Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 17,
2008 10:14 PM
Unprofessional jealousy leads to unnecessary attacks
We have been using Gaia for
many years, and are frankly shocked to hear that you have been slandering
this company. There are enough people really hurting this world
without the good guys attacking each other. We can't all agree with
everything others do, but please put these differences behind you
and focus on the real bad guys.
Helping to build a peaceful future
A Response to Gaia "Organics"
We have decided, after many requests from our customers, that
it is time for Enchantrix to respond to the allegations of
Mr Thompson of Gaia Organics in his literature and on his
We do not follow the ethos of fighting
fire with fire or 'an eye for an eye', as we would all be
blind, but we do think that it is time for a simple, but clear,
explanation of how we see the dialogue that has come from
Mr Thompson. Mr Thompson reacted very strongly to an article
published in Biophile 3 years ago about the dangers of using
parabens and sodium laurel sulphate in personal care products.
By his own admission he does not use organically certified
Please note that Mr Thompson:
* Uses parabens, which are banned by every organic certification
body in the world.
* Uses petrochemicals (mostly mineral oil), which are also
banned by all organic certification bodies.
He has no definable complaint about
In Europe or America he would be taken
to court for claiming to be "organic" with no foundation.
We have found that our best response would be to continue
manufacturing products that are formulated to international
organic standards. Enchantrix manufactures strictly according
to Eco-Cert France, which is the strictest organic certification
in the EU.
We've cleared preservative efficacy
testing and we have also cleared oxidation testing after his
claim that our products are oxidizing in the bottle.
Please be assured that we at Enchantrix
are deeply concerned about the damage done to our planet and
all life on her. We are a transparent company, with nothing
to hide or fear. All our ingredients are listed on our products
and we are continually researching the latest world trends
in the organic cosmetic and household industry, and updating
our formulations to ensure that we supply safe, stable and
efficacious products. Only a minute % of our ingredients are
synthetic, to allow for stable, preserved products, and these
are allowed by Eco-Cert France.
Original Message -----
Stuart Thomson [mailto:email@example.com]
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:15 PM
Authors; anthea; firstname.lastname@example.org
email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Tim Jackson; Chris Erasmus;
email@example.com; A Rossouw; Smart Attitude
What warrants the title of a 'safe natural and/or organic external
personal care product'?
Secret Authors [and Mrs Anthea Torr (Enchantrix
& Biophile magazine) and Mr Trevor Steyn (Esse
Organics) as affected respondents]
communication is intended to open and stimulate an honest debate
around the issues of what actually warrants the title of a 'safe
natural and/or organic external personal care product'.
To all recipients, I apologise for the intrusion. Whilst I would
appreciate your considered attention, should anyone communicate
a wish to be removed from future circulation, I will oblige them.
Authors, thank you for your e-mail communication concerning the
Biophile/Enchantrix statement titled: "A Response to Gaia
Organics" (retained at the end of this thread).
You wrote: "Dear Stuart (ST). We have been using Gaia for
many years, and are frankly shocked to hear that you have been slandering
this company. There are enough people really hurting this world
without the good guys attacking each other. We can't all agree with
everything others do, but please put these differences behind you
and focus on the real bad guys."
Secret Authors of the above communication, perhaps you and the authors
of the Enchantrix statement provided in your e-mail might wish to
consider my factual responses hereto as follows:
A) to your appreciated anonymous comments (soft-core issues); and
secondly, B) to the nonsense put forward in the statement by cowardly
anonymous entities, whose utterances, as opposed to your characterisation
of my actions as slanderous, really are, as I shall explain, libellous,
and unlike my clearly identified public statements, are purposely
made anonymously and thereby difficult to action (hard-core issues).
Please note, on a technical point, that your slander comment is
itself defamatory, since, as with Enchantrix, it constitutes communication
of statements making false claims, expressively stated or implied
to be factual, that may harm the reputation of myself, my institute
and my business, for reasons I shall clearly set out below and formally
serve all three respondents hereby. Readers are encouraged to persevere
through and so avail themselves to the important information to
be revealed in part B
A) Secret Author's comments:
If you are at all informed, which should include familiarity with
my catalogues and website as these have evolved over the years,
you will know that I have expended much personal effort counter-attacking
and fending off the very real dark forces that have made it their
business to interfere with the public's right to health freedom,
which other than Gaia Organics, was and is unsponsored and is archived
in several years of back-issues of Health Counter News, several
SABC "Options" programs and even more comprehensively
at the following links:
work continues unannounced (because I now work alone, unfettered
by any vested interests) and has, by way of just one example, recently
led to the resignation of the Head of the Law Enforcement Unit of
the Medicines Control Council / Medicines Regulatory Authority with
the Department of Health, under evidence of unlawful harassment
and fraudulent regulatory activity. Perhaps one day, if I find the
time, I will write up and post this documentation on my website
for the public record. Lest I now digress too far, let me however,
return to the main topic at hand.
This whole debacle started when Anthea Torr, proprietor of Enchantrix
products and proprietor and editor of Biophile magazine, published
a strategically selected series of articles in her magazine, maligning
three ingredients that I have used for the past 17 years, firstly
in my Rainbow Organics and later in what evolved into my Gaia Organics
range of products and the proceeds of which exclusively fund the
independent activities of my Gaia Research Institute. Apparently
anticipating my imminent demise as a result of these articles, though
Gaia Organics was not specifically mentioned, Enchantrix did nevertheless
unashamedly plagiarise my decade old slogan: "Earth, People
and Animal Friendly", merely altering one word in sequence
I have publicly posted all my correspondence
with Anthea Torr and Trevor Steyn here: http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/biofilth.html
and here: http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/naturebabes.html
My full expose' launch index on personal care toxicology topics
is posted here: http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/personaltoxicol.html
The background to this organic
scam was a fraudulent marketing strategy first used by the Neways
company in the USA, a mainstream pharmaceutical-based multi-level
marketing company wishing to gain an upper hand on their competitors,
who set out to falsely malign the most common denominator ingredients
used in virtually all personal care products and making available
free misinformation packs, free web-space and free web-authoring
tools to all their then approximately 40,000 agents, thereby succeeded
in flooding and saturating the Internet with scare-mongering propaganda
ranging from partial truths to totally fabricated untruths. The
list is a variable one, usually comprising of 10 ingredients, my
three being the class safest internationally.
Given the sheer mass of repetition of the misinformation involved
and a wave of copycat competitors following suite and joining in
on this scam, this false propaganda soon became urban legends, increasingly
popularly abused by a new breed of vendors, all purportedly formulating
and manufacturing products free of a list of allegedly undesirable,
if not toxic ingredients, copied closely from the Neways misinformation
pack. Chief culprit in South Africa for deliberately spreading this
garbage is one Mr Trevor Steyn, who it turns out, not unexpectedly,
has considerable vested interests as proprietor of Esse Organics
and product formulator of several other ranges, again not unexpectedly
all using his lucrative pet strategy, from which he accrues royalties.
Contrary to the pretence that Mr
Steyn manufactures his own products and that of others, including
Enchantrix, Naturebabes, Pure Beginnings, or that they manufacture
theirs, none do so at all. Interestingly, all are or were formulated
by Mr Steyn, but most, if not all are manufactured in a single factory
that was not owned or managed by Mr Steyn and which manufacturer
has now dispensed of Mr Steyn's services and will likely be re-formulating
most, if not all but Mr Steyn's range, with my voluntary assistance
having already been sought and granted. Regrettably, the old Neways
Strategy will still be evident for the foreseeable future, since
it is the veritable goose that lays the golden egg and all have
nothing special to offer bar their pseudo organic / toxic scams.
Secret Authors, prey tell, how
and when have I been "slandering this company"?
Why are you, rather than they, taking me to task for such alleged
untruths and why only now? Why is it that you place blind faith
in such a desperate statement, which is so obviously (at least to
me) attempted damage control arising from my numerous factual expose',
when all I was doing was simply attempting legitimate damage control
arising from their non-factual, indeed fraudulently miscontectual,
when not actual maliciously fabricated misinformation? The simple
facts of this matter are that when any personal care vendor uses
false or miscontextualised information that even indirectly casts
aspersions on my integrity or my products, I shall publicly expose
Clearly, because said and other parties still to be named and shamed,
continue to use said misinformation strategy, I am perfectly within
my rights to investigate and expose their dishonesty and double
standards. It is not my fault if they come off rather badly as a
result of something that they have initiated, or continue to come
off badly as long as they continue with such mischief. It could
even be said that they have done not only me, but also consumers
a favour, since it is not in my nature to be hostile, unless attacked
first. A review of all my communications will verify this, at least
as far as personal care products and hence a potential vested interest
might exist. Personally, I believe that I am now offering a valuable
service to consumers by said expose'.
So who are "the good guys
attacking each other" and who are "the real bad
guys"? Simple really. It’s just a matter of determining
who is misleading and endangering consumers. Clearly, on the preponderance
of the evidence, I am not the bad guy. My products are totally honest,
as or more natural, as or more organic, safer and also more efficacious,
when these parameters are determined comparatively with those of
the 'holier than thou', allegedly superior, but fraudulently 'chemical
free' products. These new kids on the block do not have even a rudimentary
understanding of real-life toxicology, including that of their own
usually far more questionable blindly copied and or hype ingredients,
and yet have the cheek to pontificate on those of others.
Lastly, the ill-chosen subject title of your e-mail: "Unprofessional
jealousy leads to unnecessary attacks"! These
are strong words and under the circumstances, I must insist that
you explain yourself, or withdraw the allegation. I have already
dealt with the issue of who attacked who, and perhaps also sufficiently
on professionalism, but "unprofessional jealously",
how do you arrive at that allegation? Unprofessional jealousy of
who or what? I am jealous of absolutely no one and certainly of
none of the heretofore-mentioned parties. I am not a businessman.
I am a professional researcher and activist. The Gaia Organics products
merely serve to fund the independence of my institute and of these
world class-leading products, I am very proud indeed.
B) Enchantrix's Biophile statement:
"A Response to Gaia Organics":
The first paragraph puts this entire statement into perspective.
Clearly this is primarily about 'customers' concerns over my various
revelations concerning the honesty and safety of the Enchantrix
products. Why now? Perhaps my efforts at revealing the pure truths
in this matter are finally gaining ground. Perhaps the injustice
inflicted upon myself and others whose perfectly legitimate ingredients
were so widely and unfairly demonised and maligned, even after I
appraised the editor and author (Torr and Steyn) of errors of fact
publicly conveyed by them as truth, are finally coming to trial
by an affected public jury. Attempting to trash the messenger, rather
than rebut the message, is all the confirmation I need to consider
my position fully vindicated.
Note the next statement: "By
his own admission he does not use organically-certified ingredients".
Why use the negatively loaded word "admission". The
more correct expression would have been "declared" (that
I do not use organically-certified ingredients), but this would
have reduced the conclusion of the paragraph to a non-event. Why
should I pay some business to issue me with a meaningless certificate
and have to pass on the expense to the consumer? There are so many
arbitrary and hypocritical double-standards attendant to the largely
non-scientific approvals criteria, that certification has itself
become a veritable fraud, let alone the ineffectual inspections
and oft cheating participants, both at the material supplier and
Note that Enchantrix and Esse Organics
do not have Ecocert Certification, but merely claim to manufacture
"strictly" to Ecocert standards. The simple truth
is that they would not meet the corny certification criteria, let
alone keep up with all the crap that would be required if they were
to receive and maintain organic certification, which is why they
have resorted to claiming to have some products certified by the
Biodynamic and Organic Certification Authority (BDOCA), who's Mr
Tim Jackson confided to me that certifying the likes of Enchantrix
and Esse Organics would involve watering down the already less strict
BDOCA certification criteria even further. It is clear to me that
this whole claimed "Organic" status is nothing but a marketing
the next plea to readers, to please note that I (Mr Thomson) use
"banned" parabens and petrochemicals,
let me deal with these misleading claims and the implicit lies made
* "Uses parabens, which are "banned"
by every organic certification body in the world."
ST: I have dealt extensively with this here: http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/parabens.html.
Clearly, based on the preponderance of rigorous scientific evidence,
it is an incontrovertible fact that laboratory synthesised methyl
and propyl parabens are 100% nature-identical and are the safest
effective preservatives available. It is also a fact that Ecocert
standards allow the use of parabens, including in ingredients.
