Cosmetic Science Talk

Cosmetic Science discussion forum. For people who want for formulate cosmetics and get advice from other formulators around the world.
*** Click on one of the three Forum categories below to start a new discussion ***

Home Cosmetic Science Talk Formulating Why is behentrimonium chloride ok but behentrimonium methosulfate not according to Whole Foods?

Tagged: 

  • bggy

    Member
    August 30, 2016 at 3:10 am

    The list of Whole Foods Premium Body Care Standards unacceptable ingredients:

    https://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/premium-body-care-unacceptable-ingredients

  • Microformulation

    Professional Chemist / Formulator
    August 30, 2016 at 3:11 am

    Please don’t use the EWG as a source on here. The flaws of their database are numerous and have been covered at length. There are far better sources.

  • Belassi

    Member
    August 30, 2016 at 3:35 am

    Mentioning EWG is like muttering “double trouble stir and bubble” and waving your arms about.

  • ozgirl

    Member
    August 30, 2016 at 4:21 am

    There are a few posts in the blog section of this website that point out the flaws in the Whole Foods Unacceptable List that might be of interest to you.

    Basically the list is far from scientific and as far as formulating goes if the list doesn’t have the chloride form of the ingredient on the list just use that instead.

  • bggy

    Member
    August 30, 2016 at 4:58 am

    Thanks for the responses. @ozgirl yes, I read the Whole Foods posts, was hoping someone might have some insight into potential reasons they might prefer one of these common conditioner ingredients over the other - some knowledge of their own regarding these two chemicals.

    The research on behentrimonium chloride points to eye irritation, and tech support from ingredientstodiefor.com says that ‘That material has a really high eye irritation level’ (they carry BTMS-25). However, it could be that benehentrimonium methosulfate may be irritating as well, but there just haven’t been studies done on it.

    I’m not concerned at the moment with conforming to the Whole Foods standards, I’m mostly concerned about creating the safest product.

  • bggy

    Member
    August 30, 2016 at 5:18 am
  • Microformulation

    Professional Chemist / Formulator
    August 30, 2016 at 11:42 am

    @Belassi  I couldn’t have said it better.

  • Microformulation

    Professional Chemist / Formulator
    August 30, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    If you are looking for more valid safety data, try the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (http://www.cir-safety.org/).

  • Bobzchemist

    Member
    August 30, 2016 at 3:08 pm

    I heard from someone at Whole Foods (not mentioning names) that a good chunk of their list was determined by a group of people in a conference room examining a selection of products they didn’t want in their stores. The ingredients used in those products went directly on their list. That’s why there are a number of ingredients on their list with incorrect INCI names - they came directly off product labels.

  • OldPerry

    Professional Chemist / Formulator
    August 30, 2016 at 3:15 pm

    @Bobzchemist is right.  The list of unacceptable ingredients was not arrived at through any scientific evaluation of data. They didn’t really even have cosmetic scientists involved in making the list.

    The most simple answer to why Behentrimonium Chloride is acceptable is because it was already present in their house brand and they didn’t want to reformulate.

  • Microformulation

    Professional Chemist / Formulator
    August 30, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    I wish I could debunk what Perry and Bob have said, but sadly I can’t.

    I work with many starting lines and hence get challenged to meet these WF standards quite a bit. My take away has been that outside of their websites, WF’s doesn’t do a great job in the stores promoting their more selective tiers (Premium). In the end, my clients are finding that meeting the basic requirements and getting physically on to the WF shelves is endorsement enough and easier to achieve.

  • bggy

    Member
    August 30, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Interesting responses!

    @Microformulation I should have noted that the research I was referring to regarding behentrimonium chloride/methosulfate is that found in a review of the research sponsored by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review:

    http://online.personalcarecouncil.org/ctfa-static/online/lists/cir-pdfs/pr572.pdf

    Thanks for the insight into the value of meeting the basic requirements vs the premium standards. I agree that as a consumer I don’t notice the difference and that getting in stores by meeting basic requirements is enough.

  • bggy

    Member
    August 30, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    This research/review seems to be where the view that behentrimonium chloride is highly irritating to the eyes stems from:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/5j6vz7v9y0en4e3/Screenshot%202016-08-30%2011.33.27.png?dl=0

    Unfortunately in this review, there isn’t much research on behentrimonium methosulfate. I’ve only been able to find unsubstantiated claims that it is very mild and safe, for example:

    http://www.getsimplifica.com/behentrimonium-methosulfate/

    https://www.truthinaging.com/ingredients/behentrimonium-methosulfate

  • gisele

    Member
    September 10, 2016 at 2:28 am

    I am confused about their list. Lately, I am seeing behentrimonium methosulfate and other ingredients like propylene glycol, on products at my local store. I’ve also seen Alba Botanical’s Acne dot products, which contain salicylic acid as an active ingredient. I thought these ingredients were on their unaccepted list.

  • OldPerry

    Professional Chemist / Formulator
    September 12, 2016 at 1:50 pm

    That just means the product won’t be put in their Premium Beauty aisle.

  • scbeautyformulator

    Member
    March 1, 2023 at 8:38 pm

    As has already been stated above in other ways, EWG is garbage. They are overzealous creators of panick. Every time a news article or news station mentions them as a source of their information, I message them on why they need to stop quoting them if they want to be taken seriously. EWG often gives a score when they state that no information or data has been found and there are many with data not available but one ingredient has a rating of 1 and another a 5. Why would you rate an ingredient when you know nothing about it? They also don’t state sources so that you can judge where they get their info when they state it is available.<div>
    </div><div>As far as your mention on the Swift Crafty Monkey, it’s important that you realize this is more of a hobbyist site and not a good source of scholastic-level information. The site has much more knowledge than your average DIY site, but is also missing a lot of information, understanding, and knowledge. There are many things mentioned on that site that need to be updated, and lots of errors as far as saying a preservative is anionic on one page and cationic on another. I don’t recommend this site for making products to sell. There are many ingredient interactions missed in the advice given and an oversimplification in many recipes which is a recipe for disaster (no pun intended). DIY for personal use is less of an issue and this site is a good beginners site for this very thing, because it is more informative than most, but you can see a big difference in the information and advice given for SCM vs advice given from people with degrees in chemistry and biology. Especially seen in suggestions in how to formulate many products.</div>

    Whole Foods Market is also a company that, unfortunately, seems to follow the EWG in its vast misinformation and demonization of certain ingredients while allowing others that don’t make sense.

    <div>I’d advise taking a look at what you want your demographic to be. If you want to attract people who are easily susceptible to fear mongering, then use EWG as a reference for your ingredients. But if you want to be industry-savvy, you’ll want to go with mentors in the field and not these websites designed for the uneducated in cosmetic formulation.</div><div>
    </div>