[Perry44]

That’s wishful thinking. If you put Citric Acid in a formula, it should be listed. However, you can just note your objection and the company is going to do what they want. If it is just a label run-out, the chances of them being found out is not high. Make sure they change it when the next round of labels are printed. It’s still wrong & they should print new label (really how much could that cost?) but if they are such a small company that they worry about a few thousand dollars for labels, they’re probably small enough to get away with it.

[Perry44]

You saw my thoughts on “cruelty free” and why I think that is a dubious claim. Similarly, “vegan” can be dubious because plant based ingredients can be contaminated with bits of insects killed while harvesting the ingredients.

But as a marketer, you can only do so much. Anyone can claim anything is “cruelty free” or “vegan” as long as they feel confident they can defend themselves in court if they are sued over it.

As for solutions. Unless you are going to come up with your own definition of what cruelty free or vegan means (I don’t recommend this), you are going to have to look to some unofficial certifying bodies who have already come up with these definitions. For vegan you can use…

Examples of Vegan Certifications

1. BeVeg Vegan Certification:

   • Covers cosmetics, makeup, skincare, and toiletries.

   • Includes ingredient identification and factory audits to verify vegan claims

2. EVE VEGAN® Certification:

   • Guarantees no animal ingredients in products or packaging.

   • Ensures no animal testing and supports organic vegan agriculture

3. The Vegan Society’s Vegan Trademark:

   • Established in 1990, widely recognized globally.

   • Found on over 70,000 products, including cosmetics

4. VeganCert by Vegan Action:

   • Certifies cosmetics free of animal ingredients and testing.

   • Does not guarantee organic plant-based ingredients

I personally don’t think these certification guarantee products are cruelty free however, you aren’t going to get sued by me if you make those claims. As long as you can point to some certifying body you could use that information as a defense in court if you do get sued.

[Perry44]

Yeah. Some people actually believe the cosmetic industry is as unregulated as the NGOs and bloggers say. And if your brand is small enough you can get away with it for a while before the FDA / FTC catch on.

[Perry44]

Do you worry about the allergens found in lavender oil?

[Perry44]

You need to add a suspending polymer like Carbomer or Xanthan Gum.

[Perry44]

Typically, you’ll want to at least do microbial contamination testing on every batch just to ensure that it doesn’t get contaminated. Also, you should probably do a limited stability test every couple months on your batches to make sure that when you’ve changed lots of ingredients the product is still stable. You should also have a retain of every batch you make stored at Room Temperature just so you can verify that it remains stable and safe.

[Perry44]

It’s unlikely the ceramides are having much of an effect beyond being a humectant so something like glycerin or sodium PCA might work.

[Perry44]

Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll see if I’m able to selectively turn it off like that.

[Perry44]

ChatGPT is not 100% reliable so you can’t trust it 100%. Although people are also not 100% reliable so it’s probably on par with most people you’ll ask.

For this question, you should also ask ChatGPT to “list it’s sources” and then double check the source to see if it is accurately reporting

Here’s what Perplexity says. It sounds more reasonable than what ChatGPT says.

—————-

Based on the available search results, there is no specific information about the percentage of people that can be sensitized by 3 ppm of CMI (chloromethylisothiazolinone). However, we can draw some relevant insights from the data provided:

1. A skin sensitization study found that some leave-on products with MCI/MI (a mixture of methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone) at 7.5 ppm may increase the risk of sensitization induction 3
   .
2. Rinse-off products with 15 ppm MCI/MI were not associated with a potential increased risk of skin sensitization induction 3
   .
3. In a Swedish baseline patch test study from 2003 to 2012, 3.1% of patients reacted to 200 ppm MCI/MI (3:1 ratio) 3
   .
4. A more recent study using 2000 ppm patch test allergen showed an increase in positive results over time, with the highest prevalence in 2015 at 9.41% for MCI/MI 5
   

Given that these studies used higher concentrations than 3 ppm, it’s likely that the percentage of people sensitized by 3 ppm CMI would be lower than the percentages reported in these studies. However, without specific data on 3 ppm CMI sensitization, it’s not possible to provide an exact percentage.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by  Perry44.

[Perry44]

Yes, it is possible. Citric acid and LABSA have different acid strengths and buffering capacities, with LABSA being a stronger acid but requiring more to achieve the same pH shift, likely due to incomplete dissociation or interaction with other components in the solution. Citric acid, a triprotic acid, offers better buffering, making it more efficient at neutralizing the alkalinity of your SLS solution.

Your SLS powder is likely highly alkaline due to residual NaOH or Na₂CO₃ used in its synthesis.

[Perry44]

In truth, without water the sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate aren’t doing much.

[Perry44]

I’d guess either before or after the Cetyl Alcohol. Probably after. I highly doubt they have fragrance at a level above 1%

[Perry44]

Your toner is solid, but honestly, toners don’t do much beyond light hydration and prepping the skin—so if you’re going to use one, here are some tweaks that might help. First, make sure the pH is between 3.5 and 4.0, or that glycolic acid won’t exfoliate properly. The formula might feel a bit sticky, so dropping glycerin to 2.5-3% and bumping up propylene glycol to 3% (or swapping in butylene glycol at 1-2%) could help. Also 0.3% Caprylyl Glycol could help boost your preservative system. These tweaks won’t turn the toner into a miracle product, but they might make it a little more aesthetically pleasing to use.

[Perry44]

A big company like Unilever would use up to 1% silicone. I think what is listed is a blend which is only about 1/3 silicone so it seems a reasonable level.

[Perry44]

Personally, I don’t like washing my hair with soap but I’m sure there might be a market for it. The major synthetic versions of detergents used in shampoos these days were invented because of the negative effects of using soap on hair.

[Perry44]

Why questions are always difficult but the mostly likely reason is that you are not getting the same mixing shear and temperature profile in the large tank versus the lab beakers. The difference in energy is probably the cause.

[Perry44]

What synthetics are more hostile to skin than EOs?

[Perry44]

Google is not necessarily more reliable than the AIs and the AI also gives a description of how it calculated the results. So, there are some good reasons to ask the AI a question like this.

[Perry44]

I ran this on Deepseek and got the following…
“Final Answer:

For 300 ppm hard water, you need 0.6–0.9 grams of STPP per liter, depending on efficiency requirements. For 100 liters, you’d need 60–90 grams of STPP. Adjust based on exact water chemistry and system conditions.”

This is much closer to what ChatGPT was saying. I don’t think there can be an “exact” answer because some of the answer relies upon real world conditions. ChatGPT gives you the theoretical maximum.

Interestingly, I asked ChatGPT why there was a discrepancy and it said this…

ME: “did Deepseek make an error? Shouldn’t your responses be the same?

ChatGPT said:

Great question — and you’re absolutely right to ask this. Let me give it to you straight:

Did DeepSeek make an error?

Not exactly — but it was inconsistent across answers.

In DeepSeek’s first answer (3.5–5 mg/L STPP), it clearly underestimated the amount needed to soften 300 ppm hard water. That amount would only remove about 5 ppm of hardness, which is nowhere near 300 ppm.

In DeepSeek’s latest answer (600–900 mg/L STPP), the recommendation is much more realistic and aligns closely with mine from the start (~1.1 g/L for full chelation).

So what happened?

DeepSeek initially applied a rule of thumb commonly used in detergent or light-duty cleaning formulations (where you’re just reducing hardness a bit to prevent scale or improve cleaning), but misapplied it to your question, which was about fully softening 300 ppm hard water.

Then, in the second response, it corrected course by:

Applying proper molecular weight ratios (STPP 368 g/mol vs. CaCO₃ 100 g/mol)

Recognizing that you need a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio to account for real-world inefficiencies

Recommending 0.6–0.9 g/L, which makes sense

Should our responses be the same?

Yes — ideally, all responses should be consistent if the question and assumptions are clear.

In this case, my response and DeepSeek’s final corrected one are aligned. The inconsistency came from their initial answer being too low.

Summary:

DeepSeek’s first answer (~3.5–5 mg/L) = way too low for 300 ppm

DeepSeek’s final answer (~600–900 mg/L) = realistic, consistent with stoichiometry

My original answer (~1.1 g/L) = slightly more conservative, full chelation basis

Bottom line = we agree now

Let me know if you’d like a version of this written for a report or presentation — I can lay it out cleanly.

[Perry44]

It depends on what else is in your formula but that might work if you keep the pH at 5.0 or lower.

[Perry44]

ChatGPT generates responses based on the information it was trained on. Unfortunately, it can also mix up the information it was trained on and create false information. That’s why it is helpful to get sources from AIs and then double check that the sources say what the AI is claiming they say.

[Perry44]

Indeed. And raw material suppliers are not under the same advertising / marketing restrictions that you have for finished product makers. They can pretty much say whatever they want on the flimsiest of evidence. It’s up to the finished goods maker to vet the marketing material that suppliers push.

[Perry44]

I mean they might use as much as 1% silicone in their formula

[Perry44]

Sure I can add it. Can you post a line link and a description here and I’ll update the list?

[Perry44]

That’s one of those things small start-ups do. When they get bigger and get legitimate regulatory people involved in the production and sale, they’ll start listing their preservatives (if they have any).

This is exactly the reason I recommend to consumers that they should stick to buying products from bigger companies. They are just safer. This isn’t to say small company products are unsafe, some are and some aren’t. But for a consumer, they should err on the side of caution.