Experiments in the workshop: Behenyl alcohol in a lotion

I decided I'd try behenyl alcohol in place of cetearyl alcohol in this recipe - the rice bran oil based hand protector cream I made as a duplicate of the Body Shop's hemp hand protector cream for my husband.

The original recipe is a very thick lotion that feels slightly greasy going on your hands, but dries to a more powdery feeling. The cetearyl alcohol makes it feel a bit waxy, but that's not a bad thing if you want a lotion with some staying power (that's why I added the beeswax!) My husband really liked this recipe. But of course, I can't leave well enough alone, so I had to try the behenyl alcohol in place of the cetearyl alcohol! (I wanted to make my own version because I scented his with cedar & saffron and I really don't like earthy scents!)

RICE BRAN OIL BASED HAND PROTECTOR CREAM

HEATED WATER PHASE
47% water
3% glycerin
2% propylene glycol
0.5% allantoin

HEATED OIL PHASE
7% Polawax
3% behenyl alcohol
8% cetearyl ethylhexanoate
10% rice bran oil
10% C12-15 alkyl benzoate
2% beeswax
2% IPM

COOL DOWN PHASE
2% dimethicone
2% panthenol
0.5% fragrance
0.5% - 1% preservative (I use liquid Germall Plus)

Please follow the basic lotion making procedures for this recipe. 

I had a few ideas for some changes - cyclomethicone at 2% in the cool down phase (remove 2% of the oil from the heated oil phase), aloe vera at 10% in the heated water phase, and maybe try some other fatty alcohol. I didn't make those changes in this version as I wanted to figure out what behenyl alcohol brings to the party, and adding other things makes that very difficult, but I will try it out next time! I added 0.5% more fragrance and dropped the oils by 0.5%, but that shouldn't make a huge difference except to the awesome smelling-ness of the product (Clementine Cupcake from Brambleberry, as usual. Click here to get it in Canada from Karen at Soapcraft! Seriously. It's amazing!) 

So what did I think? It's much less waxier than the first version, and I like it a lot. It feels more velvety, as if I'd added cyclomethicone to it, and it has a nice slip and glide that make it easy to rub on my hands. 

In general, I really like behenyl alcohol. I tried it in a conditioner - more about that tomorrow - and I've tried it another lotion, and it really gives a velvety slip that feels a little less greasy than cetyl alcohol and a lot less waxy than cetearyl alcohol. I like that it feels a little more occlusive - but not by much - than cetyl alcohol, and it's definitely very different than stearic acid for making more creamy lotions. 

The down side is the cost. I pay about $4 a pound for cetyl alcohol locally, and I bought my behenyl alcohol from Lotioncrafter at $11.25 for a pound, plus shipping. (This isn't a complain against Lotioncrafter's prices - they are reasonable indeed, but a comment about the price of the other fatty alcohols in general!) As someone who doesn't sell my products, I won't go through more than a pound or two a year and I think the increased slip, glide, velvety-ness, and general nice feeling of behenyl alcohol is worth it, but if you're selling lotions, that price difference could make or break a profit margin! 

Can you change other things in this recipe, for instance the propylene glycol for another humectant or the esters for vegetable oils? Can you add lavender hydrosol or use an essential oil? Sure! That's the whole point of learning how to make products - customizing them to your preferences! I suggest you try substituting oils for other oils, humectants for other humectants, water based ingredients for your water, and so on!

If you want to learn more about formulating lotions, I encourage you to read the lotion formulating series I wrote back in February! Here's the start of the learning to formulate series. Click here for the post on substituting one oil for another! And click for more ideas on how to play with thickeners! 

Join me tomorrow to see how behenyl alcohol works in a conditioner! 

Read More

Let's take another look at mineral oil!

As I mentioned the other day, the thickening posts and Iron Chemist will be delayed a few days until the weather warms up enough for me to enter my workshop! I'm willing to suffer for my beloved chemistry, but not so much that the headaches return and keep me in bed for days! 

