Dear Recipients and Respondents

Thank you if you are still here with an open mind.

To new readers, welcome. This thread reads chronologically from the bottom of the page to the present here, starting at numbers marked 1 A; B; C; & D down and then up to the next letter.

This communication contains sensitive information concerning individuals and business entities, which if untrue, would be actionable for damages against me. I believe my research and allegations of fraud to be serious and accurate enough to warrant sticking my neck out with these revelations in the interests of the consumers of such products. It remains to be determined to what extent I will proceed against such individuals and entities, since much depends on their responses or lack thereof hereto. I challenge respondents, both direct and indirect alike, to respond fully and honestly to each and every allegation, failing which I shall consider their silence as tacit acceptance thereof.

I will collate responses for inclusion to all recipients in the database. If you don't trust me to do so, please just reply to all", in which case you will have 2-dozen witnesses of your contribution.

I am very grateful for this opportunity to respond to negative responses to my appeal to debate what warrants the title of a 'safe natural and/or organic external personal care product'. As director of the Gaia Research Institute and proprietor of Gaia Organics, established 19-years ago and along with ‘Canyon Organics’, Cliff Calder's ‘Fragrant Garden’ and later, David Townsend's ‘Townsend's Natural Herb’ and Sue Visser's ‘Nature Fresh’ and others, were pioneers of the natural personal care revolution in this country, it breaks my heart to witness the state of this sector today. I am all for competition, which is good for consumers and other role-players alike, but the new breed of know-it-all pseudo-organic vendors jumping on the "chemical-free", "petrochemical-free", "paraben-free", "mineral oil free" and "sodium lauryl sulphate-free" bandwagon is really starting to piss me off.

If there is one thing that I cannot stand, it is a holier than thou hypocritical opportunist prepared to con their way to the top. Unfortunately, the local "organic" personal care fraternity appear to be largely, if not exclusively just that. The hypocritical double standards and the out and out prostitution of ethics for commercial expediency, at the expense of innocent gullible consumers and ethical service providers are really quite nauseating. (A brief summary of my work over the years appears in grey near the end to serve readers who do not know me by my activism, so as to assess the integrity with which I pursue such issues)

Because I am not a businessman, but rather an independent researcher (35-years in the natural health sector), I had never really concerned myself with the business activities of others in the natural personal care sector, until Trevor Steyn and Anthea Torr got in my face with their propaganda series in Biophile magazine and on their Esse, Enchantrix, Biophile and guest websites and Anthea refused to publish corrections in Biophile when I presented them with evidence of several instances of misinformation. Subsequent to that experience, I responded with a series of factual educational communiqués, including a collection in a printed Consumer Awareness booklet, most of which were hidden under the counter in those health shops, who too, for commercial expediency, claimed to prefer not to confuse customers (with another perspective so that they might make better-informed decisions).

For the most part, I have been content to merely respond to Trevor's nonsense when I encountered his false propaganda littering the Internet and a response opportunity arose, until Anthea's "Response to Gaia Organics" appeared. Challenged by these two on my ingredient formulatory rationale, I have definitively defended these and have thrown down the gauntlet to my challengers to honestly and equally defend theirs. Please excuse the bitchy bits interspersed into the factual debate, which will hopefully make reading this thread worthwhile and which valuable insights are unlikely to be acquired elsewhere.

Once again, I implore implicated role-players to participate fully, honestly and factually, or be exposed as frauds as I have done hereunder with both Anthea and Trevor. This dialogue will likely will form a chapter of my forthcoming book, tentatively titled "Don't Talk Kak: Organics Suck: The Expropriation of Consumer Intelligence". I reserve the right only to edit out frivolous interjections. I also feel that it is only fair to caution all roleplayers participating in this greater misinformation scam, including magazine journalists, whether they participate here or not, that I intend to name and shame all individuals, companies and brands who continue to perpetuate this fraud once made aware hereof, starting with the worst offenders. Admittedly, this will turn out to be a lengthy read, but making the effort will afford many roleplayers an opportunity to reflect on their ethics in the light of the information presented and to reform their activities sufficiently to avoid being formally served as respondents to answer publicly to this fraud. I am continually monitoring, collecting, dating and adding evidence of this scam. The days of claiming to be "chemical-free", "petrochemical-free", possibly "paraben-free" and additionally trashing these and the following and suggesting that being "mineral oil free" and "sodium lauryl sulphate-free" are somehow a virtue, when this is not the case, are drawing to a close, unless of course that can be substantiated against all my evidence to the contrary.

It is grossly hypocritical to hide behind a relative - total paucity of toxicological data for alternatives to targeted ingredients and to use hidden petrochemical inputs permitted by the organic certification scamsters, whilst soap-boxing about theoretical hazards of some natural petrochemical ingredients, whose extensive toxicological databases required to determine and prove safety, are used out of context to malign these. One cannot claim safety for anything without investigating toxicity, which latter involved animal testing, abhorrent as that is and which is why I prefer to honour those animals already so sacrificed and will not use any largely untested ingredients and so potentially expose consumers to real risk, nor sanction animal testing of these.

