I learned about this many years ago and the difference after I started using only SLS-free toothpaste was night and day. I used to get canker sores any time I would bite the inside of my cheek, hit my gums with the hard parts of my toothbrush, etc., and this completely stopped a while after I switched to SLS-free.
SLS is Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, by the way, and it’s a detergent. From what I understand, the only reason why it’s added to toothpaste is to make more foam when you brush. But the SLS-free toothpaste I use makes plenty of foam, so I have no idea why they add it. It’s one of those things about the modern world that makes absolutely no sense. The ads and packaging should say in big letters: “now with even more canker sores!”
Unfortunately, the vast majority of toothpastes on the market (at least in the US) have SLS. I can only seem to find SLS-free toothpaste in natural food/supplement stores. It’s extra difficult to find toothpastes that are SLS-free but that keep fluoride too. The difficulty (and price? I haven’t compared) is completely worth it to me though.
TL;DR: The SLS (Sodium Lauryl Sulfate) in most toothpastes is unnecessary and causes canker sores (painful sores in your mouth and gums). If you have this problem, you will likely benefit from SLS-free toothpaste (some still include fluoride) that you can usually find at natural food stores.
You should also know that SLS is banned in the EU, so this post made no sense to me until I went to Google for answers…
I swear, sometimes it’s hard to fathom the little ways you got it rough over there.
A Google listicle about “7 banned substances in the EU” or some shit, straight up lied to me.
SLS (Sodium laurilsulfate) is not banned, not even particularly regulated, in medicinal products, in the EU.
“The vast majority of SLS use is in oral products (tablets and capsules) where it rarely displays any adverse reactions.”
It only is “not permitted”, as a food additive in the EU, and there is a 2017 study which argues for its regulation in skin products, because of irritation.
I was careless on the internet, and the world is more complicated than it seemed at first glance. Story as old as time.
Just checked my toothpaste, and it contains SLS. Maybe the EU has tighter limits than the FDA when it comes to using SLS in a toothpaste.
There’s one thing everyone should know about toxicology: you can use just about anything safely as long as the concentration is low enough. It’s very rare to find a compound where even a single molecule can be considered harmful. There are lots of compounds where the safe limits is ridiculously low, so using them safely is about the same as avoiding them all together. However, there are also lots of compounds where we routinely dance the line of harm and benefit. For example, many medications fall into this category. Technically, vitamins are in that category too, but most people never come close to eating too much of a specific vitamin.
I think the article is misleading. The studies don’t seem to show that SLS causes canker sores, but if you do suffer from them, it will exacerbate them or delay their healing. The article says “studies”, while only citing one study, that actually recruited patients who already suffered from the sores. A double blinded cross-over trial concluded that “The number of ulcers and episodes did not differ significantly between SLS-A, SLS-B, and SLS-free. Only duration of ulcers and mean pain score was significantly decreased during the period using SLS-free. Although SLS-free did not reduce the number of ulcers and episodes, it affected the ulcer-healing process and reduces pain in daily lives in patients with [canker sores].” Although I don’t have access to the full version, so I can’t view the details. By the way, SLS-A was an SLS-free toothpaste spiked with 1.5% SLS, and SLS-B was a commercially available toothpaste with 1.5% SLS in it already.
You can tell that the article is trying to sensationalise something by such phrases as:
-
“But there’s no reason to accept a hazardous chemical in your toothpaste.” You know what else is in your toothpaste? Sodium fluoride. Which is lethal at high enough dose. It’s all about the concentration.
-
“It’s strong stuff — the cleaning solution I use on our garage floor is 50% SLS.” Well, yes, if you use it at concentrations ridiculously above the ones found in a toothpaste, of course it’s going to be “strong stuff”. You know what else is strong stuff? 100% acetic acid. Yet somehow, at 10% we happily consume it as vinegar. By the way, vinegar - great cleaning agent!
Don’t get me wrong, if you’re sensitive to SLS, by all means avoid it. But I’m not a fan of articles that make blanket statements about a chemical that is mostly harmful in the concentration that it’s used in hygiene products. It’s another one of those “aspartame gives you cancer” (which it doesn’t by the way).
