. What’s new eh?

This whole thing does not start, nor finish with Vani, but let’s clear some things up.  Early last year I came across a post by Dr Mark Hyman, of which is shown below. The entire article written can be found here. The post basically instructs you to make your own toothpaste, because toothpaste is toxic. Here are some direct quotes from the article, which should raise some red flags:

badsciencedebunked

“Fluoride, which can be toxic if swallowed and doesn’t even work in toothpaste."

"Glycerin, which isn’t toxic, but has no place in the mouth as it’s a soap that strips your body’s natural oral mucosa and leaves a film. This film could coat the teeth, messing with the structure of the biofilm which could alter the microbiome in the mouth and impact the natural remineralization process — your body’s natural cavity-fighting mechanism.”

Doesn’t tell you what fluoride is supposed to do, but its telling you it doesn’t work. Not at all sketchy. I found a blog which takes this post down, very well by revealing that in the products that he sells online actually contain the ingredients that he has told you not to use. Subtle. 

Carcinogens everywhere

badsciencedebunked

The post by Vani focuses mostly on how we are ‘brushing ourteeth with carcinogens’ – at this point, I genuinely don’t think she knows what that word means anymore. She starts by saying that ‘the mouth is one of the most absorbent parts of the body’ and that what is in toothpaste is ‘getting a free pass into the bloodstream’. True, the mouth can absorb a lot of things like much of the skin; dependant on pH, polarity, lipid solubility, molecular weight and other factors. Factoring these, in, it isn’t as simple as ‘everything is absorbed through the mouth’.

Being the avid scientist and researcher she is, she picks up on the bandwagon of the FDA banning Triclosan, a chemical which has previously been used as an antibacterial agent, but has been kinda faded out given research that showed it wasn’t overly effective. She states that this particular chemical has been removed from hand sanitisers, but not from toothpaste. As far as adding triclosan to toothpaste goes, studies and reviews have shown it has great effectiveness in the education of gingivitis and plaque occurrences. There is a little bit of murky water given the recent banning of this chemical, saying that the reduction of plaque may not be statistically significant. But that is in no way saying ‘this is carcinogenic’. 

Toxically, harmful, detrimental, murderous ingredients

Mirror

Inevitably, in The Food Babe way, she moves onto a list. These lists follow the general pattern of a scientific, long-winded chemical name of a common ingredient. Followed by an uneducated, biased take on what it is used in and how it will kill you which is the followed by a ‘sassy quip’ that I’m sure is hilarious when you haven’t a clue what you are talking about. I’m going to disseminate the first and then I am going to go hit my head on a wall. Vani posts:

“Artificial colors: Toothpaste can contain colors that are considered too toxic for food. The main colors I found in toothpaste were Red #30, Red #33, Blue #1, Yellow #5  – and the brands targeting children are almost always brightly colored! Made from petroleum, these artificial colors are contaminated with carcinogens and can also contain heavy metals, such as lead, mercury, and arsenic. Do you really care what color your toothpaste is?”

‘To toxic for food’ she provides no links to this, which would help me out a lot here. Because I cannot find anything saying that the colours she has listed are ‘too toxic for food’ at all. EWG has a database of these colourants and the toxicity, immunotoxicity, carcinogenetic activity and restrictions that are in place of ingredients used in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industry. I have found zero evidence of them being readily toxic. In fact, they all have a low ‘overall hazard’. As for the interesting take on contamination with metals and their carcinogenetic – there is very little credible in the way of evidence for this. Not to mention, if there was, we have the simple sentence that Vani has failed to understand:

‘Dose Makes the Poison’

*Sigh*, another? Okay:

gawker.com

“GMOs: Unless it is certified organic or non-GMO verified, you might be supporting Monsanto with your toothpaste.”

This one is simple: prove that they are harmful. Systematicreviews have led to the scientific consensus that GMOS are not harmful to anyone. The balls in your court Vani, astonish me. 

More?

“Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) and Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES): These foaming agents break down the protective lining in the mouth. SLES is another ingredient contaminated with the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane.”

