Many manufacturers
and distributors of so-called natural and/or organic personal care
products claim to have made an informed choice to use Cocamidopropyl
betaine (CAPB) rather than Sodium lauryl ether sulphate (SLES) as
a foaming agent in their products, are often disparaging of their
competitors use of SLES and usually fraudulently miscontextualise
or even fabricate misinformation regarding the safety of SLES. Cocamidopropyl
betaine (CAPB) is an non-ionic, amphoteric surfactant, foaming agent
and emulsifier used in the formulation of rinse-off shampoos, liquid
soaps, gels and cosmetic and household cleansers due to its reputation
as being a milder (less irritating) agent than most older and many
contemporary alternatives, including Sodium lauryl ether sulphate
(SLES), especially from the point of view of being less stinging
to the eyes.
Made from coconut oil, with petrochemical
ingredients, Cocamidopropyl betaine is a quasi-natural substance,
as is SLES. Being notably milder to the eyes quickly led to its
preferential use in baby shampoos and to manufacturers claiming
their product to be milder and safer than that of their competitors
who were using Sodium laureth sulphate/Sodium lauryl ether sulphate
(SLES). This in turn led to consumer advocates, doctors, consumers
and patients assuming that a less irritating product such as a baby
shampoo would be safer for the skin, causing more to formulate with,
recommend and to seek out CAPB based products over those containing
SLES. Cocamidopropyl betaine is a tamed version of a harsher older
surfactant, Cocamide DEA, as is Sodium Lauryl Ether Sulphate (SLES)
a tamed version of the harsher older Sodium Lauryl Sulphate (SLS).
Cocamidopropyl betaine does however have
a dark side that surfaced along with increasing consumer usage,
namely its identification and confirmation as a contact allergen,
something that Sodium lauryl ether sulphate (SLES) is not. Furthermore,
like SLES, which its detractors, based on its early manufacturing
standards and also current industrial grades, but not necessarily
in its modern cosmetic grade incarnation, point out, Cocamidopropyl
betaine contains several allergenic impurities including carcinogenic
nitrosamines, (Haz-Map, Natl Inst
Health, USA, 20 July, 2004), making a double mockery
of SLES-critical manufacturer's claims of a better safety profile
for CAPB. Since its introduction, Cocamidopropyl betaine been increasingly
revealed, like SLES, to be a skin sensitizer, but moreover, unlike
SLES, CAPB has increasingly been identified as a significant cause
of allergic contact dermatitis, to the extent of being voted Contact
Allergen of the year for 2004 by a committee of international experts
(Mowad C, Adv Dermatol, 20:237, 2004).
With reports of confirmed allergenic dermatitis
caused by Cocamidopropyl betaine having first been recorded more
than a decade ago, CAPB is now unquestionably documented and acknowledged
as one of the most frequent (SLES does not even feature) causes
of dermatitis of the head, neck and face in humans and especially
so of the eyelids and lips of infants, where its use can lead to
intractable inflammation and scaling (Korting
H et al, J Am Acad Dermatol, 27(6 Pt 1), 1992); (Peter C et al,
Contact Dermatitis, 26(4), 1992); (Taniguchi S et al, Contact Dermatitis,
26(2), 1992); (Fowler J, Cutis, 52(5), 1993); (Angelino G et al,
Contact Dermatitis, 32(2), 1995); (de Groot A, et al, Contact Dermatitis,
33(6), 1995); (de Groot A, Clin Dermatol, 15(4), 1997); (Angelini
D et al, Contact Dermatitis, 39(4), 1998); (Brand R et al, Australas
J Dermatol, 39(2), 1998); (Lin-Hui S et al, Contact Dermatitis,
38(3), 1998); (Armstrong D et al, Contact Dermatitis, 40(6), 1999);
(Krasteva M et al, Europ J Dermatol, 9 (2), 1999); (Yasunaga C et
al, Environ Dermatol, 7(1), 2000); (Hashimoto R et al, Environ Dermatol,
7(2), 2000); (Mowad C, Am J Contact Dermatitis, 12(4), 2001); (McFadden
J et al, Contact Dermatitis, 45(2), 2001); (Foti C et al, Contact
Dermatitis, 48: 194, 2003); (Moreau L et al, Dermatitis, 15(3),
2004); (Goosens A, Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol, 292, 11, 2004); (Brey
N et al, Dermatitis, 15(1), 2004); (Fowler J et al, Am J Dermatol
(15(1), 2004); (Shaffer K, 15th Ann Meet Am Contact Dermatitis Soc,
Wash, 5 Feb, 2004); (Agar N et al, Australas J Dermatol, 46(1),
2005); (Bloom M, Recognising contact dermatitis, Dermatol Times,
June, 2005).
|