Liquid dishwashing detergents, not soap

[symbolipoint]

I just saw an online article with wording that always irritates me.

"Clever Uses for Dawn Dish Soap"
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/story/clever-uses-for-dawn-dish-soap-160951640.html

Dawn (Liquid) Dishwashing Detergents, as well as other Dishwashing liquid detergents, contain no soaps of any kind. Too picky on my part?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Too picky on my part?

Um...yes?

Does it bother you that ice cream cones are really ice cream nappes? That Harbard Square is more like a polygon? That most people use "line
when they mean "line segment"? That pencil lead contains no lead?

 

[DaveE]

Context, dude.
If it's a chemical engineer you're talking to, then no, you're not too picky. If it's nearly anyone else, then yes. Soap may also mean something you clean up grease with.

 

[symbolipoint]

Um...yes?

Does it bother you that ice cream cones are really ice cream nappes? That Harbard Square is more like a polygon? That most people use "line
when they mean "line segment"? That pencil lead contains no lead?

Some of those do bother me. The inclusion of "line versus line segment" is one of those, too. I never saw nor heard of "Harbard Square", but if it is a location or place, maybe a different word than "Square" could be used; but for that, "Square " is part of the name. "Center", or "Plaza" maybe.

Main complaint is about Soap versus Detergent.

 

[symbolipoint]

Context, dude.
If it's a chemical engineer you're talking to, then no, you're not too picky. If it's nearly anyone else, then yes. Soap may also mean something you clean up grease with.

I know what you mean, but I just cannot fully agree. My own reaction about the "versus" is that the distinction is an absolute necessity. Most common people do not see it that way.

I even learned many many years ago that some lubricants contain salts (other than potassium nor sodium) of fatty acids, meaning soaps; their purpose in those lubricants I cannot remember now.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dawn (Liquid) Dishwashing Detergents, as well as other Dishwashing liquid detergents, contain no soaps of any kind. Too picky on my part?

I'm not sure it's too picky.

What is the distinction between detergents and soaps? I'd like to know that before deciding if the claim really is misinformation.


I do see the OP's concern as distinct from the other examples offered. This is a marketing claim, that people will presumably use to decide where to spend their money.

Great example:

That pencil lead contains no lead?

Yes.

If someone were selling pencils advertized as "no lead", but did, in fact, contain lead, that would definitely be false advertizing (and a safety hazard to-boot).

 

[Baluncore]

The term surfactant describes soaps and detergents.

 

[DaveE]

My own reaction about the "versus" is that the distinction is an absolute necessity. Most common people do not see it that way.

My point, exactly. You'll find life easier if you don't talk to a grade school teacher or a carpenter the same way you talk to a chemist.

 

[JT Smith]

Procter & Gamble, the makers of Dawn products, also refer to it as "soap". Maybe they are being accurate and it really is soap?

https://dawn-dish.com/en-us/dawn-faqs/dish-soap-safety-ingredients/

INGREDIENT	FUNCTION	WHAT IS IT	WHY IS IT IN THERE?
WATER	Solvent	water	holds ingredients together
SODIUM LAURYL SULFATE	surfactant	cleaning agent	provides cleaning
SODIUM LAURETH SULFATE	surfactant	cleaning agent	provides cleaning
C10-16 ALKYLDIME-THYLAMINE OXIDE	surfactant	cleaning agent	boosts cleaning
ALCOHOL DENAT.	Solvent	solvent	stabilizes formula
PPG-26	viscosity adjuster	solvent	stabilizes formula
SODIUM CHLORIDE	viscosity adjuster	salt	thickener
SODIUM HYDROXIDE	pH adjuster	mineral based pH adjuster	balances formula pH
PEI-14 PEG-24/PPG-16 COPOLYMER	cleaning agent	cleaning agent	boosts cleaning
PHENOXYETHANOL	Solvent	solvent	stabilizes formula
FRAGRANCES	fragrance	perfume	adds scent to product
METHYLISOTHIAZO-LINONE	preservative	non-formaldehyde preservative	preservative
COLORANTS, BLUE 1, YELLOW 5, RED 33	colorant	colorant	adds color to product
C9-11 PARETH-8	surfactant	cleaning agent	gently aids soil removal
STYRENE/ACRYLATES COPOLYMER	opacifier	opacifier	makes product opaque
TETRASODIUM GLUTAMATE DIACETATE	water softener	chelant	boosts soil removal
CHLOROXYLENOL	antibacterial agent	antibacterial agent	decreases bacteria on the skin when used as a hand soap
PHENOXY-ISOPROPANOL	Solvent	solvent	enhances grease cutting
GLYCERIN	viscosity adjuster	process aid	stabilizes formula
SODIUM CUMENE-SULFONATE	process aid	process aid	stabilizes formula
PROPYLENE GLYCOL	Solvent	solvent	stabilizes formula
TERPINEOL	Solvent	solvent	enhances grease cutting

