You speak so much sense and I only hope this thread has educated others too!

Yes, ingredients do have to go through some sort of process. Examples would be 'refined' carrier oils such as coconut, avocado, etc and the butters shuch as shea, cocoa. A lot are refined using solvents and other chemicals. So saying that, there are oils that are cold pressed (the seeds crushed) then the resulting oil is filtered through a very fine mesh. No solvents or chemicals are used. These are the type that I use. There are also butters that are extracted by crushing the nuts or seeds but the resulting sediment still has to be removed. Again, there are methods that don't use solvents.

Some of the functional ingredients such as emulsifiers have to be chemically modified but you can get naturally-derived versions. There are 'natural' emulsifiers such as lecithin but these are unstable and you'd have to keep shaking your lotion or cream every few days to keep it emulsified!

The other preservative I use is Chlorphenesin. Some studies have shown it to be a muscle relaxant but you have to remember that the concentrations used were far greater than you'd ever have in a preservative.
That's the trouble with some of these studies: people read the fact that Ingredient X is dangerous but they don't realise what concentration of Ingredient X was used - sometimes 100% strength!

Thank you Sammy, is there a website or even better an organization which I can contact that can guarantee these claims? It’s not that I don’t believe you but I never believe anything unless I go directly to the source and they can confirm it, there are so many misinformed people writing on this forum that I’d like to be 100% sure. No offense intended.

I am always looking for new skin care as I have sensitive skin and but it has to be cruelty free ….so hard to find.

I appreciate your advice. Can you (if possible) give me a list of preservatives which are a Parabens alternative? I want to check whether they are cruelty free, so I can see for myself if what all the organic, natural chemical free companies are claiming is true!

Also you mention cold pressed oils, how can you be sure these don’t go through a chemical process? Is there a governing body? Are they all locally sourced …grown and made in England?

Sorry for all the questions but I am finding this discussion quite educational.

With regards governing bodies, try:

www.dti.gov.uk- cosmetic regulations including banned ingredients.

www.iso.org/iso/about.htm - the organisation my oil supplier is regulated by. I can guarantee that the oils I use aren't processed using chemicals.

I'm sure Profnick or Nelly can come up wth some more.

I think it would be easier to give you a list of preservatives to avoid! These include those that produce nitrosamines or formaldehyde. This is only my personal preference, but I steer clear of anything containing:

Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT)
Isothiazolinone
Diazolidinyl urea
2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol

Like I said, this is MY opinion.

You turn your back for 5 minutes, and two further pages turn up

For my 10penneth worth, and in no particular order:
ECOCERT: IMHO, a more workable version of organic certification than the SA (Soil Association). I've got a load of info at work, as I had to go to a Naturals / Organics workshop a while back.
From my experience the SA is a little too restrictive to make workable products, where as Ecocert is more flexible. I'll see what I can find public access and post links when I do.

The major problem at present is that there are no legally defined ideas to what organic really means in cosmetics. I could in theory set up the Heffalump organic standard tomorrow, and stick a badge on my products.
Again IMHO, its an area thats long overdue for regulating, so that it flushes out the disreputable shysters, and gives the public a degree of confidence that the label actually means what they think it does.

quote:

Emilia-Rose, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a totally animal friendly brand, as it depends on if the ingredient suppliers are being totally honest with the truth regarding animal testing. Some may say anything to get their products sold!

You've obviously dealt with some of the same ones as I have

quote:

Just a thought: Fruit & Vegetables kept in my fridge go off in a matter of days and could be poisonous if consumed, my canned Fruit & Vegetables in the cupboard however have a longer shelf life, so how can a product which contains water, kept in a damp condition i.e bathroom not go off if all natural??

Canned vegetables are in packaging that is sealed, and are sterilised by heating after sealing them up. In theory you could have skin friendly products with no preservatives if you made them aseptically and packaged them in single use containers like sachets. They would have a decent shelf life, Wouldn't be cheap.
Or if preservatives aren't your thing, you buy the products that have a very short shelf life and have to be stored in the fridge.

No names here, but they also do soaps in very large blocks.

As for the list of preservatives that are to be avoided, well that is one, like politics that should also be avoided, unless alcohol is involved.
I agree with Sammy that I don't like using Isothiazolinones (Irritancy), diazolidinyl Urea (Irritancy), ditto DMDM Hydantoin, and Imidazolidinyl Urea.
2-Bromo-2-Nitropropane-1,3-diol is one that divides the industry.

