Scaremongering again

heraklitheraklit Member, PCF student
edited October 2015 in Formulating
I am formulating a shampoo and use GlucamateVLT (PEG 120 Methyl Glucose Trioleate) as thickener which easily gives a wonderful sense of mildness and professional feel to the product. But I saw a big company that state on their shampoo labels "PEG free". Then i found all these concerns about PEGs that contaminated with dangerous impurities like 1-4 Dioxane or Ethylene Oxide. Also i found this from FDA:  http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductsIngredients/PotentialContaminants/ucm101566.htm
I feel that scaremongering without any evidence is like terrorism. How can they do that? And they can affect even big companies?!!  O.k. it is good to be concerned about potential risks of products we use every day, but first we must seek for evidences about these risks and then speak publicly.
So I received a sample of  Glucamate CCO thickener which is PEG free. But this is more expensive, you must use much more to thickens (or to add salt with it) and have instability issue at a freeze-thaw test. The sense of the shampoo is nice but not so perfect as VLT. But I'll give to it one more try.

Comments

  • BelassiBelassi Member, PCF student
    I believe VLT is perfectly safe. It's an excellent thickener with great sensorials and improves preservative efficacy.
    Cosmetic Brand Creation. Concept to name to IMPI search to logo and brand registration. In-house graphic design inc. Pantone specs. Cosmetic label and box design & graphics.
  • PerryPerry Administrator, Professional Chemist
    This is why I don't think companies should bow to unsubstantiated fear mongering. You are going to end up with a product that doesn't work as well, costs more, is less environmentally friendly, and may even be less safe.

    There is zero evidence that using materials that contain PEG represent a significant health risk.
  • heraklitheraklit Member, PCF student
    Have any of you or your companies ever test a finished product to detect dioxane?
  • BobzchemistBobzchemist Member, PCF student
    We have - we test quaterly.
    Robert Zonis, Sr. Formulation Chemist, Beaumont Products "All opinions and comments expressed are my own, have no relation to Beaumont Products, are fully copyrighted, and may not be used without written permission."
  • DavidDavid Member
    edited October 2015
    The main problem is that most people can't handle concentration levels in a rational way (even some chemists). There is no doubt 1.4-dioxane is nasty chemical that you don't want on your body. However, ppb-levels will not hurt you. Here is where our logical reasoning fails - How can the same chemical go from very hazardous to totally safe just by lowering the level? It is a dangerous chemical so it should be 0 if possible right?
    In a way it is understandable - if I would give you two glasses of water: one with a safe level of 1.4 dioxane and one without dioxane - which one would you drink?
    I addition to this the instruments an analytical chemist has available today are almost incredibly sensitive - some can detect down to femtogram. (10xE-15) The meaning of "0" and "free from" has simply been pushed a step further.
  • @Bobzchemist  how you extract 1,4 dioxane?
  • BobzchemistBobzchemist Member, PCF student
    You start with a cosmetic-grade surfactant and then essentially steam-distill it. This is sometimes called "steam-stripping". It adds a significant amount of cost to the surfactant, though.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_distillation 


    Robert Zonis, Sr. Formulation Chemist, Beaumont Products "All opinions and comments expressed are my own, have no relation to Beaumont Products, are fully copyrighted, and may not be used without written permission."
Sign In or Register to comment.