These are some of Gwyneth Paltrows most hated ingredients, I’m sensing a theme between ‘self-educated’ morons and general income made through fearmongering. Maybe there is a conspiracy here? Anyway, the crux of this is that she provides a link to a scientific paper. This is a monumental occasion, as usually she just mentions they exist and I spend about three hours tracking down a paper she has seemingly made up or not read properly.  But alas, maybe she is actually reading my blogs and has taken some advice on how to science. The paper is entitled: ‘Sodium Lauryl sulfate and recurrent aphthous ulcers. A preliminary study’ which was published in a low impact factor journal in 1994. So, that throws the theory of her learning anything out the window. The paper has been cited twice since its publishing, providing an indication to its mind-blowing scientific revelations. Then again, the paper basically concludes that this chemical can treat mouth ulcers. The ‘contamination’ 1-4-dioxane is a by-product of the formation of SLS and is monitored and regulated by the FDA, as it is a ‘possible’ carcinogen and is encouraged to be removed from products. Nothing here is a clear cut as is stated in her summary and her statement about breaking down the protective lining of the mouth is quoted a lot in newspaper articles, but isn’t really substantiated by any science.

Fluoridation

I knew this was coming the second I saw they article. There are many people out there that believe fluoridation is going to poison you, it’s controlling us and that it shouldn’t be allowed to be in products. Vani is a perpetrator of this myth, unbelievable right? 

Sciencebasedmedicine

“Fluoride itself is highly toxic and when it accumulates in your body can lead to skeletal fluorosis, bone cancer, and thyroid disorders. New research links it to type 2 diabetes. This is a bigger risk for children who typically swallow more toothpaste than adults, where it can affect cognitive function and can cause yellow and brown stains on the teeth.”

I add this paragraph to my post because it literally eviscerates itself. Click the links to check the sources. They’re not links to studies. They’re not links to valid sources of scientific information. They’re not links to journals with links to journals. They’re just biased links to biased websites that hate fluoride, for no good biased reason. This is just not true, fluoridation of water and toothpaste is in low but vital quantities. One of her links is to Mercola. Fucking Mercola. Mercola is an osteopathic physician residing in America and promoting pseudoscience. He runs the website mercola.com – which advocates highly, highly questionable treatments. In the skeptical world, we call these people ‘quacks’. However, if you visit his website you will notice something a little more peculiar than the average quack. He has a strange talent to amalgamate actual fact, sound medical advice with a congregate of highly inaccurate misinformation. This is somewhat dangerous, as if blindly following the information you semi-recognise to be true, you will assume the inaccurate information is also true. Like Vani.

Conclusion

Vani goes on to suggest ones to buy, providing a load of links to amazon selling fluoride, chemical and carcinogen free toothpaste. A claim that toothpaste is carcinogenic should be backed up with good science based evidence, of which is completely none is-existent in any of Vanis’ post, much less this particular one. The word ‘toxic’ is both grossly miss and overused by the woman, which is a good indication that she has zero idea what she is saying. Everything to her is toxic. In truth, she is the toxin. She is belligerently spreading scientific misinformation, fearmongering and thinking she is doing the world a favour by shoving her scientifically illiterate nose where it doesn’t belong. If there was evidence for this, she would be producing statistical information to show how many people have gotten cancer from brushing their teeth for example.

Making Sense of Fluoride

Don’t stop brushing your teeth based on the words of this pseudoscientist and don’t change toothpaste based on the alleged toxicity of everything in the world. A sentence even I thought I would never have to type.

Why Do People Challange Salient Scientific Concepts

Has Social Media Destroyed Scientific Communication?

It is my belief that scientific education takes a back seat in this world of social media. I am getting a little bored of being told I am wrong based on other peoples’ opinions, mostly which are based of anecdotal evidence and not actual scientific foundations. I've made my feelings (as has an entire scientific community) on the subject of anecdotal evidence extremely clear; it has absolutely no place in science.

People, like I study for degrees. We work hard to learn the foundations of science and explore subjects around that, we are taught the skills to analyse and critique any science put before us, which is a fundamental of science. That is everything we need. Now, this isn't easy, a scientific education does not teach you everything. Nobody leaves university ready to take on every bit of the scientific world, it's very tough. Then there are people who didn't study any aspect of science since high school (in which you learn some ridiculously basic concepts that will help you out in many of these arguments), whom of which haven’t learned any kind of critical analysis, how to read scientific studies, statistics, where to find them, verify them and the ability to just know if a scientific concept is just built upon something that isn't true. That is fine, not everyone wants to enter that world, I have no problem with that. However, my problem begins and ends when you try to weigh in on massively sound scientific concepts that are agreed upon the scientific community. For example, I am fed up of being called a 'shill' or the end all of an argument being 'big pharma'. Big pharma is not out to get you. Pharmacology has a lot of sub-branches within it, all of which are explored when a drug is developed. It is well established that all drugs can have an adverse effect within some individuals. We call these 'side effects'. For example, if one drug didn't work for you because of the side effects, then don't go telling people they didn't work at all. They're useless. They're not, they're useless for you. Whilst we are at it; chemtrails aren’t real, GMO’s are safe, homeopathy doesn't work and the earth isn’t flat (that last one is a genuine thing, this is how far science denialism has come).