I quote from Ecocert's Standards for Ecological and Organic Cosmetics:
“6. The following preservatives can be used: 4 hydroxybenzoic
acid, its salts and esters” (parabens). Clearly it is
blatant false rhetoric when Mrs Torr and Mr Steyn proclaim parabens
to be "banned by every organic certification
body in the world". Libel claim no. 1.
The choice of the 'loaded' word "banned"
by Steyn and Torr is deliberate and illustrates their utter desperation
to create a false negative impression. Perhaps confusion arises
from permitted "optional information favouring the claim
that parabens has (sic) not been used", but the word "banned"
is not used by Ecocert, who make provision for parabens by "special
derogation". If the status of parabens were at some stage
to change to disapproved or prohibited by certification companies,
then that would merely become another example of the arbitrary nature
of their standards, particularly now that methyl and propyl esters
are being confirmed as naturally occurring in both the plant and
animal kingdoms (e.g. both are in cloudberry and royal bee jelly).
2. * "Uses petrochemicals
(mostly mineral oil) which are also "banned"
by all organic certification bodies".
ST: I have dealt extensively with this here:
Once again, Mrs Torr and Mr Steyn have deliberately set out to mislead
consumers. The facts are that mineral oil is not "banned"
or prohibited. Ecocert
standards allow the use of mineral oil. Its use is merely
discouraged in line with Ecocert's policy to emphasise raw materials
from contemporary plants and animals, rather than from fossils thereof.
It is also a fact that mineral oil is a permitted acknowledged useful
ingredient in the production of such favoured raw materials. If
it were to be prohibited, this too would be merely another example
of the arbitrary nature of their standards.
It is an incontrovertible fact
that mineral oil and its source raw material, crude oil are 100%
natural and organic. In fact, the raw material is more organic than
any other. Libel claim no. 2.
The same criteria principles apply to petrochemicals being permitted
by Ecocert in the manufacture of acknowledged useful synthesised
ingredients, e.g. parabens and sodium lauryl sulphate!!! I dealt
with the Torr/Steyn Biophile magazine Sodium Lauryl Sulphate scam
where in particular, I exposed the relative toxicity of their alternatively
used cocamidopropyl betaine and rather serious data gaps in the
safety research for this Ecocert approved substance.
Yes, I did "react very strongly to an article published
in Biophile", in particular over the publication of fraudulently
fabricated lies about the research of Dr Green regarding the alleged
toxicity of SLS, where Green, rather than condemning SLS, had in
fact proved the requisite safety thereof and defended its use. In
my initial correspondence with Anthea Torr and Trevor Steyn, I presented
the incontrovertible facts and only after my requested correction/retraction
of said fraudulent misinformation for the sake of public accountability
and editorial integrity was not forthcoming, did I decide to embark
on a public expose' thereof and an educational campaign to counter
what was clearly a despicably dishonest misinformation campaign
In my correspondence record filed here as "The Biofilth
Files: Have You Been Enchantricked" http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/biofilth.html,
I wrote as follows:
QUOTE Your Biophile article, “rub a dub…
danger in your tub” starts with a boldly asserted, even
bold fonted quote attributed to Dr Keith Green from the Medical
College of Georgia” and attributed to “Research
to Prevent Blindness”, which source is not clearly referenced,
probably because your writer has never reviewed the actual
document from which your mischief claims to launch. Interestingly,
Green’s actual published paper makes no reference to
any of the claimed harms sensationalising the article. Dr
Green simply made the not surprising observation that if there
is already injury to the cornea, a long-term high concentration
of SLS will slow down healing
In this study, pieces were first shaved off the outer
surface of the eyes of rabbits (despicable, but that
is how things were done in those days) and it is not surprising
that repeatedly adding SLS to these lesions for 3 days interfered
with their healing. Dr Green’s study determined that
if SLS is applied repeatedly in high concentrations to injured
eyes for several days, approximately only 1/1000th could be
absorbed into the eye and so retard healing. It also proved
that within 96 hours after even such extremely unlikely conditions,
healing had occurred and that no trace of SLS could be found
anywhere in the test animals bodies. Of the eye itself (other
than the lesions) Green stated: "The eye stayed pristine.
There was no redness and no irritation. These were not toxic
effects." (Chapman J et al, Lens & Eye Tox Res, 6:37-41,
Paula Begoun, a well-respected
cosmetics industry watchdog and certainly not a cosmetics
in an article titled “Myth Busting”, addressed
the intensely circulating Internet and e-mail concerns over
sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) and sodium laureth sulphate (SLES)
as follows: “I believe this entire mania was generated
by several Neways Websites, and has been carried over as fact
into other so-called ‘all natural’ cosmetics lines”.
Begoun tracked down the
most insidious and misleading part of what was passed around
as truth relating to SLS and SLES, based on the incorrect
reporting of a study done by Dr. Green, who both conducted
the research and delivered the final report. Green, Regents
Professor of Ophthalmology at the Medical College of Georgia,
told Begoun way back in 1997 already: "My work was completely
misquoted. No part of my study indicated any development or
cataract problems from SLS or SLES. The body does not retain
those ingredients at all. We did not even look at the issue
of children, so that conclusion is completely false, because
it never existed.”
Dr Green continued: “Neways
took my research completely out of context and probably never
read the study at all. The statement like 'SLS is a systemic'
has no meaning. No ingredient can be a systemic unless you
drink the stuff and that's not what we did with it. Another
incredible comment was that my study was 'clinical,' meaning
I tested the substance on people, but these were strictly
animal tests. Furthermore, the eyes showed no irritation with
the 10-dilution substance used! If anything, the animal studies
indicated no risk of irritation whatsoever!"
When Begoun enquired as
to whether any follow-up studies concerning SLS/SLES had been
undertaken, Dr. Green, staking his considerable scientific
reputation, pertinently replied: "No- one has done this
because the findings were so insignificant." Begoun was
also curious as to whether Dr Green had changed shampoo and
to this enquiry, Dr Green answered: "No one in my family
has changed shampoos and they all contain either SLS or SLES.
You may find it interesting to tell your readers that SLS
and SLES have a natural source. The sulphates have been used
for over 20 years by millions of people daily and weekly with
no adverse effects”. END
3. Next, a claim: "In
Europe or America he would be taken to court for claiming to be
"organic" with no foundation".
ST: Again, misinformation deliberately
worded to defame me. Whilst it would be correct to state that I
could be brought before a court if I claimed that my ingredients
and hence my products were "Certified Organic", I am completely
within my rights (as equal as Esse Organics and Enchantrix are)
to claim that my ingredients and products are organic, which they
are, yet I never declare them to be so, except when this issue is
raised by them and I accordingly make a comparative statement to
the effect that "they are as or more organic than theirs",
which they are, but which fact is unimportant to me, since I refuse
to prostitute myself on the fraudulent pseudo-'organic' altar, as
do the organic whores for pure commercial expediency. Libel claim
The facts of the matter are
that Mrs Torr and Mr Steyn on the other hand. could legitimately
be brought before a court, because they do explicitly claim their
products to have organic status, which they don't, and on the sparse
case basis that they do, not only they, but also the organic certifier
in such instances could be brought before a court, and may well
be, by myself, for commercial fraud, which is a serious and punishable
offence. To put this matter into proper perspective, I have for
the record posted the following self-explanatory statement on my
To many laypersons,
the word “organic” means
“natural”. However, to most well-read
or educated persons with some knowledge of chemistry, “organic”
means “carbon-based” or “carbon-containing”.
Living things are comprised mostly of carbon compounds, so
much of what is ‘organic’ to an ‘organic
gardener’, is also ‘organic’ to an ‘organic
chemist’, those who traditionally worked with substances
synthesised within the cells or structures of organisms, dead
or alive, but now legitimately include human laboratory synthesised
substances from the same sources.
To exclude non-living
sourced inorganic carbonates, cyanides, carbides, cyanates
and carbon-containing ionic compounds from a definition of
“organic compound”, this is specifically
defined as compounds containing carbon, nearly bonded
to itself and to hydrogen and often also to other elements.
Human laboratory synthesised organic compounds may be copies
of those occurring naturally: 100% nature-identical or variants
thereof; or entirely novel compounds and like nature and money,
range in utility from the most toxic and destructive to the
most benign and beneficial, which spectrum describes both
the natural kingdom and human endeavour.
Except for a few inorganic
salts and water, everything you put into or onto your body,
be it in past centuries or now - food, medicine, cosmetics
and clothing all consists of organic compounds and are organic,
but are not necessarily part of a modern marketing
scam that claims to be “organic”
or to have “organic certification”,
when in fact it is only partly so, if at all. All certification
companies, for commercial expediency, have deliberate, if
not fraudulent, but always seriously compromised standards
allowing inorganic, human-processed and even human-synthesised
chemicals, besides only requiring varying proportions of strict
organic content, which itself is always compromised to start
terms, “organic” is defined as: “Pertaining
to carbon-based compounds produced by living plants, animals
or by (human laboratory) synthetic processes”
and a layperson’s alternative meaning is: “Any
produce grown without the use of chemical fertilisers or pesticides,
in soil made rich by composting” (biology-online.org).
Another legitimate meaning includes the even longer established
scientific use: “Of, relating to, or affecting a
bodily organ” (chemheritage.org). Further popular
meanings include: “Having properties associated
with living organisms”; “Resembling a living organism
in organisation”; “Interconnected”; and
“Constituting an integral part of a whole”.
Clearly the word “organic” is exclusive to no-one.
Stuart Thomson, formulate and manufacture
my own natural personal care products under the trade name
"Gaia Organics", for which I was,
a decade ago, granted provisional approval of the trademark
“Gaia Organics”, with the proviso that the words
not be used separately and apart from the mark, which registration
remains incomplete due only to Unilever’s
opposition thereto in its ridiculous attempt to register the
single word “organics” as its
exclusive trademark. I use the word ‘organics’
in the trade name based on perfectly legitimate associations
with all the above-listed meanings, without in any way suggesting
that my products are “certified organic”, which
has a clearly circumscribed meaning, albeit nonsensical and
In terms of commercial
law: “The word ‘organic’ in
a ‘brand name’ does not inherently imply an organic
production claim and thus does not inherently constitute a
false or misleading statement" (US National
Organic Program/Standards/Labelling -- Preamble/General Requirements).
Quite to the contrary, I publicly criticise organic standards
as irrational and organic certification as a scam and in particular
as it relates to organic ingredients constituting so-called
“organic” products. “Certification”
criteria are entirely arbitrary, not only between certification
bodies (there is no single standard), but also amongst members,
many of whom comply with or pay lip-service to such standards
purely as a marketing strategy, with the intention of conning
consumers to purchase their (rather than another’s)
Clearly, given my prolific
condemnation of the term "organic" in terms of Mrs Torr
and Mr Steyn's use thereof, I could hardly be accused of deviously
pretending to be "organically certified".
4. Regarding their statement
that: "Enchantrix manufactures strictly according to Eco-Cert
France,... the strictest organic certification in the EU.":
ST: I do believe that I have
already shown that said standards are utter nonsense, based on a
philosophical rather than a scientific foundation and arbitrarily
swayed by both commercial driven bias and compromise, so much so
that I can actually confidently proclaim that with the exception
of my soaps and cleansers containing Sodium Lauryl Ether Sulphate,
I in fact already manufacture 5/6ths of my personal care range to
said standards, without even consciously setting out to do so! Is
this not a totally laughable irony? I am not alone in my dissent
against such arbitrary absurdities. Even Weleda are upholding their
right within their BDIH certification, to use SLES. Are they also
scum because they choose to use this safe natural-based substance?
5. Regarding their claim that: "We've cleared preservative
efficacy testing and we have also cleared oxidation testing after
his claim that our products are oxidizing in the bottle.":
ST: This a very broad assurance
that is, for obvious reasons, conveniently very low on specifics.
I was not only referring to a sealed container with fresh and undisturbed
contents, possibly stored under optimal conditions. I was also referring
to products in use in the real world, i.e. opened and vented and
with the aperture or retained contents disturbed, possibly making
skin contact and introducing decomposing microorganisms. The actual
descriptive scenario was "mini compost bins arranged on
their dressing-table and bathroom shelf". When I raised
this criticism back in 2005, Mr Steyn, in a rare e-mail communication,
stated: "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 (an impossibility), 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." Well,
several years later, I am still waiting.
Products formulated with excess
unsaturated lipids, especially those with sunflower, wheatgerm and
almond, let alone flaxseed or hemp oils, but without occlusive mineral
oil, simply cannot escape oxidative rancidity and those with e.g.
marula oil (+ water), simply cannot escape hydrolytic rancidity.
