PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
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.
-
Advanced Testing Laboratory in Cincinnati. The do all Procter & Gamble’s work.
-
MarkBroussard said:@Pharma
The EU regulations contain the list of ingredients, percentages, restrictions, etc. of ingredients classified as preservatives that may be used in personal care cosmetic products. But, it does not specify that any preservative ingredient on the list must be used in personal care cosmetic products.
Bayer clearly wanted to market a “preservative-free” product and found ingredients not on the preservative annex that yielded acceptable preservation results to pass the safety assessment and get the products on the market. It would appear that they are relying on 1,2-Hexanediol, low pH (Citric Acid) and perhaps airless packaging to achieve this. The odd thing to me is if they cannot use “Preservative Free” claims in their advertising and packaging, what is the benefit?
Presumably, their market research indicated a decent market demand for a product line that did not contain any of the preservatives on the annex.
The directive prohibits use of preservatives not on the list. Largely drive by SCCS consideration, there is a pathway to add new stuff.
Citric acid may adjust pH but is unlikely to offer preservative effect , and I’d not give them the benefit of a doubt for airless. Think Pharma observed they do use free claim but caution others - are they selling the formula for others to package and sell under their brand?
Assume marketing drives the claim with Bayers cynical decision that they’ll not be challenged - with “emollient” BS but wonder at response to “what’s the preservative then” the “expert” premarket approver might offer.
To my perspective, it’s no different than using Ecocert cover for “natural” claim re. synthetic chemical ingredients. Enforcement is very unlikely, others are doing it and I have a good story for cover. -
Prob not - on what data does he claim 3 year stability?
-
9010 is ok - if it works. Some shampoos screw it up.
The primary micro issue for shampoos is due to Gram negative bacteria and those are the target of phenoxy and its EHG booster. Don’t buy its “broad spectrum” marketing BS.
Think a chelator (EDTA or phytate) Na benzoate would be good additions. -
Sure - I’m ignorant of your policy or pursuit of alternatives or “naturals” but the best is chloromethyl isothiazolinone/benzoate/EDTA. Do you have preservative testing capacity or budget?
Is this product intended for commercial sale or for personal use?
-
Suspect microbial contamination. Just parabens are not that great for shampoos.