|
|
 |
|
       |
|||
 |
|
|
||||||
| [Editorial
Note: This series of correspondence arose out of my finding
another case of fraudulent propaganda initiated by Trevor Steyn,
manufacturer of Esse Organic Skincare, Enchantrix and Naturebabes/
Tom-e Tots supposedly ‘organic’ and ‘natural’ personal care products,
being a continuation of his strategy to malign all competitor’s
ingredients to fraudulently promote his own products, about which
he has far less to say, and when he does say, reveals a laughable
double-standard, but for the fact that human beings are at the receiving
end. This information is being filed here one year later as part
of an ongoing Gaia Research Institute public interest exposé, since
clearly nothing has changed -
its just business as usual – and thousands of infants continue to
be put at considerable risk. Please see “Consumer Awareness
Personal Care Toxicology: The Facts” posted here
(ST)] |
||||||
|
||||||
----- Original
Message ----- From: Stuart Thomson To:
info@naturebabes.co.za Cc: sales@naturebabes.co.za Sent: Wednesday, June 29,
2005 5:02 Subject:
Toxic Babies Dear Elizabeth, Retha & Pat If you or someone responsible for the business and website would get back to me in due course regarding the principled removal from or correction of Trevor's fraud as published on the "Other Products"/"Articles" page of your site [Naturebabes], we may be able to settle this amicably. I would suspect that the section titled "Our Organic Products" where you say: "Our range do NOT contain the following:" and subsequently: "NO parabens (used in preservatives) that mimic estrogen", "NO harsh surfactants like Sodium Lauryl/Laureth Sulphates" and "NO pore blocking petrochemicals" is intended to suggest that this fact (if indeed it is fact) is of some profound importance and as an extension of this declaration, that the ingredients listed below that (if indeed those be the only ingredients) are by comparison superior from a safety point of view. In view of the facts presented by me in the attached series of communications (with brief introductory page) [the Biofilth Enchantricks Series (ST)] between Anthea Torr and Trevor Steyn and myself over her attempts to disseminate the untruths originating from Trevor Steyn and appearing on your "Other Products"/"Articles" page, I would appreciate your consideration on removing or correcting such misinformation and conveying your decision to me. If you answered in the affirmative to the earlier suggestion regarding the supposed superiority/safety of your listed ingredients and decide to persist in publicly displaying fraudulent misinformation, then I believe you are setting yourselves up for a nasty shock, because the science of toxicology - in the correct context this time - indicates the contrary regarding at least one of your ingredients and your high and mighty delusion could crash-land publicly, rather than lead to a free educational module behind closed doors. My communication with Trevor Steyn today follows below. I look forward to receiving your informed response in due course. Regards Stuart |
||||||
| [Editorial
Note: The letter that follows, sent the same day, was pasted into
the above message. (ST)] |
||||||
|
From: Stuart Thomson To:
Trevor Steyn; anthea; info@naturebabes.co.za Cc:
toptotsdbv@iafrica.com; anthea Sent: Wednesday, June 29,
2005 2:39 PM Subject:
Trevor Steyn (Esse Organic Skin Care): Crusader or Creep? Trevor and Anthea Anthea, I wish to give you credit for coming to your senses at the 11th hour, saving you a humiliating and costly lesson in court, should you have continued to push the misinformation agenda as you originally intended. I remain disappointed at the fact that you published no subsequent corrections, but if that is your decision, then you will have to live with the knowledge that you are indeed fraud and a hypocrite. Trevor, Now that the dust has settled following your 1st round defeat around your false SLES, parabens and mineral oil propaganda, I want to take this opportunity to tell you what a cowardly little prick I think you are. Whilst I was coming down on Anthea as editor of Biophile for publishing your fraudulent promotional propaganda (to both of your advantage) and Anthea had asked you to defend your contentions to me directly, you retreated in the face of the challenge, leaving her to take the flack. Well Mr Know-It-All, I am still waiting and I must say, for a chemistry graduate, you either have pathetically low standards of research integrity, if your actually believed in the correctness of your propaganda piece, or you lack ethical integrity for putting out what you knew to be incorrect, for commercial expediency, or worse, both apply. I took the trouble to correct you on the science, so could you muster up the decency to tell me whether it was the research or commercial aspect that lacked integrity. I am unable to tell, since you were too cowardly to engage me, so on the basis of the evidence at hand, I am going to assume that it was in fact both aspects, and having brought this charge to you directly, reasonably assume your tacit acceptance that this is in fact so, pending evidence from you to the contrary. I had assumed that you were just a well meaning, but badly informed aspirant journalist, but a friend recently pointed out the commercial connection between you and the Esse product range. I realise that you fell out of the e-mail loop in mid-February, so for the record, I have added the complete series of exchanges between Anthea and myself. I have done a preliminary background search using your name and I find that you have posted your fraudulent propaganda not only on your own website, but also on those of others, so I am back to challenge you and your perhaps unwitting accomplices, to remove the misinformation or be publicly exposed as frauds. Having been appraised of the facts, you cannot at this stage claim ignorance. I am sure you are familiar with the adage "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones" and "you should not try to sweep another's porch until you have swept your own". I believe your utterances are actually more akin to "the pot calling the kettle black" and as such, you have now brought yourself under scrutiny and I don't think you realise how weak your pseudo-puritan position really is. You are hereby expressly invited to withdraw or correct (the latter perhaps a bit of a tall order) your fraudulent propaganda from public display, or face the numerous unpleasant consequences of failing to do so. I also came across a recent article quoting you in the Sunday Tribune magazine. It all looks very noble to the uninitiated. What a pity then that its all a fraud. Hypocritically you are quoted as "being surprised at the claims your previous employers made about their products in the