# Can someone convince me that FOs are safe?



## cdmusic68 (Jan 30, 2015)

Hey all!

I've made bath and body products for a long time and just the past year or so have gotten into making CP soap.  

I've always just used EOs because I've done a lot of research on their controversial safety and I have learned to use and dilute them properly. 

I'd really like to branch out into FOs, and their wider range of scents, but so far I just can't convince myself that they are safe.  Does anyone know of a supplier that lists ingredients?  I'd feel better if I knew exactly what I was getting, but that seems impossible with FOs.  

Anyway, if anyone has reassuring info, I'd appreciate it!  

Thanks!


----------



## cmzaha (Jan 30, 2015)

No supplier that I know of is going to list ingredients since they are trade secrets, even msds sheets do not list ingredients. I can mention that I have severe allergies that can be life threatening and synthetic fragrances very seldom bother me, on the other hand many eo's do bother me including lavender. No everything that is synthetic is bad for us. When I was younger and took vitamins I had to take synthetic vitamins not natural. In my opinion the internet has done a lot of dis-service to products with all the scare mongers.


----------



## new12soap (Jan 30, 2015)

To be honest, probably not. If you do not feel that fragrance oils are safe then it's doubtful anyone will be able to convince you otherwise, but here is my take on it.

Essential oils are unregulated drugs. You say you have done a lot of research and learned to use them safely and I applaud you for that, many are not so careful.

Fragrance oils are designed, formulated, manufactured and tested specifically for use on skin (I am referring to those approved for use in soaps and bath and body products, NOT the fragrances used for candles only). Most FOs are comprised of natural ingredients and compounds from essential oils, as well as a blend of synthetics. I personally do not feel that everything synthetic is bad but others might. They are consistent because they are controlled.

As far as I know, no fragrance supplier in the US will disclose ingredients, but I believe in the EU they are required to disclose the concentration of potential allergens in each fragrance, so you may want to browse some European suppliers and do some research there to get more info about what generally goes in to them.

Not sure whether any of that helps you, but good that you are gathering information to make an informed decision.


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Jan 30, 2015)

When you think about how much of a % of your recipe is an FO and then think about how much soap is used on your body during washing and then even further to how much soap is left ON your body long enough for the FO to osmosify in to your blood stream....................we are talking tiny amounts of FO


----------



## Obsidian (Jan 30, 2015)

I have to agree that FO use in soap really shouldn't expose a person to harmful chemicals in the long run. I do however only use Phthalate-Free FO's and if possible, Nitro Musk free. I do plan on only using EO's in my lotion though, I use it too often to feel comfortable with synthetic scents.


----------



## TVivian (Jan 30, 2015)

There are things we do everyday that possibly expose us to harmful and toxic chemicals... Like breathe air, drink water, eat at restaurants, drive cars,wear makeup, eat food processed in factories, eat produce you purchased ... The list goes on and on.  You can live your life devoted to avoiding any and all of these things which would be a full time job, (and you'd probably lose your friends) or you can do the best you can and don't sweat the rest.  

So I'm saying, if you want bright blue soap that smells like cotton candy rainbows just do it. It's probably safer than eating French fries from Mc Donald's.


----------



## cdmusic68 (Jan 30, 2015)

I do feel better the more I read... And I want to convince myself to use them, lol.   There ate just so many brands and companies with so little information available.  Are there specific companies that you guys know of that are more... Let's say, Health/environmentally conscious?


----------



## claireobell (Jan 30, 2015)

TVivian said:


> There are things we do everyday that possibly expose us to harmful and toxic chemicals... Like breathe air, drink water, eat at restaurants, drive cars,wear makeup, eat food processed in factories, eat produce you purchased ... The list goes on and on.  You can live your life devoted to avoiding any and all of these things which would be a full time job, (and you'd probably lose your friends) or you can do the best you can and don't sweat the rest.
> 
> So I'm saying, if you want bright blue soap that smells like cotton candy rainbows just do it. It's probably safer than eating French fries from Mc Donald's.




Couldn't agree more! I have been hesitant about using FO as I like the thought of a natural soap and the healing properties of EO...... BUT..... I love coconut smelling things and other delicious scents! I had to start using them! Anyway I eat Mc Donald's so this isn't half as bad! Thanks for that!


