Help refuting the lunacy that is Leucidal.

In my tiny effort to help make the world a safer place, I give a little of my time on a mommy blogger site, trying to help them make safer products.  Of course, they gravitate to the worst possible preservatives, like moths to a flame.  (Usually Leucidal type.)  It seems like the worse the concept...the more they are attracted.

It has become time consuming and tedious to try and type a new response every time this issue comes up.  Does anyone have a link to a well-done article that exposes the lunacy, and basic chemistry failures of this kind of preservative system...Where I can just paste in a link...and be done?

It would also be nice...if it discussed the adulteration that goes on with this product as well.

Aloha

Comments

  • PhilGeisPhilGeis Member, Professional formulator
    edited April 7
    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf5063588
    Article reports the stuff is fake - as GSE.  It's a reputable journal but I'm not aware of others reporting this subsequently.

    I spoke to the Leucidal guy about it - he claimed it was BS from a competitor but refused my challenge to publish a technically-based defense.  I know the journal would have done it.
  • Thank you for the response @PhilGeis.  It seems like they are relying heavily on Salicylic acid as part of their preservative.

    I have not worked with SA...but seems to be an ingredient that if not handled just right...likes to precipitate out?  So, most of the users of leucidal don't own a pH meter.  So, would it be a stretch to think...lots of times the SA will not even function (or will have precipitated out) due to the lack of creating a formula that will keep the SA happy?

    Aloha.

    Hehehe.... @Perry ... can you make me a GIF from Mark's last Q & A... Where he says.... not only don't use it...but don't buy ANYTHING from that company.  I think that would be absolutely priceless.
  • @PhilGeis thanks for that link! Fascinating information. Do you happen to know if AMT owns Formulator Sample Shop? They have a link to them at the bottom of the website, they are located in the same city in N. Carolina, and FSS pushes a lot of the AMT ferments! Maybe just a coincidence but it seemed too suspicious. 
  • PhilGeisPhilGeis Member, Professional formulator
    Sure don't know that Matt.  But you're right - looks like the only preservatives they sell are AMT's

    I was surprised at the article - and that they didn't refute it as the Leucidal guy seemed reasonable.

    Graillotion -I understand Leucidal is sold with and without sal acid.  Think the with gives better efficacy vs fungi.
  • SylSyl Member
    edited April 7
    @MattTheChemist, you are right, it is more than a circumstance. A LinkedIn search reveals a family business; Ivar Malmstrom is Chairman, and Susanne Malmstrom is VP of Active Concepts which owns Active Micro Technologies.

    Brett Malmstrom is Sales Manager, and Maggie Ghanem is Manager at Sample Formulator Shop, both previously worked at Active Concepts. There is no connection on LinkedIn between the 2 companies, but the people are connected.
    Active Concept has an interesting history.
    http://https//www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=2:02-cv-03148-JAP-MCA&s=NJ&d=27527

    https//www.cosmeticsdesign.com/Article/2006/07/04/New-Jersey-cosmetic-companies-battle-over-trade-secrets#

  • Syl said:
    @MattTheChemist, you are right, it is more than a circumstance. A LinkedIn search reveals a family business; Ivar Malmstrom is Chairman, and Susanne Malmstrom is VP of Active Concepts which owns Active Micro Technologies.

    Brett Malmstrom is Sales Manager, and Maggie Ghanem is Manager at Sample Formulator Shop, both previously worked at Active Concepts. There is no connection on LinkedIn between the 2 companies, but the people are connected.
    Active Concept has an interesting history.
    http://https//www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=2:02-cv-03148-JAP-MCA&s=NJ&d=27527

    https//www.cosmeticsdesign.com/Article/2006/07/04/New-Jersey-cosmetic-companies-battle-over-trade-secrets#

    I could not get your links to open.  I would really like to read those. 

    Thank You.
  • SylSyl Member
    https://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=2:02-cv-03148-JAP-MCA&s=NJ&d=27527

    Date: 03-08-2004

    Case Style: Arch Personal Care Products, L.P. v. Brooks Industries, Inc., et al.

    Case Number: 2:02-cv-03148-JAP-MCA

    Judge: Joel A. Pisano

    Court: United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

    Plaintiff's Attorney: Joseph A. Boyle of Kelley, Drye & Warren, L.L.P., Parsippany, New Jersey

    Defendant's Attorney: Walter John Fleischer, Jr. of Drinker, Biddle & Shanley, L.L.P., Florham, New Jersey

    Description:

    Arch Personal Care Products announced that a jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has awarded it approximately $7 million in damages after finding, among other things, that Ivar Malmstrom, Jr., had breached his non-compete obligations to Arch Personal Care Products. Mr. Malmstrom undertook these obligations in connection with Arch's November 2000 purchase of the personal care intermediates business of Brooks Industries. Mr. Malmstrom had been co-owner and president of Brooks.

