PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
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. -
A pox on both of them.
She’s no worse than Sephora and their BS unclean chemical list.
https://www.sephora.my/faqs/900001745503-Clean-at-Sephora/900004644366-What-ingredients-are-Clean-at-Sephora-products-formulated-without -
I do get some pleasure seeing Sepharo getting burned by their own BS. Imagin e the management meeting - “How can they sue us over ‘Clean Beauty’ when nobody knows what it means?”
-
Sephora is full of it as is the “clean” BS, but Xanthan gum is synthetic? Mother of pearl!
-
I’d put my money on perpsective from Graillotion, Pharma, Perry anytime!!
-
coco said:@PhilGeis oh! Caprylyl Glycol EHG is considered weak? What’s wrong with it?
< weak.
Please understand, safety including micro safety is an affirmative process. If you can’t defend it - you haven’t met the standard.
For preservation - design a system that should work and then confirm it passes a test. This doesn’t meet the 1st. -
Right - more natural than most of the ingredients claimed to be so.
-
Please consider a more effective preservative system - whatever the stability.
-
Synthetic?
-
Not aware Propyl parabens is an “antioxidant”.
-
You can do better than just Geogard ultra.
-
Testing is not enough. The USP51-types whatever the pass/fail are not validated to anything.
Every recalled product passed the test.
Folks should design a preservative system that should work and confirm it passes. -
As Perry said.
-
Can’t answer that question but there are EDTA methods for determining hardness - perhaps execute with reverse intent.
-
If Hydroxymethylglycinate has some antifungal efficacy, it’s not due to greater formaldehyde release. Glycinate derivatives can have chelation potential and fungi are more sensitive to chealtors than bacteria.
I’d still use an antifungal. -
Unlikely.
-
@Cst4Ms4Tmps4
Not sure where you got your profile of “businesspeople”. Business models for P&G, Unilever, L’Oreal; Estee are not to sell less-than-perfect. Whereas claims range from puffery to validated, the elements under direct control - package design, preservation, safety, consistent/accurate production, stability, supply, even case stacking on pallets are executed in a prescribed manner for cost-sensitive efficiency.
Agree dyi-er’s will go broke for costs of safety testing alone. If there is less-than-perfect -the 1st place to look is dyi. -
I doubt that Dave Steinberg sees “over preservation” as a concern. Dave’s biggest concern has to do with loss of conventional preservatives.
https://www.happi.com/issues/2021-02-02/view_letter-to-the-editor/preservation-amp-cosmetics/?widget=listSection
Even if established, it would not be expected to provoke resistance - that would more likely derive from under preservation. If anything, the problem with preservation is under preservation - esp. with the “natural” hyped stuff.Preservatives will not help with water splashed from shower - whatever its pH. Addition of an antifungal may help with surface growth on humidified product.
-
What is Plantaserve A?
If in US - be aware of https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2003/06/04/03-13751/skin-protectant-drug-products-for-over-the-counter-human-use-final-monograph