-
Saponified oils would solve a lot of the Clean Beauty dilemmas
I watched Perry’s excellent webinar on “Cosmetic Chemists Guide to Clean Beauty.” And I was fascinated with his manoeuvring between the various standards and definitions, plus the greenwashing done by brands these days to convince consumers that products are ‘clean.”
I’m a scientist, now in my early 70’s. And I have been saponifying plant oils for many years to produce body wash, face wash, and shampoo. These have numerous benefits. They do not contain any preservatives because they are in effect “self-preserving.” We have manufactured these products in a GMP Certified production facility over the past 14 years. And all of the microbial tests have substantiated this.
And a comment made often by Perry was that producing liquid products without preservatives was “very difficult.” Well, it is not.
I have trained brands globally to saponify plant oils and produce body wash, face wash, and shampoo. And this has been mainly in developing countries. And I have capacity built a few brands in Africa remotely via Zoom.
And these brands are now successfully exporting globally.
So, just another perspective from me. And if anyone is interested, I am available to train brands on saponifying plant oils.
-
26 Replies
-
I thought saponified oils is basically another term for a plain soap…
-
Saponified Oils of this type are also referred to as liquid Castille Soap. The issue is do you want to use a product with such a high pH on your skin and hair. Dr. Bronner’s is the best known brand selling a range of Castille Soap cleansers.
-
Self-preserving? Yes. We have produced under GMP Certified conditions for around 20 years, and exporting globally. The pH of these liquid products is around 9.0 - 9.4 which inhibits bacterial growth. And we have microbiol tested every batch. Zero bacterial growth.
The scientific literature says that the skin mantle recovers quickly, this high pH is not a problem
The products? Liquid body wash, face wash, and shampoo.
-
The high pH is not an issue.
-
-
Correct. And this includes soap and liquid.
-
I’m confused, what is revolutional in your post then? Liquid soap is a product of ages.
-
Yes, liquid soap is a ‘product of ages”…….whatever you mean by that. But yes, it has been around for a long time.
And the “revolutional” in my post is the attraction of customers to our body wash, face wash, and
shampoo due to their total lack of synthetic surfactants and preservatives.
We have discovered since we started producing 20+ years ago that many customers have skin reactions to synthetics. And the scientific
literature identified some synthetics as being endocrine disruptors.-
Ah, I see, another clean beauty ad.
-
It’s nothing of the sort. My post is a simple statement of fact if you bother to read and understand what I have written.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Self-preserving? The products? Please elaborate.
-
The Clean Beauty “Dilemma” is a media-created myth. Clean Beauty is simply cosmetic products that do not contain any ingredients on the prohibited lists of retailers Sephora, The Detox Market, Ulta, Target, Credo. They all ban the same 50 or so ingredients and the respective banned lists of ingredients are 95% the exact same ingredients with some minor variations here and there. Credo claims to ban 2,400 or so, but you can only find the standard 50 or so on their website. What’s the point of banning Naptha, Diesel and Jet Fuel from cosmetics just to claim to ban more ingredients than anyone else?
Check out the recent article in Oprah Daily that was written by an author of children’s books who proclaimed Clean Beauty “the cryptocurrency of cosmetics” … Seriously?
As long as you have authors penning articles with no technical background who have no clue what they are talking about, the media will continue to sow confusion about Clean Beauty.
Oh, one point of clarification in the presentation. Clean Beauty products do not have to be Vegan … Beeswax, Honey, Lanolin, Cholesterol, Carmine are allowed under most Clean Beauty standards.
-
Agree 100%
In our case with our saponified liquids we were capturing those consumers who were having reactions to the synthetics in body wash, face wash, and shampoo. And there are a lot of these consumers as we found out over 20 years.
-
-
If you check the CIR for the usual synthetic surfactants which include controlled studies (not anecdotal evidence), you’ll see they are mostly milder than soaps. Also, another drawback for soaps is the formation of calcium and magnesium salts which are detrimental for pipes.
-
I’m not sure of your point here. When you say synthetic surfactants are milder than soap, what criteria are you using to measure “mildness.”
And are suggesting our data is “anecdotal evidence”? Being a scientist in my 70s, and perhaps I’m out of date, but around 20 years of data satisfying GMP Certified compliance is hardly “anecdotal evidence.”
