Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and sodium laureth sulfate (SLES) are chemical compounds used in

many common household and personal care products, including shampoo, toothpaste, hand soap
and dish soap. Both of these ingredients are surfactants, often preferred by consumers for their
foaming properties. There is much debate over the safety of these ingredients in household
products. This report will focus specifically on consumer concerns and misconceptions,
competitor stances, product recalls and market trends surrounding the use of SLS and SLES in
dish soap and other common household products.

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) vs. Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES)

Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is a known skin irritant. Some say it also causes cancer but several
reports have indicated that this is a common misconception and that there is no evidence to
support a link between SLS and cancer. The American Cancer Society affirms this. SLS may
also cause permanent damage to the immune system, especially within the skin. Its protein
denaturing properties may cause the skin layers to separate and inflame – even at low
concentrations. The manufacturing process of SLS may cause carcinogenic nitrates to form.
According to some sources, this compound penetrates the skin and maintains harmful residual
levels in the body’s organs, including the liver, the lungs, the heart and the brain. Furthermore,
SLS interferes with the body’s natural ability to lose dead skin cells which is why it’s irritating.
SLS is used mostly for its thickening and lathering properties. It sometimes appears on product
labels as an all-natural “coconut-derived surfactant,” which, for many consumer activists, is
about as misleading as changing the name of “high fructose corn syrup” to “corn sugar.”

Sodium laureth sulfate (SLES) is far less irritating, because it’s made by ethoxylating SLS. But
the process of ethoxylation creates small amounts of 1,4-dioxane, which is known to be
carcinogenic. SLES is used mostly for its foaming properties. Both SLS and SLES are coconut
derived, and so are used by many companies that claim their products are “all-natural”.

Skin Deep, a well-known site created by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) gives SLS a
“low hazard” rating, despite the fact that animal tests have shown positive results for cancer,
neurotoxicity, organ system toxicity, and skin irritation. SLES is given a “moderate hazard
rating,” slightly higher than that of SLS. While there are no studies to support the idea that it is
toxic, SLES does contain toxic byproducts (ethylene oxide and 1,4-dioxane) that are known to be
carcinogenic – both of which are rated a “high hazard” by Skin Deep.

Consumer opinion statements seem to suggest no preference between SLS and SLES. SLS is
probably less toxic and is not a known carcinogen, but those who prefer natural products are
leading away from both ingredients and toward a safer alternative, in general.

Alternatives to SLS, SLES and Similar Ingredients:

Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate (ALS)

This surfactant is often used instead of SLS or SLES. Skin Deep rates ALS a “low hazard” for
skin irritation and organ system toxicity in low doses. The degreasing action of most surfactants
comes from the lauryl or laureth chain, but because it looks different on the label, (i.e., it’s not
SLS or SLES) many consumers might prefer the ammonium-based compound. No one refutes
the fact that SLS, SLES and ALS are skin and eye irritants.

Diethanolamine (DEA)

This surfactant is also used as a foaming agent in many household products, and the USDA
believes it to be a carcinogen. Skin Deep lists it as a “moderate hazard” for skin irritation and
toxicity.

Lauryl Glucoside

This is a mild surfactant is used in Ecoleaf hand soap, which is made in the UK. It is also
coconut derived.

Lauramine Oxide

This surfactant is used in several products including Clorox Green Works. It is a known skin
irritant and has been given a “moderate hazard” rating by Skin Deep.

Sodium Lauryl Sulfoacetate (SLSa)

This surfactant is also derived from coconut and palm oils. It has a larger molecular size so it
doesn’t penetrate the skin like SLS and SLES and does not cause irritation, but it still produces a
rich lather and removes surface oil, dirt and bacteria. Because it is a gentle cleansing product, it
may not remove grease as well as SLS or SLES and may not be a great alternative for dish soaps
but is worth researching.

Alkyl Polyglucoside

This is a 100 percent natural, renewable, plant-derived surfactant and is rated a minimal hazard
(0) by Skin Deep. Alkyl polyglucoside has been compared to other comparable surfactants and
shows higher performance in various tests including soil removal, foaming and emulsifying
potential, filming, and anti-streaking, and is very mild to human skin.

Consumer Concerns and Misconceptions

Thickness

Many consumers use thickness to determine the effectiveness of a soap or cleaning product.
Normally, the thicker, the better it is able to clean, but this is not necessarily true. This
perception associates thickness with soapiness, and many consumers perceive that they will need
to use less soap because it is thicker, and therefore more concentrated.
Foam

Many consumers also perceive that the foamier soap is, the less you will need to use and the
better it will be at cleaning and removing grease. This is also not always true.

Removal of oils

Most consumers assume that the more oils are removed, the better a cleaning product is.
However, the removal of oils often results in skin dryness, which is not optimal. When it comes
to personal care products like shampoo and body wash, the removal of all skin oils is not
necessarily a good thing. However, most people want to remove grease from dishes, so a
degreasing surfactant may be better used as an ingredient in dish soap, and won’t affect the skin
if rubber gloves are used while washing.