 

[Vanadium 50]

Sorry, Harvard. Not Harbard.

And if it really bothers you when your landscaper says "I drew a line between the corner of your property and the opposite corner", frankly, I'd learn to deal with it. Do you want to be right or do you want your trees planted?

 

[symbolipoint]

@JT Smith
Nice ingredients listing. And none of them is a soap! Even the sodium lauryl sulfate is not a soap. Salt of something which contains part of a fatty acid, but the lauryl sulfate anion is not on its own any longer the anion from the fatty acid.

 

[berkeman]

If it's a chemical engineer you're talking to, then no, you're not too picky. If it's nearly anyone else, then yes.

Or a Medic documenting a patient with SOAP Notes... Subjective, Objective, Assesment, Plan:

https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/what-are-soap-notes

 

[DaveC426913]

And if it really bothers you when your landscaper says "I drew a line between the corner of your property and the opposite corner", frankly, I'd learn to deal with it. Do you want to be right or do you want your trees planted?

But the OP's example isn't merely academic quibbling. They're selling a product based on their claims.
Isn't that a critical distinction?

 

[berkeman]

Isn't that a critical distinction?

For whom? I sure don't know the difference between soap and detergent in any technical way.

 

[Averagesupernova]

They're selling a product based on their claims.
Isn't that a critical distinction?

That's a slippery slope. There's really no end to products and service sold that one could pick apart like this.

 

[symbolipoint]

But the OP's example isn't merely academic quibbling. They're selling a product based on their claims.
Isn't that a critical distinction?

Just in case of a misunderstanding there, I am not trying to sell anything.

 

[DaveC426913]

Just in case of a misunderstanding there, I am not trying to sell anything.

No!the people with the no soap product!

 

[DaveC426913]

For whom? I sure don't know the difference between soap and detergent in any technical way.

It doesn't matter. It simply means the OP is justified that this is not a trivial distinction. The distinction serves a purpose to the company marketing the product. Ask them why they think no soap is a selling point.

 

[pinball1970]

Don't forget soap powder for clothes which is not just powdered soap!
All ingredients have to be listed on products in the UK so you can just look them up.

It is a mixture of the above, post #9 is a good one but washing powder has additional things like OBA for your whites.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Don't forget soap powder for clothes which is not just powdered soap!

Or baby powder!

 

[JT Smith]

@JT Smith
Nice ingredients listing. And none of them is a soap! Even the sodium lauryl sulfate is not a soap. Salt of something which contains part of a fatty acid, but the lauryl sulfate anion is not on its own any longer the anion from the fatty acid.

Thank you, I copy and pasted it myself!

I was simply making it easy to see what the ingredients were. Are they soap? Not by the traditional animal fat and lye definition. But maybe that's not the current legal definition. I don't know. What does the FDA say? Or would that have no effect on your feelings about it?

Some years back I used the phrase "that begs the question" only to have the person I was having a discussion with tell me I was using the phrase incorrectly. He was wed to the original use of that phrase, unaware that its meaning had evolved to include the way I was using it.

So it goes with language.

I would presume that P&G is not violating the law by using the word "soap" for their product. There's almond milk after all. I think that bugs a lot of people too.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There's almond milk after all

Almond is a mammal, I guess. (And I remember when ketchup first became a vegetable)

 

[symbolipoint]

I was simply making it easy to see what the ingredients were. Are they soap? Not by the traditional animal fat and lye definition. But maybe that's not the current legal definition. I don't know. What does the FDA say? Or would that have no effect on your feelings about it?