I use it, as it has very low effective use levels, and works very well. I find it also has very little irritancy potential. I don't use it with any Amine derivatives, so (Again) IMHO, nitrosamines aren't a measurable risk.

Sammy's suggestion of Chlorphensin is not one I've used. The data says low irritancy, but last time I looked at it, it was difficult to get hold of (1 supplier) and the use levels seemed very high. Position has improved on the supply, but as with all formulators and microbes, its not something we tend to instinctively understand, so we takes the view of "It ain't broke, don't fix it".
Very popular material in Japan. They love it.

I'll dig up some links for governing bodies and the like.

Hi,

Just so there’s no confusion I wanted to say that I am not arguing for or against this debate: man-made or natural.

As I stated from the outset I just want the facts.

Thank you for your responses Sammy and Nelly.

Why I am asking all these questions is simple: I have very sensitive skin and I have to be careful what I use, but regardless I will not use anything that doesn’t come with the HCS logo. I also care where it came from i.e fair trade and any environmental damage it may have or will cause. I factor all these issues into my purchasing decision. Of course such a product is rare to find so I tend to do it in order of importance cruelty to animals being in the lead. Of course it goes without saying I will not use anything with any animal by products either.

I am curious about all the natural and or organic skincare that’s being promoted as being great for sensitive skin and overall better for you etc, I do tend to purchase organic food whenever I can so I would like to try organic/natural but my dilemma is this , due to all this negative hype about parabens and other so called “toxins” I am unable to try these products since quite a few key ingredients aren’t cruelty free. It would help a great deal to have the names of these alternatives so I can check with the BUAV’s HCS to get the full history. I don’t know what some of these brands are using so that is why I asked the questions.

On another note, something else that really bothers is this theory that natural/organic is better in general. I think they decieve a vast majority of the public through their clever “green” and or “ethical” packaging too. These brands may not necessarily be all that ethical, beneficial or eco friendly.

I think this confuses the average consumer, who would assume a natural, organic product would of course be the best in terms of ethics as well.

Most people I know would be outraged to discover the truth which is that these products may contain unsafe presevatives, are animal tested and are probably not so kind to the earth. A lot of consumers don’t really read the labels/or know enough about ingredients and have no idea what they are actually buying.

So it angers me when people go on about natural/organic being better, when it is just another type of product like skincare which is made by plastic surgeons it most certainly does contain man made chemicals but the type of customer buying it knows why they are, its clear. It may not be green, it may not be ethical etc but that’s’ not why they are purchasing it. Wheras the natural/organic skincrae is marketed as the best out there for the concerned consumer who wants ethical products. The green packaging implies that.

A good page with lots of links regarding Cosmetics

Found this earlier, and is a good summary of all the websites I would think of sending people to look at (And a few I hadn't heard of)

Irrespective of the various points that have been made - I'd like to be on the safe side of life - both my parents having died of cancer.

Does anyone know where one goes to get blood & urine analysed?

Regards
Omeganoddy

If you have a family history of Cancer, I would think the best person to speak to regarding screening would be your GP.
Depending on what your parents had, there are tests for some specific types. I'd recommend a proper hospital checks for that rather than using some kit off the internet

If you are concerned about stuff like parabens content of your urine, I don't know of anyone who does that for members of the general public. Most of the work I've seen has been done by specialist analysis departments either attached to a research institute such as a University, or in the pharmaceutical industry.
If you do get in touch with a contract analysis lab you are going to be paying a LOT of money. Prices for one or two samples are in the high hundreds. If blood was involved, they'd charge a hell of a lot more, as its a biohazard.
The prices are high, as its quite specialist work, and the levels in body fluids are very low.
We're talking serious needle in haystack levels

Thanks Nelly,
I'm more concerned with prevention than detection of cancer.
I'm aware that it may be expensive.
You state 'specialist analysis departments either attached to a research institute such as a University, or in the pharmaceutical industry.'
WHERE, WHO?

To return to my orginal question .. if I can summarise your responce .. it was "no you don't know"?
Well thanks for your contribution.
Does anyone else know of any establishments that do this kind of detailed testing of urine & blood?

Regards
Omeganoddy

Perhaps a C4 representative could look into the question of where Ms Beeney et al were tested and post a reply please?
Regards
Omeganoddy

Ok, lets put it this way any university with a chemistry department could probably do the analysis, or have a look here:Google list

All the usual suspects I would use

Ok - i have read EVERY post in the thread, all 160 of them and just cannot sit on the sideline any longer. First thanks to pronick, nelly, sammy, daffodils and many others who have shown there is reason across the industry.