absence of any (scientific) backing". You throw in words like "ethical" and "expertise" and then immediately fall back on fraudulently slating ingredients not used by you and that are therefore really none of your business, rather than attending to the thousand-fold to million-fold more highly undesirable aspects of what you, with your own products, are exposing your own customers to. The article states: "Trevor's website will, from next week, contain a list of suspect ingredients to watch for". I am documenting your compounding actions and will act accordingly. From my personal perspective, I note the use of fragile plant ingredients that ordinarily lose their biological integrity within minutes after being removed from their host cells, but no, you don't use modern science to stabilise these and prevent their degradation, you instead mix these highly oxidisable plant oils and other constituents into mini compost bins and suggest that the fraction not added to your skin on a daily basis for a fortnight be refrigerated so that this does not decompose further before your unsuspecting customer's actually spread the muck over their faces. Oh, you do use all the correct new age pseudo-religious terminology, including "anti-oxidant-rich", "organic" and "100% plant derived" and explain these as fighting the free radicals that damage the skin, all of which contributes to the feel-good factor that brings them back for more. No-one so duped into paying a small fortune for the privilege is, for a moment, going to suspect that they have seriously been ripped off...until now that is. The packaging concept is all good and well to a degree, with the upmarket packaged eco-friendly? mini aluminium coffins stored in the client's mini morgue, but the real truth is that the macadamia, hempseed, flaxseed and marula nut oils that dominate the products are in fact an ultra-rich substrate for the generation of trillions of times more free radicals than a skin without this rubbish would be subjected to and worse, that the rich anti-oxidants are within minutes actually functioning as potent destructive pro-oxidants in the oxygen and ultra-violet light rich environment outside of the mini compost bins arranged on their dressing-table and bathroom shelf. The more the
oils and or anti-oxidants, the more free radicals. You talk about
people not wanting to put rubbish on their skins, but that is precisely
what your products are reduced to, and are within mere hours, moreover,
toxic rubbish, comprising breakdown-products that would put your
maligned competitor's synthetic toxics list to shame. My paper is included in the attached series, should you be concerned enough to appraise yourself of the facts and actually do something about it, like use pure natural ingredients like chemically inert mineral oil as the spreading agent, parabens as the safest effective preservative and SLES as a means to make water, the universal solvent even wetter, so that it can cleanse without the need for dubious concoctions. Anthea, Our current truce is far from stable, so I implore you to clean up your act, lest you over-step the limit of my tolerance and force me onto the campaign trail once again. I really am sorry that you failed to meet the standards of integrity espoused by your magazine and websites, especially as far as claimed commitments to truth are concerned, but so be it. I have compiled our communications into a series, covered by an introductory page, seeing as this failed to be posted on your website as originally agreed. If I have omitted any pertinent communications, or if you have anything to add, I will consider re-arranging the series to accommodate that. Regards Stuart |
||||||
|
From: <pat@toptots.co.za> To:
director@gaiaresearch.co.za Sent: Wednesday, June 29,
2005 8:40 PM Subject:
Re: Toxic Babies Dear Stuart |
||||||
|
----- Original
Message ----- From: Stuart Thomson To:
pat@toptots.co.za Cc:
sales@naturebabes.co.za; info@naturebabes.co.za Sent: Thursday, June 30,
2005 3:37 PM Subject: Re: Toxic Babies Hello Pat Thank you for your prompt reply to my
e-mail. Whilst it was my intention to immediately
draw your and the other respondent's attention to the fraudulent
information on your and the Naturebabes websites, I did not mean
to cause a scare, so I apologise for that. Thank you for filling me in briefly
on the relationship between the educational and children care products
aspects of what is obviously quite a tight co-operation. At the outset, let me reaffirm that
it is the fraudulent information on both websites that is my primary
concern, since I know the information to be false and also from
where same originates. I believe that a perusal by you of my letter
to Trevor Steyn at the base of my first letter sets out my strained
relationship with Steyn over the source of and subsequent dissemination
of such misinformation. The hefty attachment to that first letter
definitely serves to establish beyond a shadow of doubt the extent
of the commercial fraud being perpetrated by Steyn and Anthea Torr.
You will not have to read far beyond the first few exchanges to be
in the picture. I will however briefly summarise my
concerns as having been irritated by the use, for commercial
reasons, of misinformation about perfectly safe substances
in the personal care products of others when properly formulated,
as I have done. The extent of the embroidery and downright
fabrication of scary tales around such substances is, to me, unforgivable,
hence my crusade to bring the perpetrators and accomplices accept
responsibility for their actions. The substances whose reputations are
most abused (without justification when properly formulated) are
mineral oil (petroleum distilate), sodium laurel ethyl sulfate /
laureth sulfate and methyl and propyl parabens. Your webpage is
disparaging of these, whilst at the same time leading to the impression
that your products are superior for not using these, where in fact,
the opposite might be argued, as I am prepared to do, and indeed
shall do, using one example to illustrate how incorrect such a position
is. There are peripheral issues that I may
or may not get into depending on how accommodating you and Retha
are, as far as my concerns are addressed. These issues include the
incompleteness of the ingredient disclosures - there is no way that
these products could be safe from serious microbial contamination
as formulated - if disclosure was complete. Another issue is
the claimed "organic" status of the range, again, on what
is disclosed, the products are not organic, within the definition
of "certified organic", as suggested by the reference
to the "certified" raw materials and under "Why
Organic". Once a certified organic material is processed,
or a non-certified material added, the product is no longer organic.