Of course, the only appropriate test would be under real life conditions,
on the skin itself, for a reasonable period of time, with unavoidable
exposure to heat, UV-light and 21% of oxygen in the surrounding
air. Is anyone prepared to meet my challenge to participate in such
a realistic comparative test of our respective products? Next could
be a comparison of mutagenesis potential. Only then will we have
a true measure of the relative risks to consumers.
6. Regarding Enchantrix's claim
that: "Only a minute % of our ingredients are synthetic,
to allow for stable, preserved products, and these are allowed by
ST: Laughably, so are mine!
No organic certification company in the world has a legitimate monopoly
on organic production and manufacturing criteria. I am perfectly
entitled to set my own standards criteria, have been doing so for
17 years, and having evolved from where these newcomers are only
now on a developmental continuum I shall continue to do so at a
higher consumer safety and ecological standard than any certifier
in the world, based on clearly more consistent logical scientific
criteria, rather than some backward philosophical mumbo jumbo.
7. Regarding Mrs Torr and Mr Steyn's statement that I "Have
no definable complaint about our (their) products.":
ST: In the early stages of
this dispute, I had no gripe at all with Torr's or Steyn's products.
However, as their deliberate misinformation campaign continued unabated,
I decided to investigate their broader activities and this logically
led to their products and ingredients being investigated and surely
not unexpectedly, their hypocritical double-standards exposed, which
I continue to do as a consumer service as more information is divulged
or discovered. Problem ingredients that I have already identified
and dealt with extensively regarding their potential toxicity include:
a) Grapefruit seed extract:
b) Excessive plant oils: http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/mineralvsplantoil.html
c) Cocamidopropyl betaine: http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/cocamidosles.html
More recently, I posted brief reviews of a few other high-risk Enchantrix
d) Carbomer; &
e) Cetrimonium chloride .
Because of only recent declaration and hence later evaluation of
these two (still work in progress), I shall repeat these preliminary
Enchantrix ingredient toxicity potential profiles hereunder:
D) Carbomers are
synthetic nonlinear polymers of acrylic acid, cross-linked
with a polyalkenyl polyether to form a gel and are used in
pharmaceutical products as thickening, suspending, dispersing
and emulsifying agents. Whilst not skin irritants, Carbomers
are membrane disrupters (Kusonwiriyawong
C et al, Eur I Pharm Biopharm, 56(2), 2003) and
are classified as eye irritants, where contact with and without
preservatives, cause toxic effects in the corneal cells and
can cause severe eye damage after 30 min
of exposure, including dramatic cell-surface alterations (Diebold
Y et al, Cornea, 17(4), 1998), which ironically
is largely what Steyn fraudulently claimed were the effects
of SLS under normal usage. Carbomer gels undergo oxidative
degradation when they are exposed to sunlight (Baruzzi
M, Nouv Rev Fr Hematol, 11(1), 1971), so their
use, like excessive plant oils, is also involved in free radical
Carbomers routinely contain impurities,
including benzene, arsenic
and heavy metals, including lead,
(CTFA, Submission of data,
Cosmetic Ingredient Chemical Description on Carbomers, Nov,
14, 1978), all of which are carcinogens
(Report on Carcinogens, 11th
Edition, USDHHS, National Toxicology Program, 2004).
Attention was called to the presence of benzene,
because many of the products may remain in contact with the
body, potentially for days at a time throughout the year.
Benzene is a known toxin, listed as a known
human carcinogen since 1980 and for which, human
epidemiological evidence strongly suggests that it is leukemogenic
as well. (International Agency
For Cancer Research, The evaluation of the carcinogenic risk
of chemicals to man: Benzene, IARC Monographs, vol. 7, 203-21,
1974); (Wolman S, Cytologic and cytogenetic effects of benzene,
J Toxicol Environ Health, Suppl. 2, 63-8, 1977); (IARC, Chemicals
and industrial processes associated with cancer in humans,
IARC Monographs, Suppl. 1, 24, 1979); (Final Report on the
Safety Assessment of Carbomers, J Amer Col Toxicol, 1 (2),
1982); (Report on Carcinogens, 11th, NTP, 2004).
E) Cetrimonium chloride is a synthetic antiseptic
agent with antistatic, emulsifying and detergent properties.
It is classified as an irritant, causing sensitisation on
skin contact and potentially, serious damage to the eyes.
It is very toxic to aquatic organisms. (Physical
& Theoretical Chemistry Laboratory, Safety Data: Cetrimonium
Chloride, Oxford University, U.K., August 2004)
Where it causes contact dermatitis, abnormal keratisation
results from direct pathologic effects on lipids and enzymes
(Lee J, Am J Dermatopathol,
19(2), 1997). In personal care products, it is
classified as an immune system toxicant,
causing allergic and sensitising immune responses. (Skin
Deep Ingredient Report, Cetrimonium Chloride, Environmental
Working Group, 2006) On repeated exposure of the
eyes over time, a membrane integrity decreasing apoptotic
mechanism occurs at low concentrations and membrane necrosis
at higher concentrations, potentially causing corneal
damage following long-term use and eye exposure
(Jester J et al, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 39(6), 1998);
(Debbasch C et al, J Fr Ophthalmol, 22(9), 1999).
The Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General
of the European Commission recently adopted an opinion on
Cetrimonium Chloride, a.k.a. Cetrimide, hexadecyl-trimethylammonium
chloride and Alkyl Trimethylammonium Chloride, which highlighted
interesting data gaps and concerns for this quaternary ammonium
compound, which synthetic chemicals that are prohibited as
a group by Ecocert. I will just skim the data, which is difficult
to extrapolate to consumers, since the concentrations used
will be higher than single encounters, but not necessarily
multiple encounters as occur in the real world. (SCCP,
Opinion (on Cetrimide), COLIPA no. P72, 21 March 2007)
Rabbit skin irritation studies revealed irritation, erythema,
oedema, hardening and scaling of the skin. Eye irritation
rabbit studies revealed corneal opacity, iritis, conjunctival
irritation, swelling and at the highest realistic test doses,
irreversible ocular damage (Rupprich
N and Weigand W, Genamin CTAC - Prüfung auf akute dermale
Reizwirkung/Ätzwirkung am Kaninchen, Hoechst AG, Pharma
Forschung Toxikologie, Germany, Unpublished Report No. 84.0447,
dated 25.07.1984); (Mayordomo L, Primary skin irritation in
rabbits, Test substance: Quartamin 60W25, Centro de Investigacion
y Desarrollo Aplicado, S.A.L., Spain, Unpublished Report No.
CD-97/5484T, dated 29.04.1997); (Myer J, Rabbit Eye Irritation
(low volume procedure, Unpublished report No. 191-1077 dated
23.01.1985, International Research and Development Corporation,
Mattawan, MI, USA).
Guinea pig skin sensitisation tests had so many significant
shortcomings that they were difficult to interpret (Scientific
Committee on Consumer Products, Opinion on Alkyl (C16, C18,
C22) Trimethylammonium Chloride, COLIPA no. P72, 21 March
2007) Repeated dose rabbit dermal toxicity studies
revealed skin irritation (Spicer
E, Subchronic Percutaneous toxicity (twenty-eight days) in
rabbits, International Research and Development Corporation,
Mattawan, MI, USA, Unpublished Report No. 191-217, 1979).
Single patch skin irritation tests under occlusion on human
volunteers revealed skin irritation (Röthlisberger
R, Epicutaneous patch test - Wellazid 7/0609/05/14/02, Cosmital
SA, Marly, Switzerland, Unpublished report No. 169/98 dated
01.09.1998); (Häntschel D, Koleston 99 0-Masse epicutaneous
patch test, Single application 24 h patch test, Skin Investigation
and Technology Hamburg GmbH, Hamburg, Germany, Unpublished
report No. 601-01-0008 dated 24.09.1999)
No adequate in vitro dermal absorption study is available,
in particular to evaluate leave-on products. The dermal absorption
will very much depend on the state of the skin. When the final
formulation is irritating because of the presence of cetrimonium
chloride, with or without other quaternary ammonium compounds,
the absorption may become quite high. If skin absorption increases,
the Margin of Safety will be inadequate, rendering it unsuitable
for use in leave-on products. The composition of the final
topical product formulation will be of crucial importance
for the irritating properties of the product and which will
influence dermal absorption. (SCCP,
Opinion on Alkyl (C16, C18, C22) Trimethylammonium Chloride,
COLIPA no. P72, 21 March 2007)
In mutagenicity studies for genotoxicity, Ames tests, a chromosome
aberration test and an in vitro hamster cell transformation
assay were negative, but testing was limited to low concentrations
due to high cytotoxicity. For carcinogenicity and photo-induced
toxicity, no safety data was available. (Scientific
Committee on Consumer Products, Opinion on Alkyl (C16, C18,
C22) Trimethylammonium Chloride, COLIPA no. P72, 21 March
Conclusion. Clearly it is Mrs
Torr and Mr Steyn that have no definable complaint about my legitimate
objections to their harmful, mischievous, fraudulent and actionable
I rest my case and invite input from all recipients, both privately
and publicly for constructive deliberation, via reply e-mail.
There you have it, dear Secret Authors, in black and white (and
green, olive and red). Kindly advise me in due course of your refreshed
position on this matter following having being more fully informed
of the facts as I understand them. I trust that you are all frankly
shocked that these companies have been placing unsuspecting consumers
at risk (I am assure you will agree if you read the linked pages)
and defaming me for blowing the whistle. I trust that you now realise
that I am not the bad guy and now recognise whom the bad guys really
are. Despicable, isn't it?
To Anthea Torr and Trevor Steyn (which latter's cowardly invisible
hand is once again evident), I welcome your comments, if you can
keep them factual.
In posting their "Response to Gaia Organics", Enchantrix,
not content to let this issue rest, embarked on an action that inevitably
elicited a reaction
There is more to come as those perpetrating and perpetuating the
Neway's scam against mineral oil, parabens and Sodium Lauryl Sulphate
get a good dose of their own medicine, albeit an honest, accurate
and real-life in-context dose, which is more than my competitors
are dishing out.
Watch this space. The What's New page on my website is here: http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/whatsnew.html.
In closing, I have provided a short biography below for readers
who might not be familiar with my background.
Thank you all for your precious time. I hope you are all the wiser
and found this read to be worth the effort that both you and I put
Director, Gaia Research
I shall present some of my background where it bears on emerging
controversies of the relative toxicology / efficacy of "blindly
natural organic" vs. scientifically enhanced natural personal
care and health products and food production. Whilst my position
might at first appear conservative, readers will find that I
walk a mature middle-way light-path of truth that meanders intuitively
between the extreme polar paradigms that currently dominate
as ‘us’ and ‘them’ dichotomies in medicine,
agriculture and personal life.
In 1990 I founded the Gaia Research Institute, located in the
Garden of Eden, but my journey began 30-years ago as a raw-food
vegan, later a fruitarian and after severe pesticide poisoning,
a safer lacto-vegetarian. A 21-day water-fast cleared the neurotoxins
that accumulated from the piles of fruit eaten daily. Organophosphate
insecticides were newly entering the food chain following the
phasing-out of DDT, my first serious encounters with toxicology
and nature cure, which two phenomena have occupied me professionally
ever since as an independent holistic health researcher. I then
grew my own organic vegetables and herbs in my yard and even
on my roof and later on a smallholding scale for more than a
decade. However, after 20-years of experience, I have realised
beyond a doubt, that the natural kingdom can be at least as
toxic, if not more so, than any man-made chemicals, forcing
me into a paradigm consciousness shift.
Back in the early 80's I was a volunteer with Odyssey
Magazine, had my first article published in the Feb/March
1984 edition, titled "Vitamin B12: the facts" (defending
vegetarianism against medical scare tactics propaganda), was
a research associate with Koeberg Alert, escaping
to the Garden Route before the nuclear power-station became
operational and PW Botha's Military Police were forcing ex-servicemen
to conduct township raids. My wife and I spent more than a decade
living off the land with milch goats, bees, organic fruits,
vegetables and herbs, harvesting herb seeds for an income, out
of which Rainbow Organics was born at Rondevlei
Herb Farm near the Wilderness, which we successfully
managed at that time in the late 80's.
The Sunday Times Magazine featured my environmental
activism in their Earth Day Special (April 22, 1990). I had
my “Pesticide Exposé: What You Don’t
Know Can Hurt You” scientific review published
in The Green Pages in November 1990 and also
founded the Gaia Research Institute that year,
along with its funding arm, Gaia Organics.
