Micas and colorants, are they natural?

[Mobjack Bay]

You definitely got my attention with “benzene derivatives” and “toluene”. How is it that benzene, a known and regulated carcinogen, can be used in FOs? Is it a concentration/exposure limit determination or due to the form of the benzene? Toluene may be safer, but I still think of it as a solvent that has undesirable side effects. I have only just begun doing any kind of research on fragrance chemicals. I’m not a chemist, which means there’s a very steep learning curve ahead. I found a website/forum called “basenotes” that seems useful. And, I apologize for further side tracking a mica thread!

 

[TheGecko]

You definitely got my attention with “benzene derivatives” and “toluene”. How is it that benzene, a known and regulated carcinogen, can be used in FOs?

Because...they are using a derivative and not the full strength compound?

And, I apologize for further side tracking a mica thread!

It can't help but be expanded as one tries to define 'natural'. And along the same lines...'naturally occurring' and 'organic'.

I was asked what my definition of 'natural' was with regards to soap ingredients and sat for two hours writing and deleting and ultimately came up with a couple of pretty weak lines because regardless of what ingredients you use, soap is NOT 'natural' (or 'organic' or 'naturally occurring') to begin with...it's a chemical process.

I use Olive Oil, Coconut Oil, Palm Oil, Castor Oil, Cocoa Butter, Shea Butters, and a little Sodium Lactate and Kaolin Clay...this is my base recipe. Starting with my Olive Oil...is it less 'natural' because it's not 'extra virgin' or more 'natural' because it's not 'pomace'? Is by Cocoa Butter more 'natural' because it come in chunks instead of wafers or pastilles? It is more 'natural' because it hasn't been refined or deodorized?

I decided I wanted to try Coconut Milk in soap so I bought a couple of cans of organic coconut milk...certified organic, non-gmo blah blah blah. I opened the can and it was an opaque white and had chunks in it. I was confused. I've had fresh coconut milk before...it's clear and thin...like water. I looked at the label: coconut, purified water, organic guar gum. What the heck is 'guar gum'? It's a galactomannan polysaccharide extracted from guar beans that has thickening and stabilizing properties.

The SNIF soap makers use powders and clay...so I have a bunch of clays: Kaolin Clay, Rose Clay, a few Brazilian Clays. Clays are good right...it's basically dirt taken from the ground and put in a jar? Oh no...clays are processed too; the stuff you get in the jar (or bag) isn't quite what they take out of the ground...quite a few impurities in 'natural' clay.

So...my definition of 'natural'. I still don't have one.

 

[cmzaha]

I can't speak as well to soap colorants and fragrances as I can to food colors and fragrances because I worked for Big Food in regulatory and food safety for many years. We did what felt like a million focus groups on what consumers mean when they say "natural". There was very little consensus worldwide and even within the same region. I imagine that this is applicable to products you put on your skin as well as those that you consume.

In working with the FDA, it's unlikely that they will put regulations around "natural" because it truly is a hard word to define - even consumers don't understand it the same. Several years ago, I attended the FDA meetings to change the food code, and was able to sit in on a company's petition to define "natural" (as well as "clean" and a few other broad words). Their petition was heard, but it was also tabled pretty quickly. The word has been used historically for so long, and has so many definitions. Each company (food or cosmetic) has their own definition of what they consider natural. At that point, FDA would have to look at input from as many companies as possible and bringing so many different ideas to the table...Their goal is to protect the consumer, and it seems like the effort put into the definition would not be worth the amount of protection the consumer would receive. The FDA has bigger fish to fry. In most countries, a definition put together by a consumer products group wouldn't be enforceable, so you end up with the same concern - misinformation given to the consumer about what's in the product.



Some people actually are ok with the idea that a "lab-made scent" is natural...or at least nature identical. A lot of food on the market that is labeled with "natural flavors" contains a nature identical flavor ingredient. A flavor/fragrance house can actually make a flavor that, to the consumer, smells like red velvet cake, and contains compounds occurring in nature and extracted from fruits, vegetables, etc. This was absolutely amazing to me when I started working in food - a vial of the right compounds (natural or synthetic) can trick your nose into a lot of things!

A lot of R&D budgets go into this because the nature identical is actually much cheaper (and safer with much more consistent quality) than what they could get with only a natural powdered herb, for example.

This is also a good example of the difficulty that language creates in the discussion as well. When I hear "lab-made", I think of a processing area that follows good manufacturing practices. When someone else hears "lab-made", they see beakers of synthetic chemicals made from things like petrochemicals. I like my ingredients to be "lab-made" because it implies a level of quality and safety. However, I don't like the idea of beakers of petrochemicals in my food/cosmetics.



