RE:E.O'S &F.O'.S

[Guest guest]

HELLO I'M NEW HERE AND DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO DO THIS.

BUT HERE GOES ON ONE OF THERE NOTES THEY SAY E.O'S IS NOT GOOD AND WHO DO YOU

BELIEVE I ALWAYS LEARN SO MUCH FROM THE GROUP

BE BLESSED

GALE.GLOVER@...

[Guest guest]

<<HERE GOES ON ONE OF THERE  NOTES THEY SAY E.O'S IS NOT GOOD AND WHO DO YOU

BELIEVE >>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

My interpretation (<--and thre's the rub <g>) of EO/FO posts was not that

EO's are " not good " ...but that they deserve to be used with exercised caution,

JUST as much as any ingredient. Too much of a good thing can be bad. People

tend to focus on the documented benefits of EO's, but neglect to place concern

on questioning the growing conditions of and everything else that makes that EO

come into it's distilled existence. We trust the end safety issue with EO

manufacturers, just like we trust the safety factor of FO manufacturers who are

selling a legal substance with recommendations for safe usage. Granted, there

are a wealth of reputable organic suppliers...but how pure is pure?

With so much focus here on what constitutes FO's, what chemicals go into

them, etc....is it not fair to question all constituents of EO's? The actual EO

may not have chemical additives, but if the plant used in distillation was

sprayed with, for example, pesticides/herbacides, etc., which makes their way

into

the plant, is THAT chemical not of just as much concern, if not MORE, as any

pthalate-containing chemical??? Growing/weather/air conditons of plants used

in EO distillation can vary in strength or weakness as to alter therapeutic or

hazardous effects. These issues all make EO's more " less consistent " than

their FO counterparts.

Most BIG EO distillaries test their EO's for consistency, have their own

farms or buy from the same farms or growers and have as reputable conditions as

they can find--but many if not most of these BIG GROWERS still use pesticides

" as allowed " by current farming standards, approved by the Department of

Agriculture. And with so many people purchasing and using their own distillary

equipment, and wild-harvesting their own herbs, etc....the variables for safe

and

consistent end product really has the potential to get skewed. Even

" organically-grown " plants can still be exposed to the environment: polluted

air, water

tables, acid rain, and factors beyond their control.

Anyway.....my only concern is...analyze and dissect EO's as thoroughly as you

analyze and dissect FO's and trace back orgins of all that goes into EACH.

<< What has largely been ignored by home toiletries makers is

that THEY often use these perfumes at 100 fold higher than the

commercial world.  There is a huge difference between using say rose

oil in a soap at half a percent and using a synthetic rose perfume

designed for use at maybe one part in a thousand or less.   You

cannot simply substitute a synthetic with a natural at the same

volume of use.>>

So would you recommend attaining recommendations for each individual

synthetic or a general rule-of-thumb for the general category of " synthetics " ?

Also, would not the issue of the end product being a wash-off VS. stay-on

skin product figure into this overall concern???

This is an aside, but worth mentioning, I think, because it illustrates the

diversity of info. floating around and influencing people. I have two cancer

patient customers who purchase my most bare-bones basic plain soap. They are

of particular interest to me in that they've both shared some interesting info.

that their physicians imparted to them. Random theories, or what basis for

truth? With both, their doctors told them that what they bathe with/or NOT

bathe with is important ..... but they also recommended that they bathe with

NON-tap water--due to all the chemicals (particular emphasis on chorine) in tap

water. One patient went so far as to say his doctor told him the human body

can absorb up to a quart of water in one average bath session of approx. 15-20

minutes. This man is of unlimited financial resources, or so it seems, and so

he bathes daily with bottled water he has imported from Switzerland (that HE

seems to think is pure) and he heats it through a special tankless water

heating unit he had installed in his bathroom.

The other patient is not of unlimited financial resources, knows his doctor

recommends non-tap water bathing, but can't afford it. His attitude

is--- " Everyone has to die of SOMETHING! "

At what point do you have to or choose to draw the line of what you can

control in your environment? It's totally a personal choice subject to the

education/awareness or drive to know more by each individual . But I think what

is

pointed out over all is the disparity of theories and the lack of trust we, as

a whole, are developing about our national regulatory agencies who we rely on

to indentify toxins and keep them out of use.

HOW MUCH reputed/suggested/suspected/verified pollution can we control?

~Carol

[Guest guest]

Thanks alot for your interpretation you have cleared my thoughts on e.o's i

prefer them for what i know and tryed

thanks

gale

SimplySoap@... wrote:

<BELIEVE >>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

My interpretation (<--and thre's the rub ) of EO/FO posts was not that

EO's are " not good " ...but that they deserve to be used with exercised caution,

JUST as much as any ingredient. Too much of a good thing can be bad. People

tend to focus on the documented benefits of EO's, but neglect to place concern

on questioning the growing conditions of and everything else that makes that EO

come into it's distilled existence. We trust the end safety issue with EO

manufacturers, just like we trust the safety factor of FO manufacturers who are

selling a legal substance with recommendations for safe usage. Granted, there

are a wealth of reputable organic suppliers...but how pure is pure?

With so much focus here on what constitutes FO's, what chemicals go into

them, etc....is it not fair to question all constituents of EO's? The actual EO

may not have chemical additives, but if the plant used in distillation was

sprayed with, for example, pesticides/herbacides, etc., which makes their way

into

the plant, is THAT chemical not of just as much concern, if not MORE, as any

pthalate-containing chemical??? Growing/weather/air conditons of plants used

in EO distillation can vary in strength or weakness as to alter therapeutic or

hazardous effects. These issues all make EO's more " less consistent " than

their FO counterparts.

Most BIG EO distillaries test their EO's for consistency, have their own

farms or buy from the same farms or growers and have as reputable conditions as

they can find--but many if not most of these BIG GROWERS still use pesticides

" as allowed " by current farming standards, approved by the Department of

Agriculture. And with so many people purchasing and using their own distillary

equipment, and wild-harvesting their own herbs, etc....the variables for safe

and

consistent end product really has the potential to get skewed. Even

" organically-grown " plants can still be exposed to the environment: polluted

air, water

tables, acid rain, and factors beyond their control.

Anyway.....my only concern is...analyze and dissect EO's as thoroughly as you

analyze and dissect FO's and trace back orgins of all that goes into EACH.

<< What has largely been ignored by home toiletries makers is

that THEY often use these perfumes at 100 fold higher than the

commercial world. There is a huge difference between using say rose

oil in a soap at half a percent and using a synthetic rose perfume

designed for use at maybe one part in a thousand or less. You

cannot simply substitute a synthetic with a natural at the same

volume of use.>>

So would you recommend attaining recommendations for each individual

synthetic or a general rule-of-thumb for the general category of " synthetics " ?

Also, would not the issue of the end product being a wash-off VS. stay-on

skin product figure into this overall concern???

This is an aside, but worth mentioning, I think, because it illustrates the

diversity of info. floating around and influencing people. I have two cancer

patient customers who purchase my most bare-bones basic plain soap. They are

of particular interest to me in that they've both shared some interesting info.

that their physicians imparted to them. Random theories, or what basis for

truth? With both, their doctors told them that what they bathe with/or NOT

bathe with is important ..... but they also recommended that they bathe with

NON-tap water--due to all the chemicals (particular emphasis on chorine) in tap

water. One patient went so far as to say his doctor told him the human body

can absorb up to a quart of water in one average bath session of approx. 15-20

minutes. This man is of unlimited financial resources, or so it seems, and so

he bathes daily with bottled water he has imported from Switzerland (that HE

seems to think is pure) and he heats it through a special tankless water

heating unit he had installed in his bathroom.

The other patient is not of unlimited financial resources, knows his doctor

recommends non-tap water bathing, but can't afford it. His attitude

is--- " Everyone has to die of SOMETHING! "

At what point do you have to or choose to draw the line of what you can

control in your environment? It's totally a personal choice subject to the

education/awareness or drive to know more by each individual . But I think what

is

pointed out over all is the disparity of theories and the lack of trust we, as

a whole, are developing about our national regulatory agencies who we rely on

to indentify toxins and keep them out of use.

HOW MUCH reputed/suggested/suspected/verified pollution can we control?

~Carol