AFQ: Ask Frequent Questions

If you've bought a shampoo, body wash, or cleanser in the last ten years, you've almost certainly seen "SLS-Free" on the label. Ours included.

It's one of the most common "free-from" claims in personal care. And if you've seen it enough times, you've probably absorbed the implication: SLS must be bad. Why else would so many brands brag about not using it?

Here's the awkward truth: the science doesn't support the fear. SLS is not carcinogenic. It's not an endocrine disruptor. It doesn't accumulate in your body. And in properly formulated products at appropriate concentrations, it's not the skin-destroying villain the internet has made it out to be.

So why do brands avoid it? Why do WE avoid it? And should YOU care?

The answers are more honest, and more interesting, than the marketing would suggest.

What SLS Actually Is (In Plain Language)

SLS stands for Sodium Lauryl Sulfate. It's a surfactant, which is a shortened way of saying "surface active agent." A surfactant's job is to help water and oil mix so that dirt, sebum, and grime can be lifted off a surface and rinsed away.

Every cleanser, shampoo, body wash, dish soap, and laundry detergent on the planet uses some type of surfactant. Without one, water would just bead up on oily skin and slide off without cleaning anything. Surfactants are the reason soap works.

SLS is one of the most effective surfactants ever developed. One end of the molecule grabs onto oil and grease. The other end grabs onto water. Together, they pull dirt off the surface, suspend it in water, and allow it to be rinsed away.

It's cheap to produce, it works extremely well, and it creates a satisfying lather, which is cosmetically important because people associate foam with "clean." That combination of effectiveness, cost, and user experience is why SLS has been the default surfactant in personal care for decades.

One important distinction: SLS (Sodium Lauryl Sulfate) is not the same as SLES (Sodium Laureth Sulfate). The names are similar enough that people confuse them constantly. SLES has been through an additional processing step called ethoxylation, which makes it significantly milder. Most of the concerns people have about "sulfates" are aimed at SLS specifically. SLES is gentler, and the two shouldn't be treated as interchangeable.

The Myths (And What the Research Actually Shows)

SLS has accumulated a remarkable collection of scary claims over the years, most of which don't hold up when you look at the actual evidence. Let's go through them.

"SLS is carcinogenic."

No. There is no scientific evidence linking SLS or SLES to cancer. None. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel, which independently evaluates the safety of cosmetic ingredients, reviewed the data and found no carcinogenic activity. The American Cancer Society does not list SLS as a carcinogen. Neither does the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This claim has been circulating online for over two decades and has never been supported by a single peer-reviewed study.

"SLS is a hormone disruptor."

No. There is no scientific evidence linking SLS to infertility, developmental issues, or hormonal disruption of any kind. This claim appears to have originated from the same chain-email-era misinformation that spawned the carcinogen myth, and it has exactly as much evidence behind it: zero.

"SLS accumulates in your body."

It doesn't. While microscopic amounts can be absorbed if pure SLS is applied directly to the skin surface, even then most of it sits on top. What does get absorbed is rapidly metabolized by the liver and excreted. That is quite literally what the liver exists to do. A 2015 review in Environmental Health Insights confirmed that SLS does not bioaccumulate.

"SLS is toxic."

The dose makes the poison. Every chemical has a toxic dose. Table salt has a toxic dose. Water has a toxic dose. The "acute oral toxicity" data that gets cited in anti-SLS content refers to the amount of pure SLS that would be lethal if ingested in large quantities by laboratory animals. This is relevant if you plan on drinking your body wash. If you don't, it's irrelevant.

At the concentrations used in personal care products (typically 1% to 5% in rinse-off products like shampoos and body washes), SLS does not pose a toxicity risk. This is well-established and has been reviewed extensively by regulatory bodies worldwide.

"SLS is an environmental toxin."

Context matters here. At extremely high concentrations, SLS can be mildly toxic to aquatic life. However, the diluted amounts in personal care products, which then pass through municipal water treatment systems before reaching natural water sources, are reduced to negligible levels. SLS is also readily biodegradable. If the SLS is derived from palm oil, the environmental concern is the palm oil sourcing (deforestation), not the SLS chemistry itself.

The One Thing That IS True (And Why It Actually Matters)

Here's the part the SLS defenders sometimes gloss over, and it's the part that matters most for your skin.

SLS is irritating.