Just a quick note on this - "nature identical" fragrances are not always made from a man-made copy of the molecule. They can also be extracted from plant material and then standardized with other "non-fragrance" molecules (also "nature derived") to provide a consistency in fragrance, color, and performance.

A lot of R&D budget also goes into paying the people in the regulatory department to define what their version of "nature identical" actually is. The flavor/fragrance houses have their definitions, and the food and cosmetic companies have their own definitions. Some companies require that anything "nature identical" actually is a plant based extract, and not a synthesized compound that matches the one from the plant material.

Well, I've taken a simple mica question and good discussion and turned it into a science experiment...again...hope this information is helpful to the discussion and you aren't rolling your eyes at me for over-discussing things you don't care about

I personally like your long discussion. With my allergies, I have always preferred lab-created controlled over so many plant-based products including vitamins when I used to take them. My allergist always recommended I take synthetic vitamins, although I do not know if they are even available today since I quit taking vitamins many many years ago. Sure there are Synthetics I am allergic to, but there are many more plant-based I am allergic to. So I mention to people that not all synthetic is bad. I even like highly refined old fashioned vaseline and Aquaphor and so does my skin.

I label none of my products as "All Natual" especially my soaps which contain Edta and Sodium Gluconate, Micas and fragrances. I have only one product I would consider natural which is an E stick and I do not call it All Natual either.

 

[Nona'sFarm]

Thanks, @TheGecko, I understand your perspective better now.

 

[TheGecko]

Thanks, @TheGecko, I understand your perspective better now.

I’m glad you do, because I don’t.

I make soap...that’s what’s on the label...just “SOAP”.

 

[szaza]

When I started soaping I started out wanting to make natural soap (I think like the majority here) and quickly ran into the problem of defining what 'natural' actually means. I decided to drop the idea of making something natural and rather started thinking about biodegradability and biotoxicity.
Most of our soapy waste water will go through purification, so that will influence (and I expect lessen) harmful effects. Anyway, I did not feel like researching exactly what will be filtered out in such a plant, so I just went with the basic principle that I prefer my soap to be as easily biodegradable as possible. That said, though soap in general is considered to be biodegradable it should never be discarded in open water. The micro organisms that degrade soap live in soil, so soap will not biodegrade in water and soap can be toxic to aquaeous life.
I really need to research more, but this topic is so complicated it makes me shy away from starting a more in depth literature search.
Below is my very speculative reasoning and explanation for what I do and don't use in soap at the moment for those who are interested.

I was kind of lazy and stuck to plants and clays for colorants as plants are sure to biodegrade (that's why they fade or turn brown), while clay shouldn't cause trouble (I guessed) because it's just dirt right?.. (I'm honestly not 100% sure about this, I can't rule out the impact of the refining process on how the clay behaves).
Micas are not considered toxic to fish, though they aren't biodegradable and the safety sheet specifically says not to flush them down a drain (though I guess that's mainly for large quantities when dealing with spills in manufacturing facilities, not sure if it counts for the small quantities used in soap). I had flashbacks to visiting the cote d'azur and seeing how the seawater was glistening with body glitter and didn't want to contribute to anything similar. Maybe the water purification plant will filter out micas, but I like using plant colorants anyway so I never really bothered to find out how harmful washing a small amount of mica down the drain could be. I do intend on researching ultramarines and oxides once I get bored with plants though.
I found an article on titanium dioxide that stated the environmental effect was not established enough to say it was fully safe, though the benefit of using it in sunscreen outweighed the possible environmental cost, which lead me to abandon TD in soap all together, since it has no health benefit in soap like it does in sunscreen (read the article 2 years ago and didn't safe it, so unfortunately cannot link to it)

For fragrance I use essential oils, which are a biohazard in their pure form. I had difficulties finding proper biodegradability/biotoxicity info (or maybe I searched wrong?) and pretty much just assumed it would be safe when diluted enough (that's how they naturally occur, in very small doses, again not sure at all, just speculations). When I travel to a country with less environmental protection or when I go camping I take an unscented bar of soap with me, just to be sure.
I'd love to use FO's at some point, but I think finding info on environmental impact of FO's will be even harder than EO's since the recipes will be guarded by the manufacturers.