 Scientists work hard to develop careers, just like everyone else, and they get the hardest pushback for it. People dedicate their lives to things like drug research to be told by someone without any concept of science that they are just paid by big pharma. At this point I feel I should ask who else is going to pay them? Institutions like universities don't have the money to fund a drug trial, it is beyond millions of pounds to do. Scientists come up with the concepts and drug companies fund them, sometimes they fail, sometimes they pass. It is most definitely not without faults and it has certain caveats. But the idea of every scientist being involved in some form of cover up for something like big pharma is idiotic. Scientists have integrity, and yeah, some don't, and they are a disgrace. That doesn't change the view of the profession, some people are just wrong. To paint that they're all in companies’ pockets is disheartening, discouraging to younger scientists and just plain disgusting.

I sincerely enjoy being challenged on an intellectual level and I am always up for discussing scientific articles that I have read, but don't bring your opinions to a scientific discussion. I will, and rightly so, dismiss you. This appears on every blog I post, I get pushback from people who have differing opinions of what the science actually states, telling me I'm in the pockets of people because they don't believe in the theory of gravity. I can assure you, no one is paying me to plug gravity to people.I do this all off of my own back, I use my education and training to carefully research everything I post, write and subsequently have to defend to people who couldn't tell me the difference between cohort and review study. Empirical evidence is actual evidence that we can work with, anecdotes are and mean nothing to the scientific community. I don't care what you saw, heard or felt, as blunt as this article is, I (like many others) simply do not care. If you want to argue science, use science to do it, that is how we move forward. 

   

I've been told that what I am doing is holding the world back of scientific discovery in the world of holistic treatments and that helping big pharma by commenting of accuracy of statistics in studies, which only correlate with their view, is 'sickening'. I shouldn't question paucity of studies and I shouldn't decrypt scientific nonsense. I know I am not alone in this and people get this crap far worse than me every single day. If we don't question data and studies that's how cretins like Andrew Wakefield created a world where anti-vaxxers are basically allowed to murder their children based on pseudoscientific claims. Which is apparently okay to do as we have just all lost our freaking minds.

We have too many people, without knowledge of what goes on in studies, clinical trials, cohorts or any of it, weighing in and having opinions on scientific principles they know absolutely nothing about. You may see this article as me saying 'scientists are smarter than you' – if that's how you read it, then that is your decision. I will state that it is most definitely not, I am saying I am a scientist and I am saying that you are destroying intellect and holding us back when you say idiotic, baseless claims that destroy scientists reputations and livelihoods all because you have a jumped up, preconceived notion that doesn't fit the scientific consensus. You don’t need a formal education to critically analyse, I am stating that the path I have chosen for my degree has taught me that, as with many scientific disciplines. There are some phenomenal books, websites, videos and podcasts aimed at people who would like to be more critically minded and be able to disseminate studies, I encourage you to do so, especially you people who will no doubt e-mail me hurling abuse, again.

 

So to sum up: stop questioning the fundamentals of science; stop calling people shills; the government isn’t poisoning you; big pharma isn’t poisoning you and let scientists do their damn job. I do what I do because I would love for the world to be a much more rational, critical thinking place and if I have made just one person think more, question more and research more then I have achieved that.

Plastic Bottles Will Not Give You Cancer

Plastics and Cancer - Myth

Surely, if you have not received information saying that you shouldn’t use plastic bottles, microwave plastics (that are suitable) and/or been told not to drink out of a slightly warmed up plastic bottle; you have been living on an isolated island and I am exceptionally jealous. This story appeared a good few years ago warning you not to drink from bottles that have been left in your car as they warm up and chemikillz leach out into the water and cause cancer. This appeared to die down, however, it was pretty much still being propagated. 

Freezing and/or reusing of plastic bottles

According to an article written last year by Richa Ahuja for lifeunfold plastic can cause cancer. That is the genuine title of the article. Pretty much blunt and to the point. In the article she states that she clearly has no formal chemistry education:

"All plastic products are leaching chemicals into their food, especially if they’re using grade 3 or grade 7 plastics, or any hard plastic. These plastics contain dangerous chemicals which are very risky for pregnant women, infants and children…When hot food is packed in plastic, there is exchange of chemicals between plastic and food, which is maximized by high temperature, and the nature of the food. The more you heat and cool, more chemicals start to break down and leach into food. As a result, serious health issues can arise."

