Dr Barbara Olioso's Blog

Safer sunscreens, hopefully on the way

Just read about a new way to compensate free radicals generation in nano Titanium dioxide. A team of Italian chemists have found that coating the Titanium nano particles with Carbon decrease the amount of free radicals produced when it is exposed to UV. High tech can produce this kind of paradoxes, better performance and then out of the blue a side effect nobody thought about... In this case pro-aging effects! Let's see if this research opens the way to safer sunscreens...

Cosmos: is it crystal clear and trasparent?

I have just attended a conference on Cosmos organized by ICEA in Bologna, Italy (Cosmos is the harmonised private standard for organic and natural beauty products in Europe). They were sharing the final principles and guidelines for raw materials and how to apply for the products. I do not really want to go into the details of that and I would like to focus on the fact that the standard will allow some "imperfections", ie unnatural choices, which are:

-maximum 2% petrochemicals in the total formulation (this will only be allowed for a few years to give time to some companies to update their formulations without these petrochemicals)

-radiation of clay (this is because heat would not be suitable to reduce its microbial count)

-hydrogenated ingredients (they can contain Nickel residues and also their chemical structure differ from the non hydrogenated version)

As a cosmetic chemist I understand the reasons behind this strategy, however when I pointed out how the consumer would know that an organic/natural certified beauty product may contain 2% petrochemicals the answer I was given was: it is up to the consumer to find out.

How can they? when

1- they do not expect petrochemicals in organic/natural products

2- they have no technical background to spot the synthetic chemicals in disguise.

3- radiation is not even declared on the label

I think Cosmos could be more open with consumers about its technical choices, explaining the reasons in a simple way, so that people with the purity priority can decide and choose a petrochemical free beauty product (after all they ask raw materials manufacturers great transparency, why not giving the same trsansparency to consumers?). If I were a consumer with no technical background I would expect transparency and simplicity from the certification systems I rely on, because organic and natural is not not only about purity of physical content, but also of ethical content, therefore transparent and clear communication....

 

 

 

The Gin Lady shares her views on parabens

The Gin Lady is a green, independent and natural place to gather information, products reviews and to buy ethical products. We would like to share with you her latest article on the most controversial topic at the moment: parabens. The article is worth reading as it gives the views of the pro and against parabens parties..

Fair Trade, the latest green trend

At the In Cosmetics Show this year there was clearly a new hot trend on the horizon: fair trade. There was a talk by The Fair Trade Foundation explaining the standards and their implications for production (including employment conditions, health and safety, environmental management) and minimum price. You can see their standards here To give you an idea of how trendy Fair Trade is look at these figures:

-the worldwide turnover of fair trade products has now reached 2.9 billions euros

-8 million farmers/producers/workers are benefiting from fair trade

Not bad! The figures are mainly for food related products however the trend is moving into the cosmetic industry bit by bit and Organic Monitor published a report at the end of 2008 to give information about formulation issues, ingredients trend, prices, sales channel with a general overview of what types of products are on the market. If you would like to know more about it, visit their website here

Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate: natural and biodegradable versus skin mildness

This is a surfactant that is becoming very popular in organic certified shampoos and general hygiene products (I was in France last week and sit was in nearly every shampoo I looked at). Why? It is approved by Cosmos and Ecocert because it has good biodegradability data, it is a natural dertivative, it performs well (nice foam and thickens up easily with salt) and it is also cheap. The downside? It strips off the skin natural lipid mantle... This does not mean that all products containing this ingredient are going to be harsh on the skin as it depends on whatelse is in the product, however this dilemma higlights to me that natural and biodegradable is not enough, it does not mean it is safe or mild for the skin. To me the future is very much about SUSTAINABLE (natural, biodegradable and environmentally conscious) and SAFE (mild to the skin). In the meantime prefer products that are dermatologically tested...

Find out how the recession has affected the premium beauty market

I used to be on top of the brands on the market, at least in the natural and organic sector, but now I have to say I lost track, there are so many! Plus with the recession I see the market changing very quickly, with a polarisation between cheap brands and high end ones. So when I found out about  Imogen Matthews 's report for the premium beauty market I thought it would be very interesting and useful for people within the industry to know about it, because as you know good information can save you lots of time, energy and money. The report goes beyond the usual numbers and figures and it is implemented with consumer research to understand consumers' drivers and attitude to cosmetics. The report has just been launched. To know more about it visit Imogen's website

Preservative free cosmetics: are we talking about the daisy flower or my dear friend Daisy?

I have recently attended a lecture by Professor Michael Cork entitled "Killer Cosmetics - from bacterial contamination to skin barrier breakdown", kindly organized by the Society of Cosmetic Scientists in the UK.

Professor Cork is head of the academic unit of dermatology research at the Sheffield university and has worked on severe cases of infants skin rashes caused by microbiologically contaminated skin products. He also explained in a visual and clear way the key mechanism behind the skin barrier.

However I feel I ought to comment on one of the major messages of his lecture: preservative free cosmetics are dangerous whereas products preserved with parabens are very safe.

I approached Michael after his talk to inform him that there are several products on the market which are microbiologically safe and yet preservative free, and his answer was very much based on the chemical function of preservative (the daisy flower) rather than the marketing definition of preservative free (Daisy my friend). They are called the same thing but actually they are different. Let me explain to you.