----------



## LBussy (Jan 30, 2015)

TVivian said:


> If you want bright blue soap that smells like cotton candy rainbows just do it. It's probably safer than eating French fries from Mc Donald's.


I found my new signature line.


----------



## shunt2011 (Jan 30, 2015)

I agree with the others.  As for any benefits from EO's in soap I personally don't think many would survive the lye.  That's just my thoughts though.


----------



## reinbeau (Jan 30, 2015)

There are people out there who say that your skin is your largest organ and talk about things going through it - one of the purposes of skin is to NOT allow badness to go through it.  I've read a bit about perfumery, and one of the things that caught my eye was molecule size.  What they use in fragrance oils are bits and pieces, isolates, of scents.  Some of them are extracted from 'natural sources' other are created in a lab.  All of those used for skin application are tested for both leave on and wash off products - and then there's those that might go on lips, so they're tested for eating, of all things!  None of them are designed to permeate the skin.  Molecule size is only one way this is controlled.  I'm still researching, but I feel confident that, provided I stick to high quality suppliers, it's ok to want to smell like a blueberry


----------



## Aline (Jan 30, 2015)

I started out being a purist (my training being as an aromatherapist) but I do now use FOs as well as EOs and agree that  the amount left on the skin in soap is negligible. However, from my understanding, most of them are derived from petrochemicals (yes, some aroma chemicals come from natural sources but the majority not). That said, I bet the car fumes we breathe every day are _far_ more dangerous than FOs in soap!

That's a good point about molecule size, Anne. Breathing them in as perfumes is another issue of course.


----------



## mx5inpenn (Jan 30, 2015)

I wanted to use only EO for the natural side of things and because I often have issues with scents in candles and perfumes. I have scent triggered migraines and didn't want to purchase fragrance oils that I could react badly to. After some consideration, I have decided that when there is one I really want to try, a sample size isn't that expensive, so I won't feel bad getting rid of it if I can't use it.


----------



## Dahila (Jan 30, 2015)

Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) does not matter synthetic or natural from the tree, will kill me in about half an hour anyway.   I do not believe that Fo in soaps causes problems, it is washed out and there is not enough time to absorb it.  Essential oils not used properly are as dangerous as anything else. I am working with herbs (my passion) and combining them together for my use, for 35 years or so, and still one have to be careful , using them.  They are natural, are not they?:shock:


----------



## TRBeck (Jan 31, 2015)

I consider myself very environmentally conscious and health conscious. I prefer FO to most EOs for soap. Many of the reasons have already been enumerated, e.g. EOs as unregulated drugs, etc. Moreover, the production of EOs is often destructive to the environment (sandalwood and rosewood, I'm looking at you), and as many have pointed out in other threads, EOs are potentially dangerous to health in many cases, too. If you want to avoid phthalates, okay. I get it. Beyond that, I don't worry much.

Oh, and about the petrochemical thing: I would have to make and sell an awful lot of soap to do the environmental damage or use the amount of petroleum I use in a single car trip. Ride a bike to work and the grocer. FOs are a blip on the petroradar.


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Jan 31, 2015)

This has also really convinced me, too! Some amazing information, everyone - thank you. Also thanks to the op for starting it off.


----------



## claireobell (Jan 31, 2015)

I'm so excited now to try more FO! I just got a violet fo and was wondering if anyone has used it before? Does it accelerate trace and how much I'd need? This is a great thread because now I feel confident using FO's and it's gonna cost less! Bonus!


----------



## reinbeau (Jan 31, 2015)

Regarding using FOs - buy from reputable suppliers.  Read reviews.  Make certain you can get the MSDS sheets from them - if they don't have them, or give you some BS answers about why they make their own, run away.  I have found that cheap usually means just that - cheap, not quality, questionable ingredients and company policies.  I have my preferred suppliers, if anyone is interested, PM me.


----------



## hnelbach (Feb 3, 2015)

I stay away from FO's because they are synthetic and I prefer natural EO's.


----------



## Dahila (Feb 3, 2015)

hnelbach said:


> I stay away from FO's because they are synthetic and I prefer natural EO's.


There is a lot of syntetic things we use in life.  I tried with EO but they do not survive the high temps, so it is waste of money.  
I use FO for soaps and Eo for my creams and lotions only.  I add them when the temp is less than 45 Celsius so they remain in lotion.


