PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
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. -
@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