PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Prob should check micro
-
No reason to. What is your geography?
-
PCPC test - can you be more specific?
-
Adding tap water will add Pseudomonas aeruginosa - a typical water bug and one of the worst for cosmetic contamination. Using the same bottle with the added water will give it a chance to adapt and grow in your product.
-
Consumers in general are, at best, vaguely aware. Pressure comes from retailers and their “priority lists” influenced by industry parasites loke EWG and EDF (e.g. https://www.newbeauty.com/how-sephora-is-doubling-down-on-their-chemical-policy/). And there are is occasional moronic legislaion (e.g. https://ecology.wa.gov/waste-toxics/reducing-toxic-chemicals/washingtons-toxics-in-products-laws/toxic-free-cosmetics-act).
Alternatives - “natural” (that very rarely are), clean beauty, preservative-free etc. preservation is sold on ignorance and hype as are the broader product claims of biodegrable, natural, green, environmentally friendly, sustainable, etc. The number of such product claims is typically inversely proportional to micro and chemical safety. But that IS the basis of our cosmetic business, ignorance and hype - add hope and self delusion.
newbeauty.com
How Sephora Is Doubling Down on Their Chemical Policy
The beauty retailer just released a report that details their partnership with the Environmental Defense Fund.
-
Katie - check it for microbial contamination.
-
What “tristate” is that?
-
If phenoxy - be sure to add ethyl hexyl glycerine
-
Generally, yes.
-
isothiazolinone (MCIT) is a better primary preservative for this product - and you should have two, not just one.
-
What is the preservative?
-
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
-
Imagine companies doing it know (perhaps care) nothing of the risk.
-
Thanks for clarification - I understand the test and a member of the committee responsible for it.
Do NOT go off happy it passed “unpreserved” - it is preserved but how?. There is a reason and you need to confirm the WHY and confirm that the WHY will be in every product you make through stability. It might be a preservative or impurity in a raw material that the supplier may not maintain, some unique combination of ingredients and process that is not controlled.
-
My point is this - one would expect any alkaline true soap product to “Pass” as USP/ISO/ASTM/EP protocol. The bugs are weak sisters - pH alone knocks down and add fatty acids esp. C12 - the product passes..
But the purpose of preservation is to protect in-use. With good GMP’s and manuf hygiene, one can make poorly preserved products clean. IN[-use - a pump product may protect but in a typical shampoo bottle, you will get water ingress and poorly preserved products fail. We’ve spoken before on this and i understand you have noIin-use data to this risk.
-
Let’s see where MoCRA comes out. Mike may indeed be right that preservative testing is required, and I’m sure 3rd parties (good and the EWG types) will offer their services as intermediaries. Haven’t heard that FDA will make that part official.
-
Come on Mike -it doesn’t take a scientist to make and sell soap.
-
Should not use isothiazolinone (here Kathon CG) in a leave-on product.
Also difficult to get effective dispersion of small quantities (e.g. Kathon) added to finished product.
-
Ingredient statement must be provided at point of purchase - with responsibility being on the head of the “guy” named on the package. You’re seeing attemtp at cya from retail folks for their inventory control practices.
-
Not aware cosmetic companies comment that they may not be in compliance with FDA regulations. Can you name the ones you saw?
-
“Kathon CG” and similar isothiazolinones include both CMIT/MIT (`3:1), the latter (MIT) is an impurity from synthesis and present at an ineffective level. Only used in rinse off products, this is clearly the go to primary preservative in shampoos and conditioners.
-
Meant as a rule of thumb. I’d reco additional, more water soluble preservative.
btw - i meant in ref to isothiazolinone, CMIt (chloromethyl-) not MIT. If it makes a difference to your policy position.