|
..Tips for the Top - a book on Haircare |
|||
|
Authenticity and power behind the words - Swapna Hair Enricher, Cocolite and continuing haircare research |
|||
|
|||
|
home page hairsaverplus Some others Hairloss Dandruff Hair Growth The Audacity Compare internationally |
| Toilet Soaps - Lowered Quality |
| Lowered quality of Toilet / Bath Soaps in India | |
| This
page gives Specific published details about the lowered Quality of Toilet
Soaps in India.
The major culprit is Hindustan Unilever as they are / were the largest soap makers in India. Godrej was no better. |
|
| The Indian Toilet Soap Manufacturers Association / members not only set a new lowered standard but have perpetuated it after 1993 or so | |
| They formulated Toilet Bars
- not conforming to the standards for Toilet Soaps. That is, a lowered /
lower standard toilet soaps / bath soaps. The regulating authorities, instead of taking these fellows into task, were amiable enough to set new standards as desired / dictated by these fellows [ lower standards / cheap ingredients ] Many toilet soaps sold today are really toilet bars. |
|
| Dr. Godrej was the chairman of the Association in 1993 when Business World printed the sordid details. If that shocks you, just be careful about the ethical / business standards of companies in different fields and the tall claims that we routinely see on TV ads. | |
| Why thieves cannot set a new standard for their activities like these companies who have cheated the public in a way and faced no punishments ? | |
| Toilet Soap Standard - ........ Source Business World, July 13, 1993 | |
| "Even today, Soaps exported
to Russia must have at least 80% Total Fatty matter"...[ Total fatty matter
is often abbreviated as TFM in that trade ] "Girish
Mehta, director [ Management Services] of Nirma Soaps feels that Synthetic
detergents should not be used in Soap. [ Logically, it should not
be used in Shampoos also - refer Shun
Shampoo ]
..The ideal TFM level, he adds, should be around 76%." . |
|
| What is a Soap ? | |
| Soaps:
Toilet Soap is the reaction product of a vegetable oil [glyceryl fatty acids] like coconut oil
or other vegetable oils and caustic Potash - roughly 5 kgs of oil reacted with one kg of caustic
Potash / alkali gives Soap, chemically known as Potassium salt of a long chain Fatty Acid. It is a surfactant / emulsifying agent,
making oil mix with water and make it water dispersible / washable. The by product of soap making, Glycerin is separately sold - glycerin will lower the alkalinity and improve transparency. Mutton Tallow was the cheap and convenient substitute for oils in earlier days. Refer ' Shun Shampoo' to know the difference between Soap and detergent |
|
| Know these details to judge the Soap / Toilet Bar makers | |
| TFM means Total Fatty Matter. Oil and Fat are one and the same thing chemically. What is solid at 20 degrees centigrade is called Fat. It is Oil / fat which keeps the skin, supple and soft. | |
| Quality | If the Oil Content / TFM of a Soap is low, contain excess abrasives / scrubbing agents like clay, talc et cetera, to lessen cost, contain Detergents, whereas it should not, it is a low standard soap |
| Bathing Bars | Bathing Bars contain these skin harming materials to a greater extent and that is sold as Toilet Soaps today in Indian shops. Dove is a bathing bar. |
| Sold Sub Standard Soaps and Got away with it ! We have Press, Government and Judiciary | |
| Business World 30-6-93 to 13-7-93 page 82 'Froth without Substance’ These details of 1993 are very much valid even today - 28-11-2006: even today 16-9-2007 | |
| ..."
Most brands of Toilet Soap contain less 'Soap' than five years ago
and instead use more Detergent and other substances
like Clay and Talc.
Indeed, if the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) implements its norms, nearly 80% of the Soaps produced in the country each year [3.8 lakhs tonnes in 1992] would be declared Substandard and fail to qualify as Toilet Soap."...... |
|
| another quote: ....." If the colourful advertisements on Television are to be believed, the toilet soaps of today are better than ever before. They smell better, look better and contain substances, our grandparents had never even heard of. In fact however, the average toilet soap of today may be inferior compared with the toilet soap of even a few years ago.".... | |
| Please remember the above point of BIS norms and its violation. I do not think that the above details was challenged by any soap maker. I did not see any correction note in Business World. The tragedy is neither the Bureau nor the Press bothered about this matter afterwards | |
| Advance Self certification - can others also do it ? The cheating in a way, continues in 2008 | |
| source: Business World 30-6-93 to 13-7-93
page 82 'Froth
without Substance’
'Surprisingly however the 1800 Crores Toilet Soap industry is not worried. The reason is that the same BIS Technical Committee which set the earlier norms also provided manufacturers a loop-hole in September last year when it created a new category of Soap called 'bathing bars' [ wonderful, is it not ?] [ If they can create a new inferior category, outside of the permissible standards, as bathing bars, why not others ? As per Indian Constitution, every Indian enjoys equal rights.] |
|
| Are they guilty of fooling the Public ? | |
Yes - Godrej's confession in their website |
|
| Godrej's website News release dated 16-9-1999: | |
| 'Godrej Soaps has always believed in providing its consumers with high quality products. The company has taken a conscious decision to manufacture & market only high TFM (total fatty matter) toilet soaps as against low TFM bathing bars which are being marketed by many FMCG companies in the Indian market. Godrej No.1 Sandal is, therefore, the only Sandal toilet soap in this price segment.' | |
|
Belated Wisdom, confession or Turn about ? Pat them ? |
|
| Why Dr. Godrej and Godrej company failed to do or Indian Toilet Soap Manufacturers Association did or continue to do after 1993 ? They took undue advantage of 100 Crores Indians for years. | |
| Hindustan Unilever - the major culprit - The unethical, Cheap, Trust Breakers | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hindustan Lever, largest sellers of Toilet Soaps in
India
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TFM
has been reduced by Hindustan Lever, lowering the quality of the Soaps.
Lux cannot and has not become better even if Hindi Film actresses endorse
it. Note: The article mentioned about some other soaps as well. Nirma was not making Toilet Soaps at that time. I have to search the relevant pages of Business World. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| J.K. Helene Curtis [ Raymonds group
] and Mysore Sandal soap maintained their TFM as I recollect having
checked up in 1993-94.
Mysore Sandal Soap: I use only Mysore Sandal soap for over 25 years now - the sandal fragrance and anti itch property and freshness felt after a face wash were the original reasons. After reading the lowered quality of Soap by HLL and others, Mysore Sandal gets an edge as they did not cheapen the quality then. Secondly it is Karnataka Government enterprise and they would not lower the quality for Profits - inefficiency in Government company is another matter. The Price is economical, compared with other so called, self certified but questionable soaps like Dove Toilet Bar |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Joker in the pack - my award goes to Hindustan Lever | |
| Business
World 19-5-93 to
1-6-93: page 57
'Cleaning up the Competition'
"DOVE is being marketed as an Alkaline Substance Free Soap with one fourth Moisturiser for highly sensitive skin. Levers even arranged a live pH test to demonstrate its Non alkaline nature. The test showed that Soaps like Camey, Godrej's Evita, Johnson & Johnson's and even Lever's own Pears had high alkaline content". |
|
| shameless | With such a background, caught with pants down in
front of the Press, they still continue to advertise for a product with 'pH paper' even in 2008.
Do facts make one trust them ? No With 102% bluff, Pepsodent got a foothold - even if MRTPC termed it 'duping the public' in a round about way. Pepsodent did not click in 1970 when they shouted 'you will wonder where the yellow went' - it did not go anywhere is another matter ] |
| Can you trust them ? Lever is very much concerned about your skin and its safety with the right selection of Soap. But they did not bother to ensure that Lifebuoy, Lux and Hamam, which nearly accounted for 50% of Indian Toilet Soap market, kept their TFM levels. They knowingly lowered it - for the benefit of the public ? | |
| And Dove in 2004: Dove is a bathing bar. It was given as a free sample with the purchase of another item by Hindustan Lever as per their advertisement on TV, during the Cricket Matches, in November 2004. | |
| Nirma in 2005: Nirma Beauty soap has TFM content of 70%: Nirma's lower priced bath Soap has TFM content of 60% [ as per the contents in their website on 6th December, 2005. ] And Nirma talked about 76% TFM level to Business World in 1993 - and what they practised ? | |
| Johnson and Johnson - International company also indulge in duping the Public | |
| In 2005, Johnson &
Johnson were questioned by FDA, Maharashtra for use of Mineral Oil in 'baby
oils'. They gave an explanation in the Press that the product has been
tested on persons between age 14 to 34 or so.
