[mikethair]

Over the past 20+ years, I have formulated face serums (I prefer the term face oil) for various brands globally. And my approach has always been to formulate using high-quality oils that will provide the outcomes required by the client.

These formulations have been enormously successful.

[mikethair]

From my experience as a manufacturer and formulator over 20+ years there is a niche for “fragrance-free.” And recently I was wanting to buy a “fragrance-free” lotion……it was difficult.

[mikethair]

Any reason you have decided to use Castor oil?

I have formulated similar products and used a blend of Rice Bran and Grapeseed oils. These felt a lot nicer on the skin than Castor oil. Important for the end-user.

And yes, as mentioned by Perry, you will need to experiment with Polysorbate 80 to achieve the correct level of solubilization.

And the addition of water and fragrance, plus a preservative regime will need to be trialed extensively to ensure that the formulation in its entirety works.

I would suggest you set up Excels and record all quantities (in grams) and the results, including trials with consumers. In my experience, this can take at least three (3) months before your formulation can be finalized. And don’t forget the microbial lab tests.

Kind regards,

Dr. Mike Thair

Master Formulator

[mikethair]

Yes, Hurdle Technology worked for us.

We ran a GMP Certified factory for 20 years until March 2023 and employed Hurdle Technology for our shampoo, face wash, and body wash products. The main component of Hurdle Technology was the high pH of these products (around 9.5 pH). And appropriate packaging.

And over the 20 years, we manufactured for various Private Label customers around the world which required validation and Notifiaction in various countries, including the EU.

I should also mention that our factory had its own in-house laboratory, and results were regularly validated by external labs.

And on top of this, we were regularly inspected by the GMP Certifying authority.

So yes, Hurdle Technology can work.

[mikethair]

I have always had very good results with Ohaus scales.

[mikethair]

With pH meters, I would definitely go for new ones. If you buy secondhand there may be issues with the probes that need to be well looked after, and they have a limited life.

I have always had good results with OHAUS pH meters. It’s an American brand, and I have equipped many labs around the world with OHAUS pH meters.

[mikethair]

There is zero data.

[mikethair]

<div>Yes indeed, endocrine disruption from preservatives is VERY REAL for consumers. But it is a case where if you suffer from endocrine disruption from preservatives, you suffer seriously. And those who don’t suffer have zero effects from preservatives.</div><div>

I also note that there are around 10,000 papers in the peer-reviewed scientific and medical literature.

</div><div>

So this group in effect suffers in silence. And are not recognized. Within this context, it is not aligned with CIR, SCCS, and FDA opinions.

</div><div>

Feel free to get back to me with further questions.

</div>

[mikethair]

Hi SoapyWays,

Yes, endocrine disruption from preservatives is real to those who suffer and non-existent to those who don’t suffer. It’s that simple. And there is plenty of scientific/medical literature (more than 10,000 papers) discussing the effects on those who suffer.

And re your comment “But I find saponification works great for body wash and the like, but it absolutely destroys my hair/their hair.. I find potassium cocoate particularly drying, from our perspective.“

OK, what we have found is that your hair is full of the ingredients from your synthetic shampoo. And the saponified product needs time to clean these from your hair. Over the years various customers have reported that this can take a few days to two weeks. And if your hair is still dry after this transition period, then a hair oil applied overnight works wonders.

[mikethair]

Yes indeed. The alternative/replacement preservatives have very limited safety testing. Of course, these are nicely greenwashed and labeled “innovative.” It’s all driven by the marketing gurus…

[mikethair]

Hi PhilGeis…. good question.

Yes indeed, the endocrine-disruption properties have been the focus of researchers for decades still remain a focus for research.

And the reason? Science circles back on itself. Successive investigations will lead back to the same question but at deeper and deeper levels. And contexts never remain static.

For example, a study in 2021 showed the levels of human exposure to parabens were higher in the U.S.
and EU countries than in China and India. But this level of exposure will change with the
increasing production of parabens in China and India. Thus this 2021 review
provides context for future studies to connect paraben exposure levels
with human health effects.

So, in effect, we may never see a definitive response to your question “what do you see as the open question re. parabens that current risks assessments have not addressed?”

As a scientist, I’m comfortable with this. It’s how science works.

[mikethair]

Hi Perry,

Thanks very much for the clarification, it’s much appreciated.

The Paraben question, it’s ongoing. Some scientists still have questions regarding relative safety. So we will need to wait this one out. It won’t be quick.

Kind regards,

Mike

[mikethair]

Hi again ketchito,

Thanks for the clarification. Noted.

Kind regards,

Mike

[mikethair]

Hi ketchito,

With respect, I’m not confident the report/s you have cited are unbiased reviews. After all, the Personal Care Products Council is a national trade association representing global cosmetics and personal care product companies. So, hardly unbiased.

As a scientist, I rely on the published scientific/medical literature. These papers are published in peer-reviewed journals, and these scientists have no links to cosmetics and personal care product companies.