The bottom line is that the products are not organic and that to
suggest that they are, is also fraudulent, but this is not my concern.
I manufacture "natural" personal care products under the
name "Gaia Organics", under the auspices of the Gaia Research
Institute. I use the word "organic" only in the name,
without suggesting certification and thereby clearly signify
the alternate meaning of the word. The odd thing is that had I not been
attracted by the fraudulent aspects of the marketing of the products
as purporting to be superior, I would have no right to be interfering
in these peripheral aspects, but having been had these thereby drawn
to my attention, I as a citizen have the right, indeed duty to question
these, primarily as a result of having witnessed said fraud and
secondarily as a concerned citizen, regarding the real potential
for harm that I can clearly see as a result of marketing said
products specifically for toddlers. Retha makes reference to the
mentioned three ingredients used by her market competitors as though
these ingredients carry serious risks and that her/your products
are devoid of these or any other risks. Let me be quite clear from
the outset, that this is far from the case. I note with interest
that due to the absence of mineral oil, fixed vegetable oils are
resorted to, including wheat germ oil and even sunflower oil. I
cannot conceive of a worse choice of oils from a rancidity
point of view. Oxidation from the 21% of oxygen in the air, ultraviolet
light and other ingredients in the products rancidifies these oils,
generating a massive chain-reaction of free-radicals and toxic
substances far more scary than those relatively innocuous products
so maligned on the website. See document no.11 in the previously
attached series for a definitive explanation of this mechanism and
the extent of the toxicity and cellular damage. So as you can see, one thing leads to
another and now I am not only concerned about the fraudulent misinformation
and other suspect marketing claims, but am now also becoming emotionally
involved in considering what harm these babies and toddlers might be
being exposed to by regular use of these products. As the Naturebabes
website states: "Up to 60% of what we apply to our
skins and to our children's is absorbed into our bodies. As much
as 2kg of grime from creams, toiletries and sunscreens can be absorbed
into our bodies every year." Fortunately this
is a gross exaggeration, but yes, the main source of what will be
absorbed into these kiddies bodies will unfortunately be the specific
toxic breakdown products of the inappropriate natural/organic
ingredients comprising these products. Personally, I believe that
babies and toddlers ought not to be subjected to any substance
other that warm water for their cleansing needs. In days gone by,
cold water would suffice, but in today's chemical world, warm water
might be more appropriate, especially in colder climes. Cleansers
are only needed to remove the residues and breakdown products of
other unnecessary products used on the skin. The less these
products are used, the less cleanser is needed, a vicious
circle if the opposite applies, as will be the case with marketing
these products as so safe. If a parent understood that all exposures
should be limited to a minimum, then this otherwise overkill
scenario would not apply. Gaia Organics currently makes but one
kiddies product, a Happy Nappy Powder, and being a natural
dry powder, this absorbs toxins from the skin rather than imparting
toxins to the skin. I have for years been challenged to formulate
a baby range, but have resisted the temptation for obvious reasons.
I could most certainly do a better job at safe formulation than
your manufacturer has done, and this because of and despite
of my likely inclusion of mineral oil, sodium lauryl sulfate
and parabens. Such a product range would have to be minimalist in
application and hence not a money-spinner that a hyped range such
as that which currently exists represents, but then I believe
in service and safety before profit. I cannot dictate to you
what to do in this awkward situation. That is up to you and the
others involved. I am busy preparing a report on the
risks attendant to just one ingredient in many of your products, though
the toxic rancidity breakdown products is in fact a far greater long-term
risk, since this one product that I am focussing on is likely to
trouble only the most susceptible sensitive kiddies exposed to it,
trouble enough in itself as this might be. Might I suggest that
you draw your manufacturer's attention to my complaint regarding
the precipitating misinformation (esp that arising from the trouble-maker
Trevor Steyn) and then to my document no.10 for her perusal of the
detailed toxicity explanation therein as far as the breakdown products
are concerned. Personally I would demand that the whole document
be studied by all parties concerned. I do not for a minute suggest
that Retha has knowingly formulated and fraudulently promoted
the products in the way that it has been done, though, in my experience,
having done so, there is an understandable resistance to accept
that several serious errors have been made and that these need to
be corrected. The bottom line however is that earlier ignorance
is ultimately no excuse to continue as though enlightenment has
not dawned. I hope that this difficult situation might result in
a personal and consciousness growth experience for all concerned,
and that the kiddies will be the most blessed of all as a result
of our efforts. I will be content to see the results of my labour
result in truth being given its rightful place as the guiding principle
in the otherwise very noble venture that you and others are
engaged in. I cannot be certain that Retha is receiving
these communications, since I do not know which of the addresses
I have used will be reaching her, if all. Yours sincerely Love Stuart |
||||||
|
----- Original
Message ----- From: Esse To:
Stuart Thomson Sent: Friday, 01, 2005 9:50
AM Subject:
Re: Trevor Steyn (Esse Organic Skin Care): Crusader or Creep? Stuart Thank you for your input on the potential for lipid peroxidation in the products that I formulate. Although my products were tested for peroxidation at the outset and found to be devoid of peroxides, I am in the process of testing all the products that I manufacture at an independent research facility. I will let you know the results. Regards Trevor |
||||||
|
[Editorial Note: As of August 2006, ie
that is more than a year later, when this web-page was prepared,
there was still no communication of these results from Trevor Steyn
(formulator of Esse, Naturebabes/Tom-e Tots and Enchantrix products).
