# help me scientifically respond to the "soap is bad for skin pH" claim



## autumngirl27 (Mar 6, 2015)

Hi everyone!  I'm new here, but I've been lurking for years and selfishly absorbing everyone's wisdom.  And now I selfishly need your direct help (but I imagine this will be helpful to many of us, so please hang in there during my long story)...

A person recently approached me with the claim that the skin's acid mantle is between a 4.5 pH and a 6 pH, and that any skin product outside that range would irreparably damage the acid mantle and make the pH spike before settling again, leaving the skin not only dry and acne-riddled but also a hot-bed of bacteria.  She said I was "irresponsible" for making and selling soap and that suggesting that people use it was "bad advice."  She cited medical papers about skin pH (which, honestly, ARE legit) (see for example "The Concept of the Acid Mantle of the Skin") (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8573921) and demanded that I provide "good science" to the contrary.  When I told her my experience with CP soap and what I've heard from many other people, she laughed me off because my evidence was "simply anecdotal." 

My blood has been boiling for over 24 hours now.  I hit the internet to see what was up with this, and there is turning out to be a GROWING community jumping on the acidic skin bandwagon and bad-mouthing soap.

So I came here.  I've clicked around and found a few discussion threads (http://www.soapmakingforum.com/showthread.php?t=8928) (http://www.soapmakingforum.com/showthread.php?t=25802) about soap allegedly being damaging to the skin simply because of its alkalinity.  We here all pretty much agree that pH isn't the end-all-be-all, superfatting is important, the oils you use make a difference, etc.  

BUT we need something good to have at the ready for these hard-and-fast pH people, because although their science sounds "right," something about this smacks of marketing to me, and I can't discount our positive experiences with CP soap.

Thus far, this is all I have found: "The Long-Term Use of Soap Does Not Affect the pH-Maintenance Mechanism of the Human Skin" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25073884)

So (long story short! too late!), does anyone have any cites to fancy-sounding science-y sources explaining our awesome experiences with our soaps and why we would use them over syndets?  Estheticians out there -- what do your books and continuing education classes say?  Any cosmetic scientists lurking about?

Thank you in advance!  I've loved lurking here for so many years, and I hope to become active in the community.


----------



## Ruthie (Mar 6, 2015)

I do not have the answer you are looking for, but want to offer my opinion.  (Beside the fact that better-than-thou people like this are pure jerks!)  If I were you, I'd take the one good source you have found, LOAD UP on scientific studies about the ill effect syndets are having not only on our bodies but on our environment, and throw the irresponsibility back in her face.  

She obviously enjoyed upsetting you by blindsiding you with this "information."  She doesn't really care about the facts.  But being well-armed will at least shut her up...or any more like her.

ETA:  Perhaps throwing it back in her face is not the most diplomatic thing to do.  Rather present both sides and say "you must make your own choice as you see fit."


----------



## Ruthie (Mar 6, 2015)

Or maybe THIS is what she is advocating!

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqVoZcf3fO0[/ame]  Iranian man who hasn't bathed in 60 years.


----------



## jade-15 (Mar 6, 2015)

Have you read the article/s in their entirety?
I ask because the abstract is not enough to draw conclusions from - yet I see many doing so over the Internet. (In fact one blog stated a "fact" and cited an article, which they linked to... But they had entirely misinterpreted the article...)
Currently I've only read the abstract of the first article which does not draw any conclusions about the issue - I'll try to read it fully tomorrow.
In the meantime, I am confused about her claim that (a) the acid mantle is IRREPABLY damaged and (b) the pH would settle again.
If it's irrepably damaged then HOW does the pH then settle?

Or you could just smile politely and say "thanks for bringing this to my attention. Obviously my skin is fine, but I would be happy to peruse the articles you mention. Can I have your contact details so we can continue this conversation?"
Then you can email her articles you find supporting your claims... If you want to... (Probably not worth the hassle haha).


----------



## jade-15 (Mar 6, 2015)

Just noticed the article she cited is 20 years old... 
I would stick with your 2014 article, and add this one into the mix.
http://www.intensivecriticalcarenursing.com/article/S0964-3397(13)00026-8/abstract


----------



## Cindy2428 (Mar 6, 2015)

While reading some of the abstracts referencing the subject matter, I came across this: 
*Effects of soap and detergents on skin surface pH, stratum corneum hydration and fat content in infants.*

Gfatter R1, Hackl P, Braun F.
*Author information*


1Department of Pediatrics, University of Vienna, School of Medicine, Austria.

*Abstract*

*BACKGROUND: *

In adults the influence of cleansing preparations on the pH, fat content and hydration of the skin is well documented. Studies in newborn and small infants have not been reported.
*OBJECTIVE: *

Our study aimed at examining whether similar effects can be ascertained in infants.
*METHODS: *

Infants without skin disease, aged 2 weeks to 16 months, entered an open, controlled and randomized study. Ten infants each had skin washed with tap water (control group), liquid detergent (pH 5.5), compact detergent (pH 5.5) or alkaline soap (pH 9.5). The pH, fat content and hydration were measured before and 10 min after cleansing. Findings were statistically evaluated by parametric covariance analysis.
*RESULTS: *

The skin pH increased from an average of 6.60 after cleansing in all groups. The smallest increase (+0.19) was observed in the control group, the largest (+0.45) after washing with alkaline soap. After treatment with liquid or compact detergent, the increase of the pH was only 0.09 higher than for the control group. In comparison to the compact and liquid detergents, the alkaline soap group had a significantly higher increase in pH. The fat content (mean starting value: 4.34 micrograms/cm2) decreased after washing in all groups; the smallest effect was observed in the control group (decrease of 0.93 micrograms/cm2), the highest for the alkaline soap group (decrease of 4.81 micrograms/cm2). In comparison to the compact and liquid detergents, the alkaline soap group had a higher decrease in fat content. This difference was significant for compact detergents. No statistically significant differences were observed for hydration before versus after washing.
*CONCLUSION: *

Each cleansing agent, even normal tap water, influences the skin surface. The increase of the skin pH irritates the physiological protective 'acid mantle', changes the composition of the cutaneous bacterial flora and the activity of enzymes in the upper epidermis, which have an acid pH optimum. The dissolution of fat from the skin surface may influence the hydration status 

So I guess my response to your detractor would be for the minute difference in pH change, would you rather be clean or walk around with unnecessary microorganisms on your body? BTW - still looking but can't find any studies referencing "irreparable damage to the skin's acid mantle". As we naturally exfoliate our dermis layers every 28-45 days, this claim makes no sense to me.

However it is always helpful to research topics like this to be prepared.


----------



## reinbeau (Mar 6, 2015)

Very informative thread, good to be well informed and well armed


----------



## shunt2011 (Mar 6, 2015)

Thanks for sharing all this information.  I'm sorry you had someone who tried to make you feel bad.  I would just let it go and don't let it bother you.  We all know that handmade soap is better for adults (I don't recommend for children under 2, my preference). Some people may have issues but I've not yet run across any.  Keep doing what you are doing with your head held high.


