MarkBroussard
Forum Replies Created
-
Contact Lela Warren … lelawarren86@gmail.com … She’s a Master Colorist and can custom blend/match pigments for you. -
The point is not that their ingredients do not provide benefits.The point is that some companies in this space, ingredients suppliers and consumer products manufacturers alike, are implying or outright stating in their marketing that the “Probiotic” ingredients are actually live bacteria that will replicate on the consumer’s face when the cosmetic product is applied. If the cosmetic product and/or ingredient is preserved, that simply cannot happen under any circumstances. And, if your end product is not preserved, well you have a whole other problem altogether … your product will get contaminated on use. The manufacturer of Bonicel even point out the false advertising by their competitors in their marketing material for Bonicel as a point of differentiation.The use of the word “Probiotic” implies live bacterial cultures … these ingredients are not live bacterial cultures … they are bacterial cellular material that has been purified.
-
That is exactly my point. The Probiotic bacteria that have been deactivated and lyophilized (freeze dried) will reconstitute when placed in the formulation, but once reconstituted would be destroyed by the preservative. So, what you essentially end up with are dead bacteria in your formulation. They will not grow on your skin once applied. And, some manufacturers are marketing that the Probiotic bacteria will grow on your skin and crowd out the skin’s natural flora!Now, I have seen a couple of more reputable suppliers who are still advertising their concoction as “Probiotic” but are honest enough to state that their ingredient is actually a purified concoction of processed Probiotic bacterial cellular material.Some suppliers must be outright lying and others are playing up the “Probiotic” language …
-
Salicylic Acid is sebum-soluble. What is actually does is form a “coating” so the dead skin cells that normally she do not form a sticky plug when mixed with sebum that clogs the hair follicles.Yes, you would be better off using a natural source of salicylates as opposed to SA directly.
-
Here you go, I think this is what you’re looking for:There are a couple of other companies besides CLR that make Probiotic Complex cosmetic ingredients. Hope that helps.Beware however of companies that are making claims of their Probiotic bacteria growing on the skin … That is wholly false.
-
@empowered and @ozgirl:
“Free From” is only the first cut that discerning consumers make in choosing a product. For consumers who desire “Free From” … that marketing message allows them to quickly determine if it is a product they will consider.Beyond that, your “Free From” product must compete on all the other product attributes that are germaine to that product category. Consumer don’t just choose a product simply because it is “Free From” … the choose it because it is “Free From” AND because it performs to their expectations on every other performance benchmark.Yes, the “Free From” marketing message is important and effective because it conveys valuable information to the consumer, but that is not only reason a consumer will purchase a product. The expect the same performance from that product as they do from any other product. -
Here is the thing that is absolutely hysterical about the marketing gimmick of putting “Probiotics” (Lactobacillus) in cosmetic products … just how is it that the Lactobacillus survives your preservation system in your cosmetic product to then replicate on the surface of the skin and “crowd out” natural microflora?Simple answer: It won’t … the Lactobacillus will be “killed” by the preservative in your product!
-
If you really, really want to put the belt and suspender on your Natural Preservative combination, add 1,3-Propanediol at 6%, keep your pH below 5.5 and add some Sodium Levulinate + Sodium Anisate (Dr. Straetman’s) to complement the GlyCap/Undecylinate + p-anisic acid. But, again, that is overkill.
-
One point that no one has yet to touch on regarding “chemophobia” is that few of these “chemophobic, synthetic” ingredients have actually been banned or restricted for use. If they truly presented a dire health hazard to humans, their use would be restricted. So, this really comes down to consumer perception and preference driving demand away from certain synthetics. Likewise, natural chemicals that present a use hazard would also be banned. So, this really comes down to a growing consumer preference for naturally-derived and processed ingredients that have not been synthetically modified …
-
The pink tint is most likely coming from the Populous Tremuloides (Aspen Bark) Extract in the Natapres. I have observed this reaction on occasion with straight-up Aspen Bark Extract. Try raising the pH to 4.5 and see if that helps.Honestly, you should be just fine eliminating the Natapres and just using the Glyceryl Caprylate/Undecylenate + p-anisic acid. You have plenty of preservative in there with just those two.
