Getting fed up with hyped-up, complex skincare routines that over promise and under deliver?   

That never ending cycle of creams, serums and frustration?   

Think of all the money you've spent (read: wasted) on each new miracle potion.   

And yet here you are - same skin, same skin problems. Maybe even worse.  

"But @therealskinexpert SWORE by it and we love them and all of their recommendations."   

Yet there it sits, in our cluttered medicine cabinet, next to all of their other recommendations that just. didn't. work.   It's a vicious cycle and it happens for a few reasons.   

You know how it goes -    "RARE, ground breaking new ingredient XYZ, mined from the Garden of Eden itself, found to undo a millennia's worth of physiological aging in 162% of consumers! Get it today for $234."   

Let me ask you something.   Why did you do it? You knew there was a chance it was BS. But you did it anyways!   

The worst part? It probably created a new problem lol   

But guess what! They've got something for that too!   Products create problems that require new products. On and on it goes.   I call it the skincare spiral. Catchy right?   

Let me ask you something else.   

Did you know that your skin is the largest organ in your entire body? That same body that magically heals itself when it's sick, hurt and even maimed?   So... why wouldn't your skin?   

Short of cosmetic surgery - your body is your body, and your skin is your skin. There's only so much you can do with anything topical.   And if that's the case, what should your goal be when it comes to skincare products?   

Well, the same as it should be with the rest of your body!    

Supply it with the proper nutrients, get rid of as much junk as you can, and HELP it do it's job as best as it can.   

Feed it products with ingredients that your skin is actually made of.  The same way you do when you take a multi-vitamin.  

Think of your skin concerns in terms of an ailment driven by some sort of vitamin deficiency. If your body is low in Vitamin D, you're probably tired, moody, and maybe experiencing some joint pain.  

If your skin is lacking ceramides, you're probably prone to redness and irritation.  If your skin is lacking hyaluronic acid (yes, it's naturally occurring in your skin), it's probably dry and stiff. If your skin is lacking collagen, it's probably developing wrinkles faster.   

And the list goes on. 

All of this is to say - do yourself a BIG favor, and start thinking about taking care of your skin the way you would take care of the rest of your body. Don't focus on altering it, focus on assisting it. Feed it what it needs!  

Remember - skin care, not skin procedure.   I promise you the results will speak for themselves.  

PS -  I'd urge you check out Formula 01: The Face Lotion and it's bundles.   

Why?

1) It's been specifically formulated to supply your skin with the EXACT elements it's made from.   

2) AND elements that improve your skin's production of those same elements.  

3) AND elements that slow down the aging process of those elements.   

That's proper skin care.  Everything else is basically just make up without the added colour.   

And make up comes off.

What are Parabens?

A type of preservative. The most common ones are methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben and butylparaben. They’re often used in combinations with each paraben doing something different - i.e. it controls a different type of microbial growth. 

Why do parabens have a bad reputation?

Briefly, there were studies! One found that parabens mimicked estrogen in rats - excessive exposure to estrogen has been linked to breast cancer and reproductive disorders. Another study reports that they found parabens in 20 different human breast tumors. Another one concluded that parabens are absorbed through the skin, and daily use with them can build up in your system. 

Why aren’t they banned?

Because the scientific community and regulatory bodies disagree with the media’s interpretation of the studies. One of the studies was conducted on rats, with a high concentration of parabens injected directly beneath the skin. The study that reported finding parabens in breast tumors was done so without any comparison to normal, non-cancerous tissue. The study that measured the cumulative effects of parabens was done on the entire body at concentrations nearly 100x higher than would ever be used in any product. 

So what happened?

The researchers behind each study actually clarified their testing and results. But, the damage to the reputation of parabens had been done. Consumers caught wind, and brands obliged to meet public perception. The scientific community - more confused than ever - began studying parabens even more. The results? No measurable problems. There still isn’t a study showing a convincing link between paraben use and negative health effects. 

Does Basic Maintenance use parabens?

No. But we could, and quite frankly, we should. It would be more cost-effective. This just happens to be an instance of fear-mongering that has prevailed to the point it’s nearly impossible for young, start-up brands to risk using them. Public perception and consumer demands - no matter how misguided they may be - are still real factors to consider when formulating a product. With a strong majority of consumers convinced about the damaging effects of parabens, we felt it necessary to avoid them.

What preservatives does Basic Maintenance use?

Our products are formulated with phenoxyethanol. While phenoxyethanol has been touted as a natural preservative, the reality of it is that it isn’t. It’s entirely synthetic. Brands that claim to be all natural with phenoxyethanol as their preservative of choice are straight up lying. 

