That list opens up a very big can of worms. On a quick scan, I found beeswax, caffeine, castor oil, citric acid, colloidal oatmeal, various sugars, iron oxide, many EOs, salt, sorbitol, and purified water. Context must come into play at some point.
Context would be what it is being used for.
If you look at the columns 'monograph' and 'sub-category', that's the part I would look at to try and get an idea if a consumer might expect anything beneficial from the ingredient when added to soap. Personally I know better, as do most of us, in regards to the fact that soap is a wash-off product and there is little or no opportunity for any residual benefit of a minuscule amount of any ingredient in our soap. But does the general public know that? Well, we would expect them to if they were to give it much thought. But the evidence is that many don't. Otherwise, why would they buy soap that is supposed to lighten skin (papaya), soap that is supposed to relieve poison oak (jewelweed), etc? Maybe because they want them to, but also maybe because in some cases they do, or someone told them they do.
But back to the purpose of anything on that list when in soap vs when in a cosmetic or drug, which soap may or may
not be, in certain cases...
Take sorbitol, for example, in bath or hand soap it is not used as a digestive aide, laxative or demulcent (unless perhaps added to tooth soap, hmmm); it's used to support or provide bubbles. I don't think anyone is going to expect soap with sorbitol to do any of those medicinal things, particularly since it is not listed in soap as an Active Ingredient. The term 'Active Ingredient' is only used on labels for drugs, anyway, so unless a soap is being marketed as a drug, that phrase won't be on the label.
Another example, coal tars used as a hair-dye are given exception in cosmetics by the FDA based on the law that addresses coal tar hair dyes specifically (
C.F.R. 21 § 740.18). And that is for dyeing the hair only, no other purpose of coal tar is exempted when it comes to its use in a FDA regulated product. When used for any other purpose, prior approval is required for drugs. Coal tar derivative dyes are either not on the list of FDA
approved colorants for use in cosmetics, or they are hidden (to me) by virtue of some other nomenclature (but I don't think they are.)
Caffeine, however has made me wonder. Would a consumer expect coffee soap to stimulate them to be more alert when used for their morning shower? If I recall correctly, my husband wondered about that when I first started making coffee soap. Of course it didn't anymore than any morning shower would.
But many of those things on that list are used as color additives in soap, and as long as folks don't expect some cosmetic or medicinal effect from those ingredients, when labeling, I think (my opinion) using the term, 'Colorants:' followed by the names of the the colorants should suffice as compliance when it comes to color additives. Which as we know is not required for true soap, but as responsible soap makers we try to label appropriately.
Also useful as it pertains to color additives: Marie Gale's article
Are Your Color Additives Legal? She is basically talking about cosmetics there, but at one point I briefly entertained the thought, maybe we could claim pine tar as a color additive in soap and not a medicinal ingredient, but I don't think that would fly, because it is generally used in amounts greater than 1%, which is way more than most of us use of any color additive anyway.
And another useful color additive reference:
FDA Color Additives and Cosmetics Fact Sheet.
And then that whole thing of "Label Appeal"as it pertains to some particular ingredient? What do we mean by that anyway? Isn't that a vague way of thinking or saying, the customer might think this ingredient is special and will provide some benefit? I know, it's vague, but it does lean in the direction of customer expectations of intended purpose as an ingredient, which then lends weight to the FDA's statement that consumer perception is more important to classify a product than even our own intent? (
Link again)
An interestingly, the FDA bases this
intended use criteria on a Senate report from 1934, in which it was concluded that
The courts, in deciding whether a product is a "cosmetic", a "drug", or both a "drug" and a "cosmetic", have relied principally on the consumer's perception of the meaning of a label statement and less so on the interpretation of the meaning of a label statement by the labeler or a regulatory agency.
This is why I'm not selling soap. Too scared! All my family and friends that use my soap tell me I should sell and I'm always replying nope!
