PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
WHO and US FDA recommend/require 80% ethanol.
This is a drug product in US, tho’ FDA offered temporary relief during covid (https://www.fda.gov/media/136289/download). -
Please stop this “testing”. It is meaningless,
Use real preservatives, not than green scams. Safety is no place to invest political correctness and green sentiment. Whatever you think your customers want - YOU are responsible for the safety of your cosmetic.
You have fallen in to the trap of so many - and many here - in trivializing micro safety. It is not a DYI hobby either in testing or preservation. Failure risks folks who use your products and that will be 100% on you.
-
Why pH 7? You may need a preservative.
-
Food products and tap water often include a lot of microbes. We consume and breathe in billions of bugs a day - the issue is less the number than specific bugs. For healthy folks, most micro problems are minor and transient - just as you’d find with exposure to cosmetic contamination. Compromised folks are at greatest risk for both - adding to cosmetic risk eye exposure.
Tea might be around for a few days - cosmetics have effective use lives of years. So the bugs can be at high numbers and each use is an opportunity for ’em to cause problems.
have Stomach acid pH is in the 1-3 range - pretty effective in killing most not all bugs. Botulism is due to a toxin (not the bacterium itself) and is not an issue for tea. The bug is anaerobic (sensitive to oxygen) so canned foods are at risk. They’re effectively sterilized in retort and for the same reason nitrites are added to bacon. -
Add the silliness of PoA .
-
“Yield” what you get out of your production - as Perry said, is fairly unique to formula and process.
-
You need to determine this yourself.
-
Disagree Mark - P&G adds very significant major market presence to EWG “credentialing”.
Retailer ignorance in their priority chemical lists, with cowardly FDA, EU, PCPC and cynical marketers clearly put consumers at risk.
“We support EWG VERIFIED™ the gold standard in the health & wellness certification” - what garbage. -
EWG specific credentialing is as Mark observes- too much of a rip off for most to accept.
The issue is broader as the same sentiment is expressed in Priority Chemical Lists from Sephora, Target, etc. that drive to weak preservative systems - and offered as fairly common practice in posts to Perry’s discussion forum. -
I’m not sure it is consumers - as much as woke retailers, EWG et al. and social media pressure. Think if you were to ask consumers, most would not know what “parabens” are much less their “dangers”.
The bigger issue is micro risk for what’s left for preservation. none of the EWG driven BS offers a safer preservative system but it definitely drives to less effective ones, esp. in the hands of medium to small companies that are driving up micro recalls to levels not seen since the 1960’s and 70’s.. I recall one poster here stating they were trying some specific plant extracts - no doubt using USP 51 to “qualify” their preservative efficacy. And no doubt ignorant of the fact that “passing” USP 51 means little in terms of preservative efficacy.
-
Of course it’s marketing - EWG “certification” has no other value and here is happy to acquiesce to P&G’s existing safety assessment - adding nothing. Advertising folks would make a deal with Hitler if it would increase share. To this point, micro technologists ion majors have largely held the line dealing with the devil.
Note - EWG militates against preservatives used in the other shampoos including Pantene and Head & Shoulders and technologists, as with all the majors, struggle to find useful replacements.
Here, I wonder if P&G gave them a piece of the action as has been EWG’s practice.
-
I dobnt have access either. Just cited info from Google Scholar
-
Suggest starting point for all cosmetic claim veracity is it’s hype until relevant data demonstrate otherwise. Ask for the relevant data.
For the above, found the following- “Sodium dehydroacetate-containing moisturizers have also been reported to reduce surface sebum and pore size, especially in a combination preparation with niacinamide (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2012.10859.x).
Also saw something on in vitro testing. -
There’s a Eurofins lab in Bucharest that offers cosmetic testing.
-
Appreciate your concern for effective preservation but you can NOT do this yourself. Not sure how you would even attempt this as you will need to add microbes.
You must submit your product to a qualified lab.
The system addresses bacteria, esp. Gram negative bacteria, and needs something that will address fungal contamination - do you know pH of your product? -
Thanks for the info Perry - this is shameful. I know they’ve gone woke but sad to see P&G giving into extortion
-
pH not withstanding, that is very poor preservation.
-
EWG formerly hot a piece of the action (sales0 for their “certifications.” That still their practice?
-
This may violate the Geneva Convention https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/overview-geneva-conventions.htm
-
DaveStone said:What are the scientifically supported anti-aging ingredients (if there are any)?
closing time
-
30 minutes - this allows enough time thag heat penetrates
-
I dont have that information
-
Just benzoic - I understand sorbic is not so enhanced.
https://www.sofw.com/en/sofw-journal/articles-en/47-home-care/1703-enhancing-antimicrobial-efficacy-of-sodium-benzoateI’ve no access to the article but I recall SLS and an isethionate
-
Use hot water - 80C
-
Tyically sprayed.
Tanks are a problem - you’ll approach a flammability/exp[osion hazard in a closed vessel. Can you use hot water?
You should sanitize all product contact surfaces,