I thought I'd take another look at mineral oil today. I know that some people think of it as the sum of all evils, but it has a valid place in cosmetic formulating. (For my original posts on mineral oil, please click here and here.)

Although I don't use it often, I do like it for a facial moisturizer for my oily, rosacea prone skin that breaks out when I put most oils on it. Mineral oil is non-comedogenic and occlusive, so it's a great choice for a moisturizer for skin that might break out with vegetable oils and for skin that needs some protection during these colder winter months.

FACIAL MOISTURIZER WITH MINERAL OIL

HEATED OIL PHASE
15% mineral oil
5% Polawax
2% cetyl alcohol

HEATED WATER PHASE
10% lavender water
10% aloe vera
47.5% water
2% water soluble calendula
2% cromoist
0.5% allantoin

COOL DOWN PHASE
2% panthenol
3% honey quat
0.5 - 1% preservative

Follow the basic lotion making instructions for this product.

To me, this is a great starting point for all kinds of wonderful ingredients. You can include extracts, cosmeceuticals, and all kinds of things that benefit your skin. You can make this with BTMS-50 instead of Polawax. You can include some mineral oil and some esters or vegetable oils and so on. Heck, leave the mineral oil out and make it with something else.

So there's a recipe with mineral oil!

Read More

Some thoughts on what's "bad" for us.

I get e-mails and comments all the time asking if something is better than something else (for instance, if one preservative is "better" than another) or if an ingredient is bad. I'm not really sure what those words mean any more, hence this very short series on maligned ingredients (which will continue in the near future).

Here's my argument as to why I don't worry about formaldehyde releasers, as an example. If I'm using 0.5 grams of a preservative in 100 grams of lotion, and I use 10 grams per application, I'm using 0.05 grams of preservatives on my skin. Those preservatives will help keep beasties and other nasty things from hurting my skin and my health, which are scientific facts. That the preservative is a formaldehyde releaser is also a fact. But what being a formaldehyde releaser means isn't a fact - is there much risk of off-gassing from formaldehyde in a preservative? 

As a bath & body product maker, it's your job to educate yourself and educate those around you. When you see something like the Suzuki Foundation's Dirty Dozen or some new report from EWG, Skin Deep, or Safe Cosmetics or hear something on a popular medical talk show, learn about those ingredients. Find out why they are being maligned this week. You might find there's some validity there, or you might find it's just hype. Either way, you've learned more, and that's always a good thing!

Stay curious. Research your ingredients through reputable sources. Keep an open mind. Make decisions based on science, and make sure you're always checking to see if what's being written is truth or hype.

After all of this, I'm still not sure what "bad" means.

Read More

Much-maligned ingredients: Phthalates

So what are phthalates? They are esters of phthalic acid (an aromatic dicarboxylic acid) used as plasticizers, emulsifiers, and lubricants. They have low water solubility, high oil solubility, and low volatility. They're found in fragrances, nail polishes, and many other cosmetic ingredients. They are suspected of being endocrine disruptors, that is to say they "interfere with the synthesis, secretion, transport, binding, action, or elimination of natural hormones in the body that are responsible for the maintenance of homeostasis (normal cell metabolism), reproduction, development, and/or behaviour." (From Wikipedia.)

There are dozens of different phthalates. Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) is one of the main offenders - it's used as a plasticizer for nail polishes. Diethyl phthalate (DEP) is the one found mostly in fragrances.

From the Suzuki Foundation report (page 5):
Other phthalates are widely used as fragrance ingredients in cosmetics – in particular diethyl phthalate (DEP). DEP is suspected of interfering with hormone function (endocrine disruption), causing reproductive and developmental problems among other health effects.

In their response to the Foundation report, Health Canada states:
Many scientific reviews in Canada, the U.S. and the E.U. have shown that the phthalates most commonly used in cosmetics (DBP–dibutyl phthalate and to a lesser extent, DEP–diethyl phthalate) are safe at the levels at which they are currently used in cosmetics.