Declaring an interest: I have a Bsc in Pharmacology and work as a cosmetic scientist - i will be in telford on the 27th for those here who know what that is. There are two brands which we manufacture and that i personally formulate with my colleague who is a doctorate in organic chemistry. we head the development for the company. Of the two brands, one uses the full gamete of ingredients available within the EU Directive and another which is soil association approved and follows the same principles that Sammy has outlined - that is avoiding anything dubious with the excpetion of poor preservatives. it is only phalates that i beleive are dangerous and we do not use those. Ironically i often see organic products in plastic containers stating no phalates. Anyone familiar with cosmetic formulation will know that the compatability trials often (recently three products of mine have failed) fail against the packaging they are contained in. Yes the ingredients can react with the plastic components of the packaging and cause the mechanisms like the pumps to fail. If organic products have plastic reacting in their product, they have phalates in their products. That is of course if these small-time kitchen sink producers have ever done compatibily trials.

EWG website and toxicity - this is a great tool but has two major flaws. first it is a lobbying group and has an agenda. second the chemicals which have a low score usually have huge data gaps which means that what the 'natural crowd' espouse today will be the "carcinogen" of tomorrow. This is why in our 'chemical' range we use parabens still but are gradually swapping to phenoyethanol and some secondaries. Why because the market is impossible to fight. I think it is a shame frankly because the risk of new preservatives is greater in that better the devil you know. The risk of any preservative having any bioaccumulatory harm (especially when compared to foodstuff) is so small that i would prefer not to get a terrible infection from using an unclean product. Further, i do have personal concerns that the new ingredients need to be tested on animals ultimately despite some good animal models. Unfortunately, society (including myself) is so rich in consumer protection and in health protection that they do not remember that 100 years ago people were getting their limbs cut off when they had a simple infection which we would treat with a dose of antibiotics. Be careful. Bacterial infections can kill you.


Debbie and other natural webstore/new brand owners: Please have respect for the industry and the professionals in it. Years ago, you had to study to get sufficient knowledge to be involved in the chemical/pharmaceutical industry but now it appears anyone intelligent (as you clearly are) can do some searches on google and become a self-proclaimed expert. I recognise that your knowledge is deep but this is the problem - it is not also wide. it is the perpective that makes a scientist worth his or her salt. It is easy to find a trial here or a paper their to express any viewpoint. what is needed is comprehensive peer-review and most importantly a lot fo historical data. Parabens are so widely used, it woudl be foolish to ban them but i see that this is the waythe hysterical mob have force governemtns. they fear that if they do not actm then all confidense will be lost so they grudginly act. this is seen as a victory and proclaimed as evidense that the natural brigade were right all along. they just dont get it. it reminds me of the northern rock debacle. even after the governement backed the bank and the personal funds of every saver, people still queued up to withdraw funds. Personally, if i had been a bit braver (!) i would have been out buying their bargain cheap shares. Simply put a little knowledge is very dangerous in the wrong hands. Please can people trust the industry full of trained professionals whose life's work is to create safe and effective products for consumer to use and enjoy. Stop pandering to the hysteria of brain-washed website owners who last month were experts in something else. I can almost hear the advise given to customers of these store - the stories the half truths the diluted science aka sarah beeny. PLEASE listen to what profnick, daffodil, nelly, sammy and some others here are saying. They represent reason without bias. profnick is a researcher with no commerical interest in any way and the others are from different sectors of the industry yet they broadly agree. Sammy is actually producing 'natural' products and still is irritated by the psuedo-science in this debate. if anyone would be biased it would be him and yet he is the first to say that you should not jump to conclusions. Doesn't that speak volumes to you? It takes a lifetime of work and immersion in the field to build up the skill to scrutinise peer-reviewed work and differentialy between different scientific methodology. If you are being true to yourself debbie, the debate and to the world of cosmetics - isn;t the problem here that people unqualified are not just commenting but stirring opinion without the facts. Debbie, you said you did not understand why poeple are so irated with Sarah Beeny - well that is because she is espousing the half-cocked science that you have been brain-washed to beleive in also. If you had scientific credentials you would realise that whatever the facts of the debate, even if she were right, she has not proved anythign by sensationalising the issues and lets be honest, she is not qualified to talk about anything but house makeovers and that is where she should stay. I am shocked Channel 4 would produce anything like this. this was something i thought woudl be on Tonight with Trevor McDonald.