I will post here the moment this status quo changes and in the absence
of information to the contrary, think it only fair, given that more
than a year has already passed, to assume that Trevor had nothing
to gloat about as far as the results were concerned. (ST)] |
||||||
|
----- Original Message ----- From: Stuart Thomson To:
pat@toptots.co.za; sales@naturebabes.co.za; info@naturebabes.co.za Cc:
Trevor Steyn; anthea; anthea; info@esse.co.za Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005
2:46 PM Subject:
Psedudo Organic Kiddy Personal Care Products of Known Allergenic
and Toxic Potential Exposed. Dear Pat, As promised, attached herewith
is my report on just one of the widely used Naturebabes ingredients
that clearly negates their manufacturer's claims of being organic,
free of petrochemicals and most importantly safe for the exceptionally
vulnerable target age group and as such, renders their disparaging
aspersions regarding Sodium Laureth Sulfate and other ingredients
used by market competitors, myself included, a serious affront
that cannot go unchallenged and exposed for the fraud that it is
and the considerable potential for harm that it (Naturebabes' products)
presents to infants and toddlers. I shudder to think how many parents of
young ones might have induced varying degrees of allergic dermatitis
in their kids by using these products, many of which might
even have reluctantly eventually resorted to the pediatrician's
favourite remedy, the anti-inflammatory, yet powerfully immuno-suppressing
cortisone, some possibly long term due to the general intractability
of the condition once induced and especially considering that the
assurances of natural integrity and safety that accompany these
products might lead to these being least suspected as the cause, via
some sort of article of faith that users of such claimed products
ofter seem to espouse to. I have not received word from you
since my first mailing, nor have I heard from Retha, the manufacturer
of said products, who fraudulently markets these in an inappropriate
genre and thereby, due to the false clains of being natural, organic
and safe, actually puts this very vulnerable and innocent target
group at such risk. Would you kindly revert to me as soon
as possible (I think you have had a reasonable opportunity to have
perused my previous attachments) and appraise me of your position
in this matter. I do not wish to add your operation to my exposé
action list if you are indeed innocent of the fraud at hand
and are prepared to distance your operation from the dark side that
I have exposed you to. The same applies to your extensive distribution
list, who will be affected by your choice. Should they decide to
stick it out with Retha, who by her silence on this matter, as might
be expected, appears to be digging in her heels, then she and said
distributors would be entered on my exposé list. I am really
sorry to have to apply any form of pressure on you or anyone else,
but with Retha's and indirectly also your website spreading untruths
so detrimental to the legitimate operations of others, from a such
a "holier than thou" perspective, I think you can probably
understand my passion to correct such wrongs. I look forward to assisting you with
the way forward, if you so wish and to receiving positive word from
you in this regard at your earliest opportunity. Kindly confirm that one of
the addresses above is that of Retha, and if appropriate, what your
and her position is. Yours sincerely, Stuart Thomson |
||||||
|
----- Original Message ----- From: Esse To:
Stuart Thomson Sent: Tuesday, July 05,
2005 10:06 AM Subject:
Re Stuart Thank you for your mail raising your concerns about cocamidopropyl betaine. I must clarify that I use this ingredient as a co-surfactant at low concentrations. It is by no means the primary surfactant in any product that I manufacture. My primary surfactant is usually lauryl or decyl glucoside. Both ECOCERT and the Soil Association allow the use of cocamidopropyl betaine. They both ban the use of all sulphated surfactants. I work to their guidelines and have to trust that the two largest organic certifiers in the EU have done their homework in this regard. If you disagree with this ruling, may I suggest that you take the matter up with them. With regards to the information on the Esse website, changes will be made this week to make the site less controversial. You do, perhaps, have a point. It would be better to define the products by what they offer and not by what they don't. I must ask you to look at the websites of the following companies. They are all international companies that are either currently represented in this country or will be within the next few months. Living Nature (I am sure that you have noticed that they have appeared in a lot of health stores over the last six months), Green People (about to be relaunched), Aubrey Organics and REN. I think that events will need to run very smoothly indeed if any local manufacturers are going to remain in the organic body care market. All of these sites have a page that they dedicate to ingredients that they find contentious. My company is tiny and my current focus is on renewable energy in the form of wind turbines, evacuated tube water heaters and photovoltaic cells. It is my view that the personal care market will be inundated with international players in the near future and I am focussing my energy accordingly. Regards Trevor |
||||||
| |
||||||
|
----- Original Message ----- From: Stuart Thomson To:
pat@toptots.co.za; sales@naturebabes.co.za; info@naturebabes.co.za Cc:
Trevor Steyn; anthea; anthea; info@esse.co.za Sent: Wednesday, July 06,
2005 8:41 PM Subject:
Psedudo Organic Kiddy Personal Care Products of Known Allergenic
