Back in about '97 AD, Tom's of Maine Natural Mouthwash was featured here. Buried among the natural ingredients listed on the label, the vigilant eye of the Fib Finder noticed Poloxamer 335. The Poloxamers are a family of excellent detergents invented by my good friend Dr. Irv Smolka. They have found widespread use throughout many industries and are a part of daily life for virtually all of us.

Kate and Tom Chappell recognized the great utility of this material and used it to keep the flavor oils stabilized in their Mouthwash. They also had the unmitigated gall to try and claim it was a naturally occurring material, and even went so far as to lie outright in declaring that Poloxomer 335 is natural because it is derived from natural gas. (Of course it's not.)

One fine day the Fib Finder received an email from Faithful Reader Ann Austin who wanted better particulars regarding this wholly synthetic detergent. Tom's claim was brought to the attention of NAD (a self-regulating industry group for natural products). Ultimately, Tom was asked to justify his unusual description of Poloxomer 335 as a natural substance.

Tom's carefully pointed out that Poloxomer 335 was only about 1% of the formula. Tom's argued that its use of "natural" was based on product attributes chosen to reflect the values of Tom's customers. Tom's pointed out that there is no "officially binding definition" of natural (while conveniently ignoring the existence of the NAD guidelines by which the rest of the natural industry abides). Tom's felt that the words "simple ingredients from nature" on the label clearly refers to specific ingredients other than Poloxamer 335. (i.e., "All the ingredients in our products are natural except the ones that aren't.")

In the end, buried within a couple pages of face-saving-rhetoric for Tom's, NAD basically said, "Cut it out." Tom's was asked to 1) avoid claiming the product is 100% natural and 2) more accurately communicate that the product contains an ingredient not inherently "sourced from nature."

Well, that was the story until the Fib Finder was presented with a tube of Tom's of Maine natural toothpaste for sensitive teeth ($0.99 for 0.87 oz.--about three times the usual cost for toothpaste). As always, Kate and Tom present all the ingredients along with their claimed sources in nature. But as a concession to NAD and their competitors, the Tom's definition of "natural" is stated as follows:

"By natural we mean that the product is made from ingredients whose ultimate source is nature and is simply formulated, using only those ingredients required to perform a necessary function. We also mean that the product contains no artificial preservatives, artificial dyes, or artificial sweeteners (like saccharin). On each box we list our ingredients, their purpose and source. We believe you have a right to know."

How quaint. They only use ingredients whose ultimate source is nature. That should just about cover--EVERYTHING and ANYTHING. It is also contrary to the voluntary standards followed by the rest of the "natural" industry. Tom's wants it all. They want to jump on the popular "natural" bandwagon. At the same time, they want to take advantage of today's high performance synthetic chemicals which add substantial value to a product. It gives them an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

This was the basis for Woodstock Natural Products hauling Tom's up before NAD. Woodstock mouthwash must be shaken vigorously before use. The natural flavor oils they use do not dissolve in water and must be redispersed each time. Tom's keeps their flavor oils dissolved with the aid of Poloxomer 335. Is it a "necessary function" of mouthwash to deny your customer a bit of exercise before refreshing the palate?

Let's take a look at the label on natural toothpaste for sensitive teeth. The list is fairly long--about 13 ingredients. Consider just these few which immediately catch the eye.

Glycerine is a byproduct of the alkaline saponification of any fat or oil of animal or vegetable origin. This does not meet the suggested definition of natural as commonly agreed to in the industry. Tom's just might get away with this one since Granny no doubt used to collect glycerine when she made her lye soap.

Xylitol is prepared by the chemical reduction of xylose which is extracted from birch trees. The natural industry accepts most extraction procedures. Hence, xylose would be considered natural. Xylitol would probably not.

But why split hairs? Let's give Tom and Kate those two.

Sodium lauryl sulfate and cocamidopropyl betaine are derived from coconut oil the same way that jet fuel is derived from dead dinosaurs. They are both modern, very high performance, wholly synthetic surfactants. NO ONE would consider them natural except Tom's. Also, they will beat any natural cleaning agent in any application. For this reason, they are both widely used in many common household products. The reason Tom's uses them is to accrue an easy advantage over competitor's who limit themselves to materials conforming to the industry's suggested definitions of "natural".