    The jury found that Mr. Malmstrom had assisted in the creation of, provided funding to, and was participating in the business activities of Active Concepts, a company formed shortly after Arch's acquisition of the Brooks business. The jury also found that Mr. Malmstrom violated federal trademark law, and that he and Active Concepts had infringed on Arch's TRF(TM) trademark.

    In addition, the jury found that certain asset transfers by Mr. Malmstrom to his wife violated New Jersey's Fraudulent Transfer Act. Judge Joel Pisano has enjoined the Malmstroms from transferring or encumbering these assets and has appointed a receiver to take charge of the assets.

    Judge Pisano had previously found that Mr. Malmstrom's assistance to Active Concepts constituted contempt of two Court Orders issued in July 2002 that enjoined Mr. Malmstrom from competing against Arch Personal Care. An award of sanctions against Mr. Malmstrom in connection with the contempt finding is expected shortly.

    Arch Personal Care also has a New Jersey state court case pending against Active Concepts and several former Brooks' employees asserting misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims.

    Defendants have thirty days from the entry of a judgment to appeal.

    Arch Personal Care Products, L.P., which is headquartered in South Plainfield, New Jersey, is a business unit within the Treatment Products business segment of Arch Chemicals, Inc. It develops and sells active ingredients to both the skin and hair care segments of the cosmetic and toiletries industries.

    Headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut, Arch Chemicals, Inc. (NYSE:ARJ) is a global specialty chemicals company with $1 billion in annual sales. Together with its subsidiaries, Arch has 3,000 employees and manufacturing and customer support centers in North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Africa. Arch and its subsidiaries have leadership positions in three business segments -- Treatment Products, Microelectronic Materials and Performance Products -- and they serve leading customers in these markets with forward-looking solutions to meet their chemical needs. For more information, visit www.archchemicals.com.

    Except for historical information contained herein, the information set forth in this communication contains forward-looking statements that are based on management's beliefs, certain assumptions made by management and management's current expectations, estimates and projections about the markets and economy in which Arch and its various businesses operate. Words such as "anticipates," "believes," "estimates," "expects," "forecasts," "opines," "plans," "predicts," "projects," "should," "targets," "will," and variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions ("Future Factors"), which are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expected or forecasted in such forward-looking statements. The Company undertakes no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of future events, new information or otherwise. Future Factors which could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed include but are not limited to: general economic and business and market conditions; lack of economic recovery in 2004 in the U.S.; lack of moderate growth or recession in European economies; increases in interest rates; economic conditions in Asia; worsening economic and political conditions in Venezuela; strengthening of the U.S. dollar against foreign currencies; customer acceptance of new products; efficacy of new technology; changes in U.S. laws and regulations; increased competitive and/or customer pressure; the Company's ability to maintain chemical price increases; higher-than-expected raw material costs for certain chemical product lines; increased foreign competition in the calcium hypochlorite markets; lack of continued recovery in the semiconductor industry; unfavorable court, arbitration or jury decisions; the supply/demand balance for the Company's products, including the impact of excess industry capacity; failure to achieve targeted cost-reduction programs; unsuccessful entry into new markets for electronic chemicals; capital expenditures in excess of those scheduled; environmental costs in excess of those projected; the occurrence of unexpected manufacturing interruptions/outages at customer or company plants; reduction in expected government contract orders and/or the failure to renew or extend the U.S. government contract for hydrazine propellants; unfavorable weather conditions for swimming pool use; inability to expand sales in the professional pool dealer market; and gains or losses on derivative instruments.

    Outcome: Plaintiff's verdict for $7 million.

    Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown


  • SylSyl Member
    edited April 8
    In 2006 the verdict was overturned, see article below. I am not allowed to copy and paste this article, but if you google Ivar Malmstrom all the info will pop up.  Arch Chemicals is now owned by Lonza.
    https://www.cosmeticsdesign.com/Article/2006/07/04/New-Jersey-cosmetic-companies-battle-over-trade-secrets
  • @Syl seems like no industry is immune to drama! Thanks for sharing. 
  • SylSyl Member
    @MattTheChemist you are so right!
  • PhilGeisPhilGeis Member, Professional formulator
    Arch was acquired by Lonza (now Arxada) back in 2011.  More recently, they acquired  Troy.  With Lanxess (recently picked up Emerald Kamala and the former Dow Microbial Control), Arxada has the technical and marketing potential to develop new preservatives.  Not much faith in Lanxess.  Pal at Arxada promises they'll try.   
    Failing their effort - were stuck with the (not really) natural, (not really) broad spectrum combinations and the occasional natural eye of newt as the scare mongers erode our shrinking list of good ones. .

    Hope folks see to manufacturing hygiene - consumer contamination be damned.
  • Not specific to Leucidal but Labmuffin has an amazing video basically debunking "natural skincare." I send it to everyone. She features a toxicologist in the video as well.

Sign In or Register to comment.