PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
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. -
@chemicalmatt
Bronopol! Amen brother! -
Zn and suppose Se can complex with EDTA. As ketchito said, my comments were based on experience with ZPT. I’ve used EDTA with ZnO and SeS containing products with no loss of relevant efficacy.
-
Assume you’re referring to the EU Cosmetic Directive Annex VI type list originally assembled about 50 years ago.
The general reason why most of the listed preservatives are not used - they don’t work well as cosmetic preservatives.
There are few less popular formaldehyde releasers. Others might have some potential but have drawbacks - too narrow a spectrum, stink, unstable, not soluble, irritants, etc.To your question re. those not listed - it would take a ton of money for testing, esp. safety testing, and years in the gears of government/bureaucracy for approval and listing. Not aware anyone has tried this in the last 30 years. As preservatives are generally higher-priced ingredients used in very small volumes, their economies do not support such efforts. To the ones you specified - these are so poor and their volumes so small I doubt anyone would bother.
-
Combinations - both have some activity to all bugs - one of ’em has the best to the specific target group - in Abdullah’s example - phenoxyethanol for Gram negatives and IPBC for fungi. Both have some activity to the other’s target group.
Combination not only “covers the waterfront” - in some cases offers increase efficacy - even true synergy (e.g. benzyl alcohol/benzoate/EDTA in shampoos)
The other concept is - it’s harder for a bug to adapt to resistance when there are two antagonists - even if one is weaker. https://academic.oup.com/jpp/article-abstract/23/Supplement_1/136S/6200536 -
Think you might adjust some ingredients . Perhaps EDTA too great - maybe drop it back to ~0.1-0.15. Don’t know the commercial CMIT/MIT you’re using but final should be 5-7.5 ppm (think 0.33% if Kathon CG-type. Mg stabilized CMIT/MiT should not have residence time during making as simple aqueous solution, esp. not with just EDTA in solution.-
-
To pharma’s excellent post - I’ve limited experience with phytic acid, esp. titrating levels. It does work. Agree re. cap hydroxamic acid - like pyrithione (ZPT - another hydroxamic acid) it might have some efficacy vs fungi but nothing for bacteria.
Chelate free systems do work - my experience in these includes ironically antidandruff ZPT products (EDTA screws up ZPT), products with some physical aspect (gels) and shampoos that added divalent cations for foam characteristic.
I try to design the best system and my bias in that is always EDTA. -
Can you offer a link to the drone stuff?
-
This is quite predictable. With or without the ferric ion, these are not compatible. For the same reason, folks don’t formulate with ZPT antidandruff products with EDTA.
-
Expanding on ketchito’s excellent point
You should be cautious re enzyme dust as aerosolized it’s quite allergenic - sufficient to risk anaphylaxis. In laundry detergent (with enzyme) manufacturing, dust control is a major safety priority, and employees are periodically tested and moved to jobs of nonexposure if allergy detected. -
assume enzymes blend is liquid
-
As chemicalmatt said - there is no specific requirement in US for a test. However, you are responsible to defend the safety of your product
21 CFR 740.10
A cosmetic is considered misbranded if its safety has not adequately been substantiated, and it
does not bear the following conspicuous statement on the PDP:Warning - The safety of this product has not been determined.
-
Thanks Mark
-
I’d looked it up online - all I found was
attorneys https://www.sheehanlawyers.com/.
The plaintiff is in Cleveland NY. -
@MarkBroussard
Thanks Mark. I understand.
One can preserve effectively without the traditional “unclean” preservatives. However the numerous small guys at for example Sephora are the least capable both in formulation and making/packing to do so effectively. I think retailers have an obligation to consumers - if compelling/encouraging alternative and obscure micro safety at the preservative level, they should assume some informed role in ensuring the end product is still safe. -
As ketchita said, and consider in context. Are these both for machine use? HE?
Hard water of geography of sale? -
Mark - you’re involved with Clean at Sephora.
What can you say about their oversight for micro quality in the nontraditional clean context? If you are free to say - what is in-house expertise regarding preservative? I’ve seen some pretty silly systems that may pass USP 51 but are nothing in the real world. -
Since the manufacturer recalls, retailer names are not typically associated. Here’s a connection to a recall by Benefit -https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5058475/Contaminated-eye-make-recalled-Myer-Sephora.html
and
https://www.mygc.com.au/popular-makeup-concealer-recalled-from-sephora/ -
Sephora has made it easier for microorganisms.
Clean Beauty does nothing for safety, as the message implies - just facilitates crap preservative systems.
-
My anger at this concept is not the consumer snow job - that’s the business we’re in. My issue is safety compromise, esp. for micro. That Clean Beauty implies safety while ignoring everything but many ingredients whose sole purpose is to maintain safety and are safe and the most effective in that regard.
-
Between my former employer and industry organizations, I had data regarding what consumers said they knew - not an assumption. Don;t have recent data. Curious - your source of data? Inside Sephora stuff? My bet - if anything, it’s more to how well does the concept sell.
The industry challenged retailer priority lists a decade ago and heard they knew next to nothing of the chemicals other than they were targeted by EWG et al. (aka scare mongers) and were not compliant with the growing green trends.
Clean Beauty is anything but. The inadequate, sometimes ridiculous preservative systems combined with the lack of executional depth of their typical suppliers no doubt have contamination common in use. I’ve served as expert on market contamination issues with products of this type..
-
@MarkBroussard
No. “Clean ” is indeed a marketing claim but consumers generally have no idea what the banned ingredients are. It was not developed to consumer demand - it’s an extension of the scare mongering chemophobia.
Cosmetic marketing generally endeavors to tell what they want and see if they fall for the story. -
The vitamins work on the “fairy dust” principle.
-
Agree it goes nowhere. But the question “What ingredients are Clean at Sephora products formulated without?” is not much of a definition. I hope it goes far enough that Sephora responds with m more - and why.
A pox on both houses.