Not in the "it'll harm you" sense. In the "it's a very effective cleanser that can strip your skin more than necessary" sense.

SLS is one of the strongest surfactants available. That's its job, and it does it well. But "well" can become "too well" depending on your skin and how the product is formulated. On skin that's already dry, thin, or barrier-compromised, a strong surfactant can remove not just the dirt and excess oil you want gone, but also the natural lipids your barrier needs to function.

Think of it like the difference between a pressure washer and a garden hose. Both clean. One is dramatically more aggressive. If you're washing a concrete driveway, the pressure washer is perfect. If you're rinsing a flower bed, it's going to cause damage. Not because the pressure washer is "toxic." Because it's too much force for the surface it's hitting.

Research confirms this. A 2006 study in Contact Dermatitis showed that SLS exposure can trigger cytokine release in the stratum corneum, an inflammatory response. A 2016 study in the Journal of Oleo Science found that SLS stimulates the generation of reactive oxygen species through interactions with cell membranes.

But here's the nuance: these studies typically use extended contact times and higher concentrations than real-world product usage. In a shampoo or body wash that you lather on and rinse off within 60 seconds, the exposure is brief and the concentration is low. In a leave-on product (which is rare for SLS formulations), the concern would be greater.

Any competent cosmetic chemist formulating with SLS will include co-surfactants that buffer its strength, adjust the pH for skin compatibility, and design the product for appropriate contact time. SLS in a well-formulated rinse-off product, used by someone with healthy, resilient skin, is generally fine.

The question is whether "generally fine" is the bar you want to set for your skin.

Why This Matters More If You're Over 50

Here's where the SLS conversation connects to something bigger.

If you've been reading our blog, you know what happens to skin after menopause. Ceramide production drops. The barrier develops gaps. Moisture escapes faster. The acid mantle becomes more vulnerable. The skin's ability to recover from irritation slows down.

On young, well-stocked skin with a robust barrier, SLS in a rinse-off cleanser is a non-event. The barrier absorbs the brief exposure, the natural lipids replenish quickly, and no lasting impact occurs.

On depleted, barrier-compromised skin after 50? The math changes.

A surfactant that strips natural lipids is hitting a barrier that's already running low on lipids. The barrier can't replenish as quickly because the factory that produces ceramides is running at reduced capacity. Each cleanse removes a little more than the skin can replace. Over weeks and months, the cumulative effect compounds.

This isn't because SLS is "bad." It's because the skin it's being used on has changed. The same surfactant that was fine at 30 may be too aggressive at 55. Not because the chemistry changed. Because the biology did.

This is why pH-balanced, gentle cleansing matters more after menopause than at any other time in your life. Not because of the myths. Because of the barrier.

Why We Don't Use SLS (And It's Not Because of the Myths)

Let me be direct about this.

We don't avoid SLS because it causes cancer (it doesn't). We don't avoid it because it's toxic (it isn't). We don't avoid it because it accumulates in your body (it doesn't). And we don't avoid it because of internet fear-mongering, although there's certainly no shortage of that.

We avoid SLS because our products are formulated for skin that is already depleted.

Our audience is primarily women over 50 whose barriers have been weakened by estrogen decline, ceramide loss, and years of accumulated environmental stress. For that skin, the goal of every step in the routine, including cleansing, is to preserve what remains. A surfactant that strips aggressively, even briefly, works against that goal.

We use gentler surfactants that clean effectively without pulling the lipids the barrier can't afford to lose. It costs more. It's less efficient from a formulation standpoint. And it's the right call for the skin we're formulating for.

That's it. No drama. No villainizing. Just a formulation decision based on the biology of our customer's skin.

If you're 30 with a healthy barrier and you like a shampoo that contains SLS, use it. It won't hurt you. If you're 55 and your skin is dry, reactive, and struggling to hold moisture, consider whether your cleanser is working with your barrier or against it. That's not an SLS question. That's a barrier question. SLS just happens to be on the aggressive end of the surfactant spectrum for skin that needs the gentle end.

SLS Isn't the Enemy. The Myths Are.

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate is a well-studied, effective, safe surfactant that has been unfairly demonized by decades of internet misinformation. It's not carcinogenic. It's not toxic at use concentrations. It doesn't accumulate. It doesn't disrupt hormones. The fear is louder than the science.

