Vegan Palm Free Soap

[Lin19687]

Referring back to the original post, here is a recipe I like.
8% Castor Oil
25% Cocnut Oil
15% Cocoa Butter
52% Rice Bran Oil

I'm curious if you have gotten any DOS with this high a RBO ?
I just was playing with my recipes and did a 34% RBO, it also it the only Liquid oil in it. And I wondered about DOS with that high.

 

[lsg]

No, I get my rice bran oil from Riceland and have never had a problem with DOS. It is food grade oil so I use it to cook with too. If you are worried about DOS, you can add some rosemary oleoresin to your soap.

 

[emi]

@Dean - If you look for certified organic, then by default you are buying GMO free (100% organic or raw products - manufactured products are a slightly different thing *see below)

(When it's certified organic, it is registered with a certification body and has a certification number, which will be clearly displayed on the label of the product. )

Below
https://gmo-awareness.com/2011/05/05/is-organic-always-gmo-free/

So I'm confused about GMO. If I'm correct, the general thought against GMO is that if you mess with the genes of one plant, that'll mess up the whole ecosystem and environment. The really controversial one is glyphosate (round-up) weed killer which, if I'm understanding things correctly, kills anything green and is sprayed all over farms then they genetically modify the crops they are trying to grow so that it is resistant to the round-up. I think this is all connected to Monstanto? So I see the issue there. But then I'm also learning that just making hybrid vegetables or even "grafting" is technically considered GMO since GMO just means genetically modified organisms and there's many ways to modify genes. There seems to be some evidence that GMO is very useful too. Anyway it's pretty confusing and I'm wondering if some of the non-GMO controversy is maybe a little blanketed and isn't so black and white that all GMOs are bad? This is one of the videos I've seen that makes me question that all GMOs are bad.



There's tons of videos and info out there but it's hard to know what to trust and what is really scientifically based. Some people (certainly not implying anyone in particular) can be quick to jump onto band wagons about certain issues, like the anti-MSG movement which seems there is no real science behind that claim. It's rough because I often agree with some of the issues at hand, but the stereotypical militant extremists that love to make self-righteous claims to shame everyone and deem themselves superior makes anyone making "alternative" choices look bad. I do understand that GMO and MSG are totally different. Just an example of trend-claims. I'm just trying to understand really what the GMO issue is all about. I'm learning that it's more layered than it seems.

 

[SaltedFig]

So I'm confused about GMO. If I'm correct, the general thought against GMO is that if you mess with the genes of one plant, that'll mess up the whole ecosystem and environment. The really controversial one is glyphosate (round-up) weed killer which, if I'm understanding things correctly, kills anything green and is sprayed all over farms then they genetically modify the crops they are trying to grow so that it is resistant to the round-up. I think this is all connected to Monstanto? So I see the issue there. But then I'm also learning that just making hybrid vegetables or even "grafting" is technically considered GMO since GMO just means genetically modified organisms and there's many ways to modify genes. There seems to be some evidence that GMO is very useful too. Anyway it's pretty confusing and I'm wondering if some of the non-GMO controversy is maybe a little blanketed and isn't so black and white that all GMOs are bad? This is one of the videos I've seen that makes me question that all GMOs are bad.

There's tons of videos and info out there but it's hard to know what to trust and what is really scientifically based. Some people (certainly not implying anyone in particular) can be quick to jump onto band wagons about certain issues, like the anti-MSG movement which seems there is no real science behind that claim. It's rough because I often agree with some of the issues at hand, but the stereotypical militant extremists that love to make self-righteous claims to shame everyone and deem themselves superior makes anyone making "alternative" choices look bad. I do understand that GMO and MSG are totally different. Just an example of trend-claims. I'm just trying to understand really what the GMO issue is all about. I'm learning that it's more layered than it seems.

Genetic selection
Genetic selection (even manipulated by selecting "the best" seeds for a particular trait) is not excluded from organic growing - this is a technique that has been used by farmers for many thousands of years and just on a personal level I use it in my home garden to grow heirloom vegetables (open pollinated, old varieties) to select plants that grow best in my area ... they are still the same vegetable, but my 5th generation of that vegetable is going to be slightly different (and more valuable to my neighbours) than the same vegetable grown in the same way a thousand kilometres from me (this old technique is called localization, and is a form of genetic selection, rather than direct modification).