----------



## biarine (Feb 3, 2015)

These days many are synthetic but not all are bad. Just think about sugar they're natural but it can harm you the same as salt. Like me I can't take natural vitamin E after 12 hours of taken it I will be breathless like I have an asthma attack but I can take a synthetic vitamin E with no problem.


----------



## cmzaha (Feb 3, 2015)

reinbeau said:


> Regarding using FOs - buy from reputable suppliers.  Read reviews.  Make certain you can get the MSDS sheets from them - if they don't have them, or give you some BS answers about why they make their own, run away.  I have found that cheap usually means just that - cheap, not quality, questionable ingredients and company policies.  I have my preferred suppliers, if anyone is interested, PM me.


Most MSDS sheet will not tell all the ingredients in a fragrance. They may list a few. Comes under Trade Secrets


----------



## reinbeau (Feb 3, 2015)

cmzaha said:


> Most MSDS sheet will not tell all the ingredients in a fragrance. They may list a few. Comes under Trade Secrets


Where did I say anything about ingredients?  There's lots of information on the MSDS sheet that's more important than the specific ingredients.


----------



## Stacy (Feb 3, 2015)

cdmusic68 said:


> I do feel better the more I read... And I want to convince myself to use them, lol.   There ate just so many brands and companies with so little information available.  Are there specific companies that you guys know of that are more... Let's say, Health/environmentally conscious?



I know you're specifically talking about FO's, but I'll offer my two cents and maybe it will be helpful. :smile:

I'm still fairly new to the whole soaping thing and I came in wanting to go 'all natural'. After a lot of research, trial & error I've changed my thinking. I'm not saying that's a bad thing or you shouldn't, but I'll share my takeaway from my never-ending research.

'All natural', 'Environmentally friendly', 'chemical free' and anything in that general category are HUGE marketing buzzwords and some companies will stretch to the breaking point to slap it on their products.

To paraphrase one of the lovely folks here (please forgive me, I've long since forgotten who): 'arsenic is natural but that doesn't make it's safe'.

If you make B&B products you know that preservatives which are completely not natural make a product safer than if they were excluded (I understand even that can be controversial, but as far as I'm concerned I've seen enough to consider it a fact).

After looking at marketing of personal care products with a critical eye, I got a powerful reminder that companies tell you the things they think you want to hear in order to buy their product.

For example, St. Ives Mission statement on Facebook says: St. Ives believes the most powerful ingredients can’t be created in a  lab.  In formulating our products, we use the most effective, fresh  ingredients sourced from nature – *with no unnecessary chemicals*.

First off,  'no unnecessary chemicals' is a ridiculous statement. As if other companies have the conversation "Our hand cream is fantastic, but the ingredients list is just too short.  Go back to the lab, and find a few things that we have some extra of and throw them in..."

This is their ingredient list for Hydrate Cucumber Melon Body Lotion
*Ingredients:*

              Aqua, Glycerin, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Cetearyl Alcohol,  Cetyl Alcohol, Glycine Soja (Soybean) Oil, Stearic Acid, Urea,  Tocopheryl Acetate, Butyrospermum Parkii (Shea) Butter, Cucumis Sativus  (Cucumber) Fruit Extract, Cucumis Melo (Melon) Fruit Extract,  Dimethicone, Cyclopentasiloxane, Cyclohexasiloxane, Carbomer, PEG-100  Stearate, Parfum, Triethanolamine, BHT, Phenoxyethanol,  Methylisothiazolinone, Caprylyl Glycol, Disodium EDTA,

That reminds me, I should water my Methylisothiazolinone and Cyclopentasiloxane plants. :wink:

My Mother has a bottle of Palmolive in her kitchen that says "Washes Away Bacteria from Hands" after I saw that I decided I needed to go look for some 'extra wet water' and possibly some light bulbs that 'brighten the darkness' if I could find them.

I know I'm picking on retail products and not suppliers, but at the end of the day it's the same thing. You have money to spend, they want it. Some companies will be upfront and honest, but you can't always tell who they are.

I've since decided to look at my ingredients individually not based on their source, but what they bring to the table and what if any risks they present. At the end of the day sometimes it still comes down to judgment, trial and error, because you can read 7 articles and get 15 different opinions. Still, that's part of the fun and the challenge to this kind of creative endeavor.