There's an entire report (from 2002) from the Safe Cosmetics organization called Not Too Pretty: Phthalates, Beauty Products and the FDA if you're interested in reading more about this topic. And there's a paper from the European Commission on various endocrine disrupting chemicals.

So what's the deal with phthalates? Are they dangerous? Can they can mutate sperm or cause endometriosis in Japanese women?

From How strong is the evidence of a link between environmental chemicals and adverse effects on human reproductive health? from the British Medical Journal (2004):
Similarly, direct measurement of certain phthalate metabolites is significantly related to reduced semen quality in men, endometriosis in women, and shorter gestation periods in pregnant women. Although these new findings are suggestive, for none is the mechanism of the chemical's effect self evident. This leaves doubts as to whether the measured chemicals are the real culprits or are surrogates for other chemical exposures or lifestyle practices...Despite these examples, the evidence linking human disease and exposure to environmental chemicals remains sketchy.

Many fragrance manufacturers are removing phthalates from our fragrance oils and labelling them as such. If you're worried, speak to your supplier to find out if your fragrances are phthalate free.

Join me tomorrow for a little holiday merriment as I take a break from the maligned ingredients series and concentrate on Christmas!

Read More

Much-maligned ingredients: Fragrances (overview)

Fragrances show up a lot in various reports about ingredients we should avoid in our cosmetics, and there are a few reasons why this might be. One of the main concerns is that not all the fragrances or components of a fragrance are listed (although in the EU it appears they list all the various components). Another is what's actually hidden under the listing of "parfum" or "fragrance". 

The Suzuki Foundation report notes in their Dirty Dozen Report:

Many of unlisted fragrance ingredients are irritants and can trigger allergies, migraines and asthma symptoms. A survey of asthmatics found that perfume and/or colognes triggered attacks in nearly three out of four individuals. There is also evidence suggesting that exposure to perfume can exacerbate asthma and perhaps even contribute to its development in children. U.K. researchers have reported that “perfume” is the second most common cause of allergy in patients at dermatology clinics.

As a note, perfume is different from fragrance oils in many ways - they are sprayed and are meant to be airborne, they will be far more fragrant than the 1% we use in a lotion (for instance), and they contain many different chemicals to help retain the scent. So the Suzuki Foundation is talking about perfumes and colognes and not fragrance oils as we use them. 

In the recently published State of the Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment, the authors note: We know from product testing that some of the chemicals in fragrance, such as synthetic musks, phthalates and ethylene oxide, are known endocrine-disrupting compounds or carcinogens. Endocrine- disrupting phthalates are readily absorbed through the skin (Janjua, 2008) and can also enter the body through ingestion and inhalation (Schettler, 2006). (page 83)

We know some companies put their preservatives in the category of "parfum" or "fragrance", which they then call "preservative free", so there's another issue. 

Okay, so we have a few issues here...

1. Fragrances can exacerbate existing health problems in some people;

2. Some fragrances contain chemicals like phthalates; 

3. Companies don't declare all their fragrance components; and

4. Companies hide other ingredients under the label of "fragrance". 

The last two issues aren't really relevant for those of us who make our own products. We control what we put into our products and we control how we label them, so the only concern would be in asking our suppliers about the fragrances they sell. Do they contain dipropylene glycol? Do they contain phthalates? Do they contain any other ingredients that our potential customers or giftees might not want this week? We ask the questions then we make our decisions on what we buy. 

As for exacerbating health problems, I think our society is responding to this issue. My workplace has a no scent policy, as do most work places I've seen, so those who respond adversely to fragrances can feel more comfortable. I don't think an ingredient belongs on a hazardous list because some people have sensitivities or allergies to it. If that were the case, my list would include ice cream and yogurt, while other readers of this blog would have to list aloe vera and some preservatives. 

So I want to concentrate on the phthalates - join me tomorrow for that topic! 

