Since a lot of you ladies seem to going the "advanced" route with cosmetic preparation (and by that I mean adding in emulsifiers, thickeners and so on that aren't available "around the house" like oils and veggie butters), I was wondering if we could start a discussion about natural preservatives.

In particular, I'm wondering if there's a general rule about how much should be added (like 1%, 10% of the total volume), although I'm sure it depends on the product.

I'm interested in grapefruit seed extract and also grape seed oil. I've been assuming there's a difference between an oil and its extract... aka, that the extract is a concentrated form. I picked up some grape seed oil and have been playing around with it and Vit E to see if I can come up with a good preservative, but I'd also like to try an "extract" and in particular the grapefruit seed extract.

Any ideas??

TIA, Sheba

Unfortunately... it's been proven false that grapefruit seed extract is an effective preservative. When tests were done on the extracts (both commercial, home made, etc) it was shown that the ONLY ones that presented any activity, were the ones that had ALREADY been preserved themselves.

Get it? They preserved the grapefruit seed extract with synthetic preservatives... and it was the small amount of synthetic preservative that was causing any microbiological activity. Any extracts that had not been already preserved with synthetic preservatives weren't effective one bit. :(

However, on the bright side - grapefruit seed extract does have good antioxidant activities, which means it prevents free radicals from forming. It will help maintain the shelf life of oils, but won't do a thing for bacteria / etc, which is what is dangerous in cosmetics.

Onto the grape seed oil - this is just an oil. Because it has high amounts of, uh, linoleic and linolenic acids, it's also a good oil to include in your diet against free radicals. However, on its own, it won't do well to help extend the shelf life of oils, (vitamin e works better as an antioxidant) and it shows absolutely no signs of preservative (antimicrobial) activity.

Vitamin e is also not an effective preservative for cosmetics. It's a terrific antioxidant, which means that it will help increase the shelf life of vegetable oils (but not stop it from going rancid) but again, will not prevent bacteria, mold, fungi, yeast, etc from growing.

There IS one product, and only one product, that I am aware of that is considered a natural preservative. It's called Biopein. I personally haven't tested it myself (it's pricey compared to synthetic preservatives) and couldn't tell you the ingredients - it's patent pending.

There are several synthetic preservatives available for home cosmetic use, though - and the ones you'd use depends on the product you're making. Generally, though, the usage rate is 1% of your formula, by weight. Some synthetic preservatives are: germaben II, germall plus, phoenip, liquipar, etc.

Some of you may be wondering why it's necessary to have a preservative at all... why something natural like vitamin e wouldn't be enough. As long as you're using water in a product (lotion, for example) or if water is going to be introduced into a product (sugar scrub, for example) then you've got an environment where bacteria, mold, fungi, etc, can flourish and really cause harm.

Anyways, that's the info I can share with you! Feel free to ask if you have more questions; maybe I can help.

Rachel

Hi Rachel! Thanks for the info. I was already aware of the antioxidant properties of Vit E and grapefruit seed, and grape seed oil but you've explained that wonderfully! I've been useing GSO in a green tea toner that I made (along with some Vit E and tea tree oil) and it's holding up well... and the GSO definitely tones and tightens the skin, but without making it dry. Still experimenting with it.....

Would you mind letting me know your source for the info regarding the preservative (or non-preservative :twisted: ) nature of GFS?? I'd really like to read up on that. I have several products on my shelf that use GFS, Vit E, etc. (usually in combination) as preservatives and haven't had any problem with them going bad... but then again, I use them as directed and don't keep them in a bathroom or other humid area, so perhaps that helps.

I will also do some research on the biopein.... THANK YOU!! And thanks for the confirmation of the 1% "rule" - I've seen that in other places on the net, but since the net is notorious for bad information, it's good to have someone who's used them make a recommendation.

You're really a great source of info, Rachel! Thank you again!

Cheers, Sheba

Ok, Sheba, let me dig that up for you... it's on a chemistry list I belong to.

