[mikethair]

Hi @johnb, thanks for this.   Do you know if these are in regular use in cosmetic manufacturing labs?

I had in mind that a Rapid Test  could be used for each batch of product.

[mikethair]

From my experience as the owner of a cosmetics manufacturing company, the first piece of advice is that the marketplace is VERY crowded. This being the case, you need to differentiate the products you intend to offer from this very crowded marketplace. Given your limited knowledge about the industry, this may be a challenge.

Additionally, why don’t these potential clients just approach manufacturers directly, why do they need you.

A good model for you is Le Labo fragrances. Brilliant marketing, to a point where the brand has a cult following, but they outsource the product development. This is an example, in my opinion, where a middleman can be successful…….i.e they provide brilliant marketing and products.

[mikethair]

A very well balanced view presented by @Perry, and I agree 100%. We are one of those “puny” companies when it comes to sales, and we produce “all natural” products. That’s our niche. We have our brand message, brand story, and get on with what we do.

And as @Perry says, “If you’re only marketing angle is that your products are somehow “safer” than standard products, you very likely won’t be successful.” Not sure how success is measured, but my partner and I own the company,  currently have a turnover of 6 figures going on 7. That’s OK for us, and we provide employment to our workforce.

I wouldn’t worry about EWG and obnoxious bloggers. Define your brand, set your ingredient parameters, and get on with it. And as @Perry says, if your products are marketed properly and consumers like them, then you will do OK.

[mikethair]

As a scientist, I certainly agree with @Cagouchick in that “I feel like the voice of scientists is more and more undermined by know-it-alls and people who think they know better. Ignoring the research and data.” But this is nothing new, the erosion has been going on for years. In Australia it was difficult for me to earn a living as a scientist, and many escaped overseas (including me). Today we are shouted down by twits.

A core problem is that the general public does not understand the scientific method. It takes some time for a scientific fact to be established, and in this process not all scientists will agree, and there may be conflicting research. In not understanding how science works, this undermines our value in the eyes of the public, and provides opportunities for quacks.

How have I coped?  We just do our best, ignore the crap around us, and get on with it, trying not be angered by the deception of many brands. Probably not the best for our bottom line, but I do sleep very well at night.

[mikethair]

Depends on what you want to do with it. We produce potassium cocoate by saponifying  coconut oil with KOH which produces a liquid. This allows us to choose the coconut oil type and grade. Sometimes it is extra virgin coconut oil, other times  crude coconut oil, depending on the product we are producing and the target market.

[mikethair]

Good luck with this @Belassi    clicked on the link, but too late. Nominations closed.

[mikethair]

Thanks @Bill_Toge @crisbaysauli @Belassi    I feel a bit more confident now.

Issue is that these GMP cosmetics inspectors are all pharmacists and inspect my place as they would for a top-end sterile pharmaceuticals manufacturer.

[mikethair]

No, you are “not missing anything,” and it’s just the marketplace these days. There are the types of issues you highlight here, and now a tendency for some cosmetics to “cure every ailment known to mankind.” I’m just simply amazed at what companies can get away with. Yes, maddening.

This focus you have described above consumes a lot of energy, and I wonder if it is helping your brand?

I follow the advice of @chickenskin …..focus on your own products, define your niche, develop the brand message, be honest, and forget about these ratbag competitors.

[mikethair]

The definition of “puffery” :

 In law, puffery is a promotional statement or claim that expresses subjective rather than objective views, which no “reasonable person” would take literally.

In reality, there appears to be a lot of people that do in fact swallow this nonsense. I wonder who a “reasonable person” is these days.

[mikethair]

On what basis @Perry would FDA class this as a cosmetic, similar to a perfume. A perfume is usually worn on the skin, so yes, a cosmetic. In this example, it is described as an “Inhalation Oil” and not specifically worn on the skin. Would they be seen as being anything different from essential oils, which I understand are not classed as cosmetics if simply used in a diffuser for example?

Yes, the non-specific language could mean anything, and in this case, could it be argued that there are no claims?

I’m not defending the text…..just trying to understand it a bit better from those with more experience.