and Toxic Potential Exposed. Hello Pat I am somewhat surprised that I have not received word from you following my previous mailings, in particular the report that I prepared for you on Cocamidopropyl betaine. I would have thought that by now some discussions between internal parties might have taken place and you would be in a position to tell me to either to do my damndest or that you are proposing some changes regarding the issues I have raised with Retha and you. If I do not hear from you soon, I guess I shall be doing my damndest. I am even more surprised not to have received word from Retha. I assume that she is taking the cowardly approach of remaining silent so as to not negatively implicate herself further in the fraud being perpetrated. Now that you both have direct knowledge of the possible harm being done, there is in fact no backing out of the troublesome situation that Retha and yourself have created. I would encourage you both to take responsibility for your involvements, unwitting as this might have been until recently. Another group of ingredients in Retha's manufacturing that I believe you both need to be educated on is essential oils. In short, there should be no use at all of essential oils when formulating for infants, irrespective of how many layperson's aromatherapy books claim to the contrary. These are other people's defenceless children that are being put at risk whilst their parents are exploited by hype packaging and fraudulent claims as to the nature, quality and safety of these products to infants and toddlers. The enzyme systems of infants and toddlers are far from developed and functional to cope with exogenous toxins cutaneously entering the bloodstream, both the several synthetic substances in Retha's products and the volatile essential and oxidisable fixed oils with their potential for toxic by-products. I would think that even the National Department of Health would be alarmed at this reckless application of essential oils. I now have many serious reservations about the safety of Retha's formulations that she has so self-righteously pitched as superior to far safer options. I have prepared a second report (attached) of just one of the toxic (to infants) oils Retha has used. I look forward to receiving word from you both in due course. Yours sincerely Stuart |
||||||
|
|
||||||
----- Original Message ----- From: debbie@toptots.co.za To:
Stuart Thomson Sent: Thursday, July 07,
2005 9:14 AM Subject:
Re: Psedudo Organic Kiddy Personal Care Products of Known Allergenic
and Toxic Potential Exposed. Is this guy wacko? Are his facts correct?
If they are, I gather we have a slight problem, but reading the
e-mails, it looks as if he is looking for attention. I don’t
know too much about the scientific ingredients of the products,
but what he is saying is quite scary if it is true. How is Retha dealing with this? It must
be rather stressful for her. Are the lawyers actually dealing with this guy? Chat soon Have a great day. Debbie |
||||||
|
----- Original
Message ----- From: Stuart Thomson To:
pat@toptots.co.za Cc:
Trevor Sent: Thursday, July 07,
2005 11:40 PM Subject:
Pseudo Organic Kiddy Personal Care Products of Known Allergenic
and Toxic Potential Exposed Hello Pat, Retha and Trevor Pat, Let me at the outset say that I would very much like to remove your name from the respondents addressed herein. Whilst this is largely your call Pat, I do understand that the other two have somewhat looped you and your franchisees into their fraudulent marketing mischief, so I am sympathetic to your perhaps not being sure as to how to respond further following your initial goodlwill gesture to isolate your website from the mischief. I do think that you do also understand that things have now moved somewhat further than just the fraudulent marketing mischief, since I have in good conscience raised a few issues that rather seriously concern me over and above the marketing mischief, namely the actual safety, or rather toxic potential of the products that you up till now have innocently distributed for use on a rather highly vulnerable target group, namely infants and toddlers. It is this latter aspect that ultimately prevents me from effecting immediate closure with you over this unfortunate state of affairs, even if you were to somehow successfully extricate yourself from the marketing fraud being perpetrated on Retha's and Trevor's websites. I do really wish it were not so. Retha, Great, so now you put your rabid dogs on me. Somewhat of a joke really, since in their first attack, they resorted to little more than a lot of loud barking and served little other than to disturb the peace, and we all know how irritating that can be, especially to an already prejudiced well-meaning neighbour. Rather cowardly from your side too, given that I approached you rather directly in this matter and at that, with a rather easy solution to the then problem. As with Pat, things have, for the same reasons and more, moved on considerably since that initial diplomatic approach. Hoping that just not answering the door would suffice to turn an irate neighbour away and when this fails, letting the dogs loose, well that is just really putting your foot in the very shit your that favourite lapdog left so provocatively the pavement fronting the neighbour's domain. Now the really interesting thing is that the only defamation to date has actually arisen, or potentially so, from this third-party agent, to which I could add several charged legal expletives having no true bearing on this matter at all, other than to actually apply to you Retha, as accomplice and to Trevor as mastermind of said fraud. Trevor, Fantastic. The clot sickens! Now I am informed that you are actually far more deeply responsible for the fraud perpetrated on Retha's website than I had ever suspected, even given my suspicious nature. Well, my priority is first to try to help Pat out, then to sort Retha out and ultimately to bring you to book as the mastermind and kingpin behind this whole fraudulent scam. You have already revealed several hypocritical vulnerabilities that will receive my fuller attention in the near future. In the meantime, you know what where you have left piles of shit in the neighbourhood, that need to be properly cleaned up. If these are done properly, with due apologies to those offended and enabling the restoration of dignity to those deliberately soiled arenas, then you might be some way to having made amends for your fraudulent mischief. Your day of reckoning has just dawned and your willingness relinquish the lies and instead embrace the truth, will be