[MarkBroussard]

@Newtoformulating:

Pentylene Glycol + Tetrasodium Glutamate Diacetate (GLDA).  No, sodium benzoate would be not be effective at pH < 6.  Perhaps Chlorphenesin instead.

[MarkBroussard]

@Newtoformulating

You would be best off to always add glycols and chelating agents to formulas to boost the performance of your preservative.  In this particular case I would also add Sodium Benzoate to your concoction to round out your preservation.

[MarkBroussard]

@Graillotion

Best you not mention any other company, but focus on it being the Graillotion Organge Blossom fragrance.  No point in inviting a negative response, that could be legal, from a company that you have no affiliation with.  Jo Malone Type fragrance does not mean it is a direct dupe of the Jo Malone fragrance, but is similar in nature. 

[MarkBroussard]

@Arcene

I think you are simply not adding enough solvent to the system.  Increase your glycols to 30% from 20% and that will help.  Also, it does not appear that you are applying heat to the system.  Paula’s Choice uses Methylpropanediol as the solvent, so you might try switching to this solvent that better solubilizes SA

[MarkBroussard]

Delete the Caprylhydroxamic Acid preservative from the one that does cause eye irrittion and you have probably found your culprit.

[MarkBroussard]

Cosmetic_Chemist said:

water - Qs
Hydroxyethylcellulose - 0.75%
Propanediol - 5%
Glycerin - 3%
Sodium Benzoate - 0.4%
Phenoxyethanol - 0.3%
EDTA - 0.1%
Aloe Vera Juice - 0.05%

Would this be a better formula? 

@Cosmetic_Chemist

I would replace Glycerin with Pentylene Glycol.  Glycerin @ 3% is going to be a sticky mess and most women don’t like Glycerin in products for intimate areas.  I would also eliminate the Aloe Vera Juice … It’s really not doing anything for your formula.  Follow Phil’s recommendations on your preservative percentages.

This will probably fall under a 510K Medical Device.  The required testing is expensive … on the order of $200K.

[MarkBroussard]

@Anca_Formulator

In theory. preBiulin FOS serves as a nutrient for the beneficial skin microbiome bacteria, but does not serve as a nutrient for “bad” bacteria.  The concept is competition between microbial species, similar to the way various microorganisms keep each other in check in the gut.

I think lecithin is your major problem as a source of nutrient for microbial contamination.

[MarkBroussard]

@Anca_Formulator

It is not at all uncommon for emulsions made with oils such as blue tansy to change color when subjected to long-term stability tests.  And, many will change color eventually at RT turning an ugly grey or brown.

You might consider making a sample with and w/o blue tansy and put both in the oven to confirm.  

[MarkBroussard]

@Anca_Formulator

(1)   The preservative system containing Phenoxyethanol is not natural

(2)   Not unusual for an emulsion that is blue at RT from the inclusion of Blue Tansy oil to turn brown in the oven.  Your base prior to the inclusion of blue tansy oil would have been a light beige.

(3)  Have you confirmed that it is a indded preservative fail

(4)   Yep, Lecitin + Lecithin … you created for yourself a very difficult system to preserve

[MarkBroussard]

@Squinny

The advantage of the INCI is that is provides a common language globally when referring to ingredients.  Same with the metric system for weights.  As a consumer you don’t need to know the latin name … just pay attention to the Jojoba part.

[MarkBroussard]

PhilGeis said:

Granted all this is BS regarding a product largely sold in BS.   The only real damage is in preservation and there “natural” is at best ignorant often cynical BS.

Agreed.  If this was a huge problem, the FTC and/or FDA would be taking action with Cease & Desist Letters, making companies change their marketing language and labels, etc.  So, either the regulators do not see this as a big problem or they are not getting very many consumer complaints about it.  And, maybe they are taking the position of letting industry resolve the issue through lawsuits unless they feel the need to step in.

Note in both of these cases the companies were sued by a single individual consumer with both law firms casting about to try to turn this single complaint into  a class action lawsuit.  The plaintiffs don’t cite any specific physical harm, mainly that the companies used deceptive, false advertising regarding the ingredients in their products … and, they did.  In both cases, the companies being sued are tradional products companies trying to move into the natural segment of the market, not companies whose DNA is in the natural market.

It’s the companies whose DNA is in the natural market who are the primary backers and driving force that lead to the creation of the Natural Cosmetics Act lead by BeautyCounter, Credo and others.

[MarkBroussard]

@Graillotion

LOL! … and the US is one of only 3 counties globally that use the English system of weights.  Common names … SMH

The best way is to identify is the International Convention:  Simmondsia Chinensis (Jojoba) Seed Oil

You can use the common name:  Jojoba Oil, Almond Oil, etc. … but, honestly it looks amateurish like homebrewed stuff sold at farmer’s markets.

[MarkBroussard]

So you are using:

1% Euxyl PE9010 + 1% Geogard Ultra + 0.2% sodium phytate + 2% Propanediol + 3% Pentylene Glycol + 4.8 pH?

You can slim that down to:

1% Euxyl PE9010 + 1% Geogard Ultra + 0.2% sodium phytate + 2% Propanediol or 2% Pentylene Glycol + 4.8 pH  for your emulsion and you should be covered.   

[MarkBroussard]

@Anca_Formulator

You really don’t to add Caprylyl Glycol/EHG … if you are using it for emulsions, it will likely blow your viscosity.  But, if you do want to use 0.3% CG/EHG would be fine.  What type of proucts are you using it in?

[MarkBroussard]

@Alchemix:

Inquire with Floratech … they probably have or can guide you to a product that they manufacture or know of that gives that effect.