----------



## DeeAnna (Mar 6, 2015)

Considering that soap has been used for centuries to clean the body, and widespread use of syndets dates to post WW2, I'd say long-term empirical evidence suggests soap is relatively harmless. Certainly any cleanser including plain water can be an irritant to skin for some people some of the time. But that doesn't mean a given cleanser is bad for all people all of the time.


----------



## autumngirl27 (Mar 6, 2015)

GREAT POINT, Ruthie, about this woman not really seeming to care about the "facts"! She really seemed to enjoy making me feel bad. It's probably because she does have a problem, but her problem isn't skin or pH; something else was going on with her.


----------



## autumngirl27 (Mar 6, 2015)

Everyone, you've been amazing!  All this support has put some sort of dust in my eye that is making this watery substance to come out.  I guess I didn't realize how very much this person threw me off my game and made me question everything.  And you've all come up with really amazing points and approaches to responding to this kind of person.  Thank you!  <3  <3  <3


----------



## MorpheusPA (Mar 6, 2015)

Bosh, in a word.  Our skin is exposed to the environment.  That's its job, to protect our internals from dirt, bacteria, and other stuff.

Just the most basic logic will indicate that your skin has evolved to handle a pretty wide and harsh range of exposures, from simple water to soil (acid, neutral, or alkaline depending on your locale--but always highly abrasive) to dropping lunch on yourself.

Bathing daily, in and of itself, is not a natural act.  It's also not one I'm going to give up regardless of the circumstances.  My acid mantle can durned well adjust, or regenerate when my skin does.


----------



## lenarenee (Mar 6, 2015)

Wow...the strength of your reaction to her makes me think the others are onto something when they say she was trying to upset you.  (She could possibly be a frustrated wannabe soap maker who was too afraid of lye to ever make her first batch!) 

How should you respond to people like this?  Sometimes its best to just take your ball and go home. In other words....don't. Smile and nod. Ignore. 

Or, you could talk about people like me, who have allergies to syndets. (Good grief....Dawn dishwashing soap terrifies me!  One touch of a sponge with Dawn water and I'm in for 6 weeks of rash, blisters and itching! And that's after I rinse my hand with running water for 10 minutes)  Some syndets just irritate my skin. Either way....it damages my skin to the point where it can set me up for infection. I just spend one scary month on antibiotics for a skin infection that didn't want to get better and was worried about being hospitalized (okay, that was worse case scenario, but possible enough for the Doctor to double up on the meds)

Also, my daily life requires the use of soap because I get dirty; I'm a child care professional. We spend a lot of time outside gardening, looking for bugs and critters, pretty rocks, playing. I don't have anyone in diapers, but....need I say more?  I need soap to wash the dirt, mud and peanut butter off.

The pH of our skin returns to normal in a few hours after using soap. (this info comes from many educated sources, including a dermatologist and my pharmacist friend)

Good luck with whatever approach you decide to use!


----------



## MorpheusPA (Mar 6, 2015)

lenarenee said:


> Wow...the strength of your reaction to her makes me think the others are onto something when they say she was trying to upset you.



Exactly.  I have several words for these kinds of people, but none of them are acceptable for usage in polite company.  And this forum is, most definitely, polite company.

In this case, I detect a very unhappy person who's trying to spread it around as much as possible.  Removing yourself from their presence so quickly you leave a sonic boom is the only way to constructively deal with them.

I mean, honestly.  I'm a stickler about soil chemistry.  I frequently have my hands in dense solutions of borax (moderately alkaline) to iron sulfate (very acidic).  Damage, none.  And then I get them all over myself while treating the soil, to the point that I stink of iron when finished with that.

Your natural bacteria aren't thrilled by a pH in either direction, so that pH 3.5 iron solution I just soaked myself with is doing as much damage as a pH 9.5 soap.  If not more as it's not immediately rinsed off and may sit on my skin and hair for hours before I'm finished.

So far, I have not been sent to a colony for lepers or people covered in boils.

Sorry if that sounds testy, but I'm ticked off for AutumnGirl27 and the fact that she had to put up with that...stuff.


----------



## autumngirl27 (Mar 6, 2015)

You guys are SO right about the sourness of this person I encountered. You should have heard her accuse me of "putting words in her mouth" when I said that if a person is only concerned with pH, then swimming in the ocean (8.1 pH) would be disastrous to our whole bodies.

I think a great approach to have in my tool belt is what some of you suggested - having information about drawbacks of syndets and presenting true soap as an alternative for people who had syndet issues.

And then, because I'm procrastinating at work, I think I may have just found something helpful: an article in Dermatology Times written by Zoe Diana Draelos, M.D.,  a consulting professor of dermatology, Duke University School of Medicine, in April 2011:

*Q: Are pH-balanced skincare products better?* 

*A:* The concept of pH-balanced products was introduced many years ago as an effective marketing strategy for soaps and moisturizers. pH-balanced is a consumer-friendly term for "neutral" pH. These products are usually formulated around a pH of 5 to 5.5. The idea is that neutral pH products will not cause stinging or burning when applied to sensitive, diseased or injured skin. There is some merit to this concept, and highly alkaline or highly acidic products will damage the skin barrier and are not appropriate for daily use. Many times, ascorbic acid is added to pH-balance an alkaline formulation, not for any other direct skin benefit. 


A relatively new concept in U.S. skincare is the idea that slightly acidic skincare products are better than neutral products in maintaining the acid mantle of the skin. Keeping the skin at a slightly acidic pH can minimize bacterial colonization of the skin by normal organisms, such as _Staphylococcus epidermidis_, and pathogenic organisms, such as _Staphylococcus aureus_. To accomplish this, products are formulated at a pH of 4. Some skin diseases are thought be triggered or worsened by bacterial colonization, and slight acidification of the skin may be beneficial. 

It is important to remember that healthy skin will regain its acid mantle within 15 to 30 minutes after application of a skincare product, depending on pH. Retaining the acid mantel is only problematic in compromised barrier conditions. Thus, products that are pH-balanced may offer some benefit in patients with skin disease. ​(http://dermatologytimes.modernmedic...ow/do-ph-balanced-vitamin-d-products-really-i)


----------



## jade-15 (Mar 6, 2015)

Another response is to be over the top dramatic... Could be totally unexpected.
Eg "how DARE you? To come over here and accuse me of causing harm, which is just PURE LIES! Who DO you think you are and what right have you to insult me..." Blah blah blah. Just go into a 5 minute rant to put her in her place.
Not for the introverted... Totally steam roll them. It may, however, give them the satisfaction of thinking they got to you, but if you can include things like "numerous studies show the ph and skin flora return to normal within a few hours" and "studies on patients in intensive care - one of the most vulnerable groups showed xxx" and finish off with how petty and little it is of this person to take such obvious glee in spreading lies and upsetting hard working, well meaning small business owners/crafts people such as yourself...