She isn’t alone in this ‘thinking’. There are tonnes of articles, blog posts and videos out there about how people don’t understand science plastics. Many claim that heating or cooling of plastic causes a release of ‘dioxin’. Dioxins are toxic organic pollutants known as POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants), are they dangerous? Very much so! Are they in plastics? No, they’re not. This appears to be nothing more than an urban legend. I remember a few years ago reading one of those stupid facebook ‘info graphs’ about this (shown below) and having a quick look and couldn’t find a source to say that any of this is true. The same stands now, like five years later. 

Dioxins don’t really appear to be used at all in the manufacturing process of anything. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) say that it is a common by-product of pesticide manufacturing and waste destruction. Only one form of dioxin is known to cause cancer in humans and is called TCDD. 

Un-shockingly, Natural News: Your one stop for pure pseudoscientific bullshit and a cheap laugh, jumped on the story with their fearmongering tactics and recommendation of coffee enemas to remove dioxins. For those of you that believe that will work, a bullet lodged into the temporal lobe at high speed will also have the same effect. 

Origin

Where does this all come from, nobody seems to know. It appears to have just started as an urban legend. I have read stories of chain e-mails apparently being the first place to start circulating. Some of the e-mails apparently state that a study out of John Hopkins University shows that these chemicals cause cancer from leaching out of plastics; but John Hopkins university press release denies that they have conducted such a study. You genuinely cannot get any clearer than stating:

The Internet is flooded with messages warning against freezing water in plastic bottles or cooking with plastics in the microwave oven. These messages, frequently titled “Johns Hopkins Cancer News” or “Johns Hopkins Cancer Update,” are falsely attributed to Johns Hopkins and we do not endorse their content.

Freezing water does not cause the release of chemicals from plastic bottles.

In general, it is best to follow the manufacturer’s recommendations when using any plastic products. When cooking with plastics, only use those plastic containers, wraps, bags and utensils for their intended purposes."

So, it wasn’t them, who was it? No one. That’s who. This is genuinely a myth that has got ridiculously out of hand and propagated to a point beyond belief. Bisphenol A is a chemical known as BPA which is used in to make rigid plastics, for example plastic bottles such as those intended for reuse (e.g.; sports bottles, baby bottles etc.) is probably a reason for this propagation. Tests showed concerning results with cancer and reproduction in animals, making BPA a possible carcinogen. This was removed from baby bottles in 2012, a move branded as ‘Purely Cosmetic’. Over here in the UK we have a legislation from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that regulates the materials that are used in the processes and packaging of foods. Andrew Wadge is a chief scientist for the FSA and revised the studies on BPA stating that a study in 2011:

“…Corroborates other independent studies and adds to the evidence that BPA is rapidly absorbed, detoxified, and eliminated from humans – therefore is not a health concern."

Daily F**king Mail

Last year the Daily Mail had its own fear campaign set up with an article urging people not to reuse plastic bottles. In the article, Anethea Gerrie asks for you to not use lunchboxes, don’t use plastic in the dishwasher, don’t use cling film and use natural packaging. She doesn’t suggest what natural packaging to use but keep just randomly labelling chemicals. She calls for you to use cans for fizzy drinks as formaldehyde is added to bottles and is it ‘potentially a carcinogen’ – oh contraire my uneducated friend, it is a carcinogen. Before you lose your mind and go ‘THEN WHY IS IT ALLOWED’; Dose makes the poison, and it is really unclear whether they are in there or not, all I can find is articles saying that it is there, not actual evidence. ‘New evidence’, ‘Evidence suggests’ and ‘a published study’ is written over and over– which ones? Just saying these things is not enough to be classed as evidence. Does the Daily Mail not a have a proof reader? Anyway, at the end of that post is a post on how Yoga cured insomnia and plugs a particular spar and loads of plastic free bottles. Funny that, didn’t see any sales reps on the published journals I read, must be in the wrong area.

Conclusion

The baseline here is; there is literally no evidence for plastics causing cancer. This is simply not true. Not even slightly. Scientific information does not come from e-mails that were spread around in 2005, it comes from peer reviewed studies – none of which state that leaving a bottle in the car and then drinking out of it will cause breast cancer. This myth has been debunked time and time again, the next time you hear someone say it – just pour carcinogenic water over them, safe in the knowledge they think they will get cancer and you have done nothing wrong because that is ridiculous. 

So, once again, I will leave you with the words I put in almost of my posts; because it is written down, doesn’t make it true. 

Research and critique