Urban myths: The whole SLS debate is just something that i find so intollerable. SLS and SLES are brilliant detergents and are not irritating at all in the low doses used in cosmetics, esepcially the wash off products like shampoos. "But at high doses they are" - yes but at high dose vitamin a and c will kill you too - yes kill you outright but without them, you would also die quite quickly - hense their name "vital amines". Same with common old salt as someone has mentioned. Indeed even with water - we all know about the people who drink 10 litres at a rave and drop dead. People want effective safe cosmetics. SLES is brilliant in every respect and it is a great loss to formulators that SLS and its derivatives are being phased out by popular misguided hysteria. It all started because of an internet hoax (alledgly coming from an SLS free alternative company) that did not actually complain about SLS but the by-product contaminants 1,4 dioxane notably that come from the ethoxylation of SLS to SLES. In fact, all suppliers that we and i am sure other manufacturers use for cosmetic use vacuum strip off any dioxane which is a precaution anyway but in any event. It is just incredible how the natural brigade never give fair credit and balanced views. This is what bugs me. I am a pharmacologist and am prepared to concede that there is a small question mark over parabens but why can a natural company not state that actually SLES is a great surfactant that has no irritablity issues and certainly no carcinogenic properties and even if it did, the manufacture of SLES for cosmetics utilises a vacuum process to remove any possible contaminants. Lastly on SLES - so what if it is used to clean your car engine? it is a surfactant - oil is oil. what if you use a natural surfactant to clean your car engine, would that imply it is dangerous. Again - think dose and concentration. Phew..

Antifreeze - please do not confuse ethylene glycol with propelyne glycol - totally different


Preservatives: I am 100% in agreement with the industry people who have spoken before me. GSE is not a preservative but the contaminants (normally parabens ironically) involved in its extraction are the reason for small activity being attributed to it. Great paper profnik - i will use that one. Vitamin E (tocopherol acetate - usually on the labels) is an fat soluble antioxidant and stops oils from becoming dangerously rancid. It is NOT an antimicrobial. We use phenoxyethanol and some secondaries. I am surprised noone here has mentioned citric acid by the way.

Terminology - for those who are unaware the word "organic" means a substance containing a carbon atom. By definition therefore, pure drinking water is one of the most inorganics substance you can name. Science has come a long way since we used leeches as a medieval medical panacea and that journey has taught us the value of accurate and precise experimentation and nomenclature. Just because the dumbed-down press has decided to misuse scientific terms does not mean the cosmetics industry has become disingenuous for maintaining it. someone accused sammy of being disingenuois for sticking to correct naming - it is incredible. I feel like trying to explain the world is round or it circles the sun is being question by the mob on the grounds of "did you know the same ingredient is used to clean your car engine" and we are standing accused of being heretics. what happened to enlightenment? Notably sammy and daffodils have been at pains to explain why it is scaremongering to assume natural vs syntetic, one is more dangerous simply because it is man-made. Why do people not get this. I try to explain to people that toadstools are poisonous but shitake mushrooms are tasty and anti-cancerous - both are natural.

Testing - please show me the certificates of a repeat skin insult toxicology test performed by one of these new emerging natural brands - they have no testing from what i have seen - i have asked for certificates from a few but none are forthcoming. They are probably not dangerous bu they could be - why however are the public not sceptical or demanding of data? why is the burden of proof put on the scientists only? I suggest that people wishing to really evaluate the psuedo-science of 'natural' make their own cosmetics by liquidising organic household food items and leave them out for 3 months in a warm humid environment.then if you can wade through the mould and bacterial swamp to any unspoiled liquid at the bottom of the infested emulsion, they apply that to their skin. Be sure to book an appointment with your doctor prior and expect to be put onto a course of antibiotics.


Bioavailibility: "what goes on goes in" is another ridiculous maxim from the natrual bunch that have no idea of epidermal physiology. They cite nicotine patches as proof that all molecule travel between the skin surface and the blood stream. this is just not the case. It is actually incredibly difficult to get ingredients to travel to the dermis let alone systemically. At the same time, the natural lot quite happily glug back on their glass of wine while critising that ethanol is used in certin cosmetics and that ethanol is percutaneously absorbed.


