@em88, https://www.makingcosmetics.com/GelMaker-EMU_p_119.html INCI Name: Sodium acrylate / sodium acryloyldimethyl taurate copolymer, isohexadecane, polysorbate 80 It is very easy to use and good emulsifier. Great texture. It is as electrolytes resistant as sodium polyacrylate though. I still think it’s a good product.
@Microformulation so if its not scheduled then you can use it all you like. Who said you cannot use it?
You can use it. I just think that “natural” is a horrible metric to go on. It has no definition. It allows anything to be fairly called “natural.” It is a term that MUST be refined to effectively engage in any real Cosmetic R&D in a naturally compliant market.
Yes. In our first call with our clients, we address the term “natural” and we get the client to agree upon a rough, internally defined standard. It is not difficult and in fact, our successful lines (>1 million USD per annum) run with the new definition and will educate their clients in their marketing.
This approach is allowing my clients to promote their lines credibly and successfully. They integrate it into their marketing. The LOHAS clients love a defined standard. They are killing it in the “naturally compliant” markets and in fact, they have a STRONG presence in Detox Market. I will simply say that the success of this approach is proven by the results.
It is an absolute error to leave this undefined for both parties. For the Formulator, it will save you multiple calls from the client where you must walk them through the pedigree of each raw material as they will adjudicate the raw material selection based on an undefined standard that can change day-to-day. It wastes time, creates unnecessary revisions and is contrary to the goals of the Formulator. For the client, leaving it undefined is a mistake. Remember this one fact; these emerging clients are entering into markets where everybody is “natural.” It is not the golden bullet anymore that people think it is. The focus of their line should highlight the “WHY” behind their lines and products. Saying “You should buy my products because they are natural” does not tell me why I should buy them since everyone else is “natural” also. Again, you are creating barriers to success for both the Formulator and the client when you blithely use this term without recognizing it’s lack of any real definition. Lastly, do we want to be Marketers (natural is best) or Scientists? I want to practice Cosmetic SCIENCE.
If I had anyone issue with the naturally compliant market (compliant to an internal standard or a third party certifier) it is that while they third party standards are well-defined, they are poorly promoted to the Cosmetic Markets themselves. For example, it is difficult to press a client into producing an NSF Certified products UNLESS the buyer requires it. Otherwise, NSF means very little to the average consumer.
I address this issue by always formulating to a defined natural standard or standard(s) using ingredients that are certified by either NOP, NPA, ECOCert or NSF.
But, I generally also advise clients that actually getting their products certified by one of these bodies is not really worth the time, effort & expense relative to the marketing benefit … to most consumers, unless it is an NOP Organic certification, the other certifications are relatively meaningless.
@MarkBroussard We will follow the raw material standards based upon the Third Party Standards as well. It does take educating the client and not using “natural” as a standard. Most clients are happy to define the term. I dislike the term “natural” as it is imprecise and a barrier to Product Development.
We could discuss that issues for hours. I would say that if you want a guide for the approved processing (plant-based materials minimally processed), you should read the COSMOS standard. They do a great job of explaining the allowable processes. Again, if we mumble “natural” and fell we have established a defined guideline, we are not furthering good Science.