What’s That Smell? August 15, 2010

I just love the olfactory experience. It connects. It describes. It mystifies. It manipulates. It deceives. It embraces. It deepens. It portrays. It attracts. It averts. It amplifies.

It enhances the sensual, the exotic, the erotic, the repulsive, the beautiful, the old, the new, the bland, the creative . . . and the love.

As an essential oil enthusiast, practitioner and junkie – I find the world of odor, the biology, the chemistry and the evolutionary path, a mesmerizing ride. Nature uses a repetitive number of odor molecules, with a variety of single compound uses and benefit, then mixing and blending these into a multitude of fragrances – the game at play long before arrogance could claim it subservient to humanity.

I’m just entering the beginning chapters of What The Nose Knows by Avery Gilbert and rediscovering the vastness of nature’s sport of chemotaxis – using the chemical compounds we sense as odor molecules for attraction and aversion.

Interesting how the compound we sniff and detect as wintergreen, methyl salicylate, is used by the male Green-veined White butterfly as an antiaphrodisiac (which, by the way, would be considered as such in aromatherapy circles). The compound is transferred during mating to keep the other guys out of his genetic territory. It may be antiaphrodisiac to the other male Green-veined Whites, but it’s an attractor of a parasitic wasp that is drawn by the scent, hops a ride on the back of the female butterfly to inject its eggs into the layed eggs of the female Green-veined White. Methyl salicylate helps turn butterfly eggs into baby food for parasitic wasps.

” . . . the scents of nature are largely  a chemical conversation between plants and animals, and humans merely eavesdrop.”

I would almost agree with Avery on this one. Instead, I think humans just need to relearn how to read the writings up the nose.

www.jimmharrison.com

How Safe is Safe Cosmetic Legislation? July 30, 2010

The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 was introduced on July 21, 2010. I want to say that I support this and think it’s an important step to providing safer personal care products to the public. Safe cosmetics have been my focus, practice and forum for over 20 years. I’ve been an advocate, and have even presented for, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Safe cosmetics is, in one way, the very thing that defines who I am and what I represent in the beauty trade.

I want to say I support the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. Instead, what comes to mind is, how effective has food and drug safety legislation been? How many people have cancer or other serious illness and/or die from diet related disease every year? How many people are harmed and/or die due to FDA regulated pharmaceutical use every year? Wouldn’t safety, according to FDA regulated legislation, mean less illness and death? Is there a definition to “safe” that I’m just not understanding?

I want to say I support the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. I have been educating and presenting to a medical audience, to professional esthetics and cosmetologists, and to the consumer for over 20 years with an emphasis on safe personal care, safe ingredient choices and safe formulation. I have been a developer and manufacturer of “safe” cosmetics. They are in the marketplace – not only being safe, but also being incredibly effective in the health and care of the skin and the human. I know the challenges that go with putting out safe and effective cosmetics. One is cost.

Consumers don’t necessarily like the higher cost. Legislation will likely add to the cost of producing these safe cosmetics. The fallout could be huge as the cost of doing “safe” business rises. Really, this could hurt the little guy that is well meaning and doing the right thing already.  And will the consumer pay for safety – or buy the less expensive illusion of safety sold through the clever (and expensive) marketing and manipulation of legislation that big money can buy?

If the price of the product is raised to match an added cost of legislation, consumers may stop buying it. If the price is not raised, that means the cost of producing the product will have to be lowered. What would be removed to lower cost –  quality? employees? efficient and eco-friendly sustainable packaging?

I want to say I  support the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. Safety is based on research conducted through reductionistic scientific methodology that does not always tell an accurate story. I explain the limits of reductionistic science in one aspect by using “biology vs. chemistry.” If you haven’t read any of my writings on this – well, later. The EWG’s Skin Deep site lists limonene, a component of many essential oils, with a moderate hazard (#6 – not good for safe cosmetics) and a warning that includes cancer and immune toxicity. Limonene is documented for shrinking tumors and preventing cancer. I say this based on attending several scientific presentations by academics who conducted studies in the traditional scientific and peer-reviewed setting, as well as the many studies available that I have read. With this in mind, how do we define safety? Is it safe to use an ingredient that will cure the very disease that it causes?

The limonene example brings up another issue I talk about often – the whole extract vs the isolated or synthetic version of an “active” compound. If the isolated compound is found dangerous or unsafe, does that necessarily mean that the whole extract is also unsafe or potentially toxic (this is biology vs chemistry).  EU regulations are siding with “if the compound is there, that must mean the whole extract must be questioned” philosophy. The EU Cosmetic Directive has suspected unsafe compounds or those with cautions listed and included separately within the ingredient list even though they are within the whole extract. I question this logic and think this is very confusing for the consumer.

I also feel that reductionistic science falls short in understanding the action of a synergistic whole as separate from the action of the isolsted single compound which has been separated from it’s natural synergy. As a result, many otherwise safe and extremely healthy and therapeutic extracts may be listed as toxic or in other ways unsafe.

I want to say I suport the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. What are the studies that will define the outcome of safety? To open that question in a wider perspective let me emphasize my reference to food and drug regulation. Who’s really in charge? Who develops the studies and who translates/defines the outcome? Who is the legislation really legislating? How does big corporate money and lobbyists factor into this?

I want to say I support the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. Well, in truth, what I want is to support Safe Cosmetics, and absolutely do through all my actions and words.

www.jimmharrison.com

Not Blogging – But Still Active July 30, 2010

No, really, I do still exist. Just not visiting, well, blogging, as much. This whole year has been void of blogging. No, I did pop in periodically. Once? Twice?  That’s not very  . . . interesting. Periodic posting. It’s been a challenge of a year so far for many and a very good half a year for some. I fall in between. I helped in the juice bar launch, WONJI JUICE, in the Annapolis, MD Whole Foods – and last month we opened the Georgetown DC location. Still have my hands in it.

I’ve traveled a bit, speaking here and there. The Brazil trip would be a highlight. I’ve written a few more articles.

What am trying to say here?

Just that I’m still around. I’m still extremely active in my work and mission. And it’s time to start blogging again.

What’s A Paraben To Do? January 5, 2010

Here’s a new worry for parabens – You know parabens right? The cosmetic preservative that got the bad press resulting from a weak study suggesting it was a cause of breast cancer. Then, everybody in natural went “paraben free” and the cosmetic industry put their best out there to defend the paraben and, well, I’ve written about this before, most recently on Dec 9.

This recent worry is directly related to the “free” claim. Many in the mainstream personal care department – meaning not in the more isolated and not so mainstream natural products markets – are going “paraben free.” So what’s the worry? It’s an interesting dilemma and has more to do with a marketing backfire than a paraben. In the bigger picture –  again to clarify, with the bigger companies – going paraben free with one line of their products, this could put the belief in the buyer that parabens are not a good thing to have in any product. This “paraben free” idea would be, and is,  being supported by the media. So, the backfire. All those other lines and thousands of products already containing parabens put out by a company who introduces a paraben free product may suffer because now parabens, in the eyes of the consumer, are bad.

Oh the hardships of marketing to stay current with the times.

I discuss parabens in my book Aromatherapy: Therapeutic Use of Essential Oils for Esthetics.

Hmmm, what’s a paraben to do?

And The Motivation Is . . . January 2, 2010

Love. I seem to be talking about this a lot. Woke up way too early this morning. Spinning thoughts. Monkey mind. Sat to meditate instead of restlessly trying to sleep. Love became the theme. It’s what drives me. It gets me up and buzzing through my day. Love is my passion. It is my motivation.

Why skin care and beauty? Because they are a visual representation of. Love. That may sound just a bit corny. In a more expansive perspective, not corny at all. Love is creation. Creation is life. Life is health. Health is beauty. The work I do – Beauty Inside & Out - is health, life, creation and  . . . Love.

Love is in the plants that are used to assist in healing and that are used in the creation of beautiful skin and skin care products.

For months, Love got me out of bed before the sun came up so that I could write my book on Aromatherapy. Love is why I created the Phytotherapy Institute – so that I could share my knowledge – my love –  with other people.

Love is usually defined by the feelings we have for another person. And we all know – it’s great to be in love. It’s amazing to feel loved. It’s also unfortunate how we can get in our own way. Blocking the love. Often due to the lack of love of the self. Or some self created rule or poor definitions of love. Or fear. Old wounds. Love is always enough. It is everything. It is health, It is healing. It overides all fears. Wounds. Rules. Coming from, of all musicinas to be quoting, Bon Jovi – Love’s the Only Rule.

Happy New Year January 1, 2010

2010. New year. New decade. Changes. New ideas. New thoughts. New Directions.

It’s all in the attitude. The perceptions. Intentions.

It begins “happy.” Good intention. At least from 12 AM to 12:05 AM. Then. It requires maintenance. Attitude. Perception. Intention.  and Love. As in, All You Need Is . . .

Happy New Year.

Jimm

Can You Say Phthalates? December 20, 2009

It’s pronounced THAL-ates, it has an odd spelling – the p and the h seem to be just along for a free ride – and it, as a substance, not a word,  is said to be problematic to our health and the environment.

Phthalates are plastic softening agents that are in so many items that we are exposed to daily. [There are several used,  such as di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and dibutyl phthalate. I will continue to use the umbrella term phthalate.] They’re used to make vinyl products more flexible, such as vinyl flooring, plastic bottles and tubing. Phthalates are also used as solvents and softeners in perfumes, fragrances and are used in many personal care products. Phthalates can also leach into personal care and processed foods through the PVC tubing used in the manufacturing process.

So, what’s the problem(s)?

The problem – or not, depending on who you are trusting with accurate information - is the potential of phthalates as endocrine disrupters, mimicing or disrupting the hormone function. The most predominant (or studied) result of this is the effect phthalates have on reproductive development in human males. In one study conducted by Dr Shanna Swan et al, published in the International Journal of Andrology,  it was shown that phthalate exposure effects the masculine behavior of pre-school boys. The exposure was measured in the prenatal urine of the mothers. Other studies have concluded similar effects on boys exposed to phthalates through the mothers absorption.

The American Chemistry Council says there are numerous studies that support the safety of phthalates and that studies such as the one conducted by  Swan, fails to establish any claimed changes in reproductive development.

Hmmm, so what’s a mother to do?  And whose word do you trust?

It’s extremely difficult to avoid phthalates. The U.S. and the EU do not allow the use of phthalates in toys, and the EU has banned their use in personal care, making it tricky to avoid phthalates in U. S. distributed personal care. Exposure, according to the studies, is coming from shampoos, lotions and skin care. In my work as a product developer I try very hard to avoid phthalates. It’s not easy. You have to be aware of every possible source of contamination. A company that claims phthalate free may not be. Not because they are consciously using phthalates in formulation or fragrance, but may not be aware of alternate soucrces of contamination such as the PVC tubing in manufacturing or packaging used in bulk ingredients. A claim should include a third party certification that testing was performed on the finished product.

This is an important topic and one that will begin reaching the mainstream headlines. The solution to the problem and just how big a problem it is remains to be seen. I do sit on the side of caution, and with so many studies pointing to hormonal changes I would suggest that for now, just like with the preservative paraben, it may be wise to steer clear as much as your awareness of being exposed will allow.

I haven’t discussed the environmental impact of phthalates. They are excreted in the urine and end up in the waters.  I’d rather discuss the five legged frog, feminization of aquatic animals and other issues at another time.

Now, without looking at the word again – try to spell it.

Nectar of Beauty December 17, 2009

How much juice does it take to juice for the juice to juice your skin? I get asked this question often. Well, not quite in that way. But I thought my version was a tinge more colorful than – “do you have any juice recipes for skin care?”

The interesting thing about juicing vegetables and fruit for skin care is that you don’t necessarily have to be skin specific. In fact, you hardly have to be anything specific. Except. Use whole fresh organic produce when you juice. And variety is a good idea. Juicing helps to detoxify the body. Nothing specific, they all work – apples, melons, beets, greens, carrots, and . . . they all work. Detoxifying supports a healthy complexion. Juicing fresh organic produce provides vitamins, minerals and micronutrients. Good for the skin. There are different levels of these nutrients in the individual vegetables and fruits. This is why variety is a good idea. Unless you really really require a specific nutrient, don’t be too concerned over the nutritional content of the individual juice ingredients. Do you really want to study up on what each juice ingredient contains, along with how much of the each nutrient – and at what pace these nutrients dissipate over time and  on and on? My nutritional advice is – go with variety.  Selecting from the known nutrient content of the individual produce ingredient is called a reductionist system. Reducing a whole food down to its individual nutrients and assuming this is where the activity of the whole is coming from. Satisfies the science. But not necessarily provides the whole truth.

Now – antioxidants and antioxidants and antioxidants. Great for the skin and your produce is loaded with antioxidants. Colored fruits and vegetables contain a variety of polyphenols, carotenoids and flavonoids, all known for their intense antioxidant action and well-documented for the benefit of the body and the skin. Again, don’t get too reductionistic and start looking for the zeaxanthin, beta-carotene, anthocyanidin, sulforaphane, or gingerol content, Just go with  variety. It’s all good. Go with the color. The deeper the better, though don’t discount the benefit of the watery lightly colored celery and cucumbers. The variety will also supply anti-inflammatory activity, also good good good for skin care.

So what is the nectar of beauty? Here are a few examples:

2 Tomatoes, 2 celery stalks, slice of cantaloupe and a handful of basil (or one drop of basil essential oil – but do go careful on the oil. even a drop can be very flavorful)

4 Carrots, 1 apple, chunk of ginger to prefered flavor

2 Beets, 2 carrots, 1/2 cucumber, handful of spinach

Think variety and go for it. Juice up your skin care.

www.jimmharrison.com

Debate Over The Nasty (Maybe?) Paraben Preservative December 9, 2009

I was invited to respond to an ongoing debate over the use of the preservative paraben that was happening on the  Supplyside blog. Here’s what I contributed.