Ideally, testing should be done on human volunteers, starting with employees and including management and board-members of the manufacturers thereof, but the new rash of pseudo 'natural' and 'organic' vendors, naively assume safety and so without even monitoring for toxicity, rather cowardly see fit to use the uninformed public as guinea pigs instead, both of which are criminal. Having become aware of this danger to consumers, I am obliged to do my civil duty and investigate and expose such activities as I encounter them. Pleading ignorance of the facts will no longer suffice as an excuse and this is why I will not remove from this distribution list, any recipient who is engaging in such activities, including those indirectly accompliced to this scam by way of spreading such fraudulent misinformation, even for indirect commercial expediency, eg magazines (electronic and otherwise), who might do so to attract advertisers participating in this lucrative scam, as is clearly happening with Biophile, Renaissance, Natural Medicine and Odyssey magazines, in spite of their pseudo truth and integrity charade.

Following on from where we left off in Part 1:

The negative responders were Tim and Chris, as well as Anthea Torr, proprietor of Enchantrix and proprietor/editor of Biofilth magazine, Trevor Steyn, proprietor of Esse Organic Skincare.

Tim Jackson, Manager of the Biodynamic and Organic Certification Authority, phoned and crapped me out for my suggesting that the BDOCA certification criteria is less strict than that of Ecocert. Tim's angry ranting rendered it impossible to telephonically discuss my presumption, based on prior communications and subsequent developments and I ended the call after requesting that he communicate his precise objection in writing. Tim is of course perfectly at liberty to discuss this matter in the current forum where the allegedly offending remark was made and I encourage him to do so. I might just add that subsequent developments in the "organic" personal care sector indicate an apparent shift to Ecocert, which to me suggests that Tim may very well have a point, but he ought to articulate it.

The Enchantrix website (http://www.enchantrix.co.za/certification) under the Bio-org logo still states "We are awaiting certification for our remaining products which we expect to have later this year", as it has done for a couple of years now, without additions. Is this not a fraudulently misleading declaration, intended and serving to suggest that the products are in transition and close to certification? Esse takes this even further, as will be shown in the text below, by claiming a couple of years ago, that the Esse range of products was indeed already Ecocertified. Since I have also copied Ecocert SA with this thread, I for one would appreciate both the BDOCA and Ecocert's input on these points.

Chris Erasmus, proprietor/editor of Odyssey magazine has too much aery faery on his plate to appreciate a distasteful dollop of truth on this topic and has requested that I remove him from the list, presumably so that he may plead ignorance when he covers this topic without regard for the facts in upcoming editions of his corny magazine and so best serve his target advertisers.

Anthea

ST: You say that you have no intention in getting into debate on this at all. How is it that you justify publishing such maliciously dishonest material, yet accept no moral, nor legal responsibility? Why not make the necessary effort to present the research that you merely allude to, as though that might miraculously serve as rebuttal to my carefully laid out rebuttal to your mischief? Regrettably, in the absence of any substantial rebuttal, I am forced to conclude that you tacitly accept, by default, that my critique of your statements is correct, in which case you are morally obliged to apologise and withdraw it, or append my response to it, or post an adequate rebuttal to mine here in the public interest, as I have done with your patently false statements.

Trevor

ST: Thank you for finally responding to my challenges after all these years.

While you failed miserably to address points raised in my rebuttal to Anthea's "A Response to Gaia 'Organics'", I shall nevertheless address the crumbs that you did, and your new mischief.

Trevor wrote: "I ceased responding when I realized that you (I) would not respond to basic questions in a coherent manner."

ST: This is a totally ridiculous excuse that does not escape responsibility for the conflict that has arisen from Trevor Steyn's fraudulent mischief littering the Internet. I am aware of only two instances of communication from Trevor and those involved not a single question, but rather 1) (1 July 05) - a still unhonoured undertaking to provide the results of his claimed independent peroxidation tests and 2) (5 July 05) - a still dishonoured undertaking to remove offending material from his website, an undertaking he now repeats, nearly 3-years later.

How can Trevor possibly judge the coherence or otherwise of anticipated replies when he has in fact never communicated the unstated basic questions alluded to, nor afforded me a reasonable opportunity to respond thereto, coherently or otherwise? Unlike Trevor, I have never avoided an opportunity to publicly openly state and debate the facts comprising our respective worldviews.

Trevor wrote: "You seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of conspiracy against you and that myself and Anthea Torr are focused on the demise of your company."

ST: Since my response to this is likely to be protracted (including detailed evidence), I shall deal with this issue as the last item in this response.

Trevor wrote: "I personally don’t consider your company any sort of competition."

ST: Gaia and Esse are incomparable for several reasons, in particular because Gaia's activities are primarily service orientated, whilst Esse's are clearly primarily profit orientated. Nevertheless both have business activities that compete in the "organic" and "natural" personal care marketplace. If Trevor is insinuating that Gaia Organics is no competition because Esse organic skincare products are superior, then he is seriously deluded and even more so if he believes that his past, present and future pseudo-organic certification affords him anything but hyped pseudo-superiority. Furthermore, whereas I am a formulator and manufacturer, Trevor is a mere formulator.

Moreover, Gaia Research is an independent wholistic health research institute with its reports documented in governmental institutional archives and with public welfare published scientific peer-reviewed journal articles, whereas Esse publish fraudulent negative self- promotional commercial propaganda in tacky magazines and on equally tacky websites. As a result, I personally do not consider Trevor's company to be any sort of serious competition.