Read More

Much-maligned ingredients: Ethoxylated ingredients & 1,4 dioxane

Many of the complaints about ethoxylated ingredients - those that have gone through the ethoxylation process, when ethylene oxide is added to fatty acid alcohols to give them detergent properties, to turn them into surfactants, like SLeS, our PEG esters, and things like ceteareth-20 - is that they contain 1,4 dioxane. A report put out by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, "Toxic Tub", notes this ingredient can be found in many children's products, and can be found in loads of other products that contain ethoxylated ingredients.

So what is 1,4 dioxane (or diethylene oxide)? From the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (click here for the full PDF):

1,4-Dioxane is a clear liquid that easily dissolves in water. It is used primarily as a solvent in the manufacture of chemicals and as a laboratory reagent; 1,4-dioxane also has various other uses that take advantage of its solvent properties.1,4-Dioxane is a trace contaminant of some chemicals used in cosmetics, detergents, and shampoos. However, manufacturers now reduce 1,4-dioxane from these chemicals to low levels before these chemicals are made into products used in the home.

Make no mistake, 1,4 dioxane is not a pleasant chemical. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services notes it is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen. And the International Agency on Cancer considers it a group 2B carcinogen, which is defined as "The agent (mixture) is possibly carcinogenic to humans. The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are possibly carcinogenic to humans." It can also cause liver and kidney damage. This is one nasty chemical!

The FDA position on 1,4 dioxane can be found here, but I'll summarize it a little...The FDA doesn't have a limit for 1,4 dioxane and they are recommending manufacturers minimize the amount of 1,4 dioxane in products by vacuum stripping the ingredients after ethoxylation. Health Canada makes the same recommendations.

The limits are 10 ppm for polysorbates in our food, glycerides and triglycerides in supplements, and in a spermicide in a once popular contraceptive sponge. There aren't any cosmetic limits.

1,4 dioxane has no place in our products, and responsible manufacturers will go through the vacuum stripping process to ensure our safety. The amounts of 1,4 dioxane are incredibly low in most of the products tested in the Toxic Tub report, and very few products reach 10 ppm.

One of the things that really bothered me about the Toxic Tub report is this - "Some products tested for this report did not contain formaldehyde or 1,4-dioxane. However, that does not mean the products are safe." What does this mean? If you say these things are bad for us and you don't find them in the product, then shouldn't we breathe a sigh of relief? No. Because there might be other ingredients we should fear in the products. (Sorry, a bit of my opinion there, but I really do feel this last sentence of their report is fear-mongering.) 

So how worried should we be about using ethoxylated ingredients?

From Choose Organics:
Skin absorption studies demonstrated that dioxane readily penetrates animal and human skin during use of contaminated shampoos and other personal care products, although it is uncertain how much is available for absorption and how much evaporates instead of penetrating the skin.

From the Suzuki Foundation Report: 
Depending on manufacturing processes, PEGs may be contaminated with measurable amounts of 1,4- dioxane...1,4-dioxane can be removed from cosmetics during the manufacturing process by vacuum stripping, but there is no easy way for consumers to know whether products containing PEGs have undergone this process. In a study of personal care products marketed as “natural” or “organic” (uncertified), U.S. researchers found 1,4-dioxane as a contaminant in 46 of 100 products analyzed.

(This study of personal care products refers to this report from the Organic Consumers' Association. Unfortunately, the full report is "file not found" when I clicked on it, so I can't tell you at what levels the 1,4 dioxane was found, only the product lines that might have it.) 

From the FDA:
As a precaution, FDA followed up with skin absorption studies, which showed that 1,4-dioxane can penetrate animal and human skin when applied in certain preparations, such as lotions. However, further research by FDA determined that 1,4-dioxane evaporates readily, further diminishing the already small amount available for skin absorption, even in products that remain on the skin for hours. (Robert L. Bronaugh, "Percutaneous Absorption of Cosmetic Ingredients," in Principles of Cosmetics for the Dermatologist, Philip Frost, M.D., and Steven Horwitz, M.D., Eds. St. Louis: The C.V. Mosby Company, 1982)

From Health Canada:
Dioxane exposure via cosmetic products was evaluated in Canada’s Chemical Management Plan (CMP) and found to be safe. Health Canada advises industry to follow the recommendations set out by the U.S. FDA. If a product was found to have unacceptable levels of this impurity, Health Canada would take action to remove the product from sale.

