Dr Barbara Olioso's Blog

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?

 

 

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...

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

A mollusc, the olympics and stress

What have these 3 things in common for goodness sake? Well, there is a very unique and sophisticated test based on a common mollusc that is capable of detecting blood oxidative stress in minutes. This device was used by the British Olympic sailing team to manage their training based on the information provided by this test. In fact this test shows how continous training can lead to stress that can lead to free radicals that can lead to a weak immune system and therefore viral infections that can prevent athletes from winning their medals. And the team using this system did win 4 golds, 2 silvers and one bronze, their best ever result!
This analytical technique, developed by lady scientist Dr Jan Knight in Plymouth, is so fascinating as it is based on piddock, a mollusc that glows in presence of free radicals. This makes "visible"  and also measurable the otherwise invisible free radicals and to decide wether it is time to have a rest or time to train. The implications behind the findings of this test are quite major as it kind of contradicts the common thought that the harder we push the body the more fit it gets. It is all about balance and about listening to the body and if you are too stressed to listen to your body you can simply have one of these tests via a practitioner who can advice you on how to revert the oxidative stress for a healthier lifestyle. To know more about the test kit visit Knight Scientific website