-
Is this Cold Cream formula stable?
I’d like your thoughts on this cold cream formula.
On the skin the results are amazing but I am worried about Stability for scaling up. Would be willing to pay for a consultations on this. Feel free to email me carey@stylehousehawaii.com- 1/4 teaspoon borax.
- 1/4 cup distilled water.
- 1/2 cup grape seed oil
- 1/2 ounce beeswax
-
21 Replies
-
There are numerous issues with this Formula which is essentially the “recipe” for Galen’s Cold Cream. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_cream- In my experience it is not stable enough as I have seen it fail in validated Stability Studies.
- This isn’t a Formula. That would be in wt/wt%. This is a “recipe” and needs to be formalized.
- You have no anti-oxidant in the recipe and you use one of the most unstable oils, Grapeseed Oil.
- Borax is not allowed in many regions such as the EU for example. Many third party natural standards do not allow it as well.
I wouldn’t even try to release this into the market with these issues. In addition, it is a simple DIY Formula. In the end, “why wouldn’t they make it themselves?
-
thank you @Microformulation I will sennd you an email I’d like to discuss the project more with you!
-
The project would essentially need to start from scratch as it if far from a Commercial Formulation. I would also encourage you to look back in the discussions (search the forum) on the terms “natural” and “toxic.” I did peruse your website and your message is a bit chemo phobic and it references EWG, a source we NEVER use.
-
thanks @Microformulation for this info. EWG is very important to me and my customers so it doesn’t seem like working together is a good fit. I am open if any other chemists would like to collaborate on this project. thanks!
-
We have some nice discussions here on CC about cold creams
.BTW if you have to live by the sometimes biased, often poorly researched and outdated opinions of EWG because your customers love semi-reliable data by self-opinionated people who seem to like to draw power from influencing the masses… it’s your decision. Everyone chooses his/her own piece of the marketplace.What I don’t get is that you even dare using the word ‘borax’ in an non-negative context.Cold creams are simple and cover the bases from a pharmaceutical/health point of view. However, they are neither sufficiently stable for cosmetics nor ‘haptically viable’. More stable versions/formulations are available (again, use forum search bar) whilst most if not all cold creams from big corp out there are not cold creams in the proper sense but pure figments of marketing imagination. -
@Pharma thank you for this. I don’t see any threads about cold creams in here. Can you provide a link?
As far a borax what do you think would be better?
-
careyu I am open if any other chemists would like to collaborate on this project. thanks!I believe working with a chemist, and EWG are essentially, mutually exclusive. You may want to try some sites (and there are many) more oriented to your beliefs.
-
Search for “cold cream” and not cold cream without apostrophe.Better in which regard?Environment/health-wise: What about everything? :smiley:Seriously, there is not ONE product which can replace every (positive) aspect of borax added to a cold cream but you can work around it. Use an anionic emulsifier (such as Castile soap, TEA stearate, or SLS/SLES) and add a preservative. For certain pharmaceutical preparations, both can be omitted. However, for more physical & microbial stability this wouldn’t be a wise decision.The buffering capacity of borax may or may not be an advantage. I never thought about substituting/mimicking this feature given that we don’t have a traditional cold cream based on borax (not to mention that borax has been banned a few years ago). If you like the higher pH of borax, you may adjust that with a base, saponify part of your oil with NaOH, or use traditional soap. I don’t quite see an advantage of a high pH unless you’re relying on soap instead of an ‘artificial’ emulsifier such as sulfates/sulfonates. Feel free to play around with other emulsifiers (non-ionic, cationic). In theory, low HLB emulsifiers would be the way to go but require higher % than SLS or SLES.
-
This thread reminds me of an old saying in marketing circles … “The Customer may not always be right, but the Customer is the Customer and pays for your services”
If a client wants EWG complaint, then give them EWG compliant. Refusing is kind of like a wedding cake baker who refuses to bake wedding cakes for gay or interracial couples … you’re in the business of baking cakes, not passing judgement.
@careyu: You might want to consider using a proper traditional emulsifier for your product development. These “ancient” formulas don’t yield stable products and despite their perceived simplicity, they are often the most difficult to work on as they can be very process-dependent.
-
thank you @Graillotion what sites are you referring to? As far a chemists not being able to formulate to EWG standards how do products exist that are certified by them?
-
thank you @Pharma that was very helpful. I found the threads, I’ll enjoy reading through those. thanks for all the tips too!
-
@MarkBroussard thanks for this tip! I just requested an invite on Linkedin to your lab.
-
The EWG-compliant niche market is no different than any other niche market and any qualified chemist ought to be able to formulate an EWG-compliant formula if that is what the client wants.
Chemists and EWG are not mutually exclusive, it’s just not an organization that a lot of chemists pay attention to or find to be a valuable resource in researching ingredients … I, for one, generally do not reference EWG unless the client has specified an EWG-compliant formula. I have no animoisty towards EWG, it’s simply that it does not provide anything of particular value to me in my formulating work.
But, lots of consumers do pay attention to EWG ratings, so you are simply catering to what your consumers value.
-
@careyu, EWG being important for your uneducated customers is one thing. I would totally understand if it was a moral compromise for you because you have to make money to bring home bacon. But the fact it’s important for you means that not only you don’t want to educate yourself but you are pround of your ignorance. You managed to find this resource with hundreds of people who know more than you and are willing to spend time explainig why you shouldn’t be paying any attention to groups like EWG and instead of asking right questions you stubbornly sticking with your delusions. It’s actually sad.