Trevor wrote: a) "You promote the use of ingredients that are used in all the conventional brands on the market and I can’t see how you plan to differentiate your brand from the hundreds of low cost products out there." b) "Mineral oil is exceedingly cheap, so are parabens and sulphated surfactants."

ST: Well now, we are back to the already discredited Neways scam. Trevor raises new issues, which cannot really be divorced and which in turn raise several other issues, so bear with me.

I use three natural ingredients on a long and variable list of allegedly undesirables. These have been carefully chosen by me on the basis of their utility and fully documented safety data that have established these as class leaders. I linked-out my detailed rational defences of these three ingredients and also my fully referenced critiques of Trevor's unfortunate alternatives in my previous posting below. Trevor has been unable to raise a single valid objection to my use of any of these. Instead, he resorts to the invalid "organic standards" argument, which I too have demonstrated is fraught with illogic and many double standards, as well as several potential real-life hazards for consumers of products following said guidelines, including those of Ecocert.

It is noteworthy that Trevor Steyn has not openly publicly responded to any of my exceptionally well-documented position statements (approximately 100 pages), written largely as a result of his initial and subsequent mischief in Biophile magazine. Oddly, I have him to thank for his initiation and ongoing stimulation that repeatedly distracted me from my other research activities and led to my anticipating and timeously preparing for a broader, international fear-mongering ingredients scam that has now infected the minds of millions of gullible consumers worldwide. As a result of Trevor Steyn's mischief, I now find myself an authority on the very scam he intended pulling on me and others in a less fortunate position to defend their own ingredients.

What really differentiates my product range apart from both Trevor's and the rest of the pseudo-natural and organic ranges is complex and significant. My products are honest, in that there is no attempt to portray them other than for what they are, which is essentially a clear middle way bridging two extreme polarised paradigms, both of which are best only where they so meet and at their worst where they are diametrically opposed. As a result, my products are a combination of the best of both worlds, and none of the extremes that serve to invalidate both, 'integrative' for want of a label. As such, my products are exceptional value for money, since consumers don't pay for expensive ritualistic inputs overseen by expensive middlemen with no advantage.

Trevor Steyn's formulations for Enchantrix, his Esse and others includes sunflower, wheat germ and peach kernel oils, really the cheapest and most oxidatively susceptible plant oils of all. More troubling, from a toxicological perspective is Trevor Steyn's hypocritical use of quaternary ammonium compounds: benzethonium and/or benzalkonium chloride (albeit ripped-off at a premium as grapefruit seed extract), cetrimonium chloride and also the zwitterionic surfactant, cocamidopropyl betaine, all of which class (quaternary ammonium compounds), appears on Ecocert's negative list. The presence of these and the dreaded paraben esters in Trevor Steyn's Esse 'Organic' Skincare products is a fraud of note.

Comparing just these few toxic alternatives to my three allegedly undesirable ingredients rightfully elevates mine to the top of their class in terms of proven safety and efficacy. That my selection is also more cost-effective than Trevor's and his clients, just happens to be a bonus, rather than any overwhelming incentive for me. Most high-end international personal care companies with multi-million Rand research and development laboratories have elected to use these class-leading standards, plus some more questionable one's, including some that Trevor uses. Ultimately, water is still the "cheapest" ingredient of all. I see no one foregoing its use on the basis of its "exceeding cheapness", so please stop being such damn annoying hypocrites!

My logical response to Trevor's suggestion that there is naught to "differentiate your (my) brand from the hundreds of low cost products out there", is to ask what differentiates Trevor's Esse brand from the hundreds of "high cost" so-called "organic" products out there? They are all using similar questionable, often corny hype ingredients and generally similarly have nothing to differentiate them from others in this rather boringly generic category. I have already demonstrated that there is absolutely nothing honest, or special about eco-certified organics. Opposition to petrochemicals per se' is totally ridiculous and grossly hypocritical. A far greater percentage of ingredients that Trevor Steyn formulates for his range and for others on the "organic" bandwagon use petrochemicals in their commercial synthesis than do those in my own ingredient portfolio, yet he, his clients and Ecocert all sham "petrochemical free" status.

I am driven to respond fully, lest I succumb to the habit of tendering one- or two-liners to challengers, as Trevor Steyn tends to unfairly substitute as an excuse for substantiated responses. Anyone who has been around for a while will have learned that purchasing consumer goods on the assumption that quality, safety and efficacy of products is determined by price alone is foolish. To a point it may be valid, but thereafter, said factor tends to diminish, often to the point where price becomes an incumberance to said expectations, like comparing a Rolls Royce with a Lexus, which latter, at half the price is superior in terms of build quality, safety, performance, economy and everything but backward handcrafting and perhaps snob-value.

