Dr Barbara Olioso's Blog

My presentation in Munich on the challenges of developing Natural and Organic Cosmetics

The Challenges of Developing Natural & Organic Cosmetics

View more presentations from Barbara Olioso.

ID of the most controversial ingredient in natural and organic beauty products

Read below about the equivalent of plastic grass in cosmetics...

Trade name (brand name): Zemea

INCI name (on cosmetics label): Propanediol

Chemical name: 1,3 Propanediol

Profession: elegant humectant and preservative booster

Year of launch: 2008

Made from: GMO corn using biotechnology

Ecocert and NPA status: approved

Soil Association and ICEA status: not approved because of GMO origin

Cosmos status: we shall see...

Let's have a look at its twin ID, ie Propylene Glycol

Trade name: Propylene Glycol

INCI name: Propylene Glycol

Chemical name: 1,2 propanediol

Year invented: 1907

Profession: elegant humectant and preservative booster

Made from: petroleum

Organic and natural status: not approved by any organic certification body

By comparing the 2 IDs you can see how many controveries Propanediol can generate:

Controversy 1- because Propanediol is from corn it is claimed to be natural. Chemically speaking this molecule is not natural and human technology manipulated bacteria and genetically modified corn to make a synthetic structure. To me this is like plastic grass, it looks natural but its essence is not.

2- because propanediol is from a renewable source it is claimed to be sustainable. How can an ingredient made from genetically modified corn be sustainable? The concept behind sustainability is to work with nature without depleting and respecting it. GMO is a dangerous game and in my opinion it does not respect nature because it can cause a lot of environmental damage. It is a time bomb.

3-because Ecocert and NPA approve propanediol you can find natural and organic products on the market with a "natural" propylene glycol without consumers realising they are actually applying a Proplylene Glycol on their skin

Implications:

1- consumers are confused. (And I am confused myself on top of feeling shocked).

2- Can consumers simply rely on organic certifications for their peace of mind?

3- What is natural?

4- how did Zemea INCI name come about? Was it intended to mislead the consumers?

Personally I am not against Propanediol or Zemea as such, what I m worried about is its misleading name and contradictive claims. Besides it has the potential to promote and boost the GMO industry. My passion is for natural, safe and effective beauty products respecting the environment and working with it authentically, by putting my ethos into action (and in fact Forest Secrets Skincare is the embodiment of my passion). GMO is scary and it will present a huge environmental bill, I personally do not want to support or feed that... I am a chemist and I know propanediol is from GMO and so on therefore I can avoid it. But what about the most of the people who want to use truly natural beauty products and who care about the planet? Do they know propanediol is  propylene glycol and do they know it is GMO? Do they have a real choice?

 

 

800Kg of lemon balm leaves to make 200g of oil, how precious

A couple of weeks ago I had the immense pleasure to visit Agronatura in Italy, a cooperative growing organic and biodynamic herbs. Well for the first time in my life I witnessed the distillation of lemon balm oil, one of the most precious essential oils. I love the scent of true lemon balm because it is fresh without being pungent and it has a sweetness that I find calming and at the same time uplifting. I m going to share with you the sight of the distillation and just imagine that the oil coming out of the 800 kg of leaves can fit in less than a tea mug. Imagine the effort of picking up 800 kg of leaves under the burning sun and then transport them miles away to have them distilled. Because the process involves steam, it is a little bit of a "hell" job, and the final result is this beautiful pale yellow oil ... It takes a lot of passion and care to put up with that and that is why I respect and used Agronatura in the past to in my work.

They also grow roses!

 

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...

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...

Petrochemicals, what are they these days?

I was speaking to a client of mine who was telling me about her intention of avoiding petrochemicals in cosmetic products. I know that there are ingredients from petrochemical sources that are also natural in their molecular structure, so what is a petrochemical these days?

If the molecular structure is found in nature but it is man made and petroleum sources are used, can you still call it natural or you are going to call it petrochemical or both? This is very confusing and I have to say I do not have an answer for this modern hybrid. Perhaps pseudonatural could do.. Any suggestions?

An example of these type of compounds is Sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate (approved in organic standards)

And you also have cosmetic ingredients that are partially natural and partially synthetic. How to call them? Seminatural or semipetrochemical?

If you feel creative drop us a line...

Radiation can affect the antioxidant content of pollen

Just come across an article of some research done by Knight Scientific, specialists in the measurement of antioxidant activity and oxidative stress. The article in question was published on Manufacturing Chemist in July/August 2006 and what attracted my attention the most is the graph of antioxidant activity of bee pollen before and after radiation. The graph shows clearly that pollen does loose significantly its antioxidant activity when radiated. The article does not mention the dose applied to the bee pollen, however it makes a point in showing that radiation (a technique used to reduce the microbial load of food and some natural ingredients used in the cosmetic industry such as clay, spices etc.) can affect the activity of the product radiated. This a very tricky topic because radiation is very common these days and is used to sterilise medical equipment, cosmetic and food ingredients as well as finished cosmetic products. I believe that if radiation is used, the activity/quality of the ingredient should be checked.

Orangutan friendly glycerin now available

Palm oil derivatives such as glycerin are a hot topic these days because of the destruction of the orangutans wild habitat caused in the South East of Asia. There is an alternative glycerin now available in the UK from Alfa Chemicals. This glycerine is produced from the Karanja tree. Not cheap at over £10/kg, but worth considering if committed to a green ethos.. Visit Alfa Chemicals website here

Where to find the most ethical and the best essential oils in the UK

Today after having a nice chat with Scott from Kobashi I decided it was time to share with you all this secret gem hiding in the South West of England. Scott and Linda run Kobashi, a company based in Devon selling top quality essential oils. What does that mean? Well, Scott has his on GCMS (gas chromatogram with a mass detector) and therefore he can probe the quality of essential oils to minute quantities spotting pesticides residues, solvent residues and so on. This means that you do not need to buy organic oils when you deal with Kobashi as you have the peace of mind that purity is a fact and not only a myth (there are many essential oils suppliers that do not do this kind of testing) . When you smell their Jasmin absolute, all the other jasmins you will smell will not be as good anymore, and this I am afraid is a downside of dealing with top quality essential oils.
The other side to Kobashi is their total committment to being cruelty free as they have a cut off date that goes back to 1985! Not only they stick to it, restricting their choices, but also they have a collection of signatures to stop the booming of animal testing that the REACH legislation (REACH: registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals) entails
To have a look and purchase their fantastic essential oils visit their website