-
Can an at-home mold test detect mold in these cosmetics?
Hi,
I don’t know who else to turn to for this sort of thing, but there is a company (I won’t say their name) that makes pressed glitters without preservatives, they used humectants, which are known to grow mold after a while.
However, recently a lot of people have been posting on Instagram that they suspect their pressed glitter pans might be developing mold. So after a month of abusive posts, lies, and comments from the owner, she decided to buy this mold testing kit called “Healthful Home 5 Minute Mold test” which detects 32 types of mold. She offered this up as proof that her cosmetics are safe and mold-free. I still think it’s a lie to be honest.
If mold were to grow on a preservative-free cosmetic item that used humectants, would one of these types of mold be detected on this mold test? Thank you to whoever can help me with this.
Her original ingredients listing is: Glycerin, Alcohol MAY CONTAIN: Jojoba Oil, Candelilla Wax, Shea Butter, Castor Oil, Polyethylene Terephthalate and Acrylates Copolymer
-
21 Replies
-
I wouldn’t trust it. Any number of commercial labs can run a reliable test for mold. Home mold tests aren’t reliable.
As for this lady, first, what’s she’s selling is flat-out illegal to sell for use on skin in the US. They are misbranded/adulterated and subject to confiscation, recall and destruction for using unapproved colorants. And, her “may contain” section is illegal also. I really hope someone reports her to the FDA and shuts her down quickly.
Second, there’s nothing in that ingredient list to keep mold from growing. This is a massive lawsuit just waiting to happen. If we have any lawyers listening, this lady could literally lose everything she owns, very easily.
-
After a little research, the company mentioned is called Glitter Injections. I can’t find a single thing on their website that is legal to sell in the US as a cosmetic/FDA regulated product.
-
Thank you for your replies, Bobzchemist. I asked about the home mold eat because the owner got on snapchat and did a mold test and seemingly made it look like that her products didn’t have mold and then followed it up with legal threats.
I am working on proving she is lying and that it isn’t possible for home mold tests to detect the specific strain of mold that is found in her cosmetics. In the description, it says it detects over 32 types and I didn’t know if the type that is growing in this makeup is detectable.
-
First, like I said before, what she’s selling is illegal to be sold for use on skin in the US. I can find the regulations if you need them. So, your legal threat trumps any legal threat she might make, big time.
Secondly, she’s making her cakes with an alcohol slurry that is then evaporated, so they are sterile when she’s done. But, because she has no preservatives, they will grow mold and/or bacteria whenever they come in contact with mold. Just because she has no mold on the samples she has in her warehouse doesn’t mean that what she’s sold her customers haven’t grown mold. People have mold spores and bacteria on their fingertips, so mold can grow just from a touch.
As a cosmetic manufacturer (even though she’s selling illegal cosmetics), she has a responsibility to sell a product that will be safe during use, not just something that’s safe until it’s taken out of it’s package.
Whether or not her home mold test can or cannot detect the mold is irrelevant, unless she’s saying that she’s tested samples of potentially moldy products that people have sent back to her. It perfectly possible that what she’s selling is completely uncontaminated - but that’s only the first half of her responsibility. She’s required to sell something that STAYS uncontaminated, even if someone uses dirty/contaminated fingers to apply it.
It’s also possible that some of her products are clean and mold free, and some of them are not. Maybe she was a little sloppy one day. If she does not have a policy of routinely sampling and testing her products for mold and micro contamination at least daily, she’s breaking yet another FDA regulation.
It’s times like these I sort of wish I was a lawyer - this lady could make me so much money if I sued…
-
The sample she did test on snap chat was of a sample someone returned to her. It’s very relevant because she is claiming that this little mold test can be used to test cosmetics. Then she says people went and grabbed mold from the forest to press into their makeup to make get look bad
-
*her look bad
-
Wow, this lady has lost it…
I think the key to confronting her is to say that what she’s using is not designed for cosmetics, and has never been tested on cosmetics, and is therefore invalid and completely useless.
Also, mold “from the forest” is very much different from the common molds known to contaminate cosmetics. Actual valid testing in a real testing laboratory would very quickly be able to tell the difference.
