PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Parabens to Molokai !!! Or maybe Dreyfus to Devil’s Island.
-
So just “unclean” ingredients?
-
Regulatory Affairs Professionals Association https://www.raps.org/
-
@healthybooth
I did not see ingredient listed on your website so can’t comment to your application of “clean beauty.”
However, please understand safety is an affirmative process - you must have data that shows safety for all your “clean beauty ingredients and products re. appropriate endpoints - carcinogenicity, sensitization, irritation, eye safety, teratogenicity, preservative efficacy, etc.? Without such appropriate data - your product are not safe and in US would be labelled.
“<strong style=”font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color: var(-bb-body-text-color);”>Warning-The safety of this product has not been determined.”
-
@healthybooth
Clean beauty is a technically meaningless marketing claim - there is no technical synonomity with safety or “non-toxic” ingredients. Ironically, many of the “clean beauty” ingredients (esp. preservatives) have very little human safety data in context while those rejected are a among the best qualified in terms of safety in use as document by the FDA and SCCP (e.g. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/parabens-cosmetics).
Please, if you insist on a technical basis for this makrei8ng claim - please provide the technical support. Repeating the marking BS does not establish its validity.
-
To the previous comment, I’ll add that you must consider how you will validate your in vitro protocol to consumer use.
-
As he said, terminology “pH” - “p” means the negative log value, here concentration, and “H” refers to hydrogen ion.
and pH balanced is largely BS.
-
Soap is certainly not immune from contamination - esp. with bugs that are not readily picked up with routine testing - e.g. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ics.12401
Are the body wash/shampoo/etc. products in question all of the classic soap, alkaline pH-based composition? This is generally ok as made clean - BUT - common consumer practice is dilution - by intent or unintended exposure in shower.
Most of the cosmetic recalls are of the “clean beauty” preservative type. All no doubt passed their version of <51>, probably +/-total “kill” at early time points. Not only does the test fail to address fairly minor manuf. issues (“minor” as I’ve consulted on some) , it’s not relevant to the primary objective of consumer protection. Major companies qualify their preservative systems and to some extent their own challenge test with in-use experience (e.g. https://journals.asm.org/doi/abs/10.1128/aem.53.8.1827-1832.1987).
Think any novel approach to preservation should be qualified vs consumer use. Not aware Dr. Bronner has so qualified their systems and wouldn’t take just their word for it anyway. Their systems don;t impress.
I know you are a veteran of the cosmetic industry science and sure have learned a lot from your posts. On this matter, I don’t understand the justification or science.
-
Please explain the data set - not that no one challenged. That said, the purpose of preservation is consumer protection - and none of the compendial challenge tests are validated for that purpose. What data do you have in that context.
btw - you have a totally incompetent and negligent assessor.
-
Ketchito may be addressing soap fatty acids av. synthetics as in Ivory v. Dove. I recall of the FA’s, laurate C12 had the greatest irritation and antimicrobial potential.
Not familiar with pipes but we all know soap scum.
Could you address the microbiology - preservative-free - aspect please.
-
Self-preserving? The products? Please elaborate.
-
Appreciate your professionalism and concern for safety. In that regard, please drop the Ecocert charade and forget the GDL/Leucidal - in any application.
Suggest . parabens and organic acid(s).
-
Please be aware that anhydrous products can be contaminated. Note recall of an anhydrous eye ointment due to Bacillus cereus contamination.
-
#1 is a good better system with pH control.
The organic acids alone or in combination are poor - at any pH. At acidic pH, they mainly target fungi and Gram positive bacteria and are very weak vs. Gram negatives - the most common contaminants. they can also form poorly soluble salts with divalent cations like Mg and Ca - that you might find with kaolin. Phenoxy is best for Gram negatives . Here too. kaolin may screw you up - might absorb the phenoxy. A chelator would help but that too could be screwed up with divalent cations from kaolin
#1 combination should give you a good start.
-
The no-no lists are marketers’ and retailers’ - telling consumers what they should want - not a compelling % of `consumers.
-
Content testing is important but preservative testing by typivcl protocol is pretty meaningless for such products. You should get a risk assessment for product and production.
-
3 and. as Abdullah suggested, with a chelator.
-
Think recent fed legislation (MoCRA) should preempt moronic state BS like this.
-
If you‘re +/- duo - prob makes no diff but should sanitize with hypochlorite.
If manufacturer to any significant volume, get rid of the plastic, add separate sanitizing step, if liquid detergent make sure it’s not contaminated.
-
1 and 3 are little more thanphenoxy and marketing.
Divalent cations (this context)Salts of organic acids can mitigate their limited solubility/efficacy
-
That is a pretty poor preservative system at any pH.
-
Similar reports for Avons Skin
-
Old system allowed a great number of discussion posts on screen at one time - this one allows fewer
-
FDA improved (finally!) their previous (really crappy) Chapter 23 BAM for cosmetics QC ~decade ago but it’s still kinda flakey. Suggest relevant ISO’s, CTFA’s. or even USP 61/62.
-
Looks like some lily-livered scoundrel bushwhacked him!