Well, I would like to see this take place. Hehe.
(Yes, I too am ticked off for you.)


----------



## marilynmac (Mar 6, 2015)

autumngirl27 said:


> She said I was "irresponsible" for making and selling soap and that suggesting that people use it was "bad advice."



Well bless her heart. 


And thanks everyone for posting the papers ... I'd hate to be one of those *@4!'s who only have anecdotal evidence to support their "facts".


----------



## MorpheusPA (Mar 6, 2015)

jade-15 said:


> Another response is to be over the top dramatic... Could be totally unexpected.
> Eg "how DARE you? To come over here and accuse me of causing harm, which is just PURE LIES! Who DO you think you are and what right have you to insult me..." Blah blah blah. Just go into a 5 minute rant to put her in her place.
> Not for the introverted... Totally steam roll them. It may, however, give them the satisfaction of thinking they got to you, but if you can include things like "numerous studies show the ph and skin flora return to normal within a few hours" and "studies on patients in intensive care - one of the most vulnerable groups showed xxx" and finish off with how petty and little it is of this person to take such obvious glee in spreading lies and upsetting hard working, well meaning small business owners/crafts people such as yourself...
> 
> ...



You're mean and I appreciate and enjoy that.  Come over here and sit by me.


----------



## Be Love (Mar 7, 2015)

I wonder what SHE does for a living or hobby? I wonder how she would feel if somebody called her irresponsible for following her passion and making something wonderfully wholesome and luxurious? You can usually find a study to support both sides of an argument. I'm a nurse, and I know that 'anecdotal' evidence is the least credible but I completely believe there is something to be said for experience. There is wisdom in years of experience observing repeated outcomes and passing that information along. I've read studies discounting some of the techniques used by myself and other nurses I work with that I KNOW work! And I will continue to use them because I have enough experience and repeated good outcomes for my patients that I know they work, like I know the sky is blue! One cranky nurse even brought this study to me on my lunch and shoved it in my face! I told her that I don't care what that paper says, I will do what I feel is best for my patients and I know what works. And I have the track record to prove it! 
Is handmade soap for everyone? I guess not. Is it good for many? Hell yes! I wash my hands (what feels like) a million times a day and until I started to make my own soap my hands were cracked and bleeding from the hospital grade syndets and alcohol based gel cleansers we use, as well as those I was using at home. I have a friend whose hands were so dry and cracked they looked like alligator skin! Her skin is now intact. She claims it's because she uses my soap. And when she runs out and uses syndets, boom, alligator skin! I have a family member who has a skin disorder that is characterized by extreme dryness and she will only use handmade soap because that's what works for her. Not scientifically proven, but good enough for me! Aaaaannndd....rant over!
ETA- also, I'm sure that you started making soap just so you could destroy the acid mantle of everyone you hand a bar to with your irresponsible use of oils and superfatting! What are people thinking?!


----------



## Jstar (Mar 7, 2015)

Heh, I'd just remind her that when the SHTF, and there is no longer any 'commercial' soap..she can just stay dirty and smelly, while you completely immerse yourself in your luxurious bubbly acid mantle removing 'real' soap. 

ETA: Of course Im sure there is an article out there 'somewhere' that states that using commercial soaps {surfactants} can cause the body to be more prone to body odor...if that were possible to find, then Id lean close and sniff, say "you stink" and then walk away.....yes, Im evil like that :twisted:


----------



## autumngirl27 (Mar 7, 2015)

Hello again my fellow soapers and generally awesome people!   I am going to put together a scientific-cite-filled knock-out write-up for all of us to have in our arsenals for any "just in case" situation.  It may take me a little while, as life tends to be distracting, but when I finish it, I will post it here for us all to have.


----------



## jules92207 (Mar 8, 2015)

I wish my phone had a like button cause you all would get a big fat thumbs up from me!


----------



## Susie (Mar 8, 2015)

marilynmac said:


> *Well bless her heart.*
> 
> 
> And thanks everyone for posting the papers ... I'd hate to be one of those *@4!'s who only have anecdotal evidence to support their "facts".



For those of you who are not fortunate enough to be Southern, let me translate, "Well bless her heart."  It means, "She is so dumb/stupid/foolish/idiotic/hateful, that only divine intervention can help her."

I snorted coffee all over my laptop.  Kudos!


----------



## Susie (Mar 8, 2015)

Be Love said:


> I wonder what SHE does for a living or hobby? I wonder how she would feel if somebody called her irresponsible for following her passion and making something wonderfully wholesome and luxurious? You can usually find a study to support both sides of an argument. I'm a nurse, and I know that 'anecdotal' evidence is the least credible but I completely believe there is something to be said for experience. There is wisdom in years of experience observing repeated outcomes and passing that information along. I've read studies discounting some of the techniques used by myself and other nurses I work with that I KNOW work! And I will continue to use them because I have enough experience and repeated good outcomes for my patients that I know they work, like I know the sky is blue! One cranky nurse even brought this study to me on my lunch and shoved it in my face! I told her that I don't care what that paper says, I will do what I feel is best for my patients and I know what works. And I have the track record to prove it!
> Is handmade soap for everyone? I guess not. Is it good for many? Hell yes! I wash my hands (what feels like) a million times a day and until I started to make my own soap my hands were cracked and bleeding from the hospital grade syndets and alcohol based gel cleansers we use, as well as those I was using at home. I have a friend whose hands were so dry and cracked they looked like alligator skin! Her skin is now intact. She claims it's because she uses my soap. And when she runs out and uses syndets, boom, alligator skin! I have a family member who has a skin disorder that is characterized by extreme dryness and she will only use handmade soap because that's what works for her. Not scientifically proven, but good enough for me! Aaaaannndd....rant over!
> ETA- also, I'm sure that you started making soap just so you could destroy the acid mantle of everyone you hand a bar to with your irresponsible use of oils and superfatting! What are people thinking?!



I second all of the above.  I am a nurse, also, and cracked, bleeding, alligator skin is what I had for years and years.  All of that stopped as soon as I started using true soap.


----------



## MorpheusPA (Mar 8, 2015)

Susie said:


> For those of you who are not fortunate enough to be Southern, let me translate, "Well bless her heart."  It means, "She is so dumb/stupid/foolish/idiotic/hateful, that only divine intervention can help her."
> 
> I snorted coffee all over my laptop.  Kudos!



I've always translated "Well, bless her heart" into two very simple words for northern folks.  The second is "you."


----------



## autumngirl27 (Mar 8, 2015)

marilynmac said:


> Well bless her heart.