For anyone to take her seriously, she needs to send samples to an independent microbiological testing lab for a plate count. Here’s a list:
http://www.scconline.org/referrals/cat/testing-laboratories/It probably won’t wind up costing her more than $100 - but I doubt she’ll do it unless/until the government gets involved. And by then it may be too late for her.
It would be very interesting to find out what she intends to do when/if the FDA comes by to inspect her manufacturing facility.
-
Glitter is being used by every cosmetic manufacturer in the USA. Big and small companies alike, and the FDA appears to be very well aware of it.
I wont comment on the GI debacle at this time but I want to comment about the use of glitter.
Bobzchemist are you aware of the fda current opinion and how they are dealing with glitter in cosmetics?
From the tkb trading website:
The page states:
The FDA has determined that glitter is a color additive which is not listed on their list of approved color additives. This means that a glitter product is not allowed for use in any cosmetic in the USA. Consumers have expressed confusion over this, as it is obvious that there is glitter in all kinds of cosmetics sold currently in the USA and there are no known reports of harm caused by glitter.The FDA has not explained itself to our company, but it has advised us that it recognizes that the cosmetics industry has been largely unaware of this determination and it is essentially providing the cosmetic industry a grace period during which FDA enforcement is “discretionary”. This grace period allows the cosmetics industry to “respond”. The FDA has not provided us with any information on how long this grace period has been in effect, nor how long it will be in effect. They simply state the issue is “active”.
Visit Phyrra.net to learn more about cruelty free beauty and read the original article. http://phyrra.net/2012/07/glitter-and-neons-in-cosmetics-unsafe-ingredients.html#ixzz46o7VxDGb
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial No DerivativesPhyrra went even further in communicating with the FDA regarding the use of glitter in cosmetics. Below is the response from the fda:
You have asked about the use of glitter in cosmetics. Here is some information that you may find helpful:
Color additives used to achieve variable effects, such as those found in pearlescent cosmetic products, are subject to the same regulations as all other color additives. Glitter usually consists of aluminum, an approved color additive, bonded to an etched plastic film composed of polyethylene terephthalate. FDA considers glitter and mica-based composite pigments to be non-permitted color additives when used in FDA-regulated products, including cosmetics. However, we are exercising enforcement discretion for a period of time. During this time, we will allow glitter and mica-based composite pigments to be released with comment when presented for importation into the US. Once the enforcement discretion period is over, FDA will resume our enforcement of these non-permitted colors.
-
Interesting. I hadn’t realized FDA considered both mica-based and plastic based color additives non-permitted.
Most glitter has the added disadvantage of being colored with unapproved/non-certified dyes and pigments, a problem that the mica-based pigments deliberately don’t have.
I’m guessing it will take a lawsuit, public outrage, and/or one or more congress-criters to get the FDA to enforce the law.
-
I also found this information regarding glitter
The Cosmetic Ingredient Review Panel published the following review in 2013. The review panel is an independent panel and not associated with the FDA. They do regular reviews of ingredients used in cosmetics and make recommendations:
http://www.cirsafety.org/sites/default/files/ModTer_122012_Tent_faa_final%20for%20posting.pdf
The CIR concluded that to date PET is safe to use in cosmetics and that there have been few reports of adverse affects such as corneal damage.
Conclusion: The FDA in the United States has not approved PET glitter for use in makeup. Glitter that is made for cosmetic use a is approved for use in other countries in the EU and Asia.
-
Untitled Letter to BASF Regarding Mica-Based Pearlescent Pigments
Color Additives and Cosmetics
How are color additives categorized?The FD&C Act Section 721(c) [21 U.S. C. 379e(c)] and color additive regulations [21 CFR Parts 70 and 80] separate approved color additives into two main categories: those subject to certification (sometimes called “certifiable”) and those exempt from certification. In addition, the regulations refer to other classifications, such as straight colors and lakes.
Colors subject to certification. These color additives are derived primarily from petroleum and are sometimes known as “coal-tar dyes” or “synthetic-organic” colors. (NOTE: Coal-tar colors are materials consisting of one or more substances that either are made from coal-tar or can be derived from intermediates of the same identity as coal-tar intermediates. They may also include diluents or substrata. (See Federal Register, May 9, 1939, page 1922.) Today, most are made from petroleum.)
