Can someone convince me that FOs are safe?
- Thread starter cdmusic68
- Start date
Help Support Soapmaking Forum:
I was very prejudiced against fragrance oils before I took up perfumery as a hobby. Naturally I only was interested in perfumery from naturals and I did spend a small fortune and several years working with just these materials. But when I finally opened my eyes to the synthetics available as well I realised a few things.
- Many synthetics are simple reproductions of fractions of essential oils. Synthetic rose is so hard to do because rose otto contains thousands of compounds. All they can really pull off is synthesing some of the simpler ones known to give off various aspects of rose and jumble them together. But there is nothing in that synthetic that doesn't basically exist in rose otto itself. Whether that molecule bled from the petal of a flower or was created in a lab makes little difference. Many synthetics are nature identical.
- There are some naturals which are so abhorrent in the way they are sourced there just isn't any justification for using them. Musks are the ideal example. Would I prefer to see the extinction of rare species or just use some basic synthetic musk? Hmm....let me think about that. Many of the simpler synthetic musks are clones of natural ones, they just aren't as complex because once again they are fraction, rather than a whole. Some synthetic musk compounds don't exist at all in nature and these are the ones that typically cause the most concern amoung health circles. These are also usually the highly expensive proprietary blends used in high end fragrance, so it's very unlikely you will ever encounter them in a bottle of BB fragrance. The cheaper ones are simple clones of natural compounds, no more evil than the naturals themselves.
- Synthetic fragrance compounds (undiluted) are often so overpowering in their strength that they are used only in the fraction of a drop in blends. By the time you buy a fragrance oil from a retailer you are being exposed to mere microns of the substance in a very large quantity of inert oil.
- Many synthetics are simple reproductions of fractions of essential oils. Synthetic rose is so hard to do because rose otto contains thousands of compounds. All they can really pull off is synthesing some of the simpler ones known to give off various aspects of rose and jumble them together. But there is nothing in that synthetic that doesn't basically exist in rose otto itself. Whether that molecule bled from the petal of a flower or was created in a lab makes little difference. Many synthetics are nature identical.
- There are some naturals which are so abhorrent in the way they are sourced there just isn't any justification for using them. Musks are the ideal example. Would I prefer to see the extinction of rare species or just use some basic synthetic musk? Hmm....let me think about that. Many of the simpler synthetic musks are clones of natural ones, they just aren't as complex because once again they are fraction, rather than a whole. Some synthetic musk compounds don't exist at all in nature and these are the ones that typically cause the most concern amoung health circles. These are also usually the highly expensive proprietary blends used in high end fragrance, so it's very unlikely you will ever encounter them in a bottle of BB fragrance. The cheaper ones are simple clones of natural compounds, no more evil than the naturals themselves.
- Synthetic fragrance compounds (undiluted) are often so overpowering in their strength that they are used only in the fraction of a drop in blends. By the time you buy a fragrance oil from a retailer you are being exposed to mere microns of the substance in a very large quantity of inert oil.
We really can't convince you of anything. I think it's a personal thing on what you want to use as well as your target market. When I first started out I used only EO's and as time went on I was getting requests for fragrances that were only available in FO's so started adding those to my products and I can now say that for me personally my FO's outsell my EO's by a long shot. Folks just seem to like Lilacs, Honeysuckle, Mango etc. I still carry both but the majority is now FO's. I do not use any with Phthalates though.
OP-the bottom line is this:
If you have a moral objection, or an allergy to FOs, don't use them. If not, and you want to try them...go for it. The ones they make to use in soap are considered safe for your skin if used in the correct amounts. Just like EOs. Some EOs are not safe at higher percentages, either.
If you have a moral objection, or an allergy to FOs, don't use them. If not, and you want to try them...go for it. The ones they make to use in soap are considered safe for your skin if used in the correct amounts. Just like EOs. Some EOs are not safe at higher percentages, either.
Yes.
BTW I didn't take your comments as directed at me. My rant was exactly that ... a rant.
With the exception of the heavier/unstable radioactive elements on the table ... *all* of the elements are found in nature.
Maybe what you were trying to say is that many synthetic compounds are not found in nature - with that I would agree.
