PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
I’m with graillotion. Suggest these are a marketing response to Lume et al They’re nothing special in terms of efficacy - just spray perfume deposition.
-
USP 51/ISO/EP style test is not that hard a challenge - it merely shows there’s some degree of hostility. It is not a validated to anything.
-
Search Google images for ingredient names and look for “Sulfate” as SO4
-
What testing and standards do they reco at “retest”?
-
Mike - re.” Importantly, we must make a distinction between synthetic and essential oil fragrances. Safety assessments have not been conducted for many of the synthetic fragrances.”
I dispute this statement. Extensive safety assessment IS conducted by major manufacturers for their perfumes and perfume ingredients - synthetic or otherwise. These data are not made public as they represent substantial investment by perfume suppliers. I’ll offer that natural ingredients including essential oils in general have much less (some no) analytical and safety data support - both as expected and as supplied.
Further, we should avoid casual, unjustified scare mongering.. re. “Avoid any product that uses the words fragrance, parfum, phthalate, DEP, DBP, or DEHP in its ingredient list.”
Consider phthalates. Citing its own findings and conclusions of CIR, CDC and NIEHS, FDA comments “… the FDA does not have evidence that phthalates as used in cosmetics pose a safety risk.”
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/phthalates-cosmetics
fda.gov
Overview of safety and regulatory issues related to the use of phthalates in cosmetics.
-
Good idea - but do not “blend”. Formulate as individual ingredients and, if pH allows, use Na benzoate rather than sorbate. Doubt you really need the tocopherol.
-
Prob should check micro
-
No reason to. What is your geography?
-
Maybe Mike can explain - neither seems “natural” to me.
-
The saponification “exemption”?
-
Check with challenge testing. 0.5-0.8 Phenoxy/EHG/with lower pH Na benzoate. If you end more efficacy - add benzyl alcohol. In some formulas, it works well with benzoate.
-
and look for complete kill (not just reductions), hopefully by day 7 and certainly by day 14.
-
The objective of product preservation is to protect consumers. The objective of raw material preservation is to get it to the customer clean.
For product, you might try the CTFA (PCPC) test - it’s not validated either but isn’t so much a pushover as 51. For either - you could use compete kill at 7 days as your standard rather than the current specs. There are also “validated” protocols but not within the capabilities of any but larger companies.
For a raw material - it’s a function of making/packing hygiene and some biocidal intervention (preservative, heat, etc.). For SLS, 70% material, high pH, or preservation works.
-
Regulators/bureaucrats are as uninformed as you, Mike. Hopefully their safety decisions re. ingredients and products decisions are based on appropriate review and risk assessments by toxicologists. That is precisely the basis for FDA’s position on phthalates.
To repeat. Citing its own findings and conclusions of CIR, CDC and NIEHS, FDA comments “… the FDA does not have evidence that phthalates as used in cosmetics pose a safety risk.”
I’m not familiar with Malaysian regulator authorities or their scientific support. For P&G I reviewed and offered comment for ASEAN micro standards and protocols some years back - and was not impressed. What is their position on phthalates?
-
Please explain the experience as the co-founder and Master Formulator of a skincare manufacturing factory in Viet Nam and Malaysia since 2006 that qualifies one as a toxicologist - esp. one with superior technical insight vs. those of CIR, FDA, CDC, SCCP. etc.
-
Let’s also remember the limited relevance of “endocrine disruptor”. In its basic form - it means binding to estrogen receptors - esp. membrane receptors - to start a cascade for gene activation including those of sexual maturity. Parabens e.g. do indeed bind - with an affinity orders of many magnitude less than estrogen and in an a noncompetitive manner so readily displaced by estrogen. That it activates is unsure. but estrogen itself is listed as a carcinogen in this regard.
“Endocrine disruptor” is bandied about by activists with ignorant horror of a zombie invasion while researchers conduct experiments irrelevant to application but eagerly extrapolate data to were all going to die.
-
Mike you are not a toxicologist (nor am I) and it is not agreeing to disagree - it is risk assessment vs risk elimination (aka scare mongering). As with parabens and some of chemical targets of endocrine disrupting scare mongering, there are data of some effect (tho parabens data are often crap). Science addresses those data by estimating the risk in use - and that is the practice of toxicologists at FDA, CIR SCCP, IFRA, P&G, Unilever etc. Presence of data/potential risk/publishes articles means nothing practical until placed into a use context.
The only totally safe material/chemical is the one that hasn’t been tested. Risk assessment considers exposure, effect, NOEL, product context, etc. by standardized and validated protocols and specified safety factors.
-
Cynical posturing from a criminally-incompetent Indian company. “Abundance of caution” with a body count and FDA Enforcement Report noting “Non-Sterility: FDA analysis found unopened products to have bacterial contamination.” and includes recall from the same folks of eye ointment for the same problem. Marketers were EzriCare and Delsam.
Dave’s right- tough to see a scenario by which a consumer contaminates eye drops with aeruginosa but obviously a manufacturing risk.
-
Add Sodium benzoate to ~ 2500ppm
-
What is your preservative policy? do you use formaldehyde releasers? parabens? And what is your pH?
-
May or may not be important to your problem but that is a useless preservative system
Nancide (assume Naticide) is a sham. If by “Grapefruit extract” you mean the seed extract, you’ve fallen for more BS.
-
Great! You should expect no recovery -even one is a concern as you hopefully will be selling the product for years exposing lots of folks. If you find bugs, check product for chemical and physical adulteration. Some folks like to combine products or dilute. Chemical adulteration unless frequent, is not something preservative risk assessment needs to address. Dilution is common for shampoos and less so hand soaps. For that, establish the level whose risk you accept. We used 50% as it was common globally and about the limit of what consumers would see as functional.
-
Sure Mike, and risk is driven by application and culture. Hand soap product in pump less so than shampoo in a bottle. Culture - e.g. customers intentionally diluting product - some Chinese customers use sachets for months for family washing.
This is the best one in public access https://journals.asm.org/doi/abs/10.1128/aem.53.8.1827-1832.1987
-
Mike - I do not know if consumer safety is compromised by your products. Based on our previous exchanges, I understand have no data that preservative function - protecting the consumer in use - is fulfilled with your products. So you too do not know.
There are no “toughest standards” for functional preservation anywhere but with the major companies who preserve to address in-use risk. And that in general would not be just passing a USP/ISO/EP/BP test.
-
Sounds good. Just be sure to understand and control