[Pattsi]

It has to be like Paula’s, can’t feature in any of your platforms and materials. It has be on their own or third party and unscripted.

The best way (in my opinion/may differ from other’s) is to do honest marketing. Don’t plan only one step, also u should think about how to continue ur line too.

And/or if/when you want to export to where FDA-regis is required, if you mis-label or do false-claimed, it is most likely your product will be dead on arrival.

You can make a hit without violating regulation if you position your product right while staying in cosmetics lane.

Also you might not need any relevant claim to eczema, these days >50%  of users in this internet world have eczema with self-diax.

Is my English readable today?

[Pattsi]

@PhilGeis - In their page and pdf page 25 in the link Perry posted. They made the case public. 

@MarkBroussard - Agreed, the damage was done.

These days, can’t predict the outcome too. What if the judge rules in their favor, that’s cover CA and FL with tons of amazing people who believe in alternative fact.

Maybe they might come after Dove next. 

[Pattsi]

Performance wise Glycerin is the gold standard, Diglycerin is stickier and more expensive so you might not need it.
If your product has a huge end price margin sure you can use any humectant combo you like, but if not I would say glycerin alone would be enough.

[Pattsi]

The lawsuit argues that Johnson & Johnson chose to use DMDM hydantoin in its OGX products despite being fully aware of its potential adverse health effects and the availability of alternative non-synthetic preservatives that “do not release known human carcinogens.” These include glyoxylic acid, potassium sorbate, sorbic acid, citric acid, rosemary oil extract, neem oil extract, lavender oil, grapefruit seed extract and vinegar. The use of DMDM hydantoin as a preservative was therefore an “entirely unnecessary risk” given safer alternatives exist, the case alleges.

… huh? …

[Pattsi]

It is as @MarkBroussard said. There is no gray area.

some grayish tricks - don’t claim eczema in your own words, you can use intensive or sensitive etc. and wait for consumer’s review to come up with the like ” I have eczema but this … cream is good for my skin blah blah” and see if it starts to snow ball or not. Or you can make it happen with money.
Be aware this could also back fire and effect your whole line. I’ve seen lines with some success and lines that were totally crushed.

Huhhh or maybe I shouldn’t said this out loud. 

[Pattsi]

https://www.koplusa.com/minoxidil-info

Those natural oils may help with hair loss if you eat them. 

I see capsicum so be careful with it.

[Pattsi]

Off topic - maybe I should change my name to Mattsi, increasing the Matt population is global agenda.

[Pattsi]

Yes toy does attract me too. I was looking at this before but didn’t buy it.
https://www.carlroth.com/com/en/units/agitators-rotilabo-speed/p/n372.1
I diy mostly with overhead + different blades. 

[Pattsi]

I’m a bit surprised Seppic didn’t provide the range for Montanov.

@Graillotion - the same go with extracts and other ingredients as well, if you have multiple extracts contain say - propylene glycol, you break them as per % use and sum them up to 1 ingredient. Most reputable extract suppliers have the range in MSDS.

[Pattsi]

zen - you would have to stay test.
I’m with @chemicalmatt on methylcellulose.
your target is slightly thicker than water - 0.1 hya wouldn’t cost too much?  
There’s better grade xanthan.
I tried one serum from Korea which I can’t remember the name, they use Adekanol GT-730, really nice skinfeel.

[Pattsi]

sure you can tag me if I can be any of help, but I’m a marketer so my formulating skill is on basic level tho.
For ingredients supplier(s) you can ask around in here, there’s another option -    

[Pattsi]

howbout Butterfly pea water, not oil tho.

[Pattsi]

For dropper type dispenser, you could try thicken water phase a bit to hold oil droplets a little longer so they won’t separate immediately, might helps with oil/water ratio throughout the bottle.  

[Pattsi]

Cream maker fluid 3.5% - might be bit too high.

some basic free formulations

Light O/W Collagen Boosting Lotion Cold Processing

Evonik Industries AG

A

TEGO® Care LTP  Sorbitan Laurate, Polyglyceryl-4 Laurate, Dilauryl Citrate 1.5

TEGO® Derm CBS PPG-3 Myristyl Ether; Salicyloyl Phytosphingosine 10.0

TEGOSOFT® OP Ethylhexyl Palmitate 4.6

TEGO® Carbomer 140 Carbomer 0.15

TEGO® Carbomer 141 Carbomer 0.15

Xanthan Gum 0.1

B

Glycerin 3.0

Water 80.5

C

Sodium Hydroxide (10 % in water) qs

D

Preservative, Parfum qs

Cold Processed PEG-Free O/W Lotion (Without Homogenisation)