We have two facts here. The ethoxylation process can produce 1,4 dioxane. And 1,4 dioxane is considered carcinogenic. But they don't necessarily connect to make an argument against ethoxylated ingredients.

How much 1,4 dioxane is significant? If the limits are 10 ppm for food products, are results like 6 ppm or 0.65 ppm in an entire bottle of product significant? If 1,4 dioxane evaporates readily on our skin, how much of the 0.65 ppm is really penetrating our skin and is that significant?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but it seems like no one else does either. But now you know a little more about why ethoxylated ingredients are on the much maligned list.

Read More

Much maligned ingredients: Mineral oil (part 2)

A lot of the concerns about mineral oil relate to occlusion. (One quote is that it "coats the skin like plastic, clogging the pores".) If you've read any tiny bit of this blog, you know that occlusion is a good thing that helps reduce transepidermal water loss, and that mineral oil isn't the only thing that causes occlusion. Great things like our butters, heavier oils, silicones, and allantoin help to trap that moisture against our skin, and we want that! To use the words "coats the skin like plastic"...well, those words are just inflammatory. We wouldn't say that about mango butter, would we?

As a note, studies have shown that mineral oil prevents transepidermal water loss about 170 times better than olive oil. Olive oil is a good moisturizer, but I wouldn't call it a fantastic occlusive - not like the butters - but it's still a significant result! Its sister product - petroleum - reduces TEWL by 98%, which makes it the best occlusive ingredient out there.

Does mineral oil clog your pores? No. It's non-comedogenic, which is why we see it in a lot of moisturizers. It offers emolliency without clogging pores, and those of us with acne prone skin can actually benefit from using it in place of vegetable oils that do penetrate the skin or pores. (Click here for a summary of a good study or click here for another good study.) 

Is mineral oil absorbed by your skin? No. Mineral oil forms a layer on top of your skin, which is why it's a great occlusive ingredient. (One blogger I read claims it forms both the plastic film and sinks into your skin, and can sink into the skin of others if you touch them. Second hand mineral oil? How does that make any sense?) 

Is mineral oil safe for sensitive skin? Yes. You'd be amazed at how many sites I read that claim it will irritate skin, but, in fact, it is probably a better choice for sensitive skin than most of the oils we use. It doesn't contain proteins or polyphenols or phytosterols or other things that could set off reactions in sensitive or allergic skin types. 

Does mineral oil cause build-up on your hair or refuse to be removed? No. It is a great emollient for your hair, creating a barrier between the strands and the outside world which will reduce friction (and we know that friction is one of the main ways we damage our hair). It is easily removed with gentle surfactants.

Does mineral oil cause cancer? No. Any of the studies you see linking mineral oil to cancer are about industrial mineral oil - which is easily contaminated by other things - not cosmetic mineral oil. 

So does mineral oil offer any benefits to the homecrafter? I think it does...

• it's non-comedogenic;
• it's occlusive;
• it guarantees consistency in our products;
• it's inexpensive; and 
• it won't go rancid, so our products can have really long shelf lives.

So why don't I use mineral oil and why haven't I written about it on the blog? 

I have used it, and I like it in a moisturizer for my acne prone skin to offer moisturizing without break-outs, especially during the winter when I need some serious occlusion (and cocoa butter will make me break out like silly). I also use it in the form of holly oil (which contains mineral oil) as a very light, non-staining massage oil for my really sore back days. 

As an aside, it's interesting to see the glowing reports and write-ups about holly oil, which contains a very light mineral oil, when mineral oil gets such a bad rap! It's the same stuff! 

