Talk Cancer

Question:

writes: My question is:  is propylene glycol derived from crude oil?

Some is.  It is manufactured from propylene in a series of reactions. Some is also made from glycerol and sodium hydroxide.  It’s thought to be harmless, since the body breaks it down easily into normal food molecules (pyruvate, acetate).  It’s used as a solvent for pharmaceuticals, as a fungus and fermentation inhibitor, and as a non-toxic antifreeze in breweries and dairies.   CH3-CH=CH2      Propylene    CH3–CH–CH2         |   |     Propylene glycol         0H  OH                                            Steve Harris, M.D.   Propylene glycol is in food products. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -WHAT IS PROPYLENE GLYCOL, AND WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?  When I look up PG on the internet, I will also get ethylene glycol – which is why I’m questioning the relationship between the two. From what I’ve read on the internet, prop. glycol is close enough (to make me question) to ethylene. Please tell me:  what is Propylene Glycol, and what is the purpose in food? Kathy Carlson

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – writes: My question is:  is propylene glycol derived from crude oil? Some is.  It is manufactured from propylene in a series of reactions. Some is also made from glycerol and sodium hydroxide.  It’s thought to be harmless, since the body breaks it down easily into normal food molecules (pyruvate, acetate).  It’s used as a solvent for pharmaceuticals, as a fungus and fermentation inhibitor, and as a non-toxic antifreeze in breweries and dairies.  CH3-CH=CH2      Propylene   CH3–CH–CH2        |   |     Propylene glycol        0H  OH                                           Steve Harris, M.D.  Propylene glycol is in food products. WHAT IS PROPYLENE GLYCOL, AND WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?  When I look up PG on

My father always told to me to question things. I took his advise.  That’s going to piss people off. Some proplyene glycol is derived from crude oil? Where are the studies that show that crude oil protein is safe?  Dr. Epstein says that petroleum-derived protein is not safe.  If that is NOT propylene glycol, I stand corrected. Kathy Carlson

Response:

Where are the studies that show that crude oil protein is safe?  Dr. Epstein says that petroleum-derived protein is not safe.  If that is NOT propylene glycol, I stand corrected.

Propylene glycol is not a protein.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : Propylene Glycol … is considered a strong skin irritant and : can be retained in the liver and kidneys and cause liver and : kidney abnormalities.  There are 884 known carcinogens in : personal care products on the market today. No! No! No! As a medical doctor, a specialist in toxicology, and a medical school professor, I can assure you that the statement above (and many others that I’ve found posted by Sanford and others on the Net) are malicious, deceitful and WRONG!!  It makes me ANGRY. So … here’s the truth about PROPYLENE GLYCOL: 1.  Propylene Glycol is classified by the US Food and Drug Administration as Generally Regarded As Safe (GRAS).  Its use is approved as a food additive, in food flavorings, in medications and in cosmetics.  According to the US Public Health Service, "the wide spread use of Propylene Glycol stems from its low level of toxicity". 2.  No studies have described any disease or other adverse effects of the liver or kidney in humans (or animals) as a result of exposure to Propylene Glycol. 3.  Propylene Glycol is rapidly metabolized to form glucose (i.e., simple sugar) which is used as an energy source by the body.  It is NOT "retained" in the liver, kidney or anywhere else in the body: its elimination half-life is about 4 hours, so it is essentially gone within 12 hours. 4.  Propylene Glycol is NOT a "strong skin irritant".  Undiluted Propylene Glycol is regarded as having marginal irritant properties.  Moreover, skin reactions decrease with decreasing concentration.  In cosmetics, it is typically used in concentrations of less than 10%. 5.  Propylene Glycol is NOT known nor suspected to be carcinogenic. 6.  And … here’s a response to the WORST of Sanford’s deceits: There are not 884 known carcinogens in the world, much less in "personal care products"!! The National Toxicology Program (the US Federal agency responsible for classifying carcinogens) lists 24 "Substances or groups of substances … known to be carcinogenic" in humans and fewer than 200 others that "may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens". Likewise, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the World Health Organization) lists 50 "substances, groups of substances or industrial processes" as "carcinogenic to humans", and another 197 as "probably" or "possibly" carcinogenic to humans.  That IARC list includes about 25 exposures to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (carcinogen in tobacco smoke), 20 medications used to treat cancer, as well as birth control pills, anti-convulsant medications, some antibiotics and lead. And it does NOT include propylene glycol. So … I can only conclude that those mis-truths and lies reflect someone’s idea of aggressive marketing.  And I’ll bet that someone is hoping to get rich by scaring folks into buying his "alternative" personal care products. I have posted separately some free references and resources.  SEE:  The Truth About Propylene Glycol:  The References. Jonathan Borak, MD Yale University

