Are you a formula minimalist or maximalist?
Perry
Administrator, Professional Chemist
in Formulating
I see a number of formula questions on the forum where people post a formula that contains over a dozen ingredients, many of which do the same things. I personally believe in minimalism and think there are good reasons why people should use fewer ingredients when formulating.
But perhaps I'm an outlier.
Are you a formula minimalist or maximalist? Do you favor using fewer ingredients more more? Why?
But perhaps I'm an outlier.
Are you a formula minimalist or maximalist? Do you favor using fewer ingredients more more? Why?
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Latest Q&A session
Forum Instructions
Categories
In this Discussion
Comments
Now, I would say I try to be more of a minamalist. I like the idea of the "10 ingredients or less" concept and try to follow it when I can. My most recent shampoo formula was only 8 ingredients, while my hair gel was only 6.
I don't think you are an outlier. This is becoming increasingly popular with brands like Native using their small number of ingredients as a marketing technique on their product labels.
At the moment, I am minimalist with extras. Have formula with necessary ingredients and only improving it by a hero ingredient/s and marketing ingredient. Although I do feel like I am cheating my customers. So I am not really crazy about my product story. And thanks to you Perry, many ingredients (Panthenol etc) I am using at low inputs and letting other (well proven) ingredients work the wonders
be truly incredible and, at least so far, stable (polymers are wonderful things, I'm learning). It actually completely fixed this dry patch on my face i’ve had for about a year now that nothing else i put on it would! I have no way of knowing which ingredient(s) is working the magic there so i’m just gonna keep it exactly how it is.
@Microformulation what is your definition of overly complicated and why are these unrealistic at scale?
Been there! I was known for getting Formulations rejected with the simple Marketing comment, "The ingredient list is too short."
What Microformulation mentioned about the MOQ / billing of ingredients is something i consider as well. If my product comes to market in the future, i do still have buffer for "fluff" but i believe i've considered my functional ingredients already have marketing potential since it's part of the evaluation.
maximalist uses ingredients that he doesn't know what is the benefit of adding it over not adding it.
Usually everyone uneducated or new are maximalist. They do a Google search, read about the benefits of 30 ingredients, believe all those information is true, and now want to combine all those benefits in one product.
That is how i was.
@ngarayeva001 - From a professional standpoint the reality is that you don't actually want to be a minimalist at the start of a project. This is specifically because you know that after a product is on the market for a year or so, the Marketing / Purchasing department is going to ask you to make the formula less expensive.
If you spend all your time optimizing up front, you won't have any "cost savings" opportunities later down the road. So, I often advise new formulators that they shouldn't try to optimize formulas up front.
I'd also add that the process you describe does not really violate the "minimalism" philosophy. Using 2 humectants to offset the stickiness of Glycerin is just smart formulating.
The things that make no sense to me is when someone does something like putting in 5 different natural oils that all have essentially the same fatty acid distribution. Or putting in 3 different antioxidants or using multiple plant extracts.
I always find it interesting consumer's/client's perception of the performance of a product based on their perception of what ingredients are included in the formula. Often, in evaluating a prototype, a client will find the sample containing ingredient X, more moisturizing, for instance regardless of the amount of ingredient X in the product, or if they just think ingredient X has been added to the product when it hasn't been. Consumers often infer performance attributes to a product based on what ingredients they think are in the product. In reality, beyond a certain level of base performance, consumer's can't tell the difference, they only infer enhanced performance based on the LOI.
See website for details www.desertinbloomcosmeticslab.com
Perry, you saying that you’re confused by people who use multiple plants extracts, antioxidants, and natural oils (with similar fatty acid profiles). I do all of these things 🤪, well the oils I try to make a list of all that would be beneficial for the skin type/condition I am formulating for and then select ones with various profiles. As for the extracts, they too have so many different benefits, so combining to make a more comprehensive product, and as far as antioxidants, I thought that combinations improved that performance of each other. I am very curious to hear if and why my understanding is flawed.
I feel like I and my clients are getting great results. I feel like where I am seriously lacking is my understanding of emulsifiers. When I started, I made all lotions, face and body with Olivem 1000, with XG, with the addition of BTMS-50 in body. In serums, pretty much just Aristoflex, Polymuse and Siligel. Everything starts to feel the same, and don’t love the “soaping” of the Olivem. I don’t like the stickiness of XG, or the serums ( I am also using HMW HA) which I know has that profile as well.
