-
Why is behentrimonium chloride ok but behentrimonium methosulfate not according to Whole Foods?
Hi, it seems that the Whole Foods Premium Body Care Standards prohibit behentrimonium methosulfate, but allow behentrimonium chloride (they use it in their 365 EVERYDAY VALUE FRAGRANCE FREE SHAMPOO AND CONDITIONER). Yet, the ewg.org rating for the chloride is 3 and for the methosulfate is 1.
https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredient/700657/BEHENTRIMONIUM_CHLORIDE/
https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredient/700658/BEHENTRIMONIUM_METHOSULFATE/
Does anyone happen to know why they made this choice?
Perhaps they are concerned about the butylene glycol in BTMS-50. However, behentrimonium methosulfate is available without it in BTMS-25.
It seems there is more research available for behentrimonium chloride than behentrimonium methosulfate:
http://online.personalcarecouncil.org/ctfa-static/online/lists/cir-pdfs/pr572.pdf
Would a high percentage of behentrimonium chloride/behentrimonium methosulfate in a conditioner bar concerning to you?:
http://swiftcraftymonkey.blogspot.com/2010/06/conditioners-solid-conditioner-bars.htmlThe research suggests that concentration is an important factor in safety.
Thank you!,
John -
16 Replies
-
The list of Whole Foods Premium Body Care Standards unacceptable ingredients:
https://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/premium-body-care-unacceptable-ingredients
-
Please don’t use the EWG as a source on here. The flaws of their database are numerous and have been covered at length. There are far better sources.
-
Mentioning EWG is like muttering “double trouble stir and bubble” and waving your arms about.
-
There are a few posts in the blog section of this website that point out the flaws in the Whole Foods Unacceptable List that might be of interest to you.
Basically the list is far from scientific and as far as formulating goes if the list doesn’t have the chloride form of the ingredient on the list just use that instead.
-
Thanks for the responses. @ozgirl yes, I read the Whole Foods posts, was hoping someone might have some insight into potential reasons they might prefer one of these common conditioner ingredients over the other - some knowledge of their own regarding these two chemicals.
The research on behentrimonium chloride points to eye irritation, and tech support from ingredientstodiefor.com says that ‘That material has a really high eye irritation level’ (they carry BTMS-25). However, it could be that benehentrimonium methosulfate may be irritating as well, but there just haven’t been studies done on it.
I’m not concerned at the moment with conforming to the Whole Foods standards, I’m mostly concerned about creating the safest product.
-
For others deciding between these when formulating:
EU restricts behentrimonium chloride but not the methosulfate version:
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details_v2&id=32112
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details_v2&id=74588
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R1223
-
@Belassi I couldn’t have said it better.
-
If you are looking for more valid safety data, try the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (http://www.cir-safety.org/).
-
I heard from someone at Whole Foods (not mentioning names) that a good chunk of their list was determined by a group of people in a conference room examining a selection of products they didn’t want in their stores. The ingredients used in those products went directly on their list. That’s why there are a number of ingredients on their list with incorrect INCI names - they came directly off product labels.
-
@Bobzchemist is right. The list of unacceptable ingredients was not arrived at through any scientific evaluation of data. They didn’t really even have cosmetic scientists involved in making the list.
The most simple answer to why Behentrimonium Chloride is acceptable is because it was already present in their house brand and they didn’t want to reformulate.
-
I wish I could debunk what Perry and Bob have said, but sadly I can’t.
I work with many starting lines and hence get challenged to meet these WF standards quite a bit. My take away has been that outside of their websites, WF’s doesn’t do a great job in the stores promoting their more selective tiers (Premium). In the end, my clients are finding that meeting the basic requirements and getting physically on to the WF shelves is endorsement enough and easier to achieve.
-
Interesting responses!
@Microformulation I should have noted that the research I was referring to regarding behentrimonium chloride/methosulfate is that found in a review of the research sponsored by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review:
http://online.personalcarecouncil.org/ctfa-static/online/lists/cir-pdfs/pr572.pdf
Thanks for the insight into the value of meeting the basic requirements vs the premium standards. I agree that as a consumer I don’t notice the difference and that getting in stores by meeting basic requirements is enough.
-
This research/review seems to be where the view that behentrimonium chloride is highly irritating to the eyes stems from:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5j6vz7v9y0en4e3/Screenshot%202016-08-30%2011.33.27.png?dl=0
Unfortunately in this review, there isn’t much research on behentrimonium methosulfate. I’ve only been able to find unsubstantiated claims that it is very mild and safe, for example:
http://www.getsimplifica.com/behentrimonium-methosulfate/
https://www.truthinaging.com/ingredients/behentrimonium-methosulfate
-
I am confused about their list. Lately, I am seeing behentrimonium methosulfate and other ingredients like propylene glycol, on products at my local store. I’ve also seen Alba Botanical’s Acne dot products, which contain salicylic acid as an active ingredient. I thought these ingredients were on their unaccepted list.
-
That just means the product won’t be put in their Premium Beauty aisle.
-
As has already been stated above in other ways, EWG is garbage. They are overzealous creators of panick. Every time a news article or news station mentions them as a source of their information, I message them on why they need to stop quoting them if they want to be taken seriously. EWG often gives a score when they state that no information or data has been found and there are many with data not available but one ingredient has a rating of 1 and another a 5. Why would you rate an ingredient when you know nothing about it? They also don’t state sources so that you can judge where they get their info when they state it is available.<div>
</div><div>As far as your mention on the Swift Crafty Monkey, it’s important that you realize this is more of a hobbyist site and not a good source of scholastic-level information. The site has much more knowledge than your average DIY site, but is also missing a lot of information, understanding, and knowledge. There are many things mentioned on that site that need to be updated, and lots of errors as far as saying a preservative is anionic on one page and cationic on another. I don’t recommend this site for making products to sell. There are many ingredient interactions missed in the advice given and an oversimplification in many recipes which is a recipe for disaster (no pun intended). DIY for personal use is less of an issue and this site is a good beginners site for this very thing, because it is more informative than most, but you can see a big difference in the information and advice given for SCM vs advice given from people with degrees in chemistry and biology. Especially seen in suggestions in how to formulate many products.</div>Whole Foods Market is also a company that, unfortunately, seems to follow the EWG in its vast misinformation and demonization of certain ingredients while allowing others that don’t make sense.
<div>I’d advise taking a look at what you want your demographic to be. If you want to attract people who are easily susceptible to fear mongering, then use EWG as a reference for your ingredients. But if you want to be industry-savvy, you’ll want to go with mentors in the field and not these websites designed for the uneducated in cosmetic formulation.</div><div>
</div>
Log in to reply.