PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
None of them are that good, and that some org takes it upon itself to redefine “natural” does not change the fact that these are synthetic. “Approved” merely gives license to mislead.
-
I’ll send text if you can’t get in
-
You can register - think the journal free
-
Some are allegedly natural - some are clearly not incl. GSE, Silverion, Geogards 221 and ultra. Further GSE is a fraud and Leucidal has similarly been reported to include synthetic disinfectant actives.
The future of their use - many will to continue happily to buy into and repeat the credentialed “natural” lie for synthetic systems. Those pursuing systems arguable natural (without the disingenuous quotes) will continue to risk consumers safety with weak systems of inconsistent chemical composition.The future of cosmetic preservatives? See https://www.teknoscienze.com/tks_article/panel-discussion-on-preservatives-in-cosmetics/
The larger question is the microbiological safety of cosmetics -
My bet - if FDA asked for safety data, they’d have nothing much to share.
-
They’re required by regulation to display some information at “point of sale” - this includes ingredient labeling. It’s routinely ignored
-
Good point - guess they’re trying to fly under the radar with “conditioning” claim. They do mention hair growth with ingredient
Trifluoromethyl Dechloro Ethylprostenolamide
Trifluoromethyl dechloro ethylprostenolamide is a prostaglandin, or lipid compound, that is associated with increased hair growth.
-
Chlorhexidine digluconate salt MW is 898 of which Chlorhexidine molecule @MW 505 is ~56% of the salt. 56% of 7.1 = 4.
The salt enhances solubility. -
agree abierose
So much of cosmetic appeal is subjective - perceived functionality driving repurchase is also affected by secondary elements including cachet of price (expensive stuff must work better than cheap stuff), contrasting appeal to personal bias (works better than expensive stuff(, package design, perfume, continuing ad message including enviro/safety propaganda.
Maybe not quite on target - but consider antimicrobial soap. Continue assurance that it works in ads survived the category for over half a century despite failure of industry to show a real benefit. FDA asked the same question of efficacy for decades - show us it works - before finally getting around to calling the question. Triclosan was not the problem, the stuff was never convincingly shown to work. -
Sorry Abdullah, I don’t know.
If you haven’t - suggest you subscribe to Happi (Household and personal product industry) trade journal athttps://www.happi.com/issues/2021-09-01/ .
They publish formulas and you can find ’em in Happi archives. -
FD&C Act defines drugs, in part, by their intended use, as “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease” and “articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals” (emphasis added) .
Not claiming eyelash growth does not change the fact of intent. FDA will not let you play stupid but will assume intent unless you convince otherwise. You’d have to justify why this expensive ingredient is in your product, and they’d likely insist you demonstrate it is not having a drug effect.
-
Phosphate regs. To control eutrophication of lakes etc., misguided regulations banned phosphates in household products last century.
e.g. https://www.card.iastate.edu/ag_policy_review/article/?a=39
-
What is the formula? Soap can be contaminated - but it is rarely seen.
More commonly seen is wrapper (mold) contamination that also soils soap bar surface. Wrappers of major soap brands typically includes a preservative. -
what is pH? Be aware - you can’t sell this in the US.
-
Not aware of a “safe use” or “use by” provision for household products, esp. re. micro contamination. Can you share the regulation?
Household product preservation targets manufacturing contamination, not in-use contamination by consumers that is a concern for cosmetics.
Whether appropriate and required for household product or not, use by, ex dates or the moronic PAO should not be used to excuse unstable products. Why do you think no consumers will not be using your product one year after manufacture? -
Liquid dish soap is typically alkaline in pH and benzoate alone even at favorable pH by itself is a poor preservative . These products are typically preserved.
Consider Benzyl or Methyl isothiazolinone -
Use by date - on what would you base that and can you say more about “manufacturer guidelines.”
In what country will you sell?
-
Chelators are not equal. Like preservatives, subordinating a functional ingredient to serve a secondary claim is not without risk. All you have to judge is a PET test too blunt to dissect that risk.
-
For preservation (booster) - WITH a preservative. Those are good preservative systems and EDTA enhances.
-
For preservation - yes.
-
Bacterial spores and spores of many fungi will not be killed. There isn’t a good answer for speed of kill for other/vegetative cells but you can’t count on complete kill.
-
These are really poor “boosters” - esp. vs Gram negatives and their esterases.
-
What standard are you using for PET? Don’t think either USP 51 nor EP has relevant day 7 for what I’d assume is your category. Doesn’t change the need here for better preservation that might be better served with a paraben.
Suggest you review what’s used in marketed products - esp. US where I think 501k filling is needed.
-
Gamma irradiation is the best method for clay. Dry heat 180C for 2-3 hours would theoretically do it - if you get penetration and the material is dry.
Please don’t use “nasties” - no need for the mommy blog BS.