Degussa, Goldschmidt Personal Care

A

TEGO® Care LTP Sorbitan Laurate, Polyglyceryl-4 Laurate, Dilauryl Citrate 1.5

TEGOSOFT® OP Ethylhexyl Palmitate 9.5

Mineral Oil (30 mPas) 9.0

B

TEGO® Carbomer 140 Carbomer 0.1

TEGO® Carbomer 141 Carbomer 0.1

Xanthan Gum 0.1

TEGOSOFT® OP Ethylhexyl Palmitate 1.2

C

Water, demineralized 74.7

Glycerin 3.0

E

Microcare SR 9170 Dipropylene Glycol; Methylparaben;Ethylparaben;Aqua;Methylisothiazolinone 0.8

Maybe you can try 1.5 + lil natural gum/thickener you like if it’s can emulsify and reach your desired viscosity. 

[Pattsi]

I think TEGO® Care LTP don’t tolerate E’lyte well, have you try knock Aloe gel out yet?

[Pattsi]

Yes, that was the only study sunscreen/skin cancer I found.
Green et al. 2011
https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/data/UQ_229021/UQ229021_OA.pdf?dsi_version=e7e70935752118bf95cdbf48682f7ac0&Expires=1623211334&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJKNBJ4MJBJNC6NLQ&Signature=YMfCXZUI5YtW0ByFbWE7fjqucvhoanYSmwur9NXscNfcTHkuQXCs1fINK~33SsuMPxEdmJm~yDG-HHhwmSeeieHAYezxoxEVEZ8ERfvVDuf6LF5rpS2JLdnNDZo4XSFxTcV4j~q2lith5QHrXqFfxzP4KWpHFEwBJJh32iZU-CdcLmPnAI5ohJj-VXf1i6d~~WfmXr9ED5wTBNsHp~APWhND89wqrwTZOuG8Ks9xDjbuglHVly0v4B6-6sQD8KZDG2AU0QojThtYjX~ZZPGgs5KQIkBaY6Y-k2w00eQNjsdU1Bma3C88~ICvMWZpv0y9TGGhwkAjYqp6-8jrmT9Ydg__

AIHW publication
https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/0368fb8b-10ef-4631-aa14-cb6d55043e4b/18197.pdf.aspx?inline=true
© Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2016

[Pattsi]

MarkBroussard said:

Perry said:

What would be the end result of decades of washing your face with saponified soap and water?  

I don’t think that question will ever be answered since it falls into the “So What, Who Cares” category.  The parties with a vested interest are the manufacturers/marketers of saponified oil cleansing products to prove that long-term use is better than synthetic surfactants and i doubt that anyone will be willing to spend the money and time to evaluate it.

So true, I myself a marketer can sell both then why waste the money and put the 2 against each other.

[Pattsi]

Perry said:

However, I just wonder how much does it really help. Skin will age whether you use sunscreen or not. People get skin cancer on parts of their body that don’t get sun exposure.  So, how much is it really helping.

Indeed people get skin cancer on parts of their body that don’t get sun exposure but the leading cause of skin cancer is still sun exposure, so it would be better to avoid the risk factor(s).

Perry said:

So, how much is it really helping.

Imagine two different scenarios.

1. Person A religiously puts sunscreen on every day.
2. Person B puts sunscreen on when they go to the beach or when they may be out in the sun a long time. But they often just skip it.

After 50 years of each  person following this behavior, what will be the difference?

I honestly still can’t find the answer to this question, it’s in the area out of my expertise. Medical/Clinical dermatology textbooks they focus on pathophysiology and management, in Cosmeto-Dermatology books they tend to focus on beauty approach.
So I wonder we will have the answer to this question or not, the only one that came to my mind who have the ability/fund to conduct this scale of study is probably l’oreal.

[Pattsi]

Perry said:

3. Do you really need to wear sunscreen every day? or indoors?

There’re only recommendations in textbooks.