-
@EliseCortes:
I have a couple of clients that are sustainably and organically farming native crops in developing countries for use as cosmetics ingredients and extracting those ingredients in accordance with sustainable practices … this is creating jobs, economic value and vastly improving the lives of people who are learning to harvest their natural resources, yet sustain bio-diversity.Yes, in the long run … this is a good thing. Humans surviving off of the natural chemicals that the Earth and Nature provides … Yes, there are millions of consumers who think exactly this way. “Free From” claims support that you develop products with these principles in mind. -
The only way @probioticqueen can make anti-acne OTC drug claims is if her products contain one of the four OTC Monograph acne actives … Sal Acid, Resoucinol, Sulfur or Benzoyl Peroxide … in the allowed percentage ranges and/or combinations.
Lyophilized Lactobcillus “Probiotic” will have no effect on acne whatsoever and is not approved as an OTC anti-acne drug active ingredient. It can, however, be included in a product that contains one of the four Monograph anti-acne topicals, such as 2% SA, but it is the SA that gives the right to make the OTC drug claim. The Probiotic is just another cosmetic ingredient in that product. -
Actually, this is indeed a cosmetic product. The “Probiotic” is simply plant oligosaccharides that are spray dried onto Maltodextrin and complexed with Lactobacillus. The marketing gimmick makes it sound way more …. microbiological.
-
No problem there. This is a friendly discussion, so disagreeing is nothing more than having a different opinion or perspective.Yes, when an ingredient gets tagged with questions regarding its safety, that is very difficult and expensive to counter, particularly when there is a substantial amount of “junk science” for hire and/or bloggers who don’t know what they’re talking about perpetuating the myth.Now, in the case of something that is false/misleading, certainly there are options for legal challenges, but that is also expensive. It can be a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. In cases where it is deliberately false, that’s what we have a government for … to protect consumers and take action against false advertising.I look at it this way … If a perception exists in the market, rightly or wrongly, the simple fact of the matter is that it exists and it is not worth your effort to try to convince consumers otherwise unless you are the manufacturer of the ingredient in question. As a formulator who has multiple options of substitute ingredients, I simply use a substitute and use the marketing message that I don’t use the “questionable” ingredient. As long as my product contains beneficial ingredients and I am not being deceptive, I have no problem using a marketing message that my product does not contain X if that’s part of what consumers are looking for.Shame on the people who use deceptive claims against certain ingredients … they should be prosecuted. But, as a businessman, I am certainly more than willing to fill that consumer demand.Good example: Texas, of all states, just filed criminal charges against the “activists” who shot the deceptive videos claiming that Planned Parenthood was harvesting fetal body parts for sale. In the end, the truth “won”Good example: Donald Trump has Ted Cruz on the ropes with questions regarding Cruz’s eligibility to hold the Presidency. Maybe, just maybe, Cruz is not eligible. The doubt is enough to sway voters away from Cruz.The Moral Of The Story: Numbers don’t lie, but liars can count.
-
@Perry … I understand your position and do not disagree that the “Free From” claims can in some instance be driven by consumers being afraid of an ingredient or in some instances by an ingredient being more biodegradable, for instance. Although the bulk are driven by the consumer not wanting to be exposed to certain ingredients.