the judge of what you have done and how that might rectified. Folks, enough kak now, let's get down to it. The longer this drags on, the more I discover and will expose the self-righteous hypocrisy that alerts me to further concerns, not only the extent of the fraud, but also the potential for harm beyond mere marketing strategies to what might be actually happening to who knows how many infants and toddlers during their bathing and grooming sessions by well-meaning parents who believe that they are best serving their precious offspring, but are in fact the victins of a commerical fraud. Incidently, here are the LD50 values for Eucalyptus oil compared to the most popular Parabens. I ran out of time and space to present these in my last report: Eucalyptus oil Rat Oral LD50 is 2,480mg/kg body weight (Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, United States, RTECS, Cincinnati, OH., 1998) Methylparaben Rat Oral LD50 is 5,600mg/kg body weight (Cosmetic Ingredient Review Program, Final report on the safety assessment of methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben, and butylparaben, CIRP, 3(5), 1984) Propylparaben
Mouse Oral LD50 is 6,300mg/kg body weight
(Lewis R, Sax´s Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials,
9th ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY, 1996) NB. There are some substances, such as eucalyptus (and tea tree oil), where humans appear to be more sensitive to their toxic effects on a g/kg body weight basis, than test animals (Regulatory Guidelines for Complementary Medicines – Part III, Therapeutic Goods Administration, 2003). It is clear from these comparatives that Eucalyptus oil is between twice and thrice as deadly as the parabens. In fact, as I pointed out in my initially attached series: "Following chronic administration, a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) in the rat of 5500 mg/kg is posited." Eucalyptus oil therefore is deadly at a dose at which Parabens produce no observable adverse effect. I also reported that: "Sensitization has occurred when medications containing parabens have been applied to damaged or broken skin. Yours sincerely Stuart
Thomson |
||||||
 |
EDITORIAL NOTE: The following document
was posted in response to Naturebabes proprietor Retha Botha’s lawyer’s
letter which I received by fax. Not being formally served on me,
I ignored the lawyers and posted this to all the previous respondents,
including also the author of the fax into the list of recipients
for the first time. The lawyer’s fax of demands is archived here
as a scan of the original. The following Memorandum deals
in response, with every single aspect, so nothing will be lost if
the Scan, a rather large file, is not downloaded. Needless to say,
nothing came of all the corny threats and Naturebabes too never
removed the false propaganda nor made any apparent changes to protect
the innocent infant and toddler recipients of their hazardous products.
|
|||||
MEMORANDUM OF INTENT 11 JULY 2005Apparently
there are some who think that my attempts to expose fraudulent marketing
practices in the field in which I am professionally active and further,
to motivate for greater responsibility amongst manufacturers and
marketers in this field towards increased consumer safety, is entertainment,
to some even a source of merriment, in spite of the topic being
that of evaluating and attempting to reduce risk to infants and
toddlers. To
those that have expressed appreciation at my efforts, I thank you.
I guess I am somewhat to blame for these communications having at
times come across as humorous in that I perhaps tried too hard to
put Pat and her franchisees at ease over the hostile crossfire they
have been subjected to this past while. Also, to those I might have
offended via the use of what to some might constitute vulgar language,
I apologise unreservedly. I will attempt to summarise
what is at issue here and what developments have transpired to date.
Please feel free to challenge me on the facts if you deem me to
have gotten anything significantly wrong or one-sided, since this
exchange may at some stage serve as legal documentation, possibly
as evidence in court of law. Some rather interesting facts have
only now come to light via a letter of demand from Naturebabe’s
lawyers. Background Part 1 TREVOR
STEYN, in BIOPHILE magazine, Issue-1 (Nov/Dec 2004), under a sectional
heading “CHECK YOUR LABELS”, is credited with authorship of an article
“RUB A DUB…DANGER IN YOUR TUB?” subtitled “Chemicals in your
personal care products may be affecting your health”.
On the same page, appeared an advertisement for “ENCHANTRIX
ORGANIC PRODUCTS”, the proprietor of which products, ANTHEA TORR,
also happens to be the proprietor and editor of the very same Biophile
magazine. The gist of Steyn’s tale is a fraudulent attack on the
safety of SODIUM LAURYL SULPHATE (SLS), using fabricated and false
(miscontextualised) propaganda designed to put competitor’s products
incorporating SLS into a negative light. To quote Steyn: “SLS
is used in approximately 82% of personal care products”. The
“NON-TOXIC”, “ORGANIC”, “ENCHANTRIX” product advertised on the same
page conveniently serves to address the reader’s dilemma. Note for
later relevance: SLS is an Ecocert approved cosmetic ingredient!
I,
STUART THOMSON, as Director of the “GAIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE”, whose
wide-ranging independent research is funded by personal care products
containing target ingredients on Steyn’s fraudulent hit-list, addressed
a 5-page letter (16 Feb 04) to Anthea Torr as editor of and proprietor
of Biophile magazine and Enchantrix products, correcting Trevor’s
misinformation about SLS, in particular providing proof of the outright
lies regarding the research of Dr Green in Trevor Steyn’s article.
Torr’s response was that I should “not sweat the small stuff”,
but also that she would “get Trevor (Steyn) to contact you (me)
directly and admitting that: “the issue is whether the
information printed in the magazine is correct” and requesting
that I “wait for Trevor’s information”. Well, 5-months later,
I am still waiting for Trevor’s obviously pathetic defensive information.