What SLS is, honestly, is strong. And for skin that's already depleted, strong isn't what you need. You need clean without the collateral damage. That's a formulation philosophy, not a safety warning.

Don't avoid SLS because you're afraid of it. Avoid it if your skin tells you it's too much. Your skin is smarter than the internet. Listen to it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is SLS bad for you? No. SLS is not carcinogenic, not a hormone disruptor, and does not accumulate in the body. At the concentrations used in personal care products (typically 1% to 5% in rinse-off products), it does not pose a health risk. It is, however, one of the stronger surfactants available, which means it can strip natural oils from the skin more aggressively than gentler alternatives.

What's the difference between SLS and SLES? SLS (Sodium Lauryl Sulfate) and SLES (Sodium Laureth Sulfate) are different chemicals despite similar names. SLES has undergone an additional processing step (ethoxylation) that makes it significantly milder and less irritating. Most of the concerns about "sulfates" are specific to SLS. The two should not be treated as interchangeable.

Does SLS cause cancer? No. There is no scientific evidence linking SLS to cancer. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel, the American Cancer Society, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all reviewed the data. None list SLS as a carcinogen.

Is SLS bad for your hair? SLS is an effective cleanser that can strip natural oils from the hair and scalp. For people with dry, damaged, or color-treated hair, this can exacerbate dryness and make hair feel rough. Gentler surfactants (sulfate-free shampoos) are often recommended for these hair types. For people with healthy, oily hair, SLS-based shampoos generally work fine.

Why do so many brands say "SLS-Free"? Consumer demand. Decades of internet misinformation have created a widespread belief that SLS is dangerous. Brands respond to market perception, even when the science doesn't support the concern. "SLS-Free" is a marketing claim driven by consumer fear, not by scientific evidence of harm.

Should I switch to an SLS-free cleanser? If your skin is dry, reactive, sensitive, or barrier-compromised (common after 50), a gentler surfactant may be beneficial, not because SLS is dangerous, but because your barrier doesn't need aggressive stripping. If your skin is healthy and resilient and you like your current products, there's no safety reason to switch.

Sources

Bondi, C., et al. "Human and Environmental Toxicity of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS): Evidence for Safe Use in Household Cleaning Products." Environmental Health Insights. 2015. 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." International Journal of Toxicology. 2005. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10915818309142005

De Jongh, C.M., et al. "Stratum corneum cytokines and skin irritation response to sodium lauryl sulfate." Contact Dermatitis. 2006. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16787454/

Mizutani, T., et al. "Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Stimulates the Generation of Reactive Oxygen Species through Interactions with Cell Membranes." Journal of Oleo Science. 2016. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27829611/

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

We use plastic. PET and HDPE specifically. Bottles and tubes.

If that surprises you, or if it bothers you, I understand. Plastic has a bad reputation, and a lot of that reputation is deserved. The ocean doesn't need more of it. Landfills don't need more of it. And "sustainable plastic" sounds like a contradiction.

But here's what most skincare brands won't tell you while they're marketing their glass bottles and bamboo lids: the sustainability conversation is more complicated than "plastic bad, glass good." Significantly more complicated. And when you look at the full lifecycle, not just the end of it, the answer might not be what you expect.

This blog is about why we chose the packaging we chose, what the data actually shows, and what we plan to change as soon as we can.

The Decision Isn't "What Looks Most Sustainable." It's "What IS Most Sustainable."

Most people evaluate packaging sustainability by looking at the end: what happens when you throw it away. Can it be recycled? Will it decompose? Will it sit in a landfill for 500 years?

Those are valid questions. But they're the last questions in a much longer chain. The full picture includes production (how much energy, water, and emissions does it take to make?), transportation (how much does it weigh and how far does it travel?), durability (how often does it break in transit, requiring replacement?), and then, finally, end-of-life (how is it disposed of?).

This is called a lifecycle analysis. And when you run one, the results are counterintuitive.

The Numbers Nobody Puts on the Label

Here's a snapshot comparing the three most common packaging materials in personal care:

Energy to produce: PET plastic bottle: 11 million BTU. Aluminum can: 16 million BTU. Glass bottle: 26.6 million BTU.

CO2 equivalent emissions: PET plastic: 1,125. Aluminum: 2,766. Glass: 4,848.

Glass takes more than double the energy of plastic to produce and generates more than four times the CO2. Aluminum sits in the middle. Plastic wins the production phase by a significant margin.

Transportation: Glass is heavy. Substantially heavier than plastic for the same volume. More weight means more fuel to ship, which means more emissions per unit transported. Every truck, container ship, and delivery van carrying glass bottles is burning more fuel than one carrying plastic. And if that glass breaks in transit (which it does, more often than people realize), the entire unit has to be reproduced and reshipped, doubling the carbon footprint of that order.

Durability: Your skincare products contain water as a primary ingredient. Water expands when it freezes. A plastic bottle flexes. A glass bottle cracks. Products sitting on a loading dock in January, in a delivery truck through a cold snap, or in an unheated warehouse are all at risk. Breakage rates for glass at the freight, retail, and consumer level are meaningfully higher than plastic. Every broken bottle means waste, replacement, and double the emissions.

None of this makes plastic perfect. It makes plastic the least damaging option at the production, transportation, and durability stages for a brand at our scale.

"But Glass Is Infinitely Recyclable"

In theory, yes. Glass can be melted down and reformed into new glass indefinitely with no loss of quality. This is technically true and frequently marketed.

In practice? Not so much.

In the United States, only about 33% of disposed glass is actually recycled. The other 67% goes to landfill. In Canada, the numbers are marginally better but not enough to change the picture.

The reasons are systemic. North America primarily uses single-stream recycling, where all recyclables go into one bin. Glass breaks during collection and sorting, contaminating other materials. Clean, properly sorted glass needs to reach a cullet (crushed glass) producer to be recycled, and there are only about 400 of these facilities in the entire US and 100 in Canada. The infrastructure doesn't match the recycling potential.

Compare this to Europe, where multi-stream collection (consumers sort by material and color) achieves roughly 90% glass recycling rates. The material isn't the problem. The system is. And in North America, the system doesn't support the promise that glass packaging makes on the label.

Does this mean glass is bad? No. It means the claim "our glass packaging is sustainable" is only true if the recycling infrastructure exists where the customer lives. For most of our customers in the US and Canada, it doesn't.

PET and HDPE plastics (recycling codes 1 and 2) are the most recycled and easiest to recycle plastics in North America. They're readily identified at sorting facilities, compatible with existing single-stream systems, and have established markets for recycled material. They're not perfect. But they're more likely to actually get recycled than a glass jar in a North American household.

"What About Paper? Or Bamboo? Or Sugarcane?"

Every paper-based cosmetic container you've ever seen is either lined with plastic or treated with a resinous chemical to make it waterproof. It has to be. Paper gets wet. Your skincare products are primarily water. A paper container holding a water-based formula without a plastic or chemical barrier would dissolve.

So a "paper" container is really a plastic-lined paper container. The environmental benefit of the paper exterior is cosmetic. The functional barrier is still plastic or a synthetic coating. And the composite material (paper bonded to plastic) is often harder to recycle than either material alone.

Bamboo lids, sugarcane containers, and other biobased options face similar challenges: stability, compatibility, scalability, and often, a hidden reliance on conventional materials to actually function.

We're not against innovation. When a biobased packaging solution can protect a water-based formula, maintain stability across temperature extremes, meet safety standards, and do all of this at a price point that doesn't add $15 to each product, we'll evaluate it seriously. That option doesn't exist yet at our scale.

Why We Don't Use PCR Plastic (Yet)

PCR stands for Post-Consumer Recycled. These are plastics made from previously recycled material, cleaned, melted down, and reformed into new containers.

PCR plastics (specifically R-PET and R-HDPE) are the gold standard. They have the lowest contribution to global warming, ozone depletion, acidification, fossil resource consumption, and water use of any packaging material studied. Lower than virgin plastic. Lower than glass. Lower than aluminum. If we could use them today, we would.

We can't. The minimum order quantities for PCR containers are between 10,000 and 30,000 units per container type. We're buying our packaging 250 units at a time.

That's the reality of being a small brand. The most sustainable option exists. It's just not available at our volume. When it is, we'll switch. That's not a marketing promise. It's a business plan.

What We Actually Use (And Why)

All of our containers are virgin PET or HDPE plastic. Recycling codes 1 and 2. The most recyclable, most widely accepted plastics in North American recycling systems.

We chose them because:

They're the most energy-efficient packaging material to produce. They're the lightest to ship (lowest transportation emissions). They're the most durable (lowest breakage and replacement rates). They're compatible with our water-based formulas across temperature extremes. They're the most likely to actually be recycled in the systems our customers have access to. And they're available at the order volumes we need as a growing brand.