Now, as for those maligned ingredients … the manufacturers and marketers of those ingredients lost control of the messaging regarding the safety of their ingredients and were put in a position of having to spend significant sums of money in a PR effort to counter the tarnished image of their ingredients just to maintain market share, or put their money into new R&D to develop replacements and build for the future while harvesting their existing product portfolio. The consumers did not create those perceptions nor did the companies that use “Free From” as marketing guidance in new their product development efforts.Formulating “Free From” is simply smart business in most instances as you are filling a consumer demand … the consumer perception is already there … they don’t want these ingredients in their products. Someone posted earlier about Marketing “hijacking” … If Marketing isn’t driving your product development efforts you will soon enough be driven out of business.“Chemophobia,” if that’s what you want to call it, has lead to the creation of many new ingredients, many new products and many new jobs. People are always going to be afraid of something … If the world were based solely on scientific fact and rational consumer behavior, we would live in a very, very different world that might be better, or might be worse, than the one in which we now live. And, let’s not forget that many things that were initially thought to be based on “fear” have eventually be proven to be true and just as many have proven to be false. And, who knows, maybe that chemophobia can push ingredients suppliers to develop and/or find something that is superior to the benchmark that has been maligned. -
No problem … just look through the link that I posted earlier and see if any of the chemists there pique your interest. There are several qualified development chemists on the list.
-
“Free From” is a simple statement of fact … “This product does not contain these particular ingredients.”
There is nothing deceptive or “chemophobic” about that at all. Certain consumers have an aversion to certain ingredients and the marketing message is that the product meets those criteria. “Free From” is not making any other claim other than what it is … these ingredients are not in this product.Everyone best remember … without marketing … you got no sales and you got no work. Consumer demand and preferences properly drive product development. You can develop the best product in the world and without the proper marketing, it will fail if it does not meet with consumer desires and expectations. That is not to say you should develop inferior products just to meet a market demand, but creatively develop a product that provides benefits and meets consumer demands/needs and “Free From” can be a significant market driver.This is the most basic fundamental of business, marketing and product development. Or, let me put it this way … make the dog food that the dogs want to eat. -
You only indicated a “Color Cosmetic Line” … that could be lots of things. If you are more specific about the products you want developed, then perhaps you can find a match.
-
“Free From” can be just as useful to a certain consumer demographic as what is included in a product … No problem, certain consumers are looking for products that are “free from” certain ingredients that they find objectionable for whatever reason.
This is nothing more than marketing communication to a targeted set of consumers. -
There are several consulting chemists who can help you:
-
As it relates to Salicylic Acid at level over 2% and up to 5% relative to acne OTC treatments, this is what they are referring to:
Sec. 310.545 Drug products containing certain active ingredients offered over-the-counter (OTC) for certain uses. (a) A number of active ingredients have been present in OTC drug products for various uses, as described below. However, based on evidence currently available, there are inadequate data to establish general recognition of the safety and effectiveness of these ingredients for the specified uses:
(1) Topical acne drug products.
-
It all depends on what function the salicylic acid is performing in your product and at what level you have incorporated the salicylic acid. Salicylic Acid is an OTC acne drug and can also be used in OTC wart treatment products, albeit it a much higher levels than in OTC acne products (0.5% to 2.0%) per the Acne OTC Monograph: (www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/…/Guidances/UCM259744.pdf).
Salicylic Acid can also be includes as a component of a cosmetic preservative and/or as an exfoliant. It all depends on if you are making claims as an acne treatment or wart treatment product or not. If you are not making any drug claims, then it is a cosmetic ingredient.In some instances, a product can be considered both a cosmetic and a drug. So, unless you’re using Salicylic Acid as part of a preservative, depending on your product end use, inclusion of SA could land you in OTC drug status as opposed to cosmetic status, or both. -
I think your wax content is too low … try increasing the wax content to 18%.
-
These formulations have been out-licensed to third parties and are no longer available. If you are interested in development of a custom liquid-to-matte formulation, you can e-mail me at mark.broussard@desertinbloomcosmeticslab.com
-
Well, I think what is clear that someone made a combination of bad formulation, marketing and business choices. Anyone who knows what they’re doing would not have chosen a lip flavor ingredient high in limonene, and then so proudly highlighting it on their LOI. Sounds like they simply did not do enough testing on the products prior to launch. Or, maybe they did and these are just a few cases of negative reactions over millions of consumers. Regardless, they have one PR and legal problem on their hands.
Yes, Bob, I understand your point. But, it’s the formulators who are at fault, not the ingredients.