[PhilGeis]

@chemicalmatt @MarkBroussard
Thanks! btw - I looked at FDA’s proposed 2022 budget and saw nothing to support all the new stuff this requires.   Maybe I missed it but this looks like an unfunded mandate.
https://www.fda.gov/media/149616/download

Last year FDA brought in an industry veteran to train them for cosmetic GMP’s so maybe they saw this coming.

[PhilGeis]

ok - I see. My error, sorry.

btw - good for the systems you use.

[PhilGeis]

@justaerin
How do phenonip and PE 9010 mitigate perceived odor of their phenoxy component?

[PhilGeis]

Mark - I think the commercial name  “Rose ether” some suppliers attach to phenoxyethanol may be the source of olfactory expectation.

Maybe my memory is flawed, but seems the term was used in the 80’s by the old Emery Chemicals to describe phenylethyl not phenoxyethyl

[PhilGeis]

@MariaReneia
and the truth is - this is only a marketing campaign. 
It’ll be a sad day for science and technology when the regulatory aspects of the industry are so bastardized as to define and legitimatize the mythical “clean”

[PhilGeis]

As Graillotion said, phenylethyl alcohol has more of a rose smell.

[PhilGeis]

@MariaReneia
These primarily synthetic, poor to very poor and in one case fake preservative systems are ‘natural” only by the hyped redefinition of the term.
Please stop buying the hype.

[PhilGeis]

Value?  Certainly - value to their certification  organizations and those selling the hype.

[PhilGeis]

Certification organizations.   Have to admire the clever racket.  Redefine a meaningless term and charge folks for the use.
Esp liked EWG - at least formerly, demanded a piece of the action

[PhilGeis]

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.

[PhilGeis]

All ingredient are naturally derived.

[PhilGeis]

@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.

[PhilGeis]

@Herbnerd
you’re neither passivated nor pickled?  Are you in stainless?

[PhilGeis]

One need only look at FDA enforcement records to understand the impact of no-no on micro quality - and cryptically experienced by consumers.

[PhilGeis]

Think most of the big guys formulate with “no-no” preservatives tho they may have a few labored products that comply with “clean” concepts

[PhilGeis]

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.

[PhilGeis]

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.

[PhilGeis]

@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.

[PhilGeis]

1. No.
2. All natural = BS
3. No
4. Maybe

[PhilGeis]

read the patent for claims

[PhilGeis]

@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. 

[PhilGeis]

@amitvedakar
These are sales brochures - no more - note the absurd BS of “vegan” and 

allure

• adding to the allure of our customer’s products

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.  

[PhilGeis]

Catchy name  - Ethylzingerone

[PhilGeis]

@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.

[PhilGeis]

If you’re in US, this is would be a drug product.
Regulatory status aside, how do you propose to prove ‘healing” efficacy?