The chemical function of a preservative is essentially to kill bugs, so if you mean that (daisy the flower) and you say preservative free cosmetics you actually mean a product with no antimicrobial protection whatsoever.  There are 2 types of products that fall into this category: oil based ones (no water) and water based ones with really no antimicrobial agent (it is very rare to come across this worst case scenario. Professor Michael was mentioning contaminated products from Libia and Iran).

Then there is my dear friend Daisy: the legal definition of a cosmetic preservative which comes from what is listed on Annex VI. If a cosmetic ingredient is listed on this annex it is called officially a preservative. This means that you can have a cosmetic ingredient which is not listed on this Annex and still act as a preservative (daisy the flower). And if you use this ingredient to protect your cosmetic from the bugs attack you can claim it to be preservative free and still provide to the public a safe product (providing it has passed the relevant tests required by law).

This is a great example of the gap between some scientific definitions and legal definitions, where you can use the same label or name meaning two different things depending on the point of view. And this gap can be used in a misleading way to reinforce a message or it can cause confusion in people not aware of it. Professor Michael was also stressing the need for education, on which I agree totally, however how it can be done is still a mystery to me (if you have suggestions please tell me).

In my opinion the essence is to ensure that the preservative free cosmetics you buy have been manufactured by a reputable company that complies with the law and makes sure that it is microbiologically safe.

Nano going Visible in cosmetics

A new rule for the European Cosmetic Legislation will enforce the declaration of ingredients made using nano technology. This means that all ingredients made from solids using nano technology will be followed by "(nano)" on the ingredients list. We will all be able to spot it and decide if we want it or not. Big progress in transparency...

Nano technology is very much a grey area and as a green consumer and a chemist I have mixed feelings about it because the physical/chemical behaviour changes when a particle is reduced to such a small size (1-100 nano meters or 10 to minus nine meters, we are talking cells size here). For example nano titanium is inert in normal conditions, but when finely grinded to nano size it can promote the formation of free radicals (pro-aging devils). Some manufacturers are aware of that and take precautions by combining it with antioxidants to quench the free radicals, however this finding has come out recently and it takes time to know the dark side and to find solutions. Because this is still virgin land I do hope that the companies exploring these territories will take the best precautions they can, not only investigating how far they penetrate into the skin but also their chemical behaviour going beyond the required tests by the law.

I do see the potential of nano ingredients allowing products innovation (the market is always thirsty of it), I do not want to condemn it at all, I will assume a case by case position, looking at each individual ingredient, after all the devil is in the detail...

Parabens: new evidence you can see

I would like to share with you the results of an in vitro test performed recently by Dr Philippa Darbre at Reading University. The test is very simple: breast cancer cells incubated for 4 days with and without 0.00019% isobutylparaben. See below the breast cancer cells before the incubation (1) and after the incubation without (2) and with isobutylparaben (3)

Picture 1

Picture 2

Picture 3

I am aware that this is an vitro test, so all the complexity of the human body is taken out of the equation, however I believe they are still valid in showing there is reason to be concerned about this compound. You can clearly see that after 4 days the breast cancer cells do grow more than the ones without. I believe that the major cancer trigger is emotional stress, however environmental factors like this can promote the cancer cells growth making it bigger.

If you add the fact that parabens do get absorbed through the skin and that they are found in urine, we need to think about their journey through the body as well as their interaction on their journey with other parts of the body. Once they are in the blood stream they are in...

Parabens are not only used in cosmetics but also in many drugs such as cough mixtures (usually they are not declared on the label), however when they get ingested they get exposed to the stomach juices and get transformed into something considered to be safe. This indicates that the parabens found in urine do come form the skin absorption rather than ingestion.

What to do as a consumer? Well my suggestion is to read the ingredients list before you buy your cosmetics in order to avoid them.

At a regulatory level isopropylparaben and butylparaben are under review and the European scientific committee has asked for more data to fill the data gaps. The industry might reply that there is no money to invest in the new research, so what might happen is the ban of these substances based on the lack of the evidence requested.

I shall keep you posted..

References:

"In vitro skin permeation and retention of parabens in cosmetic skin formulations", Pedersen, Marra, Nicoli and Santi, International Journal of Cosmetic Science 2007, 29, 361-367; "Assessment of principal parabens used in cosmetics after their passage through human epidermis-dermis layers (ex-vivo study", El Hussein S, Muret P, Berard M, Makki S, Humbert P, Exp Dermatol. 2007 Oct;16(10):830-6;
“Parabens as urinary biomarkers of exposure in humans”, Xiaoyun Ye, Amber Bishop..., Environ. Health Perspect, 114, 1843-1846

Wild animals bones and free range humans

A few weeks ago I met a very interesting lady from Germany with the hobby of making pendants and other utensils from animals bones. The amazing thing she told me is that when she uses bones coming from animals that have been kept in captivity, she has no problem working with them, but when she uses bones from wild animals (her husband hunts wild deers in the black forest, very beautiful animals but far too many for the ecosystem to cope with) her tools tend to break as they are much harder!
These animals get a lot of exercise and also get a lot of fresh air, sunlight and natural food, and I was thinking that probably our bones would be much stronger if we went more free range. Meaning not just natural food but also more fresh air and exercise. Anybody interested in becoming a free range human?