-
@MarkBroussard have you tried https://incidecoder.com/ for researching ingredients? They have pretty large database and allow advanced search. For example if you are looking for a material that is a blend you can search several ingredients used in one product together. They still have some silly unsubstantiated rating for ingredients but it’s less annoying than in EWG.
-
@ngarayeva001
Yes, thanks for the reminder about incidecoder.com. I do use it on occassion, but it has been a while since I last referenced it.Yes, these EWG ingredients rankings are quite useless … EWG ranking a particular ingredient a “2” is of absolutely no value to me.
But, again, there is a group of consumers who pay particular attention to EWG and @careyu caters to that consumer group. It’s the simple marketing concept of “feed the dogs the food they’ll eat”
-
Actually, to expand upon my initial point, we work with the expressed intent of getting our clients into the market and as such, we identify barriers to these markets. An undefined and poorly researched “raw material standard” based upon an undefined term of “natural”, using the EWG is a barrier to the R&D process. Since we get in excess of 7-10 new inquiries a week, we like to identify these barriers. In this case I see several barriers. Firstly, if you peruse the ingredient decks in the line, they claim to be “natural” and “non-toxic.” Toxicity is an objective measure and has been an FTC issue in the past. Also, in the simple EWG driven “natural” standard, they use Polysorbate 20, a huge no-no. (They have other similar issues as well). Starting with Galen’s Formula (original post), the line still needs to do some market research and product identity work before approaching a Formulator whatsoever. The client should identify what the product functionally, define Cosmetic benefits intended and then do a radical re-work of the product. Honestly, I have seen that same “recipe” tens of times as an Instagram post. In summary, we simply identify issues which should be addressed to facilitate the process.
-
@ngarayeva001. I am here to learn and connect with others who have more experience in cosmetics chemistry formulating that I do but as I am very new to cosmetic formulating and while I might have different perspective than others, do you think it helps me to learn or form partnerships when people are trying to shame me? I am willing to pay for formulation, advice, etc and have even stated it. I have actually formed 3 new relationships with chemists due to this thread who are working with me to create a new formula based on my requests. If you have any other resources that you’d like to share with me that would help me become a better cosmetic formulator I am open to your suggestions.
-
careyu said:do you think it helps me to learn or form partnerships when people are trying to shame me?
I know you are new to the site….so let me just give a kind insight to what has happened here. As you are probably aware this is a science based site, which makes it different from most. So your mention of EWG immediately put many on edge. The best example that can come to my mind would be like this…. Would you wear a red Trump MAGA hat to the democratic convention?
People on this site have been incredibly helpful to me…and many other new comers. The only thing that matters is that you are willing to learn and are open minded to science. Some of the most brilliant chemist in the world frequent this site, an opportunity that is absolutely priceless. I believe they enjoy sharing their craft with the newbies, and those that are totally immersing themselves in learning the industry from a scientific point of view. What is not appreciated is waving the flag of a polarizing organization whom does not put science first.
It is fine if you personally want to hold to those beliefs, or market to those who do… just don’t wave it in the face of those who have not drunk the EWG kool-aid. Please take this as a positive comment, that will allow you to meld with the group nicely. It is a tool that cannot be matched anywhere else on the net.
You don’t want to alienate yourself with with anyone on this site…you never know, that person might be the most valuable texturizing asset on the site.
-
I find the overtly negative reaction to someone mentioning that EWG is an important consideration to their product/marketing quite puzzling. @Careyu is simply expressing that the consumers of her products value an EWG-compliant product.
All you need to do is put together a formula that meets the client’s criteria and then and check the EWG ratings. I often have clients who want ingredients in their product that have an EWG rating of 2 or less, for instance. It is easy enough to find suitable alternatives for any ingredients that I may have initially chosen for the formula that do not meet these criteria.
I think the mis-step is that the formula included Borax which has an EWG rating of 5 which most clients who pay attention to EWG would find unacceptable … so, perhaps @careyu did not check the EWG rating of the proposed ingredients prior to posting.
All of the stated reasons as to why this formula will not yield a stable commercial product are certainly true.
@Careyu … This would fall into what I call “Birkenstock” products … they are simply not properly formulated and the proponents of these type of formulas don’t want to understand the inherent problems with these types of formulas in their quest to achieve both a low EWG score and use all natural ingredients at all costs.
I once had a client who was very opposed to using any preservatives and wanted one of these Birkenstock products without proper emulsifiers and who was willing to take a chance of putting an improperly preserved product on compromised skin, all for the sake of the principle of not using preservatives and emulsifiers, claiming that the product would be “self-preserving” Yet, the client was completely lost on the irony that while the product was all natural, it was also potentially dangerous to use because it was not properly preserved.
As a chemist, once you have had that experience, you simply pass when a potential client approaches you about developing a product that is too granola for its own good.
-
Again, I totally understand that people must earn money. It’s ok to formulate within an outlined framework as long as person understands why they are doing it. Archives of this forum is an underestimated treasure. I recommend to search EWG to read opinions of professionals. In summary: EWG is not independent as they provide links where a consumer can buy ‘approved’ products. This is a direct conflict of interest. Their ratings aren’t consistent. Their assumptions aren’t properly documented. They absolutely ignore the most basic principle of toxicology: the dose makes the poison. They score formaldehyde releasers as 6 but there is a good chance that there is more formaldehyde in organic apple than in full jar of a moisturiser.
Log in to reply.