So in short.. thinking about biodegradability/biotoxicity has helped me go around the problem of defining 'natural', though it doesn't make deciding what to use easier.
I'd love to hear if anyone else has done research into environmental impact of handmade soap..
(Sorry about the long post)

 

[TheGecko]

I found an article on titanium dioxide that stated the environmental effect was not established enough to say it was fully safe, though the benefit of using it in sunscreen outweighed the possible environmental cost, which lead me to abandon TD in soap all together, since it has no health benefit in soap like it does in sunscreen.....

But is it fully unsafe? Just because something is not proven to be safe, doesn't make it unsafe.

From Scientific Reports 09/2016 Article Title: Titanium dioxide nanoparticles strongly impact soil microbial function by affecting archaeal nitrifiers

First Paragraph: Soils are facing new environmental stressors, such as titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2-NPs). While these emerging pollutants are increasingly released into most ecosystems, including agricultural fields, their potential impacts on soil and its function remain to be investigated.

I really dislike articles like the above. First all, the title suggests that there IS a problem, but when you read the article, you find out that there MIGHT be a problem...but they don't know for sure. In the meantime, they have freaked a lot of folks out because it's a long-ass article an most folks will only read the title. Second is that the TD used in soap making is TiO or TiO2...NOT TiO2-NPs. But again, how many folks are going to understand the distinction? And while TiO2-NPs MIGHT be bad for the environment, is TiO or TiO2?

No, TD has no 'health benefit' is soap...it is used as a coloring or lightening agent. By the same token, I haven't read anything to suggest that using madder root or rose clay has any health benefit either; as far as I can tell, they along with other clays and powders are used as colorants. And from what I have read, any health benefits that may be in some EOs are lost during the saponification process. Even if you were to add...say Tea Tree EO to the end of HP...how benefit are you really getting with a wash on/rinse off product?

 

[Mobjack Bay]

@gecko

The sentence you underlined above is from the Abstract of the paper, which is here. Knowing that is important for context. The purpose of the abstract is to provide a short summary of the study, including the topic, research question, methods used, major results and conclusions. Authors are usually limited to 200-300 words. In the context of the abstract, the first two sentences are the introduction of the topic. It’s the last sentence in the abstract that provides the conclusion: “These results appeal further research to assess how these emerging pollutants modify the soil health and broader ecosystem function.” I think it’s also important to remember that the paper is written for other scientists, not the general public or soap makers. I like the title because it succinctly puts the focus on the nature of the effect and the mechanism.

 

[szaza]

But is it fully unsafe? Just because something is not proven to be safe, doesn't make it unsafe.

Nope, I also never said as much. There are hints it might not be environmentally safe, which is enough for me to not use it for now.

I think the article I mentioned reading 2 years ago was about non-nano particles of titanium dioxide focussing mainly on sunscreen, but it's been too long to be entirely sure. I remember it was difficult to find research on non-nano particles which was why the article stood out to me and why it was ambiguous in whether or not TD was harmful for the environment. All research I found on nanoparticles was less ambiguous.

From Scientific Reports 09/2016 Article Title: Titanium dioxide nanoparticles strongly impact soil microbial function by affecting archaeal nitrifiers

I just read the abstract and skimmed through the article you mention and it seems they say the full effect of titanium dioxide nanoparticles isn't known despite it being widely used, so they decided to do research into it and they found the aspect(s) they investigated here to have a negative impact (as they mention in the title). They also seem to be quite certain of this negative impact.
The sentence you point out seems to be meant as a justification for the need for their research rather than uncertainty about the environmental impact they describe in the title.

By the same token, I haven't read anything to suggest that using madder root or rose clay has any health benefit either;

Haha obviously not. I was juxtaposing TD in soap to TD in sunscreen where it does have a health benefit (protection against sunburn and cancer), not suggesting other soap colorants might have healing powers.

 

[SmockingRN]

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

If you want to be technical...soap is NOT 'natural'. Soap does NOT occur in nature...it can't be grown, it is not born, it can't be mined from the earth. It's the ending result of a chemical process (saponification) of combining fats with lye. Sodium Hydroxide is more 'natural' than soap because it is naturally occurring: lightning strikes tree, tree burns, tree turns into ash, rain falls through ash and the resulting liquid is Sodium Hydroxide.

Mica in itself is a naturally occuring mineral, but it has no color...it's a greyish white; it is then combined with iron oxides, ultramarines or dyes. Said iron oxides, ultramarines or dyes are chemically processed or produced to make them safe because not all 'naturally occurring' stuff is good for you...like uranium and arsenic.