Is it brashness, ingenuity, reckless stupidity or sheer money power to say that persons between 14 to 34 are babies ? They got away with that explanation - that does not bode well for the public |
|
| Corporate Governance / Social Responsiblity / Moral Code | |
| Adi Godrej's interview - CNBC TV 18 /
18-12-2008 Commenting on the withdrawal of Satyam's dropping its earlier decision because of opposition from FIIs, MFs and others, Godrej complimented the minority shareholders. He added that the laws are adequate but enforcement is the weak link. [ Satyam aired its views to short change the shareholders on 16-12-08 / wanted to shift Surplus funds from Satyam Computers to the Promoters who hold about 9% of the equity with a weak excuse of diversifying into Infra structure field through Maytas' / ] |
|
Were / are not the Soap Makers guilty of short changing the Public / buyers ? |
|
| Lessons to the Public from the despicable practices | |
| Toilet Soap is a product
of daily use, even by the poorer section of the population.
Perhaps
it is used by over 80 Crores / 800 Millions of Indians. If this
is what is true for a daily and frequent use, cleaner for the skin, what
may be the standards for hair cleaner / shampoo ? Think about it
and be on guard.
How the skins of these Indians were / are taken for granted by Hindustan Lever, Godrej Soaps and others are indicated in this page. That says 3 things clearly 1] The actual ethical / product standards of companies can be lower than the desired standards and the advertised claims 2] The quality standard in other personal care products like hair creams, shampoos, which are used by much less percentage of the people, may not be better, if we go by the Toilet Soap standards 3] You cannot assume blindly that a big company / advertised product is more trust worthy |
|
| Regulations - Lobbies manipulate, Government bends | |
| Even
then, Soaps made between April to September 1992 were substandard
if we look at the quote in the first section. They were neither
Soaps nor Bathing Bars
Ratification by Government: In March this year[ 1993], the Health Ministry issued a Gazette notification making the quality norms mandatory for Toilet Soap manufacturers under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act. A final notification is expected soon. Instead of hauling up the manufacturers, the Government ratifies their actions in March 1993. Still that leaves a 6 months gap in 92-93. I do not know the status before 1992. The rules are bent to leave them free ? Not a bad job by the Association. What about the Public ? Who Cares ? Semantics: When an individual gives money in Cash or kind to another person to get some undue favour, it is normally called 'Corruption'. When an Association attempts to get those undue favours or manipulates things for the benefit of their members at the cost of others, it is called LOBBYING. There is not much corruption now in India or America - only Lobbying |
|
| Pause, Reflect and Decide | |
| The above sections clearly show that one should not buy any skin or hair care product blindly or continue with it without simple test for suitability | |
Old History, if you wish to read - nothing much meaningful today
| TOILET SOAPS - progress from 1993 to 1997 ? | |
| source: Page 162 of
Business
India, dated July 28 to August 10, 1997 -
The
Small Print.
"Despite those encouraging signs, the consumer is certainly not king as yet. When you walk into your local kirana store, you might have a wide choice of 20 odd brands of soaps. Rexona, perhaps? or Hamam? Not so fast. Rexona is a toilet soap, but the small print on Hamam's packaging proclaims that is a "Bathing Bar". Hindustan Lever, which makes both brands, uses vegetable oils to make Rexona. However synthetic oils (which de-grease the skin) are used in Hamam. According to the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, synthetic oils are not permitted in the manufacture of bathing soaps, but are they banned in bathing bars? 'The category does not exit under the Act, so there is no question of regulating it' says N.G Wagle, a technologist and chemist who is the chairman of the Consumer Guidance Society of India [CGSI] |
|
| One muted, powerless voice | |
| The point? Even if you
are a small print person, chances are slim that you will be better informed
about the products you pick. "The consumer's right to more choice comes
with the right to know," says Deshpande.