----------



## LBussy (Feb 3, 2015)

Stacy said:


> I know you're specifically talking about FO's, but I'll offer my two cents and maybe it will be helpful. :smile:



http://www.youtube.com/embed/M6xyV68KN5A?rel=0&start=93&end=99&autoplay=1


----------



## Earthen_Step (Feb 3, 2015)

FO's are a fake imitation of something real, EO's are the real deal.  It's like comparing some fresh picked strawberries to some sugar free strawberry candy.  Sure the sugar free candy makes me think of strawberries and it's probably not harming me.  But, the real strawberry is so much more satisfying and has some nutrients to boot.


----------



## girlishcharm2004 (Feb 3, 2015)

I have made synthetic vanilla when I was back in the chem lab.  Molecularly, it's the exact same as vanilla, but it lacks the "full body" flavor/smell as vanilla (the impurities in the pod give it more depth).  Like what Earthen Step said, it's a fake imitation of something real.  Personally, I have no problem using something that is the _exact _same molecular component as the real deal.  I mean, H2O is H2O no matter _how _you get it.  

My resistance to using fragrance oil lies with two factors.  One, fragrance companies don't have to disclose their ingredients.  Now there's phlalate-free fragrance?  Well, what else is in there that I don't know about?  Two, the people I sell to won't accept fragrance oils.  So, I can either find a whole new market, or just please the people that are already buying... If you sell, that's something to consider.


----------



## girlishcharm2004 (Feb 3, 2015)

P.S. Did you know that arsenic is an essential nutrient for growth?  The human body cannot live without it.


----------



## reinbeau (Feb 4, 2015)

Earthen_Step said:


> FO's are a fake imitation of something real, EO's are the real deal.  It's like comparing some fresh picked strawberries to some sugar free strawberry candy.  Sure the sugar free candy makes me think of strawberries and it's probably not harming me.  But, the real strawberry is so much more satisfying and has some nutrients to boot.


FOs use many components of scent that are derived from both natural and laboratory sources.  They also replicate scents that you _cannot_ obtain from essential oils.  There is no strawberry EO.  Soap is a wash off product.  While I use essential oils all the time as fragrance, I also use high quality fragrance oils.  They both wash down the drain.


----------



## LBussy (Feb 4, 2015)

So here's something that would be worth sharing ... because right now if you distill this down (no pun intended) to the core issues, nobody has said anything helpful.  I know (again) all the preferences all the members have, some prejudices, and to be honest some snake oil sales pitches.  What I don't know any more about after reading this is some tips on using EO's in soap.  Like, maybe share some things that work well in soap?  Because I experimented with them and after soaping they smell NOTHING like what I intended.  Some don't smell at all.

Until someone shows me how I can get an EO in my finished soap effectively; I see no options to use anything but FO, and therefore discount out of hand any arguments that EO's are better.

I believe in better living through chemistry, and I also believe natural things are different as Girlishcharm points out.  There's no question in my mind that the "impurities" create a character that is unachievable with current fragrance science.   I don't currently have the choice to use EO's so if you want to proselytize for natural scents, I need some help pulling it off.


----------



## dosco (Feb 4, 2015)

girlishcharm2004 said:


> P.S. Did you know that arsenic is an essential nutrient for growth?  The human body cannot live without it.



And hemlock is natural and will kill you.

Ricin, I suppose, could be considered a "natural product."

Lily of the Valley - check.

The other thing I would point out is that a lot of people seem to get wrapped around the axle regarding "chemicals." Everything that you eat, see, touch, breathe, and smell are chemicals.

Argh.

-Dave


----------



## Stacy (Feb 4, 2015)

LBussy said:


> http://www.youtube.com/embed/M6xyV68KN5A?rel=0&start=93&end=99&autoplay=1



I apologize if this came off as pompous or something. That wasn't my intent. My only takeaway from that was intended to be 'do your own research and don't depend on the sales pitches to make an informed decision'.


----------



## girlishcharm2004 (Feb 4, 2015)

dosco said:


> The other thing I would point out is that a lot of people seem to get wrapped around the axle regarding "chemicals." Everything that you eat, see, touch, breathe, and smell are chemicals.
> 
> Argh.
> 
> -Dave



Don't get me wrong, _anything_ can kill you -- anything.  Regardless if it's natural or not, if it is used improperly, it can kill you.

I don't have a problem with "chemicals" especially re-created chemicals.  That is, I don't have a problem with, say, distilling mud to get pure water.  Or copying an exact molecular from nature.

I do have a problem with "chemicals" that aren't found in nature.  While "everything that you eat, see, touch, breathe, and smell are chemicals", that does not mean that every atom on the periodic table is found in nature.  Also, the combinations of some of those atoms (molecules) definitely aren't found in nature.  While they may be seemingly harmless, I like long term studies before I put my trust in it.  How long did it take to discover that hydrogenated oils weren't all that they were cracked up to be?  Sure, hydrogen is a natural element, but not soybean oil with an extra H atom.

Someone had mentioned before that you *need* a synthetic preservative to make a lotion or it will go bad.  The thing is, water and oil don't mix.  Creating a synthetic substance to force them together in the first place is the problem.  That is where you need another synthetic answer to solve the problem you initially created.

This whole comment wasn't necessarily directed at you, Dave.  Just a general explanation because many people seem to use the line that not everything natural is good.  In my experience, while not everything natural is good, synthetic seems to _always _be bad.


----------



## Earthen_Step (Feb 4, 2015)

LBussy said:


> So here's something that would be worth sharing ... because right now if you distill this down (no pun intended) to the core issues, nobody has said anything helpful.  I know (again) all the preferences all the members have, some prejudices, and to be honest some snake oil sales pitches.  What I don't know any more about after reading this is some tips on using EO's in soap.  Like, maybe share some things that work well in soap?  Because I experimented with them and after soaping they smell NOTHING like what I intended.  Some don't smell at all.
> 
> Until someone shows me how I can get an EO in my finished soap effectively; I see no options to use anything but FO, and therefore discount out of hand any arguments that EO's are better.
> 
> I believe in better living through chemistry, and I also believe natural things are different as Girlishcharm points out.  There's no question in my mind that the "impurities" create a character that is unachievable with current fragrance science.   I don't currently have the choice to use EO's so if you want to proselytize for natural scents, I need some help pulling it off.




Mention what you have tried and maybe we can help.  I haven't had the issues you seem to be having.  Try mixing deep and/or medium with high notes together.  Citrus types scents seem to escape pretty easily if they don't have something hanging out with them.  Lemongrass and Litsea stay around nicely for citrus scents (from my experience).  Deep musky and woody or smokey EO's stay around nicely for me.  I have never used Orange, Lemon or Lime alone  -- I have read they don't stick around so I blend them with other things.  I have found even if the EO dosn't have staying power, if it's blended with things that do then the notes still shine through.

*The scents do alter over the cure.  Some scents fade a bit, some stick around more strongly.  To me that's part of the fun (seeing how it comes out), and replicating what cures into a masterpiece.

Also to everyone on the whole EO vs FO, I don't care in the least if any of you love FO's.  You truly have more options and can get some neat smells out of it.  But to me, I just don't like the smells.  I have smelled quite a few and much prefer EO's.  Go with what you love and are comfortable with  -- there is no wrong answer here IMO.  

*I'm also not all that comfortable with them


----------



## LBussy (Feb 4, 2015)

Stacy said:


> I apologize if this came off as pompous or something. That wasn't my intent. My only takeaway from that was intended to be 'do your own research and don't depend on the sales pitches to make an informed decision'.


Not at all!  I was just teasing a bit.  Any time someone gets on a soap box (and I do it most frequently) in my head I hear Gabby Johnson from Blazing Saddles yell "Raw Rawr!"  :-D


----------



## sabistarr (Feb 4, 2015)

There is a BIG argument that synthetic fragrances are causing allergies and sensitivities. Women's Voices for the Earth has a campaign asking manufacturers of b&b to at least declare their fragrance ingredients in labels. It might be a good place to start doing some research. I pinned their info graphic. 