In 1990 I also founded the Garden Route branch of Earthlife
Africa, placing animal rights forcibly on its National
Convention agenda and split the organisation over the sacking
of a female activist by a male dominant anti-bunny-hugger leadership
faction determined to side-line such issues. By 1995 I had grown
my family’s fresh food requisites to strict organic principles
for a decade and was the African continent’s acknowledged
expert on botanical pesticides (plant toxin based), but was
already almost daily reconsidering this clear paradox, informed
by pioneering scientific revelations. .
In defence of natural health substances, I formed PHARMAPACT
(Peoples Health Alliance Rejecting Medical Authoritarianism,
Prejudice and Conspiratorial Tyranny) in 1996, spearheaded the
dissident HIV/AIDS debate against the pharma-cartel
on TV (Future Imperfect in 1997) and had the honour of being
evicted from Parliament on national television
(Parliamentary Channel) in the heat of the health freedom battle
in 1998. I also organised and participated in several of the
popular "Options" programs. In 1998, I submitted a
350-page “Protest: Fluoridation of Public
Water Supplies” report to the Minister of
Health and in 1999 made a personal presentation to the
Medicines Control Council, opposing the proposed pharmaceutical
regulatory model for natural health products, plus a 13-page
scientific report “Homoeopathy: A Critique”
and a 39-page “Traditional African Medicine
Genocide” political toxicology report.
In 2001 I had published, in collaboration with University of
Toronto researchers: "The Toxicity of Callilepsis
laureola, a South African traditional herbal medicine"
(Popat A et al, Clin Biochem,
34:229, 2001), my first peer-reviewed paper, which
established for the first time in the international scientific
literature, the horrendous fact that in South Africa, 10-20,000
Africans die each year from traditional African medicines. In
2002, I published online the first of a 5-part ongoing series
titled: “Sutherlandia: Healthy Herb or Potent(ial)
Poison?”, detailing the dangers thereof
to AIDS and especially to Tuberculosis patients. In 2006, I
published two ongoing online reports: “Cancer
Hazard of Dermal Natural Progesterone”,
and: “Why Commercial Organic Vegetables Are
Hazardous To Your Health”, which I consider
to be essential reading. Having for so long discovered so many
beliefs to be false has left me healthfully sceptical.
Very few among us have devoted decades to critically researching
our communal belief systems. I ask nothing in return for free
access to the results of my labour, other than an open mind.
Whilst perhaps guilty of indecent intolerance of the stubborn
ignorant beliefs of others in my specific areas of research,
I nevertheless wish to learn from all who might have something
to share and so, I respectfully remain your humble servant.
Stuart Thomson (April 2008)
Original Message -----
Secret Authors ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com
; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Tim Jackson ; Chris Erasmus ; email@example.com
; A Rossouw ; Smart Attitude
Sent: Wednesday, April 23,
2008 10:38 PM
SPAM-LOW: Re What warrants the title of a 'safe natural and/or organic
external personal care product?
I have no intention in getting into debate on this at all. If you
are interested, you may like to do your own research from independent
research bodies, or contact the likes of Soil Association or Eco
Cert for further verification.
Stuart please do not copy me on any further
083 227 0269
"HOPE IS BORN OF ACTIVISM, ENGAGEMENT AND A STUBBORN
DETERMINATION TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE....."
Original Message -----
Esse Organic Skincare
'Stuart Thomson'; 'Secret
firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; 'Tim Jackson'
; 'Chris Erasmus' ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; 'A Rossouw';
Sent: Thursday, April 24,
2008 12:59 PM
Re What warrants the title of a 'safe natural and/or organic external
personal care product?
I have not responded to your various attacks for the last two years.
I ceased responding when I realized that you would not respond to
basic questions in a coherent manner.
You seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of conspiracy
against you and that myself and Anthea Torr are focused on the demise
of your company. I personally don’t consider your company
any sort of competition. You promote the use of ingredients that
are used in all the conventional brands on the market and I can’t
see how you plan to differentiate your brand from the hundreds of
low cost products out there. Mineral oil is exceedingly cheap, so
are parabens and sulphated surfactants.
Esse has certified organic with Ecocert and we use high percentages
of certified organic ingredients in our products. You seem to see
fit to advertise your brand as organic when, by your own admission,
you are not concerned about using certified organic ingredients
in your products. If anyone is misleading the public it is you.
Your convoluted logic - that organic plant matter eventually became
crude oil – will not be upheld by very many people.
You contest that Ecocert allow parabens in certified product. They
have made an allowance that raw materials
may contain parabens but this derogation ends at the end of this
year. This was to allow raw material suppliers that still use parabens
to switch to alternative preservatives. In 2004 Dr Darbre showed
that parabens were present in 24 out of 27 breast cancer tumours.
Professor Yoshikawa in 2005 found that methyl paraben in the presence
of UV, accelerates the aging process in skin cells. Ecocert have
taken this relatively new research into account in their decision
You claim that Esse uses the Neways marketing strategy – our
new website doesn’t once mention petrochemicals, parabens
or SLS. It will be up and running in about two weeks. Our new marketing
material also makes no mention of these ingredients. We rely on
the public to do their own research.
You also mention that we use contract manufacturers as if this were
a secret. We are a research and development company and the fact
that we secured the services of a larger, more professional factory
is something that we are proud of.
May I suggest that we meet at some time in the near future so that
I can gain some insight into what drives your vitriolic attacks?
Thank you if you are still here with an open mind.
To new readers, welcome. This thread reads chronologically from
the bottom of the page to the present here, starting at numbers
marked 1 A; B; C; & D down and then up to the next letter.
This communication contains sensitive information concerning
individuals and business entities, which if untrue, would be actionable
for damages against me. I believe my research and allegations of
fraud to be serious and accurate enough to warrant sticking my neck
out with these revelations in the interests of the consumers of
such products. It remains to be determined to what extent I will
proceed against such individuals and entities, since much depends
on their responses or lack thereof hereto. I challenge respondents,
both direct and indirect alike, to respond fully and honestly to
each and every allegation, failing which I shall consider their
silence as tacit acceptance thereof.
I will collate responses for inclusion to all recipients in the
database. If you don't trust me to do so, please just reply to all",
in which case you will have 2-dozen witnesses of your contribution.
I am very grateful for this opportunity to respond to negative responses
to my appeal to debate what warrants the title of a 'safe
natural and/or organic external personal care product'.
As director of the Gaia Research Institute and proprietor of Gaia
Organics, established 19-years ago and along with ‘Canyon
Organics’, Cliff Calder's ‘Fragrant Garden’ and
later, David Townsend's ‘Townsend's Natural Herb’ and
Sue Visser's ‘Nature Fresh’ and others, were pioneers
of the natural personal care revolution in this country, it breaks
my heart to witness the state of this sector today. I am all for
competition, which is good for consumers and other role-players
alike, but the new breed of know-it-all pseudo-organic vendors jumping
on the "chemical-free", "petrochemical-free",
"paraben-free", "mineral oil free" and "sodium
lauryl sulphate-free" bandwagon is really starting to piss
If there is one thing that I cannot stand, it is a holier than
thou hypocritical opportunist prepared to con their way to
the top. Unfortunately, the local "organic" personal care
fraternity appear to be largely, if not exclusively just that. The
hypocritical double standards and the out and out prostitution of
ethics for commercial expediency, at the expense of innocent gullible
consumers and ethical service providers are really quite nauseating.
(A brief summary of
my work over the years appears in grey near the end to serve readers
who do not know me by my activism, so as to assess the integrity
with which I pursue such issues)
Because I am not a businessman, but rather an independent researcher
(35-years in the natural health sector), I had never really concerned
myself with the business activities of others in the natural personal
care sector, until Trevor Steyn and Anthea Torr got in my face with
their propaganda series in Biophile magazine and on their Esse,
Enchantrix, Biophile and guest websites and Anthea refused to publish
corrections in Biophile when I presented them with evidence of several
instances of misinformation. Subsequent to that experience, I responded
with a series of factual educational communiqués, including
a collection in a printed Consumer Awareness booklet, most of which
were hidden under the counter in those health shops, who too, for
commercial expediency, claimed to prefer not to confuse customers
(with another perspective so that they might make better-informed
For the most part, I have been content to merely respond to Trevor's
nonsense when I encountered his false propaganda littering the Internet
and a response opportunity arose, until Anthea's "Response
to Gaia Organics" appeared. Challenged by these two on
my ingredient formulatory rationale, I have definitively defended
these and have thrown down the gauntlet to my challengers to honestly
and equally defend theirs. Please excuse the bitchy bits interspersed
into the factual debate, which will hopefully make reading this
thread worthwhile and which valuable insights are unlikely to be
Once again, I implore implicated role-players to participate fully,
honestly and factually, or be exposed as frauds as I have done hereunder
with both Anthea and Trevor. This dialogue will likely will form
a chapter of my forthcoming book, tentatively titled "Don't
Talk Kak: Organics Suck: The Expropriation of Consumer Intelligence".
I reserve the right only to edit out frivolous interjections.
I also feel that it is only fair to caution all roleplayers
participating in this greater misinformation scam, including magazine
journalists, whether they participate here or not, that I intend
to name and shame all individuals, companies and brands who continue
to perpetuate this fraud once made aware hereof, starting with the
worst offenders. Admittedly, this will turn out to be a
lengthy read, but making the effort will afford many roleplayers
an opportunity to reflect on their ethics in the light of the information
presented and to reform their activities sufficiently to avoid being
formally served as respondents to answer publicly to this fraud.
I am continually monitoring, collecting, dating and adding evidence
of this scam. The days of claiming to be "chemical-free",
"petrochemical-free", possibly "paraben-free"
and additionally trashing these and the following and suggesting
that being "mineral oil free" and "sodium lauryl
sulphate-free" are somehow a virtue, when this is not the case,
are drawing to a close, unless of course that can be substantiated
against all my evidence to the contrary.
It is grossly hypocritical to hide behind a relative - total paucity
of toxicological data for alternatives to targeted ingredients and
to use hidden petrochemical inputs permitted by the organic certification
scamsters, whilst soap-boxing about theoretical hazards of some
natural petrochemical ingredients, whose extensive toxicological
databases required to determine and prove safety, are used out of
context to malign these. One cannot claim safety for anything without
investigating toxicity, which latter involved animal testing, abhorrent
as that is and which is why I prefer to honour those animals already
so sacrificed and will not use any largely untested ingredients
and so potentially expose consumers to real risk, nor sanction animal
testing of these.
Ideally, testing should be done on human volunteers, starting with
employees and including management and board-members of the manufacturers
thereof, but the new rash of pseudo 'natural' and 'organic' vendors,
naively assume safety and so without even monitoring for toxicity,
rather cowardly see fit to use the uninformed public as guinea pigs
instead, both of which are criminal. Having become aware of this
danger to consumers, I am obliged to do my civil duty and investigate
and expose such activities as I encounter them. Pleading ignorance
of the facts will no longer suffice as an excuse and this is why
I will not remove from this distribution list, any recipient who
is engaging in such activities, including those indirectly accompliced
to this scam by way of spreading such fraudulent misinformation,
even for indirect commercial expediency, eg magazines (electronic
and otherwise), who might do so to attract advertisers participating
in this lucrative scam, as is clearly happening with Biophile, Renaissance,
Natural Medicine and Odyssey magazines, in spite of their pseudo
truth and integrity charade.
Following on from where we left off in Part 1:
The negative responders were Tim and Chris, as well as Anthea Torr,
proprietor of Enchantrix and proprietor/editor of Biofilth magazine,
Trevor Steyn, proprietor of Esse Organic Skincare.
Tim Jackson, Manager of the Biodynamic and Organic
Certification Authority, phoned and crapped me out for my suggesting
that the BDOCA certification criteria is less strict than that of
Ecocert. Tim's angry ranting rendered it impossible to telephonically
discuss my presumption, based on prior communications and subsequent
developments and I ended the call after requesting that he communicate
his precise objection in writing. Tim is of course perfectly at
liberty to discuss this matter in the current forum where the allegedly
offending remark was made and I encourage him to do so. I might
just add that subsequent developments in the "organic"
personal care sector indicate an apparent shift to Ecocert, which
to me suggests that Tim may very well have a point, but he ought
to articulate it.
The Enchantrix website (http://www.enchantrix.co.za/certification)
under the Bio-org logo still states "We are awaiting certification
for our remaining products which we expect to have later this year",
as it has done for a couple of years now, without additions. Is
this not a fraudulently misleading declaration, intended and serving
to suggest that the products are in transition and close to certification?