A NEW FORUM - all this has prompted me to wonder whether there is a need for a cross-industry website supported by various brands from all sectors. I would happily support both our chemical and natural brands for participation - that is putting our logo on the page. i would to create a board of contributors including all the people from this thread. they would sign up to be truthful and open from every side. i beleive the brands that supported a fair and transparent analysis would benefit. Consumers do not want entrenched scaremongering from either side.

ps. i wish all customers were like Emily Rose - it would make my job a lot easier. i could stop worry about pandering to the daily mail and more about making safe and effective - cruelty free cosmetics. If the public want to make things better, i humbly request you start a campaign to force journalists to use science in their articles and to stop shocking the public. genuinely, i say this with all sincerity and i bet nelly and sammy woudl agree (as they formulate for clients) that they have often used an ingredient they would prefer not to have done because it panders to the whims of the press and not the science of safe and effective formulating.

quote:

Originally posted by Debbie-psc:
This is why many people are sceptical when a scientist working for a company making a profit from a product, claim the ingredients of that product are safe. Time and research by other scientists can prove their opinions incorrect.

Debbie - do you not make a profit from telling people to buy "natural" products? there are many harmful natural chemicals just as there are many harmful synthetic chemicals. there are also harmful chemical used to extract natural chemicals. Synthesis is a vital tool in being able to reproduce natural chemicals without harmful chemical bi products as would be the case sometime with some pressed extracts. it also makes it possible to have higher concentrations of otherwise expensive active ingredients meaning consumers get much better value for money.

Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by age-of-reason:
It is easy to find a trial here or a paper their to express any viewpoint. what is needed is comprehensive peer-review and most importantly a lot fo historical data. Parabens are so widely used, it woudl be foolish to ban them but i see that this is the waythe hysterical mob have force governemtns. they fear that if they do not actm then all confidense will be lost so they grudginly act. this is seen as a victory and proclaimed as evidense that the natural brigade were right all along. they just dont get it.

Agree totally!! A recent report called 'There Goes The Science Bit' (easy to find with google ) showed scientists phoning customer care lines and asking them questions about why they had made certain decisions to remove various chemicals from their products (like msg from co-op brand, sodium benzoate from sainsburys soft drinks). Their reasons were not based on science, it was 'because of customer concerns', which does nothing to help the situation - it just reinforces the idea that the chemicals are bad in people's minds!

And, I know I said it before, but have you thought about complaining directly to Channel 4? I know they may well juts ignore it, and I think they are probably reading this forum, but I think we need to make oursleves as annoying as possible for Channel 4 to take any notice!

Hi all,

Thank you again to pronick, nelly, sammy, daffodils and age-of-reason for highlighting the “real” issue/s.

Re: PARABENS

I called the cancer research UK helpline and spoke in length to a nurse about parabens etc. I would suggest everyone here to do that, because it’s interesting how they actually have statements on their website in response to the breast tumor/parabens study. As in don’t take it as gospel!!!!

According to them, you can not cut out all PARABENS, THEY ARE IN EVERYTHING, from your make up, food, skincare etc. There is no evidence to suggest that they cause cancer. PERIOD.

The rate of cancer hasn’t suddenly risen; it’s just that people are living longer. Which is common sense, don’t you think.

80% of people who die from cancer are STILL over the age of 60! And lets face it the elderly are prone to disease because their immune systems are weaker……

The highest being amongst smokers, drinkers and the obese.

It’s your lifestyle as in everything you do and eat. Healthy eating, exercise all play apart, so just cutting out parabens isn’t going to stop you getting cancer!

For some it’s hereditary and for the ones that get it at a young age it can be a lot of factors and is very rare. Cancer amongst the younger age group certainly is not as common as it’s made out in the media.

I agree with most of you on this debate, why are companies pandering to this hysteria,

Can someone please start a forum a chain letter/email or something because this ridiculous, that these self proclaimed experts are running around screaming about these so called toxins in an effort to sell their not so ethical, non results driven probably full of hidden “chemicals” products!!!! AND DOING SO IS ENCOURAGING ANIMAL TESTING!!!!!

Thanks for the kind words.
A useful resource which appears to be unbiased and objective is:
http://www.intute.ac.uk/artsandhumanities/cgi-bin/browse.pl?id=artifact184

It is run by INTUTE which is a network of UK universities.

quote:

Originally posted by Daffodils:
And, I know I said it before, but have you thought about complaining directly to Channel 4? I know they may well juts ignore it, and I think they are probably reading this forum, but I think we need to make oursleves as annoying as possible for Channel 4 to take any notice!

daffodils - can you post here your template letter - i would like to read it and then amend and add my name to it. thanks. maybe others would like to amend and add their name too.