And from our experience and that of our customers, the formation of
calcium and magnesium salts being detrimental to pipes has not been an issue.And again, the attraction of customers to our body wash, face wash, and shampoo is their total lack of synthetic surfactants and preservatives. And many customers have skin reactions to synthetics. And the scientific literature identified some synthetics as being endocrine disruptors.
-
You can check CIR (cosmetic ingredients review) which are the studies regulatory organizations use to adress the safety of an ingredient used in cosmetics, especifically the part where clinical human evidence is gathered about dermal irritation and sensitization:
- https://www.cir-safety.org/sites/default/files/fsoaps072018slr.pdf (this one is for soaps, although there are very few studies here regarding sodium or potassium laurate)
- https://www.cir-safety.org/sites/default/files/116_tent_capb.pdf (for comparison, this one is for CAPB)
- https://online.personalcarecouncil.org/ctfa-static/online/lists/cir-pdfs/pr218.pdf (this one is for SLES)
This is the HERA study (https://www.heraproject.com/files/5-hh-04-hera%20fatty%20acid%20salts%20hh%20web%20wd.pdf), which is more related to thei environmental issues related to soaps (among other chemicals), but you can read the part of corrosivness/irritation:
Human Data
Studies in humans on the relative irritancy of free fatty acids (under occlusive patches) have
revealed that the even numbered chain saturated free fatty acids of C8 through C14 chain
lengths are the most irritating (Stillman et al. 1975). With 0.5 M fatty acids, in most males
(total of 10 subjects) there was an erythematous response by the tenth day at the sites of
application of C8 through C12. There was a negligible response to the other fatty acids (C14
through C18). By the eighth day of application of the 1.0 M saturated fatty acids, there was an
erythematous response in all subjects at the sites of C8 through C12. There was a negligible
response to fatty acids C14 through C18 (Stillman et al. 1975).Now, this is related to free fatty acids. When you have soaps, you also have an amount of free base (sodium/potassium hydroxide) that contributes to the overall effect. There’s a very nice chart in the book “Surfactants in cosmetics” (2nd edition, page 522), to confirm @PhilGeis ‘s example regarding tallow soap and Dove bar. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to upload the image, but you can find it in that book. This and other similar studies are shown in different text books (and papers) to show that same difference.
When I mentioned anecdotal evidence, I meant anything that is not a controlled study (preferably using a baseline or placebo), like HRIPT, Draize Test, soap chamber, etc.
Please, don’t get me wrong…I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but I have to stand for objective data.
-
I think we are wandering a long way from my original premise. As an old scientist (I’m now in my early 70s), I am familiar with the published literature. And again, in our case with our saponified liquid body wash, face wash and shampoo, we are capturing those
consumers who are having reactions to the synthetics. And there are a lot of these consumers as we have discovered over 20 years. And this absence of synthetics far outweighs any other negatives.
-
-
-
-
Ketchito may be addressing soap fatty acids av. synthetics as in Ivory v. Dove. I recall of the FA’s, laurate C12 had the greatest irritation and antimicrobial potential.
Not familiar with pipes but we all know soap scum.
Could you address the microbiology - preservative-free - aspect please.
-
The microbiology aspect is straightforward and routine. As required by the GMP Certification standards, on every batch produced we perform TAMC/TY&MC in our microbial lab and report on the results in the Batch Manufacturing Records.
Also, periodically, these results are validated by an external, certified microbial lab.
Interestingly, when exporting our liquid body wash, face wash, and shampoo to the EU, the safety assessor never required microbial data as they recognised the anti-microbial aspect.
I hope that I have adequately addressed your question.
-
-
Please explain the data set - not that no one challenged. That said, the purpose of preservation is consumer protection - and none of the compendial challenge tests are validated for that purpose. What data do you have in that context.
btw - you have a totally incompetent and negligent assessor.
-
Yes, agree totally that preservation is for consumer protection, and the self-preserving elements of our saponified products fulfil this requirement. Plus, the total lack of synthetic preservatives which are causing consumer issues.
When you ask “What data do you have in that context?” can you please elaborate? What did you have in mind?