Grafting
I also use grafting, to join the two plants from the same plant family (usually from the same species, but not always). An example of how this is used is to control the rate of growth of a fruit tree - the dwarf fruit trees that you can buy are grown on a very sturdy rootstock (the part that grows in the ground), and the grafted top is from a tree that might otherwise grow too tall to easily harvest, but has the very best fruit. This technique is used for a variety of reasons, including to provide disease resistance or to allow a plant to grow in conditions more difficult than the standard tree could tolerate. It can also be used for vegetables.
The important point with this is that the genetics of the fruiting top remain the unchanged by growing it on a different rootstock (which is how multi-graft trees work - you can have many different varieties of fruit on the one tree - they keep their genetic differences, so the fruit of each variety remains distinct from one another). Grafting is also allow for organic crop growing.

Hybrid
Hybid vegetables are fairly common, and it is the original way that our (now) heirloom varieties of fruits and vegetables came about. A hybrid is where two known varieties are grown next to each other and cross-pollinate. The seeds of this cross pollination is a hybrid, and when grown on will be like children - they will each have varying traits they've inherited from their parent plants. For crop growing, some of these crosses are valuable (they may be juicier, or stronger, or bigger, or tastier ... etc.), but the seeds of these first crosses tends to be variable (it takes a few generations of growing to stabilize traits), so there is a hybrid numbering system used to denote that the plant is a hybrid, which tells you that if you save the seed and grow it on, it may or may not (most likely not) come out like the original plant. On a commercial level, the cross-pollination process is industrialized (but effectively the same concept) - this is still plant breeding and is acceptable for organic growing.

Genetic modification
Genetic modification is where gene's within the organism are directly manipulated (rather than using breeding techniques)
In the example you gave, roundup ready crops were genetically modified to gave glycosphate resistance using genetic traits of a bacteria.
The concern is that these modifications are transferable and inheritable (for plants, wind and insects are two common vectors).

Glyphosate
Glyphosate itself has proved to be more toxic to mammals than originally thought (the pesticide has been in use for about 40 years).
Aside from any cancer concerns for users of the product, the product doesn't discriminate by insect species, so all insects (including bees) are destroyed.
In addition to this, there is an increased risk of pesticide residue on crops that have been genetically manipulated to resist the pesticide. A withholding period (which is the amount of time prior to harvest that a crop is not to be sprayed) is used for food crops, but there have still been instances where glyphosate residue has been found in products made from these crops.

CRISPR/cas9 & cas13
This is an even newer form of genetic modification, that allows for very rapid (and much cheaper) development of genetic modifications.

Genetic modification is not restricted to plants. The ethics around gene technologies are still being debated, and vary between countries.
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/12/...-losing-track-of-gene-edited-crispr-patients/

Where the problem currently lies with GM, is that we simply don't know enough about the permanent outcomes of the changes we are making (yet).

CRISPR, for gene splicing, has been around for less than a decade.

This might be something you'd like to read: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17594864/crispr-cas9-gene-editing

 

[Crazy Beaver]

Does anyone here that sells soap see any advantage in going palm free? Do you get people asking for palm free soap?
All my soaps contain palm oil and am thinking of trying shea butter as a replacement. I need to decide whether or not to go palm free before I submit for cosmetic testing

I do sell soap and have for over 6 years. I do get asked for palm oil free options as people are not well informed about palm and that it can come from a certified sustainable source, which all of my supplies do, and would even if I was just making it for myself. It seems to come in waves those that ask for palm free, of which I make some anyways, like a lard soap for eg. I do have a vegan palm free as well, but I just prefer vegan soap with palm in it. I dont have time to wait for long cures and there is someone else making it already and she doesn't seem to sell much. I use lots of different oils in soaps on a regular basis and have tried thousands of combinations without palm. I just prefer to use it, lesss hassle for me. I don't use soy at all, that would go over here worse then the palm. Lol

 

[emi]

I recently joined a vegan forum and learned this about palm oil:

"The World Wildlife Fund argues that supporting sustainable palm oil does wildlife more good than boycotting palm oil entirely. Why? Because conscious eaters pressure companies to conform to ethical practices. Without people like us, the unconscious, uneducated or simply unfortunate majority will happily eat cheap unsustainable palm oil because they either don't know or don't care. It's the same mentality of people like me who promote vegan products because when there's a market for vegan it spreads and permeates culture. That's just how capitalism works, no matter what the ideal would be, sustainable palm oil and vegan fast food are preferable to same old same old."

Any thoughts?

