No abstract

No abstract

There are several aspects of this paper, which require further investigation and discussion. One of the most important points is the claim that the increased permeation of parabens through the skin on repeated application provokes accumulation. There is no evidence to support this claim, nor is it logical to assume this. Even if it is accepted that skin permeation can increase, this does not automatically mean that parabens will accumulate; it can also mean that more parabens are available for metabolism and excretion.A further question has to be raised over the validity of the second and third applications of the cosmetic lotion in terms of the ex vivo skin, maintaining its integrity and normal functionality. While the method used is widely accepted as standard for a single application of test substance, the validity of subsequent applications has not been established. It has previously been shown that parabens are hydrolysed by esterases present in the skin (1). Without the proof of retention of the esterases activity in ex vivo skin, it should not be assumed that the skin becomes more permeable to parabens on repeated application. It may be the case that the esterases are no longer viable, thereby permitting a higher concentration of intact parabens to pass through the skin. The conclusion of this study that parabens somehow increase their permeability on repeated application requires further investigation, as the authors have not proposed a mechanism for this phenomenon. Furthermore, the original protocol for this procedure (2) suggests a time period of 24 h for viability, stating that longer durations may result in membrane deterioration and require membrane integrity to be carefully checked; this study continued to monitor the skin up to 36 h without checking the integrity of the membrane. An additional study has to, perhaps, be conducted to assess the effect on esterases by both freezing the skin and monitoring it for 36 h, for without this information, the claims made in this paper cannot be fully substantiated as the viability of these esterases is critical in determining the true quantities of parabens that would permeate skin under normal use conditions.The conclusions of the present study are based more on assumption than on rigorous scientific proof.Of deeper concern are the references to the work of Routledge et al. (3) and Darbre et al. (4) and the subsequent statement directly linking parabens to breast cancer. Both of these papers have been widely quoted out of context, and El Hussein et al. have repeated this error. There is no direct proved link between parabens and breast cancer, and the majority of the cosmetic science community, and many beyond it, dispute the implied connection between the presence of parabens in breast tumor tissue and breast cancer. This implied connection has been seized upon as fact by many 'anti-Chemicals' groups and used to feed media scare stories, manipulating public opinion against parabens in particular. Furthermore, there is a serious doubt over the validity of...