And in response to your comment, “you have a totally incompetent and negligent assessor,” I’m not big enough to question these guys. My assumption is that he understands the self-preserving elements of saponified liquids (body wash, shampoo, face wash). And this understanding is fairly consistent across EU assessors as we don’t always have the same safety assessor.
Thanks for your comments.
-
-
But is there any benefit over dissolving pre-made soap noodles or fatty acid (neutralize it in situ)?
-
Good question. Pre-made soap noodles have added synthetic preservatives and sometimes other synthetics. Our saponified plant oils are entirely free of any synthetics.
-
-
Has Dr Bronner’s brand got it all wrong?
I discovered Dr Bronner’s brand after we started producing our own saponified liquid products. And immediately saw the parallels.
The main ingredients of Dr Bronner’s products are vegetable oils, lye (NaOH or KOH), and essential oils. So, the same as us.
Founded in the U.S. in 1948, Dr Bronner’s is the top-selling natural brand of soap in North America and a leading brand worldwide.
Dr Bronner’s generated nearly $170 million in revenue in 2021 and donated an estimated one third of profits to activist and charitable efforts. A bottle of Dr Bronner’s soap was sold, on average, every 1.7 seconds last year, and a bar of Dr Bronner’s soap was sold every 2.8 seconds.
-
Soap is certainly not immune from contamination - esp. with bugs that are not readily picked up with routine testing - e.g. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ics.12401
Are the body wash/shampoo/etc. products in question all of the classic soap, alkaline pH-based composition? This is generally ok as made clean - BUT - common consumer practice is dilution - by intent or unintended exposure in shower.
Most of the cosmetic recalls are of the “clean beauty” preservative type. All no doubt passed their version of <51>, probably +/-total “kill” at early time points. Not only does the test fail to address fairly minor manuf. issues (“minor” as I’ve consulted on some) , it’s not relevant to the primary objective of consumer protection. Major companies qualify their preservative systems and to some extent their own challenge test with in-use experience (e.g. https://journals.asm.org/doi/abs/10.1128/aem.53.8.1827-1832.1987).
Think any novel approach to preservation should be qualified vs consumer use. Not aware Dr. Bronner has so qualified their systems and wouldn’t take just their word for it anyway. Their systems don;t impress.
I know you are a veteran of the cosmetic industry science and sure have learned a lot from your posts. On this matter, I don’t understand the justification or science.
-
Thanks again for your response.
Yes, I accept that liquid soap is not immune to microbial contamination, and the reason we manufacture under strict GMP Certified conditions.
Yes, our body wash/face wash/shampoo products are the classic soap, alkaline pH-based composition.
And as a scientist, over the years I have contaminated our finished products with various bacterial strains in our microbiology lab. And all came up negative. And have sent our saponified liquids to external labs for similar testing. All came back negative. This was mainly designed to look at the consumer side potential for contamination in the shower/bath.
I am not a supporter of the “clean beauty” concept and agree that the preservation systems adopted are sometimes questionable, as is the entire “clean beauty” notion.
<div>After starting to produce our saponified liquid products I discovered Dr Bronner’s range of products.
And with their products being sold on average every 1.7 seconds, any problems with saponified liquids I’m confident would have shown up by now. The company was
founded in the late 1940s, so they have been around for a while. Dr Bronner’s
generated nearly $170 million in revenue in 2021, so they are not short on resources.And your statement “Not aware Dr. Bronner has so qualified their systems and wouldn’t take
just their word for it anyway. Their systems don;t impress.” Then what does impress you?And finally, there is a proportion of consumers who are affected by the synthetics in skin/hair care products. These include my wife. And the consumers are generally silent. But we hear them as producers of synthetic-free products that actually work.
</div>
-
-
Thanks for the explanation.
Attempts with various lab bugs to generate growing contaminating in products seemingly “self-preserving” like soap aren’t effective. Recall similar attempts with unpreserved high pH products (e.g. Mr. Clean and L:iq Tide) - both of which suffered contamination with bugs that only grow at high pH.
But the primary issue for cosmetics is micro risk in use. A liq. soap failed P&G’s challenge test only with dilution to the extent observed with consumer in-use testing.
Risks in making can be controlled but In-use risk is apparently not controlled per discussion- not unusual as it looks like only the big guys (can) address it. It is boiler plate but assessors are ignorant to call the question.
Log in to reply.