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/10203536632439965/


----------



## reinbeau (Feb 4, 2015)

LBussy said:


> So here's something that would be worth sharing ... because right now if you distill this down (no pun intended) to the core issues, nobody has said anything helpful.  I know (again) all the preferences all the members have, some prejudices, and to be honest some snake oil sales pitches.  What I don't know any more about after reading this is some tips on using EO's in soap.  Like, maybe share some things that work well in soap?  Because I experimented with them and after soaping they smell NOTHING like what I intended.  Some don't smell at all.
> 
> Until someone shows me how I can get an EO in my finished soap effectively; I see no options to use anything but FO, and therefore discount out of hand any arguments that EO's are better.
> 
> I believe in better living through chemistry, and I also believe natural things are different as Girlishcharm points out.  There's no question in my mind that the "impurities" create a character that is unachievable with current fragrance science.   I don't currently have the choice to use EO's so if you want to proselytize for natural scents, I need some help pulling it off.


Howsabout you start a thread about using EOs effectively in soap - because this is specifically about *F*Os.  I can be very helpful with blends for EOs.  Have a 50/50 eucalyptus/spearmint soap curing on the rack as we speak, along with about five other lovely but differently scented batches 


http://www.soapmakingforum.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/


----------



## LBussy (Feb 4, 2015)

sabistarr said:


> There is a BIG argument that synthetic fragrances are causing allergies and sensitivities. Women's Voices for the Earth has a campaign asking manufacturers of b&b to at least declare their fragrance ingredients in labels. It might be a good place to start doing some research. I pinned their info graphic.
> 
> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/10203536632439965/


A good place to start doing research is an unbiased and authoritative source.  It is not correct to say fragrances are causing allergies and sensitivities.  It is however potentially correct to say that many people are allergic and sensitive to the chemicals in fragrances.  It may seem like a minor difference but the devil is in the details.  The first way implies that exposure to some chemicals induce unrelated allergic reactions.  This has often been alleged (multiple chemical sensitivity or MCS) but not proven by any widely accepted, peer reviewed studies.

A fairly impartial (and at least peer-reviewed) article describes fragrances as the leading trigger for contact dermatitis symptoms (Bouchez, n.d.).  They go on to point out that the rise, or apparent rise of allergic sensitivity reports, may simply because of the uptick of use (more use equals contact with more people with sensitivities.)

I have not seen anything in any authoritative source that indicates that synthetic compounds are any more or less likely to cause contact dermatitis.  One of the compounds shavers come into contact with most frequently that commonly causes contact dermatitis is Benzaldehyde.  This happens to be the chemical which makes almonds smell like almonds.   One compound which creates perhaps the most universal allergic reactions in a majority of people is urushiol.  This is found in mangoes, cashews, and of course poison ivy.

IANAD (I am not a doctor) but if something bugs you - don't use it.  To go on to say that some entire class of products is bad because a single chemical component causes you discomfort is not just wrong, it's bad science.

Ref: 
Bouchez, Colette (n.d.). Fragrance allergies: A sensory assault. WebMD. retrieved from: http://www.webmd.com/allergies/features/fragrance-allergies-a-sensory-assault


----------



## LBussy (Feb 4, 2015)

reinbeau said:


> Howsabout you start a thread about using EOs effectively in soap - because this is specifically about *F*Os.  I can be very helpful with blends for EOs.  Have a 50/50 eucalyptus/spearmint soap curing on the rack as we speak, along with about five other lovely but differently scented batches


Just as soon as I get done arguing here. :-D

I do like the mint/eucalyptus combo though!  But tea tree/eucalyptus oil is an allergen and a poison!  Eucalyptol is deadly in low doses!  Okay now I'm just poking things with a pointy stick.


----------



## reinbeau (Feb 4, 2015)

LBussy said:


> Just as soon as I get done arguing here. :-D
> 
> I do like the mint/eucalyptus combo though!  But tea tree/eucalyptus oil is an allergen and a poison!  Eucalyptol is deadly in low doses!  Okay now I'm just poking things with a pointy stick.


