As a formulator these no-no lists are becoming kinda ridiculous however I understand that I formulate for others- not myself. My opinion is that brands are sacrificing safety, cost and stability due to fear or just simply nonsense. Depending on what their goals are, and the formula restrictions, I may or may not accept the proposal. Any proposal where the no-no list hinders on safety or stability- are an automatic no. Its just not worth the headache. The same applies to feasibility. If they want a MAC performance like lipstick, but zero chemicals and made of herbs- automatic no. Its just not realistic, and if its possible its expensive. But regardless of their no-no list, I will do my best to bring their idea to life, so long as its realistic and safe.
Most recent no-no lists have included:
- Ingredient number restriction (i.e. less than 5 or 6 with 4 marketing ingredients)
- Whole Foods lists approved preservatives only 🙃
- All natural, no chemicals. Anything that sounds remotely like a chemical- no.
- Color cosmetic made completely out of plants, but performs like MAC.
Ironically, my no-no lists only come from US clients. I formulate for clients in Canada, Australia and in the EU, and they are so much more reasonable with product restrictions. Allow traditional preservatives and chelating agents.
This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by KMRCSMiami.