OK but recall that when hydrogenation was invented various folks were looking for ways to preserve foods - back then they didn't have handy-dandy refrigerators, and people routinely went hungry. At the time it was revolutionary. Now we know that there may be some risks associated with the procedure.
Not sure where you're going with this ... but soap is a way to get water and oil to mix, no?
I guess it depends on how you want to define or quantify "bad."
-Dave
HoneyLady
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 144
- Reaction score
- 172
"Can someone convince me that FOs are safe?"
Well, can someone convince me that FOs are NOT safe?
As in most things, the difference between a miraculous cure and a poison is in the dose. As Swiftcraftymonkey notes in her lotion making / cosmetic chemistry blog, one castor bean (from whence we derive castor oil for soaps . . . or Ricin, a chemical weapon) can kill a human if ingested. It takes 80-odd castor beans to kill a duck. Castor plants around the edge of the garden seriously deter moles and gophers -- a really good thing in *my* gopher-overrun garden. I don't eat the castor beans, and my kids are old enough to know better.
I remember as a kid there was a *huge* brouhaha about "HAIR DYES CAUSE CANCER IN WOMEN!!" Turns out a woman would have to DRINK a bottle of hair dye per day for over a year to get cancer from hair dye. I don't sweat it, don't drink it, and happily cover my gray hairs. I mean, "platinum blonde" hairs!
I talk to other soapers who refuse to use FOs because they are "synthetic", "chemical", or "not natural". As has been pointed out, true floral scents are *incredibly* resource-intensive to make. MILLIONS of flowers have to be grown and harvested (mostly by hand) to make small amounts of those oils. Is that really the most environmentally favorable option? Are herbicides of pesticides being used on those flowers?
EOs are naturally-sourced, but processed/distilled/extracted into a very concentrated product -- not really in a natural state. And EOs are well known skin and bronchial irritants. I routinely see "natural" soap makers using HIGH levels of cinnamon, clove and ginger in soap, to get the scent to stick. At those levels, those oils may very well irritate body bits and pieces best left un-irritated!
Unless you're saving the hardwood ashes from your fireplace and cookstove (and, I assume, chopping all your wood by hand w/o a gas-powered saw,)and collecting rainwater for lye, our lye is a processed, lab-created chemical. And why do we prefer that? It's much less resource-intensive, and works consistently and reliably every time we use it.
As for petroleum . . . I wish more people understood this. Petroleum-derived is not inherently evil. Crude oils are carbon compounds, refined and processed many multiple times to achieve various products, the most refined being jet fuel. Every time it's refined, something is left behind. Carbon, paraffin, petrolatum, etc. Think of the difference between kerosene, gasoline, and jet fuel. Petroleum-derived means they are finding uses for those things taken out, rather than dumping them in land fills. If using paraffin and Vaseline keeps it out of a land fill, and it works for your candles and chapped skin, why is it evil? Because they got it on the way to making kerosene? Do you prefer a wood burning fireplace, or coal-fired electricity for your light source? If you want to DO something about petroleum production, lobby your congressman and find out WHY 50 different states have 45 different standards for gasoline. Wouldn't ONE standard be more efficient, less costly, and (whoops) make sense? I know, I know, congress = sense doesn't compute!
If phthalates worry you, don't use them. If FOs worry you, don't use them. If your customer base worries, don't use them. I happily use FOs, beeswax and lard in my soaps, but I flatly refuse to use GMO oils. I prefer organic, but having first-hand knowledge of THAT can of worms, I don't even sweat that. If I can get it, great. You pays your money, you makes your choice. But make sure it's a thoughtful, informed choice. Remember a majority opinion works well . . . only if you're a lemming.
I, too, prefer bright blue, cotton-candy scented soap myself, so there! Blue dye must be safer than red hair dye? :mrgreen:
~HoneyLady~
Well, can someone convince me that FOs are NOT safe?
As in most things, the difference between a miraculous cure and a poison is in the dose. As Swiftcraftymonkey notes in her lotion making / cosmetic chemistry blog, one castor bean (from whence we derive castor oil for soaps . . . or Ricin, a chemical weapon) can kill a human if ingested. It takes 80-odd castor beans to kill a duck. Castor plants around the edge of the garden seriously deter moles and gophers -- a really good thing in *my* gopher-overrun garden. I don't eat the castor beans, and my kids are old enough to know better.