Well, technically it’s the excessive drying out of the mucous membrane that causes tissue damage which results in a canker sore/aphthous ulcers. But saying SLS isn’t the cause is like saying
guns don’t kill people, massive physical trauma and excessive blood loss from being shot kills people
SLS can still cause drying of the mucous membranes in the mouths of people who don’t regularly suffer canker sores. That drying can lead to tissue damage, and that can then become a sore. It just happens less frequently than for people like me, who are sensitive. But it’s due to the chemical action of the SLS.
I get the point of your gun analogy, but I don’t think it’s an apt one. It’s not like only people sensitive to gunshot wounds die from gunshot wounds. If you shoot a person with a gun the damage is pretty certain. If cankers were as certain to be caused by SLS then everyone using SLS-containing toothpaste would have cankers. We don’t. The bottom line is that the article linked to by OP is making misleading claims.
But I despite me not agreeing that the gunshot wound analogy is apt here, I get what you mean, so maybe the title of the lemmy post would be better phrased as something like “YSK that SLS […] can be the cause of cankers in sensitive people”. Which is also kinda the point I was trying to make in the last paragraph of my original reply.
Edit: formatting
Edit: I’m coming back to this after a while and after a very long weekend, so I missed the second half of your post. Just ignore the explainy bits where it sounds like I think you don’t agree with me, sorry! I want to leave those in though, in case they help anyone else who happens across the post.
I’m speaking on the mechanics is the problem: it’s more akin to an otherwise nonfatal shot causing someone to bleed out because they have haemophilia. Sometimes, people without haemophilia will die of a gunshot that should not have been fatal, due to infection or similar.
Aphthous ulcers are caused by damage to the mucous membranes in the mouth which then gets infected. While the article could be more clear that people without the sensitivity are at much lower risk, the mechanics of it would suggest it can affect anyone. As someone with the sensitivity and having tested it by occasionally using SLS toothpaste (not always voluntarily), I can tell you that if I use toothpaste containing SLS, it’s a guarantee I will develop mouth ulcers within a day. I get them sometimes even without because there are a heap of causes, but sticking to non-SLS toothpaste is the surest way to avoid them.
Without the sensitivity, it might just be “the straw that breaks the donkey’s back”. Maybe you’re dehydrated already, and stressed or malnourished, and because the SLS dried out the mucous membranes in your mouth just enough so some damage turns into an ulcer. That damage can be caused by biting your lip, a fragment of potato chip stabbing your gum, etc etc.
The fact is that it’s plenty possible to make effective toothpaste without SLS, so there doesn’t seem to be a good reason to keep using it in toothpastes when it’s demonstrably a problem. Soaps are a different question; I haven’t found SLS-free soap to alleviate any skin or hair problems for me, nor seen any research on the subject, so it may well be fine. “Not for internal use” kind of warning label.
Side note: at one point I had thirteen or fourteen ulcers at least half a centimetre in diameter each. They got so big they started to merge. I couldn’t eat or drink anything, the pain made me nauseous, and that lasted three days. Five was a pretty common number for me, but since cutting out SLS I only occasionally get one or two. It sucks so bad when it’s bad, I just hope these posts help someone who’s suffering figure it out for themselves.
Most stores (in US) have Sensodyne. I switched to them when I learned that my old toothpastes were causing cankers. I’ll never go back
Bert’s Bee’s makes an SLS free charcoal toothpaste that I’ve been using over a year. Great stuff, mint flavored, and you can see how much toothpaste you aren’t using (since it’s black) and adjust your usage accordingly.
Even using a pea sized drop seems like too much sometimes.
Sensodyne has SLS too. Its largely a scam toothpaste to be honest. It just has a numbing agent in it and costs twice as much. Maybe youve just gotten lucky but that shit was useless for me and still gave me sores.
Americans have such weird issues. It’s almost like unfettered capitalism is a problem or something.
but at least californians are abundantly notified of every product that causes cancer.
I found this out on my own as an adult after years of being unable to build a toothbrushing habit from childhood.
-Brush teeth
-canker sores
-hurts to much to brush for a week
-forget about brushing altogether
-month or two later remember that i should be brushing my teeth regularly
-repeat
Now that i know the problem i can buy toothpaste that doesn’t actively harm me, but that doesn’t fix the 20 years of not brushing or make it easier to build that habit as an adult :/