Nice to have someone on the net with credentials whom we can believe. Thanks, Dr. Borak. LOren Parks

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dr. Borak – You are correct.  Dr. Epstein does not say "propylene glycol."   His quote exactly is: "Avoid all food products containing petroleum-derived protein, either as a flavor enhancer or a food ingredient.  As far as is known, Amoco Foods Company, a subsidiary of Standard Oil of Indiana, is the exclusive US manufacturer of petroleum protein. (skip) "This is a high protein yeast culture grown on "food grade" ethanol derived from hydrocarbons (usually ethylene), isolated from crude oil." "Under current labeling laws, its presence as a flavor enhancer can be hidden in the catch-all term "natural flavorings." END My question is:  is propylene glycol derived from crude oil?  Propylene glycol is in food products. WHAT IS PROPYLENE GLYCOL, AND WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?  When I look up PG on the internet, I will also get ethylene glycol – which is why I’m questioning the relationship between the two. From what I’ve read on the internet, prop. glycol is close enough (to make me question) to ethylene. Please tell me:  what is Propylene Glycol, and what is the purpose in food? Kathy Carlson

I’m afraid I was not clear on my questions. I’m looking at a web site: www.agen.ufl.edu/~foodsaf/i1002t2.html that says: "propylene glycol aginate, a chemically- modified agin, thickens acidic foods (soda pop, salad dressing) and stabilizes the foam in beer." PG is in all my cosmetics – which is fine – because I don’t eat my cosmetics. What bothers me is the word "chemically." I try to eat cleanly – no pesticides/no dyes, etc.  I would like to know how this chemical comes to be.  Is it a sister/brother to ethelyne, which is in Epstein’s book? I am also looking at the NTP Chemical Repository Under this page it says: CARCINOGENICITY:  Not available MUTATION DATA:  Not available TERATOGENICITY:  Not available Hazard rating #2 What does this mean?  Does it mean there have been no tests on PG in regards to the above? Does it mean that the FDA does not know? Or is it just GRAS? I’m sorry that my question was unclear earlier. Thanks Dr. Borak, Kathy Carlson

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Kathy: You raise several interesting concerns about Stephen Epstein.  The following information may be useful:     1. Epstein is a very distinguished academic and his book was one of the most important statements on the issues of industrialization and public health.  Although his views are politicized, they are certainly "main stream" and he is personally well regarded in academic and policy circles (even by those who would disagree with some of his views!!).     2. Epstein’s book says NOTHING about propylene glycol.  That compound is not listed in the index and in the section, on page 479, that you had referred to in a still earlier posting his concerns about "petroleum proteins" are of NO RELEVANCE to propylene glycol. Jonathan Borak, MD Yale University

Dr. Borak – You are correct.  Dr. Epstein does not say "propylene glycol."   His quote exactly is: "Avoid all food products containing petroleum-derived protein, either as a flavor enhancer or a food ingredient.  As far as is known, Amoco Foods Company, a subsidiary of Standard Oil of Indiana, is the exclusive US manufacturer of petroleum protein. (skip) "This is a high protein yeast culture grown on "food grade" ethanol derived from hydrocarbons (usually ethylene), isolated from crude oil." "Under current labeling laws, its presence as a flavor enhancer can be hidden in the catch-all term "natural flavorings." END My question is:  is propylene glycol derived from crude oil?  Propylene glycol is in food products. WHAT IS PROPYLENE GLYCOL, AND WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?  When I look up PG on the internet, I will also get ethylene glycol – which is why I’m questioning the relationship between the two. From what I’ve read on the internet, prop. glycol is close enough (to make me question) to ethylene. Please tell me:  what is Propylene Glycol, and what is the purpose in food? Kathy Carlson

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Can someone tell me if is this man does exist? (I’m reading from a book – 1979)   "The Politics of Cancer" Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. (does NOT like the idea of PG.)  is professor of Occupational and  Environmental Medicine at the School of Public Health, University of Illinois at the Medical Center, Chicago.  He has been Chief of the Laboratories of Environmental Toxicology and Carcinogenesis at the Children’s Cancer Research Foundation in Boston, Senior Research Associate in Pathology at Harvard Medical School, and Swetland Professor of Environmental Health and Human Ecology at Case Western Reserve University Medical Schoo..  An anuthority on toxic and carcinogenic  hazards due to chemical polllutants.

