Chemicals are BAD, and natural is GOOD, right?

The Nobel Prize-winning molecule, Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DDT in 1948, was once known as a "miracle insecticide" and believed to cause no harm to humans or the environment!

Unfortunately, this proved incorrect after a decade of usage and was subsequently banned. This tragedy and recurring environmental horror stories resulting from toxic chemical disasters or spillage over the years have fuelled our fear of synthetic 'man-made' chemicals. 

This fear was named 'chemophobia' and gave marketing gurus plenty of ammunition to bombard us with advertising messages that 'man-made' is bad and 'natural' is good while promoting an exaggerated safety in their 'natural' and 'organic' products. 

Hang on a minute... Are they trying to insult our intelligence? 

What about the mango tree? Mango leaves, stems, and sap contain urushiol, which is known to cause contact dermatitis, and it's the same natural toxin molecule and allergen in Poison Ivy and Poison Oak. 

Common vegetables like potatoes contain toxins like solanine, especially the green germinating ones. Harmful or toxic molecules are also found in raw kidney and butter beans. 

One of the most toxic chemical compounds known to man is the naturally occurring botulinum, a toxin produced by the bacterium Clostridium botulinum, of which just a single teaspoonful could kill millions of people. 

Natural vs Man-made (synthetic) vs Artificial Chemicals 

The word 'artificial' would generally mean something not found in nature, and synthetic would mean something that is man-made. 

For example, when vitamin B12 is chemically synthesized in a laboratory, regardless of whether or not the raw materials/molecules are from natural origins. It would NOT be considered artificial as it is physically, chemically, analytically and functionally the same and indistinguishable from naturally isolated vitamin B12. But it is not natural either because it is not directly obtained from nature, and so we call it 'synthetic' or 'nature identical'. 

MYTH BUSTER 1 

Man-made or natural, healthy or harmful, they're all chemicals! 

We live in a world of chemistry, and chemicals are everywhere and in everything. The air we breathe, the water we drink, and the pills we take are all chemicals. 

MYTH BUSTER 2 

A natural or man-made chemical tells us nothing about its toxicity or safety. 

Natural is not always good or safe, and man-made chemicals are not necessarily inherently dangerous. 

Many natural chemical compounds in plants are poisonous to humans, even in small amounts; conversely, many man-made compounds are harmless unless we ingest very high doses or for an extended period. 

As a general rule, all chemicals (even water), natural or man-made, depending on their intrinsic properties; if taken in too little or a very low dose, will not produce any biological effects (i.e. no benefit or no harm). 

That same chemical, taken at its optimal amount or dose, could become beneficial, but it will become toxic in high (excessive) doses, following the basic principle of pharmacology. 

MYTH BUSTER 3 

Is it important to know whether a chemical is natural, man-made, synthetic, artificial or nature-identical? 

Taking water as an example, most of us will view it as natural because it comes from nature - rain and the ocean via the water cycle. 

Suppose we use hydrogen gas as a clean, green energy supply by burning it with natural oxygen (in the air); water is formed as the only by-product. By definition, we would consider it man-made or synthetic or 'nature identical' even if it was the same water molecules as those from nature. 

But if we press the question further, "where does the earth's water come from?" It may be from burning gases of hydrogen and oxygen during the initial formation of the earth via lightning or extreme heat. 

As a result, the difference between natural and man-made (synthetic) water becomes murky, purely academic and less important because they are practically the same 'essential for life' water molecules. 

A more critical and pressing issue for us at Activance is its purity - the quality (monitoring for contamination from harmful impurities like polluted water, heavy metals or insecticides) and the quantity (the daily dosage), as mentioned above. 

We gauge all ingredients through the lens of: 

• Its functionality 
• Its safety for humans and the environment and its purity (quality) 
• Its quantity (the daily dose) 

MYTH BUSTER 4 

"The label on my shampoo said it's natural, safe and organic with over ten different plant extracts and 15 plant oils etc. So it must be good - right?" 

My response as an R&D pharmacist is - "Don't be gullible." 

Be careful what you are reading. The ingredients may have originated from a natural plant base, but the safety and toxicity profile of the starting materials has nothing to do with the end product. 

After reading my opening paragraphs and considering that there are no government regulations around these personal products, the word 'natural' should be regarded cautiously as all Polyquaternium compounds, 'Quats' and silicones listed in the product ingredients are, in fact, artificial. 

If a company's ethics enable them to state that their products are 'natural', then I would reserve their credibility whenever they use the word 'organic' because it becomes meaningless. Besides, most 'Quats' are either eye or skin irritants with different potential health and safety issues, environmentally unfriendly (not readily biodegradable) and toxic to aquatic life. 

"Over ten different plant extracts and 15 plant oils etc." Indeed, this sounds very impressive to most consumers. However, in most cases, they appear at the end of the ingredient list, implying their quantity or concentrations are the least in the product. This usually renders them unfunctional in every way except for wooing unsuspecting consumers.

At Activance, we believe in simplicity, and a 'less is more' principle. 

MYTH BUSTER 5 

"I recently brought a sulphate-free shampoo. So how come there are chemicals with sulphate names in the ingredients? Am I being duped?" 

Many chemicals have names ending in 'sulphate', and lots of shampoos include the 'life essential' Sulphur element in their chemistry. 

They are not all bad for us, with many being safe and beneficial, such as the molecules like magnesium sulphate, also known as Epsom Salt. 