Esse takes this even further, as will be shown in the text below,
by claiming a couple of years ago, that the Esse range of products
was indeed already Ecocertified. Since I have also copied
Ecocert SA with this thread, I for one would appreciate both the
BDOCA and Ecocert's input on these points.
Chris Erasmus, proprietor/editor of Odyssey magazine
has too much aery faery on his plate to appreciate a distasteful
dollop of truth on this topic and has requested that I remove him
from the list, presumably so that he may plead ignorance when he
covers this topic without regard for the facts in upcoming editions
of his corny magazine and so best serve his target advertisers.
ST: You say that you have no intention in getting into debate on
this at all. How is it that you justify publishing such maliciously
dishonest material, yet accept no moral, nor legal responsibility?
Why not make the necessary effort to present the research that you
merely allude to, as though that might miraculously serve as rebuttal
to my carefully laid out rebuttal to your mischief? Regrettably,
in the absence of any substantial rebuttal, I am forced to conclude
that you tacitly accept, by default, that my critique of your statements
is correct, in which case you are morally obliged to apologise and
withdraw it, or append my response to it, or post an adequate rebuttal
to mine here in the public interest, as I have done with your patently
ST: Thank you for finally responding to my challenges after all
While you failed miserably to address points raised in my rebuttal
to Anthea's "A Response to Gaia 'Organics'", I shall nevertheless
address the crumbs that you did, and your new mischief.
Trevor wrote: "I ceased responding when
I realized that you (I) would not respond to basic questions
in a coherent manner."
ST: This is a totally ridiculous excuse that does not escape responsibility
for the conflict that has arisen from Trevor Steyn's fraudulent
mischief littering the Internet. I am aware of only two instances
of communication from Trevor and those involved not a single question,
but rather 1) (1 July 05) - a still unhonoured undertaking to provide
the results of his claimed independent peroxidation tests and 2)
(5 July 05) - a still dishonoured undertaking to remove offending
material from his website, an undertaking he now repeats, nearly
How can Trevor possibly judge the coherence or otherwise of anticipated
replies when he has in fact never communicated the unstated basic
questions alluded to, nor afforded me a reasonable opportunity to
respond thereto, coherently or otherwise? Unlike Trevor, I have
never avoided an opportunity to publicly openly state and debate
the facts comprising our respective worldviews.
Trevor wrote: "You seem to be under the
impression that there is some sort of conspiracy against you and
that myself and Anthea Torr are focused on the demise of your company."
ST: Since my response to this is likely to be protracted (including
detailed evidence), I shall deal with this issue as the last item
in this response.
Trevor wrote: "I personally don’t
consider your company any sort of competition."
ST: Gaia and Esse are incomparable for several reasons, in particular
because Gaia's activities are primarily service orientated, whilst
Esse's are clearly primarily profit orientated. Nevertheless both
have business activities that compete in the "organic"
and "natural" personal care marketplace. If Trevor is
insinuating that Gaia Organics is no competition because Esse organic
skincare products are superior, then he is seriously deluded and
even more so if he believes that his past, present and future pseudo-organic
certification affords him anything but hyped pseudo-superiority.
Furthermore, whereas I am a formulator and manufacturer, Trevor
is a mere formulator.
Moreover, Gaia Research is an independent wholistic health research
institute with its reports documented in governmental institutional
archives and with public welfare published scientific peer-reviewed
journal articles, whereas Esse publish fraudulent negative self-
promotional commercial propaganda in tacky magazines and on equally
tacky websites. As a result, I personally do not consider Trevor's
company to be any sort of serious competition.
Trevor wrote: a) "You promote the use
of ingredients that are used in all the conventional brands on the
market and I can’t see how you plan to differentiate your
brand from the hundreds of low cost products out there."
b) "Mineral oil is exceedingly cheap, so are parabens and
ST: Well now, we are back to the already discredited Neways scam.
Trevor raises new issues, which cannot really be divorced and which
in turn raise several other issues, so bear with me.
I use three natural ingredients on a long and variable list of allegedly
undesirables. These have been carefully chosen by me on the basis
of their utility and fully documented safety data that have established
these as class leaders. I linked-out my detailed rational defences
of these three ingredients and also my fully referenced critiques
of Trevor's unfortunate alternatives in my previous posting below.
Trevor has been unable to raise a single valid objection to my use
of any of these. Instead, he resorts to the invalid "organic
standards" argument, which I too have demonstrated is fraught
with illogic and many double standards, as well as several potential
real-life hazards for consumers of products following said guidelines,
including those of Ecocert.
It is noteworthy that Trevor Steyn has not openly publicly responded
to any of my exceptionally well-documented position statements (approximately
100 pages), written largely as a result of his initial and subsequent
mischief in Biophile magazine. Oddly, I have him to thank for his
initiation and ongoing stimulation that repeatedly distracted me
from my other research activities and led to my anticipating and
timeously preparing for a broader, international fear-mongering
ingredients scam that has now infected the minds of millions of
gullible consumers worldwide. As a result of Trevor Steyn's mischief,
I now find myself an authority on the very scam he intended pulling
on me and others in a less fortunate position to defend their own
What really differentiates my product range apart from both Trevor's
and the rest of the pseudo-natural and organic ranges is complex
and significant. My products are honest, in that there is no attempt
to portray them other than for what they are, which is essentially
a clear middle way bridging two extreme polarised paradigms, both
of which are best only where they so meet and at their worst where
they are diametrically opposed. As a result, my products are a combination
of the best of both worlds, and none of the extremes that serve
to invalidate both, 'integrative' for want of a label. As such,
my products are exceptional value for money, since consumers don't
pay for expensive ritualistic inputs overseen by expensive middlemen
with no advantage.
Trevor Steyn's formulations for Enchantrix, his Esse and others
includes sunflower, wheat germ and peach kernel oils, really the
cheapest and most oxidatively susceptible plant oils of all. More
troubling, from a toxicological perspective is Trevor Steyn's hypocritical
use of quaternary ammonium compounds: benzethonium and/or benzalkonium
chloride (albeit ripped-off at a premium as grapefruit seed extract),
cetrimonium chloride and also the zwitterionic surfactant, cocamidopropyl
betaine, all of which class (quaternary
appears on Ecocert's negative list. The
presence of these and the dreaded paraben esters in Trevor Steyn's
Esse 'Organic' Skincare products is a fraud of note.
Comparing just these few toxic alternatives to my three allegedly
undesirable ingredients rightfully elevates mine to the top of their
class in terms of proven safety and efficacy. That my selection
is also more cost-effective than Trevor's and his clients, just
happens to be a bonus, rather than any overwhelming incentive for
me. Most high-end international personal care companies with multi-million
Rand research and development laboratories have elected to use these
class-leading standards, plus some more questionable one's, including
some that Trevor uses. Ultimately, water is still the "cheapest"
ingredient of all. I see no one foregoing its use on the basis of
its "exceeding cheapness", so please stop being
such damn annoying hypocrites!
My logical response to Trevor's suggestion that there is naught
to "differentiate your (my) brand from the hundreds
of low cost products out there", is to ask what differentiates
Trevor's Esse brand from the hundreds of "high cost"
so-called "organic" products out there? They
are all using similar questionable, often corny hype ingredients
and generally similarly have nothing to differentiate them from
others in this rather boringly generic category. I have already
demonstrated that there is absolutely nothing honest, or special
about eco-certified organics. Opposition to petrochemicals per se'
is totally ridiculous and grossly hypocritical. A
far greater percentage of ingredients that Trevor Steyn formulates
for his range and for others on the "organic" bandwagon
use petrochemicals in their commercial synthesis than do those in
my own ingredient portfolio, yet he, his clients and Ecocert all
sham "petrochemical free" status.
I am driven to respond fully, lest I succumb to the habit of tendering
one- or two-liners to challengers, as Trevor Steyn tends to unfairly
substitute as an excuse for substantiated responses. Anyone who
has been around for a while will have learned that purchasing consumer
goods on the assumption that quality, safety and efficacy of products
is determined by price alone is foolish. To a point it may be valid,
but thereafter, said factor tends to diminish, often to the point
where price becomes an incumberance to said expectations, like comparing
a Rolls Royce with a Lexus, which latter, at half the price is superior
in terms of build quality, safety, performance, economy and everything
but backward handcrafting and perhaps snob-value.
Furthermore, besides the absence of the superior ingredients: sodium
lauryl ether sulphate, mineral oil and parabens and the substitution
of these with those demonstrated by me to be rather foolish relatively
more risky alternative choices for these, Trevor Steyn's products,
and those of some of his clients, are curiously, practically clones
of my own, in that besides the corny hyped ingredients (of which
there are often so many in one formulation, that none could possible
be reasonably active, even synergistically) the actual ingredients
forming the active basis of these products are comprised largely
of my own chosen ingredients, most adopted 10-20 years ago, when
Trevor was still just a kid. These include aqua (but superior filtered
"rainwater" rather than more likely contaminated filtered
"spring water"); fixed oils of coconut, flaxseed,
jojoba and sesame (I stopped formulating with the highly oxidation-susceptible
wheatgerm, and peach and apricot kernel oils a decade ago); ascorbyl
palmitate, panthenol, retinyl palmitate and tocopheryl acetate;
aloe, glycerine, green tea and kaolin; silver chloride and titanium
dioxide; citric and salicylic acids; and essential oils of geranium,
lavender, lemon balm, orange, peppermint, rose, rosemary, spearmint
and ylang ylang (common to both Esse & Gaia).
Further ingredients in the Gaia Organics products that are not in
the Esse products include: Bearberry, Bergamot essential oil,
BHA, Bioflavonoids, Camphor, Carnation essential oil, Castor oil,
Cajeput essential oil, Cedar essential oil, Centella, Citronella
essential oil, Co-enzyme Q10, colloidal Copper, Comfrey Allantoin,
Diatomaceous earth, Evening Primrose oil, German chamomile essential
oil, Ginger essential oil, Ginkgo, Ginseng, Glutathione, Gum Arabic,
Gum Benzoin, Heather, Honeysuckle essential oil, Jasmin essential
oil, Juniper essential oil, Kelp, Selenium-enriched Kombucha, Lemon
essential oil, Licorice, Lime tree, Magnesium peroxide, Malic acid,
colloidal Manganese, MSM, Neroli essential oil, bitter Orange essential
oil, sweet Orange essential oil, PABA, Palm-kernel oil (& potassium
hydroxide), Patchouli essential oil, Pollen, Pyrethrum, Rose essential
oil, Sage essential oil, Stinging nettle, Tannic acid, Tartaric
acid, Tea tree essential oil; Thyme essential oil; Thymol; Tulip
essential oil, Turmeric. Tyrosine; Vitamin B2, Vitamin B6, Ascorbic
acid (Vitamin C), Whey, Witch hazel, Zinc oxide and colloidal and
chelated Zinc. This is far from the low-end synthetic ingredient
portfolio that Trevor maliciously suggests it is. I would confidently
pit the naturalness, organic integrity, optimal utility and established
safety of these Gaia Organics ingredients against the Esse ingredients
and also confidently assert that these provide superior anti-aging
/ anti skin-cancer performance.
Gaia Organics Aqueous cream (all creams are aqueous) is the 'only'
synthesised ingredient using (methyl- and propyl-) parabens
and SLS and is restricted to the creams and creamy lotions
as clearly listed. I now outsource this so as to provide the consistency
and preservation integrity demanded by the export market, which
I failed to meet when I was painstakingly producing this myself
and could also not cope with export production demand. Since the
ingredients are so basic and relatively cheap, I hardly have to
monitor its manufacture as would be the case with more expensive
raw materials and critically fragile oils for what is essentially
nothing more than a stable simple spreading, moisturising and occlusive
Accordingly, my precious and fragile oils are always refrigerated
on site under my care and specification and can be formulated into
products in small batches so as to maximally avoid peroxidation
and rancidity, which is impossible with the bulking cheaper highly
oxidation-susceptible oils used by the 'organic' fringe who are
unable to substitute those, due to their own stubbornness, with
pure oxidation-free and oxidation protective natural organic mineral
oil for said basic functions in more complex formulations uncompromised
thereby. The Ginkgo is harvested annually from trees in the area
and the Centella is wild harvested in the Garden of Eden and as
with the Comfrey and Stinging nettle grown in our own garden without
chemical input, are freshly processed immediately prior to use.
Our unique Selenium-rich Kombucha symbionts are cultured in our
own laboratory using our exceptionally potent peasant-grown Green
tea and likewise processed immediately prior to use.