Kathy: You raise several interesting concerns about Stephen Epstein.  The following information may be useful:      1. Epstein is a very distinguished academic and his book was one of the most important statements on the issues of industrialization and public health.  Although his views are politicized, they are certainly "main stream" and he is personally well regarded in academic and policy circles (even by those who would disagree with some of his views!!).      2. Epstein’s book says NOTHING about propylene glycol.  That compound is not listed in the index and in the section, on page 479, that you had referred to in a still earlier posting his concerns about "petroleum proteins" are of NO RELEVANCE to propylene glycol. Jonathan Borak, MD Yale University

Response:

: In another section, she says that if you are not sure, avoid any : product with "prop" on the label, LOL! One wonders if Clark has had a single chemisty class. J

ROTFL – One wonders if Sliverman knows anything about communicating to the masses!

Response:

: The FDA has made mistakes before, havent’ they? Shockingly few, really. J Where are your facts to make such a statement?

You quoted me and you quoted Jet.  Who are you directing your question to? Kathy

Response:

: Everybody has to pay the rent – correct? : : The FDA has made mistakes.  I saw something : on the news just the other night re: Phen-fen (sp?) : It turns out that there is a fatal lung disease that : results from taking this product.  It’s 50-100 percent : more likely that you will develop this disease if you : take this drug.   This is not a "mistake" all drugs have side effects. The key is to make sure the benefits out weigh the risks. As you are 20 times more likely to die from being obese as from taking Redux, it seems that the FDA did the right thing in that case. The risk of getting PPH from Redux is about one seventh that of getting TSS from tampons. : I’m sure many people would still take this drug : even if they are warned that death may me a : side effect.  But – there are people like me who : would not like that side effect.   Death can be a side-effect of peanuts. In fact they produce more fatal allergic reactions than any other food. Few people would like death as a side-effect, from Redux or peanuts. If the FDA could only approve things that had no risk of causing death, they could not even approve water. J

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : I have to wonder – I’m reading a book, "The Polictics of Cancer," by : Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.  Page 479 : He warns against all food products containing petroleum-derived : protein (propylene glycol).  He’s an M.D – your’re an M.D.  I guess : you just don’t see eye-to-eye. My bet is Epstien know you can sell more books by scaring people than by being reasonalbe. : The FDA has made mistakes before, havent’ they? Shockingly few, really. J

Everybody has to pay the rent – correct? The FDA has made mistakes.  I saw something on the news just the other night re: Phen-fen (sp?) It turns out that there is a fatal lung disease that results from taking this product.  It’s 50-100 percent more likely that you will develop this disease if you take this drug.   I’m sure many people would still take this drug even if they are warned that death may me a side effect.  But – there are people like me who would not like that side effect.   To each his own – right? Kathy

Response:

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. (does NOT like the idea of PG.)  

Please post a quote from the book that is critical of _propylene glycol_, which is the substance under discussion. You mentioned _proteins_ from petroleum sources.

Response:

: The FDA has made mistakes before, havent’ they? Shockingly few, really. J

Where are your facts to make such a statement?

Response:

: In another section, she says that if you are not sure, avoid any : product with "prop" on the label, LOL! One wonders if Clark has had a single chemisty class. J

Response:

: I was going by memory, I additionally remember now, thanks to : your comment, that she was concerned about specific named : chemical solvents, and I think  propylene glycol was one of : them.  Jet, do you always have to call people names. I am curious as to why you posted information that could needlessly scare many people, and make them ripe for scammers, but are worried about being called a name. Would you rather have me say that Clark is a liar who takes advantage of desperate people by hocking books full of false hopes? OK, I’ll go that next time. : I’m curious now, what is your age, Jet? Three. J

Response:

Dr. Borak, Dr. Hulda Clark’s concern about Propylene Glycol (I believe P.G. is one of them) is not that it by itself is toxic (your posts confirm this), but that it can act as a solvent to allow other toxins

She does not specify propylene glycol in her list of bad products. She says to look for "propanol" and "isopropanol", and says she is not sure if compounds such as propamide, propyl gallate, calcium propanate, etc, can be converted in the body to propanol. In another section, she says that if you are not sure, avoid any product with "prop" on the label, but some of the supplements she specifies from Bronson Pharmaceuticals have a "methyl" (cellulose) and a "prop" on the label. turf