LOL!  I know you are.  Thing is you can be very, very dangerous with essential oils.  There is one soaper with a huge following making ridiculous claims about essential oils in her soaps that 'cure' things - all you have to do is keep it on your skin for two minutes.  Ya.  One of the EOs she's using is Pennyroyal.  A great big, huge no-no, particularly for anyone who is pregnant.  But she's got thousands, literally, who hang on her every word.  I'll stick to pretty scents and wash them off, thank you very kindly.
http://www.soapmakingforum.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/


----------



## hnelbach (Feb 4, 2015)

EO's have a flashpoint. If you stay at the flashpoint the EO's do just fine. That's my experience anyhow


----------



## ClaraSuds (Feb 5, 2015)

I was very prejudiced against fragrance oils before I took up perfumery as a hobby. Naturally I only was interested in perfumery from naturals and I did spend a small fortune and several years working with just these materials. But when I finally opened my eyes to the synthetics available as well I realised a few things.

- Many synthetics are simple reproductions of fractions of essential oils. Synthetic rose is so hard to do because rose otto contains thousands of compounds. All they can really pull off is synthesing some of the simpler ones known to give off various aspects of rose and jumble them together. But there is nothing in that synthetic that doesn't basically exist in rose otto itself. Whether that molecule bled from the petal of a flower or was created in a lab makes little difference. Many synthetics are nature identical. 

- There are some naturals which are so abhorrent in the way they are sourced there just isn't any justification for using them. Musks are the ideal example. Would I prefer to see the extinction of rare species or just use some basic synthetic musk? Hmm....let me think about that. Many of the simpler synthetic musks are clones of natural ones, they just aren't as complex because once again they are fraction, rather than a whole. Some synthetic musk compounds don't exist at all in nature and these are the ones that typically cause the most concern amoung health circles. These are also usually the highly expensive proprietary blends used in high end fragrance, so it's very unlikely you will ever encounter them in a bottle of BB fragrance. The cheaper ones are simple clones of natural compounds, no more evil than the naturals themselves. 

- Synthetic fragrance compounds (undiluted) are often so overpowering in their strength that they are used only in the fraction of a drop in blends. By the time you buy a fragrance oil from a retailer you are being exposed to mere microns of the substance in a very large quantity of inert oil.


----------



## shunt2011 (Feb 5, 2015)

We really can't convince you of anything.  I think it's a personal thing on what you want to use as well as your target market.  When I first started out I used only EO's and as time went on I was getting requests for fragrances that were only available in FO's so started adding those to my products and I can now say that for me personally my FO's outsell my EO's by a long shot.  Folks just seem to like Lilacs, Honeysuckle, Mango etc.   I still carry both but the majority is now FO's.  I do not use any with Phthalates though.


----------



## Susie (Feb 5, 2015)

OP-the bottom line is this:

If you have a moral objection, or an allergy to FOs, don't use them.  If not, and you want to try them...go for it.  The ones they make to use in soap are considered safe for your skin if used in the correct amounts.  Just like EOs.  Some EOs are not safe at higher percentages, either.


----------



## dosco (Feb 5, 2015)

girlishcharm2004 said:


> Don't get me wrong, _anything_ can kill you -- anything.  Regardless if it's natural or not, if it is used improperly, it can kill you.



Yes.

BTW I didn't take your comments as directed at me. My rant was exactly that ... a rant.



> I do have a problem with "chemicals" that aren't found in nature.  While "everything that you eat, see, touch, breathe, and smell are chemicals", that does not mean that every atom on the periodic table is found in nature.



With the exception of the heavier/unstable radioactive elements on the table ... *all* of the elements are found in nature.

Maybe what you were trying to say is that many synthetic compounds are not found in nature - with that I would agree.



> How long did it take to discover that hydrogenated oils weren't all that they were cracked up to be?  Sure, hydrogen is a natural element, but not soybean oil with an extra H atom.



OK but recall that when hydrogenation was invented various folks were looking for ways to preserve foods - back then they didn't have handy-dandy refrigerators, and people routinely went hungry. At the time it was revolutionary. Now we know that there may be some risks associated with the procedure.



> The thing is, water and oil don't mix.  Creating a synthetic substance to force them together in the first place is the problem.



Not sure where you're going with this ... but soap is a way to get water and oil to mix, no?



> In my experience, while not everything natural is good, synthetic seems to _always _be bad.



I guess it depends on how you want to define or quantify "bad."

-Dave


----------



## HoneyLady (Feb 5, 2015)

"Can someone convince me that FOs are safe?"

Well, can someone convince me that FOs are NOT safe?

