THEHTGAM/PPF/PH0ENIX/D0UGLAS/H0DGES/FRANCES Thread

[LBussy]

If it were my concern, I would go to the manufacturer and pose these questions first. JMHO!

I appreciate your opinion David, but obviously it is different than my own. I think any person believes they are seen as and wants people to look at them as a person and treat them as such. When a company distributes widely it brings new opportunities and new challenges. A challenge exhibited here is that you no longer have the personal relationship with your customers. If Williams changes their soap, people don't go find the person responsible - they report what they find to their peers.

Rightfully so I think (and I may be putting words in your mouth so please correct me if I am wrong) this concerns you that someone might do the same to you. It might happen. If you don't have a personal connection with each of your customers then they don't have one with you and feel no loyalty or responsibility to protect you. They are just a consumer, not a client.

I know which relationship is preferable to you (or me if I were in your shoe), which one is preferable when searching for the truth? Places like Consumer Reports take great pains to make sure they leave bias aside.

 

[Le Buzz]

You raise some very valid concerns and highlight just what type of manufacturer this might be. If he/she does not do the proper diligence before engaging in business we as consumers have every right to know.

To address this issue in a private email to the manufacturer and give him a chance to quietly remedy these shortcomings would provide a disservice to the community, even if it might be the "nice" or gentlemanly thing to do. This is something that the manufacturer should have taken care of as a preparation for offering a good to market.

As the internet expands and becomes an even greater opportunity for communication both consumers and producers are benefiting in immense ways. We mustn't stifle what appears to be a well thought out and objective critique.

 

[coonskinner]

Synergy lathers well enough for me, if I use very hot water.

Chocolate Bourbon is an incredible scent.

But it burned my face. I couldn't use it.

I now have a tin of Cavendish that I haven't tried yet.

If it burns me, I am done with Synergy.

 

[dfoulk]

I would hate to see someone's thoughtful post get slammed out of course. I have the same soap and had the same thoughts as you after reading the ingredients and evaluating the appearance if this soap with my own eyes. To me it looks like a melt and pour base.

What happens to your calculations if a M&P base was used and combined with a heavily superfatted CP soap?

I'm a soaper to and thought perhaps the M&P base was left out and the listed ingredients were just added to it?

Nothing wrong with M&P soaps, I think Mama Bears uses M&P bases and they seem to be well liked. But I agree something doesn't seem "right" with this soap.

I have the Cavendish shave stick and didn't have as much trouble lathering it (I also use a straight) though.

I keep it in rotation and if I put my misgivings about its production aside I like it just fine.

I don't know the first thing about making soaps but I accused HGTAM of being a melt & pour soap and was told by Doug the soap manufacturer that is was definitely not a melt and pour soap and that no melt and pour base was used during the soap creation. I'm enjoying this read although much of it is over my head and thought you guys might like to have that information.

 

[DimeBlade]

I have no issue with this post, it certainly breaks no rules of this forum. Personally I would have contacted the manufacturer first, but that is my own approach.

Regarding the post itself, I believe it is getting the reaction it is because the OP, either on purpose or by accident, appears to be basing the post from the perspective of an experienced soap maker. Which clearly is not the case and I believe makes it appear that the OP has a personal grudge against the soap maker. I don't believe their is a personal grudge, I am just saying that I can understand why others are left with that impression.

Purchasing artisan soap is like purchasing any other unregulated product. You take your chances to a certain extent. Clearly HTGAM is not being accurate on the ingrediant label which is a concern and I will contact them directly regarding this question. If I receive an acceptable response I will continue purchasing their products. If I get no response or an unacceptable response I will not purchase their products.


Buying an artisan soap is a bit like stopping by the roadside stand and buying a jar of jam. Good price...good product....but you don't really know whats in there.

Cheers!

+1. This basically sums up the entire thread IMO. For what it's worth, I own a tin of the CaD version and find it to be a good soap with no blatant ingredient list issues, but I'm also not a soap maker/competitor so I may be wrong. Like stated above, no matter what you are never going to be 100% sure what's in it regardless of the brand or list of ingredients. Any unregulated product comes with a certain risk, and if that risk is unacceptable that don't buy ANYTHING artisan, not just HTGAM products themselves. Just my two cents.

 

[dfoulk]

I have no issue with this post, it certainly breaks no rules of this forum. Personally I would have contacted the manufacturer first, but that is my own approach.

Regarding the post itself, I believe it is getting the reaction it is because the OP, either on purpose or by accident, appears to be basing the post from the perspective of an experienced soap maker. Which clearly is not the case and I believe makes it appear that the OP has a personal grudge against the soap maker. I don't believe their is a personal grudge, I am just saying that I can understand why others are left with that impression.

Purchasing artisan soap is like purchasing any other unregulated product. You take your chances to a certain extent. Clearly HTGAM is not being accurate on the ingredient label which is a concern and I will contact them directly regarding this question. If I receive an acceptable response I will continue purchasing their products. If I get no response or an unacceptable response I will not purchase their products.


Buying an artisan soap is a bit like stopping by the roadside stand and buying a jar of jam. Good price...good product....but you don't really know whats in there.

Cheers!

I've tried the Synergy 1.0 soaps and while they don't fall into the outstanding or excellent categories for me with some of the very best soaps I've ever used, they landed in the very good category meaning that they were a better than average soap. So for me a good solid performer. I've heard that their 2.0 soaps are better but have no experience with those yet.

Do keep in mind that if Doug at HGTAM responds to this post that his response will be deleted because he is a vendor. So, while I'm not taking sides and I'm certainly not a fanboy of HGTAM soaps I do know that he isn't permitted to defend himself or answer any questions you might have in this forum.

Doug at HGTAM does seem to be a decent guy, maybe you guys could send him an email and get some of the answers to some of your questions. He likely has a day job, like the rest of us here, and soap making is just his small side business. He might even be open to taking some of your suggestions and using them for future improvements to his products, which would end up benefiting him as well as the many of the users here who purchase and enjoy his products.

 

[MilfordNJGuy]

Lee,

I am approaching this as a consumer so all of the assumptions you have made are incorrect and you have given people ideas that are not mine. Whether it is a single person or a large company I would have the same approach and that would be to go to them first, hear what they have to say, do my own research before I said anything publicly about it. It's that simple!

I think we should just agree that we don't agree on this issue and leave it at that...

I appreciate your opinion David, but obviously it is different than my own. I think any person believes they are seen as and wants people to look at them as a person and treat them as such. When a company distributes widely it brings new opportunities and new challenges. A challenge exhibited here is that you no longer have the personal relationship with your customers. If Williams changes their soap, people don't go find the person responsible - they report what they find to their peers.

Rightfully so I think (and I may be putting words in your mouth so please correct me if I am wrong) this concerns you that someone might do the same to you. It might happen. If you don't have a personal connection with each of your customers then they don't have one with you and feel no loyalty or responsibility to protect you. They are just a consumer, not a client.

I know which relationship is preferable to you (or me if I were in your shoe), which one is preferable when searching for the truth? Places like Consumer Reports take great pains to make sure they leave bias aside.

 

[LBussy]

Understood David, I put words in your mouth (the same as some folks did to me so I should have known better) and I apologize.

 

[Eely_Hovercraft]

This is a great thread. Thanks to all of you for the thoughtful input.

I have very heavy water, and the two HTGAM soaps I use perform really admirably in it. (Not dissimilar to LASSC, MdC, and PPF -- other vegan soaps that can still shine in sub-ideal water.) But the labeling issue is a bit troubling to me as a customer, if Lee's analysis is accurate. Has anyone done this type of analysis for other popular artisan soaps? If the labeling conventions are such that many of the other oft-discussed artisans would fail similar scrutiny, I am less concerned and the deceptiveness intimation would seem ill-placed. But if the other major artisan players would pass similar scrutiny, Lee's premise is more compelling.

In any event, it would also be helpful if Douglas were allowed to address any concerns, if he would like to do so. Although I guess I understand the vendor posting rules, it doesn't seem fair to not allow someone to explain themselves in this type of situation. But perhaps that opens a Pandora's Box of problems for the mods? If nothing else, I guess Douglas could always post on his G+ community or in some other accessible place if there is something he thinks appropriate to clear up.

 

[LBussy]

I reread the OP again and have to say, if you are going to go on an open forum and accuse a person of dishonesty and putting dangerous ingredients on their product you should be prepared to defend yourself on that same open forum and prove you know what you are talking about. Otherwise you are just another person "hiding" behind the internet.

I agree and I am. As far as hiding, "LBussy" is my name - Lee Bussy, and Kansas City is where I live. One Google search would even give you a phone number of the phone setting right next to me. I imagine you could even find my address in about 10 seconds. I looked up "snowman" and "Great White North" and I'm not sure I got your real identity.

To be clear though - I did not accuse anyone of dishonesty, I did say that the label has to be wrong and I am not sure if it is dishonesty, apathy or incompetence. I can't find another word to describe it, I don't see "apathy" as a negative here: "lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern." Maybe he never thought about it. Maybe this will let the manufacturer know people do read the labels. That would be a good thing.

Also, the accused should have a chance to respond. Otherwise it is just a bunch of people chattering.

I think it would be great to have him post a response. I expect he's read this a few times by now. The thread is not locked so he has the same chance to respond as you do. This is not however a trial. I posted facts available to anyone if they had the desire to look them up. I'm not accusing him/them of anything other than having a label that's wrong.

Can he post a response by the forum rules? If he cannot that certainly changes things.

Is anyone here an expert on chaulmoogra oil? I am not. I did a bit more research and found it is far more common an ingredient in skin care products than suggested in the OP and used appropriately certainly nothing to fear.

It's not my responsibility to give all possible uses but I did provide an authoritative reference, and I think I also said it has historical uses treating leprosy. It makes for an interesting read and folks should definitely do a Google search.

This goes beyond the simple review of a product.

Thanks for noticing, because most reviews are just a fan club.

I don't want to add to the background chatter or be a finger pointer in either direction. I'll contact the mfg myself, and make my own decisions.

Do share what you find out please. After all the discussion I am a person interested in the truth.

 

[ackvil]

I want to be clear that I'm not trying to bash anyone, this is the first time I've seen the ingredient label in question and would have made the same comments no matter whose it was, or who the OP is. Objectively, the labeling looks odd and if it is indeed wrong, is misleading.

The FDA is clear about proper labeling of cosmetic products and shaving soap is clearly a cosmetic product. Even though soap is exempted from detailed cosmetic labeling if no claims are made beyond "it will get you clean", it's a service to customers to provide accurate ingredient lists, so that people can avoid possible allergens or ingredients that are prohibited by religious beliefs, etc.

Another labeling mistake is highlighting the origins of ingredients by using terms like vegetable, natural, organic, or even organic. Not only is it uncalled for by regulations, it constitutes misbranding as there is no recognized difference in chemicals from different origins; a molecule of glycerin is just that, as it is known that there is no data showing “certified organic” materials to be safer or different from other materials with the same INCI designation.

The ingredients must be declared in descending order of predominance. (by weight)

Color additives and ingredients present at one percent or less may be declared without regard for predominance. The ingredients must be identified by the names established or adopted by regulation.

All label statements required by regulation must be in the English language and placed on the label with prominence so that they can be readily noticed and understood by consumers under normal conditions of purchase.

If there is no English term for an ingredient it is usual to use the common name + Latin name
e.g. Chaulmoogra (Taraktogenos kurzii) Oil.

Just using the phrase "essential oils" doesn't meet FDA guidelines either; they have to be listed individually.

Great info, Michelle. Learned a lot from your posts in this thread.

 

[Kentos]

I agree and I am. As far as hiding, "LBussy" is my name - Lee Bussy, and Kansas City is where I live. One Google search would even give you a phone number of the phone setting right next to me. I imagine you could even find my address in about 10 seconds. I looked up "snowman" and "Great White North" and I'm not sure I got your real identity.

To be clear though - I did not accuse anyone of dishonesty, I did say that the label has to be wrong and I am not sure if it is dishonesty, apathy or incompetence. I can't find another word to describe it, I don't see "apathy" as a negative here: "lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern." Maybe he never thought about it. Maybe this will let the manufacturer know people do read the labels. That would be a good thing.


I think it would be great to have him post a response. I expect he's read this a few times by now. The thread is not locked so he has the same chance to respond as you do. This is not however a trial. I posted facts available to anyone if they had the desire to look them up. I'm not accusing him/them of anything other than having a label that's wrong.

Can he post a response by the forum rules? If he cannot that certainly changes things.


It's not my responsibility to give all possible uses but I did provide an authoritative reference, and I think I also said it has historical uses treating leprosy. It makes for an interesting read and folks should definitely do a Google search.


Thanks for noticing, because most reviews are just a fan club.


Do share what you find out please. After all the discussion I am a person interested in the truth.

Vendors may answer specific questions in the open forums as long as vendor guidelines are followed.

 

[Cerbul13]

The appearance of a specific ingredient in a list is something that the buyer has the option to buy or not buy as long as the ingredients list exist.

The fact that a simple soap that doesn't have any cosmetic claims is allowed to not obey the "ingredients in order of predominance" rule is one of the things that makes me remember that we live in a crude world that only cares about money, which is simply disheartening. I find this totally unacceptable.

I would really love to see all the soap makers group up together, create some rules, make author rights for those rules so that only the soap makers that are really tested can use the specific "sign" on their products, and actually make those rules so they actually MEAN something good for the customer. I would be really happy to buy products that are labelled with signs that claim some of the following facts:
"we guarantee that only those and no other ingredients are used in this product".
"we guarantee that this is the perfect order of ingredients predominance by weight".
"we guarantee that the ingredients marked with * are only used in the ingredients list".
and the list can continue...

Now only thing that remains to be done is to offer some sort of "assurance" that those products are tested properly for validating the claims.

 

[LBussy]

So Doug has to sit by and watch this entire conversation unfold, and he isn't allowed to clarify? That seems wrong given this particular thread. If I were in his shoes I would struggle with that.

I would too. The mods said:

Vendors may answer specific questions in the open forums as long as vendor guidelines are followed.