Response:

Nice to have someone on the net with credentials whom we can believe. Thanks, Dr. Borak. LOren Parks

I think this guy may fall into the category of "credentials." Can someone tell me if is this man does exist? (I’m reading from a book – 1979)   "The Politics of Cancer" Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. (does NOT like the idea of PG.)  is professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the School of Public Health, University of Illinois at the Medical Center, Chicago.  He has been Chief of the Laboratories of Environmental Toxicology and Carcinogenesis at the Children’s Cancer Research Foundation in Boston, Senior Research Associate in Pathology at Harvard Medical School, and Swetland Professor of Environmental Health and Human Ecology at Case Western Reserve University Medical Schoo..  An anuthority on toxic and carcinogenic hazards due to chemical polllutants. So it appears that he has some credentials.   Does anyone know if he’s held these positions? Kathy Carlson

Response:

I have to wonder – I’m reading a book, "The Polictics of Cancer," by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.  Page 479 He warns against all food products containing petroleum-derived protein (propylene glycol).  He’s an M.D – your’re an M.D.  I guess you just don’t see eye-to-eye.

Thanks for your posting and regarding Propylene Glycol and "The Politics of Cancer" by Dr. Stephen Epstein.   Epstein says: "Avoid all food products containing petroleum-derived PROTEIN … As far as is known, Amoco Foods Company … is the exclusive US manufacturer of petroleum protein.  Marketed under the trade name Torutein …". But … PROPYLENE GLYCOL is not a protein, it is an alcohol (actually, a double alcohol or "glycol", so named because it has two alcohol groups attached to its basic structure).  I have no disagreement with Dr. Epstein, and I hope that he has none with me.  He was writing about a totally different compound, of a total different family of compounds.   I hope that this answer is helpful. Jonathan Borak, MD Yale University

Response:

3.  Propylene Glycol is rapidly metabolized to form glucose (i.e., simple sugar) which is used as an energy source by the body.  It is NOT "retained" in the liver, kidney or anywhere else in the body: its elimination half-life is about 4 hours, so it is essentially gone within 12 hours.

Yeah, but if I drink it, I’ll still catch a buzz, right? turf

Response:

Dr. Borak, Dr. Hulda Clark’s concern about Propylene Glycol (I believe P.G. is one of them) is not that it by itself is toxic (your posts confirm this), but that it can act as a solvent to allow other toxins that one comes into contact with during their daily routine to enter into the body or the solvent can allow parasites to slip through the intestinal wall into body parts elsewhere outside of the intestine. I’m going from memory here and may have this wrong, but I think I have this right.  Clark’s prefers that people minimize any physical contact with solvents regardless of the toxicity potential of the solvent.  Care to comment?          Have you read Clark–I know she has been bashed heavily here but I don’t think many of the bashers have read her.  She has a Ph.D in Cell Physiology and a N.D. (a 4 year degree) in Naturopathic Medicine and about 20 years (prior to the N.D.) as a Cancer Researcher with the NIH.  She has three books out now, most notably THE CURE FOR ALL DISEASES. She covers so much ground that she has to be wrong in many areas but I’m sure she is making some good original contributions too–unfortunately, the reviewers we seem to get in this Usenet posts are very emotionally biased–as they do not quote specific sections of her book and refute them point by point.  I have read some good third-party reviews of her book elsewhere on the Web though and have emailed corresponded with one person who says his son was cured through following her advice.  She says in her book that the reader should feel free to continue their existing medical treatment while they follow her program so she is not trying to steer people away from traditional approaches either.         Thanks for your consideration! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Here are two readings on Propylene Glycol for those who want to know more. [snip] There are enough real concerns in our world, including chemicals in the environment that are truly toxic, that we should not have to deal with (and be distracted by) such disreputable and dishonest propaganda.   Jonathan Borak, MD

Response:

: I have to wonder – I’m reading a book, "The Polictics of Cancer," by : Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.  Page 479 : He warns against all food products containing petroleum-derived : protein (propylene glycol).  He’s an M.D – your’re an M.D.  I guess : you just don’t see eye-to-eye. My bet is Epstien know you can sell more books by scaring people than by being reasonalbe. : The FDA has made mistakes before, havent’ they? Shockingly few, really. J

Response:

I was going by memory, I additionally remember now, thanks to your comment, that she was concerned about specific named chemical solvents, and I think  propylene glycol was one of them.  Jet, do you always have to call people names.  Even if you are right and the other person wrong, calling them names does not make you look more right.  Your critical position comes across strong had you just stopped with the sentence "What about water?"  Throwing bad names around weakens your critical position.  I’m curious now, what is your age, Jet?  I wonder if the name-callers are statistically more oriented to be young and the none-name-callers to be statistically more oriented to be old.  Just wondering.   – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : Clark’s prefers that people minimize any physical contact : with solvents regardless of the toxicity potential of the solvent.  Care : to comment? LOL! What about water? Looks like she is just another nut case. J

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No! No! No!   As a medical doctor, a specialist in toxicology, and a medical school professor, I can assure you that the statement above (and many others that I’ve found posted by Sanford and others on the Net) are malicious, deceitful and WRONG!!  It makes me ANGRY.   So … here’s the truth about PROPYLENE GLYCOL: 1.  Propylene Glycol is classified by the US Food and Drug Administration as Generally Regarded As Safe (GRAS).  Its use is approved as a food additive, in food flavorings, in medications and in cosmetics.  According to the US Public Health Service, "the wide spread use of Propylene Glycol stems from its low level of toxicity".  

I have to wonder – I’m reading a book, "The Polictics of Cancer," by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.  Page 479 He warns against all food products containing petroleum-derived protein (propylene glycol).  He’s an M.D – your’re an M.D.  I guess you just don’t see eye-to-eye. The FDA has made mistakes before, havent’ they?  What does GRAS mean?  Generally regarded as safe – does this mean they don’t really know?   It’s sort of regarded….as safe?  Sort of…..we don’t really know.. Kathy Carlson

Response:

: Clark’s prefers that people minimize any physical contact : with solvents regardless of the toxicity potential of the solvent.  Care : to comment? LOL! What about water? Looks like she is just another nut case. J

Response:

: Propylene Glycol … is considered a strong skin irritant and : can be retained in the liver and kidneys and cause liver and : kidney

abnormalities.  There are 884 known carcinogens in : personal care products on the market today.  

No! No! No!   As a medical doctor, a specialist in toxicology, and a medical school professor, I can assure you that the statement above (and many others that I’ve found posted by Sanford and others on the Net) are malicious, deceitful and WRONG!!  It makes me ANGRY.   So … here’s the truth about PROPYLENE GLYCOL: 1.  Propylene Glycol is classified by the US Food and Drug Administration as Generally Regarded As Safe (GRAS).  Its use is approved as a food additive, in food flavorings, in medications and in cosmetics.  According to the US Public Health Service, "the wide spread use of Propylene Glycol stems from its low level of toxicity".   2.  No studies have described any disease or other adverse effects of the liver or kidney in humans (or animals) as a result of exposure to Propylene Glycol. 3.  Propylene Glycol is rapidly metabolized to form glucose (i.e., simple sugar) which is used as an energy source by the body.  It is NOT "retained" in the liver, kidney or anywhere else in the body: its elimination half-life is about 4 hours, so it is essentially gone within 12 hours. 4.  Propylene Glycol is NOT a "strong skin irritant".  Undiluted Propylene Glycol is regarded as having marginal irritant properties.  Moreover, skin reactions decrease with decreasing concentration.  In cosmetics, it is typically used in concentrations of less than 10%. 5.  Propylene Glycol is NOT known nor suspected to be carcinogenic.   6.  And … here’s a response to the WORST of Sanford’s deceits: There are not 884 known carcinogens in the world, much less in "personal care products"!!   The National Toxicology Program (the US Federal agency responsible for classifying carcinogens) lists 24 "Substances or groups of substances … known to be carcinogenic" in humans and fewer than 200 others that "may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens".   Likewise, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the World Health Organization) lists 50 "substances, groups of substances or industrial processes" as "carcinogenic to humans", and another 197 as "probably" or "possibly" carcinogenic to humans.  That IARC list includes about 25 exposures to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (carcinogen in tobacco smoke), 20 medications used to treat cancer, as well as birth control pills, anti-convulsant medications, some antibiotics and lead. And it does NOT include propylene glycol. So … I can only conclude that those mis-truths and lies reflect someone’s idea of aggressive marketing.  And I’ll bet that someone is hoping to get rich by scaring folks into buying his "alternative" personal care products.   I have posted separately some free references and resources.  SEE:  The Truth About Propylene Glycol:  The References. Jonathan Borak, MD Yale University

Response: