Archive for August, 2010

August 31st, 2010

FDA Labeling for Soap

So, I finally have my answer. The FDA Compliance Office says I can label my cosmetic soaps in one of two ways: either “AT FORMULATION” or “AT USE.”

“At Formulation” requires the listing of lye, either sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide.

“At Use” requires the use of the terms for the salts of the fatty acids that the oils become, for example, sodium cocoate, sodium palmitate.

Either customers have to be educated on the fact that lye reacts completely and is not present in the finished product, or that “chemical sounding names” are really just natural oils converted into soap.

I’m going with “At formulation.”

Any thoughts? Please send me your comments.

CategorySoap Ingredients, Soap Regulations and Requirements, The Business of Natural Soap, Uncategorized | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
August 30th, 2010

Top 10 Soap Myths

The Myths we will debunk:

10. Body oils need to be removed in order to have clean skin.
9. The best soaps are pH balanced.
8. Antibacterial soap is better than regular soap.
7. Soap made with chemicals is bad for your skin.
6. If you can’t pronounce it, it shouldn’t go on your skin.
5. Lye soap is harsh.
4. Soap can be made without lye.
3. Castile soap is 100% olive oil.
2. Soap making is difficult and expensive.
1. Soap can’t be “all-natural” since it doesn’t exist in nature.

The Debunking Explanations:

Body Oils DO NOT need to be removed to have clean skin.

10. Clean skin doesn’t equal oil-free skin. Our bodies are constantly creating oils that help to clean pores, and guard against germs and dehydration. Using harsh cleansers that strip away natural oils is not necessary in order to be clean. The goal of skin cleansing, is to remove dirt and grime, sweat, and harmful bacteria.

pH  Balanced Soap is Not Necessary For Skin

9. Many soaps claim to be pH balanced implying that this is somehow beneficial to skin. pH is a scale used to describe the balance between acidity and alkalinity. Handcrafted soap is alkaline, generally having a pH somewhere between 8 and 10. Our bodies are generally more acidic on the outside, and more basic on the inside. One notable exception to this is the stomach, where harsh hydrochloric acid aids in digestion. pH varies from person to person, but in general, our skin is acidic. This helps to keep bacteria at appropriate levels. When we wash with soap, we temporarily remove some of this acidity, but the body quickly replaces it, and returns to its normal pH. Attempting to alter the pH of your skin is not only an exercise in futility, but is unnecessary. The body is designed to operate at the pH that occurs naturally. pH balancing soaps will not have a lasting effect on the pH of your skin.

However, we do know that when soap is first poured into a mold, it is highly alkaline. As it cures, the soap becomes less alkaline. Monitoring the change in pH can help determine whether the soap has cured adequately or not. There is such a range of pH’s, though, even in properly cured soap, that this is not an accurate or reliable measure of the gentleness of a soap. Those attributes are more affected by the choice of oils used.

Antibacterial Soaps are Unnecessary

8. Plain old soap and water is effective at removing surface dirt, grime and germs. This is because soap is a surfactant- a solution that lifts crud, bonds with it, and allows it to be rinsed away with water. Antibacterial soaps do this as well, but are also promoted as “germ killing.” To do this, the antibacterial agent must be in contact with bacteria for approximately 20 seconds to be effective. Unfortunately, many people do not wash this long, which potentially leads to bacteria with increased antibacterial resistance. There is also concern about the safety of some commonly used antibacterial agents (i.e. triclosan) because of their similarity to dioxins, and links to endocrine system disruption. Being an Ann Arbor native, I’ll share the following that I found on wikipedia: “A comprehensive analysis from the University of Michigan School of Public Health indicated that plain soaps are just as effective as consumer-grade antibacterial soaps with triclosan in preventing illness and removing bacteria from the hands.”

Do Not Steer Clear of Soaps Made With Chemicals

7. Soaps made from chemicals are unavoidable. Chemicals are just the universe’s building blocks! Every substance that exists is made of chemicals. It would be pointless to try to avoid them. A couple of common chemicals found on soap labels include sodium hydroxide (the alkaline necessary to turn oils into harmless soap), and sodium cocoate (coconut oil that has been turned into soap using sodium hydroxide). An especially important, and harmless chemical used to make real soap is dihydrogen monoxide, otherwise known as…water.