This is definitely one of my favorite sayings of all time!  :wink:


----------



## pbandtay (Mar 8, 2015)

I would have asked what she uses to clean herself. Was she a smelly hippy type? To be clean we need some type of soap. I have a parent of a disable fellow that spends 45 bucks on a foaming 4 oz bottle. Bit that person you are talking about wanted to get your goat. Maybe she was a plant for another vender that believes in that ph setup and was trying to get people in your booth. Or they Judy's might have been a jerk. Keep in mind you can't please everyone


----------



## autumngirl27 (Mar 12, 2015)

The Update

Well, I feel really beat down by what I’ve found out in my research and in my internet searches this past week.  It looks like people are convinced that soap is bad, it’s incredibly easy to back it up with the pH studies out there, and there’s no perfect science to back up our positive anecdotal experiences.  Here’s what I’ve got…

The surface of healthy adult human skin across the body ranges from 4.0 pH to 5.9 pH (Source: Korting, H. and Braun-Falco, O. [1996], The Effect of Detergents on Skin pH and Its Consequences.  Clinics in Dermatology, 14:23-27).

“The acidic pH inhibits some bacterial and fungal growth” (Draelos, Z. [1998], Cosmetics, Skin Care Products, and the Dermatologic Surgeon.  Dermatologic Surgery, 24: 543-546).

“Many factors, such as age, ethnic differences, sebum, sweat, detergents, cosmetics, and irritation, affect the pH of the skin” (Takagi, Y., et. al. [2014], The Long-Term Use of Soap Does Not Affect the pH-Maintenance Mechanism of Human Skin.  Skin Research and Technology, 0: 1).

Cleansing surfactants, such as soap (from 9.5 to 11 pH) and synthetic detergent bars (“syndets”) (from 3.6 to 7.5 pH), and even water alone (usually about 7 pH) also affect the pH of the skin and alkanize it (Sources: Takagi, Y., et. al. [2014], The Long-Term Use of Soap Does Not Affect the pH-Maintenance Mechanism of Human Skin.  Skin Research and Technology, 0: 1;  and Abbas, S., Goldberg, J.W. and Massaro, M. [2004], Personal Cleanser Technology and Clinical Performance. Dermatologic Therapy, 17: 36-38;  and Draelos, Z. [1998], Cosmetics, Skin Care Products, and the Dermatologic Surgeon.  Dermatologic Surgery, 24: 543).

Specifically, “skin pH rises 1.1 points following washing with water alone, 1.2 points after washing with alkaline soap, and 0.9 points after washing with a synthetic detergent beauty bar” (Draelos, Z. [1998], Cosmetics, Skin Care Products, and the Dermatologic Surgeon.  Dermatologic Surgery, 24: 543; see also Takagi, Y., et. al. [2014], The Long-Term Use of Soap Does Not Affect the pH-Maintenance Mechanism of Human Skin.  Skin Research and Technology, 0: 1).

The pH of the skin, however, is maintained by the “acid mantle,” and due to the mechanisms of the acid mantle, “the pH of the skin normally returns to an acidic pH even when changed by [outside] factors” (Takagi, Y., et. al. [2014], The Long-Term Use of Soap Does Not Affect the pH-Maintenance Mechanism of Human Skin.  Skin Research and Technology, 0: 1).

Indeed, the pH of healthy skin returns to normal “within 30 minutes after washing” (Draelos, Z. [1998], Cosmetics, Skin Care Products, and the Dermatologic Surgeon.  Dermatologic Surgery, 24: 543-546).

Alkalinity only becomes a problem if the skin pH remains elevated for more than 4 hours because of insufficient rinsing and/or too frequent product use (Source: Abbas, S., Goldberg, J.W. and Massaro, M. [2004], Personal Cleanser Technology and Clinical Performance. Dermatologic Therapy, 17: 36).

On April 1, 2011, Dr. Zoe Diana Draelos, a consulting professor of dermatology at Duke University School of Medicine, wrote an article for the Dermatology Times.  In the article, available at (http://dermatologytimes.modernmedic...ow/do-ph-balanced-vitamin-d-products-really-i), she answered the question, “Are pH-balanced skincare products better?”  Dr. Draelos wrote that “[t]he concept of pH-balanced products was introduced many years ago as an effective marketing strategy for soaps and moisturizers” and noted that there was “some merit” to the concept that products formulated around a pH of 5 to 5.5 may not cause stinging or burning when applied to sensitive, diseased or injured skin.”  An even newer concept in US skincare is that slightly acidic products, formulated at a pH of 4, are even better in maintaining the acid mantle of the skin, in that keeping the skin at a slightly acidic pH can minimize bacterial colonization of the skin by normal organisms and pathogenic organisms.  Dr. Draelos concluded, “It is important to remember that healthy skin will regain its acid mantle within 15 to 30 minutes after application of a skincare product, depending on pH. Retaining the acid mantel is only problematic in compromised barrier conditions.”  

Citing Dr. Draelos, Randy Schueller and Perry Romanowski, cosmetic chemists at TheBeautyBrains.com, wrote in their 2013 book, It’s Okay to Have Lead in Your Lipstick: “We’ve always maintained that pH balanced skin care products are just marketing hype, because the skin’s natural pH resets itself within as little as 15 minutes after applying lotion…. So while we’re in full agreement with the expert assessment that in some special circumstances the pH of the product can make a difference, we maintain our stance that in the general case, pH balance is more hyperbole than healthy.  The Bottom Line: Unless you have a skin disease, you don’t need to waste your money on products that expect you to pay more just because of their pH.”

Further, in discussing facial cleansers versus “true” soaps on the face, Cindy Jones, Ph.D. a cosmetic formulator and microbiologist, wrote on the website PersonalCareTruth.com (http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/06/ask-the-experts-5/) that while washing with true soap will “somewhat” disrupt the normal pH of the skin, as compared to washing with a syndet, healthy skin will return to normal and that the return can be “hastened” by following washing with a slightly acidic toner or applying a lotion or cream, which are in the range of 3 to 6 pH, matching the pH of the skin.

A study published in 2014  (Takagi, Y., et. al. [2014], The Long-Term Use of Soap Does Not Affect the pH-Maintenance Mechanism of Human Skin.  Skin Research and Technology, 0: 1-5) addressed the allegation that the continuous usage of a soap or an alkaline skin cleanser might increase the pH of the skin by affecting the system that maintains its pH.  To clarify the effects of continuously-used cleansers on the pH of the skin, the study compared skin surface pH prior to and following washing with a soap bar between 5-year-long users of a soap-based cleanser and of a mild-acidic cleanser.  The study concluded that long-term continuous use of an alkaline soap-based cleanser does not affect the mechanisms of the acid mantle in maintaining a mildly acidic pH of the skin.  Furthermore, the paper noted that “[d]uring regular use of soap, the contact time of the surfactant to the skin is very short and is followed by rinsing with water.  [The data] may suggest that the penetration of soap during regular use has less effect and the buffer capacity of the stratum corneum [i.e., the outermost layer of the epidermis] far exceeds the amount of acid necessary to transform residues of the surfactant” on the skin (Takagi, Y., et. al. [2014], The Long-Term Use of Soap Does Not Affect the pH-Maintenance Mechanism of Human Skin.  Skin Research and Technology, 0: 4).