Rachel

--------------
Identification of benzethonium chloride in commercial grapefruit seed extracts.
Takeoka G, Dao L, Wong RY, Lundin R, Mahoney N.
J Agric Food Chem. 2001 Jul;49(7):3316-20.
Western Regional Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 800 Buchanan Street, Albany, California 94710, USA. grt@pw.usda.gov
Commercial grapefruit seed extracts (GSE) were extracted with chloroform. The solvent was
evaporated, and the resulting solid was subsequently analyzed by high-performance liquid
chromatography, electrospray ionization mass spectrometry, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)
spectroscopy, and elemental analysis (by proton-induced X-ray emission [PIXE] analysis). The
main constituent was identified as benzethonium chloride, a synthetic antimicrobial agent
commonly used in cosmetics and other topical applications. This compound comprised 8.03% (n
= 2) of the liquid GSE sample. Higher amounts of benzethonium chloride were found in powder
GSE samples.
--------------
Aspects of the antimicrobial efficacy of grapefruit seed extract and its relation to
preservative substances contained.
von Woedtke T, Schluter B, Pflegel P, Lindequist U, Julich WD.
Pharmazie. 1999 Jun;54(6):452-6.
Institute of Pharmacy, Ernst Moritz Arndt University, Greifswald, Germany.
The antimicrobial efficacy as well as the content of preservative agents of six commercially
available grapefruit seed extracts were examined. Five of the six extracts showed a high growth
inhibiting activity against the test germs Bacillus subtilis SBUG 14, Micrococcus flavus SBUG 16,
Staphylococcus aureus SBUG 11, Serratia marcescens SBUG 9, Escherichia coli SBUG 17,
Proteus mirabilis SBUG 47, and Candida maltosa SBUG 700. In all of the antimicrobial active
grapefruit seed extracts, the preservative benzethonium chloride was detected by thin layer
chromatography. Additionally, three extracts contained the preserving substances triclosan and
methyl parabene. In only one of the grapefruit seed extracts tested no preservative agent was
found. However, with this extract as well as with several self-made extracts from seed and
juiceless pulp of grapefruits (Citrus paradisi) no antimicrobial activity could be detected (standard
serial broth dilution assay, agar diffusion test). Thus, it is concluded that the potent as well as
nearly universal antimicrobial activity being attributed to grapefruit seed extract is merely due to
the synthetic preservative agents contained within. Natural products with antimicrobial activity do
not appear to be present.
--------------
[Analysis of components in natural food additive "grapefruit seed extract" by HPLC and
LC/MS]
Sakamoto S, Sato K, Maitani T, Yamada T.
Eisei Shikenjo Hokoku. 1996;(114):38-42.
The components in a commercial natural food additive "Grapefruit seed extract" and the ethanol
extract of grapefruit seeds were analyzed by HPLC and LC/MS. The HPLC chromatogram of the
commercial grapefruit seed extract was quite different from that of the ethanol extract of grapefruit
seeds. Three main peaks were observed in the chromatogram of the commercial grapefruit seed
extract. By comparison of the retention times and the absorption spectra with those of authentic
samples, two peaks were ascribed to methyl-p-hydroxybenzoate and 2,4,4'-trichloro-2'-
hydroxydiphenylether (triclosan). Triclosan was also identified by LC/MS by using the negative
electrospray ionization method.
--------------

Ha, that was quick! I found it right away.... that's something new, for me! Usually, I have to search through dozens of files! :D

So - back to the original issue. Yes, your products could have a reasonable shelf life if their formulators use GFS. But that's because of the synthetic preservative it already contains, and not the extract itself.

Another thing I'd like to point out - products, cosmetics especially, can reach unsafe levels of bacteria without you noticing. Obviously, bacteria is microscopic - you aren't going to see it growing and say, "Hey, this has more bacteria than yesterday" or anything. What I'm trying to say is, that your product can have unsafe levels of bacteria and buggies without you even knowing - you can't see it, can't smell it, can't feel it, etc. By the time your product grows mold, or some other growth, it's <b>already too late</b> it's been unsafe for a long time, now, and you just weren't aware of it.

I hope this doesn't come across as harsh - I'm just trying to provide the information I have learned in order to dispel some of the myths that go around the web... I know, it's not always nice to find out that your preservative doesn't work properly, or has some side effect, or isn't all naural, etc, etc. (that happened to me long ago ;) )

Rachel - thanks for such incredible info! You rock! :rockerdude:

That's certainly interesting and reveals why it's important to have these substances properly researched - I mean, who (other than a chemist ;) ) would have thought that the solvent extracting it would be the antimicrobial itself?? Good lesson for us all.

Yeah, I'm aware that the bacteria is growing long before I see it, but part of my experiment is to see how long it would last before the "green and white floaties" appear ;) (And this is with the grape seed oil - haven't tried the grapefruit seed extract yet.) After making the toner, I poured it into plastic squeezy bottle and added the GSO, Vit E, tea tree) and left the rest in a mason jar without any additives (my "control" ;) ). The mason jar contents went bad in about a week (so probably started going bad after a day or two), whereas the toner is on week #4 and still going strong... we shall see what happens! I've also been avoiding any other anti-bacterial agents on my face to see what happens and so far, so good (no blemishes).

Anyways, this is amazing info and thank-you, thank-you once again! BTW, is this a private list, or do you think I could sign up for it??

Cheers, Sheba

Sheba, I'm glad you appreciate that information! So many times when I post stuff like this, people view it as a personal attack and then begin flaming, when in reality I'm just trying to promote safe products. I mean if they really want to go blind from bacteria, at least I did what I could to help.

Anyways - that's neither here nor there. What I wanted to say was, you can actually get your products tested at a lab, to see how their doing! It's an APC test (aerobic plate count) and basically lets you know how much germs and buggies you have in your products - lets you know if your preservative is effective, really.

It's not all that expensive, either - under $50, depending on where you go. You could send several samples to them... one product that hasn't been opened / touched, that's fresh, and one that you've had lying around for a while, stuck your fingers in, (introducing bacteria) and then compare the results. If your preservative is working fine, there shouldn't be that much of a difference between the two.