We'd prefer PCR. We'll get there. In the meantime, we chose the best option available to us, based on the full lifecycle data, not on what looks best on an Instagram flat-lay.

The Uncomfortable Truth About "Sustainable" Packaging in Skincare

Most "sustainable" packaging claims in the beauty industry are aesthetic decisions marketed as environmental ones.

A brand switches from plastic to glass. The glass is heavier to ship, takes more than double the energy to produce, generates four times the CO2, and has a 67% chance of ending up in a landfill anyway. But it photographs better. It looks premium. And "glass" sounds more natural than "plastic."

The consumer feels good about the purchase. The planet doesn't notice the difference. In many cases, the lifecycle impact is worse.

This isn't about shaming brands that use glass. Some have legitimate reasons (formula stability, refill programs, markets with strong recycling infrastructure). But the blanket assumption that glass equals sustainable and plastic equals destructive doesn't survive contact with the data.

The most honest thing a brand can do is show the math. So that's what we did.

We're Not Perfect. Here's What We're Working Toward.

We use virgin plastic because it's the best option at our scale. It's not the best option, period. PCR is. And we're working toward the volume that makes PCR feasible.

We minimize single-use plastic in our operations wherever possible: shipping materials, sampling, raw material packaging. Some tradeoffs still exist. We make them consciously and revisit them regularly.

We don't claim to be a "sustainable" brand in the way that word gets thrown around. We claim to make honest decisions based on the best data available, and to be transparent about the tradeoffs we're making and why.

That's all we can do right now. And we'd rather tell you the truth about where we are than market a story about where we're not.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does Basic Maintenance use plastic packaging? Plastic (PET and HDPE) requires less than half the energy to produce compared to glass, generates significantly fewer CO2 emissions, is lighter to ship (lower transportation impact), is more durable (less breakage and replacement waste), and is more likely to be recycled in North American single-stream systems than glass.

Is glass packaging more sustainable than plastic? It depends on the recycling infrastructure where you live. Glass can theoretically be recycled infinitely, but in the US only about 33% of glass is actually recycled. Glass also takes more than double the energy to produce and generates over four times the CO2 of PET plastic. In Europe, where recycling rates reach 90%, glass performs much better.

What are PCR plastics? Post-Consumer Recycled (PCR) plastics are made from previously recycled material. They have the lowest environmental impact of any packaging material across production, transportation, and emissions. BM plans to transition to PCR plastic when order volumes make it feasible (current minimum orders are 10,000-30,000 units per container type).

Are your containers recyclable? Yes. All BM containers are PET or HDPE (recycling codes 1 and 2), which are the most widely accepted and commonly recycled plastics in North American recycling systems. Rinse them before recycling.

Why don't you use paper or bamboo packaging? Paper-based containers for liquid products require a plastic liner or chemical coating to be waterproof. The composite material is often harder to recycle than either component alone. The "paper" exterior is cosmetic. The functional barrier is still conventional. When a genuinely sustainable biobased option exists that meets stability, safety, and scalability requirements, we'll evaluate it.

Will you switch to different packaging in the future? Yes. PCR plastic (Post-Consumer Recycled PET and HDPE) is the target. It has the lowest environmental impact of any available packaging material. We'll transition when our order volumes reach the minimums required by PCR suppliers. That's a business milestone, not a marketing timeline.

Sources

U.S. EPA. "Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model." https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/warm_v14_containers_packaging_non-durable_goods_materials.pdf

Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., & Law, K.L. "Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made." Science Advances. 2017.

Franklin Associates. "Impact of Plastics Packaging on Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions." 2014.

Jacoby, M. "Why Glass Recycling in the US Is Broken." Chemical & Engineering News. 2019. https://cen.acs.org/materials/inorganic-chemistry/glass-recycling-US-broken/97/i6

United Nations Environment Programme. "Single-Use Plastics: A Roadmap for Sustainability." 2018.

Gomes, T., Visconte, L., & Pacheco, E. "Life Cycle Assessment of Polyethylene Terephthalate Packaging: An Overview." Journal of Polymers and the Environment. 2019.

Vellini, M. & Savioli, M. "Energy and environmental analysis of glass container production and recycling." Energy. 2008.