The findings refered to relate to animal studies, in which the rabbits have had large amounts of Sodium lauryl Sulfate (SLS) put in their eyes, or forcefed to them over a number of weeks. In contrast to Sodium Lauryl sulfate, Sodium laureth sulfate (SLES) has been found to be safe, it doesn't cause dry skin/dermatitis. It is pretty uncommon to find SLS nowdays, gentler SLES is used instead. Regarding they eyes, "The doctor who conducted the study and delivered the final report is Dr. Keith Green, Regents Professor of Ophthalmology at the Medical College of Georgia, who received his doctorate of science from St. Andrews University in Scotland. I had an opportunity to talk with Dr. Green who stated that he was completely embarrassed by all this. He told me in a telephone interview back in 1997 that his "work was completely misquoted. There is no part of my study that indicated any [eye] development or cataract problems from SLS or SLES and the body does not retain those ingredients at all." Source: http://www.paulaschoice.com.au/Learn/skin-care-facts/Myth-Busting/Sodium-Lauryl-Sulfate---Sodium-Laureth-Sulfate.aspx I believe some of the alternatives to SLES release many more times the amount of Nitrates but these ingredients are not demonized and they should be. A bit more careful research would serve this organisation better.

hmmm, all well and good but we now have a cancer rate that has gone from approximately 5 in 1000 to more like 5 in 10 in an relatively short time frame. As the largest organ (the skin) we have to suspect that the ability to absorb toxins is considerable and we do tend to cover ourselves with an array of products that are full of unnecessary chemicals. I tend to err on the side of caution and use natural, after all, they do do the job just as well if not better, and they are safe. Why would you choose a chemical cocktail? History of full of rebuttal's of potential harm from chemical companies that have been later proven to damage us. Personally I do not trust their motives. They do not provide consumer goods from any alturistic motives, its all about profits. There are also those that claim that flouride is completely safe etc, and there is seemingly a weight of evidence on both sides of the argument. in the end you inform yourself and then make your decision about how much you value your body and how much you are prepared to trust chemical companies with your long term health.

I find it odd that human beings apply all of these substances to their skin to remove oils and supposedly make them cleaner. Do they think nature creates these oils to harm us? Every day we remove these oils and our bodies fight to put them back. IMHO we are harming our bodies simply because the oils produced are being stripped from our bodies using toxic chemicals, forcing our bodies to produce more than they normally would. This, along with all of the other toxins we apply, ingest and breathe eventually cause a breakdown we call cancer. The medical community is clueless when it comes to prevention and all of their cures involve pharmaceuticals. Up until the 20th century, no one would think of bathing each and every day, few women wore makeup, all produce and livestock were organic, and there were no chemicals leeching into our bodies from plastics. The problem is, it is a cumulative effect from many toxic sources and for some reason, no one is speaking up about it.

Equally as deplorable is the use of animals being our tester for our vanity and stupidity. One more reason when buying products to only purchase items that are labelled with 'no animal testing or animal ingredients'.

There is so much more information about this that could be covered, but this is a good start. For those of you who say "it's been found safe" don't you think that living by the precautionary principle is important? There are many things that have been deemed safe to humans (DDT for example) and then later we found out were horrible and cause cancer. Not to mention, like animals being tested people DO douse themselves in these products everyday so I would say we are getting quite a bit of these chemicals absorbed into our skin.

As I suffer from skin irritations and have had to change my washing powder/liquids/soap/ dishwashing liquid/ deodorant/ toothpaste and anything that has SLS in it, I am glad my body reacted to these products so I could improve my comfort and health as a result. I haven't had problems with the rashes since, and my asthma is not a problem, unless I visit and stay with people who do not care about what products they are using.Also I had sensitive teeth and every hot,cold or acidic food and drink caused intense pain to my teeth. I tried the regular sensitive toothpastes and found they were useless. I now use a SLS free toothpaste which is also fluoride free as well and have not suffered any pain since.(This has been for at least 5 years now) Chris S's comments I don't agree with. I believe you have to simplify your life and stop using products that only benefit shareholder profits of these corporate businesses.

In support of the comment by Chris S above, is a FAQ on the method website. method is a natural, non-toxic and very green cleaning company. This is what they have to say about SLS: Question Does method contain sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS)? Answer Yes, we do in fact use this particular ingredient, which is derived from coconut oil and used for its lathering and efficacy properties, in a number of our products at minute levels. There has been some controversy over SLS being carcinogenic. SLS is a safe ingredient and has not been classified as a known, probable or even suspected carcinogen by either the International Agency for Research on Cancer (www.iarc.fr) or the American Cancer Society (www.cancer.org). The ACS has actually gone so far as to issue a statement to this effect. While the carcinogen concern is completely unfounded, SLS can in fact be a moderate skin and eye irritant when used in high concentrations and unbuffered. method only uses SLS in our formulations at sufficiently low concentrations so that any irritation concern is irrelevant. When deciding to use Sodium Lauryl Sulfate in some of our formulations, method did a complete assessment of the environmental and health aspects of this ingredient, including tests for toxicity and biodegradability. This was done in cooperation with the EPEA, an independent environmental research institute led by Dr. Michael Braungart, author of the landmark text Cradle to Cradle. Their findings showed SLS to be altogether safe in its intended usage, non-toxic, non-carcinogenic and environmentally preferable. The creators of method are dedicated to detoxing our homes, and our selves of toxic chemicals, and I would highly recommend their book "Squeeky Green" for more of their detox ideas.

In response to Lesley: "Their findings showed SLS to be altogether safe in its intended usage. . ." Method intends for us to USE it on our floors, not on our heads. An earlier comment reminded us that many products were deemed safe and then, "Oops, sorry our tests were wrong. It really may kill you". Just one more chemical my family can do without, thank you!!

Interesting article on health...thanks.