As in most things, the difference between a miraculous cure and a poison is in the dose.  As Swiftcraftymonkey notes in her lotion making / cosmetic chemistry blog, one castor bean (from whence we derive castor oil for soaps . . .  *or* Ricin, a chemical weapon) can kill a human if ingested.  It takes 80-odd castor beans to kill a duck.  Castor plants around the edge of the garden seriously deter moles and gophers -- a really good thing in *my* gopher-overrun garden.  I don't eat the castor beans, and my kids are old enough to know better.

I remember as a kid there was a *huge* brouhaha about "HAIR DYES CAUSE CANCER IN WOMEN!!"  Turns out a woman would have to DRINK a bottle of hair dye per day for over a year to get cancer from hair dye.  I don't sweat it, don't drink it, and happily cover my gray hairs.  I mean, "platinum blonde" hairs! 

I talk to other soapers who refuse to use FOs because they are "synthetic", "chemical", or "not natural".  As has been pointed out, true floral scents are *incredibly* resource-intensive to make.  MILLIONS of flowers have to be grown and harvested (mostly by hand) to make small amounts of those oils.  Is that really the most environmentally favorable option?  Are herbicides of pesticides being used on those flowers?

EOs are naturally-sourced, but processed/distilled/extracted into a very concentrated product -- not really in a natural state.  And EOs are well known skin and bronchial irritants.  I routinely see "natural" soap makers using HIGH levels of cinnamon, clove and ginger in soap, to get the scent to stick.  At those levels, those oils may very well irritate body bits and pieces best left un-irritated!

Unless you're saving the hardwood ashes from your fireplace and cookstove (and, I assume, chopping all your wood by hand w/o a gas-powered saw,)and collecting rainwater for lye, our lye is a processed, lab-created chemical.  And why do we prefer that?  It's much less resource-intensive, and works consistently and reliably every time we use it.

As for petroleum . . . I wish more people understood this.  Petroleum-derived is not inherently evil.  Crude oils are carbon compounds, refined and processed many multiple times to achieve various products, the most refined being jet fuel.  Every time it's refined, something is left behind.  Carbon, paraffin, petrolatum, etc.  Think of the difference between kerosene, gasoline, and jet fuel.  Petroleum-derived means they are finding uses for those things taken out, rather than dumping them in land fills.  If using paraffin and Vaseline keeps it out of a land fill, and it works for your candles and chapped skin, why is it evil?  Because they got it on the way to making kerosene?  Do you prefer a wood burning fireplace, or coal-fired electricity for your light source?  If you want to DO something about petroleum production, lobby your congressman and find out WHY 50 different states have 45 different standards for gasoline.  Wouldn't ONE standard be more efficient, less costly, and (whoops) make sense?  I know, I know, congress =  sense doesn't compute!

If phthalates worry you, don't use them.  If FOs worry you, don't use them. If your customer base worries, don't use them.  I happily use FOs, beeswax and lard in my soaps, but I flatly refuse to use GMO oils.  I prefer organic, but having first-hand knowledge of THAT can of worms, I don't even sweat that.  If I can get it, great.  You pays your money, you makes your choice.  But make sure it's a thoughtful, informed choice.  Remember a majority opinion works well . . . only if you're a lemming.

I, too, prefer bright blue, cotton-candy scented soap myself, so there! Blue dye must be safer than red hair dye?  :mrgreen:

~HoneyLady~


----------



## Aline (Feb 5, 2015)

That's a very good point about petro-chemicals derivitives being simply carbon and not inherently harmful....


----------



## cdmusic68 (Feb 5, 2015)

Haha!  Wow I really started a debate!   I'm not inherently opposed to FOs.  I've always just hated that companies can call anything they want "fragrance" and leave it at that... As if I should just trust that.   

I've looked into some of the companies you guys mentioned, and some at least seem to be trying to offer "safe" FOs.   That is really all I want...  An effort/acknowledgement to be upfront about what is being offered.    But again it could just be some marketing ploy to put people like me at ease!  Lol 

I just come at everything from a very skeptical standpoint.   There are things that the FDA and other government organizations allow in our food and products that shock me sometimes.  So I rarely trust that something is "safe" just because it is allowed to be used for mass consumption.  

As long as I can find some companies that seem to have customers/consumers in mind (in addition to just their bottom line), then I think FOs are just too tempting to pass up


----------