Genetic selection
Genetic selection (even manipulated by selecting "the best" seeds for a particular trait) is not excluded from organic growing - this is a technique that has been used by farmers for many thousands of years and just on a personal level I use it in my home garden to grow heirloom vegetables (open pollinated, old varieties) to select plants that grow best in my area ... they are still the same vegetable, but my 5th generation of that vegetable is going to be slightly different (and more valuable to my neighbours) than the same vegetable grown in the same way a thousand kilometres from me (this old technique is called localization, and is a form of genetic selection, rather than direct modification).

Grafting
I also use grafting, to join the two plants from the same plant family (usually from the same species, but not always). An example of how this is used is to control the rate of growth of a fruit tree - the dwarf fruit trees that you can buy are grown on a very sturdy rootstock (the part that grows in the ground), and the grafted top is from a tree that might otherwise grow too tall to easily harvest, but has the very best fruit. This technique is used for a variety of reasons, including to provide disease resistance or to allow a plant to grow in conditions more difficult than the standard tree could tolerate. It can also be used for vegetables.
The important point with this is that the genetics of the fruiting top remain the unchanged by growing it on a different rootstock (which is how multi-graft trees work - you can have many different varieties of fruit on the one tree - they keep their genetic differences, so the fruit of each variety remains distinct from one another). Grafting is also allow for organic crop growing.

Hybrid
Hybid vegetables are fairly common, and it is the original way that our (now) heirloom varieties of fruits and vegetables came about. A hybrid is where two known varieties are grown next to each other and cross-pollinate. The seeds of this cross pollination is a hybrid, and when grown on will be like children - they will each have varying traits they've inherited from their parent plants. For crop growing, some of these crosses are valuable (they may be juicier, or stronger, or bigger, or tastier ... etc.), but the seeds of these first crosses tends to be variable (it takes a few generations of growing to stabilize traits), so there is a hybrid numbering system used to denote that the plant is a hybrid, which tells you that if you save the seed and grow it on, it may or may not (most likely not) come out like the original plant. On a commercial level, the cross-pollination process is industrialized (but effectively the same concept) - this is still plant breeding and is acceptable for organic growing.

Genetic modification
Genetic modification is where gene's within the organism are directly manipulated (rather than using breeding techniques)
In the example you gave, roundup ready crops were genetically modified to gave glycosphate resistance using genetic traits of a bacteria.
The concern is that these modifications are transferable and inheritable (for plants, wind and insects are two common vectors).

Glyphosate
Glyphosate itself has proved to be more toxic to mammals than originally thought (the pesticide has been in use for about 40 years).
Aside from any cancer concerns for users of the product, the product doesn't discriminate by insect species, so all insects (including bees) are destroyed.
In addition to this, there is an increased risk of pesticide residue on crops that have been genetically manipulated to resist the pesticide. A withholding period (which is the amount of time prior to harvest that a crop is not to be sprayed) is used for food crops, but there have still been instances where glyphosate residue has been found in products made from these crops.

CRISPR/cas9 & cas13
This is an even newer form of genetic modification, that allows for very rapid (and much cheaper) development of genetic modifications.

Genetic modification is not restricted to plants. The ethics around gene technologies are still being debated, and vary between countries.
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/12/...-losing-track-of-gene-edited-crispr-patients/

Where the problem currently lies with GM, is that we simply don't know enough about the permanent outcomes of the changes we are making (yet).

CRISPR, for gene splicing, has been around for less than a decade.

This might be something you'd like to read: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17594864/crispr-cas9-gene-editing

Wow this was so informative. Thank you. I understand that organic certification allows for grafting, genetic selection, hybrids. Can I assume though that this means when things are labeled "GMO free" it is referring specifically to the direct gentic modification and not concerning itself with hybrids, grafting, genetic selection. Therefore GMO free is a lable we should seek and trust?

 

[TeresaGG]

Therefore GMO free is a lable we should seek and trust?

More like seek and verify rather than seek and Trust.
I don't know if this holds true for GMO but I know it's true for certified organic, In the USA, If the product is a combination of local ingredients and imported ingredients from an area that does not have certification then if the local product is certified it can be labeled as certified even if the imported portion is actually not organic. This is often the case with honey.

 

[Meena]

That demand may eventually spread to the US.
Just make sure your soy wax is non-GMO and advertised as such or you will run headlong into another wall of resistance.

I am the bulwark of that wall...

Tricksters!

I wonder what people are using to make all the organic soy candles on the market.

If somone is aware of certified non-gmo soy wax suppliers, please post site on this thread.