[MarkBroussard]

@Perry:

Yes, you have an asolutist view of the topic.  I have a more pragmatic, practical view.

I think the standards bodies are making a good faith effort to try to define natural within the context of what is practically feasible.  Consumers are seeking these natural products for a reason and most companies in the natural space are doing their best to deliver those products.  But, you can only use the ingredients that are available.  And, product safety is important and a first priority.  Sure, naturally-derived synthetic ingredients is a good descriptor that companies could use.

The failure of government to adopt a legal definition of Natural is the root of the problem and consumers are not protected from the likes of SC Johnson who use deceptive advertising without a legal defintion of natural for claims.

[MarkBroussard]

@Perry:

No, I would not call it deceptive marketing.  By necessity they are trying to identify and qualify ingredients that are manufactured using plant-based, naturally-derived (renewable is also a component of the definition) precursors using defined chemical reactions such as esterification, if necessary, which is allowed under the various standards.  It is just a practical approach to the issue.  

I think a reasonble, educated consumer understands this.  I suspect that most consumers seeking Natural are more educated on ingredients than the average consumer and do more research on ingredients and products.

Your final point makes the case for why the government needs to step in and identify Natural to give companies a clear, legal list of ingredients they can use along with Natural marketing language.  That way consumers can simply look at a seal on a product and have confidence that it meets criteria approved by the FDA for the claims made regarding Natural.        

[MarkBroussard]

What you see in both the case of the SC Johnson and Burt’s Bee lawsuits is both companies are being sued by a single individual consumer and the lawyers are trying to expand those cases to class action status.  And, there is a whole industry of lawyers who specialize in class action lawsuits, so they are always fishing for someone to sue.

Clorox had previously been the subject of a class action suit a few years back over a natural deodorant product that contained triclosan.  So, in both of these cases you have corporate bad actors who know that their products do not comply with any Natural standards and know they use ingredients that violate those standards, yet in the case of SC Johnson they claimed Natural and Clorox claims % naturally-derived.  And, that their products do not meet a reasonable consumer’s definition of Natural.  So, in both cases the companies are in the wrong and set themselves up for the lawsuits.

To @PhilGeis‘s point, the cosmetics industry is rife with deceptive marketing claims all across the industry.  The moral of the story here is that companies need to watch their marketing language to not set themselves up for lawsuits.

These suits will be settled, the companies will change their marketing language and life will move forward status-quo until such time that the government establishes a legal definition of Natural with products bearing that seal just as you have with Organic products.

[MarkBroussard]

@ProfessorHerb

I’ve formulate quite a few Eczema products and PE9010 has proven to be the preservative that is best tolerated.  You can try combining Phenoxyethanol/EHG + Pentylene Glycol + Leucidal + Chelator of your choice.  It won’t blow the viscosity of your emulsions.  The Caprylyl Glycol is what is causing issues with your emulsions.

[MarkBroussard]

ProfessorHerb said:

Yes, I agree that we should eliminate the use of the term natural. Science is a difficult concept for scientists much less the average person. People who are sensitive or allergic are desperate for natural products. They don’t understand that in order to not die, most ingredients are lab made. There’s no description for nature identicals and synthetic products that work better than nature. So I also don’t think demonizing a natural claim is scientific either. We need a better approach to educating consumers. For example, when the social distancing came out 6 feet was not scientific. Lab studies confirm that viruses can travel in the air over 20 feet if someone sneezes or coughs. But it would be near impossible for the average person to calculate 20. It would have made the pandemic worse to suggest that people maintain that distance. So hopefully y’all can feel me on this.

@@ProfessorHerb

I don’t think there’s any putting that genie back in the bottle.  Better for goverments to legally define Natural.  Educating consumers is very difficult particularly as it relates to cosmetic ingredients.  With a governement-approved Natural seal, consumers would be given confidence in the products bearing that seal.  You already have the Organic seal … just use the same model.

[MarkBroussard]

Perry said:

@MarkBroussard - “ It is perfectly reasonable for a consumer to say “I want personal care products that do not contain any synthetic ingredients“”

I don’t really think it is a reasonable request from a consumer. Because you can’t make a good functioning personal care product without synthetic ingredients. You’ve even said yourself that synthetic preservatives are needed. 

Actually, yes, you can, but not in all product formats.

[MarkBroussard]

Parabens are not allowed under Sephora Clean requirements

[MarkBroussard]

@PhilGeis

I’m just being realistic about what preservatives will most likely make the cut into being allowed in Natual products as defined under NCA should it move forward

[MarkBroussard]

grapefruit22 said:

So they really want as much as 70% of the extracts in the product? It is surprising and not in line with other standards.
Is it possible to preserve a product properly by using only preservatives of natural origin? I know this is a fairly general question, but maybe quite relevant. Preservatives of natural origin (not nature-identical) I found: Sodium Levulinate, Sodium Anisate, Benzoic Acid, Phenethyl Alcohol, Sodium Phytate (as chelating agent), Pentylene Glycol (as a booster).

Not surprising at all … 70% is in line with the “Made With Organic Ingredients” criteria.  The standards organizations are private enterprises, so you can follow their criteria, but it has no effect in law, it’s just a private organization saying you comply with their criteria.

Yes, you can use Sodium Levulinate, Sodium Anisate, Phenethyl Alcohol, Phytic Acid and Pentylene Glycol at pH 4.8 and you will have an effective preservation system.  But, using natural Phenethyl Alcohol would be prohibitively expensive.  Most used is Nature-Identical.

[MarkBroussard]

Your best bet would be Sodium Benzoate, Phenoxyethanol, EDTA … Yes, that would pass Clean at Sephora standards