In a lather

Leonie Nimmo looks at some of the knotty issues about shampoo and asks: can we do without it?

Shampoo: that staple product of every bathroom cabinet... or is it? Throughout the course of the research for this Buyers’ Guide, which covers companies from the super-ethical to the mega-dodgy, perhaps the most interesting thing to emerge was the apparently increasing and, at times, evangelical, body of people that are choosing to reject the product altogether. On our own fledgling forums and on many others, we heard of benefits ranging from healthier, happier hair to living with less plastic.

Dubbed ‘perfumed detergent’ by critics, shampoo strips the hair of natural oils and thereby necessitates the use of conditioner to give it a bit of a shine. So doing away with the former invariably means dropping the latter as well, and doubling up on what you don’t use. Two in one!

Palm oil

According to research carried out last year by the Independent, palm oil is in 43 of Britain’s 100 bestselling grocery brands. Given its presence in such a vast number of products, and the links between palm oil, environmental devastation, human rights abuses and climate change, is it any wonder that it is practically a staple ingredient of Ethical Consumer magazine?

The postings on our online forum confirmed that consumers are very concerned by this ingredient, but the truth remains that it is extremely hard to avoid it, even for the most ethical of shoppers.

In the case of shampoos and other body care products, palm oil and its derivatives can appear in many guises. Ingredients definitely derived from palm oil are: palm kernel oil, sodium palmate, sodium palm kernelate and Elaeis guineensis (its Latin name).

Ingredients which may have been derived from palm oil include sodium lauryl sulphate, sodium laureth sulphate, coco-glucoside, cetearyl alcohol, sodium palmitate, vegetable glycerin and, helpfully, vegetable oil.

Unless you have reliable information about a company’s practices, don’t assume that because you can’t spot it on the label that it’s not there. Most of the ‘natural/ethical’ companies do use it to some degree and Lush is the only larger company we have found that is attempting to squeeze it out of its supply chains altogether – something that has apparently not been an easy task. See the link to the Shampoo Ingredients and Policies table below for a summary of what we have been able to find out about the policies of the companies that feature in this Buyers’ Guide.

Many of the larger companies claim that by 2015 they aim to source entirely Certified Sustainable Palm Oil (CSPO). However, in order to reflect current practice we have marked down these companies for their current use of non certified sustainable palm oil, in the categories of climate change, habitat destruction and human rights.

We have not penalised smaller companies (with a turnover of less than £5 million) in the same way, so long as they provide ethical alternatives to mainstream products and they make some commitments to ensure that what they use is sustainably sourced, or that they intend to phase it out. Similarly, we do not expect smaller, ethical companies to fulfil the same criteria as bigger companies in order for them to receive a ‘best’ rating for environmental reporting and supply chain policy.

Parabens

Parabens appear in a wide range of hair and body care products, and in a number of forms, including methylparaben, butylparaben, ethylparaben and propylparaben. They are used as a preservative. Methylparaben is one of the most common, and also has the highest possible hazard rating – 10 – on the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep website.

Parabens are perhaps best known as endocrine disrupting chemicals, which affect the production and/or response of hormones in the body. Other endocrine disruptors include pesticides and phthalates. Parabens have had a substantial amount of attention in recent years regarding possible health and environmental risks. Parabens are bioaccumulative, which means that they are not very easy for either the body or the environment to break down, resulting in a build up of the substance. In 2004, the first study to show this accumulation was published, when scientists from the University of Reading found parabens in every sample of 20 different human breast tumours. No studies have conclusively proved a direct causal link between parabens and cancer.(1) However, given that they are able to mimic oestrogen, which can drive the growth of breast tumours, there does seem to be cause for concern.

The link to the Shampoo Ingredients and Policies table below indicates the likely presence of parabens in the brands covered in this Buyers’ Guide. None of our Best Buys contain parabens, although Lush do use them in other products.