Wagle says that Indian companies resist giving information about products on packaging." When the Bureau of Indian Standards decided that detergents should carry a cautionary label mentioning that extended contact can cause skin irritation, industry representatives refused saying, that they weren't required to do so by law," says Wagle. He says that Camay soap sold abroad carry detailed information regarding its make-up, while the Indian product does not. Wagle points out that many Western Countries don't have laws determining product labeling or disclosure, but companies make disclosure out of self regulation......" From Business India issue, quoted earlier |
|
| Sunlight Soap: Hindustan Lever: 1958 - What a fall ? | |
| I used to buy Sunlight
Soap in 1957-58 for 25 paise for washing my clothes. I think it used to
be 100 gms. There will be a clear message, outside of the wrapper
I think, which would say something like this " Sunlight
Soap is made out of safe ingredients. Rs 5000/-
reward will be given to anyone who finds something harmful in the soap
" The quality has fallen much over the years |
|
| Godrej and Cinthol | |
| Godrej's Cinthol Soap
was very popular in the 60's and 70's. It used to be advertised as the only Soap
containing 'hexacholorophene' for the safety
of the public.
Later research proved that 'hexacholorophene' is not that good for the skin or eyes. Its benefits were questionable. Godrej withdrew the use of that chemical in the soap. Did the Government question Godrej ? No ! Did any of the consumer Forum or newspaper questioned Godrej ? No ! The Times of India, wrote to Colgate to elicit their views about the complaint of Hindustan Lever Limited. Did they bother to write to the Toilet Soap manufacturers ? No [ refer unfair practices ] There could be umpteen excuses. But it is clear that sub standard toilet Soaps is not a News! And the newspapers / press are the assumed safeguards to the Public in a democracy ! |
|
| Consumer Forums - all put together do not equal Sunita Narain | |
| Kali
Mehendi is a Crude, unsafe and unethical formulation. Mehendi can
only give Red Colour. The Black colour comes from a Dye, which may or may
not be good. If you buy a Black Dye from Godrej,
you will see the mention of "Poison" in small print
in
the outer package.
I elaborated these points in a one page note. It was sent by E mail to some Consumer Protection Organisations and persons associated / slightly connected with such outfits
|
|
| My goal / Request: ............................Making Swapna Free to the World |
|
Swapna Hair Enricher, as a Hairsaver, can help
Millions across the World to
retain the God given natural and free, anti aging
Cosmetic aid, the Hair, for a long period of their lives
- say even after 60 years. The site elaborates that with sufficient proofs / supportive details. I am looking for a Philanthropist who can buy Swapna's Technology and make it Free to the World. I lack the finance to retire peacefully now. One cannot preach philosophy on an empty stomach. But I still hate the thought of selling the Technology to Companies, who can milk the public dry. Mad is the epithet that I earn frequently for this approach, now that I have closed my earlier main business. I can wait for one more year. Refer Swapna or Cocolite and think what you can do to meet the above goal |
| Sections |
Links for different sections or pages |
|
| Swapna Hair Enricher | The Hair Saver for Hairloss and Dandruff: Hair Growth I Photo Proofs Invention indian supply | |
| Haircare Guides | Book chapters - Tips for the Top hairsense Notes rufooled hairfaq: links Site map 2 | |
| Other sections | Technology Transfer: Swapna Cocolite: Spicy shots: hit list sitemap 3: site map Contact | |
| Errors and Omissions exempted. If there be any unwanted oversights, mistake in content or suggestions for improvements, please e mail us | ||
| Last Modified: Dec 18, 2008: Personal website of R. Ranganathan M.Sc., [ MBA - IIMA] | ||