Home Cosmetic Science Talk Formulating Skin Banned in Europe, allowed in USA

  • microformulation

    Member
    July 12, 2017 at 5:46 pm

    I generally avoid non-technical terms such as “vile” and “nasty” when discussing raw materials, but that is just my opinion. not a hard fast rule.

    I believe that you will see that MIT/MCT combinations became more common as the bias against parabens grew. While these combinations can be used properly, they were never a go to system for me.

  • bill_toge

    Member
    July 12, 2017 at 7:46 pm

    they are still permitted in Europe, but they’re restricted to rinse-off products only - this is the status they had before the limit for MIT was increased, and the scope of usage was widened, in 2005

  • doreen

    Member
    July 12, 2017 at 9:29 pm

    they are still permitted in Europe, but they’re restricted to rinse-off products only 

    True, cosmetics manufacturers, joined in Cosmetics Europe, voluntarily decided to ban MIT in (leave on) skin care products and wet wipes. Dermatologists had a great influence in this decision.
    MIT is used in a lot of rinse-off products here. In a concentration up to 0,01% is allowed.

  • ozgirl

    Member
    July 14, 2017 at 12:37 am

    This preservative is used in most of the major shampoo, conditioner and hand wash products in Australia. It is also used in many dish washing liquids and cleaning formulations as it is cheap and works well at low concentrations.

    It still appears on the list of allowed preservatives in Europe. http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/cosing/pdf/COSING_Annex%20V_v2.pdf

  • belassi

    Member
    July 14, 2017 at 3:01 am

    It has had horrendous effects on my poor dogs and cost me a lot of money in vets bills, and the problem is only gradually improving. This in my opinion is a very dangerous skin sensitizing preservative and should be banned completely. Note that this was in a rinse-off (shampoo) application, the manufacturer was Hartz, it wasn’t something I made. Please also note that if you Google consumer complaints about Hartz, you will see a LOT of consumer aggravation. Also Facebook groups about this.

  • doreen

    Member
    July 16, 2017 at 9:07 pm

    @ozgirl
    I see there’s nothing about MIT being restricted in leave-on products, though it is a recent list. Strange. Maybe due to the forementioned voluntary decision?

    @Belassi
    Do you know the % in the Hartz product?

  • belassi

    Member
    July 16, 2017 at 9:23 pm

    I have no idea what percentage Hartz are using.

  • doreen

    Member
    July 17, 2017 at 7:07 am

    @Belassi
    The strange thing about the links in your first post: the article is brand new, but regarding MIT it refers to an old journal of the European Union (2009), which shows restrictions indeed. The recent one from 2017, however, shows no restrictions at all and just names MIT as an accepted preservative.

    ^ I didn’t read the second part of Bill’s answer well enough, I assumed the restrictions were still valid.

    How are your dogs doing at the moment? I hope the improvement you mentioned has been speeding up.

  • belassi

    Member
    July 17, 2017 at 2:27 pm

    The dogs are slowly improving but I am still getting outbreaks on one of them. I don’t know how Hartz can sell such a product, there are gazillions of complaints about them.

  • oldperry

    Member
    July 17, 2017 at 3:20 pm

    The US FDA does not regulate pet products.

  • belassi

    Member
    July 17, 2017 at 3:37 pm

    If the FDA doesn’t regulate pet products, then who does?

  • oldperry

    Member
    July 17, 2017 at 4:03 pm

    From the FDA…

    “Animal Grooming Aids

    The animal counterpart of a cosmetic is commonly referred to as a “grooming aid.” The Act defines a cosmetic as pertaining only to human use (21 U.S.C. 321(i)). Therefore, products intended for cleansing or promoting attractiveness of animals are not subject to FDA control. However, if such products are intended for any therapeutic purpose or if they are intended to affect the structure or function of the animal, they are subject to regulation as new animal drugs under the Act.”

    The claims are regulated by the FTC & if there are any claims that it is a drug that would fall under the FDA, but for just pet shampoos…I don’t think there are any regulations in the US.