Furthermore, besides the absence of the superior ingredients: sodium lauryl ether sulphate, mineral oil and parabens and the substitution of these with those demonstrated by me to be rather foolish relatively more risky alternative choices for these, Trevor Steyn's products, and those of some of his clients, are curiously, practically clones of my own, in that besides the corny hyped ingredients (of which there are often so many in one formulation, that none could possible be reasonably active, even synergistically) the actual ingredients forming the active basis of these products are comprised largely of my own chosen ingredients, most adopted 10-20 years ago, when Trevor was still just a kid. These include aqua (but superior filtered "rainwater" rather than more likely contaminated filtered "spring water"); fixed oils of coconut, flaxseed, jojoba and sesame (I stopped formulating with the highly oxidation-susceptible wheatgerm, and peach and apricot kernel oils a decade ago); ascorbyl palmitate, panthenol, retinyl palmitate and tocopheryl acetate; aloe, glycerine, green tea and kaolin; silver chloride and titanium dioxide; citric and salicylic acids; and essential oils of geranium, lavender, lemon balm, orange, peppermint, rose, rosemary, spearmint and ylang ylang (common to both Esse & Gaia).

Further ingredients in the Gaia Organics products that are not in the Esse products include: Bearberry, Bergamot essential oil, BHA, Bioflavonoids, Camphor, Carnation essential oil, Castor oil, Cajeput essential oil, Cedar essential oil, Centella, Citronella essential oil, Co-enzyme Q10, colloidal Copper, Comfrey Allantoin, Diatomaceous earth, Evening Primrose oil, German chamomile essential oil, Ginger essential oil, Ginkgo, Ginseng, Glutathione, Gum Arabic, Gum Benzoin, Heather, Honeysuckle essential oil, Jasmin essential oil, Juniper essential oil, Kelp, Selenium-enriched Kombucha, Lemon essential oil, Licorice, Lime tree, Magnesium peroxide, Malic acid, colloidal Manganese, MSM, Neroli essential oil, bitter Orange essential oil, sweet Orange essential oil, PABA, Palm-kernel oil (& potassium hydroxide), Patchouli essential oil, Pollen, Pyrethrum, Rose essential oil, Sage essential oil, Stinging nettle, Tannic acid, Tartaric acid, Tea tree essential oil; Thyme essential oil; Thymol; Tulip essential oil, Turmeric. Tyrosine; Vitamin B2, Vitamin B6, Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), Whey, Witch hazel, Zinc oxide and colloidal and chelated Zinc. This is far from the low-end synthetic ingredient portfolio that Trevor maliciously suggests it is. I would confidently pit the naturalness, organic integrity, optimal utility and established safety of these Gaia Organics ingredients against the Esse ingredients and also confidently assert that these provide superior anti-aging / anti skin-cancer performance.

Gaia Organics Aqueous cream (all creams are aqueous) is the 'only' synthesised ingredient using (methyl- and propyl-) parabens and SLS and is restricted to the creams and creamy lotions as clearly listed. I now outsource this so as to provide the consistency and preservation integrity demanded by the export market, which I failed to meet when I was painstakingly producing this myself and could also not cope with export production demand. Since the ingredients are so basic and relatively cheap, I hardly have to monitor its manufacture as would be the case with more expensive raw materials and critically fragile oils for what is essentially nothing more than a stable simple spreading, moisturising and occlusive agent.

Accordingly, my precious and fragile oils are always refrigerated on site under my care and specification and can be formulated into products in small batches so as to maximally avoid peroxidation and rancidity, which is impossible with the bulking cheaper highly oxidation-susceptible oils used by the 'organic' fringe who are unable to substitute those, due to their own stubbornness, with pure oxidation-free and oxidation protective natural organic mineral oil for said basic functions in more complex formulations uncompromised thereby. The Ginkgo is harvested annually from trees in the area and the Centella is wild harvested in the Garden of Eden and as with the Comfrey and Stinging nettle grown in our own garden without chemical input, are freshly processed immediately prior to use. Our unique Selenium-rich Kombucha symbionts are cultured in our own laboratory using our exceptionally potent peasant-grown Green tea and likewise processed immediately prior to use.

Of the like-minded ingredients, I pioneered (1st in the world - 1996) formulations with kombucha extracts, corresponding to Trevor Steyn's (10-years too late) "cutting edge ingredients", hyaluronic acid and carboxymethyl (beta) glucan, which promise to "ensure that Esse products are always at the pinnacle of what modern skincare can offer". Being cultured on green tea and freshly expressed, Gaia's Kombucha extracts significantly yield high integrity hyaluronic acid, beta glucan and nucleic acids (besides other valuable natural substances) and as such, avoid having to be extracted and stabilised synthetically for commercial storage ability and at a fraction of the cost, Gaia Organics are generous when formulating with these ingredients, rather than token gesturing their use due to any cost considerations. I also pioneered (1st in the world - 1994) formulations with green tea (which makes a mockery of the feeble hyped indigenous rooibos & honeybush teas). I additionally pioneered (1st in the world - 1994) formulations with colloidal and ionic silver (and later also copper, zinc and manganese).

Gaia's second slogan correctly is "We Lead, Others Follow". Trevor Steyn is seriously mistaken when he cockily claims: "I personally don’t consider your company any sort of competition". I make this declaration, not in terms of whose business is the biggest, since Gaia Organics have no intentions of being the biggest, just the best and only for those that really, really want it. This leads to another infuriating instance of Trevor Steyn's negative ingredient profiling. I pioneered (1st in the world - 1991) genuine alpha hydroxy acids (AHAs) in product formulations, more that 19 years ago and several years before Estee Lauder launched their glycolic acid based "Fruition". Uniquely tamed with green tea and formulated as a toner, Gaia has been able to optimise the active strength and benefits of its leading-edge fruit acid technology without compromise or adverse effects. From the start, these complex fruit acids were scraped out of wooden barrels used for the manufacture of wine, apple, pear and pineapple ciders and progressively supplemented with pure lab synthesised nature-identical fruit acids, without loss of advantage.