Studies acknowledge that “uperfatting [true soap] improves the moisturization and mildness of the product, as well as the lather, mush, and wear properties” (Abbas, S., Goldberg, J.W. and Massaro, M. [2004], Personal Cleanser Technology and Clinical Performance. Dermatologic Therapy, 17: 36).

Indeed, “modern cleansing bars, even soap bars, are nowadays very complex mixtures that are generally very mild on the skin.  The potential irritancy of the alkaline surfactants present in the soap cleansing bar are neutralized by the addition of humectants, filmogen, and emollient ingredients” (Barel, A.O., et. al. [2001], A Comparative Study of the Effects on the Skin of  classical Bar Soap and a Syndet Cleansing Bar in Normal Use Conditions and in the Soap Chamber Test. Skin Research and Technology, 7: 98-104). 

As for syndets, they “vary widely in terms of their chemical structure, physiochemical properties, and performance characteristics, including skin compatibility.  Syndets are not necessarily less irritating than soaps” (Cosmetic Dermatology: Products and Procedures, edited by Draelos, Z. [2010]).

Interestingly, while one study comparing the pH of products to their “irritation potential” confirmed that sydents are generally “milder” than “common soaps,” it also illustrated the difficulty in taking a rigid approach to pH.  The data revealed that the least irritating sydent (0.200) was Dove White, with a pH of 7.53, whereas the most irritating syndet (3.333) was Avecycle, with a pH of 3.61.  Meanwhile, the least irritating soap (2.779) was Johnson’s Baby Oat, which had a pH of 12.35, whereas the most irritating soap (5.284) was Camay Gala, with a pH of 10.36. (Source: Abbas, S., Goldberg, J.W. and Massaro, M. [2004], Personal Cleanser Technology and Clinical Performance. Dermatologic Therapy, 17: 36-38  ).

In sum, for those with healthy skin, data points to “true” soap not being "inherently bad."  The choice of what to use as a cleanser may be left to personal preference.  Even Randy Schueller, cosmetic chemist at TheBeautyBrains.com (who, from all evidence, seems to loooooooove syndets), appears to agree that “everyone’s skin and preferences are different. Personal experimentation is your best option” (http://thebeautybrains.com/2008/11/17/what-is-the-difference-between-soap-surfactants/).

WHEW!  Many thanks to all of you, who pointed me in some wonderful directions for this research!


----------



## Dorymae (Mar 12, 2015)

Now just one more step. Use Avery or another online editor and produce a simple brochure or card to have on hand if anyone ever tries that again!  Simply say, " I'm sorry but I and most experts disagree with you" while smiling and hand them the brochure.  It will be easier than trying to remember everything you found through your research. 

( I will be borrowing your research to do the exact same thing). Thank you for the time you put into this.


----------



## kchaystack (Mar 12, 2015)

Thank you so much for all this work!  I think it would be a great idea to make this up into a brochure.  I know IF I ever decide I want to sell, I would love to have this as a poster for my table at farmer's markets and conventions.


----------



## lenarenee (Mar 12, 2015)

autumngirl, in the first paragraph you wrote that you feel "beat down", and I took that to mean that the data you found was discouraging. Did I understand you correctly?


----------



## autumngirl27 (Mar 12, 2015)

lenarenee said:


> autumngirl, in the first paragraph you wrote that you feel "beat down", and I took that to mean that the data you found was discouraging. Did I understand you correctly?


 
Yes, unfortunately, I do feel discouraged and glass-half-empty about this. :cry: Truly, there were SO MANY studies out there about how soap is "irritating" and "harsh" and "drying" compared to syndets; it felt like being the last person standing in a dodge ball game against a full team. There was nothing to back up any of our personal non-irritating, non-harsh, non-drying experiences with soap. All I really found was that perhaps, maybe, soap "might not" be "bad." I was hoping to find something that said, "some people don't feel irritated by soap, and that's cool! If soap's your jam, stick with it!" I'd really love for a study to analyze handcrafted, superfatted soap for this reason, but I guess until we're all big corporation with big money, we won't be able to fund such research.


----------



## MorpheusPA (Mar 12, 2015)

autumngirl27 said:


> Yes, unfortunately, I do feel discouraged and glass-half-empty about this. :cry: Truly, there were SO MANY studies out there about how soap is "irritating" and "harsh" and "drying" compared to syndets; it felt like being the last person standing in a dodge ball game against a full team. There was nothing to back up any of our personal non-irritating, non-harsh, non-drying experiences with soap. All I really found was that perhaps, maybe, soap "might not" be "bad." I was hoping to find something that said, "some people don't feel irritated by soap, and that's cool! If soap's your jam, stick with it!" I'd really love for a study to analyze handcrafted, superfatted soap for this reason, but I guess until we're all big corporation with big money, we won't be able to fund such research.



Actually, as an armchair science sort, I was reading most of your studies as saying precisely that--if soap's your jam, stick to it.

About the worst they could say was that your pH returns to normal in thirty minutes or so.  Identical with water or a syndet, and the syndets threw your pH off almost as far (which wasn't that far at all).

Mind you, I'm sure some of those studies have an agenda to show that the syndets are as good as or better than actual soap and were funded by companies that make syndet bars.  Just because It's A Study doesn't make it Good Science.


----------



## autumngirl27 (Mar 12, 2015)

MorpheusPA said:


> Mind you, I'm sure some of those studies have an agenda to show that the syndets are as good as or better than actual soap and were funded by companies that make syndet bars.  Just because It's A Study doesn't make it Good Science.




Good point! Yes, these studies were all funded by (and mostly in-house at) Glaxo Smith Klien and Colgate and Biore and Johnson & Johnson, etc.!


----------



## MorpheusPA (Mar 12, 2015)

autumngirl27 said:


> Good point! Yes, these studies were all funded by (and mostly in-house at) Glaxo Smith Klien and Colgate and Biore and Johnson & Johnson, etc.!



Bingo.  None of the above have any market share--nor desire--to produce a high quality soap.

That doesn't necessarily make the study bad in and of itself, but it does mean that you should inspect the methodology of it very, very carefully and probe the background, education, and other writings of the researchers involved.

In one particularly egregious case, an electronic cigarette study claimed to find formaldehyde in the exhale.  They "neglected" to account for the fact that humans produce formaldehyde naturally and that exhaled levels were within the normal range.  There was no control.

These kinds of things have taught me to Follow The Money and always, always check the methodology section for serious and obvious "errors."


----------



## lenarenee (Mar 12, 2015)

I found nothing negative in the information you posted autumngirl.  After all...even plain water affects skin in a comparable manner as soap.

