How honest are these claims? Well,
sadly, not honest at all. Steyn makes much of the “organic
standards” of the commercial company Ecocert,
to which he purportedly aspires to qualify at some future
date (yes, there is profit to be made from organic certification
and consumers will have to foot the bill, whether the manufacture
is paying lip-service to the concept or actually complying
with one or another standard, all of which are actually
corny marketing hype). The products formulated by
Steyn as Esse Organic Skincare and their sister Enchantrix,
Naturebabes and Amba ranges are impersonally mass-produced
in the same “factory” and most use partially
petrochemical processed and other synthetic ingredients
in their manufacture and tellingly there is no
full disclosure of all ingredients and their sources, let
alone their relative toxicities, other than the educational
articles provided courtesy of Gaia Research. As further
ingredients are revealed, I will evaluate these and expose
their flaws.
Ecocert’s labelling
criteria for “Natural” and “Natural and
Organic” cosmetics respectively are 50% and 95% ingredients
of “natural origin” (petroleum is certainly
of natural origin) and a maximum of 5% synthetic ingredients
and a mere 5% and 10% minimum of Certified organic ingredients.
Ecocert Guidelines only require that: “The
percentages of ingredients of natural origin and ingredients
resulting from organic agriculture are clearly indicated
on the labelling”. What of the non-certified
ingredients? The eco-organic rhetoric and ingredients themselves
just don’t add up. There are obvious gaps in the total
ingredient data of the declared formulae, likely constituting
more contentious cheat ingredients. I have no problem with
purified petrochemical ‘extractives’ of crude
oil, which respectively are the purest and richest repository
of natural organic matter on Earth. I do have a problem
with deliberate creation of the fraudulent impression that
simple purified base petrochemicals are inorganic, unnatural,
synthetic and/or toxic, when in reality this is not so.
Mineral oil is 100% natural and organic, the distillation
end-product of crude oil from the bio-accumulation of ancient
plants and algae.
Steyn makes much
of the alleged undesirability of nature based Sodium
lauryl sulfate (SLS) and Sodium lauryl
ether sulphate (SLES), yet the former ironically
is Ecocert approved, whilst the latter
is “negative listed” (or “banned”
in Steyn’s alarmist terminology), yet oddly, Weleda,
one of the world leaders in natural skincare and whose products
are certified by the EU certification body for natural cosmetics,
the BIDH, deliberately chooses to take a principled stand
and use the disapproved rather than the approved ingredient,
insisting on its superior safety and suitability, based
on their extensive research and experience.
Sodium Lauryl Sulphate (SLS) is an Ecocert approved ingredient,
yet Steyn sees fit to dedicate an entire article to this
substance, falsely claiming it to be detrimental to skin
and bodily health. This is akin to an atheist saying
“God bless you”. For the record, you are referred
to Steyn’s article titled "rub a dub... danger
in your tub", in the November/December 2004 edition
of Biophile magazine.. Please note that I have definitively
rebutted these lies in the Biofilth Files, the relevant
section of which is archived here.
On the other hand and even more
importantly, why does Ecocert approve of,
and Steyn blindly on this basis, instead
use in products from his stable, synthetic chemicals such
as Cocamidopropyl
betaine, which rather seriously
for consumers was voted internationally by dermatologists
in 2004 as “allergen of the year”
(an allergen is far more serious than an irritant –
which is all that SLS and SLES can be if abused) and furthermore,
why does Steyn use the toxic synthetic industrial
disinfectant, benzethonium
chloride (in the guise of so-called
Grapefruit
seed extract - another sad scam for
unsuspecting consumers), since the latter is no
extract at all and is always constituted of or contaminated
with synthetic preservatives, including in all cases, toxic
Benzethonium chloride as well as possibly the Dioxin-producing
Triclosan
and even the fraudulently maligned Parabens.