Bubbles

Many consumers perceive that the more bubbles are produced, the better a cleaning product will
be. However, a rich lather does not necessarily indicate more cleaning power.

Animal Cruelty

Both SLS and SLES are lab tested as a skin irritant on animals, so animal cruelty is a large
concern for many consumer activists. Some people will take fewer bubbles over knowing that
the products they use are needlessly causing harm to lab rats.

Competitor Stances on the use of SLS and SLES in Household Products

Seventh Generation

This company claims that it only uses the “natural version of SLS” derived from palm, coconut
or corn oil and listed as “sodium laureth sulfate” (SLES) on its product labels. The company says
that there are synthetic versions of SLS used by other manufacturers. Indeed, if you visit Seventh
Generation’s website, it says they won’t use “synthetic surfactants” which are derived from
petroleum and natural gas and can cause hormonal disruption and other illnesses in animals and
possibly humans. Seventh Generation claims to only use “plant-based surfactants,” which are
derived from vegetable oil. However, the process of ethoxylation, which converts SLS to SLES,
requires petrochemicals, so this natural formula is most likely a hybrid between coconut oil and
petroleum. Again, from a marketing standpoint, this is similar to changing the name of “high
fructose corn syrup” to “corn sugar.”

Ecover

These products contain a lot of chemicals, including SLES. Ecover dish soap contains 1,4-
dioxane at detectable levels. The company openly lists all ingredients for each product on its
website and does not defend the use of these ingredients in its products.
Earth Friendly Products

These do not contain SLS or 1,4-dioxane, which implies that SLES is not used either. Earth
Friendly Products claims to be the first company to eliminate 1,4-dioxane from its goods.

Biokleen

This company does not use SLS but is very close-mouthed about what ingredients it does use.
Biokleen’s surfactant blend (also known as linear sulfonate) is not carcinogenic or hazardous, but
likely contains a blend of sodium salts, which may contribute to skin irritation.

Dapple

Dapple makes baby-friendly cleaning products. The surfactant used by this company is alkyl
polyglucoside, which scores a zero on Skin Deep in terms of hazard potential.

Clorox Green Works

Clorox Green Works products use lauramine oxide, which has been labeled a primary skin
irritant. The company also uses SLS, marketing its products as “coconut and plant derived”
cleaning agents, which make them appear more natural.

Method

Method admits to using SLS, but maintains that it is safe and non-carcinogenic. Also the
company states that it uses SLS at “minute levels” so that the irritation concern is rendered
irrelevant. Before deciding to use SLS in its products, Method conducted “a complete assessment
of the environmental and health aspects of this ingredient, including tests for toxicity and
biodegradability” and found it to be “altogether safe in its intended usage, non-toxic, non-
carcinogenic and environmentally preferable.” Method’s website also emphasizes that this
ingredient is derived from coconut oil.

In addition, Method asserts that some of their products use cocamide DEA (diethanolamine) –
another potential health hazard. However, Method sates that it sources the highest quality
cocamide DEA to eliminate the presence of free DEA, which is what results in the formation of
toxic nitrosamines. Historical testing shows that there is no detectable amount of DEA in Method
products and they constantly test their products to ensure that no DEA is present.

Pureology

This line of hair care products uses a ZeroSulfate ® formula that contains no sulfates and no
added salts. Somehow, their products still manage to produce foam, which, for many consumers,
determines cleaning power.

Issues with 1,4-Dioxane

1,4-dioxane is a byproduct of the ethoxylation process, which converts SLS into SLES. The EPA
lists 1,4-dioxane as a “probable carcinogen.”

This byproduct has been found in so-called “natural” personal care products. There are no
product recalls in America associated with this ingredient, even though it is known to be
carcinogenic. That is because the FDA still approves it as safe, claiming that this byproduct is
typically only found in goods that come in contact with the skin for short periods of time, and in
such instances will not result in any harmful penetration. Furthermore, the FDA states that 1,4-
dioxane evaporates readily, diminishing the possibility that it will be absorbed by the skin, even
in products like lotion which are left on for long periods. The FDA also claims that they have set
no specific limits on the levels of 1,4-dioxane in products, but have provided guidance to
manufacturers and consumers, educating them on the potential health hazards and on ways to
minimize the presence of this ingredient.

Though the United States sees no potential hazard in products containing 1,4-dioxane, there have
been many other issues and product recalls associated with this ingredient in other countries
around the world:

• The European Union bans 1,4-dioxane from all personal care products and has recalled
products that contain it.

• The recall of children’s products that contain 1,4-dioxane has also occurred in several
countries throughout Europe.

• In 2010, Qatar recalled 3 shampoo brands – Pantene, Blooming and Roberta – due to the
presence of 1,4-dioxane above acceptable levels. Long-term users were concerned about
the damage the shampoos may have inflicted.