If such an actually non-GMO soy wax could be found, I would be happy to try it.

Anyway it's pretty confusing and I'm wondering if some of the non-GMO controversy is maybe a little blanketed and isn't so black and white that all GMOs are bad? This is one of the videos I've seen that makes me question that all GMOs are bad.



There's tons of videos and info out there but it's hard to know what to trust and what is really scientifically based. Some people (certainly not implying anyone in particular) can be quick to jump onto band wagons about certain issues, like the anti-MSG movement which seems there is no real science behind that claim. It's rough because I often agree with some of the issues at hand, but the stereotypical militant extremists that love to make self-righteous claims to shame everyone and deem themselves superior makes anyone making "alternative" choices look bad. I do understand that GMO and MSG are totally different. Just an example of trend-claims. I'm just trying to understand really what the GMO issue is all about. I'm learning that it's more layered than it seems.

Mr. Tyson is not a reliable source. Grafting and hybridization are not the same as Genetic Modification. Grafting and hybridization have been going on through much of human history, and pose no threats or problems.

GM plants have genes from other plants, animals, insects, VIRUSES, and other such wondrous items spliced into the genes of the target plant. Much of genetic modification has revolved around either, 1) causing a plant to manufacture its own pesticides. When this is done, the pesticide is inside the entire plant and can't be washed off, etc.
2) creating a 'food' plant that can withstand the application of the powerful herbicide, glyphosate, which then kills everything but that 'food' plant.
GMO food has been scientifically proven to have an altered and inferior nutrition profile. This means that you can google and find side-by-side comparisons of the nutritional components of 'natural' plants versus the GM version.

The further problem is that glyphosate kills soil bacteria and microorganisms which are NECESSARY for the plant to uptake and/or manufacture the nutrients that YOU DEPEND ON being there when you eat, otherwise your belly is getting full but your cells (to collapse your body system into one word) are not getting what they need to sustain your LIFE. At a certain, probably unknown critical mass, the soils on this planet that have been subjected to glyphosate/roundup will NOT be able to produce nutritious food or maybe no food at all! GOODBYE HUMANS!!

So I'm confused about GMO. If I'm correct, the general thought against GMO is that if you mess with the genes of one plant, that'll mess up the whole ecosystem and environment. The really controversial one is glyphosate (round-up) weed killer which, if I'm understanding things correctly, kills anything green and is sprayed all over farms then they genetically modify the crops they are trying to grow so that it is resistant to the round-up. I think this is all connected to Monstanto? So I see the issue there. But then I'm also learning that just making hybrid vegetables or even "grafting" is technically considered GMO since GMO just means genetically modified organisms and there's many ways to modify genes. There seems to be some evidence that GMO is very useful too. Anyway it's pretty confusing and I'm wondering if some of the non-GMO controversy is maybe a little blanketed and isn't so black and white that all GMOs are bad? This is one of the videos I've seen that makes me question that all GMOs are bad.



There's tons of videos and info out there but it's hard to know what to trust and what is really scientifically based. Some people (certainly not implying anyone in particular) can be quick to jump onto band wagons about certain issues, like the anti-MSG movement which seems there is no real science behind that claim. It's rough because I often agree with some of the issues at hand, but the stereotypical militant extremists that love to make self-righteous claims to shame everyone and deem themselves superior makes anyone making "alternative" choices look bad. I do understand that GMO and MSG are totally different. Just an example of trend-claims. I'm just trying to understand really what the GMO issue is all about. I'm learning that it's more layered than it seems.

MSG is an "excitotoxin" - https://www.google.com/search?q=MSG...rome..69i57.5662j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[SaltedFig]

Wow this was so informative. Thank you. I understand that organic certification allows for grafting, genetic selection, hybrids. Can I assume though that this means when things are labeled "GMO free" it is referring specifically to the direct gentic modification and not concerning itself with hybrids, grafting, genetic selection. Therefore GMO free is a lable we should seek and trust?

Sorry I missed your earlier post. You're welcome

Yes, that is correct - GMO is specific to direct genetic modification (not hybrids, grafting, genetic selection, etc.).
(refer my post #65 for details)

 

[Atihcnoc]

Post your favorite vegan and palm-free recipe. Mine is here.

Hi Dean, I try to see your favorite recipe without success, your link opens in a Soapee page with this message:

"Private Recipe
This recipe has been marked as private and can only be viewed by the owner."

Can you please write your post here in the forum or can you please send it to me?

Thank you.