Dandruff Shampoo Causes Cancer

[Guest guest]

Comments?

Misty

http://www..com

 

He's no flake

One San Francisco man takes on the makers of dandruff shampoo

 

http://www.sfbg.com/News/36/12/ogflak.html

 

By Cassi Feldman

Perry Gottesfeld does not have dandruff. But the 40-year-old public

health advocate has made it his mission to protect those who do. Most

dandruff shampoos contain coal tar, a sticky, strong-smelling

substance used for centuries to treat skin conditions. But coal tar

has a little side effect shampoo makers don't want you to know about:

it causes cancer.

 

In 1999 Gottesfeld, who runs a fledgling nonprofit called

Occupational Knowledge International, filed suit against 20

pharmaceutical companies and drug stores for flouting Proposition 65,

a state law that requires warning labels on products that contain

carcinogens. On Dec. 7 the defendants went before San Francisco

Superior Court Judge James Robertson to request that he dismiss the

case. But Gottesfeld prevailed and the trial date was set for January

7, 2002.

 

Passed by voters in 1986, Prop. 65 is one of the most stringent

consumer-protection laws in the country, designed to set higher

standards than those established by the federal Food and Drug

Administration. " The FDA has no obligation to warn us if things are

carcinogenic, " Gottesfeld told the Bay Guardian. " That's why Prop. 65

is so important. When a company is faced with having to label the

product or make the product safer, nine times out of ten it opts to

make the product safer. "

 

As a result of Prop. 65 lawsuits, Preparation H no longer contains

mercury; calcium supplements don't contain lead; Wite-Out is made

without cancer-causing trichloroethylene.

 

But the makers of shampoos such as Tegrin, Neutrogena T/Gel, and

Psoriasin Scalp are reluctant to dispense with coal tar, the active

ingredient in many of their products. Strangely, Neutrogena

cosponsored a 2000 study proving that dandruff shampoo without coal

tar works better. So why does the company keep fighting? Neutrogena's

lawyers did not return calls by press time.

 

Coal tar was first identified as carcinogenic in the 18th century

when chimney sweeps in England developed alarmingly high rates of

scrotum cancer. Here in the Bay Area, coal tar was the chief

contaminant in soil beneath Daly City's Midway Village housing

complex, prompting multiple lawsuits and two major cleanups.

 

So when Gottesfeld learned that certain soaps, creams, and hair

products contained coal tar, he was understandably concerned. He

recalls walking by a pyramid display of Neutrogena T/Gel Shampoo in a

drugstore window two years ago and thinking to himself, " Someone

should do something about that. "

 

It isn't an easy case. Though the dangers of industrial coal tar are

well established, those of pharmaceutical coal tar have been a matter

of dispute. Gottesfeld and California attorney general Bill Lockyer,

who has joined the suit, both sponsored risk assessments that

supported labeling the products. But the defendants' scientists found

that coal tar's carcinogens were below the " no significant risk

level " set by Prop. 65. At any rate, the companies argued, FDA limits

should override those set by the state. In a letter to Judge

Robertson, lead defense attorney Carol Brophy wrote, " A Proposition

65 cancer warning clearly and irreconcilably conflicts with federal

laws. "

 

If the companies win, Gottesfeld worries, it would threaten the very

foundation Prop. 65 itself. " It's one man against an army, " he said.

" I wouldn't have done this if I didn't believe it was a real public

health concern. "