• In 2009, a consumer advocacy group called for the removal of carcinogens from Johnson
& Johnson Baby Shampoo – including formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane. The company
responded by saying that these 2 chemicals are contaminants – byproducts from the
process of making the shampoo – and not ingredients used in its original manufacture,
and the company had no immediate plans to remove them. The FDA only requires that
ingredients – not chemical byproducts – be listed on product labels.

• In 2008, the state of California filed a lawsuit against Whole Foods Market for failing to
accurately label its personal care products containing 1,4-dioxane. Consumer activist and
author of Safe Trip to Eden, David Steinman stated: "These companies need to stop
treating the inclusion of cancer causing chemicals in their products as 'business as usual'
and reformulate before consumer confidence in the natural products and organics
industry is permanently damaged."

• In 2010, Herbal Essences reformulated 18 of its shampoos to reduce the level of 1,4-
dioxane, after notice of a potential lawsuit from David Steinman, under California’s
Proposition 65, which allows individuals to take action against companies that produce
products with 1,4-dioxane levels higher than 10 ppm. Herbal Essences levels were 24
 ppm. The company is owned by Procter & Gamble, which has recently taken steps
toward ensuring the health, safety, and environmental friendliness of its products.

The Organic Consumers Association debunks the myths associated with 1,4-dioxane in this
report. These myths include the claim that its toxicity is questionable and that it is not easily
absorbed by the skin.

Products containing 1,4-dioxane are likely to have other contaminants as well, including
formaldehyde, nitrosamines and phthalates.

Consumer Market Trends

There is ample evidence to suggest that consumers are gravitating toward the natural sector of
the personal care market. Concerning specialty surfactants specifically, according to one report:

“Of the $600+ million specialty surfactants market, only about 10% of the raw ingredients
available in this category are naturally derived. Natural alternatives for these products, which
reduce skin and eye irritation of commodity surfactants and boost foaming properties in hair and
skin care rinse-off products, are gaining traction particularly in the mass market product
categories. Growth in the naturally-derived segment is expected to reach nearly 4% CAGR
through 2013. The leading product in this segment is alkyl polyglucoside (APG), supplied by
Cognis (the market leader), Clariant, and Croda. APGs are manufactured from plant-derived
materials such as vegetable oils and starch. There is a clear demand for natural and organics.”

According to Euromonitor, consumers are looking for natural, sustainably sourced ingredients in
personal care and household cleaning products. At the same time, consumers want to “feel the
clean” – they want the foam, the bubbles and the sensory insurance that the products they use are
working, according to an article published earlier this year in USA Today.

According to a recent report from PR Newswire, two-thirds of global consumers buy household
care products on the basis of value for money. Environmentalism and sustainability are also
becoming a meaningful influencer in the purchase of household products, but, for now, are
secondary to other purchase influencers.

There is a growing focus on natural specialty surfactants like alkyl polyglucosides. These are
more expensive than traditional surfactants like SLS and SLES so not many manufacturers use
them, giving those that do a competitive edge in the growing environmentalist market.
Sources:

http://1greengeneration.elementsintime.com/?p=398
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/common_ecomyth_sls.php
http://www.cleanhappens.com/blog/index.php/2011/02/25/dish-it-out-i-can-take-it/
http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/sls-JACT-report.html
http://www.suma.coop/2010/05/27/sls-and-sles-spot-the-difference/
http://www.crueltyfreeproductreviews.com/?p=41
http://www.simply-eden.com/blog/sls-vs-slsa-they-look-the-same-are-they/
http://colinsbeautypages.co.uk/why-you-should-avoid-slssles/
http://smartklean.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/seventh-generation-method-and-ecover-not-so-
safe-after-all/
http://www.gimmethegoodstuff.org/dish-soap/
http://chemicaloftheday.squarespace.com/qa/2011/3/15/linear-sulfonate.html
http://www.pureology.com/discover/difference
http://southernsoapers.com/news/how-to-make-that/slsa-what-is-this/
http://www.greenworkscleaners.com/products/ingredients/
http://www.methodhome.com/
http://www.ecos.com/Dioxane.html
http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductandIngredientSafety/PotentialContaminants/ucm101566.h
tm
http://www.ctfa.org/newsroom/20070201
http://www.naturalnews.com/022846.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_12797.cfm
http://www.estanalytical.com/pub/docs/Optimization%20Dioxane%20Analysis%20%20LowRes
.pdf
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/qatar-recalls-three-shampoo-brands-over-health-risk-
350328.html
http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/johnson-johnson-baby-shampoo-contains-cancer-chemicals-4138/
http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/DioxaneFacts080314.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2011-01-24-trends201124_CV_N.htm
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-future-of-household-cleaning-capitalizing-on-
emerging-trends-and-changing-preferences-122856384.html
http://www.personalcaremagazine.com/Story.aspx?Story=7956