Trevor Steyn is out of line when he states on his website: "The daily use of alpha hydroxy acids is unhealthy and accelerates the aging process. AHAs dissolve the cement that holds cells together and cause the outer layers of the skin to peel off. This is to support claims of wrinkle reduction. The skin will immediately try to maintain a healthy skin thickness by accelerating the rate of division of the basal cells. The same process causes a callous. Each basal cell can only replicate about 74 times (the Hayflick limit). Once enough basal cells reach the limit the skin starts to get thinner and more prone to sun damage, wrinkles and attack by pathogens. AHA’s accelerate the rate of basal cell division and hence accelerate the aging process. By removing the outer layer of the skin, AHA’s also increase the likelihood of sun damage. This outer layer is the skin’s first line of defense against UV damage."

ST: Whilst it is true that premature destruction of cells of the lower epidermis does inevitably draw the skin closer to the Hayflick limit, it might be useful to consider this in some perspective. Human beings are classified as hominoids and as such we are frugivorous (fruit eating) animals by creation and evolution, confirmed by comparative anatomy, physiology and biochemistry. It is a fact that our direct and indirect ancestors over the vast majority of their passage of time on Earth (the past 10,000 years is a mere blink of the eye on a linear continuum) have primarily consumed mainly fruits relative to other foodstuffs and as such, have been naturally bathing the skin in perspiration that was rich in fruit acids, rather than protein digestive waste acids. The use of mild genuine fruit acid products (as opposed to harsh glycolic acid peels) therefore merely serves to perpetuate a naturally healthful skin pH and condition that could otherwise no longer prevail with most modern diets. Trevor Steyn's mischievous reference to the Hayflick limit and his ridiculous and sensational conjecture are laughably simplistic and grossly overstated.

The truth is that the upper epidermis (keratinocytes) is in any event routinely renewed every 24 days on average and the stratum corneum continually sloughs-off (Ralston H et al, Histology 115, Dept Anat, Univ Calif, SF, 2007). The Hayflick limit (i.e. because fibroblast cells only have a finite number of doublings, after which they stop dividing and become senescent) was only studied and determined in dermal fibroblasts in culture, which again hardly approximates real life conditions. Fibroblasts are somatic terminally differentiated collagen- and elastin-producing cells. Tissues that make extensive use of fibroblasts, such as the skin, are well supplied with fibrocytes, which are undifferentiated stem cell versions of fibroblasts, which are reserved for repairing serious tissue damage. Trauma such as impact injury, thermal or acid burns and conceivably also cosmetic treatments, including surgery, laser, dermabrasion and chemical peels are able to significantly impact on the Hayflick limit.

At issue under normal conditions, is not so much that the skin squanders its stem cells and hence the ability to produce new cells, but rather that senescent fibroblasts in the dermis accumulate due to lack of stimuli and that senescent cells that are not replaced, interfere with skin functions. However, when 'appropriately' 'stimulated', e.g. via signalling molecules naturally induced by evolutionary concentrations of fruit acids, fibrocytes actually have the capacity to produce healthy fibroblasts, which in turn, are capable of producing healthy collagen and elastin and so continue to improve the appearance of skin, even in the elderly. (References, too many to annotate this summary)

Getting back now to the non- like-minded ingredients in Trevor Steyn's formulary, one might justifiably question the wisdom of incorporating into products intended for the skin, various substances, including aminoethanols, benzyls, betaines, borates, caprylics, cetearyls, cetrimides, citrates, dehydroacetics, glucosides, methanes, sorbates, sorbitans and stearates, all of which require commercial extraction, processing, synthesis, stabilisation and their own preservation. Given Ecocert's double standards on petrochemicals, what nasties lurk here? Rather large on my radar for upcoming expose' is the toxicity potential of dehydroacetic acid, especially in baby-care products, which is just another example of how irresponsible the generic organic formulation guru is when it comes to the precious health and welfare of others. A veritable repeat of the tragic Naturebabes Eucalyptus oil debacle, which harm continues to this day.

I have already profiled the unacceptable toxicity potential of cetrimonium chloride and carbomer in some Enchantrix products near the bottom of this thread (in red),
and in great detail on my website, considerable toxicological concerns with:
Cocamidopropyl betaine here: http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/cocamidosles.html & http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/cocamidoprobetaine.html &
Grapefruit seed extract adulterated with benzethonium chloride and other synthetics here: http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/grapefruitseedextract.html

Also of concern to me is the use of indigenous plant extracts, primarily for their African hype value. Listed are Adansonia Digitata seed oil, Calodendrum Capense seed oil, Eriocephalus Africanus leaf oil, Eriocephalus Punctulatus leaf oil, Kigelia Africana fruit extract, and Sutherlandia Frutescens leaf extract. Whilst the Kigelia is certainly the most promising from a dermatological perspective, it is also likely the most toxic of the group. I have already extensively exposed the considerable hype and the potential toxicity of Sutherlandia here:
http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/sutherlandia.html

