Shampoo bottles

Are we the experiment to find out if SLS is safe?

It’s still a total mystery to me whether sodium lauryl sulphate  (SLS) is safe or not. I just looked through half a dozen web sites with such contradicting information that I’m baffled.

How can one agency do studies on SLS and find that all it does is cause a little skin irritation in those who are sensitive and another finds SLS penetrated into the eyes, as well as brain, heart, liver, and showed long-term retention in the tissues? Either somebody’s lying or one of the studies gave false results.

I found one page that looks like a scientific fact sheet. It didn’t have any information on where it came from, but it had the following information on SLS:

“Route Of Entry – Inhalation: YES Route Of Entry – Skin: YES Route Of Entry – Ingestion: YES Health Hazard Acute And Chronic: ACUTE: CAUSES MILD IRRITATION ON CONTACT W/SKIN, EYES OR MUCOUS MEMBRANES. SKIN CONTACT COULD CAUSE IRRITATION OR ALLERGIC REACTION. MODERATELY TOXIC BY INGESTION. CHRONIC: TESTS ON LAB ANIMALS INDICATE MATERIAL MAY CAUSE MUTAGENIC EFFECTS Signs/Symptoms Of Overexposure: SEE HEALTH HAZARDS. Medical Condition Aggravated By Exposure: DATA NOT AVAILABLE. Emergency/First Aid Procedure: EYES: FLUSH THOROUGHLY W/WATER FOR AT LEAST 15 MINUTES.”

It doesn’t look so bad, except for the section on chronic exposure. That has me a bit concerned. The fact that the word “may” is in there doesn’t make me feel any better. If a product “may” cause mutagenic effects, doesn’t it warrant further study before we start slathering our bodies in it, and even eating it? Also, it doesn’t have any information on medical conditions that might be aggravated by exposure to SLS.

When considering whether you’re going to use a certain personal or household cleaning product, would you want one that “may” cause mutagenic effects or one that been proven it doesn’t?