Ahhh, the paraben debate rears its polarizing head again. It seems that most who have posted to this blog are in agreement that parabens are the evil doer of the cosmetic empire. I’ve had several conversations and forum debates with cosmetic chemists who find all the reports on parabens to show them as perfectly safe as used in formulation. Who’s right? I never used parabens in my formulas. And avoided them long before it became trendy. I had my reasons, partly due to the sensitizing issues. I did, and still do, have concerns to their potential as endocrine disrupters, again, before there was a flawed study that drew them out as potential carcinogens and xenoestrogens. I also found many of the replacements to be potentially more damaging, or at least as full of caution, as parabens – phenoxyethanol comes immediately to mind. So what to do? I went straight to alcohol. Organic ethanol derived from organic grains or from wines that didn’t quite make the good wine grade. This is expensive. Also comes with the false perception of being drying, so can scare the consumer away. German companies have been doing this forever, and it works – also kicks up the organic percentage for that oh so beneficial “we’re so clean and wonderful” marketing potential. Cosmetics are a tough build due to the issues of potential or unknown toxicity, stability, and the producing of shelf-friendly products . The natural vs synthetic debate has become extremely ridiculous – and confusing to the consumer. And organic has become a marketing tool that has bypassed its environmental purpose to a false perception of healthier and better results. This has created some really lame debates over organic labeling. All for the purpose of marketing, not the environment. So, parabens – good or bad, let them go. The up side is the very real need to analyze, and develop consumer awareness of, the biological and environmental impact of cosmetic ingredients. The down side – hmmm, don’t have one.

Bad Info Spoils Again December 6, 2009

Sometimes it’s just wrong. And it happens a lot. Things being said, or written, about people, things and places that are based on bad information. And it goes around, repeated, and becomes a distorted truth, kind of like the joke that gets passed around from one person to the next until there is nothing left of the starting joke.

I recently received a newsletter from a studying-to-be dermatologist, hmm, well, I guess, I should say a future-derm, since that’s what her newsletter is titled. The writer is pretty traditionally set in the mainstream of science. Not a bad place to be, but, it has its limits. In the last  newsletter she mentions a study performed in 1999 that concludes that vitamin E is not useful, in fact may cause more harm, to the healing of wounds and scars. And so, her recommendation is to avoid Vitamin E for scars and wounds.

So what’s wrong with that? My conclusion would be very different and here’s why. When you read the study you’ll find that the vitamin E used was d-∂-tocopheryl from an unknown source, where it could be a synthetic version of the vitamin (though generally synthetics are dl- racemic compounds) of unknown quality and contamination, and the carrier was Aquaphor. Aquaphor contains petrolatum, glycerin, panthenol and bisabolol. There must be some other ingredients that aren’t listed on the Aquaphor website. Petrolatum, the petroleum jelly we are all familiar with, is a petro-chemical that forms an occlusive layer to the skin. It blocks absorption, or supposedly holds in moisture to the skin. The questions in regards to this study; does the petrolatum block the function of the vitamin E; what are the qualities, potential contamination, of the other ingredients; and how do they interact with the vitamin E?

My conclusion to this study would require more accurate information regarding the source of the vitamin E compound (d-∂-tocopheryl). I would also conclude that the vitamin E, when used in a base containing petrolatum, glycerin (synthetic? it’s unknown) and other ingredients in a formula called Aquaphor is not effective and may cause harm when used on wounds and scars. The study does not effectively find that vitamin E in an alternate base is harmful or useless. I have seen great successes on wound healing using a natural sourced d-∂-tocopherol or a tocotrienol mix (alpha-, beta-, gamma-, and delta-) in a base using an organic olive oil.

This is bad information getting passed around and around. The conclusion that future-derm comes to, echoing the study conclusion, is not accurate and may contribute to the fear and nonsense that eventually lands on the minds of the consumer. This type of information is too often used by consumer advocate groups who leave out important specifics, such as the unknown source, synthetic or natural, of the vitamin E or the carrier used, making it difficult for the consumer to make intelligent decisions.

Bad studies and conclusions go both ways. This is true of my beloved botanicals. There are positive studies that are weak and should not be used in support without other studies, including the historic use and empirical studies, to support it. There are also some out right ridiculous studies used to degrade the benefits of botanicals. This nonsense also includes the fear surrounding synthetics and lab created cosmetic chemicals. Many have poor studies with inconclusive hazards placed on them. I don’t care if cosmetic chemicals get the bad rub because I don’t use lab chemicals and suggest only the use of botanicals in skin care. But, you knew that about me – didn’t you?

PSSST: don’t tell anyone, but that last statement was “bad information” and not a whole truth. I have to use some chemically altered botanicals to get a good emulsion and stability of a cosmetic formula.

www.jimmharrison.com