Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) are not to be confuse with Sodium laureth sulfate (SLES) as both are used as surfactant. Both are safe to be used in Shampoo or toothpaste as they don’t cause cancer. However, the reason for the alert of cancer causing is due to the contamination during the production process. SLS is contaminated with nitrosamines, and SLES contaminated with dioxane. It is nitrosamines and dioxane that causes cancer. However, both contamination can be eliminated through another process.
Kolmar being the 3rd largest ODM and OEM manufacturer in the world and at the frontier of technology, I believe they will ensure that there will be no contamination in the SLS used in Atomy products.
Below are the websites that are available for your own research. Attached another detail report from a US government site.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_dodecyl_sulfate | “Sodium lauryl sulfate” is not to be confused with Sodium laureth sulfate… The earlier review of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) program Expert Panel in 1983 reported that SDS (there, abbreviated SLS, for sodium lauryl sulfate) in concentrations up to 2%, in a year-long oral dietary studies in dogs, gave no evidence of tumorigenicity or carcinogenicity, and that no excess chromosomal aberrations or clastogenic effects were observed in rats fed up to 1.13% sodium lauryl sulfate in their diets for 90 days, over those on a control diet |
| https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shampoo-sham/ | Back in the 1970s some shampoos were found to be contaminated with small amounts of nitrosamines, which are carcinogenic. Ethanolamine lauryl sulfates used in these shampoos were determined to be the source of the nitrosamine contamination, and manufacturers took corrective action. |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_laureth_sulfate | Some products containing SLES contain traces (up to 300 ppm) of 1,4-dioxane, which is formed as a by-product during the ethoxylation step of its production. 1,4-Dioxane is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Group 2B carcinogen: possibly carcinogenic to humans. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends that these levels be monitored,[9] and encourages manufacturers to remove 1,4-dioxane, though it is not required by federal law.[10] |
| https://madesafe.org/science/hazard-list/14-dioxane/ | 1,4-dioxane is an expected contaminant from a process called ethoxylation, when ethylene oxide is added to other ingredients to make them less harsh. A good example of this is sodium lauryl sulfate, which is harsh on skin. It’s often ethoxylated to convert it to sodium laureth sulfate; 1,4-dioxane is created in the process and contaminates the sodium laureth sulfate. |
| https://www.quora.com/In-organic-chemistry-is-sodium-laureth-sulfate-SLES-harmful | Alone, the “natural chemicals” in shampoo, such as SLS and SLES, are not going to harm you but the fragrance might. |
| https://skeptoid.com/blog/2012/01/30/do-you-really-need-sls-free-shampoo/ | Back in the late ’90s a rumor was going around the internet stating that SLS caused cancer. This is just patently false. Three different agencies, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have all stated that SLS is non-carcinogenic. |
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4651417/ | Conclusion:The review of SLS toxicity profiles confirms that SLS is an acceptable surfactant for use in household cleaning product formulations from toxicological and sustainability perspectives. Years of anti-SLS campaigns have led to consumer concerns and confusion regarding the safety of SLS. Please see next page for the detail report. |
Human and Environmental Toxicity of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS): Evidence for Safe Use in Household Cleaning Products
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4651417/
Chronic toxicity
Carcinogenicity The most egregious claim by far is that SLS is carcinogenic.16,32 The origin of this claim is uncertain, but it is likely to have derived from multiple misinterpretations of the scientific literature. There is no scientific evidence supporting that SLS is a carcinogen.33,34 SLS is not listed as a carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); U.S. National Toxicology Program; California Proposition 65 list of carcinogens; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and the European Union. In 1998, the American Cancer Society (ACS) published an article attempting to correct the public’s misconception of SLS.32 Regardless, false claims about SLS proliferated throughout the digital media, causing consumers to develop significant concerns about SLS in household cleaning products.
The perception that SLS is carcinogenic is often based on studies that use the ingredient to evaluate the carcinogenicity of other agents. An article written by Birt et al.36 is commonly cited as supporting the carcinogenicity claim for SLS. However, this is another example of public misinterpretation and the resulting dissemination of inaccurate information. In the study by Birt et al.35, SLS was used as a vehicle to process the agent being tested. No evidence supporting the carcinogenic effect of SLS was reported. It is apparent that the common use of SLS as a solubilizing agent in toxicology studies has led to the public’s confusion around the chronic toxicity of SLS.
Other claims denouncing SLS as a carcinogen point to a chemical reaction between SLS and formaldehyde that creates nitrosamines as a by-product.32 However, it is not possible for SLS and formaldehyde to react and form a nitrosamine. Nitrosamines contain two nitrogen atoms, but neither SLS nor formaldehyde contain nitrogen atoms. Therefore, the two cannot react to form a nitrogen-containing nitrosamine. Although nitrosamines have been associated with several types of cancer and many are classified by IARC as known, possible, or probable carcinogens depending on the chemical species,34 they cannot be associated with the presence and use of SLS.
Another carcinogenic by-product, 1,4-dioxane, is falsely associated with SLS.32 1,4-dioxane is categorized as possibly carcinogenic to humans by IARC,34 and the potential for some surfactants – like sodium laureth sulfate (also called sodium lauryl ether sulfate or SLES) – to be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane during the ethoxylation process is well established.36 Barring contamination by manufacturing equipment, surfactants that are not ethoxylated, such as SLS, do not share the same risk of 1,4-dioxane contamination. It is important to note, however, that potential for cross-contamination during manufacturing exists. Manufacturers of SLS and products containing SLS can perform chemical analyses to confirm if there are detectable levels of 1,4-dioxane in the SLS ingredient or formulated consumer product.
Organ toxicity It is often claimed that SLS absorbs into the blood stream, builds up in the heart, liver, lungs and brain, and causes damage.13,16 Claims of this nature often cite the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Final Report on the safety of SLS, which contains an extensive review of the absorption and excretion of SLS in humans and animals.1 However, the CIR concludes that while SLS can be absorbed through the skin when applied directly, the majority of the material remains in or on the skin surface. SLS that is absorbed into the bloodstream is quickly metabolized by the liver into more water-soluble metabolites that are rapidly excreted through the urine, feces, and sometimes expired breath.1,22,23,37 There is no evidence in the CIR report or in the scientific literature at large that supports the accumulation of SLS in vital organs and associates it to systemic toxicity or vital organ damage.22,23,33 As such, accusations that SLS will bioaccumulate in humans and cause organ damage are inaccurate.