Not about just "feelings", but meaning, classification, correct nomenclature, correctness.

 

[symbolipoint]

I would presume that P&G is not violating the law by using the word "soap" for their product. There's almond milk after all. I think that bugs a lot of people too.

Still thinking about what to think on that two. Meaning of "milk" might be stretchable, but soap needs to be or at least contain salts of fatty acids, no matter what any "law" says.

I really cannot ever remember any time that I found any actual cleaning product labeled as "soap" which contained no soap; or did I actually and just remember poorly? "Hand Soap"? Liquid "Hand Soap"? I'll need to try to check ingredients lists on some of them.

 

[JT Smith]

Not about just "feelings", but meaning, classification, correct nomenclature, correctness.

You started this thread saying you were irritated by it. So it's not just an academic interest in how words are used in different contexts.

That said you're probably right that Dawn does not contain any soap in a technical sense. But according to the FDA that doesn't mean they can't use the word soap on their label. And it certainly doesn't prevent common usage of that term. My guess is that's what most people call it: dish soap.

 

[pinball1970]

Or baby powder!

Which is absolutely not powdered baby.

My guess is that's what most people call it: dish soap.

General population know what certain things do via the name on products and as illustrated it is pretty loose.
Industry names (some) things in a weird way too, like drugs, what it does rather than what it is or just generic.
Soap is generic and has a function in context.

 

[DaveC426913]

Some years back I used the phrase "that begs the question" only to have the person I was having a discussion with tell me I was using the phrase incorrectly. He was wed to the original use of that phrase, unaware that its meaning had evolved to include the way I was using it.

[ digression ]
That phrase drives me crazy too. It does not mean what most people use it for.
And yet I still have to strangle myself to avoid using it the wrong way.

IOW: in principle I side with your opponent; in practice I side with you.
[ /digression ]

 

[JT Smith]

[ digression ]
That phrase drives me crazy too. It does not mean what most people use it for.
And yet I still have to strangle myself to avoid using it the wrong way.
[ /digression ]

I'm not 100% sure what "wrong way" you're talking about but most people, myself included, use it to mean that it prompts a question. Wikipedia refers to that as "[c]olloquial misuse of the phrase". But this usage is at least sixty years old and many dictionaries recognize it now. That's how language works, at least outside of France. Of course there are always those who resist change. They eventually die.

 

[DaveE]

I'll propose a "Don Quixote Award" for people that excel in trying to control how language evolves and its common usage. Go for it! Fix language! Fight the good fight! Unfortunately I gave up long ago. Being weak of character, I can't help. I think "irregardless" was my Waterloo.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I can't help it. I keep thinking of Monty Python's Golden Age of Ballooning. "It is not a balloon! It is an airship you Saxon git! Balloons is for die kiddiewinkies!"

 

[DaveC426913]

I'll propose a "Don Quixote Award" for people that excel in trying to control how language evolves and its common usage. Go for it! Fix language! Fight the good fight! Unfortunately I gave up long ago. Being weak of character, I can't help. I think "irregardless" was my Waterloo.

Communication is a two way street. Those busy changing it are just as "trying to control it" as those busy not changing it.

How many does it take?
If I start asserting that "red is blue" how many do I have to get behind me before you can't tell me I'm wrong anymore?


I'm having a heated discussion over on another forum about the uses of the word "theory".

A lot of people prefer to think of a theory as just some ideas some scientists like, and that, say, the Atomic Theory of Matter is "just a theory" and that evolution is "just a theory", and so might as likely be wrong as right. We all OK with that "change"?

 

[dwarde]

Don't get confused and do this.

 

[symbolipoint]

Of course there are always those who resist change. They eventually die.

And so does everyone else.

 

[symbolipoint]

Post #31
Reaction: I am not sure if I "Like" it, or is it "Informative". I gave a "Like".

 

[JT Smith]

And so does everyone else.

Of course but the point is that the objections of a minority die along with the people.