The term 'sulphate-free' shampoo was created by advertising agencies and is widely used to indicate the absence of the common cleansing agents - Sodium Lauryl Sulphate (SLS) and Sodium Lauryl Ether Sulphate (SLES). 

You should be checking your shampoo specifically for those two sulphates and, if included, seeking an alternative shampoo. Correctly labelled your shampoo should say SLS FREE or SLES Free rather than 'sulphate-free'. 

MYTH BUSTER 6 

Are sulphate-free shampoos better than ones with sulphates? 

Generally, the answer is yes; refer to the following diagram. 

The comparative irritation score is over 30 for SLS and SLES, and almost no SLS or SLES have less. Therefore, SLS has been used in R&D work often as a standard reference for irritation comparison testing for newer drugs that potentially come onto the market. 

For those with hair thinning or hair loss, SLS and SLES are not their saviours because they have the potential to aggravate existing issues even further and could induce "…damage to hair follicle could result …. and possible hair loss" according to Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) 1983. 

MYTH BUSTER 7 

Are all sulphate-free shampoos the same, especially regarding safety for humans and the environment? 

Ref to diagram above. 

They vary a lot; many are classified as severe irritants and have similar irritation potential as SLS or SELS. But some are very good, like the one employed by Activance. 

MYTH BUSTING 8 

"I heard about potential health issues with parabens. Should I feel safe now that I buy and use a Parabens FREE or NO parabens shampoo? 

It depends on what the paraben 'preservatives' have been replaced with. 

Often a paraben substitute is just as bad as the parabens themselves. Examples are the commonly used MIT or CMIT Methylisothiazolinone (MIT) and Methylchloroisothiazolinone (CMIT). Widely used as a preservative and antimicrobial even though it was nominated as "Allergen of the Year" in 2013 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society. 

Formaldehyde-forming preservatives might cause skin irritation and allergy with potential health hazards, including different types of cancers caused by the release of formaldehyde - a well-known carcinogen. 

Phenoxyethanol is another common preservative in cosmetic products instead of parabens. Exposure to phenoxyethanol has been linked to reactions ranging from eczema to severe allergic reactions affecting the nervous system function. Safety, especially for infants with long-term exposure to phenoxyethanol, is a concern. 

At Activance, we put your safety first. Therefore, we do not use any of the above potentially hazardous molecules; instead, we employ a "nature identical" antimicrobial that is so safe it is an approved preservative for our food. That's the Activance difference! 

MYTH BUSTING 9 

Fact or fiction: Do hair loss shampoos really work to stop hair loss? Does carbonic acid shampoo work? 

You could receive wildly different answers, depending on whom you asked this question. 

If you ask the company promoting carbonic acid shampoo, they will tell you - "it works because hair loss has nothing to do with DHT or your genes." 

Their theory is that hair roots are being buried under a build-up of dirt and grime, causing a sebum plug that suffocates the hair roots preventing growth. 

Their 'microbubble' carbonic acid shampoo can enter the follicle plug to wash away excess sebum, thus promoting hair growth. 

My response as an R&D pharmacist 

Stating that hair loss has nothing to do with DHT and your genes is a considerable claim. However, it goes against all scientific knowledge and discoveries in hair loss research over the past 50 years that have proven that DHT is a culprit in inducing excessive sebum production. 

The formulas propellant gases + carbon dioxide from the carbonic acid generate the shampoos' microbubbles. It's applied to the scalp (on the top of the narrow opening of hair follicles openings (pores) with the sebum plugs as claimed). 

However, the ability of the shampoo's microbubbles to penetrate the plugged pores to wash out the excess sebum defies the basic surface tension principle in physics. 

On the other hand, if you ask any knowledgeable dermatologists or GP if hair loss or carbonic acid shampoos will work to stop hair loss? 

They will tell you "NO," with the exception of any medicated shampoo containing the drug/medicine ketoconazole, which works by blocking DHT, slowing down thinning and stimulating hair growth. Please note ketoconazole shampoo has not been approved for treating hair loss, making its inclusion in any hair loss treatment "off-label." 

This is especially true for people with hair loss associated with scalp issues like inflammation, dandruff, and seborrheic dermatitis. Or due to anti-fungal, anti-inflammation and anti-DHT actions. 

My response as an R&D pharmacist 

During my 30+ years of clinical experience in treating hair loss, I have found ketoconazole shampoo to be a good supportive treatment, enhancing the success rate of treating hair loss and promoting hair growth. 

Having said that, if a commercial ketoconazole shampoo contains SLS or SLES, which are proven to induce inflammation, hair damage and potentially hair loss, it would "most likely" aggravate any existing hair loss condition. 

I have been making SLS and SELS-FREE ketoconazole shampoo in my pharmacy to meet my client's needs for many years. 

For clients who wish to avoid using drugs, including ketoconazole, there are well-proven non-drug molecules with gentle and excellent safety profiles. One such option is our Activance Balancing Shampoo, which achieves similar anti-fungal, anti-inflammation and anti-DHT actions offered by ketoconazole. 

Conclusion 

Healthy hair growth starts with a healthy scalp. 

We recommend using follicle-friendly hair growth-supporting shampoos and conditioners to support and compliment, not antagonise, the proper or primary hair loss treatment to get the maximum results and benefits. 

Shampoos and conditioners should not be considered as the primary hair growth treatment in isolation simply due to their short contact time on the scalp and the water dilution factor during washing. 

All the facts and factors discussed above should be taken into careful consideration whenever a new or "magic" shampoo is presented to you, spruiking the benefit of hair growth.

Please contact us with any questions or queries regarding this blog.