Both Trevor and all members on this mailing list have in the meantime,
received approximately 100-pages of my educational communications
illustrating that Steyn’s published information is not only wrong,
but also largely fraudulent and that this false propaganda marketing
strategy is actionable. Background
Part 3 Whilst
protesting the lies and misrepresentations in Trevor’s first article,
Issue-2 of Biophile repeated the theme, this time casting unfounded
suspicion on “PARABENS”, ingredients, that to quote Steyn: “are
used in more than 90% of personal care products”. The sectional
heading was: “READ THE LABEL”. Steyn ends his article, claiming:
“Research into the effect of daily exposure to these hormone
disrupters is not easily determined and it will be many years before
we see any resolution on this issue. In the interim there is a strong
consumer demand for products that don’t contain paraben preservatives”
(created in no small part by the likes of the fraudulent propaganda
emanating from Torr, Steyn and Botha. Conveniently, adverts
appear on that page, not only for Enchantrix, but also for “no
parabens” “ESSE ORGANIC SKINCARE”.
Background
Part 4 In
the absence of convincing help from Trevor, Anthea proposed a compromise,
namely an open debate in the Biophile magazine, with full record
of communications archived on the Biophile website. I agreed, but
the draft that was eventually submitted to me was so far from balanced
editorially, in fact it contained no corrections to the previously
most fraudulent information on SLS, so I had to insist that either
my full contributions at that time (a few pages) be published, or
none at all, at which point Anthea stopped communicating directly,
as I threatened court action if what I referred to as her the “hack
job” went to print. As it turned out, the article was, following
considerable delay, dropped from publication, by which time the
then communications, as initially provided to the members of this
list, totaled some 100 pages, being some argument submitted by Anthea
through a 3rd party, and my counter-arguments, in-house
educational material and my considerable efforts to impart an understanding
of the need to be highly specific about context and to constantly
maintain a sense of relative perspective, two essential qualities
that alarmists seem to utterly lack. Background
Part 5 Around
the end of June 2005, with Issue-3 of Biophile on the shelves, minus
a contribution by Trevor to the “Read the Label” propaganda column,
I quite fortuitously discovered that Trevor Steyn is the proprietor
of Esse Organic Skincare (hereafter just Esse, not least of
all due to the fact that the “organic” classification is suspect.
This led to my perusing the Esse website and to my conducting an
Internet search for the name “Trevor Steyn”. Not only did I find
Steyn’s earlier Biophile mischief hosted on the NATUREBABES website,
I also discovered, via an online Sunday Tribune Magazine article,
that Trevor is still up to his hypocritical self-righteous, holier
than thou, fraudulent alarmist marketing tactics, namely “Trevor
Steyn's website will, from next week, contain a list of suspect
ingredients to watch for”. Well, Trevor I am watching
and I intend to keep you mindful of the importance of truth in your
public dealings. It is not a stretch of the imagination to note
a cosy, unprincipled, profitable relationship between owner/editor/webmaster
information selection and control and commercial success. It
is my contention that in this case it is a lucrative unethical means
of penetrating and expropriating market share under false pretences,
in short, fraud. Background
Part 6 On
discovering Trevor’s mischief on the Naturebabes website, I approached
who appeared to be the senior management of the offensive site and
copied all the TOPTOTS franchisees, with a view to having Trevor’s
misinformation either removed from or corrected on the Naturebabes
website. Only Pat, initially, responded, explaining that her organisation
merely served as a sales network and that since Retha was responsible
for the Naturebabes website and the products, Pat would “remove
the link from our website relating to the organic range until we
know exactly what is going on”, a responsible co-operative move
that I did/still do appreciate. After further evaluation of the
Naturebabes website, I became disturbed at not only the self-righteous
double standards apparent on the site, but also the real potential
for harm that this hypocrisy represented for the product target
group of infants and toddlers and so I prepared reports on two ingredients
to illustrate how real science could put even the seemingly most
innocuous alternative ingredients in a relatively cautious light.
