PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
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? -
@Perry
Why not? It’s as valid as the current contrivances. -
@Stanley
Due diligence for companies of this size would not identify this issue for immediate resolution.
SCJ acquired O&A in late 2021 and this was no doubt part of the original sin of the deal. -
@grapefruit22
Correct and plantation development is not politically correct and brings into question of regionally-invasive plants
To the extent they make the claim, it’ll be the same cynical ecocert-like approach used now. They’re advertising/marketing is as amoral as any - they just have microbiologists and toxicologists who constrain the enthusiasm. -
Big cosmetics companies are run by managers from advertising/marketing. They want to convert to the growing natural market.
Until this year (see my comment above) preservatives were a sidelight of big chemical companies - specialty chemical divisions. These are low volume, high-priced commodities chemicals - all out of patent -
FDA recognized the problem in one aspect but does nothing more than publish https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/lam.12995
I’ve served as expert witness in multiple lawsuits over contamination and consulted in technical resolution of others. Always medium-sized guys driven by “priority lists” to weak unstable “natural” systems, made/packed out at other medium sized, less competent guys to a retailer. Contamination and they sue each other.
-
btw - my comment above “PCPC has mounted to effective defense re parabens or formaldehyde releasers - phenoxy will find the same ineffective support.”
the “to” was meant to be “no”.
This is typical of what was offered - article in technical press. Nothing funded to reach the public.
Krowka
JF, Loretz L, Geis PA, Davies I. 2017. Preserving the Facts on Parabens Cosmetics
& Toiletries June https://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/research/chemistry/Preserving-the-Facts-on-Parabens-An-Overview-of-These-Important-Tools-of-the-Trade-425784294.htmlPublic outreach was left to individuals- I gave talks to FDA and at Science Cafes in Ohio and Florida. Here’s Sylvia Cupferman in EU https://cosmeticobs.com/en/articles/news-34/preservatives-the-cosmetics-industrys-defence-strategy-3707
-
Pharma is spot on re that f’ing idiot Darbe. No controls, tissue from some hosp in scotland, parabens in reagent controls never exposed to tissue and about the same level as found in tissue, etc. All her experiment s are designed to prove (rather than test) her chicken little hypotheses.
And the whole “endocrine disruption” for parabens is a technical scam. Orders of magnitude less affinity than estrogen or even phytoestrogens.