Of the like-minded ingredients, I pioneered (1st
in the world - 1996) formulations with kombucha
extracts, corresponding to Trevor Steyn's (10-years too late) "cutting
edge ingredients", hyaluronic acid and carboxymethyl
(beta) glucan, which promise to "ensure
that Esse products are always at the pinnacle of what modern skincare
can offer". Being cultured on green tea and freshly expressed,
Gaia's Kombucha extracts significantly yield high integrity hyaluronic
acid, beta glucan and nucleic acids (besides other valuable natural
substances) and as such, avoid having to be extracted and stabilised
synthetically for commercial storage ability and at a fraction of
the cost, Gaia Organics are generous when formulating with these
ingredients, rather than token gesturing their use due to any cost
considerations. I also pioneered (1st in the world
- 1994) formulations with green tea (which makes
a mockery of the feeble hyped indigenous rooibos & honeybush
teas). I additionally pioneered (1st in the world
- 1994) formulations with colloidal and ionic silver (and
later also copper, zinc and manganese).
Gaia's second slogan correctly is "We Lead, Others Follow".
Trevor Steyn is seriously mistaken when he cockily claims: "I
personally don’t consider your company any sort of competition".
I make this declaration, not in terms of whose business is the biggest,
since Gaia Organics have no intentions of being the biggest, just
the best and only for those that really, really want it. This leads
to another infuriating instance of Trevor Steyn's negative ingredient
profiling. I pioneered (1st in the world - 1991)
genuine alpha hydroxy acids (AHAs) in product formulations,
more that 19 years ago and several years before Estee Lauder launched
their glycolic acid based "Fruition". Uniquely tamed with
green tea and formulated as a toner, Gaia has been able to optimise
the active strength and benefits of its leading-edge fruit acid
technology without compromise or adverse effects. From the start,
these complex fruit acids were scraped out of wooden barrels used
for the manufacture of wine, apple, pear and pineapple ciders and
progressively supplemented with pure lab synthesised nature-identical
fruit acids, without loss of advantage.
Trevor Steyn is out of line when he states on his website: "The
daily use of alpha hydroxy acids is unhealthy and accelerates the
aging process. AHAs dissolve the cement that holds cells together
and cause the outer layers of the skin to peel off. This is to support
claims of wrinkle reduction. The skin will immediately try to maintain
a healthy skin thickness by accelerating the rate of division of
the basal cells. The same process causes a callous. Each basal cell
can only replicate about 74 times (the Hayflick limit). Once enough
basal cells reach the limit the skin starts to get thinner and more
prone to sun damage, wrinkles and attack by pathogens. AHA’s
accelerate the rate of basal cell division and hence accelerate
the aging process. By removing the outer layer of the skin, AHA’s
also increase the likelihood of sun damage. This outer layer is
the skin’s first line of defense against UV damage."
ST: Whilst it is true that premature destruction of cells of the
lower epidermis does inevitably draw the skin closer to the Hayflick
limit, it might be useful to consider this in some perspective.
Human beings are classified as hominoids and as such we are frugivorous
(fruit eating) animals by creation and evolution, confirmed by comparative
anatomy, physiology and biochemistry. It is a fact that our direct
and indirect ancestors over the vast majority of their passage of
time on Earth (the past 10,000 years is a mere blink of the eye
on a linear continuum) have primarily consumed mainly fruits relative
to other foodstuffs and as such, have been naturally bathing the
skin in perspiration that was rich in fruit acids, rather than protein
digestive waste acids. The use of mild genuine fruit acid products
(as opposed to harsh glycolic acid peels) therefore merely serves
to perpetuate a naturally healthful skin pH and condition that could
otherwise no longer prevail with most modern diets. Trevor Steyn's
mischievous reference to the Hayflick limit and his ridiculous and
sensational conjecture are laughably simplistic and grossly overstated.
The truth is that the upper epidermis (keratinocytes) is in any
event routinely renewed every 24 days on average and the stratum
corneum continually sloughs-off (Ralston
H et al, Histology 115, Dept Anat, Univ Calif, SF, 2007).
The Hayflick limit (i.e. because fibroblast cells only have a finite
number of doublings, after which they stop dividing and become senescent)
was only studied and determined in dermal fibroblasts in culture,
which again hardly approximates real life conditions. Fibroblasts
are somatic terminally differentiated collagen- and elastin-producing
cells. Tissues that make extensive use of fibroblasts, such as the
skin, are well supplied with fibrocytes, which are undifferentiated
stem cell versions of fibroblasts, which are reserved for
repairing serious tissue damage. Trauma such as impact injury, thermal
or acid burns and conceivably also cosmetic treatments, including
surgery, laser, dermabrasion and chemical peels are able to significantly
impact on the Hayflick limit.
At issue under normal conditions, is not so much
that the skin squanders its stem cells and hence the ability to
produce new cells, but rather that senescent fibroblasts in the
dermis accumulate due to lack of stimuli and that senescent cells
that are not replaced, interfere with skin functions. However, when
'appropriately' 'stimulated', e.g. via signalling molecules naturally
induced by evolutionary concentrations of fruit acids, fibrocytes
actually have the capacity to produce healthy fibroblasts,
which in turn, are capable of producing healthy collagen and elastin
and so continue to improve the appearance of skin, even in the elderly.
(References, too many to annotate this summary)
Getting back now to the non- like-minded ingredients in Trevor Steyn's
formulary, one might justifiably question the wisdom of incorporating
into products intended for the skin, various substances, including
aminoethanols, benzyls, betaines, borates, caprylics, cetearyls,
cetrimides, citrates, dehydroacetics, glucosides, methanes, sorbates,
sorbitans and stearates, all of which require commercial extraction,
processing, synthesis, stabilisation and their own preservation.
Given Ecocert's double standards on petrochemicals, what nasties
lurk here? Rather large on my radar for upcoming expose' is the
toxicity potential of dehydroacetic
acid, especially in baby-care products, which is
just another example of how irresponsible the generic organic formulation
guru is when it comes to the precious health and welfare of others.
A veritable repeat of the tragic Naturebabes Eucalyptus oil debacle,
which harm continues to this day.
I have already profiled the unacceptable toxicity potential of cetrimonium
chloride and carbomer
in some Enchantrix products near the bottom of this thread (in red),
and in great detail on my website, considerable toxicological concerns
Grapefruit seed extract
adulterated with benzethonium
chloride and other synthetics here: http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/grapefruitseedextract.html
Also of concern to me is the use of indigenous plant extracts, primarily
for their African hype value. Listed are Adansonia Digitata seed
oil, Calodendrum Capense seed oil, Eriocephalus Africanus leaf oil,
Eriocephalus Punctulatus leaf oil, Kigelia Africana fruit extract,
and Sutherlandia Frutescens leaf extract. Whilst the Kigelia is
certainly the most promising from a dermatological perspective,
it is also likely the most toxic of the group. I have already extensively
exposed the considerable hype and the potential toxicity of Sutherlandia
I am not being melodramatic in raising such concerns. I am the only
activist authority on the subject of the toxicity and mortality
statistics regarding Traditional African Medicine and my still unrebutted
extrapolations indicate that between 10,000 and 20,000 Africans
die each year in South Africa from such plants, who would not have
died but for such exposure. My main documents on this topic are
and here: http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/trads2.html
I note from biographical material, that Trevor Steyn was (perhaps
naively, but might still be, given all his pretences) an ethnopirate,
i.e. one who steals the intellectual property of, and exploits the
traditions of other cultures for one's own commercial gain, which
despicable activities of others, I have widely exposed in several
reports. Trevor Steyn's Master's degree thesis involved the isolation
and identification of potential new pharmaceuticals from indigenous
medicinal plants (Advertorial, "Esse
is for super-natural", Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Review,
Trevor wrote: "Esse has certified organic
with Ecocert and we use high percentages of certified organic ingredients
in our products." So what? Given my considerable expose'
to date, I had expected "ecocertification" by now to rightfully
be something not worth bragging about, but it seems I need to put
far more effort into my consumer awareness campaign. Perhaps when
one has invested much time and money in an exposed fraud, the only
commercial option is to still see it through, wave the banner and
pass on the expense to gullible consumers.
Trevor wrote: "You seem to see fit to
advertise your brand as organic". Trevor must have a short
attention span and memory. Just a week earlier, I rebutted this
allegation in great detail. Furthermore, unlike him, I don't advertise
at all (in its most common understanding, i.e. to increase sales),
since I consider advertising to be a desperate form of commercial
prostitution. Likewise the statement: "If anyone is misleading
the public it is you", is just plain stupid and irritating,
considering that I have very openly and publicly demonstrated the
exact opposite. Clearly Mr Steyn has nothing intelligent to contribute
to this debate and so resorts to already defeated circular arguments,
whilst my real concerns and challenges remain cowardly ignored.
Trevor wrote: "Your convoluted logic -
that organic plant matter eventually became crude oil – will
not be upheld by very many people." Another red herring,
this time accompanied by a decree by 'His Worship', without any
substantiation at all for his silly position, but dear disciples,
blindly believe it and follow the decree you must. You dare not
uphold scientific facts, lest you be accused of convoluted logic.
I have, on the other hand, more than adequately dealt with the well
substantiated science on this topic via a carefully laid out argument
of my own here: http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/organiccontroversyandscam.html.
This prompts a challenge to Trevor to articulate and post his own
reasoned counter-argument (rather than a copied opinion). Realistically,
this debate will probably remain largely academic, but unfortunately
for Trevor and his ilk, the undeniable reality is that crude
oil and mineral oil are 100% natural and organic!
Trevor wrote: "In 2004 Dr Darbre of Reading
University showed that parabens were present in breast cancer tumours.
Almost all breast tumours need oestrogen to grow". So
what?? What about the unmentioned literally hundreds of other chemicals
measurable in cancerous breast tissue, many at far higher concentrations
and having far greater oestrogen mimic potential? Trevor's sweeping
propaganda assumptions regarding the oestrogen mimicry potential
of parabens is grossly irresponsible and for a supposedly educated
person, suggests, along with the allied evidence, that he is well
aware of his misrepresentation of the facts and does so for commercial
expediency. His convoluted illogical associations of parabens with
sperm counts, breast cancer and the tobacco industry would be laughable,
were it not so tragic in its desperation to mislead those apparently
even more stupid than himself, should he actually believe his own
Let me just put this paraben propaganda and paranoia issue into
perspective and so show for once and all why Trevor Steyn is either
a deliberate fraudster or is as stupid as his silly rhetoric.
have safely preserved fruit juice, beer, wine and cosmetics
for 60 years. ‘Organic’ vendors have deliberately
seeded the circulating misinformation, placed out of context
to create the impression of risks that are non-existent in
the real world. Ignorant journalists and Internet commerce
dominating the search-engines ensure a gullible public that
believe and innocently advance this clever commercial strategy.
According to plan, consumers avoid these and face far greater
risk from alternatives, such as:
grapefruit seed extract (http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/grapefruitseedextract.html)
or alcohol (http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/alcohol.html),
which are hundreds-fold more cytotoxic.
It is widespread propaganda that parabens are cancer-causing
endocrine disruptors, yet many common phytochemicals, e.g.
from soybeans or the mycotoxins on maize, are thousands of
times more potent as endocrine disruptors than are the feebly
estrogenic parabens. Parabens are the safest preservatives
available and are, in fact, widely distributed in many fruits,
vegetables and spices and are natural components of black
and green teas. Contrary to the vested interest scare tactics,
Parabens are not carcinogenic, mutagenic
or clastogenic (Final Report,
Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel, Amended Safety Assessment
(of Parabens), June 13, 2006).
The unproven linking of minute amounts of parabens in human
breast tumour tissues to causality of breast cancer is grossly
unscientific. Darbre, who advanced her over-enthusiasm for
this idea without evidence and became a celebrity researcher,
has ever since desperately attempted to restore her professional
reputation by vindicating her premature conclusion, to no
avail, in spite of intensified research. Many far more potent
endocrine disrupters in much higher amounts are detectable
in human tissues. Darbre
now far more reasonably postulates a functional role for the
combined interactions of cosmetic chemicals with environmental
oestrogens, pharmacological oestrogens, physiological oestrogens
in the rising incidence of breast cancer (Darbre
P, Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab, 20(1), 2006).
