PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Please pursue preservation as an affirmative effort. A lesser level of ethanol may be useful as a supportive element but don’t design your system around it.
-
20% is the recognized target.
-
Some packaging materials can take up preservatives.
-
Ouch -
what are Eco Friendly APG verities.
-
what pH?
-
What country/regulatory requirements?
MI is effective but limited in application due to sensitization. What specxifically will be the product?
Lactic acid is probably a stretch - some systems with surfactant, low pH and organic acidss hjsave been useful. “Disinfectant ” is an important claim - you want something that certainbly works
-
Preservation is ineffective with benzoate with or without salt and wouldn’t put much faith in essential oil for “antibacterial.”
-
In US, there is no unique drug/cosmetic category. Such products must comply with regulations of both categories.
-
As in woke to the imaginary “dangers” and blind to the risks. Plenty of alternatives when the low bar of USP 51 is the gate to market.
Large companies, PCPC and other industry org’s have pursued preservative defense efforts for years to no benefit. No new primary preservatives are being developed - there’s not enough money in cosmetics (even global) to justify the safety and regulatory effort.
The lawsuit will be interesting. Technical absurdity /dislike of big companies/EWG et al. hand wringing. Interesting to watch folks argue for poor preservation with the myriad of weak combinations claiming “broad spectrum” across a wide pH range. -
MarkBroussard said:To quote BobZChemist: “The customer isn’t always right, but the customer is the customer”
There are other alternatives for preservation … it’s not as though DMDM is the only preservation option available to formulators.
There are “alternatives” to the traditional preservatives and they are associated of levels of FDA enforement not seen this the 1960’s - e.g. https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/lam.12995
Before wokeness hit cosmetic preservation, small and medium-sized manufacturers copied traditional systems of major manusacturers qualified typically with more stressful protocols than the USP 51 and confirmed with in-use testing. The major guys have tried to stay within their safety assesments - while others “qualify” marketing-driven alternatives with 51, producing underpreserved products . These are associated with the increased recalls - and certainly > rates of in-use contamination.
-
Pattsi said:@MarkBroussard - No way!!!! Me too, thought I was alone.
@PhilGeis - Sadly DMDM is dead now. It’s a guess game what next. When mass brands replace controversial ingredient I have no choice but to follow suit which is hard on us small brand. Totally BS.
A lot of global folks dropped the formaldehyde releasers when Japan refused to soften the draconion warning. China and EWG effectively teamed up to bully J&J out of Quat 15 for its baby shampoo 10 or so years ago. FDA and SCCS/EU/CIR still find ’em safe but i understand you point.
The idiotic suit completely ignores the real risk - microbial contamination - in place of its imaginary formaldehyde risk. -
Appreciate your effort and concerns. NO preservative is effectively broad spectrum - that is marketing hype. Even with the traditional materials parabens Kathon etc - you’ll need a second and if you go the alternative/natural route you’ll need even more. Look at labels of similar products from major manufacturers e.g. P&G, J&J, Unilever, Estee, Avon.
-
Thanks Pattsi - J&J cstarted this some time back - took quat 15 out of their baby shampoo after many decades and appropriate safety assessment.
such total BS - https://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/multimedia/multimedia_pub/multimedia_pub_fsf_06_01.html
-
Please recall the definition of drug - a produict “intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease”.
Eczema in the name shows intent.
-
Pattsi - arghhhh! Can you provide the link?
-
7-8 - the organic acids are +/- useless. Unless you can qualify your preservative system - esp. to ISO 11930 critetia - please do not attempt a mascarsa.
-
With benzalkonium Cl, this is a antimicrobial handsoap. Be aware it will be a drug in the US.
-
What is your pH?
-
Cosmetics are subject to both FPLA and FD&C legislation. As Mark noted, INCI (as CTFA dictionary) is the primary guidance for ingredient labeling. Please look at the actual regulation 21CFR 701.3 Designation of Ingredients https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=79073513f7ba6a05126c6da0aa85c460&r=PART&n=21y7.0.1.2.11#se21.7.701_13
-
AbbasMo said:
I use From sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate, 0.2% each of them. Is it enough?
That is clearly not enough. Those are not enough vs pseudomonads that can cause very serious eye infections. Please look at labels of major marketers e.g. Estee Lauder, Cover Girl
-
My advice - deliver alternative/”natural” formulas with caution that these may not perform as well as traditional systems.
Background - these kinds of systems have driven micro recalls from a few per year ~2000 to levels not seen since the 1960’s and 70’s - 2017’s were the most I recall in my 40 year career. With this level of failure in making - they’re prob worse Vin use. irtually all were alternative natural etc. preservative and FDA even published an article cocnering the issue.
The few that involved me after the fact all passed in stability with USP 51. -
I appreciate your effort. Did you use USP 51 as the preservatuve test? What is your packaging? Do you also produce the product.
-
Did you confirm efficacy of your system?
Euxyl K712 is not an esp effective preservative system and fairly useless at ~ neutral and higher.
Especially for very young children and other potentially compromised users- suggest folks subordinate their eco/natural/sustainable sentiments to efficacy and don;t buy the boiler plate “broad spectrum”.