Is it not more likely that perhaps the labelling has been changed since the PIF'd tin the OP received was produced? After all, Cavendish has been out for over a year as far as I can tell.
THEHTGAM/PPF/PH0ENIX/D0UGLAS/H0DGES/FRANCES Thread
- Thread starter jiaconianni
- Start date
That explains my tin/label but not what I think I saw. Can't prove it.
Either way, the mystery seems to be cleared up. I enjoyed reading this thread start to finish and will certainly be checking labels a little more closely moving forward, not that I think any of the ingredients are dangerous, but more for curiosity's sake.
My wife makes fun of me for reading labels while in the can. I read EVERYTHING around me. Always been that way.
This clearly statez that bath soap and shaving soap fall under the fda voluntary listing
I addrezzed that. The webzite makez moizturizing/conditioning claimz (I forget which, go look at the firzt pozt) which make it a cosmetic.
Tired of pleading with guys who don't listen.
Make another post that doesn't discuss the issue or post chastising the OP for making this thread and your locked out of this forum.
Make another post that doesn't discuss the issue or post chastising the OP for making this thread and your locked out of this forum.
Tensions are high on this thread...
I've read through every comment on this thread, and personally I am shocked by the logic of many. The OP has brought to light an ethical issue. What the owner of HTGAM ought to be doing, which is to provide accurate and detailed ingredient lists. If he has not been doing that he needs to be held accountable for providing false and misleading information.
Indeed.
And that's ok, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
We'd just like to keep it centered to the discussion and not about whether the OP should or shouldn't have made the post, or insinuations and speculation as to the OP's motives for doing so.
If that's the worst thing she makes fun of you for you are a lucky man!
As for the original topic I have no dog in the fight since I've never used their products but it does seem odd that many of the soapers on the board have noticed some inconsistencies. I hope that these are addressed by the maker.
Last edited:
This has been a fascinating read. Going forward, I will be certain to read soap ingredients much closer and with a more scrutinizing eye.
This reminds me of a saying I learned working with chemicals. The quote we have all heard of.
"The dose makes the poison"
Like overdosing on something as benign as water.
Doug has created a soap line that seems to work well with the new age kitschy market. All vegan products with an organic kicker. He has created catchy names and a logo that is very recognizable. The shave soaps are quite effective. They have a very faithful following. People cant help but to lend support to their product they enjoy. He has done his research, not only in new and creative shave soaps, but marketing, and I think he hit a home run.
Unfortunately I think his kitschy list of ingredients may have backfired a little. I am thinking the oil in question is only used in trace amounts and has little to no effect on the shave performance or toxic to our bodies in the amounts used in the soap. But when you read the list of ingredients, it looks cool and exotic compared to the regular run of the mill TALLOW or GLYCERINE.
I dont know his motives behind the amounts of each ingredient the OP explain so well. I believe it to be more creative marketing, bordering on deceptive marketing. May need to keep in mind this is delving into his intellectual and proprietary knowledge and may not be willing to explain it. OP brings up excellent points and I wouldnt mind knowing the answers myself. Especially on the ingredient percentages.
"The dose makes the poison"
Like overdosing on something as benign as water.
Doug has created a soap line that seems to work well with the new age kitschy market. All vegan products with an organic kicker. He has created catchy names and a logo that is very recognizable. The shave soaps are quite effective. They have a very faithful following. People cant help but to lend support to their product they enjoy. He has done his research, not only in new and creative shave soaps, but marketing, and I think he hit a home run.
Unfortunately I think his kitschy list of ingredients may have backfired a little. I am thinking the oil in question is only used in trace amounts and has little to no effect on the shave performance or toxic to our bodies in the amounts used in the soap. But when you read the list of ingredients, it looks cool and exotic compared to the regular run of the mill TALLOW or GLYCERINE.
I dont know his motives behind the amounts of each ingredient the OP explain so well. I believe it to be more creative marketing, bordering on deceptive marketing. May need to keep in mind this is delving into his intellectual and proprietary knowledge and may not be willing to explain it. OP brings up excellent points and I wouldnt mind knowing the answers myself. Especially on the ingredient percentages.
Last edited:
I did a little digging into the past using the Internet Wayback Machine (web.archive.org) to check out old versions of the HTGAM web store. Here's what I found:
1. Here's the Synergy Soap page as of October 2013:
2. Here's the page from February 2014:
3. Here's the page from June 2014:
In each case, the ingredient list starts with Kokum Butter, followed by Organic Mango Butter, followed by Organic Cocoa Butter.
1. Here's the Synergy Soap page as of October 2013:
2. Here's the page from February 2014:
3. Here's the page from June 2014:
In each case, the ingredient list starts with Kokum Butter, followed by Organic Mango Butter, followed by Organic Cocoa Butter.
Attachments
My recently purchased tin of Pumpk'n 3.14 shows the old labeling: Kokum Butter, Mango Butter, Cocoa Butter, etc.
It would appear that either at the prompting of this thread or by coincidence, HTGAM has recently updated the ingredients list on their website. The new list appears far more plausible (from a novice soap maker's perspective). I applaud them for taking steps to address this issue.
Thank you LBussy for bringing this to the attention of the community. A single voice can change the world.
It would appear that either at the prompting of this thread or by coincidence, HTGAM has recently updated the ingredients list on their website. The new list appears far more plausible (from a novice soap maker's perspective). I applaud them for taking steps to address this issue.
Thank you LBussy for bringing this to the attention of the community. A single voice can change the world.
+1
I happened to order a tin of Cavendish this morning before finding this thread. I'll post the ingredients listed on the label when I receive it.
Synergy soaps are the best vegan soaps I've used. They are easy to lather with and provide excellent protection and glide.
Further, several wet-shavers have indicated that the maker of these soaps has stated that he uses a hot process, and that the soaps are not of the melt and pour variety.
Further, several wet-shavers have indicated that the maker of these soaps has stated that he uses a hot process, and that the soaps are not of the melt and pour variety.
Thanks for post LBussy. All I know of soaps is what does and does not work for me. Makes me want to read more labels lol. Not sure how long he has been makeing soaps or when the FDA made those regulations but wondering if some labels were old stock and some new (after FDA regulation).
I look at most labeling as advertisement gimmicks. The new dog food commericials come to mind where they say they list meat first when others dont but when you actually look at the labels they have the same ingredients just in different order.
I look at most labeling as advertisement gimmicks. The new dog food commericials come to mind where they say they list meat first when others dont but when you actually look at the labels they have the same ingredients just in different order.
The op raises a very interesting point and is obviously well within his rights to bring this to the community at large in whatever way he sees fit. The only issue that concerns me is that the owner of htgam isn't afforded the opportunity to respond to the comments in the same forum.b&b being a private entity is obviously free to deny him that opportunity for whatever reason however i would be remiss if I didn't point out that seems less than gentlemanly to me.