It is difficult to correct public perceptions once the media
lose interest and no longer report on a hypothesis that has
turned out to be false. The public deserve to know this and
that the p-hydroxybenzoic acid present in most plants is almost
as oestrogenic as methyl- and propyl- parabens; that soya
and mycotoxins on grains and cereals are 100-1000 times more
so and that naturally occurring estradiol (oestrogen) is 10,000-
to 100,000-fold more potent still. (Golden
R et al, Crit Rev Toxicol, 35(5), 2005) Propyl paraben, the
more oestrogenic of the two, has been recently re-evaluated
for safety of acceptable daily intakes, which significantly
remain unchanged (WHO Tech Rep Ser, 940, 2007).
Are the feared parabens in skin care products good (or bad)
for consumers? Research has determined that regular application
of parabens does indeed lead to mild localised oestrogenic
effects, not only via interaction with estrogen receptors,
but also via the inhibition of oestrogen sulfotransferase
activity. Is any of this desirable? The perhaps surprising
answer, given all the negative propaganda is yes, yes, yes!
Scientists now confirm that the skin anti-aging benefits
of topical products containing parabens are ironically, derived
in part, from their localised oestrogenicity.
(Prusakiewicz J et al, Toxicology, 232(3), 2007)
Let us briefly consider the benefits.
Oestrogens in the skin are important modulators of keratinocytes,
fibroblasts and melanocytes and aid in the delay, prevention
and reversal of skin aging. It prevents wrinkling that arises
from decreased skin collagen, elastin and skin thickness,
maintains skin moisture by increasing acid mucopolysaccharides
and hyaluronic acid, maintains skin barrier function and accelerates
healing (Shah M, Maibach H,
Am J Clin Dermatol, 2(3), 2001); (Sator P et al, Exp Dermatol,
13 Suppl 4:36, 2004); (Kanda N, Watanabe S, J Dermatol Sci,
38(1), 2005); (Verdier-Sévrain S, Exp Dermatol, 15(2):
2006); (Stevenson S, Thornton J, Clin Interv Aging, 2(3),
To the disbelief of many, para-hydroxybenzoic acid is the
most widely distributed aromatic organic acid in the vegetable
kingdom. All higher plants require it to produce coenzyme-Q
for respiration and some as pollinator attractants / defensive
chemicals. Paraben in urine from healthy humans is from decomposition
of tyrosine (amino acid) and from foods such as carrot, onion,
olive, strawberry, cucumber, vanilla, cocoa and tea in the
diet. The now feared esters Methyl- and Propyl- paraben are
nature-identical anti-microbial agents that actually do exist
in nature and are indispensable to consumer safety.
Plants known to synthesise
Methyl paraben include Granadilla
(A Naidoo, Natural Food Anti-microbial
Systems, CRC Press, 2001) and
Oca, a tuber widely consumed in South America
(Pal Bais H et al, Plant
Physiol Biochem, 41(4), 2003). Plants
known to synthesise Propyl paraben include
B, Sangchote S, 15th Australas Plant Path Soc Confer, Deakin
Univ, Geelong, 26-29 Sept, 2005) and
P, Russwurm J, Food Chem, 3(1), 1978). Propyl
paraben is furthermore synthesised by Verticillium
fungi inhabiting decaying vegetation, hence organic soil
(El Aissama A, Mycopathologia,
Royal bee jelly
contains methyl and propyl parabens (Ishiwata
H, Yamada T, Food Sanit, 50 (7), 2000).
The ultimate irony is that manufacturers of products containing
extracts of these and many other natural resources would be
committing fraud if they proclaimed their products to be “free
of parabens”. As we stress our skin and
age prematurely, we all tend to use progressively more topical
skincare products. Unbeknown to most manufacturers and consumers,
paraben preservatives actually serve consumers by ensuring
that there is sufficient anti-aging oestrogen where and when
needed most. Clearly the established benefits by far outweigh
any perceived risks. It is time for the “organic”
product vendors who malign parabens for commercial expediency
to eat humble pie and accept that they have seriously misled
consumers about topical parabens. END (Stuart
Thomson, Director, Gaia Research Institute, April 2008)
Trevor wrote: "Professor
Yoshikawa in 2005 found that methyl paraben in the presence of UV,
accelerates the aging process in skin cells".
ST: So what of the context? This was a very crude preliminary experiment
having little or no bearing on real-life exposures.
the tests were done not on human, or even on animal skin,
but on cultured skin keratinocytes. Significantly, these cells
were undifferentiated/immature, the matrix devoid of vascularisation
and melanisation and were directly exposed to UVB radiation
due to the absence of normal stratified keratinisation, functional
barrier and surface layers of environmentally weathered, dead
and sloughing epidermal cells (stratum corneum). Also absent
are layers of reflective sebum and perspiration, to name just
a few missing normally protective parameters.
Secondly, these cells were cultured in a Methyl paraben containing
medium for 24 hours, neither of which circumstances could
ever occur in real-life. Furthermore, it is rare in this day
and age to apply a paraben-preserved product intended for
daytime use that does not comprise of at least a UV-B screen
or filter, which would completely negate any such ill-postulated
The results are not at all unexpected, given
the artificial conditions and the fact that each additional
insult (e.g. 'paraben' + UVB) is disproportionate and exponential,
and in any event, the worst case scenario end result being cell
deaths, which self-limits any serious risk. The
fact is that any second factor, e.g. pure 'water' + UVB, might have
yielded similar/worse synergistic results. The author's conclusion,
or at least Trevor's interpretation of it, is clearly premature.
Trevor wrote: "Ecocert
have taken this relatively new research into account in their decision
making process". Have they now? If so, why are they not
even more urgently "banning" oestrogen mimicking phytochemicals,
including grapefruit seed extract (which is always
contaminated with petrochemical quaternary ammonium biocides)
and cytotoxic grain alcohol? What
about the safety and acceptability of the clearly inorganic nano-tech
chloride and Titanium dioxide composite
used in product ranges formulated by Trevor Steyn? These are prohibited
in personal care products intended for application around the eyes
and lips and in particular in products used by children under three
years of age.
What of the petrochemical components of these,
in particular the dreaded propylene glycol? What
of the paraben esters allowed on raw materials?
In particular, what of paraben
repeatedly demonised by Trevor Steyn that are naturally occurring
'in' raw materials, including those in Trevor Steyn's own Esse range?
These are all substances "banned" by
Ecocert, who conveniently turn a blind eye to their inclusion
in 'certified organic' products even for Ecocert's own commercial
expediency, rendering Ecocert organic certification an outright
fraud. These questions demand honest responses
in the public interest. Failing to do so fully in response to these
accusations shall be construed as tacit admission of the charges.
Trevor wrote: "You claim that Esse uses
the Neways marketing strategy – our new website doesn’t
once mention petrochemicals, parabens or SLS. It will be up and
running in about two weeks. Our new marketing material also makes
no mention of these ingredients. We rely on the public to do their
own research." Now Trevor insults me (all recipients hereof)
with his expectation that anyone could fall for this illogical excuse
for his past and present use of the Neways strategy via an insulting
argument to the effect that his new website, to be posted some time
in the future, will desist with the provocative behaviour that I
have been complaining about for more than 3-years. Way back on 5
July 2005 in a correspondence thread such as the present, also started
by me, Trevor conceded: "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." No such changes were instituted. The strategy
was just too lucrative to resist.
The fact that Trevor and Anthea, for commercial expediency, reneged
on such peace agreements, sought by me to find common ground and
avoid in-fighting, is the reason that matters have deteriorated
to the point that has now led the Secret Authors to unfairly blame
me for the ongoing dispute, when I am in fact the innocent aggrieved
party. Thousands of readers of Trevor's fraudulent articles in and
on the Biophile magazine and website and repeated elsewhere, has
caused irreparable harm to the legitimate ethical businesses of
myself and others. Not a single rebuttal, correction or withdrawal
has ever been instituted. To add insult to injury, Anthea more recently
posts on her website the fraudulent "A Response to Gaia Organics"
(posted and rebutted below) and Trevor responds to my rebuttal thereto
with the utter rubbish that I am now obliged to rebut via this present
precious time-consuming response for public legal record.
Trevor wrote: "You seem to be under the
impression that there is some sort of conspiracy against you and
that myself and Anthea Torr are focused on the demise of your company."
Trevor's articles did not mention
Gaia Organics by name. The "Neways Strategy" was intended
to disadvantage all their competition. In its current form, as adopted
by Trevor's Esse, Anthea's Enchantrix and several others copied
on this thread, the adopted strategy indiscriminatively disadvantages
any business honestly listing any ingredients that are dishonestly
targeted by the misinformative propaganda. This is clearly a harmful
business practice and once the perpetrator is reasonably informed
of this fact, perpetuation of the practice renders it an actionable
fraud. It is my intention that this thread serve as prior cautioning
of recipients of my intention to name and shame their activities
in this regard and to proceed against them if they do not desist.
Trevor's website dedicates 3 out of 7 sections to the Neways strategy.
Thus, 45% of his attention is dedicated to what his products
allegedly do not and others allegedly do contain. This
is pathological, if not "certifiable", no pun intended.
I can't help noticing that I am heading the same way. However, I
am rationally legally responding to his irrational fraudulent initiatives.
Esse Salon Products
Without expanding any links on these pages at this stage, here are
the three sections in their entirety:
Trevor's Esse "Home Page" (www.esse.co.za),
to the total exclusion of any other information, proclaims:
No parabens, no petrochemicals
Just pure, effective skincare
What goes on, goes in
for a short list of ingredients
that we feel should be avoided.
Trevor's Esse "Controversial Ingredients" Page (http://www.esse.co.za/Ingredients.aspx)
cosmetics industry has borrowed a page from the playbook of
the tobacco industry by putting profits ahead of public health".
Senator Edward Kennedy at a hearing on the FDA Reform bill
is very well adapted to its natural environment and is capable
of processing the vast majority of the constituents of plants
that occur around you.
is not well designed to process synthetic chemicals that it
would not encounter in nature.
natural ingredients that your skin can use to keep itself
healthy. We ensure that these ingredients don't contain traces
of synthetic pesticides by insisting on organic certification
from ingredient suppliers.
Esse will not use some ingredients.
Click here to
SLS (Sodium Lauryl Sulphate).
Click here to
Click here to
Fragrance/ Parfum and Pthalates
Click here to read more.
ingredients that Esse avoids
Ethoxylated ingredients - like the PEG’s
or any other ingredient ending in –eth
surfactants – Ammonium Laureth Sulphate, Sodium Laureth
· GM ingredients.
preservatives – Imidizolidinyl urea and others.
that have been tested on animals.
Trevor's Esse "Philosophy" Page (http://www.esse.co.za/philosophy.aspx)
Esse has committed
to the following:-
95% or more of
our natural inputs are certified organic
No parabens or
No synthetic fragrance or phthalates
No sulphated surfactants
like Sodium Lauryl/eth Sulphate
No synthetic colourants
No ethoxylated ingredients (PEG and …-eth ingredients)
At Esse we focus
our research on cutting-edge natural actives to ensure that
we are always at the pinnacle of what modern skincare can
Mass Hyaluronic Acid and Carboxymethyl Glucan are used extensively
in our range for their combined ability to penetrate, hydrate
and protect the skin from the free radicals that cause aging.
We have found ethical microbial sources for these two ingredients
that do not use any genetic modification or the traditional
The Esse Professional
range incorporates the use of certified organic omega-3, 6
and 9 oils. In 2004 researchers reviewing the benefits of
omega-3’s concluded, “Topical application of products
rich in omega 3 fatty acids is a critical step in order to
maintain healthy skin, prevent aging, and improve moisture
content without adding oiliness to both acne-prone and chronically
Esse Buying Policy
Our rules are
fairly simple – if the raw material is available locally
and carries organic certification then we buy it regardless
of price. If a certified organic raw material is not available
locally then we will import.
Wherever applicable we source raw materials from fair trade
organizations like Phytotrade.
Our tests are
all done on human volunteers. We don’t test our products
on animals and will not source raw materials from companies
We feel that
the daily use of alpha hydroxy acids is unhealthy and accelerates
the aging process.
AHA’s dissolve the cement that holds cells together
and cause the outer layers of the skin to peel off. This is
to support claims of wrinkle reduction.
The skin will immediately try to maintain a healthy skin thickness
by accelerating the rate of division of the basal cells. The
same process causes a callous.
Each basal cell can only replicate about 74 times (the Hayflick
limit). Once enough basal cells reach the limit the skin starts
to get thinner and more prone to sun damage, wrinkles and
attack by pathogens.
the rate of basal cell division and hence accelerate the aging
By removing the
outer layer of the skin, AHA’s also increase the likelihood
of sun damage. This outer layer is the skin’s first
line of defense against UV damage.