And....keep in mind the syndets often contain sodium laurel sulfates and other such things that people are _saying we need to keep away from!_  I think you forgot that.  

And...the killer point for me is that the syndets have ADDED ingredients to combat the affects of dryness, skin tightness, etc caused by the syndet bar in the first place.  

Did you know that there's a small camp of people who are investigating
applying a bacterial solution to their skin in lieu of showering or bathing?  I head one man's account of his experience - wish I could remember the source.  But after his experiment ended....he went back to showering due to the slight but constant odor many people could detect.

So until people decide en masse to live by the most natural method of skin care (feeding bacteria to your skin), the western world is going to stick to soap and water because we're used to having unscented people.

It's up to each individual to decide whether their skin needs a syndet or homemade bar of soap.  

To avoid the maniac that challenged you; perhaps we need to add an Amendment to the Constitution!

Thank you for all of your hard work; and again....I found only encouraging words in there!


----------



## Susie (Mar 12, 2015)

MorpheusPA said:


> Bingo.  None of the above have any market share--nor desire--to produce a high quality soap.
> 
> That doesn't necessarily make the study bad in and of itself, but it does mean that you should inspect the methodology of it very, very carefully and probe the background, education, and other writings of the researchers involved.
> 
> ...



^This!  Many times over, exactly this!  Studies are funded with $$.  Find out who paid for it, *then* look at the results.  Read it with a huge grain of salt.  

I don't think anyone really knows who said this first, but it was not me. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."


----------



## MorpheusPA (Mar 12, 2015)

Susie said:


> ^This!  Many times over, exactly this!  Studies are funded with $$.  Find out who paid for it, *then* look at the results.  Read it with a huge grain of salt.
> 
> I don't think anyone really knows who said this first, but it was not me. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."



That's one of my favorite quotes!  It was popularized by Twain.  The original attribution was to Benjamin Disraeli, but there's a lot of controversy about that.


----------



## rogue (Mar 12, 2015)

There is another more basic ( ha funny joke) reason soap does better than the syndets sometimes for acne. P. Acnes is the bacteria that tends to cause breakouts and some of us have it & some don't. It is not going to live in a pH >7.5. Before all the cute creams & antibiotics dermatologists were huge fans of glycerin soaps & benzoyl peroxide. Bp can kill the bacteria also I believe but it also unclogs the pores. Syndets make a happy environment for the bacteria. But hey, I'm just a doc that like the old fashioned stuff that actually works.


----------



## autumngirl27 (Mar 12, 2015)

lenarenee said:


> Did you know that there's a small camp of people who are investigating applying a bacterial solution to their skin in lieu of showering or bathing? I head one man's account of his experience - wish I could remember the source. But after his experiment ended....he went back to showering due to the slight but constant odor many people could detect.


 
Wow, yes!! I read something about that!  

For anyone who is curious, you can find some info here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/m...oo-bacteria-rich-hygiene-experiment.html?_r=0
and
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/julia-scott-on-going-suds-free-for-28-days/


----------



## coffeetime (Mar 12, 2015)

Just thinking out loud here but the oils we use are considered acidic, yes? In the soap reaction (acid/base), the fat is the acid and the lye is the base. Could the fact that handmade soap has a %-age of free fats be leaving a slight acidic residue which helps the acid mantle to re-assert itself? That, in addition to the glycerin that is produced, could be the difference? I don't know what sort of alkaline soap was used in those studies and what the superfat was (if there was one).


----------



## MorpheusPA (Mar 12, 2015)

coffeetime said:


> Just thinking out loud here but the oils we use are considered acidic, yes? In the soap reaction (acid/base), the fat is the acid and the lye is the base. Could the fact that handmade soap has a %-age of free fats be leaving a slight acidic residue which helps the acid mantle to re-assert itself? That, in addition to the glycerin that is produced, could be the difference? I don't know what sort of alkaline soap was used in those studies and what the superfat was (if there was one).



Regrettably, no.  To turn most of the fat to soap requires a certain number of molecules of lye.  That number is way more than enough to balance the reaction resultant on the alkaline side.

Although superfatting decreases the effective pH* of your soap, it doesn't render it neutral or acidic.  If it did, the soap would be a gelatinous, slimy mess.  The same with additives that are acidic, like lemon juice or citric acid.  If you drop the pH low enough to be neutral, the soap will fall apart.

* pH is a complex issue and technically fats don't have a pH as they aren't miscible in water.  But in this case, the difference is academic...mostly.


----------



## coffeetime (Mar 12, 2015)

I wasn't suggesting the soap is acidic. But when you are done washing with the soap, there is in some cases a tiny bit of oil left on the skin. That oil is not soap, but oil.


----------



## Jstar (Mar 12, 2015)

The commercial soap makers will 'always' put out articles and 'research' papers designed to kill out the competition....ie; natural soap makers products. 

Let's not forget, your skin sloughs off hourly, so where are the commercial soap makers theories on that? :think:  they don't want you knowing that the top 18-23 layers of your skin are 'dead skin cells' and that the skin you have now is not the skin you will have next month..

Here's a little factoid or 3

https://www.aad.org/dermatology-a-to-z/for-kids/about-skin/how-skin-grows

And then something else I found

http://health.howstuffworks.com/skin-care/information/anatomy/shed-skin-cells.htm

Basically tho, don't go to the commercial soap manufactures for fuel to fight them with...you wont find it there..no way they will shoot themselves in their own feet


----------



## jules92207 (Mar 13, 2015)

autumngirl27 said:


> Good point! Yes, these studies were all funded by (and mostly in-house at) Glaxo Smith Klien and Colgate and Biore and Johnson & Johnson, etc.!



Ok, well that pretty much says it all to me.


----------



## jnl (Mar 13, 2015)

J&J admits to putting known toxic chemicals in their baby soap because they say they havnt found a good alternative yet.  i have not looked into that in the last couple years, its possible they have changed their formula by now.  but they had set a date long into the future to get rid of the toxic chemicals they put in their baby soaps instead of just pulling them out soon as studies showed those chemicals were bad.

even if soap is a little more harsh on my skin, i would rather use that then nasty synthetic chemicals.

anyone with skin issues will tell you that those synthetic bars and face washes and lotions etc are HORRIFIC on our skin.  i swear Dove is one of the WORST bars of soap.  absolutely awful.  makes my skin shrivel up and want to die.

i am new to using natural soaps, and its the first time every in my life where my skin is not totally dry after showering.  and i can actually WASH MY FACE without breaking out.
even just plain water makes my skin dry and itchy and i have to slather with lotion.  synthetic chemicals make it much worse.  i still have to use lotion after using my soap, but not as much, and thats only because the water is full of chlorine.

but the BIGGEST effect i have seen is on my dog.  my dog has the worst skin issues ever and is very allergic to all dog shampoos and most human ones too.  there was only ONE human shampoo that was "ok" on her, and that would just make her medium itchy for a couple days and shed tons of fur.  any other soap/shampoo would make her so itchy she would be freaking out panicking trying to rub her skin off for like a week or more.  a month or so ago i tried one of my bars of soap on her and it was literally the first time ever in her life (8 years) where she was not itchy after being bathed.  not even a tiny little bit.  and she was soooo shiny and silky and everyone was commenting how nice her coat was (strangers who had never seen her before).  and then i washed her again 2 more times with the soap and each time NO ITCHING!!!  and no shedding after bathing either.  its amazing.  i feel so bad for torturing her for 8 years, but i had no idea.  the soap i used was an oatmeal/goats milk/honey soap superfatted at 5%.


