Microformulation
Forum Replies Created
-
This Contract Manufacturer’s employee had a different definition of what “Love” was as an ingredient; http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/cosmetic-lab-employee-admits-he-ejaculated-in-tanks-of-face-cream/
-
It doesn’t matter. If you read about Water Activity (Aw), one of the stated rules is that Aw must be measured and it should never be extrapolated. As such, you can use glycols to boost a preservative system, but it is highly unlikely that without very specific testing during the Formulation as week as a QC test during Production that you could ever use it as a sole preservative.
-
Also, many emulsification systems will not handle a significantly high alcohol level.
-
The avoidance of Peg’s due to the presence of 1,4 Dioxane is really old news. Most natural standards simply ban Peg’s and that is about all it amounts to. To put it into perspective, even under Prop 65 in California, they have an allowable minimum level which most products meet easily.
Simply, the larger companies use these products all the time. When your Marketing standard allows them, try out some of the PEG-Emollient such as the Olivatis line from Coast. You will like the performance.
This was more properly news years ago. If I were concerned about any raw material growing with market bias, I would pay attention to the Alkyl polyglucosides such as Decyl glucoside. It was just named allergen of the year and the fear mongers are starting to post about it.
-
Firstly, I doubt this article was even a blip on the radar of the large manufacturers. It isn’t getting reposted ad nauseum and is from a small news source.
Secondly, we get exposed to “natural” and the scare tactics online. In the larger markets that P&G operates in, it is much less of an issue than you would believe.
-
No offense. I tear down Ingredient declarations all the time. It is like Sudoku for me now!
-
It wasn’t an insult at all. As you see the same INCI names over and over again, you will start to be able to associate them with at minimum the product line and in many cases the actual raw material itself. It takes hours upon hours of breaking down INCI decks. I am not being pedantic, but I bet if you broke the INCI deck down eventually you would identify the active, be it Cinnamomum Cassia Bark Extract, some other botanical extract or even VBE. It is a learned skill.
-
An unsealed cream is not an ideal nor particularly normal incident. More of an anomaly. We test our samples in a closed flint glass jar which we purchase from SKS. When available, the actual packaging would be even more ideal, but with the rapid R&D cycles we have, the packaging is usually lagging behind stability testing.
-
The ingredient lists name the compounds. You just have to be experienced with the raw materials to identify them. That is where experience comes in.
-
My take on that is that I use strict INCI notation and the FDA has never blinked at one of my labels. I see that controversy all the time.
-
Why. you don’t need sterilization. Just sanitary conditions. If you have ever done any sterile laminar manufacturing, you would see how pointless it is in sterilizing a component that will then subsequently be processed under sanitary conditions. Complete overkill.
-
Disodium EDTA could be a barrier for that product with some standards. It would most certainly become an issue if you simply called it “natural” and waited for the blogosphere to weigh-in.
-
I have been coaching my clients to use the term “Naturally compliant” if the raw materials are plant-derived and minimally processed. The COSMOS standard does a great job defining allowable processing. As a Formulator, I can say the term natural has slowed R&D and caused more confusion than it has ever helped.
-
I have certified 7 products for clients through NPA. The price is nowhere near 3K each.
I agree that there is Marketing appeal to natural. My concern is that unless they certify the Product (as we agree is beneficial), in many cases if they follow an undefined “Natural” standard in R&D, they will either be as “natural” as the initial posted Formula or they will be so “natural” that they will greatly hinder the performance. I am sure we have seen products at both ends of this spectrum. In many cases, the person who strongly desires a “natural” product doesn’t have the chemical background or familiarity with the existing standards to develop a compliant product.
-
I would just avoid the term Natural altogether. It is for all intents and purposes pseudoscience. Plant-derived or “naturally compliant” if you follow a standard is better.
-
Well, first of all, “natural” is a marketing term and lacks a definition. As such, using it as if it is a defined term hinders the R&D and Formulation process.
The shampoo above is built partially around Alkyl polyglucosides, a plant derived surfactant. However, there are several ingredients which would not be allowed under the natural standards. Calling it “natural” would expose someone to FTC action. See here.
More on what is “natural” read this introductory yet comprehensive blog post.
-
Your natural gum thickeners can contribute. Why are you using Solagum AX (Xanthan Gum and Acacia Senegal) with additional Xanthan gum? The value of Solagum is to allow you to decrease Xanthan gum and avoid some of the sensorials you are experiencing.
-
These free from claims are going to be more problematic for these companies in the end than they are positive for Marketing. From some information passed by the FTC, soon they may need to provide testing to prove free from claims. It is not enough to avoid the inclusion, but some raw materials may contribute these free from ingredients as well.
It also is misinterpreted by laypersons. I once heard someone complain about alcohol-free products because they used Cetyl alcohol. A bit of a disconnect there.
-
They also had P Anisic Acid in there, a Dr. Straetmans preservative that can be used with care. Not on its own but in combination.
-
@DeryaOk, now I get it!
-
Micro formulation the vet community sends you a big fat kiss!!
Err, what? It is late. What did I miss?
-
@MarkBroussard Bingo. I have had clients relay the same information to me. I believe in many cases they may have thought they had a layperson developed “recipe” and we all know that they usually are not nearly ready for Production. However, if bringing a tested and credibly designed Formulation, I warn my clients of this wrinkle. When my clients brought it up, the CM added a clause into their contracts fixing the issue, but they were not very happy.
-
Had this discussion with the FDA just last week. You can’t just not make a claim, include an active and believe that the products is not a drug. Here is a verbatim comment the FDA Inspector made to a new client regarding this myth;
- Ingredients that cause a product to be considered a drug because they have a well-known (to the public and industry) therapeutic use. An example is fluoride in toothpaste.
The client included a well-known acne ingredient in their product and didn’t make any claims whatsoever. Remember, if you expect to make an implication (hint, hint, wink, wink) and expect your customers to get the inference (wink right back), the FDA which deals with these issues frequently will not miss out on the inference and will intervene.
-
Many labs attached to Contract manufacturers will hold onto the IP, the Formula. They offer a discounted R&D fee and under their fee, they never transfer the ownership. I have had clients counter my fees with “XYZ Cosmetic Manufacturer says that they will do the Formula for $350.” Later on down the road, they learn that when they want the Formula, there is often an exorbitant cost attached. Keep in mind that most CM’s make their money in manufacturing and can discount the R&D fee from future manufacturing revenue. When this opportunity is lost to them, they have fees to recoup these costs.