[mikethair]

I would check with your country’s cosmetics compliance authority. In our case I had our QC Manager do the checking with our local authorities and those of the destination countries of the brands we manufactured for, and in all cases, it was a no no.

The only option we had was if the brands we were manufacturing for returned the used containers to us and these were cleaned under our GMP conditions. And cleaning pumps was mission impossible, therefore pumps needed to be replaced.

And I question the eco-friendliness of this approach. Shipping empty containers back to us is not cost and carbon-free.

[mikethair]

<div>In my opinion, you will find incompatibilities among your set of ingredients.</div><div>

</div><div>

My approach was to saponify coconut oil to produce Potassium Cocoate. In our manufacturing facility, we produced this shampoo base for 20+ years. We used this base to produce shampoo for brands globally. It was just a matter of adding essential and other oils to meet client requirements.

And what attracted brands was that the shampoo was synthetic free, and worked.

Contact me if you want to know more.

Kind regards,

Dr. Mike Thair

</div><div>

</div>

[mikethair]

Some of the substances are much
more effective permeabilizers than others. And they may have variable potential as
antibacterials. Yes, EDTA, nitrilotriacetic acid, and sodium hexametaphosphate,
which disintegrate the outer membrane by removing Mg2+ and Ca2+, are theoretically effective permeabilizers.

My suggestion regarding GLDS is to set up a proper trial in your lab. And I’d do the same with EDTA. It is not something one would want to predict remotely.

[mikethair]

My approach would always be to have our QC Manager approach your cosmetics compliance authority and seek clarification.

[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]

Hi Harkem,

When you ask me if “oil base serum much better than water based?” two thoughts come to mind.

(1) I’m an old scientist (in my 70s) and when you mention the word ” serum” what comes to mind is the clear liquid part of the blood that remains after blood cells and clotting proteins have been removed. At one time I worked in a serology lab where we worked with bovine serum.

(2) I listen to my clients and the specs for new products they are asking me to formulate for their brand. And based on these specs, I will tend toward formulating high-quality oils.

[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]

It was “local” in Viet Nam and Malaysia (under the ASEAN Cosmetics Guidelines), and for the international brands we were manufacturing for. With the international brands, each product was Notified with the cosmetics regulation authorities of each destination country.

[mikethair]

<div>Hi Porag,</div><div>

The pH is one of many parameters that may be causing your hair to drop. May I suggest that you provide a list of ingredients for your shampoo formulation. This may provide a clue to your problem.

Kind regards,

Mike

[mikethair]

Hi ketchito,

Yes, I have read all of these papers. As a scientist, that’s what I do.

And yes, there are flaws in these papers and the peer review system. But what is the alternative?

[mikethair]

Hi PhilGeis,

I think that your response shows that we are communication from different sides of the pond.

In my case, as a scientist, my reference point has and always will be the scientific/medical literature. And based on my understanding this scientific literature I formulate. I maintained this approach for more than two decades as a co-founder and managing director of a cosmetics manufacturing company that provided products to brands globally.

And now I understand from your perspective from within the cosmerics industry “That they hire experts in the field to execute assessments is to their credit…”

This perspective you have explained is very illustrative to me. So thanks for that.

I’m not suggesting that one approach is better than the other. And I believe they can co-exist.

My phrase “call me old fashioned” is what I guess we call an idiom. And there are no suggestion here that you called me old-fashioned.

[mikethair]

Hi PhilGeis,

With great respect, I have read all of the papers I have cited. As a scientist and formulator, it’s what I do.

Call me old-fashioned if you like (OK, I’m in my 70s), but the papers I have cited are of concern to me. I have listed 100+ scientific papers listing concerns. That’s too many for me.

And again, I have gone through all of these papers.

[mikethair]

Hi Perry,

With respect, what concerns me is the research cited in scientific literature. For example:

• 2021 Jul 15;778:146150.

  doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146150.

  Epub 2021 Feb 27. Parabens as chemicals of emerging concern in the environment and humans: A review.

• 2019 Jan/Feb;30(1):32-45.

  doi: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000428. Paraben Toxicology

• 2022 Nov;87(5):389-405.

  doi: 10.1111/cod.14181.

  Epub 2022 Jul 18. Preservatives in non-cosmetic products: Increasing human exposure requires action for protection of health

• 2022 Oct;29(49):73648-73674.

  doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-22895-z.

  Epub 2022 Sep 9. Environmental contamination status with common
  ingredients of household and personal care products exhibiting
  endocrine-disrupting potential

• 2010 Sep;15(3):190-6.

  Toxic effects of the easily avoidable phthalates and parabens

And the list goes on. I should add that these are from peer-assessed papers and the scientists do not have any allegiance to cosmetics companies.

Further, if the check the following link, there are listed 100+ scientific papers (including those I have cited above):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=paraben%20concerns%20cosmetics

And what evidence would convince me that parabens are safe? Similar to what I have provided above citing peer-assessed papers saying that parabens are safe.

[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?