[mikethair]

Yes, @Chemist77, I thought so as well, and why I raise the question. With great respect @Belassi, the wording “to restore depleted energy reserves > helps restore depleted energy reserves” sounds like a claim to me, whereas in the text itself the wording is a bit more subtle.

I’m not sure if the text is ethical, and if it actually breaks and acceptable codes.

[mikethair]

@Bobzchemist   for our products.

[mikethair]

Thanks @johnb, but someone I do not think this answers my simple question….a standard industry format for Product Specification Sheets?

[mikethair]

The EWG has its place, but must be read with some caution.

[mikethair]

@Belassi makes a good point, and having started a business and now running since 2006 I would also suggest that you have a good look at your branding and brand message. If you are going to be noticed, it is important to differentiate your brand in this very crowded  marketplace.

[mikethair]

Thanks @Bill_Toge …..point very well taken, and probably a mindset that I need to adopt. Yes, an extreme example, but it makes a valid point.

Thanks.

[mikethair]

OK Bill, you don’t think that the CoAs (that include microbial counts) associated with the bottled drinking water are inadequate, and that we need to test ourselves?  Or do you mean the CoAs provided with the water are OK?

And what is the point of measuring conductivity within the context I have described here?

“Sterilisation”……we are not producing sterile products. The liquid and solid soaps via saponification are not subject to microbial contamination due to their high pH. Most cosmetics compliance systems around the world do not require microbial testing of these types of products.

What I may do is test our tap water and see if it is contaminated.

[mikethair]

Looks good. However, I always like to have details of ingredients for each product as this may drive some consumer buying decisions. Also, from your website I’m not sure of your unique selling point.

Good luck !!!

[mikethair]

Why not produce a test batch and send it to a lab for Challenge Testing, and then do a Stability Test (start with rapid, then set up real time test).

[mikethair]

Also a great fan of Ohaus. We have a number of their scales each suited to a particular task. Over many years have found them reliable, robust, and value for money.

For very basic work for example, up to 4,000g, we use the Scout Pro in both of our production facilities.

[mikethair]

We have been down this path and experimented with reducing the amount of olive oil by adding rice bran oil and coconut oil. Also added some lactic acid. The result is a vast improvement, and produced a very acceptable, longer lasting soap with a good lather.

[mikethair]

Thanks @johnb …..yes, I have approached the supplier and response as follows:

“This organic Rose Otto Hydrosol Batch 1005653  was manufactured in June 2014.  We received the stock from our supplier in April 2015.
 
That’s means by the time customer send sample to test in August 2016, sample has already been 2 years old . The failed challenge test results is not surprised but not too bad, small growth of microorganisms from 0 day to 14 days, no change after 28 days.
 
We also attach supplier’s COA of the same batch, which shows Microbiological tests”

Not all that satisfactory in my opinion, as according to labelling from the supplier, we have not yet exceeded the use-by-date.

Which brings us back to the original question…..what would be an appropriate preservative for this type of product for us to add when we repackage in our production facility?

[mikethair]

Great, thanks for the suggestions….much appreciated. Also confirms an appropriate mindset as well.

[mikethair]

We purchase a hydrosol in bulk (5L) and repackage into 100 mL. The supplier assures us that preserving is not required. To-date no issues with our Challenge Test Reports on these products, but one report has just come in with the following results:

The sample showed a log reduction of >5 and no increase from the 14 days count against Staphylococcus aureus at 28 days.
Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa showed a log reduction of >1 and >2 and no increase from the 14 days count at 28 days.
One(1) type of yeast and one(1) type of mould showed a log reduction of 0.04 and
-0.31 respectively which are increase from the initial count at 14 days at 28 days.

The product did not meet the criteria specified under product category 2 under USP 51 Antimicrobial Effectiveness Testing due to the increase from the initial count at 14 days for yeast and mould.

We have contacted the bulk supplier, and are waiting for their response.

This raises the question then, for us to be more certain, what would be an appropriate preservative for this type of product for us to add when we repackage in our production facility?

Thanks

[mikethair]

Hi Ameen,

Yes, I remember. Glad to know you are making progress with Western Sahara women in the refugee camps.  Well done.