I don't use it a lot in my products because are so many amazing oils and esters available that offer incredible benefits - like olive oil with its great polyphenols, phytosterols, and hygroscopic abilities, to name just one - and I prefer to use oils that work as multipurpose ingredients. 

Plus, mineral oil can feel really greasy! I need about 5% IPM or a bunch of less greasy feeling esters to reach an acceptable level of oiliness in my products. (And I like my products on the greasy side, so you know it must be really greasy!) 

I haven't written about it on the blog because I really don't feel like defending my ingredient choices to the people who want to deride me for using mineral oil. I posted something somewhere once that I actually like it in a moisturizer, and I had to spend the rest of the time defending my choice with people who simply didn't want to hear that mineral oil wasn't liquid evil.

A few links about mineral oil...

Top five myths about mineral oil - part 1 and part 2 - at the Beauty Brains.
Mineral oil is non-comedogenic (I can't find the original study - it gives me a 404 error, so here's an interpretation of the article!)
Oils & mineral oil: Cosmeceutical Critique from Entrepeneur magazine with a few good citations.
Link from Cosmetic Dermatology: Practice and Principles regarding mineral oil and cancer.

Join me tomorrow for more fun with maligned products - the ethoxylated ingredients! 

Read More

Much maligned ingredients: Mineral oil (part 1)

Mineral oil. This is probably one of the most maligned ingredients out there. If you read just a sampling of what shows up in a google search, you'll start to think it's a greasy demon just waiting to damage your skin, give you cancer, cover your skin like plastic wrap, and generally kill you well before your appointed time with the Grim Reaper. Aaah! Run away!

So what exactly is mineral oil? It's INCI is Paraffinium liquidum, and it is derived from petroleum. It's a linear hydrocarbon oil with an unlimited shelf life and an HLB value of 10.5. It's an occlusive and emollient ingredient that repels water, and it's used to increase the moisturization of our skin. It is a water white, odourless, colourless, oil soluble ingredient that defoams our surfactants and can feel quite greasy on our skin. It's safe to use at up to 82% in our oil containing or anhydrous creations, but ideally you'd use it at 5% to 70% because it does feel so greasy.

It's used a lot in commercial products for two reasons - it's inexpensive and it's consistent. I have no idea what the market price for mineral oil might be, but I know I can get it from my local supplier for about half the cost of any other oil. Cost is important, but it's the consistency that's important to cosmetic chemists. Vegetable oils or botanical ingredients change from batch to batch. (You'll know this when you see different shades of butters or oil or extracts and find they behave differently in your products.) Mineral oil is the same every single time, which makes it much easier to guarantee the viscosity, skin feel, and interaction of the ingredients in your formula.

A quick note - There are a number of grades of mineral oil. The two most common are industrial grade and cosmetic grade. These are vastly different creatures, and any studies done on industrial grade mineral oil are not valid when it comes to cosmetic grade mineral oil. Watch for this when you're doing your research because a lot of the studies are on long term exposure to a lot of industrial grade mineral oil as opposed to long term exposure to a titch of cosmetic mineral oil.

So now that you know a little bit about what it is and what it offers, let's take a look at why people hate it so much tomorrow.

Read More

Much maligned ingredients: Propylene glycol

In line at a shop the other day, a woman turned to me and told me that propylene glycol was in anti-freeze and ranch dressing! "I'm not eating anti-freeze," she said. I have no idea why she told me this. It wasn't like I was telling her about my love of cosmetic chemistry or holding a bottle of ranch dressing, but I think it's indicative of how people feel about this ingredient. So let's take a look at this much maligned humectant to see if it deserves this kind of derision!