Except in the case of coal-tar hair dyes, these colors must not be used unless FDA has certified that the batch in question has passed analysis of its composition and purity in FDA’s own labs. If the batch is not FDA-certified, don’t use it.
These certified colors generally have three-part names. The names include a prefix FD&C, D&C, or External D&C; a color; and a number. An example is “FD&C Yellow No. 5.” Certified colors also may be identified in cosmetic ingredient declarations by color and number alone, without a prefix (such as “Yellow 5”).
Colors exempt from certification. These color additives are obtained primarily from mineral, plant, or animal sources. They are not subject to batch certification requirements. However, they still are considered artificial colors, and when used in cosmetics or other FDA-regulated products, they must comply with the identity, specifications, uses, restrictions, and labeling requirements stated in the regulations [21 CFR 73].
Did the mold appear after having used the product? Or was it present when first purchased and unopened?As I have had mold grow in very expensive high end eye shadows of a famous brand. Not once, but several times from the same company, several years apart in purchases. And I have yet to see an Instagram smear campaign run against the company or any negative comments about them.
Perhaps my eyeshadow brush was contaminated? The load too high and the preservative system could not handle it. I don’t know. But I can toss it.
Other eye shadows, by the same company have not suffered the same problem. And I used the same brushes.
-
You could very, very easily forward the issue to the FDA and have them make her life very, very difficult. Even the big companies get involved in this stuff sometimes. We have been on the receiving end of this before due to ruffling feathers with our advertising.
-
I believe that has already been done Mike M
-
Then just give it time, they will go after them. The FDA thrives on being able to show all the things they do (sarcasm) so any place they can actually achieve something they will not let it ride. Might just be in queue at the moment.
-
Now that my memory has been jogged, let me explain what I’ve been told by the US mica/pearl pigment manufacturers.
They currently have a long-running legal dispute with the FDA. Their stance is that combining (perfectly legal cosmetic grade) mica with (perfectly legal cosmetic grade) colorants does not result in a “new” colorant that needs to be safety tested and/or certified.
The FDA says that it does. The law and existing regulations make this a grey area. I’ve also heard (unverifiably) that the FDA is not at all sure they’ll win if it goes to court. This battle may continue for decades, since there is a great deal of money involved.
Now for glitter.
Glitter is made by combining sheets of very thin aluminum foil with very thin sheets of plastic. Either the aluminum can be colored (anodized) or the plastic can be colored, or both can be colored, or neither. The combined sheets are then cut/chopped into small bits.
The aluminum part of the glitter is an approved and tested cosmetic colorant. The plastic is not, but it may or may not be acceptable as a non-colorant cosmetic ingredient, so combining them is another grey area. That means that silver/non-colored glitters might be legal.
The big problem shows up when we look at colored glitter. To fit into the same grey area that the colored micas are in, the colors used to dye/pigment the plastic, and to dye/anodize the aluminum MUST be FDA certified as cosmetic colorants before they are used to make the glitter.
They NEVER are. The glitter manufacturers can’t afford to make batches of glitter just for cosmetics, and FDA certified colors are a lot more expensive than non-certified colors, so they will not be used - it’s just not worth it to the manufacturers.
This is what makes colored glitters orders of magnitude more illegal/dangerous than colored micas, and it’s why I strongly suspect that the FDA will eventually go after glitter long before they will go after colored mica.
-
Interesting…
BASF is still selling that pigment and others like it. Legal in the EU and Asia, but not the USA, at this point in time and may change in future, Unknown.Instagram statement of “presence of mold” which is not backed up by evidence nor proof of testing such to that conclusion is not more than hearsay.
Maybe there is mold, maybe there isn’t. Maybe it’s just an internet smear campaign designed to ruin her. Either way, problems on both sides of the equation. Just another goofball example of the Naturalistas and the ” deadly dangerous preservatives” and well…lol….
This is an example of the sort of misleading thing that is rampant online.
Do mineral cosmetics really work? What’s their advantage?