Please forgive for my quibbley comment, but under certain conditions, soap IS natural. I remember reading about human bodies found to be preserved for centuries by the formation of adipocere, or grave wax. It’s grim, and maybe gross, but it is truly natural saponification.

 

[TheGecko]

@gecko

The sentence you underlined above is from the Abstract of the paper, which is here. Knowing that is important for context. The purpose of the abstract is to provide a short summary of the study, including the topic, research question, methods used, major results and conclusions. Authors are usually limited to 200-300 words. In the context of the abstract, the first two sentences are the introduction of the topic. It’s the last sentence in the abstract that provides the conclusion: “These results appeal further research to assess how these emerging pollutants modify the soil health and broader ecosystem function.”

I was clear to point out that what I copied was from the first paragraph, but whether it’s what I underlined, or the last sentence as you have relayed...the point is the same. The title makes a definitive statement, both our copies says that more research is needed.

I think it’s also important to remember that the paper is written for other scientists, not the general public or soap makers. I like the title because it succinctly puts the focus on the nature of the effect and the mechanism.

But the public and soap makers ARE reading these papers, as evidence by this discussion and they are making decisions based on them. AND again, they are discussing TiO2-NPs, NOT TiO or TiO2 and there is a difference.

 

[dndlyon]

I was going to check out on this one and just lurk, but then someone brought up nano particles

As mentioned above, TiO2 isn't always a nano particle, and a lot of things that we use to make soap (micas for example) can be nano particles other than TiO2 - it has to do with size. Smaller particles of a compound, element, chemical, etc. may act differently than larger pieces of the same compound. A food example - you may see maltodextrin or "may contain dairy" on powdered juices. Very small particles of maltodextrin or whey powder can act as flow agents, keeping the juice powder from clumping. The same ingredient with a larger particle size may actually cause clumping.

TiO2 is commonly brought up when we talk about nano particles because very small particles of TiO2 provide a lot of benefits that larger particles do not (mostly in giving color and opacity to food and cosmetics).

There just isn't enough evidence right now to say that all nanos are bad, or all nanos are good, and the idea that smaller particles behave differently opens up a discussion about safety testing. If it was done on larger particles, are the results valid for nano particles of the same compound, element, chemical, etc.?

In general, it's too early to know much for sure. The food industry (at least in the US and EU) is trying to remove it where they can (mainly in an effort to be ahead of potential legislation and/or consumer wants), but like the trans fat thing, it has caused a bunch of problems in meeting consumer expectations - they need to find a replacement for that nano material that provides the same benefit.

Here's the latest position from the FDA for cosmetics if you're interested.

 

[Katie68121]

I know this is an older thread, but im a new soaper and this question has been one unanswered in my mind. It seems like micas that are synthetically made are not natural, especially if pigments are added to them, therefore it would be best to not put all natural on the label. Maybe its best to leave all natural out completely and just let your ingredients speak for themselves?

 

[GemstonePony]

I know this is an older thread, but im a new soaper and this question has been one unanswered in my mind. It seems like micas that are synthetically made are not natural, especially if pigments are added to them, therefore it would be best to not put all natural on the label. Maybe its best to leave all natural out completely and just let your ingredients speak for themselves?

If you're in the USA and want to stay in the "true soap" category, that's probably best. It's hard to both hype the quality of your ingredients and avoid making any cosmetic or medicinal claims that may subject you to additional laws and regulations.

 

[paradisi]

Mica as it comes from the ground is translucent/lightly iridescent gray. Looks like window glass. Not remotely colored. The process of binding synthetic colors to it isn't remotely something that could happen in nature or by 'minimal processing'.

But then, the sodium hydroxide soapers use isn't found in nature either.
That doesn't make them bad or dangerous.

I feel funny about suppliers telling me micas are natural, or that silicones are "all natural made from sand!" .. it's desperate sounding.

 

[TheGecko]

I know this is an older thread, but im a new soaper and this question has been one unanswered in my mind. It seems like micas that are synthetically made are not natural, especially if pigments are added to them, therefore it would be best to not put all natural on the label. Maybe its best to leave all natural out completely and just let your ingredients speak for themselves?

The Mica itself is 'natural'...it is mined. But as noted by @paradisi, Mica is a light grey to light brown color.

But let's be honest here...anything that comes from the ground, excepting plants, isn't completely 'natural'...it's processed. From all those fancy clays, oxides, even Dead Sea Salt from the Dead Sea gets processed and/or treated in some fashion to removed bits and pieces and otherwise harmful minerals...like arsenic.

@GemstonePony - I use FOs and Micas and I make True Soap.