Unpronounceable Ingredients are Not Necessarily Bad

6. What about those unfamiliar, unpronounceable chemicals? Cymbopogon Schoenanthus oil? Azadirachta Indica oil? These are just two examples of hard to pronounce chemicals that are found on many natural soap labels. They are the International Nomenclature terms for lemongrass essential oil and neem seed oil. Hard To Pronounce does not equal Bad For You.

Lye Soap Can Be Amazingly Gentle on Skin

5. Properly made Lye soap is NOT harsh. Since all real soap is made with lye, then lye soap and real soap are one and the same. When properly formulated and allowed to cure, real soap is a gentle, mildly cleansing product. In a properly formulated recipe, a soapcrafter ensures that lye is the “limiting reagent.” When the lye is gone, the reaction is over. Some of us do this by “superfatting” our soaps. Additional oil is added to the formula to be absolutely sure that any trace of lye will be forced into reacting and creating soap. The unreacted oil remains in the soap as a conditioning agent.

Real Soap Cannot Be Made Without Lye

4. No lye= no soap. It’s as simple as that. Lye is necessary for soap making. Soap is oil that has been “Saponified.” Saponification, by definition, is the reaction of lye with fatty acids to produce the salts of the fatty acids (“soap”). Without lye, saponification doesn’t happen. Therefore, no lye, means no soap. Now, there are many products out there that can be used for cleaning that are not really soap, and were not made with lye. These products are most likely detergents- synthetic cleansers often made with petroleum products, and harsh cleaning agents. Originally lacking in natural glycerin, they must have moisturizers added in to make them more gentle for skin. You may find soapcrafters who claim to “make soap” without using lye. These folks don’t make soap from scratch, but instead rely on premade bases that they melt down and mold. This is called the “Melt and Pour” technique. Be assured, though, that the manufacturer of their base used lye, or the base is a synthetic detergent. All real soap is made with lye.

Castile Soap is Soap that Contains a Large Percentage of Olive Oil

3. The term “Castile Soap” was once used exclusively to describe soaps made only with lye and olive oil. However, modern usage of the word refers to pure olive oil soap, as well as soaps with a high proportion of olive oil in their formula.

Soap Making is Simple and Affordable

2. Making soap is actually quite simple and affordable. The process of making soap involves measuring, mixing, and pouring. Online “soap calculators” are available that can help to create recipes and ensure the correct amounts of ingredients are specified. The difficulty some people experience in making soap lies in the precision that is necessary in weighing ingredients and stirring to the correct consistency, in the formulating (it can be tricky to come up with a nice formula that makes a soap with the qualities you want), and also in the precaution that must be taken when handling corrosive lye and lye solutions. Depending on a person’s comfort level with laboratory or kitchen methods, and on their dedication to studying their craft, the technique of making soap can be mastered. I always advise that people read, read, and read some more before attempting their first batch. As far as expense, soap can be made with grocery store ingredients such as lard, Crisco, olive oil, castor oil (from the pharmacy area), and other oils found in the baking aisle of most food stores. Lye (usually sodium hydroxide) can be bought on line, and also in some hardware stores. It is important to use 100% PURE sodium hydroxide, with no other chemicals in it. The equipment needed to make a simple batch of soap can be as basic as a couple of pyrex bowls, a scale, a stainless steel spoon, a microwave, and a shoebox for a mold. Obviously, more serious endeavors into soapmaking will require more elaborate equipment, but it need not even be expensive equipment.

Soap Made With Natural Ingredients Should Be Called “Natural”

1. We believe soap made with only natural ingredients deserves to be called “natural.” While soap is not naturally occurring, (with the exception of perhaps soap-like compounds found in several species of the genus Saponaria), the reaction between lye and fatty acids happens naturally. There is no catalyst needed, other than the simple act of adding one ingredient to the other. The reaction proceeds on it’s own. If natural oils (olive, coconut, palm, etc) are used along with natural essential oils, natural fragrances made from isolated scent compounds, or botanicals (oatmeal, dried herbs), there is no reason to not feel comfortable calling the resulting soap “natural.”