Parbens were the subject to another of Steyn’s smear
campaigns in the 2nd Issue of Biophile magazine in 2005,
titled “ingredients in your cosmetics: what are
they doing to you?”, where he and Torr fraudulently
advertised their obviously inclusive synthetic chemical
and inorganic content Esse and Enchantrix ranges on the
very same page as being “natural”, “organic”
and “free of chemicals”.
It is an absurd irony that
parabens are Ecocert
approved, although discouraged, as chemically
synthesised. The standard reads: “Give preference
to the natural and the natural origin above any other origin”,
but concedes the importance of Parabens thus: “6.
The following preservatives (pseudo-natural substances)
(their wording) can be used: 4 hydroxybenzoic acid, its
salts and its esters (Parabens)” (Ecocert
Standards for Ecological and Organic Cosmetics, January,
2003). Methyl Paraben and Propyl Paraben
as used by Gaia are in fact “nature identical”
to those synthesised by plants, animals and fungi.
Now that Gaia Research have discovered
and published the fact that Methyl paraben
occurs naturally in eg Thale cress and Oca and
Propyl paraben occurs naturally in Verticillium
and Mango (see our Parabens article
here),
can we expect the 100% nature-identical human synthesised
compounds to become logically acceptable to the likes of
Steyn, who, purely as a marketing strategy, incorrectly
criticise these superior safe, efficacious essential preservatives,
fraudulently as significant endocrine disrupters? Note the
further irony, that so-called grapefruit seed extract
is an endocrine disrupter, another hypocritical
issue that Steyn conveniently neglects to mention, (along
with the hypocrisy of the deliberate manufacturer adulteration
of the grapefruit seed extract with inappropriately toxic
synthetic disinfectants). Let me illustrate this endocrine
disruption double standard.
Grapefruit
seed extract (GSE) has high endocrine disrupting potential,
since several of the compounds, in particular the flavones,
are known to have endocrine disruptive activity
(Kellis J, Vickery L. Science,
225(4666), 1984); (Barrett
J. Phytoestrogens, friends or foes? - Environmental Health
Perspectives 104(5), 1996), which in females
may result in a number of reproductive disturbances and
in men, disruption of spermatogenesis (de-feminisation and
de-masculinisation effects) and in both men and women, deleterious
effect on the bones (Sanderson
J et al, Toxicol Sci, 82(1), 2004); (Sanderson
J, Toxicol Sci,94(1), 2006) and possible cancer
promotion, depending on dose, frequency and time of life
exposure (Rice S, Whitehead
A, Endocrine-Related Cancer, 13(4) ). Of the
adulterants in so-called grapefruit seed extract, in particular,
the ever-present Benzethonium chloride is also an
endocrine disruptor (Endocrine
Toxicants, Scorecard, Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances, August, 1997); (Ingredient
Report: Benzethonium Chloride, Environmental Working Group,
2006). The adulterant, Triclosan is
also an endocrine disrupter (Jacobs
M et al, Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 209(2), 2005);
(Veldhoen N et al, Aquatic
Toxicol 80(3), 2006); (Darbre P, Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol
Metab 20(1), 2006) and reacts with free
chlorine in tap water to produce intermediate compounds
that convert into toxic dioxins
upon exposure to UV-radiation (from the sun or
other sources). Dioxins are extremely toxic and
are also potent endocrine disruptors (Lores
M et al, Analyt Bio-analyt Chem, (381(6), 2005).
Ecocert’s ‘Basic
Principles of the Standards’ should, strictly
speaking, no longer allow the use of these nature-identical
parabens, because they have been discovered to occur in
nature (not that they are aware of the fact until I educated
them), which should, on principle, force manufacturers to
now expensively and wastefully use only the likes of Thale
cress, Mango, Cloudberry, Vanilla and Royal Bee Jelly extracts
for these important preservatives at a 100-fold cost increase
to manufacturers and consumers, merely to comply with the
stubborn philosophical standards? Is it any wonder that
I don’t play this silly certified organic game, especially
considering that my products are, on the whole, as or more
natural and organic than any other and if any more so would
be rancid compost and a risk to consumers? Clearly, natural
and/or organic “certification” criteria are
entirely arbitrary and illogical non-scientific concepts,
not only between various certification bodies (the proof
is that there is no single standard, nor authority), but
also amongst members and pseudo aspirant members, many of
whom comply with or pay lip-service to such standards purely
as a marketing strategy, with the express intention of conning
consumers to purchase their products.