I am not being melodramatic in raising such concerns. I am the only activist authority on the subject of the toxicity and mortality statistics regarding Traditional African Medicine and my still unrebutted extrapolations indicate that between 10,000 and 20,000 Africans die each year in South Africa from such plants, who would not have died but for such exposure. My main documents on this topic are here: http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/trads.html and here: http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/trads2.html

I note from biographical material, that Trevor Steyn was (perhaps naively, but might still be, given all his pretences) an ethnopirate, i.e. one who steals the intellectual property of, and exploits the traditions of other cultures for one's own commercial gain, which despicable activities of others, I have widely exposed in several reports. Trevor Steyn's Master's degree thesis involved the isolation and identification of potential new pharmaceuticals from indigenous medicinal plants (Advertorial, "Esse is for super-natural", Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Review, March 2006).

Trevor wrote: "Esse has certified organic with Ecocert and we use high percentages of certified organic ingredients in our products." So what? Given my considerable expose' to date, I had expected "ecocertification" by now to rightfully be something not worth bragging about, but it seems I need to put far more effort into my consumer awareness campaign. Perhaps when one has invested much time and money in an exposed fraud, the only commercial option is to still see it through, wave the banner and pass on the expense to gullible consumers.

Trevor wrote: "You seem to see fit to advertise your brand as organic". Trevor must have a short attention span and memory. Just a week earlier, I rebutted this allegation in great detail. Furthermore, unlike him, I don't advertise at all (in its most common understanding, i.e. to increase sales), since I consider advertising to be a desperate form of commercial prostitution. Likewise the statement: "If anyone is misleading the public it is you", is just plain stupid and irritating, considering that I have very openly and publicly demonstrated the exact opposite. Clearly Mr Steyn has nothing intelligent to contribute to this debate and so resorts to already defeated circular arguments, whilst my real concerns and challenges remain cowardly ignored.

Trevor wrote: "Your convoluted logic - that organic plant matter eventually became crude oil – will not be upheld by very many people." Another red herring, this time accompanied by a decree by 'His Worship', without any substantiation at all for his silly position, but dear disciples, blindly believe it and follow the decree you must. You dare not uphold scientific facts, lest you be accused of convoluted logic. I have, on the other hand, more than adequately dealt with the well substantiated science on this topic via a carefully laid out argument of my own here: http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/organiccontroversyandscam.html. This prompts a challenge to Trevor to articulate and post his own reasoned counter-argument (rather than a copied opinion). Realistically, this debate will probably remain largely academic, but unfortunately for Trevor and his ilk, the undeniable reality is that crude oil and mineral oil are 100% natural and organic!

Trevor wrote: "In 2004 Dr Darbre of Reading University showed that parabens were present in breast cancer tumours. Almost all breast tumours need oestrogen to grow". So what?? What about the unmentioned literally hundreds of other chemicals measurable in cancerous breast tissue, many at far higher concentrations and having far greater oestrogen mimic potential? Trevor's sweeping propaganda assumptions regarding the oestrogen mimicry potential of parabens is grossly irresponsible and for a supposedly educated person, suggests, along with the allied evidence, that he is well aware of his misrepresentation of the facts and does so for commercial expediency. His convoluted illogical associations of parabens with sperm counts, breast cancer and the tobacco industry would be laughable, were it not so tragic in its desperation to mislead those apparently even more stupid than himself, should he actually believe his own crap.

Let me just put this paraben propaganda and paranoia issue into perspective and so show for once and all why Trevor Steyn is either a deliberate fraudster or is as stupid as his silly rhetoric.

Trevor wrote: "Professor Yoshikawa in 2005 found that methyl paraben in the presence of UV, accelerates the aging process in skin cells".

ST: So what of the context? This was a very crude preliminary experiment having little or no bearing on real-life exposures.

The results are not at all unexpected, given the artificial conditions and the fact that each additional insult (e.g. 'paraben' + UVB) is disproportionate and exponential, and in any event, the worst case scenario end result being cell deaths, which self-limits any serious risk. The fact is that any second factor, e.g. pure 'water' + UVB, might have yielded similar/worse synergistic results. The author's conclusion, or at least Trevor's interpretation of it, is clearly premature.

Trevor wrote: "Ecocert have taken this relatively new research into account in their decision making process". Have they now? If so, why are they not even more urgently "banning" oestrogen mimicking phytochemicals, including grapefruit seed extract (which is always contaminated with petrochemical quaternary ammonium biocides) and cytotoxic grain alcohol? What about the safety and acceptability of the clearly inorganic nano-tech Silver chloride and Titanium dioxide composite used in product ranges formulated by Trevor Steyn? These are prohibited in personal care products intended for application around the eyes and lips and in particular in products used by children under three years of age. What of the petrochemical components of these, in particular the dreaded propylene glycol? What of the paraben esters allowed on raw materials? In particular, what of paraben esters repeatedly demonised by Trevor Steyn that are naturally occurring 'in' raw materials, including those in Trevor Steyn's own Esse range? These are all substances "banned" by Ecocert, who conveniently turn a blind eye to their inclusion in 'certified organic' products even for Ecocert's own commercial expediency, rendering Ecocert organic certification an outright fraud. These questions demand honest responses in the public interest. Failing to do so fully in response to these accusations shall be construed as tacit admission of the charges.