Propylene glycol (aka 1,2-propanediol) is a polyol or poly-alcohol like glycerin. It's a clear, colourless, viscous liquid that tastes a little sweet (again, like glycerin). It can be used as an excellent humectant, a gelling agent in deodorant sticks, and a solubilizer of fragrances. It can be added to your surfactant based systems (like body washes and shampoos) to increase clarity (although it can reduce the viscosity), and it's added to our other products to act as an a freezing point lowering ingredient. It inhibits fermentation of products and it may be an effective fungicide and anti-microbial (although both of these things apply more to food than cosmetic products). It's edible, although you might find it has a bitter aftertaste. It's also a penetration enhancer, which means it can bring your actives into your skin a little easier than products that don't contain it.

Propylene glycol is a very effective humectant - possibly more effective than glycerin at certain humidities and temperatures - and this is why we see it in so many products. It's soluble in glycerin, water, and alcohol - so it's a water based ingredient we can add to our heated water phase of our products. Its suggested use is between 1% and 5%, although you can use it up to 50%. It can be an irritant at higher levels, so it's best to use it around 2% to 3%.

So what's with all the concern about this product?

Yes, it can be found in anti-freeze and ranch dressing and it serves the same purpose - all the glycols (including glycerin) reduce the freezing point of water (probably through disruption of hydrogen bonding), so that's a bonus for products that might end up being in the mail or a courier depot centre in Alaska for a while! There are many ingredients we use that can be found in other products, but being a possible inclusion in anti-freeze doesn't make propylene glycol a bad thing. (You could use glycerin in anti-freeze for the same purpose, but it isn't used that way because it would gunk up your car!)

It is a penetration enhancer, meaning it can bring things into your skin more easily than a product without it, and this is one of the reasons it is used in pharmaceutical ointments and unguents. If you want something to penetrate your skin, you need to do some work. Skin penetration isn't an easy thing - our skin is designed to keep stuff out, so we have to use some modifiers to get things through those layers. Adding a penetration enhancer can increase the efficacy of many of our ingredients - if they can get under our skin, they can moisturize from the inside out! A lot of things are penetration enhancers - urea, IPM, oleic acid, linoleic acid - and they don't get the same bad rap as propylene glycol.

Looking at some web sites I would normally avoid because they make me go ARGH, it is regularly noted that propylene glycol is an irritant. This is true. The CIR Review Panel has suggested it be used at levels lower than 50% due to potential irritation. And people with sensitive or damaged skin might find it irritating at lower levels. This is why there's the suggestion to use it at 1% to 5% in our products.

And it can be derived from petroleum, although there's a new product on the market, Zemea, which is derived from corn sugar. Zemea is much more expensive than conventional propylene glycol, but it has the same characteristics and is used in the same way.

I'm not trying to convince you to use propylene glycol - I just like to see what all the fuss is about and whether it is justified. In this case, I'm really not getting the hype! It seems like the same arguments could be made for glycerin (the anti-freeze part), IPM (the penetration enhancing part), just about any ingredient we use for irritancy, and many ingredients for the derived from petroleum part. 

Join me tomorrow for a look dipropylene glycol!

Read More

Much maligned ingredients - a short series

Welcome to a short series on much maligned ingredients, those that are considered thisclose to being evil when it comes to cosmetic products. I'll be taking a look at propylene glycol and mineral oil first, then moving on to a few of those found on the Suzuki Foundation's "Dirty Dozen" list.

As a quick note, check out Health Canada's response to the Suzuki Foundation's list. I'm so proud of the diplomatic way in which this letter was written! This is a good example of providing studies and information in a sound and thorough way! 

I don't think I've seen an ingredient we use that hasn't received some bad press at some point. Even innocent things like olive oil have been derided for being occlusive (which is a bad thing to some people)! As you read these posts, keep an open mind. My goal is not to convince you to use these ingredients, but to learn more about them.

Why did you start making cosmetic products? You wanted a choice in ingredients. You wanted to make the most awesome products possible for your skin type. You probably wanted to make "all natural" products without preservatives (which, unfortunately, is an unsafe option if you want to make anything with water in it!) or make lovely products filled with decadent oils. (Or you're just a chemistry junkie like me!)