ST: I did
point out earlier that Trevor's comments raise new issues that in
turn raise several other issues. I will keep this response as concise
as possible, reserving the right to elaborate later.
I think that the above public record
alone definitively confirms Trevor Steyn's use of the Neways Strategy,
and also his awareness of the prejudicial impact it has on competitor's
businesses. That Trevor has allowed this miscontextualised misinformation
to not only be accessible, but actually foisted on the public from
his business website and those of others after being advised of
the fraudulent nature thereof and after undertaking to remove such
information at that time, as also did Anthea, does tend to answer
strongly in the affirmative that Trevor and Anthea are focussed
on the demise of not only my business, but also those of anyone
else honestly listing such deliberately targeted ingredients. That
their own products include ingredients made with a host of petrochemicals,
including not only the permitted safe parabens and mineral oil,
but also undetermined other chemicals of undetermined safety, as
well as a host of known toxins and endocrine disruptors, despite
intimations and assurances to the contrary, clearly serves to compound
said fraud. That they do this pretending to be 'holier than thou',
is totally despicable.
Trevor also makes and perpetuates a common error as a matter of
fact, which propaganda I am further obliged to correct. In Part
2 above, Trevor states: "Your body is very well adapted
to its natural environment and is capable of processing the vast
majority of the constituents of plants that occur around you. Your
body is not well designed to process synthetic chemicals that it
would not encounter in nature." The first sentence is
partly true. The second is incorrect. Read together, they are both
incorrect. Trevor is either ignorant, or has devious intent. Allow
me to summarise from how the acknowledged experts in this field
concur that our bodies cope equally well with both natural
chemical toxins and synthetic chemical toxins:
read Professor Bruce Ames’ groundbreaking seminal research
in 1983 (Ames B, Science, 221(4617),
1983) but arrogantly insisted on wrongly believing,
as many still do, that our body’s defences somehow coped
with natural toxins, yet failed against synthetic toxics.
Six years later, Ames argued even more persuasively and concluded
that: “Experimental evidence indicates that animal
general defences are effective against both natural and synthetic
compounds, since the basic mechanisms of carcinogenesis are
not unique to either” (Ames
B, Chapter 14, ‘Pesticide Residues and Cancer Causation,
in ‘Carcinogenicity of Pesticides’, ACS Symposium
Series 414, 1989). This point, restated and masterfully
elaborated in several published papers over the years, remains
unrebutted today, to the point that this contention is now
an unchallenged scientifically irrefutable matter of fact.
In Part 3, pp 7782-7786 of their 1990 trilogy in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, titled: ‘Nature's
and synthetic chemicals: Comparative Toxicology’,
Ames, Margie Profet and Louis Gold wrote as follows:
It is often assumed that because plants are part of human
evolutionary history, the mechanisms evolved to cope with
the toxicity of natural chemicals will fail to protect us
against synthetic chemicals. This assumption is flawed for
several reasons. These defenses (sic) are actually effective
against both natural and synthetic toxins. Defenses that have
evolved are mostly of a general type, since the number of
natural chemicals that might have toxic effects is so large.
General defenses protect not only against natural but also
synthetic chemicals, making humans well buffered against toxins.”
(Jakoby W (Ed.), Enzymatic
Basis of Detoxification, Vols. I and II, Academic Press, NY,
1980); (Ames B, Magaw N, Gold L, Science, 236, 271-280, 1987);
(Ames B, Gold L, Science 238, 1634, 1987)
Plants have been evolving and refining their chemical weapons
for at least 500 million years. Humans have not had time to
evolve into a ‘toxic harmony’ with plants. Natural
selection works far too slowly for humans to have evolved
specific resistance to toxins in newly introduced plants.
Multiple hazard chemical synergisms occur from both natural
and synthetic sources. Anti-carcinogens do not distinguish
whether carcinogens are synthetic or natural. (Ames
B et al, PNAS, 1990)
Natural and synthetic toxins can have the same mechanisms.
For example, the cabbage family vegetables (crucifers) contain
indole carbinol, converted by stomach acid to dimers and trimers
that bind to the body’s Ah receptor and which, in the
presence of eg aflatoxin, causes mitogenesis, just like the
synthetic dioxin. The EPA's human ‘reference dose’
of dioxin is 6 femtograms per kg per day, compared with 5
mg of indole carbinol per 100 g of crucifers. The effective
dose from a helping of crucifers would be 500- 1,500 times
higher than that of dioxin.
(Ames B et al, PNAS, 1990)
Wild plants and especially plants bred for ‘organic’
pest resistance contain more natural toxins and have caused
unprecedented toxicity problems. ‘Organic farmers’
use natural pesticides that are not as extensively tested
as synthetic pesticides, if at all, for mutagenicity, carcinogenicity
or teratogenicity. The first rule of toxicology is that all
chemicals are ‘toxic’. It is the dose that makes
the poison. Animals have a broad array of inducible general
defenses to combat the changing array of both natural toxic
chemicals and synthetic toxic chemicals. Reference: (Ames
B et al, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the USA, 87(19) [Part 3], 7782 - 7786, 1990).
Margie Profet, an evolutionary biologist specialising in the
detoxification mechanisms used by our immune systems to cope
with natural and now synthetic toxins, concurred as follows:
“The mammalian immune response known as "allergy"
evolved as a defense against the extensive array of toxic
substances. By protecting against acute toxicity, allergy
may also defend against mutagens and carcinogens." (Profet
M, Q Rev Biol, 66(1), 1991) Louis Gold also concurred:
“Because defenses are generally inducible and the toxicology
of both natural and synthetic chemicals similar, our defenses
protect equally well from low doses of both chemicals”
(Gold L et al, Science, 258:261,
Humans have evolved enzymes and ligand-binding proteins to
metabolize and eliminate many natural chemicals and have evolved
adaptive mechanisms, stress responses and checkpoint pathways
to prevent or correct damage. Due to the broad specificities
of these proteins and adaptive processes, humans also detoxify
and adaptively respond to many synthetic chemicals as well,
even though we might never have encountered these chemicals
before in our evolution. Nevertheless, a small fraction of
old and new chemicals, synthetic and natural, can elude our
defenses enough to impact components of our developmental
processes, leading to developmental defects.
(Scientific Frontiers in Developmental Toxicology and
Risk Assessment, Committee on Developmental Toxicology, Board
on Environmental Studies & Toxicology, Natl Res Council,
National Academies Press, 2000)
"You also mention that we use contract manufacturers as if
this were a secret. We are a research and development company and
the fact that we secured the services of a larger, more professional
factory is something that we are proud of."
ST: Trevor Steyn is a mere armchair formulator critic, with no real-life
experience to speak of, yet he sees fit to criticise those who clearly
have. All Trevor does is the relatively simple task of emulating
the formulae of real pioneers, within the nonsensical constrictions
imposed by a second party and then has that impersonally manufactured
by a third party, or as Trevor, on being so exposed prefers to portray
it: "we secured the services of a larger, more professional
factory, something that we are proud of." What is there
to be proud of? Someone else's 'factory'?
Here at Gaia, my wife and I personally manufacture every single
product in our own laboratory, using minimal mechanisation and almost
daily handle 100% concentrations of our raw materials with our own
bare hands. We have yet to experience any of the imaginary reactions
that Trevor loves to suggest results from even normal consumer contact
with an ingredient such as SLES, let alone such a worst case occupational
scenario and where we additionally even use concentrated SLES to
wash-up in our home kitchen and to wash all our laundry. Additionally,
we use all our own personal care products and in the light of all
this, as well as nearly 20 years of feedback from tens of thousands
of customers, we can vouch for the long-term safety thereof. Incidentally,
our staff only help to dispense and clean up, with no contact whatsoever.
I would suggest to Trevor that achievements such as all this might
well be something to be proud of.
Prior to my expose', Trevor Steyn
has repeatedly led readers to believe that he in fact manufactures
his own products. By way of a few recent examples of such direct
claims: 1) In the Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Review (March 2006),
Trevor states: "My company comprises a formulation
business' and a skin care range". In the
Independent Online (May 2006), Lindsay Ord introduces "Trevor
Steyn, who produces a range of chemical-free organic skin care products
in his Richmond
factory" and Trevor states that he: "Started
Esse, a company that manufactures
products that are 100 percent natural". In the
current Enviropaedia (2007), Trevor states "Esse
high-end skincare products... (that) contain no paraben preservatives,
no petrochemical by-products... avoiding all potentially harmful
Esse is still listed as a "manufacturer"
on searchza.com and urbansprout.co.za. Even I,
naively accepting these statements at face value, repeated it as
fact on my Gaia Research website. Its all lies with Trevor Steyn
and stubborn at that. Several years ago already, the Daily News,
Online Edn. July 30, 2003, reported: “After reading the
March issue of the Clicks Complementary Health magazine, a consumer,
Toni Silverstone, lodged three complaints with the ASA about separate
products. 1. In an advertorial about Esse Organic Skincare, she
said the use of the words "100% natural" was misleading
because a processed product could no longer claim to be natural.
Last month, the ASA upheld the complaint and asked the company to
withdraw the advertorial in question.”
On go-organic.co.za/forum (5 June 2006), Esse's Dee Steyn states:
"We are a local 'manufacturer 'of organic personal
care products. Our primary line is a skincare range called Esse
Organic Skincare. We have a full range of cleansers, toner, moisturisers,
body lotion etc and are certified
by Ecocert France. Please look at our website - www.esse.co.za.
Regards, Dee." Note the blatant false claim to
be certified by Ecocert. An honest typing error perhaps? No. The
claim is repeated (14 June 2006), with slight variations:
"Natalie; I got your mail from the go-organic forum. We are
a local 'producer'
of certified organic skincare products called Esse Organic Skincare.
We do a full
range of skincare products certified by Ecocert France. Please
have a look at our website - www.esse.co.za.
Regards, Dee." Esse's public lies: 1) manufactures;
2) chemical free; 3) 100% natural; 4) no parabens; 5) no petrochemical
by products; 6) avoiding all potentially harmful ingredients; and
last, but not least 7) a full range of skincare products certified
by Ecocert France! All blatant lies. Trevor Steyn is a fake!
Regarding Trevor Steyn's ludicrous claim to be a "research
and development company", not only do I not see
evidence of any pioneering research or development at all, but alarmingly,
Trevor Steyn's research somehow missed the critical fact that, with
the exception of three products, there is at least one Alpha Hydroxy
Fruit Acid in every single product in the Esse Organic Skincare
range. Yes, the very same
AHAs that he has been condemning at every opportunity as "unhealthy
and accelerates the aging process", "accelerates
the rate of basal cell division and hence accelerate the aging process"
and "increases the likelihood of sun damage" etc, etc.
Then we have an additional surprise, in that, despite Trevor Steyn's
numerous assurances to the contrary, Esse
Organic Skincare products have in several instances, actually been
formulated with Methyl-Paraben.
Trevor wrote: “May I suggest that we
meet at some time in the near future so that I can gain some insight
into what drives your vitriolic attacks?”
ST: I have penned dozens of e-mails / letters to Trevor and Anthea
and as many reports / position statements on my website in response
to their mischief over the years, to no avail. If my response to
Anthea's "Response to Gaia Organics" below and
my 10-page response above to Trevor's e-mail of 24 April still leaves
Trevor with insufficient insight into what drives these communications,
then I do not see any point in meeting with Trevor other than in
a court of law, or in public debate. At time of writing, Trevor's
undertaking 18 days ago to have revised content, sans propaganda
attacks on said ingredients up in about 2-weeks having still not
materialised, I feel fully justified, in the light of all that has
transpired and continues to unfairly prejudice myself and others
at Trevor’s hand, to circulate this response, being Part 2
in an ongoing series of expose' and educational reports aimed at
correcting said propaganda.
In closing, my express challenge to Trevor Steyn, Anthea Torr and
Ecocert as juristic person and witnessed by all recipients of this
communication, is that they get off their self-made pedestals and
start responding honestly and fully to my critique, or continue
to be relentlessly exposed by me in the greater public interest,
as the fraudsters that they are. The same applies to all recipients
in their various capacities, if and to the extent that such identified
fraudulent activities apply to them. These three named respondents
are just the beginning of my campaign.
To indirect observers who have
braved following the evidence of the truths and untruths presented
here, I thank you for your efforts and trust that the exercise is
Director, Gaia Research Institute
Gaia is copyright © 2006 Gaia all rights
Designed by Webs
Page Counter as of September 2008