CategorySoap Ingredients, Top Ten Lists, Uncategorized | Comment4 Comments »

Tags:
August 22nd, 2010

Sustainable Palm Oil

Palm oil is under attack, and because I am devoted to knowing the truth behind things rather than just blindly supporting the anti-palm movement, I’ve been studying up on the topic. Here I present my reasons for coming to Palm’s defense.

Palm oil is used in soapmaking because it has a great ability to make hard bars of soap. One of the most common complaints of vegetable-oil based natural soap is that it tends to disappear quickly. The high glycerin content contributes to this, but so does the choice of oils a soapcrafter uses in their base formula. Other oils and fats can be used to create hardness, such as coconut oil, lard or tallow. Unfortunately, coconut oil, used in higher amounts, can be harsh and stripping, leaving skin dry and rough. Lard and tallow, being animals products, are contrary to many of my vegan soap buyers’ ethics, and are suspected of clogging pores.  hile I have made palm-free soaps, I generally prefer the formulas with palm.
When I first began hearing about the controversy concerning palm oil, I was a bit alarmed. I certainly didn’t want to lose business because of an ingredient I was using. I didn’t want to offend my customers by making bad decisions about the oils I had chosen. But, rather than eliminating palm from my soaps, I chose instead to research the issue, and make an educated decision based on my findings.
What I have learned is very interesting. Palm oil accounts for over 47 million tons of the world’s 144 million ton vegetable oil production. It is grown in 17 countries, and for 20% of its growers, it is their only source of income. The palm-oil tree itself, is actually a very environmentally-friendly plant. Growing to incredible heights, the fruit of the palm tree can be used to create everything from biofuel to cosmetics to food. Palm oil plantations require far less use of pesticides and fertilizers than soy plantations do. And, palm plants produce more edible oil per acre than any other vegetable oil source. This is good news for a growing global population. Palm also allows many countries that grow it to become players in the global economy. Small tribal villages rely on palm oil to sustain their families and provide financial resources that contribute to the building of schools, and creation of clean drinking water.
Unfortunately, the global demand for palm oil is huge, and growing. This has led many countries to destroy rainforests to make room for more palm plantations. This in turn, destroys the biologically-diverse rainforest, and the species that depend on it, including orangutans. When rainforests are cleared to make way for plantations, carbon from the rich peat bogs on the rainforest floor is released into the atmosphere. For these reasons, many people are choosing to boycott palm oil, and any products containing it.
But this is not an answer to the problem. Because of palm’s prevalence in so many products, and because the global demand is so high, little effect will be made by boycotting. The boycott would have to be tremendously large in scale to make a difference. Further, any reduction in palm oil use, would simply shift demand to another oil, and because of palm’s incredible versatility and economy, there really is not a better alternative.
Therefore, the solution lies in responsibly growing and using palm. Many of us in the soapmaking arena have signed petitions to use “Sustainable Palm.” By obtaining our palm from suppliers who can provide us with documentation that their palm is grown and produced in an environmentally responsible, sustainable way, we are doing our part to ensure that the palm we use is not contributing to rainforest destruction, orangutan obliteration and unnecessary carbon emissions.
I applaud and support the efforts of both GreenPalm.org and The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm (RSPO.org). I will continue to seek out sustainable palm oil, and use it to make my soaps. In doing so, I know that I am providing you with incredible handcrafted soap, and also helping to support people and communities that depend on palm production for their livelihoods.

*Thank you to GreenPalm.org for the palm oil statistics quoted in my article.

CategorySoap Ingredients, The Business of Natural Soap | Comment4 Comments »

Tags:
August 7th, 2010

What is Natural, Anyway?

