Friday, February 19, 2010

Toothpaste Update

We are super excited to be coming out with the first USDA certified organic toothpaste soon. We appreciate everyone's input and excitement. I thought I'd give you a little update on its release.



As we said in our newsletter last month, we pretty much have the formula figured out; it has just been a challenge trying to get the packaging done. A typical plastic toothpaste tube requires expensive production equipment to produce, so we've been looking at some alternative packaging options. I had tried an aluminum tube, but it has a number of problems. First, it was too small, second it was aluminum (which most of us are tsying to avoid) and third, it has a tendency to break down easily over time.



So, then I found what they call and airless pump. According to the supplier, it was supposed to be able to handle a high-viscosity product like our toothpaste. I waited for weeks for the samples to come in, and finally got my package. I whipped up a batch of toothpaste, put it in the pump, and....nope. It didn't work. The hole in the pump was just too small. So, back to square one. I was quite disappointed.



A week or so went by when I was struck with an exciting idea. One that I can't even share with you because it's so unique! I think I have now found a package that has a big enough opening to let the viscous product out, AND is eco-friendly, AND doesn't require any expensive equipment. I've requested my samples and am now just waiting again for them to come in. I should have them by the middle of the week (around the 24th). If it works, I am going to be so excited. We'll then be able to start designing the label and getting them in stock to sell. I'll keep you posted and let you know how this new packaging works!

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Stephanie, I can't wait!! Our household is in real need of this toothpasate and appreciate your ingenuity and perserverance with it. I hope it's a big hit for you!
Stephanie
Houston, TX

Stephanie Greenwood said...

Update: Just found out that the packaging samples I ordered will be shipping tomorrow. Come on FedEX!

Mommy Is Green said...

I'm very interested in the toothpaste. I'm using a natural one but I'm not thrilled that it contains GSE. I need something better!

Stephanie Greenwood said...

Got the packaging in; it looks like it's going to work!

Jennifer Taggart, TheSmartMama said...

Stephanie - So excited about the new packaging. I have a question for you - do the aluminum tubes for toothpaste and other such products have an epoxy resin lining containing bisphenol A like canned foods? Do you know?

Stephanie Greenwood said...

Some of them do, some of them don't. You'll have to ask the particular companies that you're using.

Erica L said...

What is the current status of the toothpaste. I notice that the last post was in March, but I don't see this product on your website. Thanks!

Stephanie Greenwood said...

Still workin' on it! We found all the ingredients we need, but packaging has proven a challenge. We hope to have it ready by the end of the year.

Bob Dobbs said...

Stephanie, while I admire your enthusiasm for what you believe in, I think you have missed out on some key points. The Mayo Clinic and several cancer centers have not only given the ok to crystal deodorants, they have recommended them to their patients. You can also read here, some 60 studies involving Potassium Alum (as found in crystal deodorants): http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredient/705178/POTASSIUM_ALUM/ They rank it at their lowest level of concern. There really is no evidence that it's a danger when used as a deodorant.

Stephanie Greenwood said...

@Bob Dobbs--thanks for your thoughts! Can you provide evidence that the Mayo Clinic or other cancer clinics endorse crystal deodorants? If they are indeed using them, it may be that they're not fully informed about the ingredients, or think they're ok to use, just like the medical establishment is ok with aluminum and mercury in vaccines.

Regarding EWG, they are also not informed about the toxic effects of crystal deodorants. They are simply a database that links to other databases and don't personally review ingredients. Their lack of data doesn't make it a safe ingredient. There are data gaps that allow even carcinogens to score a "0" (read about it here: http://chemicaloftheday.squarespace.com/most-controversial/2010/9/27/why-a-carcinogen-scores-a-0-in-the-cosmetics-database.html )

You can read more on the topic of the aluminum crystals here in some follow up articles on my other blog:

http://chemicaloftheday.squarespace.com/most-controversial/2010/3/8/exposing-more-truths-about-alum.html

http://chemicaloftheday.squarespace.com/most-controversial/2010/5/13/confirmed-aluminum-in-crystal-deodorants-is-absorbed.html

http://chemicaloftheday.squarespace.com/most-controversial/2012/9/11/dangers-of-aluminum.html


Stephanie Greenwood said...

@Bob Dobbs--Also, the 62 studies mentioned on EWG don't reflect in their score. They're simply linking to the 62 articles in pubmed that mention potassium alum, which may or may not include safety data.