PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Clean is ad hype. I doubt sephora will go down onetis but am interested in their defense. Would love to see “Puffery” but my bet is some pompous posturing for consumer benefit.
-
All ingredient are naturally derived.
-
@Bill_Toge
The tests are effectively the same - some have more demanding criteria.
None is validated. Anything less than complete elimination of all but 16404 at 1st time point is suspect by any protocol.
In anmy case, testing is not enough - one must consider manufacturing, packaging, stability and anticipated consumer use. -
@Herbnerd
you’re neither passivated nor pickled? Are you in stainless? -
One need only look at FDA enforcement records to understand the impact of no-no on micro quality - and cryptically experienced by consumers.
-
Think most of the big guys formulate with “no-no” preservatives tho they may have a few labored products that comply with “clean” concepts
-
Please remember the objective of preservation is protection in use. Folks offering no issues for combinations typically do not have data or perspective in that context.
Passing USP 51/!SO 11930 is no guarantee of efficacy. -
Those “forbidden” parabens are molecules that are not listed in Directives. These were not offered for use and no safety data was generated to justify their use.
-
@Joy
I understand many wish to pursue “clean” beauty and natural marketing myths. Complexity of efficacy in that context is not satisfied by pointing at a few materials.I’m sure some will offer their opinions of effective “clean:” preservatives. Good luck.
-
1. No.
2. All natural = BS
3. No
4. Maybe -
read the patent for claims
-
@amitvedakar
Prob so - you’ll find alcohol in the best known application - Peridex. This is a drug product and some might consider their manuf to be sufficiently under control and application sufficiently controlled that nominal preservation is not needed.
It is really not a consumer product as casual use will enrage many due to tooth staining that is effectively permanent. -
@amitvedakar
These are sales brochures - no more - note the absurd BS of “vegan” andallure
Marketers are responsible for their products - not suppliers. Trouble with regulators or harm to consumers is on the marketers. They could sue to supplier for the misleading brochure (and almost all are in some big or small regard) - and they’ll [prob lose.
-
Catchy name - Ethylzingerone
-
@zetein
Neither Bronopol nor Quat 15 is “bad”. They (rather consumers) are the victims of chemophobia. Quat 15 was never used broadly - color and cost - but found a home in J&J’s baby shampoo until scare mongering and Chinese extortion forced its removal.Think hydroxyethoxyphenyl butanone is a L’Oreal initiative. A perfume component of limited efficacy with I recall some sensitization potential.
-
If you’re in US, this is would be a drug product.
Regulatory status aside, how do you propose to prove ‘healing” efficacy? -
Good grief.
Can you post the link? -
@biomate
That is total garbage. Where are parabens forbidden?
I advise you not repeat chemophobic propaganda any day. -
In any geography - do not exceed 7.5 ppm active (CMIT+MIT) - 5 ppm is adequate.
Don’t know the origin of this “Global Regulatory” but it is bogus
PCPC is an industry organization - it approves nothing
there is no regulatory limit.
CMIT/MIT should NOT be used in leave-on products -
Not sure I’d label BHT - if not functional or significant to product safety.
-
@Perry
Yes - and inhalation hazard. -
Been in the industry since 1981 - don ;t recall seeing that. But i was just US back then. With phosphate don;t see much need for EDTA. Know credol was used in insulin
-
Odd example of what we called “incidental” - Kathon CG has more Mg salt than isothiazolinone (~20% to 1.5%) and we (former employer) labeled only the antimicrobial.
-
As far as I know, it’s at the discretion of the finished product guy to decide and defend.
Your thought would be a good one for those folks without technical insight,. -
@MarkBroussard
The language is clear and as read, does not appear to support your comment. Do you have case law or other relevant FDA perspective to share that establish the ingredient manufacturers’ labeling dictates finished product labels in this context?21 CFR 701.3
(1) Substances that have no technical or functional effect in the cosmetic but are present by reason of having been incorporated into the cosmetic as an ingredient of another cosmetic ingredient.