Thought I’d share a new page I just added to our webstore!
Natural Cucumber Soap

Natural Cucumber Soap

Much discussion about the word “natural” appears on forums and blogs all over the internet. Misinformed folks claim there is no standard definition of the word, and therefore, that companies such as ours are using a word that is meaningless. Well, we like “Natural,” and therefore, will explain what we mean when we use it to describe our handcrafted bars of goodness! An educated consumer, is a happy consumer!

First off, we all agree that “Natural” means from nature. I think that’s a pretty basic truth. It’s the extent to which we use “natural” literally, however, that causes issues in the soap and cosmetic industry. Some argue that only things that come DIRECTLY from nature, without alteration of any kind, including washing, purifying, etc, would qualify as natural. With this line of thinking,  applesauce made by cooking apples and water would not be natural because applesauce does not exist on its own, in nature. Basically, anything that is “synthesized” or made, could not be considered  natural. But, this confuses the term Natural, with Naturally Occurring.

The Natural Bar Soap Company uses a more reasonable definition of Natural. We believe that if an ingredient has its origins in nature, it can be called natural. Therefore, Olive Oil? Natural. Palm Oil? Natural. Although these items need to be extracted by human means to be useful for making soap, they are, nonetheless, found in nature.

Some people like to point out that just because an ingredient is natural, it is not necessarily good. We wholeheartedly agree. Poison ivy would certainly not be a skin-friendly addition to our natural bars of goodness. Luckily, artisan soap crafters know which natural ingredients make good soap and which ones don’t. You don’t have to worry about finding poisonous plants in our all-natural soaps.

Likewise, the fact that something is not natural, and may be lab created, doesn’t make it bad, either. Tylenol, vaccinations, the internet, or even soap, for that matter, would not exist were it not for synthesis.

This naturally leads to a discussion of Natural Things Being Made Better through science. Some things found in nature are made even more safe and wonderful through purification processes. Just as the shea nut’s outer shell must be removed, and the contents filtered and cleaned to utilize the healthy shea butter within, so too must harmful contaminants be removed from things like Kaolin clay, and kelp powder. The cleaning process of these natural materials ensure their safety. While these materials do not exist in nature in their purified state, we do not believe that the fact that they have been cleaned up a bit in any way strips them of their “natural” status.

That’s basically where we stand. Ingredients that are natural in their origin, deserve to be called “natural,” even though they may be cleaned, purified, or even blended with other natural ingredients. To say that only things that exist naturally in the universe are “natural,” is a bit short sighted, to say the least.

CategorySoap Ingredients, Uncategorized | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
August 4th, 2010

Safe Cosmetics Act Talking Points

Opposing Safe Cosmetics doesn’t sound right, unless you’re talking about opposing the Safe Cosmetics Act.  HR 5786 is being called a “pink slip” for all of us home-based or otherwise small, independent cosmetic companies. For many of us, the income we generate from selling our products supplements other household income that has been reduced by budget cutbacks, lay-offs, and furloughs. The worse part, is that our businesses stand to be punished by this bill, in the same way large corporate cosmetic companies will be, in spite of the fact that we are using safe ingredients in our products, while they are not.

Some talking points to consider:

1.  The Campaign For Safe Cosmetics, which claims to represent many of us in the cosmetic industry, sponsored the making and release of a cartoon YouTube video last week called The Story of Cosmetics, using skulls and crossbones and other scare tactics aimed at alarming the public. They were quite effective in  convincing many people that studies by Skin Deep and the EWG (Environmental Working Group) are scientific fact. Their studies are hardly the whole truth, though. Consider this article by Robert Tisserand, titled Tunnel Vision, that they don’t want to hear anything about.  These huge lobbying groups will of course not admit that the video they released is equivalent to yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded room when there is none.

2. Ingredient lists will be required to disclose each and every detectable trace chemical in a product. This does not mean that just the ingredients will be listed. It means that every single solitary molecule of anything that can be detected will be required to be put in the ingredient listing. Not only will this require those annoying “fold out” style product info lists because of the ludicrous number of trace chemicals, but it will overwhelm consumers with information they may not understand or find to be useful.