Phthalates

Phthalates are another group of endocrine disrupting (unpleasantly dubbed ‘gender bending’) chemicals, that also appear in a vast number of household products, from toys to lipstick to vinyl flooring to shampoo. They are sometimes called ‘plasticisers’ but are also used as solvents and skin moisturisers. The Skin Deep website gives different phthalates hazard ratings of between one and ten.(2)

Since 2003, some chemicals – classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to the reproductive system – have been banned for use in cosmetics in Europe. This included three different phthalates, as they were considered to be toxic to the reproductive system. In 2005, further restrictions were implemented in Europe on the use of phthalates in children’s toys and childcare products.(3)

Endocrine disrupting chemicals have caused a scare about their likely impact on male reproductive health. Exposure in the environment and/or in products is thought to be contributing to decreasing sperm counts and increasing cases of testicular abnormalities.(4) In 2005, the New Scientist reported that a study had found that baby boys born to mothers exposed to phthalates had smaller penises and displayed other signs of feminisation of the genitals.(5)

According to the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), some studies have linked phthalates to liver cancer.(6) The same institution detected phthalates in urine samples in all but 12 of 2,790 people tested, with six or more phthalates found in 84% of people tested.(7)

There is no requirement to list phthalates in ingredients if they are used as fragrance carriers, and the generic term “fragrance” can disguise the presence of a variety of chemicals. A study carried out in 2002 identified phthalates in 80% of well known cosmetic products, but they were listed on none of the ingredients labelled.(3)

Sulphates

Sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) and sodium laureth sulphate (SLES) are the most common detergents found in shampoos, and are also used in heavy duty cleaners such as oven cleaners and engine degreasers. They are derived from natural oils – coconut or palm – but are usually processed industrially.

SLS and SLES are surfactants, which de-grease and cause a substance to lather, hence their popularity in shampoos, bubble baths and other body-care products.
Controversy over the safety of SLSs has been bubbling away for some years. Claims that they may be carcinogenic appear to have been largely discredited, amid counter-claims that the proponents of of this so-called ‘eco-myth’ were often representatives of companies proudly selling SLS-free products.

The Skin Deep website gives sodium lauryl sulphate and sodium laureth sulphate hazard ratings of 3 and 4 out of 10 respectively – both classed as a ‘moderate hazard’.(2) The website states that research studies have found that exposure to the ingredient itself, not the products that contain it, have indicated potential health risks. Perhaps the strongest concerns linked to the substances are those of skin or eye irritation, both of which are related to the concentrations in which they appear in products.

Animal testing policies

The companies featured in this Buyers’ Guide differ substantially in their approach to animal testing. Even those that are targeted the most by animal rights groups for testing cosmetics on animals make some vague commitments to phasing it out or finding alternatives. This issue is therefore one where it is fairly important to know your stuff or risk having the wool pulled over your eyes. For example, if a company states that “we do not test on animals” this could mean that they commission a third party to test for them, or that they purchase ingredients that have been tested on animals.

What is considered to be the most robust animal testing policy by organisations such as the British Association for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) is a ‘fixed cut off date’, which means that the company will not use ingredients that have been tested on animals since that date. So a company with this policy would not be able to use an ingredient today that was tested on animals yesterday.

Lush, however, has a different approach. Rather than screening ingredients, they actively boycott entire companies that conduct animal testing, and if a company makes a commitment to cease the practice, they will buy from them. In this way they can immediately reward companies that change their practices in a positive way, hopefully helping to drive positive change throughout the sector.

An alternative to a fixed cut off date is a ‘rolling rule’, often five years. This means that companies won’t use ingredients that have been tested on animals within that time. This is seen as less effective, and companies with this policy lose half a mark in our Animal Testing column.

Vegan/Vegetarian

We have recently adjusted our ratings system slightly to reward companies that are vegetarian in a sector where this is not the norm, by giving them a positive half mark in the Company Ethos category. Perhaps surprisingly, this includes the cosmetics sector, as many companies use animal fats in their products. Most of the vegetarian companies in this report only use dairy, eggs or ingredients derived from bees in a few of the products that they produce.