So in order that there are specific questions which the vendor may answer if so inclined:

I have listed the ingredient list, the FDA regulations, and a rather winding but what I think to be factual discourse on why I think the label is misleading. Would the vendor care to comment on that?

Honestly the whole "cyanide" thing was an academic dalliance, my concern about poison is tongue in cheek, but so that I have asked a specific question in case the vendor wants to answer: Would the vendor care to comment on any concerns someone may have with "poison" in a shaving soap?

Finally, it was implied that the soap may include a commercial compound as a significant portion of the soap. Any comments about that?

Hopefully that leaves opportunity for the vendor to answer according to the rules here if so inclined.

 

[sgtd]

So Doug has to sit by and watch this entire conversation unfold, and he isn't allowed to clarify? That seems wrong given this particular thread. If I were in his shoes I would struggle with that.

Not so. See post 42 by Kentos.

 

[emt88]

Lee, this has been a very compelling read, and I thank you for bringing this to the attention of the community. As others have mentioned, using artisan products is a calculated risk. I have a tin of HTGAM, use it, and enjoy it. I do feel, however, that the mfg in question needs to change his label in accordance with the specific guidelines that Lee cited in his op, and that whether not knowing the rules, or not caring about them is really a moot point.

I also wanted to add that after taking a look at my tin of HTGAM, I noticed that although the same ingredients are listed, they are listed in a slightly different order. Most notably purified water listed as the first ingredient. This would lead me to think that there may be several revisions of the same ingredient list. Just some more food for though. (don't eat it though)

 

[falstaff1979]

edit....

 

[paintflinger]

Ingredients list on the HTGAM website:

"Ingredients: Stearic Acid, *Castor Oil, Potasium Hydroxide, Water, *Coconut Oil, Kokum Butter, Sodium Hydroxide, *Avocado Oil, *Pumpkin Oil, *Neem Oil, Glycerine, Sodium Lactate, Raw Sugar, Soy Bean Oil, * Aloe Vera Extract, *Yellow Dock Root, *Maca Root, Essential Oils or Fragrance (unless unscented) *Indicates Organic Ingredients"

Seems to be a bit different from what Lee listed:

"Ingredients: Kokum Butter, Organic Mango Butter, Organic Cocoa Butter, Organic Avocado Oil, Oganic Pumpkin Oil, Organic Castor Oil, Coconut Oil, Palm Oil, Organic Neem Oil, Safflower Oil, Glycerine, Purified Water, Sodium & Potassium Hydroxide,Soy bean protein, Chaulmoogra Oil, Aloe Extract, Maca Root, Yellow Dock Root, Essential Oil [Unless Scent Free]"

For reference, Michelle's example of a typical melt and pour base:

"Ingredients: Coconut Oil, Palm Oil, Safflower Oil, Glycerin (kosher, of vegetable origin), Purified Water, Sodium Hydroxide (saponifying agent), Sorbitol (moisturizer), Sorbitan oleate (emulsifier), Soy bean protein (conditioner), Wheat Protein (conditioner)"

 

[luvmysuper]

I'm reading past posts made by a lot of guys who have (again) chosen to ignore the request not to chastise the OP for not contacting the manufacturer first before making this post, and am shocked to see very negative comments about a wide range of products.
I'm sure that in each case, the member has contacted the manufacturer first though, right?

FWIW - the manufacturer of the product mentioned in this thread is not a member of B&B, so he will not be responding directly to this thread.

He has his own website, and may feel free to address the issue there or he can feel free to e-mail me at [email protected] and I'd be happy to post his answers to the specific points raised here provided he reciprocates and allows others to post on his site.

 

[LBussy]

"Ingredients: Stearic Acid, *Castor Oil, Potasium Hydroxide, Water, *Coconut Oil, Kokum Butter, Sodium Hydroxide, *Avocado Oil, *Pumpkin Oil, *Neem Oil, Glycerine, Sodium Lactate, Raw Sugar, Soy Bean Oil, * Aloe Vera Extract, *Yellow Dock Root, *Maca Root, Essential Oils or Fragrance (unless unscented) *Indicates Organic Ingredients"

Seems to be a bit different from what Lee listed:

The ingredients you list are what I would expect to see on a translucent soap - commercial base or not.

I'm fairly sure ... I won't swear in court but FAIRLY sure that page was just edited. The reason I say that is I went to the website to see if I could copy/paste the ingredients instead of type them when writing the original review. It was also quoted by a soaper in another forum just recently, consistent with what I listed. The only proof I can offer is this snapshot from June 25th:

https://web.archive.org/web/2014062...stachestore.com/products/synergy-shaving-soap

What does that mean? Well one might conclude that this thread caused a change in his marketing. There's no proof of course so that would be an unfounded conclusion. I can say though that the ingredient list currently on the website seems a little more plausible and had I had that list a couple days ago, this thread would not have gone this direction.