I have been playing now with Eumulgin SG (with GMS) without much success in lower percentages for thinner products, I’ve also added 6% Olivem 1000 with that, it separated. I’ve used Oliwax, Oliwax LC, and Ceteryl Alcohol as thickeners. I’m just not really having any success with these. I would like to work on combinations or different emulsifiers, but this is where my lack of education is getting me. Any thoughts or advice would be so greatly appreciated. If any of this even makes sense to a professional 😂
cheers! Ellie
like I said, I’m new. I was just reading the COC and I will revise and ask questions appropriately. I am really excited to be here.
Just a few comments in response to yours...
"As for the extracts, they too have so many different benefits, so combining to make a more comprehensive product"
This is where a lack of understanding of ingredients can steer you wrong. Extracts really don't do anything. In fact, most of the extracts you buy are mostly glycerin, propylene glycol, or water. There's only a tiny amount of any plant material in them. In fact, if the company who supplied them just made brown colored water, you would have no way of knowing. They truly are useless ingredients in terms of performance. They are GREAT for building a story around & they help sell products.
But I would be willing to bet that if I took your formulas and replaced all the extracts with a solution of brown water, you would not be able to tell a difference.
"...as far as antioxidants, I thought that combinations improved that performance of each other."
You have to understand why antioxidants are used and what they are doing in a formula. In a formula or on the skin surface, certain molecules might develop into a free radical. This just means it has a lone electron. It's an unstable situation and can cause a bunch of other chemical reactions that can damage skin. An antioxidant is able to interact with these free radicals and stop the chemical reactions. Having multiple antioxidants is not going help in topically applied products. It's simply a story marketers tell to sell product. It doesn't actually happen.
"Focusing on actives and ingredients that fall in the 1-2 safety (ewg)."
The EWG is not a reliable source of information. Their rating system is just a fairy tale and tells you next to nothing about whether an ingredient is safe or not. They do a good job of looking official but they are not professional toxicologists or have any special ability to rate ingredients. A better source is https://cir-safety.org
Great! This is the whole point of cosmetic products. But whether people feel they get great results tells us nothing about whether a formula is working or not. People easily fool themselves. If you spent lots of money on a product, most people will instinctively believe that it works better. It could be the exact same product but our brains are programmed to believe higher cost means it's better. On a blinded basis this can be shown to be false.
If you want to really learn formulating, you have to understand that most of what you "know" about skin care is inaccurate. Beyond moisturizing and exfoliation, there isn't much we can do for skin with topical treatments. And on a blinded basis people really aren't good at noticing differences.
Once you commit yourself to really wanting to know what is provably true, then you can start to discover what things really make a difference. And when you discover that raw material suppliers are marketers who make up stories to sell ingredients, you'll be better equipped to know what ingredients matter and which ones don't.
I guess the point is not that extracts do nothing (although most don’t), it’s that there are superior, less expensive options.
Thanks!
I work as a chemist for a contract manufacturer and can 100% agree with what Microformulation said:
It has become increasingly difficult to educate brands on why a minimalist approach to formulations is better. Everyone claims to be an expert and wants us formulate as per their understanding of materials...which sometimes is absolute nonsense! I have had people come to me with articles (Not scientific, mind you) with the expectation that we can replicate their idea of 'Natura' cosmetics with unrealistic formulas.
The 'Ingredient list is too small thus must be inefficient' is an argument I have had too many times. We usually end up having to procure large MOQs of unnecessary materials that do absolutely nothing in terms of product experience. It is painful sitting on 200kgs of inventory of a material that we only need to use 1kg of (that too an unnecessary addition).
One thing that has helped me close many of these problematic brands is by adding extract blends (usually 5-8 in one blend) at minimal concentrations just to make the ingredient deck more attractive. 4 out of 5 times that helps ease their mind.
Another thing that has helped is withholding the ingredient deck until they physically try the sample. This is also helpful because they test the product with an open mind. Previously we used to share it as soon as the sample was sent out but that always resulted in these conversations.
Once again, happy that I am not the only one suffering! Misery loves company!
A good way to resolve this problem is to charge the client upfront for the MOQ of a superfluous, non-stock, label ingredient ... Say the ingredient supplier's MOQ for an extract of dubious efficacy is 20KG, but you will only need to use 1KG in the production run. Charge the client upfront for the entire 20KG as a separate line item. Usually when you explain the cost/benefit of the inclusion of a particular ingredient, in particular label ingredients, the client having to pay for it upfront usually gives them a different perspective on the investment.
See website for details www.desertinbloomcosmeticslab.com
It is easier to convince new clients to abide by this but asking existing clients is like banging your head into a wall.
Extracts have usually only 1 year shelf life. They can be sent for re-testing, then this date will be extended, but you cannot be sure. At worst, they will buy 20 kg every year, pay for 20 kg, and throw away 19 kg.