Click here to download the Shampoo Ingredients and Policies table.

Packaging

Much of the environmental impact of shampoo comes from its disposable packaging, and some companies have policies in place to address this.

When the Body Shop was sold to L’Oréal, many a dismayed customer complained that they could no longer return their used plastic bottles to the shops. Lush invites customers to return their black pots, and have also produced a range of solid shampoo bars which don’t require packaging. It says that this also negates the need for lots of water in the product formulation, thereby reducing water usage and the emissions generated from the transportation of heavier products. Scottish company Caurnie has a policy of minimal packaging and offers a refill service at Farmers’ Markets with 50 pence off the cost of £5.50 bottle of shampoo if an old bottle is returned. Many of the companies in this Buyers’ Guide state that their plastic bottles are ‘recyclable’.

Going ‘No-Poo’

Stories of people weaning their hair off shampoo abound on the internet, and there are plenty of suggestions for alternatives. One of the most popular is a mix of baking soda with water, followed by apple cider vinegar as an alternative to conditioner. See the Links section for where to go for more information. People with hair tending towards the frizzy side seem to have particularly felt the benefits to the look and feel of their locks, with their hair’s natural oils proving to be a much more manageable conditioning agent. Common experiences suggest that it takes a bit of time for the hair to adjust, but once this has happened, the results seem to be overwhelmingly positive.

We also came across the company Natural Spa Supplies, which sells a number of entirely natural substances that have been used by humans to cleanse themselves for millenia. Rhassoul clay from volcanic seams in Morocco, Green clay from France and Soapnuts from Pakistan and Bangladesh are the three shampoo alternatives supplied by this company. Its website demonstrates impressive relationships with its suppliers, which range from women’s co-operatives to artisans keeping age-old production methods alive. But before you dive in, be warned that this is certainly not the cheapest method of going no-poo!

A big thank you to people who responded to our request to hear about their no-poo experiences. Our Shampoo Research Forum will stay live, so feel free to add your comments.

Rachael

“After watching a documentary about ingredients in cosmetics (not that I used that many anyway), I made the decision to stop using shampoo. I did this over two and a half years ago, when I was still at school and appearance was a bit of an issue, being female. First I replaced shampoo with natural alternatives such as egg, lemon juice and just about anything I thought might work, then gradually reduced this until I was using just a little lukewarm water once a week at the end of a shower. It took seven months not six weeks for me, but I’m so glad I did it. My hair now follows its own cycle, and I know that it isn’t being interfered with by unknown chemicals. It’s also cheaper (being a student this is a major bonus!), I now produce much less plastic packaging from my lifestyle, there are fewer imported ingredients and my showers are much shorter. My hair looks better than it ever did when I used shampoo as there is now no chemical residue left over, and it doesn’t emanate a synthetic smell.”

Marilyn

“Going shampoo-free was not a tough decision for me; someone mentioned it to me and as I began to read up on the subject, I realized it was definitely a healthier idea for my hair. I’ve always had trouble finding the right shampoo-conditioner combination for my dry, wavy, thick hair, and I figured I couldn’t go wrong just letting my hair ‘do its thing’. I mean, humans survived without shampoo for how long?
“The first few days without shampoo were not too bad; I used to only shampoo my hair every other day or so anyway, so my hair didn’t seem to change at first. After a little while, though, my hair got really heavy and felt oily, almost as though I slathered it with olive oil and didn’t wash it out. I made a mixture of water and baking soda, but my hair still didn’t feel clean. I certainly wouldn’t have wanted someone to have touched my hair during the first week since, quite frankly, it felt pretty gross. I found that brushing my hair every night and morning really helped distribute the excess oil in my hair, and since then my hair has been nothing but shiny and smooth. I wash it every few days with a baking soda and water solution in a spray bottle followed by an apple cider vinegar rinse. My hair curls better and without coaxing now, and I find I have no need for any product to control the frizz of my hair. I was encouraged by the progress in my hair and have since also switched from traditional lotion for my skin to extra virgin olive oil which also yields excellent results. This is just further proof to me that most hair and body products are unnecessary and in fact less useful than their low-cost counterparts.”

Company profiles

The Body Shop was bought by cosmetics giant L’Oréal in 2006 for £652m. Critics worried that it would lead to a dumbing down of ethical standards, whilst proponents argued that it might drive positive change at the larger company. Commentators on our Shampoo Research Forum voted with their feet, and have not returned to the Body Shop since.

Alliance Boots became the first FTSE 100 company to be bought by a private equity firm, KKR, in 2007. KKR’s other investments have helped to drag Boots’ ethiscore down to 0.5. These include Toys ‘R’ Us; TASC, a company which sells services to ‘defence’ agencies, including the Missile Defense Agency, and Tarkett, which has been criticised for selling wood likely to have been logged illegally.(8)

The Caurnie Soap Company has been running since 1922. It is based in Glasgow and has five employees.

Jason Natural Products and Avalon Organics are both owned by the Hain Celestial Group, which, with its many subsidiaries, is apparently the largest natural and organic foods company in the US. In Canada it supplies ‘McVeggie’ burgers to McDonalds, whilst in China it has a 50-50 joint venture with Hutchison Whampoa, whose subsidiary Superdrug is the subject of our tar sands boycott campaign.

The Kao Corporation owns the shampoo brand John Frieda, along with the Kao Chemical Corporation Shaghai, which was blacklisted in China due to pollution incidents.(9) According to the Kao Corporation’s paper on research and development, it has “rapidly created nano-sized crystals using a high speed technology”.

Natural Spa Supplies was founded by Managing Director Sally Mittuch in 2008, following her honeymoon in Morocco, where she was inspired by the effectiveness of using rhassoul clay to wash her hair. The company supports ancient systems of production and promotes using ancient systems of washing.

In November 2008 it was announced that Unilever was selling its stake in Beigel & Beigel, whose factory is located in the Israel industrial settlement of Barkan in the occupied West Bank. The settlement is notorious for polluting surrounding Palestinian land and water sources with industrial, chemical waste. However, Unilever is yet to actually sell its 52% stake. In February 2010 the European Union high court ruled that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank were not part of Israel and that goods produced there should be subject to the EU import duties which Israel avoids due to the EU-Israel Trade Agreement. In a telling quote on Israeli Army Radio, a spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry said “Israel regrets a decision which authorizes the persecution of Israeli products made in Judea and Samaria”.(12) Palestine? No such place.

The Co-op and Marks & Spencer are the only British supermarkets with a policy not to source from Israeli settlements in Palestine.

References

1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3383393.stm [accessed 22/03/10]
2 www.cosmeticsdatabase.com [accessed 22/03/10]
3 “Toxic Beauty: How hidden chemicals in cosmetics harm you”, Dawn Mellowship, Octopus Publishing Group Ltd, 2009
4 www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1180957/Gender-bending-chemical-timebomb-fear-boys-fertility.html [accessed 22/03/10]
5 www.newscientist.com/article/dn7440-genderbending-chemicals-found-to-feminise-boys.html [accessed 22/03/10]
6 http://www.ewg.org/chemindex/term/480 [accessed 22/03/10]
7 http://www.ewg.org/node/26545 [accessed 22/03/10]
8 “Behind the veneer: how Indonesia’s last rainforests are being felled for flooring”, Environmental Investigation Agency, March 2006
9 http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/6244266.html [accessed 22/03/10]
10 http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-guilty-secrets-of-palm-oil-are-you-unwittingly-contributing-to-the-devastation-of-the-rain-forests-1676218.html [accessed 22/03/10]
11 For more information, see “Investigation on Groundwater Pollution: Field investigation in special locations in North and West of the West Bank”, Palestinian Wastewater Engineers Group (PWEG), September 2004. Available from http://www.palweg.org/studies/Investigation%20on%20Ground%20Water%20Pollution.pdf [accessed 22/03/10]
12 www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1152380.html [accessed 22/03/10]