The Ecocert Standard is
a hypocritical double-standard and laughable to
any knowledgeable person and even more so, are the twerps
pretending to formulate to its corny guidelines, which is
nothing more than a scam. On the one hand, the Ecocert
Standard declares: “No ingredients resulting from
petro-chemistry are permitted” (to their
detriment, I might add, since this is the purest and richest
source of natural organic raw material on the planet).
The standard goes on to make nebulous laughable and abuseable
concessions such as: “Only
a few synthetic ingredients essential to the product and
not yet available in natural origin are allowed”.
This allows inclusion of coconut derived, but nevertheless
petrochemical synthesised Cocamidopropyl
betaine (CAPB), But hypocritically, the far
safer and mutli-functional coconut derived SLES is disallowed.
The Ecocert approved so-called Grapefruit Seed Extract,
invariably either adulterated with or synthesised to toxic
Benzethonium chloride
(which it never contains naturally) also,
is clearly at odds with Ecocert’s own negative listing
of quaternary ammonium
compounds, which
latter is precisely what the deliberately ignored inevitably
present toxic synthetic Benzethonium chloride active ingredient
is. I notice with interest that some
Enchantrix products now list a further quaternary ammonium
compound, the potentially toxic cetrimonium chloride.
Clearly the entire organic certification
issue is a commercial scam of note, by both the certification
companies and certified manufacturers. For an ongoing expose'
of this rather sickening (literarily) state of affairs,
watch this space. I will update as and when I stumble upon
more examples of consumers being defrauded of their hard
earned income by the organic scammers.
Let me expose more toxic
substances used by Steyn in formulating and manufacturing
his and other’s products. Several other relatively
toxic synthetic cheat ingredients, ie produced partly from
natural raw materials, usually with the help of petrochemicals,
yet having no correlates in nature, are used by Steyn and
others in the abovementioned product ranges, including Carbomer
and Cetrimonium chloride. You will at least
find these chemicals listed in Enchantrix
Hair Gel and Hair Conditioner as the 2nd and 5th most abundant
ingredients respectively. The question is, are they aware
of the hazard potential of these synthetic ingredients?
Judging by their “organic and chemical
free” characterisation of these products, Anthea
Torr, proprietor of Enchantrix, is either being hoodwinked
by formulator/manufacturer Steyn, or is hoodwinking consumers,
with her organic and safety claims. Clearly, it is now even
more so a matter of ‘Consumers beware’!
More analysis and exposé of harmful ingredients will
follow in the public interest as hidden ingredients are
either discovered or disclosed, and as long as deliberate
proven misinformation is disseminated as a marketing strategy
designed to mislead consumers and prejudice others in the
market.
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 reactions.
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).
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).
What are consumers to make of all
this? Of what significance is it that products manufactured
by Trevor Steyn for his and other ranges and by others are
purported to be manufactured using "Ecocert (or some
other certification company’s) approved ingredients"
in accordance with Ecocert or some other certification company’s
"guidelines"? If indeed this is even true, then
why furthermore, are these products not formally certified
by Ecocert as “natural” and/or "organic",
a mere laughable 5-10% requirement to qualify? Perhaps the
products are only "transitional" organic, but
if so, what is "not" organic that should be, that
precludes its certification as such and why? Even if and
when certified, I have more than adequately explained that
this means very little, if anything in terms of consumer
health and safety. "Feel-good factor" yes, but
safety, no. Indeed the very opposite is likely to apply,
for reasons I have argued here and in the linked pages below.