3. Because of the ingredient listing requirement, expensive testing will be necessary to determine each detectable trace chemical. Knowing which molecules exist in the parts-per-billion range is really not at all necessary. Many of the foods we eat, including  water, contain trace amounts of ingredients that are absolutely harmless, but which could needlessly scare consumers if mentioned. For example, arsenic in water. On June 29, 2010, our family used a water fountain in the visitor center at Mt. Rushmore that was found to have higher than normal amounts of arsenic in it’s supply.  The fountain was operating, but a sign was posted above it, stating the arsenic level, and that it was safe to drink. It is scary to think that a business could go under simply because a trace chemical that has always been there, now has to be reported, and will scare the consumer. Most natural ingredients contain elements which are toxic in large amounts.

4. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics says we shouldn’t be worried about the cost of testing, because the large companies will pay to test their products and simply pass the results of those tests down to us little guys. I find that rather unlikely. Will our products be similar enough to use the results they file with the FDA? Will  these reports be written in lay-person terms? Would they be useful to us? Data is useless when it it can’t be understood. And, why would large companies, paying millions of dollars to have their products tested share those results FOR FREE with us?

5. I take the most issue with the reporting and registration requirements. My gross sales. Number of employees. Names and addresses of my suppliers. I constantly change suppliers, searching for better quality and better pricing. But, I also change suppliers from time to time because of out-of-stocks or their decision to discontinue a product I use often. The attention I will need to devote to reporting these changes to the FDA, essentially amounts to “busy work” and  does nothing to help me devote attention to making safe products.

5. As far as fees go, many small businesses are dismissing this part of the bill because there is an exemption for businesses making under $1 million a year.  Capitol Hill wants us to believe that this is a “Small Business-Friendly” bill that is somehow “Fair” because it only requires that fees be paid by those most able to afford them. I don’t agree with that. I don’t believe in taxing only the rich. Furthermore, we have yet to learn how much the fees will be. How much money will the government need to pay new FDA workers hired to file registrations, suppliers names and addresses, and updates? Until that is determined, the fees will remain undetermined. And, although small business will not be required to pay the fee directly, we can be assured we will pay in the long run. Large companies will trickle those costs down to our suppliers, and then down to us, and then down to the consumers, leaving them with less money to buy our already-safe products.

6. The bill includes a Savings Clause, which is pretty typical of federal legislation. It allows any state, or “tribe” (city, etc),  to enact legislation that is more specific or severe than the federal law. Currently, I can ship my product to any of the 50 states. But, if other states enact their own legislation, I may not be able to market the same product to Michigan as I do to Texas, for example. I would have to be sure that my product doesn’t violate another state’s cosmetic laws.

Although well-intentioned, HR 5786 really does little to ensure safe cosmetics.  Aggressive lobbying groups are using it for political gain, pitting the “Green” movement against corporate America. They are turning this into a Capitolist vs. Consumer Safety issue.  They tell indie businesses not to get our panties in knots about it, because the bill will definitely need to be “tweaked” before passing, and that we’ll reach a reasonable compromise. But look at all the time that us small business owners need to devote to this to ensure that happens. We are forced to stop making products, and instead focus on attempting to have our voices heard. I started following the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics several months ago because I thought they represented my best interests. It is abundantly clear that they do not. Their video with skulls and crossbones does everything to scare consumers into thinking even all-natural products aren’t safe. I even saw a blog that said “just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it’s good. Poison ivy is natural.” Please.

Our small businesses represent what’s good about America. We represent entrepreneurial spirit, and a desire to provide for our families. A desire to share good things with the good people of our country. I would venture to state that almost all indie cosmetic businesses are owned by women. We want to take care of our children, yet also provide financially for our families. We are being led to believe we are not important in this economy. We aren’t sitting around wiating for the government to bail us out. We are trying to survive in this economy by making products that meet the needs of our customers, are safe, inexpensive and useful. If the supporters of HR 5786 have the intention of requiring ALL cosmetic companies to formulate safe products, maybe they should consider spending less attention on the ones who already are, and instead, devoting more attention to those who aren’t.

CategoryHR 5786 The Safe Cosmetics Act 2010 | CommentNo Comments »

Tags: