Group Dynamics

December 18, 2003

>It was born out of my frustration of getting bashed on other lists when I

spoke of the

>need for using preservatives and the need to follow FDA regulations. I was

>particularly fed up one evening after been bashed on several lists.

Pat,

Your post is very eloquently stated, with a lot of heart! No one likes the

feeling of being bashed and I applaud you for being one who didn't complain,

but chose to do something about it ... rather than continuously trying to

force your views on a list that wasn't hearing you, you started Cosmetic

Info ... I'm sure this list takes a lot of effort from you, Pat - and

obviously takes a great effort from those who give so much of their time in

presenting their knowledge! Maurice is a straight shooter and in reading

the archives, I found that a person never has to wonder what his point is!

I think that practical people often come across as being more " brash " than

those who pad their answers. All of us have to realize that it's hard to

guess how words will hit everyone, especially in such a large group, as

words are such a small part of communicating - with email, there's no voice

inflection, body language or facial expression to go along with the words.

I checked the archives and saw that Pat has had to repeatedly defend the

purpose of this list. Perhaps it would make your job, Pat - Maurice's and

Angie's efforts - easier if you made a small statement regarding the group's

view on " natural vs synthetic " on the sign-up page for the list or in the

Cosmetic Info " Welcome " . All groups have a purpose and there's nothing

wrong with having a list that's more dedicated to the chemical side of this

industry, especially as far as the issue of preservatives are concerned.

The " Welcome " letter does state that the list is not a democracy, but it

might help people decide whether or not CI is a list they want to join if

there's something stated upfront that this is a " pro-chemical " group ...

then, those who join this list do so at their own discretion and won't feel

discredited when they " choose " to post info that isn't respected here.

As you stated, Pat, there are many other list groups that openly accept

" natural " opinion ... perhaps it's best for those that enjoy employing

nature in their products to join a couple of lists and then distribute their

questions and opinions where they will be most accepted. I think this is

kind of like the gap between psychology and psychiatry ... psychiatrists are

firm believers in using chemicals, psychologists don't agree that drugs are

the answer ... it doesn't necessarily mean that both professions don't have

their place, but I certainly would go to a psychiatrist and try to force

them to treat me like a psychologist, and vice versa.

There's just no need for undo tension in a group designed to share qualified

information ... I don't think most people realize the amount of chemistry

that stands behind the toiletry industry ... there's always so much to learn

and it's wonderful to have a group with a membership that's large enough so

that you can always find someone who's " been there, done that " ... it

certainly saves on the " trial and error " , which can become expensive.

I also appreciate Pat sharing Maurice's role in this group ... being new, I

wasn't aware of his dedication.

Question: I haven't joined the Think Tank as yet, as I was uncertain of

it's purpose. In archived messages, I have seen posts where it's stated

that a subject can be posted on CI, but after a period of time should be

taken to the Think Tank ... I am sure that there are also topics that should

go directly to the Think Tank and not be presented at all on CI. Can

someone help to clarify how best to make this determination? Or, does Pat

make that determination when moderating?

Also, I hope that I wasn't out of line in posting the links I did ... I will

be more respectful of the group focus in the future! I am curious if

perhaps Pat or one of the senior members could share some guidelines

regarding the comfort zone on " natural vs. chemical " for the group. I've

noticed that natural oils, herbal additives, etc. seem to go without debate

(unless one side states they are better than the other :-) Unfortunately,

so many " consumers " are wanting " natural " . Since consumers hear about

" natural " substances and often request their use in a product, I feel it's

important for formulators to know about them as well, just to stay informed

so we can give informed answers to questions ... especially with

preservative usage. Is it OK to ask for informative links to a natural

substance or is this topic best approached elsewhere? I would like to have

some " basic " guidelines to follow, so I can avoid tripping over my tongue or

causing unnecessary stress to a wonderful group :-)

Well ... gotta get back to the grind :-) Thank you all for your efforts ...

and I will be the first to apologize to Maurice, in case my last post was in

any way disrespectful to his efforts!

Nan

December 18, 2003

In a message dated 12/18/03 1:11:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, ThingZ@...

writes:

> I checked the archives and saw that Pat has had to repeatedly defend the

> purpose of this list. Perhaps it would make your job, Pat - Maurice's and

> Angie's efforts - easier if you made a small statement regarding the group's

> view on " natural vs synthetic " on the sign-up page for the list or in the

> Cosmetic Info " Welcome " . All groups have a purpose and there's nothing

> wrong with having a list that's more dedicated to the chemical side of this

> industry, especially as far as the issue of preservatives are concerned.

> The " Welcome " letter does state that the list is not a democracy, but it

> might help people decide whether or not CI is a list they want to join if

> there's something stated upfront that this is a " pro-chemical " group ...

> then, those who join this list do so at their own discretion and won't feel

> discredited when they " choose " to post info that isn't respected here.

>

Hi Nan and All,

To see myself included in a " pro-chemical " group makes me smile I've been

considered a big " granola " for the past 30 or so years I was one of those

" no nuke " , organic gardening, save a tree/hug a tree, kinda people----I still

am for the most part. I have a BS in health education and a MPH (master in

public health)---and my whole career and life and been dedicated to working

with folks around various health issues. It's just that now that I've gotten a

bit older (and hopefully a little wiser , I see that the physical world we

live in is complex....just as life itself is complex....multi-dimensional....two

or more sides to every story. First of all, there is no real definition for

" natural " . It is defined differently by different people.

I think cosmeticinfo generally does a very good job addressing the real

safety and efficacy issues in cosmetics and toiletries---there is no better

group

available that addresses these issues. I may not always agree with what is

said, but hey, that's life.

Since you mentioned something about cosmeticinfo having a natural vs.

synthetic statement (and I was included I thought I would repost one of my

messages from the past. This is my belief and does not necessarily reflect the

opinions of the group:

I believe I understand what most folks are talking about when they say

" natural " . I believe they are looking for a product or ingredient that offers

benefits to health and wellbeing, rather than health risks. For me this is the

bottom line and the real question.

" Natural " is one of those words that brings beautiful things to mind...fresh

herbs and flowers, wholesome oils and butters, pure essential oils. The

connotation is very positive and very alluring. Since I am an

herbalist/gardener,

this was my own goal when I first began making my own products---and still is

to a great extent. I would venture to say that almost 100% of us strive to

make " natural " products. But what does that really mean? As I learned more and

more about toiletry making, my perspective on " what is natural " and " what is

good " and " chemicals are bad " changed to some extent. Our world-- and we-- are

made up of the chemical elements---the building blocks of life. We can

perhaps say that chemicals ARE natural? I think we are really asking

ourselves---

" is this safe " and " is this desirable " , rather than " is this natural? "

'Natural' is not a word that is easily and absolutely defined. It is

perceived differently by different people. To me, a tree or a flower growing in

my

garden is natural. My lemon balm and other herbs that are growing are natural.

The poison ivy and poison hemlock in the woods and meadows are also natural.

Mold and fungus and bacteria are natural. Are all these things good? Are all

these things bad? It depends on where they are found and how they are utilized.

Stinging Nettle naturally found in the woods is not a good thing when you come

upon it unsuspectingly. Some people have found the sting of the nettle to be a

good thing for arthritis. Stinging Nettle, once dried is a very different

story and the constituents are very beneficial in hair and skin care. So to me

these are examples of natural things.

There are very few ingredients used in cosmetics that are completely natural.

Essential oils, cold pressed veggie oils are two that come to mind and these

have undergone a sort of processing so the full components of the plants are

no longer there....we are left with a fraction of the original plant. When I

make decisions regarding ingredients that I want to use in my own products or

that I wish to sell on our site, I always look at the big picture. It's

important to look at toxicity data, find out if there is any irritation

potential, any

known sensitivities, any environmental concerns or any health risks at all.

I encourage folks to look for the benefits vs. the risks before using any

particular ingredient or product.

Angie

The Herbarie

Natural Source Ingredients for Toiletries & Cosmetics

http://www.theherbarie.com

December 18, 2003

Hi Nan ...

Hoping to help, but always open to that help being corrected or clarified

further ...

IMO, the " natural VS. chemical " should ideally be " unprocessed, processed,

refined, fractionated, altered/reacted, " etc. " Natural " is a market hype word

that has been so abused, I understand the authorities are reviewing its use as

to how it may be allowed to continue being used with regard to truth in

advertising.

Castille soap is not " all natural " if such definition means unprocessed or

unaltered from nature ... but IS considered a pure, trustworthy product ... and

is often sold as " all natural " ... ie, we can't clean our skin with a

fresh-picked olive, but we can manhandle the olives (process, refine), then use

the

manhandled oil and, with the manmade standardized lye, a chemical by definition,

create a reaction to make pure, trustworthy castille soap.

For this reason, I respect the intent of the word " natural " in many lines,

but refuse to use it in mine ... and get really tired of seeing it abused. Many

are coming around to word it more like " with natural whatevers " ...

IMO, the position of most of us (especially after some of us have also been

here long enough to learn this) is the realization of these truths and

incorporating the knowledge we gain into our own philosophy and business. The

purpose

of this list is to teach us what we need so we don't hang ourselves in

ignorance ...

The many consumers who are wanting " natural " - meaning unpreserved - products

have read and believe what many of us once did until we came here and learned

from the chemists exactly why it's not always the best choice!

It is absolutely okay to ask for informative links to a natural substance ...

the whole industry recognizes the consumer demand for the ideal " as natural "

or " as pure and true " as is possible. Most non-chemists, like me, have no

clue that this or that " chemical " ingredient is merely a fractionated part of a

whole oil or whole something else selected for X properties it brings to the

product in lieu of its whole source where X properties wouldn't come through as

well. I've been fortunate to learn that here.

I love oats ... ground oats are part of a scrub I use on my face daily.

Sorry, makers of facial cleansers, but you haven't one-upped those oats yet

BUT I highly value having learned that to market my scrub requires either a lot

of preservation or convenient but single-use, waterproof, vaporproof

packaging! If " natural ingredient " discussions were not allowed, I'd have not

learned

that. So, please don't assume it's a " pro-chemical " group in the sense that

some groups are " anti-chemical " in the name of " natural. " It's so much more

.... and hard to put into an intro letter.

When I came here and assumed it was " pro-chemical, " I came with that

knowledge and respect ... those guys know how to make big money ... but I'm

telling

you today that this association with the whole scope of interests and

philosophies with CosmeticInfo and one other specialty group is by far the most

value-added time I spend on the internet ... and I definitely spend my share of

time

there!

I respect that you've searched archives and are here to learn, and respect

that you're here " where " and " as " you are ... to learn and share ... and that

you've asked what is appropriate shows that you place a high value toward

others, which I have no doubt is your first priority toward your customers. I'm

glad you're here.

-

December 19, 2003

I must say that I agree with Angie here.

This list...(as far as how I see it) is all about making cosmetics safely.

It is neither pro synthetic or natural. It is safety. There are many natural

things that just aren't safe. There are many procedures that just aren't

safe.

The reason Pat defends Maurice is that people occasionally forget just what

Maurice GIVES us. Sometimes we need a reminder. This isn't a debating list

on whether natural is better than synthetic..it is a factual info list on

what is safe and what is not.(there are many people who need to know that

natural isn't always safe)

Sutton

Get Real Soap Co,

ThingZ@...

> writes:

>

> > I checked the archives and saw that Pat has had to repeatedly defend the

> > purpose of this list. Perhaps it would make your job, Pat - Maurice's

and

> > Angie's efforts - easier if you made a small statement regarding the

group's

> > view on " natural vs synthetic " on the sign-up page for the list or in

the

> > Cosmetic Info " Welcome " . All groups have a purpose and there's nothing

> > wrong with having a list that's more dedicated to the chemical side of

this

> > industry, especially as far as the issue of preservatives are concerned.

> > The " Welcome " letter does state that the list is not a democracy, but it

> > might help people decide whether or not CI is a list they want to join

if

> > there's something stated upfront that this is a " pro-chemical " group ...

> > then, those who join this list do so at their own discretion and won't

feel

> > discredited when they " choose " to post info that isn't respected here.

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 12/15/03

December 19, 2003

I must say that I agree with Angie here.

This list...(as far as how I see it) is all about making cosmetics safely.

It is neither pro synthetic or natural. It is safety. There are many natural

things that just aren't safe. There are many procedures that just aren't

safe.

The reason Pat defends Maurice is that people occasionally forget just what

Maurice GIVES us. Sometimes we need a reminder. This isn't a debating list

on whether natural is better than synthetic..it is a factual info list on

what is safe and what is not.(there are many people who need to know that

natural isn't always safe)

Sutton

Get Real Soap Co,

ThingZ@...

> writes:

>

> > I checked the archives and saw that Pat has had to repeatedly defend the

> > purpose of this list. Perhaps it would make your job, Pat - Maurice's

and

> > Angie's efforts - easier if you made a small statement regarding the

group's

> > view on " natural vs synthetic " on the sign-up page for the list or in

the

> > Cosmetic Info " Welcome " . All groups have a purpose and there's nothing

> > wrong with having a list that's more dedicated to the chemical side of

this

> > industry, especially as far as the issue of preservatives are concerned.

> > The " Welcome " letter does state that the list is not a democracy, but it

> > might help people decide whether or not CI is a list they want to join

if

> > there's something stated upfront that this is a " pro-chemical " group ...

> > then, those who join this list do so at their own discretion and won't

feel

> > discredited when they " choose " to post info that isn't respected here.

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 12/15/03

December 19, 2003

I must say that I agree with Angie here.

This list...(as far as how I see it) is all about making cosmetics safely.

It is neither pro synthetic or natural. It is safety. There are many natural

things that just aren't safe. There are many procedures that just aren't

safe.

The reason Pat defends Maurice is that people occasionally forget just what

Maurice GIVES us. Sometimes we need a reminder. This isn't a debating list

on whether natural is better than synthetic..it is a factual info list on

what is safe and what is not.(there are many people who need to know that

natural isn't always safe)

Sutton

Get Real Soap Co,

ThingZ@...

> writes:

>

> > I checked the archives and saw that Pat has had to repeatedly defend the

> > purpose of this list. Perhaps it would make your job, Pat - Maurice's

and

> > Angie's efforts - easier if you made a small statement regarding the

group's

> > view on " natural vs synthetic " on the sign-up page for the list or in

the

> > Cosmetic Info " Welcome " . All groups have a purpose and there's nothing

> > wrong with having a list that's more dedicated to the chemical side of

this

> > industry, especially as far as the issue of preservatives are concerned.

> > The " Welcome " letter does state that the list is not a democracy, but it

> > might help people decide whether or not CI is a list they want to join

if

> > there's something stated upfront that this is a " pro-chemical " group ...

> > then, those who join this list do so at their own discretion and won't

feel

> > discredited when they " choose " to post info that isn't respected here.

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 12/15/03

December 19, 2003

Angie....thank you so much. As far as I'm concerned you've said it all.My exact

sentiments.In keeping with the " Holiday Spirit " I'd just like to extend my

gratitude to all of you who share so selflessly,and make life so much easier for

those of us who would otherwise spend an exorbitant amount of time trying to do

it right all by our lonesome.So for all your generous gifts of knowledge I thank

and applaud you.Blessings, Jeannette(Jet)

Hi Nan and All,

To see myself included in a " pro-chemical " group makes me smile I've been

considered a big " granola " for the past 30 or so years I was one of those

" no nuke " , organic gardening, save a tree/hug a tree, kinda people----I still

am for the most part. Angie

The Herbarie

Natural Source Ingredients for Toiletries & Cosmetics

http://www.theherbarie.com

December 19, 2003

It's just that now that I've gotten a

bit older (and hopefully a little wiser , I see that the physical world we

live in is complex....just as life itself is

complex....multi-dimensional....two

or more sides to every story.

Angie-I think you just pinpointed the reason why so many,(certainly not

all), of the " all-natural must be the perfect, only way " are younger, and us

oldsters just sit with our tacky knowing smiles and let 'em rave on. Having

said that, no more than 6 months ago this 67 year old great-grandmother was

dragging her feet about so many new chemicals it seemed I needed to create

new products.

This group has been a great help in educating me as to why and how to use

them (or not). Growth at any age is a wonderful thing.

My favorite tagline -a quote from Dr. Carl

" I'm not growing older, I'm older and growing "

Coral

December 21, 2003

> Your post is very eloquently stated, with a lot of heart! No one likes

the

> feeling of being bashed and I applaud you for being one who didn't

complain,

> but chose to do something about it ... rather than continuously trying to

> force your views on a list that wasn't hearing you, you started Cosmetic

> Info ... I'm sure this list takes a lot of effort from you, Pat - and

> obviously takes a great effort from those who give so much of their time

in

> presenting their knowledge!

It wasn't just me that was bashed, but anyone that dared to say that

preservatives was a necessity and that we all needed to follow FDA rules and

regulations. Most of the people that came to this list in the

beginning-including the chemists-would fall within that group. It wasn't

just from one list, but just about every list that I was a member of. At

that time there were several well known, leading chemists trying to share

their wealth of information that finally just gave up because of the

rejection and harassment. The homecrafters lost big time because of their

narrow minds and ignorance of what is chemical.

> I checked the archives and saw that Pat has had to repeatedly defend the

> purpose of this list. Perhaps it would make your job, Pat - Maurice's and

> Angie's efforts - easier if you made a small statement regarding the

group's

> view on " natural vs synthetic " on the sign-up page for the list or in the

> Cosmetic Info " Welcome " . All groups have a purpose and there's nothing

> wrong with having a list that's more dedicated to the chemical side of

this

> industry, especially as far as the issue of preservatives are concerned.

I believe that the statement of what the list is provides an accurate

account of what we do and what potential members ought to expect. " This list

is for the small home based manufacturer that wants to operate within the

law. Accurate information will be provided regarding the legalities of the

business. Making a safe product is a priority for us as is dispelling myths

associated with some ingredients. It is my intent to have a files section

where much of this information will be available to you. " We see all

ingredients as chemical and as a list are neither pro or con natural or

synthetic. I think Angie did a very good job at explaining where we are. I

would bet that 98% of the people on the list would lean toward what most

would consider natural. Many of us are more natural than the so called

natural crowd, except we refuse to put our customers at risk. The list can't

be put in a box, it is exactly as described on our web page.

> The " Welcome " letter does state that the list is not a democracy, but it

> might help people decide whether or not CI is a list they want to join if

> there's something stated upfront that this is a " pro-chemical " group ...

> then, those who join this list do so at their own discretion and won't

feel

> discredited when they " choose " to post info that isn't respected here.

That is because I don't see the list as a pro-chemical or a pro-natural

group. We call a spade a spade on this group, we don't try to make something

that is not natural, natural. We are a information list and if you have a

question about either what you consider natural-which may be quite different

from what we consider natural-or synthetic, chances are you are going to get

a more accurate answer here because that is what we do. People on other

lists will give you lots of opinions, but do you want opinions or fact?

> As you stated, Pat, there are many other list groups that openly accept

> " natural " opinion ... perhaps it's best for those that enjoy employing

> nature in their products to join a couple of lists and then distribute

their

> questions and opinions where they will be most accepted.

That depends. There have been people on the list that I have suggested would

be better off on other lists. If people want opinion that agrees with their

own opinion and to feel warm and fuzzy, then they are better off on another

list. However, if they actually are serious and want to know the truth, I

believe they are better off on CosmeticInfo. Again, this is what we do best,

sort fact from fiction.

I think this is

> kind of like the gap between psychology and psychiatry ... psychiatrists

are

> firm believers in using chemicals, psychologists don't agree that drugs

are

> the answer ... it doesn't necessarily mean that both professions don't

have

> their place, but I certainly would go to a psychiatrist and try to force

> them to treat me like a psychologist, and vice versa.

I wouldn't say that at all. This is not an either or deal. I know there have

been some lists that have tried to copy us that have not been successful.

There are probably more out there now, I just don't have the time to keep up

any more. I think we have been successful because we have never veered from

our mandate, which has not been always easy. I don't believe we can be put

in a box like you want to above. If you hang around the list long enough, I

believe you will understand more with time.

> There's just no need for undo tension in a group designed to share

qualified

> information ... I don't think most people realize the amount of chemistry

> that stands behind the toiletry industry ... there's always so much to

learn

> and it's wonderful to have a group with a membership that's large enough

so

> that you can always find someone who's " been there, done that " ... it

> certainly saves on the " trial and error " , which can become expensive.

> I also appreciate Pat sharing Maurice's role in this group ... being new,

I

> wasn't aware of his dedication.

Oh Yea, he is dedicated as are several members that have a large time

commitment to the list. I am very grateful to all members that participate,

because without them there wouldn't be a list.

> Question: I haven't joined the Think Tank as yet, as I was uncertain of

> it's purpose.

It is a more relaxed group where you have less worry about me saying you did

something wrong:-) I originally started it because I run out of room in our

files section and needed more room.

In archived messages, I have seen posts where it's stated

> that a subject can be posted on CI, but after a period of time should be

> taken to the Think Tank ... I am sure that there are also topics that

should

> go directly to the Think Tank and not be presented at all on CI. Can

> someone help to clarify how best to make this determination? Or, does Pat

> make that determination when moderating?

CosmeticInfo is pretty strict on subject lines being relative to what is

being discussed. We don't want thank you notes unless you change the subject

line. This is done to help members that use the archives find their

information easier. We also don't allow a lot of Off Topic banter for the

same reasons. Members that don't edit their posts will find themselves in

hot water because it is not fair to the digest members that have to scroll

through all that garbage. No me too type notes and no personal notes. There

are 1300 people on the list that don't give a hoot that you live 30 miles

down the road from whoever. We are not a soap list, but most members make

soap, so if a soap conversation starts up that looks like it is going to be

a long one, it will probably get moved. CosmeticInfo is about making

cosmetics/toiletries. The Think Tank you can pretty much discuss anything.

The hope is that some good ideas will come from there when several people

have input.

> Also, I hope that I wasn't out of line in posting the links I did ... I

will

> be more respectful of the group focus in the future! I am curious if

> perhaps Pat or one of the senior members could share some guidelines

> regarding the comfort zone on " natural vs. chemical " for the group. I've

> noticed that natural oils, herbal additives, etc. seem to go without

debate

> (unless one side states they are better than the other :-)

Unfortunately,

> so many " consumers " are wanting " natural " . Since consumers hear about

> " natural " substances and often request their use in a product, I feel it's

> important for formulators to know about them as well, just to stay

informed

> so we can give informed answers to questions ... especially with

> preservative usage. Is it OK to ask for informative links to a natural

> substance or is this topic best approached elsewhere? I would like to

have

> some " basic " guidelines to follow, so I can avoid tripping over my tongue

or

> causing unnecessary stress to a wonderful group :-)

You can talk all you want about natural. If you make claims be prepared to

have data (scientific) to back up the claims.

I would recommend that every member take full advantage of the resources of

this group while they are still available to you. Everything has a life

cycle and when the life cycle of the group is getting close to it's end, I

will end it. I will not leave it like other lists where the only mail that

comes through is the Ads. I will leave the archives and files open to the

then current members, but there will be no new members and there will be no

messages. If you guys want a dynamic group then the only way to make it

dynamic is to participate and not sit on the sidelines.

Pat.

Peace, Joy, Serenity

House of Scents tm. Body Oils, Fragrance Oils, Incense, Candles, Soap, Etc.

pat@...

http://www.houseofscents.com/

December 21, 2003