----------



## autumngirl27 (Mar 15, 2015)

MorpheusPA said:


> Although superfatting decreases the effective pH* of your soap, it doesn't render it neutral or acidic....
> 
> * pH is a complex issue and technically fats don't have a pH as they aren't miscible in water.  But in this case, the difference is academic...mostly.



Aha, yes, of course!  This just underscores the difficulty with taking a rigid approach to pH in assessing skin irritability.  The pH of our soaps will stay alkaline, even if superfatted, from the very nature of being soaps.  Because the oils we superfat with don't technically have a pH, their moisturizing properties and mildness will not be reflected in the pH reading.


----------



## MorpheusPA (Mar 15, 2015)

autumngirl27 said:


> Aha, yes, of course!  This just underscores the difficulty with taking a rigid approach to pH in assessing skin irritability.  The pH of our soaps will stay alkaline, even if superfatted, from the very nature of being soaps.  Because the oils we superfat with don't technically have a pH, their moisturizing properties and mildness will not be reflected in the pH reading.



I've seen enormous arguments about pH moderation of adding fats or fatty acids (which I'm not interested in joining in the slightest!)

While an accurately measured pH actually IS that item's pH, most of the question here is how much it matters.  And the studies seem to show "not much" while stating the exact opposite as their conclusion.

Mind you, very irritated or damaged skin would be best treated as mildly as possible.  But for most of us most of the time, that's a non-issue.


----------



## lakelady (Mar 17, 2015)

Hi Autumngirl, I'm new to the forum, but not new to soapmaking (over 17 years)...my first thought is who this person might be.  I'd be tempted to ask her where she got her PhD in chemistry or her medical degree?  Sounds to me like she is either one of those debby downer types, or jealous of the joy and beauty that soapmaking brings to you.  Ugh, I can't stand people like that.  I think there are a lot of good responses for you, and DO NOT let her get to you, I'm sure that was her intention.


----------



## TeresaT (Jun 13, 2015)

autumngirl27 said:


> Hi everyone!  I'm new here, but I've been lurking for years and selfishly absorbing everyone's wisdom.  And now I selfishly need your direct help (but I imagine this will be helpful to many of us, so please hang in there during my long story)...
> 
> A person recently approached me with the claim that the skin's acid mantle is between a 4.5 pH and a 6 pH, and that any skin product outside that range would irreparably damage the acid mantle and make the pH spike before settling again, leaving the skin not only dry and acne-riddled but also a hot-bed of bacteria.  She said I was "irresponsible" for making and selling soap and that suggesting that people use it was "bad advice."  She cited medical papers about skin pH (which, honestly, ARE legit) (see for example "The Concept of the Acid Mantle of the Skin") (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8573921) and demanded that I provide "good science" to the contrary.  When I told her my experience with CP soap and what I've heard from many other people, she laughed me off because my evidence was "simply anecdotal."
> 
> ...



Wow!  I know this is old, and I haven't read the whole thread; however, all I could think of was what an ass.  People have been using good old fashioned SOAP, made with fats and lye, for millennia and they haven't irreversibly damaged their "acid mantle" or caused acne-riddled bacterial colonies to form all over their skin.  My skin is better when I wash with the soap I have made instead of a commercial product.  My skin over-all is much better with my homemade soap than the commercial stuff out there.  Some people are not happy unless they are miserable and making everyone around them miserable, too.  DON'T GIVE IN TO THE DARK SIDE!!


----------



## soapmage (Jun 14, 2015)

Autumngirl, I took your post on your results and posted them on this site I found praising syndets and bashing handmade (I hope you don't mind)...

http://www.thehealthyskinblog.org/syndets-soapfree-soaps/#comment-7167


----------



## jules92207 (Jun 14, 2015)

Not surprised, that institute is part of Colgate-Palmolive.


----------



## hozhed (Jun 14, 2015)

autumngirl27 said:


> Hi everyone! I'm new here, but I've been lurking for years and selfishly absorbing everyone's wisdom. And now I selfishly need your direct help (but I imagine this will be helpful to many of us, so please hang in there during my long story)...
> 
> A person recently approached me with the claim that the skin's acid mantle is between a 4.5 pH and a 6 pH, and that any skin product outside that range would irreparably damage the acid mantle and make the pH spike before settling again, leaving the skin not only dry and acne-riddled but also a hot-bed of bacteria. She said I was "irresponsible" for making and selling soap and that suggesting that people use it was "bad advice." She cited medical papers about skin pH (which, honestly, ARE legit) (see for example "The Concept of the Acid Mantle of the Skin") (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8573921) and demanded that I provide "good science" to the contrary. When I told her my experience with CP soap and what I've heard from many other people, she laughed me off because my evidence was "simply anecdotal."
> 
> ...


 

I would have to guess that soap has done more to prolong the lifespan of humans than we know. After looking at that video of the 80 year old man, its nothing short of a miracle he lived so long. He must have a cast iron immune system that if studied and cloned,could prolong lifespans more than the soap and water he hates so much did. Amazing.


----------



## cm4bleenmb (Jun 14, 2015)

Well, I for one would rather temporarily disrupt the acid mantle of my skin with an occasional application of soap than to leave a perpetual layer of dirt on it.


----------



## not_ally (Jun 14, 2015)

Jules, wow, is that *ever* a syndet lobby site.  Ugh.  I guess we are all a bunch of dummies, making all this dangerous, anachronistic, ugly, stinky soap stuff.  Of course, the site is called "The Healthy Skin Blog", and there is no mention of its connection with the industry, although the commentators are touted as "chemical engineers" and "science journalists".  Mage, I think they censor comments, there is only one and if it is yours I cannot tell, because when you click on it nothing comes up.

Y'all, for your reading pleasure, selected quotes from that link: 

"[T]he cosmetics industry has  managed to develop “soapfree soaps”. We wash our hands with bars that  contain no soap and our gels are “soapfree”. Soap’s day has passed:  welcome to the “syndet”.

"sing soap on an ongoing basis removes oil from our skin and  the resulting destruction of the lipid mantle undermines the skin’s  barrier function."

"From a technical viewpoint, syndets have other advantages over soap,  such as the fact that they admit the possibility of using additives  (colorants and fragrances) that are not suitable for soaps."