Making our own products is about choice, and should be free to choose any ingredients we want. That's the mission of my blog - to provide you, my wonderful readers, with information so you can make choices that fit into your philosophical beliefs and financial means. Hence this series on maligned ingredients - to help us all make choices about the ingredients we use! I'm not trying to encourage you to use ingredients you don't like or make you defend your choices, but to offer more information so we can all make the most awesome products possible.

A few tips when you're researching ingredients...

If you see the words "may" or "could" - as in "may be contaminated by x" - don't interpret it to mean it is a fact. It just means there's a possibility or a precedent. For instance, you could say something like "The water supply in Chilliwack may contain fluoride", which would be a reasonable assumption because a lot of cities add fluoride to their water supply. But you'd be wrong. Things can be contaminated by other things - there've been many scandals about olive oil contaminated by other oils to get higher profit margins - but that doesn't mean it happens in every bottle of olive oil.

Where's the evidence? Are there links to studies to back up the statements you see? Are they using inflammatory language like "toxic" or "lethal" when not referring to things that are normally toxic or lethal? (And remember that everything is lethal at some level, even water. It's all about the dose.)

Are they linked to some kind of product? If they're trying to sell you something - for instance, their acne medication or a lotion with some new ingredients - odds are pretty good they aren't the most reliable source in the world. Ask yourself about the motivation of the writer. If they're trying to sell you something, take what they have to say with a grain of salt. Same with studies done by companies! I've seen a study on honeyquat done by the honeyquat people that shows this product is a great humectant, even better than glycerin. But until I can see another study from an outside source confirming or denying this, I'm not comfortable stating this as fact.

Is this new information? If you see something you've never seen before - for instance, that preservatives can be inactivated by non-ionic ingredients - don't take it as fact until you see it backed up in another resource or you can see the study information for yourself.

Check the dates on your studies. Something from the 1960s might still have validity, but odds are good there have been many other studies since, some that might be confirming and others that might be contradictory. Remember how we all thought spinach was high in iron? If we only looked at the studies from 1870 we'd think it was true. Okay, this is an extreme example, but there's so many studies into things like polyphenols and phytosterols and all those other things we find in oils (for example), that looking at a study from twenty years ago might not be all that informative.

And if you find a site claiming something is "chemical free", click to close that window. Everything is a chemical - water, your dog, my cup of tea, that tree - and "chemical" does not mean synthetic or toxic. It means it is a chemical, a thing made up of atoms and molecules, just like every single thing in our world. (Synthetic is a valid word, but it's used in an inflammatory way most of the time.)

Finally, few notes about the Skin Deep cosmetics database or the Environmental Working Group's information...

If you visit the EWG website, look for the "data gap". They define this as "linked to data gaps that constitute the absence of basic toxicity studies and safety assessments in Skin Deep's core databases, or that reflect findings of data deficiencies in government or industry assessments." If you see a high data gap, this means they don't have the information they would like to have to make a determination (I think this is a very cryptic definition, and it confuses me that you see things like a rating of 4 for something with a 73% data gap.)

Another note about the Skin Deep cosmetics database. Read this paragraph...
Given the incomplete information made available by companies and the government, EWG provides additional information on personal care product ingredients from the published scientific literature. The chart below indicates that research studies have found that exposure to this ingredient -- not the products containing it -- caused the indicated health effect(s) in the studies reviewed by Skin Deep researchers. Actual health risks, if any, will vary based on the level of exposure to the ingredient and individual susceptibility -- information not available in Skin Deep.

This is an important paragraph when you're researching ingredients. You might come upon a study that shows that 80% propylene glycol applied neat to a rabbit's ears caused irritation. Does this mean that putting 80% on your skin will cause irritation? Does it mean that 10% in a lotion will cause irritation?

Finally, check the dates on the studies they quote. Some are current, but I've seen my share from the 1980s and earlier that I know have been replicated since.

If you have a suggestion for this series, please let me know in the comments!

Join me tomorrow for the first in this series - propylene glycol!

Read More