-
Cosmetic preservation failures…and point of entry on human body.
I was reading in another (mommy blogger format) forum…how a mommy want to use poor preservatives because…it was for use near the eye.
Her premise was:
1) Effective preservatives are harsh…. Yes…I am laughing even harder than you are.
2) Because the product was used near the eye…you especially needed something weak-a$$. Yes, I laughing even harder.
So questions…. should one have a preservative failure….where do these typically manifest (point of entry for pathogens)? I would assume, unabraded healthy skin…will protect from a lot of badness that we might apply. Is there a typical point of entry for poorly preserved products….especially those used around the eye? I am assuming….the eye…would be high on the list…but maybe my guess is not as sound as I envision it? I thought that some of the Gram - failures…let to blindness…hence assumed the point of entry….was the eye?
I am aware that the preservatives the ‘eco-nuts’ like to use…are also among the least friendly to skin…as they are not selected for performance or skin friendliness, but only agenda based selection process. Is there some sort of graph/chart/paper/article that address the general hostile nature of the ‘natural’ preservatives in relation to skin and irritation?
Aloha. @PhilGeis
And yes I know….I should probably stay off those sites!
-
4 Replies
-
Holy crap - what an idiot! Of course you don’t want ingredients that fire up the eye - the consumer will very likely/hopefully toss it before they can contaminate the stuff. They may never know it’s full of bugs - until they get an infection.
The eye is uniquely prone to infection from cosmetics with blindness as a result. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0002939477903348 - for this one, point of entry was thought to be inadvertant contact of mascara brush to cornea with to minor scratches.
Right - you know that clown has no idea the safety and mildness around the eye of her weak naturals.
FDA is esp. concerned with contamination of eye area products. In fact, cosmetics were included in the original FD&C act of 1936 because of eye infection. Ironic toi this discussion - irritation may have been involved. The agency has eye area products as a big worry.
-
This reply was modified 7 months, 3 weeks ago by PhilGeis.
-
This reply was modified 7 months, 3 weeks ago by
-
She may have heard it from a source she trusted. Appears a lot of ophthamologists are ignorant re. preservatives too - https://www.contactlensjournal.com/article/S1367-0484(13)00025-8/fulltext
-
On the other end of the spectrum,while developing Johnson’s Baby Products in the seventies I/we had to balance preservation with minimal eye irritation/sting using pre-clinical and Clinical standards (human oculars).The latter are still the standard for products in the category.
-
Dowicil wasn’t bad - P&G used it in their product as well.
-
Log in to reply.