I have provided a link below to 100 scientific papers using the search keywords “endocrine disruptors preservatives cosmetics.”

Any questions, please feel free to get back to me.

Kind regards,

Dr. Mike Thair

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=endocrine+disruptors+preservatives+cosmetics

[mikethair]

Hi again Perry,

Thanks for your response, I really appreciate it. We may have to agree to disagree. And why not. I think divergent points of view in our industry are healthy. And as long as safety and cosmetic compliance standards are never compromised.

In my world, I see a place for niche products, and I see Dr Bronner’s in that category. As were our own products and those I formulated for our global Private Label customers.

Yes, they may not be everybody’s cup of tea, but there is a demand there, albeit a lot less than the giants of our industry. And I should add that the profit margins on saponified products are a lot less than the conventional skincare products. So yes, a $200 million annual profit is small in the big scheme of things.

As a scientist, I am guided by the published medical literature in peer-reviewed scientific journals. And there is certainly a solid body of evidence around endocrine disruption from the synthetics used in skincare, especially the preservatives. The fact is that nobody, apart from scientists like myself, reads these journals. And as a scientist, something that I have done for years is to write plain English blogs that can be understood by the general public.

OK, Perry, thanks again for your comments. Very much appreciated.

Kind regards,

Mike

[mikethair]

Thanks, Perry, I appreciate your response.

Perhaps you should relay the same message to Mike Bronner, the current President of Dr. Bronner’s. This company was founded in 1948 by Emanuel Bronner. They saponify plant oils, as we do, to produce a wide range of bathroom and household cleaners.

After 150 years in operation, I think the damage has been done to “encourage other manufacturers to stop using proven preservatives.” Dr. Bronner’s is a very well-established brand globally. And in saying this, I am not encouraging non-safe products.

And in response to your comment “While your experience demonstrates that it is possible, for the vast majority of product makers, using a preservative is the safer option,” there is absolutely no question about the safety of our products without preservatives, and using Hurdle.

And you may also know that many preservatives are endocrine disruptors. We cater to this sector of the market. My wife suffers from endocrine disruption caused by preservatives.

Again, I appreciate your comment, Perry. Thanks.

[mikethair]

With the greatest respect PhilGeis, we never implied “soap as a single factor of product formulation.” And we never identified EO as part of the hurdle.

And as we mentioned, our hurdle approach combined a number of bacteria-inhibiting factors. These included pH, heat treatment (71 to 100 C), and appropriate packaging. So we see three combined hurdles working in unison. And our early trialing indicated that if we eliminate one of these factors, the bacteria-inhibiting falls into a heap.

Is it the simplicity of our approach using just saponified oils that is troubling you?

[mikethair]

The soap formulation adopts the main elements of Hurdle Technology. And by definition, our approach combines a number of bacteria-inhibiting factors. With our liquid face wash, body wash, and shampoo include pH, heat treatment (71 to 100 C), and appropriate packaging, in our case pump bottles.

Also, some of the essential oils we used in finished products may have had bacteria-inhibiting factors. But these were never tested as the bases themselves all displayed bacteria-inhibiting factors.

And it is worth remembering the simplicity of our bases……shampoo is only potassium cocoate, and face wash potassium olivate. Our body washes a mixture of potassium cocoate, potassium palmate, and potassium soyate.

So, in our opinion, the reliance on our soap formulation is in fact Hurdle Technology.

[mikethair]

Generally, what you describe are the protocols we adopted.

And after 20+ years of producing the same products, it’s a well-trodden path from our side.

Our overseas Private Label customers usually prefer to do the microbial testing themselves in-country and email the results for our records.

[mikethair]

Yes, we use Hurdle Technology on our liquid shampoo, face wash, and body washes I have mentioned before.

And yes, like other manufacturers, our test batches go to our test consumers to confirm the basic product efficacy. This can take a lot of time. And we have spent upwards of 12 + months to get the test batches where we want them. And liked by our test consumers, before the formulation is finalized.

So yes, we do ask for data from our test consumers.

[mikethair]

I retired. I’m now in my early 70s.

[mikethair]

No.

In all of the cosmetics compliance parameters globally that we have complied with, “in-use data” is not a requirement.

Can you provide an example where “in-use data” is a requirement?

[mikethair]

In my opinion as a chemist, defining a shampoo bar simply by pH is an oversimplification.

So I ask you again, what is the definition of a shampoo bar?

[mikethair]

How would you, therefore, define a “shampoo bar”?

[mikethair]

<div>
</div><div>

I’m sorry, but it is a shampoo bar because that’s how it has been formulated. And yes, it is a soap. The formulation has oils that we would not use in regular soap bars. And as a result, it is a very different product. After 20 years of producing regular soap bars, we can tell the difference!!!

And more importantly, our Private Label customers globally loved these shampoo bars.

</div><div>

</div>