I think that is the main point to consider in this question: Is it an easy enough alternative? Using high quality stainless steel instead of plastic or silicone for soap making: mixing bowls, utensils, measuring cups/pouring vessels, lye solution mixing and long term storage for master-batched lye solution, etc. etc. should certainly be possible, but at very high cost. Doable, for some, not for others. And to pass the cost on to customers, one would run into other challenges as well.
My point is that what may be easy for you (if you have the where-with-all) is not necessarily easy for every soap maker.
Those things are not in my budget unless perhaps used. So, I will wait until I can invest in that type of equipment before starting.
I am totally on board with reducing one's impact on the environment. I think if you have the resources and capital available to make your soapmaking comply with the suggestions made by the researchers who conducted this study, then go for it! I'd also encourage correlating the results of this study with other similar research to have the best possible understanding of what's happening when these plastics are "stressed". One study isn't really a large enough body of evidence.
I wonder if this is a case of fighting the wrong fight. We should be concerned about what we're allowing into the environment, but there are things we all can do that will make a much larger difference. Choosing public transport or bicycling, carpooling, reducing use of fossil fuels. Recycling anything - properly - and reducing landfill waste. These things can be easily done on a wide scale and will have the greatest impact on the environment as a whole. If the manufacturing process of plastics CAN be changed, then that may help, but that's out of our control.
For me, it won't change my practice. As a hobbyist, I'm not concerned enough that any hormones leached from plastic will be enough to make any sort of impact on my body. The money I would need to spend on supplies would be prohibitive to me enjoying my creative outlet, so for me it just doesn't make sense. And at any rate, I think it's a better focus for me to try to modify my diet and exercise to keep my body healthy. Your mileage may vary, of course.
The effects are well known enough (through several studies, not just one) for many manufacturers to have switched to BPA-free plastic. What they don't tell the consumer, however, is that they often replace BPA with another estrogenic plasticizer as bad or worse.
That said, I mentioned the study not to change the ways of anyone in this forum--only because you asked about it and because I felt it good to explain why I personally don't want to use plastics unless necessary and, where I must, with lower-temperature oils that won't cook in plastic.
My own view is that this is not the wrong fight. It's just one of many, a drop in the bucket. We live in a very imperfect world that I fear will get worse at a faster pace than it will improve. But that my landlord's landscapers spray Roundup outside of my organic veggie garden and thirdhand smoke makes its way onto my garden doesn't suggest to me that I should stop my organic gardening efforts and go "hog wild" with chemicals (e.g., pesticides) and cancer-causing substances. My efforts will reduce the overall burden on my body.
But, again, there is only so much that each one of us *can* do. I understand that we are each more capable of some changes than others. Carpooling for you may be easier than using stainless in parts of the soaping process whereas stainless would be an easier change for me to make. I mentioned the study not to twist anyone's arm, only to explain my own questions and concerns for the process I am trying to design for myself.
Last edited by a moderator: