PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Companies managements - LOreal P&G, Estee etc. were never interested to the point of mounting a public defense. They did invest in looking for new preservatives and that has been useless. The worst was the 3G search funded by every major company, Please read this BS report. It fails to say nothing came from the search. company https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352554120305696
-
PCPC has mounted to effective defense re parabens or formaldehyde releasers - phenoxy will find the same ineffective support. Toxicologists, chemists and microbiologists in companies and relevant PCPC committees are not influential for spending - advertising and marketing are,
-
Forget it.
-
Right - the scare mongering.
CIR is a professional, largely academic group of unbiased scientists. They’re not about to engage in any promotion.
Industry - PCPC - has totally butchered its response since Darbre opened the sewer outlet. -
EWG is a lucrative tool of the clean natural cosmetic marketing. Why would there be a backlash? Doubtful many consumers get even in the shalllow weeds of EWG and bet many that do are looking to confirm the wisdom of their choice. To that, CIR’s conclusions that a material is safe-in-use just not sensational enough.
Don’t know consumer acceptance of EWG. Noteworthy- this year for the 1st time, P&G advertising blew off its technical folks and got in bed with EWG clowns for one shampoo formula. -
Efficacy is on you.
-
CIR and consumer friendly toxicology? Perhaps read CIR summaries - they offer safety-in-use specific ranges and context for formulators. Consumers will not know concentrations
EWG is given to the amateur and meaningless color-coded assessment so readily exploited by the scare mongers. Please remember. EWG is a business, selling its endorsements at least formerly for a piece of the action. -
Natural preservative performance is generally garbage.
Folk concerned with the bogus claims of clean beauty/natural/etc. might find this article of interest.
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1239&context=wmblr -
Chevron? Poor farmers? How heartbreaking. Such ethos!
Scare mongering has indeed established the dishonest marketing as norm - witness “natural” preservatives. As Mark commented, cynical marketing of this type continues with “more natural” formulations. For these the degree of “natural” relies how many synthetic ingredients some self-appointed 3rd party defined as “natural”. -
I continue to be amazed that (very likely) good and honest people seek and recommend as natural materials they clearly know to be synthetic as long as some self-appointed group says it’s ok.
The amorality of fooling the rubes, who want to be fooled, confounds - but cosmetics are sold in promises - this one just more bogus. -
Mark -could you just stick with selling “natural” by contrivance or at least be succinct in your version of pedantry?
-
There are many if you drop the pretense of protecting the user. How will you qualify?
Mark - please relate the efficacy data that would support that system
-
Consumer desires are driven by advertising and that in our discussion is trickery - we know it has no substnace but so appeal to ego or scare monger. For claims we discuss here, consumers will see no benefit for repeat purchase so advertising and claims become propaganda.
Also note retailer priority chemical lists - those aren’t just trickery - they’re mandates. Think Sephora - bet one can find some of the crappiest preservative systems on their shelves.Not sure innovation is a good term for this matter. Stretch goals - a new definition of natural? The concept of “commercial innovation” of a company I know seems more appropriate. Here, a product was sold with added phrase - the addition bringing an effective endorsement. E.g. X Laundry Detergent with Y. Y was another well known brand establishing cache but ineffective in X even if present (in some countries, there was no Y added).
-
Adding lye to pine tar?
What is your recipe? Think pine tar is an additive to the oils/lard and then saponified. -
I understand Mark. All the sustainable organic vegan etc. is meaningless marketing designed to serve the general cosmetic objective - let/make folks feel good about themselves.
Trick? Chemophobia didn’t come from consumers - it came from marketers. The relevant market segment didn’t burst on the scene. It grew slowly as marketers pushed the scare mongering. -As for trickery - consider misleading if not dishonest “natural” claims - clearly is intended to trick consumers.I’d not care - cosmetics are sold on that trickery. But it drives the market to poor to ineffective preservation of no reliable efficacy and I know folks are getting hurt.
-
You cater to their ignorance and do it successfully. The suckers are worth 50 billion a year.
These have no substance whatever your clients do.But please remember, the discussion was regarding “natural” and the dishonesty associated with it. The mythical stuff above is honestly silly but very lucrative. Carry on.
-
Right - virtue signaling is the story - nothing more and the ego more important than anything. The product may be garbage but it fits values? Nothing more than BS for renewable/sustainable, containers are not recycled. Now it’s organic - agree natural is BS?
All that is the consumer’s call - let’s not pretend they have any real substance.
-
“Polarity” of the oil phase - or emulsifier?
As authors said, lots of things impact efficacy and they didn’t address partitioning - only efficacy - and most of their data was useless. -
These happy, well-informed people may not be aware that their “natural” benzoate, oxidation product of toluene, is no more natural than methyl paraben, that plums have a greater % of formaldehyde than shampoo preserved with a formaldehyde releaser, that many of their “natural” ingredients do not exist in nature.
-
Research - love it!
Avoiding safe ingredients makes them happy. Part of the chemophobic, virtue signaling (ala sustainability) BS.
This is a racket and there are always suckers. -
“The consumers in the in the natural segment are probably the most knowledgeable and sophisticated consumers of personal care products .”
What bull - these are the suckers I mentioned. They actually believe the ingredients are natural.What benefit?
-
No - they’re not coming to an end. That claim continues with all its justifications and to no benefit to the consumer. As Barnum said, there’s a sucker born every minute.
-
Perry observed “natural as something that doesn’t actually occur in nature but uses synthetic chemistry to produce a new chemical from biomass,” That’s :your “natural” ? Does that “biomass” include petroleum?
As cynical as that marketing is, it isn’t naturally -derived.Again - what ISN’T naturally derived?
If you’re preserving with only synthesized organic acids - you’re very unlikely to be preserving effectively.
-
MIT/CMIT are certainly of greater sensitization potential than IPBCl.
-
IPBC biggest (questionable) theoretical concern was Iodine impact on thyroid function but it is in derm test patch kits - https://www.dermatologyadvisor.com/home/decision-support-in-medicine/dermatology/allergic-contact-dermatitis-preservatives/
Right.
Na benzoate might if in surfactant context for Newtoform’s other products