Mineral makeup helps cosmetics users who are prone to allergies, who have sensitive skin, and those who have adult acne and/or rosacea.
That’s because mineral makeup is organic, hypoallergenic and oil free. Mineral cosmetics won’t clog pores like some conventional cosmetics.
Free of irritating dyes, talc and fragrances, the purity of mineral cosmetics is the answer for users whose skin can’t handle the catchall of ingredients found in traditional makeup formulations. The most common ingredients in mineral cosmetics include micronized titanium dioxide, micronized zinc oxide, iron oxide, silk mica, and hydrated silica.
Are we talking about “organic” silicons here? Like, “natural” organic “oil free”?
-
I can assure you, this is no Internet smear campaign. This has happened to many people and there are videos and photos that prove this. The mold formed on unused products not even 2 weeks after many of the people received their orders from her. If this was a smear campaign, this would be been shut down a long time ago, and instagram would’ve shut down every account that speaks out about it.
-
She didn’t even use a preservative in her products, so of course it grew mold.
-
I can assure you, this is no Internet smear campaign.
I’d like to believe you, but given the internet and the manner in which is has been dealt with so far, and organic silicons. That would be silly.The burden of proof still remains something better than online photos and sock puppet accounts.
IF the eyeshadows were moulding and ever so many people were angry about it as they should be, why are there not more photos and proof? I am not seeing that. I am seeing a consistent smear. While at the same time, several have reported using her products with no problems and very happy with them.
Another of the ‘investigators’ also admits to using sock puppets. ( screen shot of that if you want to see) And sock puppets are those delightful disposable ignorant online personas that can be generated with no effort whatsoever, create an instagram account and then harass others with it. Then start over again.
She didn’t even use a preservative in her products, so of course it grew mold.
Then why did you buy it? Seems you were well aware of that.Her original ingredients listing is: Glycerin, Alcohol MAY CONTAIN: Jojoba Oil, Candelilla Wax, Shea Butter, Castor Oil, Polyethylene Terephthalate and Acrylates Copolymer
Do you know what the FDA approved preservatives are for eye care products?
Do be so kind as to provide that information for the rest of us.What kinds of microorganisms might occur in cosmetics?
That depends on a variety of factors, such as how a cosmetic is formulated, manufactured, stored, and used. Some microorganisms pose little to no risk of illness or injury to consumers. Other microorganisms can pose significant risks; such microorganisms are characterized as “pathogenic.”
Tell me more about ‘organic silicons’…
-
We have statements saying the products are growing mold. Is there any evidence or scientific testing to support that claim.
Then there are statements of no preservative in the product. Is there evidence to support that claim? According to the companies website they show a preservative (possibly a weak preservative)
But these claims are hearsay and speculation without proof or evidence, is that not true?
Has anyone actually lab tested the products to support these claims of mold?
I won’t disagree that the company has some serious issues.
But I certainly would expect proof of the claims of mold before agreeing that it’s mold or bacteria.
From what I can see from the product, it doesn’t appear to be mold. It is very apparent to me that there are most definitely some issues with the product. I have my own theories what the issues are-but I’m not an expert and will refrain from saying what I think it is without proof.
-
I see these online controversies all the time and while they make for entertaining reading, usually both sides of the issue are placing too much emphasis on speculation and hearsay. In the end, I think it is best for someone to simply call it to the FDA’s attention if you are so passionate about it and trust the FDA to respond. They will follow through.
On the other side of the issue, if I were a manufacturer trying to offset the speculation, I would simply send the product out for third party testing and/or consult a Regulatory person. In that scenario they can quickly and quietly become compliant. Interesting enough, the Mold Test Kit she refers to is for testing your home for mold, not for testing finished goods. However, these tests can be out-sourced easily and affordably, by a Third party in such a manner that there is no conflict of interest.
Once that is dealt with, I refuse to participate. My New Years Resolution has been to eschew these emotionally charged discussions. People get angry, the situation escalates and false data is promulgated. In the end, a source can be consulted regarding the mold issue and another competent source can weigh-in on the materials. This objective solution gets thrown to the wayside, especially as these topics gain momentum.
Log in to reply.