PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Claim is at best mislabeled - they could call it “blessed” with the same accuracy. More importantly, how is it assured? Is there a rip off org like EWG that extorts to condifrm?
Confident that brief UN description took years, millions of dollars and extensive travel by authors to produce.
EU, US and major nations generate their own policy and those are largely picked up by smaller nations if they bother, not UN’s. -
Sorbate is so weak and the others are 100% useless as “preservatives”. This is not hurdle - it’s total BS.
Maybe they found this passed USP 51 - hardly a recommendation. One needs to design a system that should work and confirm efficacy with 51. 51 by itself is not a valid test for efficacy.
-
Sorbate alone is not useful and 0.1% is stupid.
Plastic - polyethylene? flip top or screw off?
Heat - how high and is it packed out hot/warm? -
Personal protection equipment for you - eye shields etc.
-
Use PPE
-
Your biggest issue is with Gram negatives. Wish you could use isothiazolinones - failing that phenoxyethanol or benzyl alcohol at ~0.5%. Don’t see too much purpose in multiple organic acids - DHA has the most favorable pKa but I worry about stability. Think you also need a chelator - EDTA, phytate.
What kind of process and package? -
pH ?
-
UN bureaucracy sticks its fingers in everything.
-
Dilute soap - any heat in prep? If water is in control and small batches, prob not with effective cleaning and sanitization.
If preservative needed - try benzoisothiazolinone (e.g. Proxel) or Gylcoserve (DMDM Hydantoin). -
And unless your putting mica back, it’s nor more sustainable than petroleum production.I suppose we can think of this claim as puffery. As typically used, “sustainable” is j.ust that
-
You can - but the combination is not great. Benzyl or phenoxy with benzoate AND a chelator will do well in a shampoo. But “natural”
-
How is mica sustainable?
-
Phenoxyethanol at 0.5% and Na benzoate at 0.26%.
Amen to my colleague Abdullah’s comment!
-
Right - use (e.g.) benzoate with Euxyl PE 9010. “Broad spectrum” is largely marketing so be cautious when you see it.
Phytate/Euxyl K903 is ok, esp. in surfactant products. Geogard ECT not so much and do not use Linatural 3. - PEA partitioning is an issue, esp. in smaller packages and with implements (e.g. mascara brushes).
Whatever you use, make sure you show efficacy in final packaged stability.Propanediol vs Glycerine is nothing to count on.
-
This is a drug product in the US, subject to the same regulatory , quality and manufacturing requirements of any drug.
FDA has given temporary relief during covid - in this they specify WHO ethanol standard of 80%
https://www.fda.gov/media/136118/download -
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.