OldPerry
Forum Replies Created
-
Colorants are the most highly regulated of all ingredients in cosmetics. Basically, it is illegal (in the US) to sell anything using a color additive that is not approved by the FDA. See this document. https://www.fda.gov/industry/color-additive-inventories/summary-color-additives-use-united-states-foods-drugs-cosmetics-and-medical-devices
So, you can’t legally get a marketing advantage by using a unique color additive because everyone is limited to the same pool of color additives. If there were a marketing advantage to get, someone would already be doing it.
More importantly, in the cosmetic industry you generally can’t keep your formula secret. Anyone who is a decent cosmetic chemist could copy your product. They don’t really even need the ingredient list. This is mostly because consumers are not very good at noticing subtle differences in the performance of formulas.
Match color, fragrance, rheology and you pretty much can convince people that two formulas that chemically might be very different are the same.
My advice is that you don’t even worry about it. What you should spend your time and money on is making the story of your brand & your brand identity so unique and desirable that you become uncopyable.
Just think, there are cheaper generic versions of pretty much every product out there. But brands like Coke, Nike, Pantene, Olay continue to make sales because you can’t copy the brand.
-
@Abdullah - I don’t think the study shows coconut oil is “a bit better”. At best it shows that it is no worse than mineral oil under those test conditions. As they also say “…there are no clinical studies to document the efficacy and safety of coconut oil as a skin moisturizer.” (I don’t think this is true but I’ll accept what they say).
The results from one study should never be looked at as definitive. Mineral Oil has been the standard emollient used in the cosmetic industry for a reason.But as far as emollients go, I’m sure coconut oil or pretty much anything else is fine. People are not very good at telling subtle differences.
-
Probably mineral oil
-
Not sure but two possible reasons.
1. Using it on a wet surface would dilute the acid so it might not be as effective.
2. There may be an exothermic reaction if you put the product on wet skin that some people might find to be a burning sensation.But those are just guesses. I don’t know for sure.
-
Stability is not an exact science and whether something passes or not is often a matter of opinion. In general, something “passes” stability if it doesn’t change significantly over the course of the stability test. The “3 months accelerated = 1 year shelf life” is only approximately correct. You still have to complete the 1 year testing to see if it is accurate for any given system.
I suspect many companies don’t bother once a product is launched an on the shelf. Many products do an initial product run and then never sell out to have another run made.
As an aside, it was always a fun moment to actually find the remaining 52 week stability test samples (4C, RT, 37C). So many were moved or just mysteriously lost in our stability storage areas.
-
The answer is going to depend on too many factors to make it easy to calculate. Mixing speed, surface area, surface temperature, composition of formula, atmospheric humidity, etc.
You’ll have to make a big batch 200kg and weigh it before and after. Do that about 30 times and you’ll get an answer that reflects the normal distribution of the process.
-
Also for those materials, the pH should really be closer (or below) 5.0
-
@kot - that was related to the different types. See the explanation above.
Polyquats actually have a secondary mechanism by which they are left behind on the hair (dilution deposition). So they don’t compete as much with other cationics. -
I agree, but if there is any significant marketing benefit in doing this, then more will do it. Sulfate free shampoo was also minuscule until it started catching on with consumers.
-
Seems to me that getting P&G connected with the EWG might be a good short term win for EWG but a long term loss. If the EWG starts certifying all the big companies, what point of differentiation will a small company get? Certification may just become some cost of doing business without any additional benefit.
This is the entire problem with “Clean Beauty” as a marketing position. It only holds marketing sway if you can say your product is somehow safer than standard beauty products. Once all the standard beauty products claim the same thing and have certifications, you no longer have anything that sets you apart.
On Herbalessence, I suspect that the brand has been struggling so they let their marketing people experiment with certification.
-
@ozgirl - yes, it’s one way they can increase yearly revenues. This happens to all the standards. COSMOS is much looser than they used to be.
@acacia - perhaps but it also puts all their other brands in jeopardy. I mean, if Hebalessence is now certified safe why would anyone buy the unsafe Pantene or Head and Shoulders products? Or even the non-certified Herbalessence SKUs.
And to get everything certified means they have to tell EWG all their suppliers and other trade secrets. Seems like a dubious strategy to me since the average P&G consumer has no idea what the EWG is. -
Hand cream, play time is annoying to me. You need it to be long enough like it felt you it spread on your hand but no longer. Otherwise, it just feels greasy.
-
Thanks P&G for giving them some legitimacy.
https://www.allure.com/story/herbal-essences-shampoo-environmental-working-group-ewg-verifiedI wonder how the P&G on-staff Toxicologists feel about having to go through the EWG to get their work verified.
-
Not using proper INCI is illegal, but illegal in the way that speeding is illegal. You can do it until you get caught. The FDA has a lot going on so improper INCI listings is not high on their list of things to go after aggressively.
-
The other thing to keep in mind. This is a company that does not follow INCI labeling rules. “Purified water”, “organic blend…” are not terms that are allowed on an INCI list.
So, they could easily be adding a cationic and just not listing it.
-
I’m not sure but you might contact someone at the Russia SCC.
https://ifscc.org/member-societies/member-directory/?location=ru or maybe the Turkish society. https://ifscc.org/member-societies/member-directory/?location=tr
They would be the closest to your location. -
As far as I can tell, you have no foaming agent in there to trap the gas and make bubbles.
You also have included an oil that will reduce foam.
In the elephant toothpaste experiment they include a surfactant like soap that captures the gas as it’s formed. I’m not sure if the enzyme in the yeast will produce enough gas fast enough but without a foaming agent, all the gas it does produce just goes into the air. -
We used 28% active solution of SLS.
Also, adjusted the pH using Hydrochloric acid if I recall. -
@Abdullah - Mildness is subjective. When I first worked on the VO5 line the product was about 10% SLS and 1% SLES. We used Lauramide DEA but that didn’t have much impact on “mildness.” However, compared to a baby shampoo it certainly wasn’t mild. I think a 50:50 ratio would be fine for most people.
-
They don’t have CAPB because they don’t need it. CAPB is added to a formula as a secondary surfactant to boost foam or maybe to alter rheological properties.
They have SLS, SLES and Cocamide MEA. So CAPB is not needed as it provides no benefit that you don’t get from Cocamide MEA.
The formula you listed also has Carbomer which can modify the rheology and help suspend the Dimethicone.
-
Yes, of course. The emulsifier is a key component of what makes a stable emulsion. You don’t necessarily need a thickener to have a stable emulsion.
-
There is less oil in a hair conditioner. Plus the conditioning agents (like cetrimonium chloride) can help stabilize the emulsion.
-
@suswang8 - the study was done in mice. It’s notable that since the study was published (2007) there have not been any studies done in humans to demonstrate any UV protective effect.
In 14 years no one thought to put almond oil on a human subject, expose to UV, and see the results?
My guess is of course they did, and it didn’t work in humans.
There has been done some work on the subject spectrophotometrically. This is not how SPF is traditionally measured but using a lab instrument can give an approximate value.
In this study, there is a list of common oils and simulated SPF values. They are not very robust nor would be suitable for sunscreen protection.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3140123/ -
“ I too want to believe that if I happen to formulate the right ingredients at the right percentages that maybe, just MAYBE, I’ll stumble upon something really awesome that I can believe in and can share.“
This is why you don’t see more scientists launching their own lines. Or at least this is why I haven’t tried to launch a line (except as a demonstration of how to do it).
To successfully launch products in the beauty industry, you have to be willing to suspend your disbelief and embrace a plausible story. Basically, you need to believe your own BS.
This is a crucial trait for marketing and selling, it’s a terrible trait if you want to study science and learn what is actually true.
In the beauty business, seeing the world as it is is antithetical to marketing products.
-
There are lots of suppliers. See here https://www.knowde.com/