    Relevant article

  • belassi

    Member
    July 17, 2017 at 4:34 pm

    I don’t think there are any regulations in the US.
    Words fail me. Absolutely incredible.

  • oldperry

    Member
    July 17, 2017 at 5:24 pm

    It’s in line with the regulatory philosophy here in the US. We assume that companies are motivated to make safe & effective products. If they make harmful ones, there are lots of lawyers willing to take cases and sue companies. So, if someone is harmed by their product they can get relief in the courts. If there were a huge number of complaints then companies would change. 

    MIT may negatively affect some people but the vast majority of consumers (>95%) are not effected by it. This is likely why it hasn’t been banned.

  • belassi

    Member
    July 18, 2017 at 3:04 pm

    http://www.cir-safety.org/sites/default/files/methylisothiazolinone.pdf
    Fascinating. Thanks for that. The report of 48 hr reactions is EXACTLY what happened to my dogs. I am a writer, so I think I will write some pieces about this and send them to all the major news outlets. Including:
     The methylisothiazolinone has been named “Allergen of the Year” by the American
    Contact Dermatitis Society

  • oldperry

    Member
    July 18, 2017 at 4:18 pm

    Interestingly, this year’s “allergen of the year” is…

    Alkyl Glucoside
      

  • belassi

    Member
    July 18, 2017 at 4:57 pm

    Not surprised by that either! I have commented previously about glucosides causing skin eruptions.

  • david

    Member
    July 18, 2017 at 5:45 pm

    @Doreen81  allowed MIT level in rinse-off has very recently been decreased to
    0,0015% 
    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R1224&from=EN

  • heraklit

    Member
    July 18, 2017 at 8:55 pm

    All “allergens of the year”:

    ACDS Allergens of the Year 

    2016 Cobalt
    2015 Formaldehyde
    2014 Benzophenones
    2013 Methylisothiazolinone
    2012 Acrylate
    2011 Dimethyl fumarate
    2010 Neomycin 
    2009 Mixed dialkyl thiourea
    2008 Nickel
    2007 Fragrance
    2006 p-Phenylenediamine
    2005 Corticosteroids
    2004 Cocamidopropyl betaine
    2003 Bacitracin
    2002 Thimerosal
    2001 Gold
    2000 Disperse Blue Dyes

    https://www.contactderm.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3467

  • zaidjeber

    Member
    July 19, 2017 at 1:40 am

    Shocking to see Neomycin & Corticosteroids as allergens! usually both are API in variety of skin ointments and creams. More shocking its coming from contact dermatitis society! 

  • doreen

    Member
    July 19, 2017 at 7:23 pm

    @David
    Wow, the status has been changed as we speak, this month! Thanks for the link, it was a bit confusing.

    @Belassi
    I’m also astonished how animal health seems irrelevant in this…
    I’m glad to read your dogs are doing better, hopefully they all will fully recover very soon.

  • oldperry

    Member
    July 19, 2017 at 9:16 pm

    @Doreen81 - to be fair I’m sure Hartz has tested their product on dogs and in their view the product is safe for animals to use.  They are a rather large company and would be open to class action lawsuits if they weren’t tested.

    It also wouldn’t make sense for a company to sell a product that harms a significant number of their customer’s pets. 

    I’m sure it happens as these same things happen with cosmetic companies. Safety testing is no guarantee that a consumer (or their pet) won’t have a negative reaction.  It simply gives confidence that it is ok for the vast majority of consumers.

  • belassi

    Member
    July 19, 2017 at 11:30 pm

    http://www.hartzvictims.org/2015/12/27/poison-shampoozodiac/
    and countless complaints here. Honestly I feel like I want to punch whoever formulated Hartz’s shampoo in the face.

  • oldperry

    Member
    July 20, 2017 at 11:27 pm

    That’s understandable.  Especially when their website touts pet health and safety as a core company value.

  • SheilaInBoston

    Member
    September 2, 2017 at 2:30 pm

    Why is glycerin banned in Canada? And allowed in the US?
    And is vegetable based glycerin a lot different? Thx  

Page 1 of 2

Log in to reply.