Background
Part 7 What
is really interesting to note is that whilst the responses to my
concerns over said deliberately miscontextualised and outright fabricated
alarmist information is generally blasé indifference, the response
by the perpetrators and those benefiting from said fraudulent marketing
strategy to my analysis of their suspect product self-classification
and my truthful revelations regarding the allergenic and toxic potential
of their supposedly superior alternative ingredients, is initially
cowardly silence, followed by a letter of demands from Retha Botha’s
lawyers. Also of interest is that in the course of making their
demands, I am (apparently) unintentionally informed that Trevor
Steyn is in fact the manufacturer of (suspect) Naturebabes’ products,
but is apparently not considered a good prospect for making legal
demands (one should not approach the court with dirty hands), so
the pretence of injured party apparently falls instead to Retha
Botha. Response The
fact that Retha Botha’s lawyer’s letter of demand was merely
faxed rather than correctly formally served by the Clerk of the
Court and also the pathetically formulated complaint and ridiculous
demands therein, leads me to the inevitable conclusion that
the intention was to hopefully scare me off, with the idiotic
demand that: “you (I) ‘equivocally’ retract your (my) allegations
contained in the aforesaid emails (29 & 30th
to this list)”. One
would expect a lawyer to know that the word “equivocal” means “two
or more interpretations and usually used to mislead or confuse”,
so why would I be instructed thus? Furthermore, the only specific
“offensive and defamatory statements” identified, are that:
“You (I) have ‘inter alia’ accused our (their) client of displaying
fraudulent information”. Well, Retha Botha, Trevor Steyn and
Kelvin Walker of Thorpe and Hands Inc, my contentions (not
allegations as you would have it) are “offensive” only because
they are legitimate and hence they cannot, by definition and the
principles of law be defamatory, so why are you wasting my valuable
time? If you really wish to test the merits of this case in court,
it would be my pleasure to oppose the order and any unlikely action
for damages, since you will then be forced to take responsibility
and debate the illegitimacy of what you have done against my efforts
to correct matters in the public interest. Not
only would such a course gratefully put the issues formally under
the spotlight, it would also serve to formally flush out Trevor
Steyn, who even now is cowardly putting Retha in the firing line,
as seems to be his modus operandi. In fact, so often is Mr Steyn
is mentioned, rather than Retha Botha, that I am lead to wonder
and remind myself as to precisely who the client is here. Also quite
surprising is several rather serious unfounded assumptions and
actionable false allegations that are leveled against me by Retha
Botha and her lawyers (which latter, being a juristic body, are
not exempt from charges or suit), namely: “you (I) have
seen fit to drag our client and anyone else associated or concluding
business with Mr Steyn into your (my) personal crusade against him”,
“your (my) correspondence is clearly aimed at undermining the contractual
relationship that exists between my client and the TopTots group
and its various franchisees and as same constitutes unlawful competition”
and “your actions are self-serving in that you (I) claim
to be capable of a better job”. Thanks guys for having put these highly contentious
allegations in writing for me. It
is regrettable that at this juncture, besides demanding that I cease
communication with this list of recipients and address the client
only through their lawyers (demands that I will not accede to) I
am informed that: “our client (which one) has no intention
at this stage of entering into a debate with you (me) pertaining
to the effectiveness of the skin care range in question”.
Are the lawyers just sloppy or are they and the client attempting
to shift the goalposts. One issue throughout my communications
has been the correctness or otherwise of presented information,
including to some degree that of quality (in this case “organic”)
claims, but my main issue has undisputedly been that of purported
product SAFETY rather than the “efficacy” issue introduced here
in their lawyer’s letter to the exclusion of safety. For some
unfathomable reason, reference is made to their claim that “the
products in question are all formulated according to ECOCERT’s guidelines”
as though this automatically imparts an acceptable degree of safety
to products targeting infants and toddlers. It is interesting, in perusing ECOCERT’s standards, that as with other so-called organics standards bodies, the underlying principles are philosophical rather than scientific and safety driven, other than adherence to the long-disproved fallacy that everything natural is safe and everything man-made is toxic. I believe my cursory analysis of just two ingredients in the Naturebabes range of products well illustrates how such guidelines can in fact lead to the manufacture and marketing of potentially troublesome and even life-threatening products to a highly vulnerable and inappropriate target group, where the vast majority of even synthetic mainstream products might actually be several orders of magnitude safer for such sensitive groups. If communicating the truth regarding the allergenic and toxic potential of two product ingredient causes such knee-jerk reactions from perpetrators and disseminators of such misinformation, should they and their lawyers not understand how much more their spreading actual misrepresentations and outright malicious fabrications might aggravate the likes of myself to put aside personally valuable time and resources to track down and expose the likes of them as the self-righteous hypocritical scum that they more often are than not. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
----- Original Message ----- From: Stuart Thomson To:
pat@toptots.co.za; sales@naturebabes.co.za; info@naturebabes.co.za Cc:
Trevor Steyn; anthea; anthea; info@esse.co.za Sent: Wednesday, July 13,
2005 6:55 AM Subject:
Psedudo Organic Kiddy Personal Care Products of Known Allergenic
and Toxic Potential Exposed. Hello Pat, Trevor, Retha, Anthea and list members Attached is my most recent exposé in this series. Isn't it interesting how untruth can serve as the catalyst for the emergence of truth and how thin the veiled pretence at organic safety actually is? I note that the mischief persists on the websites in question, so perhaps a wider distribution of the truth is necessary to offset the misinformation. I am inviting peer review input from respondents for possible correction of the texts prior to these officially forming part of the to be published "Biofilth Files". I regret the doom and gloom nature of these communications, but manufacturers and distributors ought to be knowledgable and remain mindful of the true nature of their products, especially when making comparisons with and being disparaging of the well defined product ingredients of others. Sincerely Stuart |
||||||
[Editorial
Note: Attached to this communication was a Gaia Research Institute
report titled: “Cocamidopropyl Betaine (CAPB): How Much Do
We Know About Its Safety/Toxicological Profile”, available
online here
(ST). |
||||||
| [EDITORIAL
NOTE: The communications ceased around this time as I tackled
new challenges. Since the false propaganda persists on the Esse,
Naturebabes and Enchantrix websites a year later and these products
remain unchanged to minimise, if not remove risks, I have decided,
in the public interest to again pursue the topic so as to set the
record straight and in an effort to save a lot of certain sub-clinical
harm being inflicted on who knows how many infants and toddlers
as well as likely unknown or untold illness and developmental harm
being inflicted, with parents and physicians not even suspecting
Cocamidopropyl betaine and Eucalyptus oil as causative agents, due
to the ‘natural’ and ‘safe’ claims made for these products.
What a wicked world we live in!
(Stuart Thomson)] |
||||||
 |
 |
|
 |
| |
||
|
||
| |
||
|
Gaia is copyright © 2006 Gaia all rights
reserved Designed by Webs The Way |
||
|
||
|
Page Counter as of January 2008 |