Pure Nuff Stuff

Did you happen to see the article on the BBC (and a number of daily newspapers) yesterday about eczema and aqueous cream by any chance?  If not, there's a copy of it here - it makes very interesting reading indeed.

Basically, in a clinical trial, it was proved that regular use of aqueous cream thins the skin by 10% within a month.  10%. That just can't be good now can it?  Not even for healthy skin, let alone for use on those suffering with this very distresssing condition.  So why does the most widely prescribed treatment for eczema not help?

Well, most people, doctors included it would appear, believe that aqueous is very benign - it's fragrance and colour-free, so it's a reasonable assumption I guess.  A wrong one, but I can see how they got there.  

The big problem with aqueous cream is the inclusion of SLS as an ingredient (it's in the emulsifying wax, which is, interestingly, the first ingredient on the list, meaning it's the largest constituent ingredient).  Those of us familiar with this ingredient would wonder why it's there.  SLS was first licensed for use as a surfactant (bubble-making ingredient) in wash-off products, things like shampoos and shower gels.  The reasoning at the time was that, despite reservations about the safety of it, it would be rinsed off and not spend much time on the skin.  But as it's being used now in leave-on products like creams, not the original intended use.

Let me get back to that bit about emulsifying wax being the largest constituent ingredient.  The function of wax in a formulation like this is either to bind the water to the oil or vice versa.  So why is it used in such a large proportion to the rest of the ingredients?  Could it really come down to the price of it, that fact that it's so much cheaper than oil or even water?  I wonder.  I can't say of course, because I don't make creams that way and I don't have access to thier reasoning, but I must say, it's my suspicion.  Which is a bit sad.

The next ingredient is normally liquid paraffin.  This isn't an oil as you'd recognise it, it's there more as a barrier and because when you then stroke the skin it's been applied to, it appears to be soft.  It, for want of a better phrase, "seals" the skin and stops it losing more moisture.  The debate on the safety or efficacy of these mineral oils rages on - they're a by-product of the oil industry - and isn't limited to the natural skincare industry.  Google chucks up a few debates on the subject, just one of them is here, take a look and make up your own mind about it. My problem with it is that it doesn't actively benefit the skin, which is rather the point I thought of using a cream the doctor prescribes. It just prevents you losing more moisture through the skin, it doesn't replace it in the same way that the application of a good quality skin-friendly nut or seed oil would. 

So, if you're a fan of using this type of cream, whether on eczema-affected skin or, as it's often used, as a cheap make-up remover, I might re-consider that choice in light of this new evidence.