In my ever increasing pursuit to be green and live organically [ don’t read vegan(ly) ] my wife and I have been doing some research on Glycerin. Originally derrived from animal fat, now it can be synthesized from palm oils et al, I was wondering: If glycerin is found in just about all lotions, soaps, cosmetics, some foods, is it in fact bad for you. To define bad: Harmful in large quantities, not good for optimum health, pore clogging… But won’t kill you.
Anyone have the dope on glycerin?
Glycerin contains carbon and is thus organic. I think it’s clear and colorless however, not green. Maybe you can add some dye to it.
FWIW, I have never, ever heard anybody say that glycerin was “bad” for you.
In cosmetics, it’s not a chemical that your body’s skin is going to absorb and process the way it would process, say, hydrocortisone cream; the fanatic all-natural soapmakers are fine with it, and put it in their soaps; it even occurs naturallyin old-fashioned handmade lye soap.
Chemically it’s an alcohol, so it is not harmful in food. It is digested like any other carbohydrate. And actually, the process of digestion itself breaks down fats into fatty acids and glycerol, said smaller molecules being then utilized by the cells. (The Wiki article has more of the abstruse metabolism details of this.) I therefore infer that the human system does not find the presence of glycerol to be “bad”.
If you’re visualizing it in its natural state as something like paraffin or the various non-toxic waxes that are found in cosmetics and food, and thus you are assuming that it must be indigestible and/or non-utilizable and thus vaguely “bad”, this is not correct. It’s a clear, sweet, syrupy substance.
Unless you have vegan issues, don’t worry about it.
There’s the answer I was looking for. Thanx!!
Um…prussic acid (a.k.a. cyanide) also contains carbon and is thus organic.
And, er, so does strychnine.
And LSD.
And thalidomide.
As a matter of fact, just about every food and medicine you can name on Planet Earth, except for mineral supplements, has carbon in it.
So saying that a chemical substance “has carbon” in it and is thus “organic” is meaningless.
Just sayin’. 
ETA:
You’re welcome. 
I suspect that your intestinal flora would have themselves quite a party if you were to chug a pint of the stuff. It is possible to OD on glycerol, find out how for $34.95, but I don’t think that’s much concern in the context of this thread.
While glycerin is safe, the use of diethylene glycol as a glycerin counterfeit remains a problem in some parts of the world. NYT article on the subject (free registration required).
That giant whooshing noise you hear has CO2 in it and is organic as well.
The point is that “organic” as used in the hippy/new age/green community has virtually no meaning. That is especially true when you apply it to something like glycerin which is just a freekin chemical compound. It’s as though there were some homeopathic-like “magic” that went along with it to remember if it came from a “natural” (another word I hate) source.
Whooshes can be hard to distinguish from cluelessness in the context and ambience of General Questions.
I undertand that the nitro version is best avoided. 
CO2 is not an organic compound. Just because something contains carbon and heteroatoms does not mean it’s organic. You can look it up.
To be chemically defined as organic a molecule needs to have Carbon bonded to hydrogen.
CO2 is not organic, but CH4 is.
methane… do zombies fart?
This should take up more than 50% of your fear of glycerin: is inhaling lots of vaporized glycerin safe?
Ugh. Not enough BANNED users to clue me in!
Let’s define organic to be a product of biological activity. That’s the more telling part. Carbon content is not an absolute requirement. Aspirated oxygen and carbon dioxide gas are both organic, so is hydrogen sulphide. Carbon dioxide from volcanoes and hydrothermal vents is inorganic in origin. Ethyl alcohol is organic. Isopropyl alcohol, errrmmm… I guess it’s organic.
I’ve always thought of Glycerin as a sweetener. A sugar alcohol that is not metabolized by the body, so the calories aren’t absorbed during digestion. Too much and you’ll get diarrhea; just like any other sugar alcohol. Am I wrong here?
Of course it is metabolized, and is calorific. It is a component of triglycerides, i.e., regular fats. When you digest fat you are digesting glycerin (glycerol) too. Incidentally, vegetable fats are also mostly triglycerides, so vegan glycerin is certainly a possibility (though whether the stuff that is actually available is for vegetable or animal sources, or both, I don’t know).
By the same token, of course it is harmless (in sensible quantities) because it is a normal human metabolite. If your body ever burns fat (and it does, no matter what your diet is, and no matter how skinny you are), it has glycerol in it.
Other sugar alcohols are digested and calorific too. Have you never noticed that sugarless gum, sweetened with sorbitol, or whatever, carries a disclaimer such as “Not non-caloric” on the package? It still makes you fat. It just doesn’t rot your teeth as much as sucrose does.
Well you can make up your own definitions if you like, if you don’t care whether people understand you. However, that is not what organic means to chemists.
What about CCl[sub]4[/sub]? Isn’t that normally considered organic. I thought the usual definition was just “carbon compounds except for CO[sub]2[/sub] and the carbonate ion (and perhaps the cyanide ion too)”. (Ruling those out is sort of arbitrary, but makes sense in terms of what carbonate chemistry, and cyanide chemistry, is like. They behave like normal inorganic anions.)
Another suggestion is that to be organic a compound must contain C-C bonds. This is neat, and makes good chemical sense except that it rules out methane (and related compounds like methanol and formic acid), which most people intuitively feel ought to be organic.
The truth is, “organic” is not a very precise term, even within chemistry, and it does not need to be.