I remember as a kid there was a *huge* brouhaha about "HAIR DYES CAUSE CANCER IN WOMEN!!" Turns out a woman would have to DRINK a bottle of hair dye per day for over a year to get cancer from hair dye. I don't sweat it, don't drink it, and happily cover my gray hairs. I mean, "platinum blonde" hairs!
I talk to other soapers who refuse to use FOs because they are "synthetic", "chemical", or "not natural". As has been pointed out, true floral scents are *incredibly* resource-intensive to make. MILLIONS of flowers have to be grown and harvested (mostly by hand) to make small amounts of those oils. Is that really the most environmentally favorable option? Are herbicides of pesticides being used on those flowers?
EOs are naturally-sourced, but processed/distilled/extracted into a very concentrated product -- not really in a natural state. And EOs are well known skin and bronchial irritants. I routinely see "natural" soap makers using HIGH levels of cinnamon, clove and ginger in soap, to get the scent to stick. At those levels, those oils may very well irritate body bits and pieces best left un-irritated!
Unless you're saving the hardwood ashes from your fireplace and cookstove (and, I assume, chopping all your wood by hand w/o a gas-powered saw,)and collecting rainwater for lye, our lye is a processed, lab-created chemical. And why do we prefer that? It's much less resource-intensive, and works consistently and reliably every time we use it.
As for petroleum . . . I wish more people understood this. Petroleum-derived is not inherently evil. Crude oils are carbon compounds, refined and processed many multiple times to achieve various products, the most refined being jet fuel. Every time it's refined, something is left behind. Carbon, paraffin, petrolatum, etc. Think of the difference between kerosene, gasoline, and jet fuel. Petroleum-derived means they are finding uses for those things taken out, rather than dumping them in land fills. If using paraffin and Vaseline keeps it out of a land fill, and it works for your candles and chapped skin, why is it evil? Because they got it on the way to making kerosene? Do you prefer a wood burning fireplace, or coal-fired electricity for your light source? If you want to DO something about petroleum production, lobby your congressman and find out WHY 50 different states have 45 different standards for gasoline. Wouldn't ONE standard be more efficient, less costly, and (whoops) make sense? I know, I know, congress = sense doesn't compute!
If phthalates worry you, don't use them. If FOs worry you, don't use them. If your customer base worries, don't use them. I happily use FOs, beeswax and lard in my soaps, but I flatly refuse to use GMO oils. I prefer organic, but having first-hand knowledge of THAT can of worms, I don't even sweat that. If I can get it, great. You pays your money, you makes your choice. But make sure it's a thoughtful, informed choice. Remember a majority opinion works well . . . only if you're a lemming.
I, too, prefer bright blue, cotton-candy scented soap myself, so there! Blue dye must be safer than red hair dye? :mrgreen:
~HoneyLady~
That's a very good point about petro-chemicals derivitives being simply carbon and not inherently harmful....
cdmusic68
Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2015
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 7
Haha! Wow I really started a debate! I'm not inherently opposed to FOs. I've always just hated that companies can call anything they want "fragrance" and leave it at that... As if I should just trust that.
I've looked into some of the companies you guys mentioned, and some at least seem to be trying to offer "safe" FOs. That is really all I want... An effort/acknowledgement to be upfront about what is being offered. But again it could just be some marketing ploy to put people like me at ease! Lol
I just come at everything from a very skeptical standpoint. There are things that the FDA and other government organizations allow in our food and products that shock me sometimes. So I rarely trust that something is "safe" just because it is allowed to be used for mass consumption.
As long as I can find some companies that seem to have customers/consumers in mind (in addition to just their bottom line), then I think FOs are just too tempting to pass up
I've looked into some of the companies you guys mentioned, and some at least seem to be trying to offer "safe" FOs. That is really all I want... An effort/acknowledgement to be upfront about what is being offered. But again it could just be some marketing ploy to put people like me at ease! Lol
I just come at everything from a very skeptical standpoint. There are things that the FDA and other government organizations allow in our food and products that shock me sometimes. So I rarely trust that something is "safe" just because it is allowed to be used for mass consumption.
As long as I can find some companies that seem to have customers/consumers in mind (in addition to just their bottom line), then I think FOs are just too tempting to pass up