Sources

Opinion on Parabens (2011) from the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_041.pdf

2019 CIR Safety Assessment on Parabens https://www.cir-safety.org/sites/default/files/Parabens_2.pdf

Adoamnei, E et al. (2018) Urinary concentrations of parabens and reproductive parameters in young men. Science of The Total Environment, 621:201-209. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29179076/

Bledzka D et al. (2014) Parabens. From environmental studies to human health. Environmental international. 67:27-42. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24657492/

Crovetto, S et al. (2017) Bacterial toxicity testing and antibacterial activity of parabens. Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry, 99(5-6):858-868. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02772248.2017.1300905

Darbre P and Harvey P. (2014) Parabens can enable hallmarks and characteristics of cancer in human breast epithelial cells: a review of the literature with reference to new exposure data and regulator status. Applied toxicology. 34(9):925-938. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25047802/

Engeli, T et al. (2017) Interference of Paraben Compounds with Estrogen Metabolism by Inhibition of 17β-Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenases. International journal of molecular sciences. 18(9):2007. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5618656/

Hafeez F and Maibach H. (2013) An overview of parabens and allergic contact dermatitis. Skin Therapy Lett. 18(5), 5-7 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24305662/

Haman C et al. (2015) Occurrence, fate and behavior of parabens in aquatic environments: a review. Water research. 68:1-11. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25462712/

Jurewicz, J et al. (2017) Environmental exposure to parabens and sperm chromosome disomy. International journal of environmental health research, 27(5):332-343. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28609180/

Kolatorova, L et al. (2017) The Exposure to Endocrine Disruptors during Pregnancy and Relation to Steroid Hormones. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Medical and Health Sciences,4(11).  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7353272/

McNutt, J. (2017) The Peaks of a Preservative: Quantification of Parabens in Cosmetic Foundation. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18713076/

Moos, R et al. (2017) Daily intake and hazard index of parabens based upon 24 h urine samples of the German Environmental Specimen Bank from 1995 to 2012. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 27(6):591. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27901017/

Sasseville D et al. (2015) “Parabenoia” Debunked, or “Who’s afraid of parabens?” Dermatitis. 26(6):254-259. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5618656/

Smarr M et al. (2017) Urinary concentrations of parabens and other antimicrobial chemicals and their association with couples’ fecundity. Environ health perspect. 154(4):730-736. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5381974/

Zulaikha S et al. (2015) Hazardous ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products and health concern: a review. Public Health Research. 5(1):7-15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271387744_Hazardous_Ingredients_in_Cosmetics_and_Personal

What are Phthalates?

A group of chemicals with a variety of functions depending on the particular  phthalate. They are, and in some cases ‘were’, used in all kinds of products -  from plastic to flooring, pharmaceuticals to food packaging, and of course, cosmetics and personal care. More often than not, they are used to make plastics more durable. 

Since our concern is personal care products, there are only 3 phthalates that have historically been relevant. Diethyl Phthalate (DEP), which is used as a solvent (to help dissolve other materials), often in fragrance. Dimethyl Phthalate (DMP), which forms a flexible film in hair care products. And Dibutyl Phthalate (DBP), which acts as a plasticizer to reduce brittleness and cracking in things like nail polish. 

The only phthalate still in use in personal care - worldwide! - is diethyl phthalate (DEP), which can be used without restriction because of its good safety profile. Since 2007, DBP and DMP have been phased out due to concerns around endocrine disruption. They are no longer relevant. 

Are phthalates dangerous?

Consider mushrooms. Some you can eat, some are poisonous. 

This is exactly the case with phthalates. But, unfortunately, because of general statements about phthalates and confusion around what's actually in cosmetics and what’s actually covered by regulations, all phthalates have been an easy target for fear-mongering.

Time and time again, study after study, regardless of what country’s regulatory body is concerned, or what research lab has been used, the same conclusions continually come up. 

DEP is perfectly fine, is regulated as such, and continues to be used without issue.

DBP was next to perfectly fine, but - better safe than sorry and restricted nonetheless. The risks associated with DBP weren't even all that relevant to cosmetics. They were concerned with food and consumption as the primary form of exposure, i.e consuming foods that have contacted products containing phthalates - like packaging. Some exposure can also occur from breathing phthalate particles in the air - dust etc. And children crawl around and touch many things, then put their hands in their mouths. 

Additionally, when analyzed in animals, eating large amounts affects reproductive ability.

Is any of this applicable to personal care products? Not really. Even the trace amounts that would have been used in cosmetics like nail polish pass every safety test. 

Regardless of all of this, DBP and DMP are banned! No need for concern no matter how you slice it.

So what’s all the fuss about?

Great question. To which the answer is actually quite simple. This is and has been a classic case of opportunistic people preying on misinformed people.

Do most people know that there are different types of phthalates with different chemical profiles that affect different things? No. Do most people care? No. Should they? Yes. 

This is quite literally all that has happened. 

There were 3 common phthalates. One was discovered to be dangerous and banned. The other was discovered to be somewhat dangerous under specific conditions, and was banned across the board anyways. The other is perfectly fine.

Despite only one - the one that was, is, and will always be safe - even being in the marketplace, they have all been lumped together, and demonized as such.

Imagine someone tried to tell you that beautiful grilled portobello was poisonous because other mushrooms were too? 

Does Basic Maintenance use phthalates?

No. But again, we could and all would be perfectly fine. This just happens to be yet another instance of fear-mongering that has prevailed to the point it’s nearly impossible for young, start-up brands to risk using them. Public perception and consumer demands - no matter how misguided they may be - are still real factors to consider when formulating a product. With a strong majority of consumers convinced about the damaging effects of phthalates, we felt it necessary to avoid them.

Sources

Full ECHA Dossier on Dibutyl Phthalate https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/04f79b21-0b6d-4e67-91b9-0a70d4ea7500

Official report from the US Consumer Product Safety Commission on Dibutyl Phthalate https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ToxicityReviewOfDBP.pdf

SCCS (2007) Opinion on Phthalates in Cosmetic Products https://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_sccp/docs/sccp_o_106.pdf

Australian Government. (2008) Existing Chemical Hazard Report, Dibutyl Phthalate. https://www.industrialchemicals.gov.au/sites/default/files/Dibutyl%20phthalate%20DBP.pdf

EPA (2000) Leaflet on Dibutyl Phthalate https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/dibutyl-phthalate.pdf

US department of health and human services.(2001) Toxicological Profile for DI-n-ButylPhthalate.  https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp135.pdf

It’s a type of sulfate. OK, what are sulfates? A class of cleansing surfactant. Great, what is a surfactant? Technically, it’s a portmanteau for “surface active agent”. Got it.

Anyways, for our purposes, cleansing surfactants are chemicals that stir up activity on the surface you are cleaning to help trap and remove dirt. Their molecular make-up is such that one portion cuts through water, and the other half through oil, so they can help remove dirt from your skin or hair..  

SLS, which stands for Sodium Lauryl Sulfate , is very good at this. The best, actually. It is not to be confused with Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES), which people assume due to the closeness of their trade names. SLS is much stronger.

Both are produced from petroleum and plant sources such as coconut and palm oil.

You’ve probably only ever come across SLS when denoted by its ‘Free-From’ claim on products. There’s certainly no shortage of them. Ours included.

But are they bad for you? The short answer is ‘no, not really’. The long answer is ‘again, no, but bear with us’.

The most common refrains to backup SLS-Free claims are that they’re irritating, they’re carcinogenic, they’re drying, they’re eco-toxins, and they accumulate in your body. 

Is SLS irritating?

Sure. What it isn’t? This myth is irritating. Yet here we are, talking about it.

When it comes to the products you might find it in - soaps, washes, shampoos, detergents - concentrations usually range from 0.01% - 50%. The upper range is typically found in household cleaning products - which obviously don’t have the same irritancy concerns as a personal care product that you directly apply to yourself. Plus, they generally need to be more effective cleansers. 

Please note that just because SLS is used for industrial cleaners does not mean that it’s  automatically bad for a personal care product - it’s the concentration of it that matters. As the saying goes, the dose makes the poison. Think of it like a beer versus the equivalent liquid volume in whiskey. That extra 35% of alcohol makes quite a difference, doesn’t it?

Anyways, yes, SLS is one of the more irritating surfactants out there. The problem is, it’s irritating if either used, or formulated improperly. Any chemist worth even half a pinch of salt will know this.

Any studies that demonstrate irritancy beyond the usual human sensitivities or allergies, have generally been done so out of context. For example, with soaps, washes, and shampoos, what do you do? You rinse them out. You wash them off. You don’t just sit there with soap all over you for an extended period of time. And yet that is exactly the type of study that has pointed to its irritancy and amplified its vilification.

