7,8-Dihydroxyflavone in ND

There are mixed opinions about everything. Some people think vaccines cause autism and that the world is flat. Look at all the BS about MSG being bad, which has been proven wrong time and time again. Hell, someone in my own family literally thinks he cured his ear infection by speaking in tongues and laying hands on himself (no joke). The presence of a mixed opinion on a subject doesn't mean a whole lot these days. Scientific evidence is what matters.

"Studies indicate that methylparaben applied on the skin may react with UVB, leading to increased skin aging and DNA damage.[7][8]"

That's for high concentrations in a topical product. It may have relevance for things like sunscreen formulations, but not for foods/drugs.

"has an estrogenic effect (mimicking estrogen in rats and having anti-adrogenic activity)"

That has been refuted many times. In fact, the FDA, EFSA, and European Medicine Agency all seem to have reevaluated it based on the study that citation is based off of. It also looks like someone has already removed that passage from the Wikipedia article from the time you cited it till now. That's the problem with Wikipedia. Anyone can put anything on it. Many times it is caught and removed, but it's a community-driven project. So the quality and relevance is dependent on the qualifications and interpretation of the people that choose to edit that page.

http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2015/11/WC500196733.pdf

>Based on in vitrodata, methylparaben does not display a significant activity at the oestrogenic receptors. Moreover, methylparaben has not been associated with adverse effects on the male reproductive organs in juvenile rats (applying doses up to 1 g/kg) or in embryo-foetal development studies conducted in rodents and non
-rodents. Both studies in juvenile rats (Oishi, 2004 and Hoberman et al, 2008) have been criticized for various reasons (see SCCS/1348/10), including the fact that safety
margins cannot be calculated due to the lack of plasma exposure data. However, based on the totality of the in vitro and in vivo data, it can be concluded that methylparaben seems to be devoid of adverse effects on reproduction and development.

EFSA has established a full-group ADI of 0-10 mg/kg body weight for the sum of methyl and ethyl parabens and their sodium salts (Directive 2006/52/EC). This limit is considered applicable also for medicinal products and precludes the need for another (PDE) calculation based on ICH Q3C. The use of methylparaben up to 0.2% as excipient in medicinal products is consistent with this limit since it would correspond to a maximal intake of approximately 140 mg/day (2.8 mg/kg/day based on an individual body weight of 50 kg).

>Methylparaben has not been associated with adverse effects on the male and female reproductive organs in juvenile rats or in embryo-foetal development studies. This a
llows concluding that the use of methylparaben in oral formulations up to 0.2% of the product (as within the recommended effective concentrations as a preservative) is not a concern for humans including the paediatric population whatever the age group.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/83.pdf

Several parabens have shown oestrogenic activity in vitro. However, no oestrogenic activity could be detected in vivo for methyl, ethyl, and propyl parabens in classical uterotrophic assays using peroral or subcutaneous administrations of high doses to mice and rats. An in vivo uterotrophic effect was observed after subcutaneous injection of either butyl paraben or isobutyl paraben, which are not used as food additives. The common metabolite of parabens, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, was considered to be non-oestrogenic.

The in vivo oestrogenic effects of parabens have been tested in uterotrophic assays employing either immature or ovariectomized mice and rats after oral, subcutaneous or dermal administration. Methyl paraben at doses up to 800 mg/kg bw/day for three days had no effect in rats and mice following oral or subcutaneous administration.

_____________________________________

Trust me, I don't add things to our products unless I need to. I also don't just add things and hope for the best. I go through all the research first, and attempt to fully understand all the implications of adding/subtracting something. If I am not fully confident in the safety of something, I hold back till I am. I also attempt to find alternatives to things with controversy; to avoid conversations like this. This is why we moved to monk fruit instead of sucralose for the flavorings of the solutions we could, even though the flavor profile is less than ideal. People freak out over things they read on Wikipedia and Livestrong, and then it makes my life harder. So if I can avoid adding something, even if there is zero evidence of it being an issue, I do it to help simplify my life and the life of my support team. It's totally against science, but I avoid them anyway because popular opinion can drown out scientific evidence. However, we did stability testing and methylparaben is the best solution to keeping microbial growth in check in the solutions. Other methods we have used have failed, and black mold and bacteria grew in some test bottles. That's not something we can risk. So even though I know the stupid Livestrong and Foodbabe articles are going to cause us to have to defend the science behind its use, it's something we have to use to ensure the safety of the solutions.