Antony R. Young
-Risks versus benefits of population UVR exposure

The acute and long‐term risks of UVR exposure are well established with damage to DNA leading to mutation and skin cancer. Chronic UVR exposure also results in photoageing. In the context of terrestrial UVR (with no UVC), the vast majority of action spectrum studies, whether in vitro, in animal or human skin in vivo, have shown that these effects are primarily caused by UVB. The only established benefit of solar UVR exposure is vitamin D production, which is also caused by UVB. Field studies have shown that vitamin D production and DNA damage are related to the product of skin area exposed and solar UVB dose over a wide dose range [108]. Thus, benefit is always associated with some risk, which will be influenced by skin type. There are those who argue that the population benefits of maintaining optimal vitamin D status are more important than the burden of skin cancer [109], but such views remain highly controversial, especially in the dermatology community. More recently, it has been argued that exposure to solar UVA is beneficial because it reduces blood pressure and a reduction in blood pressure would have major health benefits at a population level. Any proposal to increase UVA exposure would be contrary to recent global trends for ever better UVA protection. Until recently, most emphasis on the immunological effects of UVR on the skin has been focused on its suppression of acquired immunity, but it is now recognized that UVR can enhance innate immunity. At present, we lack the information to prescribe solar UVR exposure to obtain the best risk–benefit outcome for health. As such, it is probably best to advise that daily exposure be restricted to suberythemal doses, e.g. about 2 SED whether through sunscreen or not, which are sufficient for vitamin D synthesis. There is, however, no case for additional UVR exposure from tanning beds which significantly adds to MM risk. Sunbed use, popular with the young, is often unregulated and the non‐cosmetic beneficial effects can be readily obtained from the sun or vitamin D supplementation.

Vincent A DeLeo
-SUNSCREEN RECOMMENDATIONS

There is ever-increasing evidence that although the public is aware of the damaging effects of sun exposure, there does not seem to be a significant degree of alteration in behavior. In an effort to re-energize the medical community’s need to try to change behavior, the American Academy of Dermatology has reformulated its message concerning protection (www.aad.org). While the importance of sunscreen is stressed, the recommendations are broader and more positive, and hopefully this and other improvements in consumer education will eventually lead to a decrease in photodamage in the world’s population.

Habif, Thomas P.
-FREQUENCY OF USE. The majority of lifetime sun exposure

occurs during multiple brief exposures that are not intended to produce tanning; therefore daily sun protection should be encouraged. People who sunburn easily or those who have light complexions or sun-sensitivity disorders should use a high SPF sunscreen every day, all year, particularly if they live in more equatorial latitudes. Sunscreens should be applied once in the morning and reapplied every 2 hours or after swimming and heavy exercise. Encourage people to have sunscreens available in the bathroom and to make morning application part of their daily ritual. Sunscreen may fail to prevent sunburn if it is washed off during swimming or if it is not applied to all exposed skin. The protection against sunburn afforded by a reapplication of sunscreen relative to a single application is significant. Compared with the first application, the second sunscreen application affords 3.1 times more protection against minimal UVR-induced erythema. The combined effect of two sunscreen applications gives 2.5 times

better protection from UVR than does a single sunscreen application.

Hope I’m not violating the copyright.

I’m on frequent use side if you are at risk of skin cancer, especially Aussies basically you are white living in hot sun.

Indoors? - I have not found anything on this yet.

[Pattsi]

HPMC
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/substance/hydroxypropylmethylcellulose12345900465311

I Think Makingcosmetics have the 60,000 - 90,000cP version. Maybe you want to try it out.

[Pattsi]

Happened to our Mineral oil once, it was a new lot from the usual supplier, it turned cloudy when mix with other oils - supplier substituted new lot for us and the issue’s gone. 
You should check your raw materials also. 

[Pattsi]

by c10-30 alkyl acrylate crosspolymer you mean Ultrez21 or the pre-neutralized one?
Ultrez21 gives more viscosity than Aristoflex avc, you can try 0.3 - 0.5.
I find pure Aristoflex avc sticky at > 0.7,you can try adding mattifying ester and/or silicone elastomer. 

[Pattsi]

It is what it is - a separated emulsion.
Not really bi-phasic like makeup remover - it takes time to separate back to 2 layers.
The ingredient that was left out is Marketinga Moneyeta. 

[Pattsi]

There’re a few things caught my eyes on the internet recently.
boobs reducing cream, gel turned condom when dry, pubic hair straightening cream.

[Pattsi]

I’m not Canadian yet lol.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/cosmetics/notice-stakeholders-proposed-updates-cosmetic-ingredient-hotlist.html

waiting to be added to restriction list.

Rockstargirl said:

 What are your interpretations of HC hotlist?

azelaic acid - prescription drug, OTC

Potassium azeloyl diglycinate - cosmetics

https://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2019/70893a-eng.php