"Nonetheless, even though syndets might prove to be a source of  irritation for a small segment of the population, they are undoubtedly  much more recommendable than traditional soaps."

"Soap itself has been relegated to the  traditional crafts sector – a memory of a time when cosmetics were not  widely used and when people used the same soap for their bodies and  their clothes."


----------



## jules92207 (Jun 14, 2015)

Scary, huh, not_ally!


----------



## not_ally (Jun 14, 2015)

Definitely.  Although I hope/think that the kind of people that read this will either be people that actually believe it or totally disagree w/it, ie; it won't change many minds.  I just wish there was an equally well-funded lobby on our side, but if wishes were horses ....


----------



## galaxyMLP (Jun 14, 2015)

Actually, Im one of those people who neither agrees nor explicitly disagrees with the posting. 

I truly believe that there are many people who can not use soap (at least not commercial soaps) and thus have turned to syndet bars. Many many people swear by their syndet bars and I know I'm one of those people that is actually is better off using syndets in general. I love my soaps though and worked very hard to find recipes that actually work for me. Of course, that took time. Now I love my soaps! But, I still find myself using syndets (the ones with added moisturizers) b/c every once in a while my skin gets mad at me for using real soap (even with my 100% oo or mostly lard soap with no coconut oil)

I'm sure there are many people out there that try real soap, get dried out, and just stop using it. I used to HATE real soap. 

Mind you,  I really don't like the way that the article is written. It's snobbish and downplays the fact that some people (actually a large portion) can't use syndets. And that soap is " for crafters". It's definitely not only for cragters and has quite a large market today.

 I guess I'm one of those weird people that likes both real soap and syndets. I must just be sensitive to cleansers in general.


----------



## not_ally (Jun 14, 2015)

Thanks for posting, Galaxy.  That is good to know, I pretty much assumed most of that was industry propaganda.  It makes sense that there are people who cannot use soap, just like there are people who cannot use syndets.  I guess blanket statements are best avoided on both sides.  The thing that bothered me the most was the sort of blanket approach on that site.  

And the fact that there was no disclosure that it was industry sponsored, I hate it when industry lobbying (on any topic I am interested in, not just soap) is disguised as objective/impartial information without disclosure, I respect the information, and trust it more, when the source is honestly presented, even when I disagree with the content.


----------



## galaxyMLP (Jun 14, 2015)

not_ally said:


> Thanks for posting, Galaxy.  That is good to know, I pretty much assumed most of that was industry propaganda.  It makes sense that there are people who cannot use soap, just like there are people who cannot use syndets.  I guess blanket statements are best avoided on both sides.  The thing that bothered me the most was the sort of blanket approach on that site.
> 
> And the fact that there was no disclosure that it was industry sponsored, I hate it when industry lobbying (on any topic I am interested in, not just soap) is disguised as objective/impartial information without disclosure, I respect the information, and trust it more, when the source is honestly presented, even when I disagree with the content.


I tend to like to articles that come from REPUTABLE journals. I stress reputable because one of my professors let me know that bogus journals are popping up all over the place lately. That makes it even harder for your average person to discern a good article from a bad one. Apparently they seek out anyone and simply make them pay to have their article featured. You should never pay to have your article featured. And it's usually suuuuper hard to get published in a good one!

Obviously, this "blog post" was propaganda for the company that funded it. I don't like how it was written at all. Not all blog posts or industry funded research is as such though. Even if a company originally funds research, good science should prevail. This is the case with many reputable journals. Research is never free and its OK for "big pharma" and big industry to fund stuff. That's how innovation is sometimes made. What's not OK is a company skewing information into their favor. This is my opinion on the matter! Sorry for hijacking post! Also, the lady referred to in the beginning was just being a big -you know what-.


----------



## Jstar (Jun 15, 2015)

Oh my..if you think the other one was bad, check out this piece of work:

http://www.thehealthyskinblog.org/“handcrafted”-soaps-beware/#more-2606

Sorry, but this person doesn't know her rear from a hole in the ground. She's written 4 articles and 2 of them are busting home crafted soaps..my guess is, judging from what she says to beware of, that she did the following:

_Avoid buying:

- Soap that promises to eliminate psoriasis, because it is illegal to sell this medical product as a cosmetic product._

Im thinking she has psoriasis, and bought soap promising to get rid of it...it didn't work so she went off on a vent spree.

_- Soap that is not labelled, because it does not comply with cosmetics legislation._

The soap with the 'miracle cure' she bought didn't have a label..she went with the vendors claims. {who also doesn't know what they are doing}

_- Soap that is fruit-shaped, with a fruit topping or with a fruity smell, because it is forbidden to create cosmetics that could be confused with food and accidentally ingested by children._

Bet that soap was fruit shaped and smelled like tutti-frutti, and her kid ate it. And I have yet to find anything 'forbidden' in the cosmetics industry legislation that says its against the law to create anything that could be confused as 'food' because kids may eat it.

This person has no idea that 'soap' doesn't figure into cosmetics or medical unless there is a specific claim, and as long as its only being sold as 'soap' so there is no need to 'comply with cosmetics legislation'

All in all, I wouldn't give this 'chemical engineer' who has written a total of 4 articles, without anything as proof,  a second thought..{there are also 11 comments but I cant get them to show up so no idea what the responses were.}


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Jun 15, 2015)

I think she's based in the EU, which makes the labeling points valid, as well as the fruit-shaped point. 

But there are so many other terrible points - lye is corrosive, so soap is too? Some soapers have made neutral products? Seriously misinformed piece of drivel


----------



## Jstar (Jun 15, 2015)

I can understand the label thing....but the fruit shapes?? Really? How odd


----------



## not_ally (Jun 15, 2015)

The fruit thing seems nutty to me, too.  I would think any kid that took a bite out of a fruit shaped piece of soap would be pretty quick to spit it out.  On that basis, you'd have to outlaw any kind of food-resembling soap - there goes the last Great Cakes Soapworks contest, or any kind of candle/tart resembling food.  Is that really forbidden in the EU, Gent?


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Jun 15, 2015)

not_ally said:


> The fruit thing seems nutty to me, too...........Is that really forbidden in the EU, Gent?


 
It appears so, but as always it is enforced to varying degrees.  My argument is that eating soap itself is no more deadly than eating real sweets - if you eat a lot of both you can actually become ill, but a little wouldn't harm.  Of course, soap might not taste nice, but that is something else entirely.


----------



## soapmage (Jun 15, 2015)

Jstar said:


> Oh my..if you think the other one was bad, check out this piece of work:
> 
> http://www.thehealthyskinblog.org/“handcrafted”-soaps-beware/#more-2606
> 
> ...



Wow. Just wow. That piece of crap article made me angrier than the one I linked. Articles like that written by so called "experts" could really do damage to our industry because so many people believe the crap they read on the **** internet. Again, wow.


----------

