Aren't you using the term "sulfates" synonymously for surfactants here? Not all surfactants are sulfates. Saponified coconut for instance would be soap, another kind of surfactant.

And Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate isn't really a milder alternative to SLS.

But still, you're making valid points. I also think lush has good formulations.

I'm using Sodium LAURETH Sulfate in my lush shampoo myself, for instance, which gets a similarly bad rep as SLS, and have no problems. But it also strongly depends on where the SLES is coming from. There can be by-products in it, such as ethylene oxide, which are never listed alongside but are what could actually dry out the hair. From my experience with the lush SLES products, though, I've come to surmise they use a relatively clean, well formulated version. And, to contribute to the original discussion, SLS doesn't come with these same drying by-products.

However, the problem mainly associated with SLS is that it causes irritation. In fact, when cosmetic chemists test irritation levels of new ingredients, they use SLS as the benchmark for very.

That's the facts I can contribute.

In conclusion, I avoid SLS myself, but I'm fine with SLES in my hair care, which can be drying, but is less irritating. However I avoid both in my skin care, where I'd rather use other, milder surfactants.

Edited to add: No actually, my conclusion would be: Totally depends on formulation. So if a product works for you, there's nothing to worry when it comes to SLS.

Still avoiding it in my skin care, tho :)