Banned in Europe, allowed in USAPosted by Belassi on July 12, 2017 at 3:28 pm
- I wish I had known this before I caused nasty problems to my two dogs by using a shampoo made by US manufacturer, Harz. WHY is Harz using such vile preservatives and WHY has the US FDA not banned them yet?
MemberJuly 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.
MemberJuly 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
MemberJuly 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.
MemberJuly 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
MemberJuly 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.
MemberJuly 16, 2017 at 9:23 pm
I have no idea what percentage Hartz are using.
MemberJuly 17, 2017 at 7:07 am
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.
MemberJuly 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.
MemberJuly 17, 2017 at 3:20 pm
The US FDA does not regulate pet products.
MemberJuly 17, 2017 at 3:37 pm
If the FDA doesn’t regulate pet products, then who does?
MemberJuly 17, 2017 at 4:03 pm
From the FDA…
“Animal Grooming AidsThe 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.
MemberJuly 17, 2017 at 4:34 pm
I don’t think there are any regulations in the US.
Words fail me. Absolutely incredible.
MemberJuly 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.
MemberJuly 18, 2017 at 3:04 pm
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
MemberJuly 18, 2017 at 4:57 pm
Not surprised by that either! I have commented previously about glucosides causing skin eruptions.
MemberJuly 18, 2017 at 5:45 pm
@Doreen81 allowed MIT level in rinse-off has very recently been decreased to
MemberJuly 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
MemberJuly 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!
MemberJuly 19, 2017 at 7:23 pm
MemberJuly 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.
MemberJuly 19, 2017 at 11:30 pm
and countless complaints here. Honestly I feel like I want to punch whoever formulated Hartz’s shampoo in the face.
MemberJuly 20, 2017 at 11:27 pm
That’s understandable. Especially when their website touts pet health and safety as a core company value.
MemberSeptember 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
Log in to reply.