Trevor wrote: "You claim that Esse uses the Neways marketing strategy – our new website doesn’t once mention petrochemicals, parabens or SLS. It will be up and running in about two weeks. Our new marketing material also makes no mention of these ingredients. We rely on the public to do their own research." Now Trevor insults me (all recipients hereof) with his expectation that anyone could fall for this illogical excuse for his past and present use of the Neways strategy via an insulting argument to the effect that his new website, to be posted some time in the future, will desist with the provocative behaviour that I have been complaining about for more than 3-years. Way back on 5 July 2005 in a correspondence thread such as the present, also started by me, Trevor conceded: "With regards to the information on the Esse website, changes will be made this week to make the site less controversial. You do, perhaps, have a point. It would be better to define the products by what they offer and not by what they don't." No such changes were instituted. The strategy was just too lucrative to resist.

The fact that Trevor and Anthea, for commercial expediency, reneged on such peace agreements, sought by me to find common ground and avoid in-fighting, is the reason that matters have deteriorated to the point that has now led the Secret Authors to unfairly blame me for the ongoing dispute, when I am in fact the innocent aggrieved party. Thousands of readers of Trevor's fraudulent articles in and on the Biophile magazine and website and repeated elsewhere, has caused irreparable harm to the legitimate ethical businesses of myself and others. Not a single rebuttal, correction or withdrawal has ever been instituted. To add insult to injury, Anthea more recently posts on her website the fraudulent "A Response to Gaia Organics" (posted and rebutted below) and Trevor responds to my rebuttal thereto with the utter rubbish that I am now obliged to rebut via this present precious time-consuming response for public legal record.

Trevor wrote: "You seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of conspiracy against you and that myself and Anthea Torr are focused on the demise of your company." Trevor's articles did not mention Gaia Organics by name. The "Neways Strategy" was intended to disadvantage all their competition. In its current form, as adopted by Trevor's Esse, Anthea's Enchantrix and several others copied on this thread, the adopted strategy indiscriminatively disadvantages any business honestly listing any ingredients that are dishonestly targeted by the misinformative propaganda. This is clearly a harmful business practice and once the perpetrator is reasonably informed of this fact, perpetuation of the practice renders it an actionable fraud. It is my intention that this thread serve as prior cautioning of recipients of my intention to name and shame their activities in this regard and to proceed against them if they do not desist.

Trevor's website dedicates 3 out of 7 sections to the Neways strategy. Thus, 45% of his attention is dedicated to what his products allegedly do not and others allegedly do contain. This is pathological, if not "certifiable", no pun intended. I can't help noticing that I am heading the same way. However, I am rationally legally responding to his irrational fraudulent initiatives.

Home
Contact Us
Products
Stockists
Philosophy
Esse Salon Products
Controversial Ingredients

Without expanding any links on these pages at this stage, here are the three sections in their entirety:

ST: I did point out earlier that Trevor's comments raise new issues that in turn raise several other issues. I will keep this response as concise as possible, reserving the right to elaborate later.

I think that the above public record alone definitively confirms Trevor Steyn's use of the Neways Strategy, and also his awareness of the prejudicial impact it has on competitor's businesses. That Trevor has allowed this miscontextualised misinformation to not only be accessible, but actually foisted on the public from his business website and those of others after being advised of the fraudulent nature thereof and after undertaking to remove such information at that time, as also did Anthea, does tend to answer strongly in the affirmative that Trevor and Anthea are focussed on the demise of not only my business, but also those of anyone else honestly listing such deliberately targeted ingredients. That their own products include ingredients made with a host of petrochemicals, including not only the permitted safe parabens and mineral oil, but also undetermined other chemicals of undetermined safety, as well as a host of known toxins and endocrine disruptors, despite intimations and assurances to the contrary, clearly serves to compound said fraud. That they do this pretending to be 'holier than thou', is totally despicable.

Trevor also makes and perpetuates a common error as a matter of fact, which propaganda I am further obliged to correct. In Part 2 above, Trevor states: "Your body is very well adapted to its natural environment and is capable of processing the vast majority of the constituents of plants that occur around you. Your body is not well designed to process synthetic chemicals that it would not encounter in nature." The first sentence is partly true. The second is incorrect. Read together, they are both incorrect. Trevor is either ignorant, or has devious intent. Allow me to summarise from how the acknowledged experts in this field concur that our bodies cope equally well with both natural chemical toxins and synthetic chemical toxins:

Trevor wrote: "You also mention that we use contract manufacturers as if this were a secret. We are a research and development company and the fact that we secured the services of a larger, more professional factory is something that we are proud of."

ST: Trevor Steyn is a mere armchair formulator critic, with no real-life experience to speak of, yet he sees fit to criticise those who clearly have. All Trevor does is the relatively simple task of emulating the formulae of real pioneers, within the nonsensical constrictions imposed by a second party and then has that impersonally manufactured by a third party, or as Trevor, on being so exposed prefers to portray it: "we secured the services of a larger, more professional factory, something that we are proud of." What is there to be proud of? Someone else's 'factory'?

