The oral LD50 for Sodium Dodecylbenzenesulfonate (SDDBS) in rats was 1.26 g/kg. No significant toxic effects were observed when rats were given oral doses of 1000 ppm SDDBS in water. No systemic toxicity was observed in rabbits given dermal applications of ≤10% SDDBS to abraded skin for 28 days; severe dermal irritation was observed at the application site. Mild necrosis of intestinal mucosa with hemosiderosis of the spleen, liver, and kidneys was observed in rats given a varying dosage of 2.5–5.0 ml/kg/day of a formulation containing 15% SDDBS for a total of 22 weeks; lesions were not observed for rats given 0.5 ml/kg/day. Renal damage was observed in rats dosed orally with ≤0.6% SDDBS for 6 months. For dogs fed ≤1000 mg/kg/day of a formulation containing 15% SDDBS in the diet for 6 months, hemorrhagic necrosis of the intestine and infiltration of inflammatory cells were observed at 10 mg/kg and hemosiderosis of the liver and spleen was observed at 100 and 1000 mg/kg. SDDBS, adjusted to 15% active and a p H of 7.0, applied to intact and abraded sites was severely irritating. A solution containing 1.9% SDDBS and 1.9% tallow alkyl ethoxylate sulfate was moderately irritating to the skin of rabbits. This compound was not a sensitizer when tested at low concentrations. Concentrations of ≥5% Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS) were irritants to the eyes of rabbits; ≤0.1 % LAS produced mild to no irritation. (LAS is a commercial preparation that has the average molecular weight of SDDBS.) No reproductive effects were produced by dermal application of LAS or TEA-DDBS or by oral administration of LAS. The results of mutagenic assays using SDDBS were negative. Dermal carcinogenicity studies using LAS and TEA-DDBS and oral carcinogenicity studies using SDDBS and LAS were negative. On the basis of the animal and clinical data presented in this report, it is concluded that Sodium Dodecylbenzenesulfonate, TEA-Dodecylbenzenesulfonate, and Sodium Decylbenzenesulfonate are safe as cosmetic ingredients in the present practices of use. The full report includes a discussion on how the various types of safety test data were interpreted, both individually and collectively.