And when it comes to formulation, rarely, if ever, is SLS used in a personal care product without a “co-surfactant” that helps stabilize it and counteract any potential irritation. Remember, brands want you to like their products. Skin irritation is generally not on their list of product qualities to check off.

Is SLS toxic?

The. Dose. Makes. The. Poison. Again, for the people in the back. Every chemical has a toxic dose. Table salt has a toxic dose. 

“Acute Oral Toxicity” tends to be a major talking point when referencing SLS. This refers to the immediate danger of ingesting something, measured in terms of its median lethal dose, which is the amount needed to kill half of the lab rats getting that dose. 

Do you plan on drinking body wash? If you do, maybe what it’s formulated with isn’t your biggest problem.  

Is SLS carcinogenic or hormone disrupting?

No. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports this. There is nothing linking either SLS or SLES to cancer, infertifly or any developmental issues.

Is SLS drying?

As far as pure cleansing power goes, it’s among the most effective. So yes, it can dry out your skin, scalp or hair. It can strip it of its oils. If you have particularly dry skin, this would be a bit of a concern. However, one easily remedied by rehydrating and moisturizing.

Does SLS build up inside you?

While microscopic amounts can be absorbed if pure SLS is directly applied to your skin’s surface, even then, most of it just sits there. What might get absorbed is quickly metabolized by your liver and rapidly excreted. This is quite literally what your liver exists to do - detoxify you. 

Is SLS eco-friendly?

If it’s derived from palm oil, the destruction of rainforests for plantations is a problem. When it comes to aquatic toxicity, i.e. the short-term negative impacts to aquatic life - extremely high levels of SLS can be mildly toxic. However, the diluted amounts in personal care products - not so much. Not to mention by the time it goes down the drain, through your municipality’s in/out water filtration systems, and finally reaching a natural water source - it’s largely been reduced to nothing.  Oh, and it’s readily biodegradable.

So, should I avoid SLS?

No. But whether you choose to or not is entirely up to you. There’s no particular reason to avoid them unless you have an individual sensitivity towards them. It does not pose any risk to you or the environment if used correctly. If you find it too drying for your skin or hair, you are free to choose “Free From” products. But, if you have some products that contain SLS and you like them, don’t let all the bullshit scare you away.

Does Basic Maintenance use SLS?

No. But we could, and quite frankly, we should. It would be more cost-effective. This just happens to be an instance of fear-mongering that has prevailed to the point it’s nearly impossible for young, start-up brands to risk using them. 

Public perception and consumer demands - no matter how misguided they may be - are still real factors to consider when formulating a product. With a strong majority of consumers still convinced about the harmful effects of SLS, we felt it necessary to avoid it.

Once we have some more clout, maybe we’ll reconsider.

Sources

Bondi C et al. (2015) Human and Environmental Toxicity of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS): Evidence for Safe Use in Household Cleaning Products.Environ Health Insights. 2015; 9: 27–32. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4651417/

Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR). Final report on the safety assessment of sodium lauryl sulfate and ammonium lauryl sulfate. Int J Toxicol. 2005; 24(1): 1–102. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10915818309142005

Green, K. Johnson, R.E. Chapman, J.M. Nelson, E. Cheeks, L. Preservative effects on the healing rate of rabbit corneal epithelium. Lens Eye Toxic Res. 1989; 6: 37–41. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2488029/

Gloxhuber, C. Künstler, K. Anionic Surfactants: Biochemistry, Toxicology, Dermatology. 2nd ed., Vol. 43. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1992. https://lib.ugent.be/en/catalog/rug01:000316118

Horita K et al. (2017) Effects of different base agents on prediction of skin irritation by sodium lauryl sulfate using patch testing and repeated application test. Toxicology 382:10-15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28274658/

De Jongh, C.M. Verberk, M.M. Withagen, C.E. Jacobs, J.J. Rustemeyer, T. Kezic, S. Stratum corneum cytokines and skin irritation response to sodium lauryl sulfate. Contact Dermatitis. 2006; 54(6): 325–33.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16787454/

Lewis, M.A. Chronic and sublethal toxicities of surfactants to aquatic animals: a review and risk assessment. Water Res. 1991; 25(1): 101–13. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.458.9723&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Karsa, D.R. Porter, M.R. , eds. Biodegradability of Surfactants. Glasgow: Blackie Academic & Professional; 1995. https://chempedia.info/info/biodegradability_of_surfactants/

Mizutani T et al. (2016) Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Stimulates the Generation of Reactive Oxygen Species through Interactions with Cell Membranes. J Oleo Sci. 65(12):993-1001. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27829611/