PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
The only difference is that those hiding behind Ecocert head fake have a better story.
-
MgCl is highly soluble in a highly aqueous application. With or without chelator - this is a story not a consumer benefit.
-
It’s only “natural” by the credentialing BS.
any chance pH has drifted high? -
It was simply not a stable preservative system in your product. Germall plus I assume an antifungal and chelator is more stable. Products are not sterile so growth of a fungal contaminant is not necessarily a problem with manufacturing hygiene.
If you’re certain you see a mold colony - why waste time culturing? Your issue is with preservation. -
Graillotion makes an excellent point. Esp. in preservative context, develop a combination that gives consistent efficacy through the range of type formulas. Likely shampoos will not be the same as lotions - but within each through it’s own range of pH, emulsifiers, etc. it will speed development and give consistent protection.
-
Appreciate your intent but, in shampoo context, think you reaching for a story more than clinical endpoint. Even if effective, you’re unlikely to get enough from a shampoo.
Mg ascorbyl phosphate applied directly at % levels has some animal data supporting hair growth.. -
I would most certainly call the credentialing org’s deceptive. Consider that SCJ et al. missed the mark by not starting their own.
Granted all this is BS regarding a product largely sold in BS. The only real damage is in preservation and there “natural” is at best ignorant often cynical BS.
As Perry said - why not tell the truth.
-
You might consider a parabens/formaldehye releaser-or- phenoxy/chelator based system.
Leucidal is unjustified in any context. -
Leucidal is amazing? Good grief. Not only is it very limited in efficacy, it reportedly includes synthetic disinfectants.
-
Cosmetic marketing has been and is driven by garbage claims - from marginally functional antiaging, hypoallergenic, reef safe, animal testing to the fantasies of natural, endocrine disruption, no whatever, sustainable, causes cancer, microplastics, formaldehyde. Credentialing organizations parasitize each of em - EWG, COSMOS Ecocert, animal testing bunch, etc.
At corporate or individual level - ethics are calibrated to the perception that success requires some degree of buying in.The major industry org’s for the last 2 decades tried to educate consumers on preservatives - no luck there.
@grapefruit22 - what ingredient isn’t “naturally derived”?
-
Mark - I’m not with you on effective preservation.
Benzoate is hardly the synthetic answer to an effective preservative system.
The system you describe is not one that I’ve evaluated so I can’t address its risk. What I do know from P&G work and have seen with multiple clients subsequently is that the great majority of the natural systems are not adequately effective. They do pass USP 51 but that is not a validated risk assessment benchmark. -
But to Perry’s original question - I’d say unlikely. Prob. a headwind vs. the Natural Cosmetics Act from folks using the term now including the credentialing org’s. Haven’t heard that the big guys push it.
And as Barnum said “……..btw @@grapefruit22
the second, 117th congress. -
MarkBroussard said:@ketchito:
Now you get down to the issue of product safety, which is where select synthetics and nature-identical synthetics play a role in the natural market, particularly preservatives. For the most part consumers understand this, but they are looking for the most benign synthetics available which is why there is a tolerance in the natural market for Sodium Benzoate that has a natural analog in Benzoic Acid, for instance. For the absolute purists, there’s always ethanol.Not with you on this Mark.
The preservative aspects is the worst. So-called naturals are more hype than effect and consumers and too many formulators understand none of it. Don’t think they looking for “benign” per se - they’re sold these synthetics claimed to be natural on undefined/ill defined natural hype with a some chemophobia. But I’m unaware of relevant consumer understanding of this group’s motivation. What they do not know is the much greater risk they assume with such preservatives.Don’t understand Sodium benzoate as “natural analog” esp. in the current discussion.
-
Don’t think so. No amendments to Feinstein Collins and don’t see Natural in table of contents.
-
I’m with you Mark with the potential valuusefulness of that legislation and sure agree the definition shouldn’t be left to self-appointed credentialing folks.
Feinstein Collins Senate bill has been around for going on a decade. It’s not so much opposition - industry supports it - it’s apparently not a priority. In it’s current version - it was read and referred to comm. over a year ago with no subsequent movement.Natural Cosmetics Act is a House bill - are you sure they’ve been combined? It has only a few Dems as sponsors and hasn’t moved out of comm. since introduced in late 2021.
Who knows what will happen. The original FD&C Act took about 5 years and multiple versions before it passed.
-
Wonder if Feinstein Collins will get any more traction than previous attempts.
Also wonder if COSMOS Ecocert guidance is “best” or just license to fudge. -
grapefruit22 said:
Maybe they mentioned caprylyl glycol, propanediol, and citric acid, because they can be of natural origin or synthetic. If Sodium Benzoate or the ingredients above were to be illegal in natural cosmetics, then what about organizations such as Cosmos or Natrue, which for years have been offering certificates according to criteria that accept such ingredients?
Can you help me find the reference for caprylyl glycol in nature?
-
Somebody establishes an organization that defines/certifies as natural chemicals produced synthetically. Their credibility lies with those who care to share the concept for financial gain.
-
Be aware, the debate re natural and other cynical marketing claims goes on within companies as well. Amoral folks in marketing too often win.
I’ll offer as relevant example that very few major companies have converted to “natural” preservatives (so many here pursue) despite their eager marketing folks and careerist managers. The reason being that they know manufacturing and consumer risks with the contrivances even to Shakespearian eye of newt.
-
“Natural” in cosmetic context is clearly and most frequently a sham for the suckers. But most cosmetics are sold on that basis.
Some care to engage some not. Ethics are calibrated to economics. -
If you guys are healthy you’ll prob be ok.
-
Neither is good - keep ’em in frig. Do you attempt to control pH?
-
EDTA was offered as a well-known adjunct to preservative efficacy.
Phenethyl alcohol is much weaker than phenoxyethanol. It’s more of an inhibitor than killer and has little efficacy vs staph. What % do you plan to use? https://www.neogen.com/categories/microbiology/phenylethanol-agar/
-
A bit of overkill - 9010 and Ultra should be enough tho’ suggest addition of EDTA. Not aware Ecocert has contrived “natural” for 9010’s phenoxy (yet), and your pentylene glycol is unlikely to be anything but synthetic.
As Graillotion said, dump the Leucidal.
-
You know its synthetic.