PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Not familiar with Euxyl K12.
-
I’d not sue a contaminated raw materials. FDA would consider the product itself adulterated whether it grew bugs or not and it might even after release.
Appreciate your professional attention to hygiene and quality - I’d sure keep it up!
-
@Anca_Formulator
The primary purpose of preservative is to protect the consumer during continued use the the product. This is reflected in the very flawed concept of period after opening. That means your preservative must be stable through that period whatever the chemical stability may be.
“Retest” or recontrol testing (assume for micro) may just be boiler plate - or that they’re no confident in the micro stability of the material -
What do you k now about its safety?
-
Guess they’ll next label apples, pears, plums etc “contains formaldehyde”
-
That’s exactly the issue - there’s nothing about this other than Inolex promotional claims including the unjustified “natural” for what is very likely another synthetic material. No efficacy and just as important - no safety.
-
How will you justify safety of the new ingredients?
-
Just phenoxyethanol. That is a poor system. You’ve nothing to address fungi. Please understand, merely passing a challenge test is not enough - such tests are not validated to anything.
You should design a system vs bacteria and fungi and then test to confirm expected efficacy. -
Sorry - my comment was confusing - parabens/EDTA WITH chloromethylisothiazolinone.
Parabens./EDTA alone is not - but good addition to chloromethyl isothiazolinone that is excellent vs bacteria, esp. Gram negatives. -
@Anca-Formulator
What do you think they mean by “expired” in a technocal sense? -
Inolex offers no data efficacy or safety - just comments that its a bacteriostsat (inhibits doesn’t kill) and in that it doesn’t cover molds.
For every ingredient, you are responsible to answer with data showing its safety. That’s not excused even if the claim “natural” is true (and that would be interesting) -
At 5 ppm active, I’ve used it successfully with 2600 ppm benzoate and EDTA. Parabens/EDTA is also a good combination. Think you don’t need phenoxy or benzyl alcohols.
-
Your point is a sound one and prob the effective basis for neutralizers (Lecithin and Tween) used in recovery media.
-
Folks should not use in cosmetics, materials intended for household products even if the same actives.
You can find similar lists of combinations from Inolex, Thor and other suppliers - some reasonably good, some pretty flakey. -
That post/link(s) - promotional list of Shulke’s preservatives and Parmetol DF35 data sheet that doesn’t even list actives.
DF35 is marketed for household products, not cosmetics. The active is chloromethyl isothiazolinone - a older but good bactericide . Cosmetic grades are used only in rinse off products, unstable at alkaline pH and need an antifungal and chelating agents. It’s b een the go-to preservative for 30 years in most of the shampoos, body washes in the world. -
Mark is intrigued and thinks it’s unnecessary and can’t see a useful purpose.
Tell CFSAN https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-food-safety-and-applied-nutrition-cfsan/contact-cfsan.
Or maybe your congressman . -
Mark - why don’t you ask the FDA. Think this obscure point, even if intended to deceive (and this is the 1st time I’ve heard this suggestion in my 40 years), is much less deceptive than calling synthetic preservatives ?natural.”
BUT - whisper it to an associate brand manager and it’ll be an accomplishment at their 6 month review.
-
So what Mark? How many consumers would read all the way down to the last few to find their fav ingredient?
-
A critical element of expiration dating is the efficacy of product preservation.
-
Leucidal is not an effective preservative and spray products need effective preservatives due to inhalation exposure.
-
Used by whom to deceive? MarkBroussard said:
The 1% labeling rule allows you to place ingredients incorporated below 1% in any order as opposed to decending order of inclusion. This is often used to make it appear that an ingredient is included in the formula at a more substantial percentage than it actually is.I can’t fathom a logical reason for the 1% rule.
Certainly was not in P&G labeling protocols.
And how does to deceive if all 1% or less? Folks are more apt to see the last than the firth from last.
-
Here’s a new one “All-natural organic chemistry”.
-
Think there’s substantial support for terms of economic expediency, however contrived..
-
Of course it’s about money.
But please, those claiming “natural” for synthesized ingredients should not indulge in moral judgement. -
@chemicalmatt
all-natural organic chemistry? Is that a term of art?