Here at Gaia, my wife and I personally manufacture every single product in our own laboratory, using minimal mechanisation and almost daily handle 100% concentrations of our raw materials with our own bare hands. We have yet to experience any of the imaginary reactions that Trevor loves to suggest results from even normal consumer contact with an ingredient such as SLES, let alone such a worst case occupational scenario and where we additionally even use concentrated SLES to wash-up in our home kitchen and to wash all our laundry. Additionally, we use all our own personal care products and in the light of all this, as well as nearly 20 years of feedback from tens of thousands of customers, we can vouch for the long-term safety thereof. Incidentally, our staff only help to dispense and clean up, with no contact whatsoever. I would suggest to Trevor that achievements such as all this might well be something to be proud of.

Prior to my expose', Trevor Steyn has repeatedly led readers to believe that he in fact manufactures his own products. By way of a few recent examples of such direct claims: 1) In the Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Review (March 2006), Trevor states: "My company comprises a formulation and 'manufacturing business' and a skin care range". In the Independent Online (May 2006), Lindsay Ord introduces "Trevor Steyn, who produces a range of chemical-free organic skin care products in his Richmond factory" and Trevor states that he: "Started Esse, a company that manufactures products that are 100 percent natural". In the current Enviropaedia (2007), Trevor states "Esse manufactures high-end skincare products... (that) contain no paraben preservatives, no petrochemical by-products... avoiding all potentially harmful ingredients".

Esse is still listed as a "manufacturer" on searchza.com and urbansprout.co.za. Even I, naively accepting these statements at face value, repeated it as fact on my Gaia Research website. Its all lies with Trevor Steyn and stubborn at that. Several years ago already, the Daily News, Online Edn. July 30, 2003, reported: “After reading the March issue of the Clicks Complementary Health magazine, a consumer, Toni Silverstone, lodged three complaints with the ASA about separate products. 1. In an advertorial about Esse Organic Skincare, she said the use of the words "100% natural" was misleading because a processed product could no longer claim to be natural. Last month, the ASA upheld the complaint and asked the company to withdraw the advertorial in question.”

On go-organic.co.za/forum (5 June 2006), Esse's Dee Steyn states: "We are a local 'manufacturer 'of organic personal care products. Our primary line is a skincare range called Esse Organic Skincare. We have a full range of cleansers, toner, moisturisers, body lotion etc and are certified by Ecocert France. Please look at our website - www.esse.co.za. Regards, Dee." Note the blatant false claim to be certified by Ecocert. An honest typing error perhaps? No. The claim is repeated (14 June 2006), with slight variations: "Natalie; I got your mail from the go-organic forum. We are a local 'producer' of certified organic skincare products called Esse Organic Skincare. We do a full range of skincare products certified by Ecocert France. Please have a look at our website - www.esse.co.za. Regards, Dee." Esse's public lies: 1) manufactures; 2) chemical free; 3) 100% natural; 4) no parabens; 5) no petrochemical by products; 6) avoiding all potentially harmful ingredients; and last, but not least 7) a full range of skincare products certified by Ecocert France! All blatant lies. Trevor Steyn is a fake!

Regarding Trevor Steyn's ludicrous claim to be a "research and development company", not only do I not see evidence of any pioneering research or development at all, but alarmingly, Trevor Steyn's research somehow missed the critical fact that, with the exception of three products, there is at least one Alpha Hydroxy Fruit Acid in every single product in the Esse Organic Skincare range. Yes, the very same AHAs that he has been condemning at every opportunity as "unhealthy and accelerates the aging process", "accelerates the rate of basal cell division and hence accelerate the aging process" and "increases the likelihood of sun damage" etc, etc. Then we have an additional surprise, in that, despite Trevor Steyn's numerous assurances to the contrary, Esse Organic Skincare products have in several instances, actually been formulated with Methyl-Paraben.

Trevor wrote: “May I suggest that we meet at some time in the near future so that I can gain some insight into what drives your vitriolic attacks?”

ST: I have penned dozens of e-mails / letters to Trevor and Anthea and as many reports / position statements on my website in response to their mischief over the years, to no avail. If my response to Anthea's "Response to Gaia Organics" below and my 10-page response above to Trevor's e-mail of 24 April still leaves Trevor with insufficient insight into what drives these communications, then I do not see any point in meeting with Trevor other than in a court of law, or in public debate. At time of writing, Trevor's undertaking 18 days ago to have revised content, sans propaganda attacks on said ingredients up in about 2-weeks having still not materialised, I feel fully justified, in the light of all that has transpired and continues to unfairly prejudice myself and others at Trevor’s hand, to circulate this response, being Part 2 in an ongoing series of expose' and educational reports aimed at correcting said propaganda.

In closing, my express challenge to Trevor Steyn, Anthea Torr and Ecocert as juristic person and witnessed by all recipients of this communication, is that they get off their self-made pedestals and start responding honestly and fully to my critique, or continue to be relentlessly exposed by me in the greater public interest, as the fraudsters that they are. The same applies to all recipients in their various capacities, if and to the extent that such identified fraudulent activities apply to them. These three named respondents are just the beginning of my campaign.

To indirect observers who have braved following the evidence of the truths and untruths presented here, I thank you for your efforts and trust that the exercise is proving informative.

Yours sincerely


Stuart Thomson
Director, Gaia Research Institute