Need more info, just ask - I'd be happy to help all I can.

Well, thank you YET AGAIN!! for the testing info. I'll definitely look into that. Great idea.

Yes, unfortunately part of giving info or advice whether here or IRL means the possiblity of someone getting right pissed and flaming you to smithereens ;) I made peace with this a while back - I'd rather be honest and deal with some flames than be dishonest, hoping everyone will like me. I don't think that's worth it. Of course, there are days when it's too much and I wonder why it gets taken so personally and I feel like smacking my head against a wall. :evil: Ah well. Such is life.

LOL, no doubt I will have further questions.... :twisted:

Thanks again, Sheba

No problem-o, Sheba! Anytime.

Sheba, if you don't mind me asking - why do you need preservatives? Are you making really big batches? I am mixing my stuff, but I avoid making big amounts - that allows me to get away without preservatives.

If you're using the product up within a week (or making only one time use) then it should be fine. Any longer than that, though, and you're dealing with lots of buggies.

If you're using the product up within a week (or making only one time use) then it should be fine. Any longer than that, though, and you're dealing with lots of buggies.

Even if I just mix carrier oil and some EOs?

Oh, no, not carriers and eo's. I realize now that maybe I wasn't clear (sorry, Sheba, if I confused you, too!). Preservatives are needed when the product either has water in it, or is going to come in contact with water. So, something like a lotion, toner, creme, etc, would need a preservative, because it has water IN it... and something like the salt scrub recipe I posted earlier would need a preservative, because it will have water come in contact WITH it.

If you're just making a blend of vegetable oils and essential oils, then all you'll need is an antioxidant - usually vitamin e. If you store your oils in the fridge all the time, then you most likely won't need an antioxidant, since the cold can help extend the shelf life of the oils, but I always add one anyways!

so rachel, if i mix my salt scrub or sugar scrub that doesnt contain water, and use a spoon to scoop out into a small shower bowl and use, then i wouldnt need any preservative, right? i was thinking of a batch that can last for 2 weeks, used almost every other day.

and i forgot to tell you that you are a wealth of information :D

Yes. If you're making small portions for yourself, and it doesn't contain any water whatsoever in it, and you ensure that it doesn't come in contact with any water whatsoever, then THAT will be fine.

It's just that normally, people have a tub / jar of the sugar scrub sitting on the edge of their tub... and dip into it with their wet fingers while showering, scrubbing around etc :D and that's what introduces the water and bacteria.

Personally, I prefer to do stuff with the preservatives. Used at the proper percentages, there's no risk of irritation or anything.... and it saves the hassle of making small "one-time-use-only" batches or going to the bother of making sure it doesn't touch water, etc. Really, preservatives aren't expensive, are easy to incorporate, etc!

Glad to help!

It's just that normally, people have a tub / jar of the sugar scrub sitting on the edge of their tub... and dip into it with their wet fingers while showering, scrubbing around etc :D and that's what introduces the water and bacteria.!
:shock: how did you know me so well? :ohmy: :DD :D :D i used to do this till last week. after i read this thread, i havent touched my salt scrub. was thinking of preparing a fresh batch and keeping in bedroom and scooping out everyday.


Personally, I prefer to do stuff with the preservatives. Used at the proper percentages, there's no risk of irritation or anything.... and it saves the hassle of making small "one-time-use-only" batches or going to the bother of making sure it doesn't touch water, etc. Really, preservatives aren't expensive, are easy to incorporate, etc!
Glad to help!

i guess i'll probably buy the preservative just incase. i thought preservatives are chemicals, so not so good. but scrubbing my body with bacteria seems more scarry!

Ha... maybe because I do that myself! I can't be bothered with scooping out little quantities to take to the shower... what if I don't bring enough? ;) And yes, while the preservatives are synthetically manufactured, there's nothing really bad about that... even a lot of "natural" ingredients are synthetically manufactured - like vitamins, extracts, and more.

:D thats an eye opener! i down so many vitamins with preservatives and here i am thinking they are bad... thanks, rachel.

Oops... I meant the vitamins are synthetic, themselves! (although some may have preservatives added - not sure on that one)

Thanks Rachel for replying to this.... I didn't get computer access yesterday.

Yes, preservatives are only needed when water comes into play... antioxidants for other things. And I always make sure that anything I make can come out in a plastic "squeeze" bottle so it isn't picking up contaniments from my hands or scoop it out with a clean spoon... yes, Smiles, I keep my sugar scrub in my bedroom and scoop out into a plastic bowl as needed.

Zoya - I'm just playing around with some skin and hair care recipes and since I'd like to be able to make batches lasting longer than a few weeks, I'm looking into natural preservatives.

Green Toner Update The "floaties" finally surfaced after 4 weeks, so I dumpted the batch. I'm assuming it was good for a few weeks so.... I decided that until I can find a good preservative I'm going to make a big batch, then freeze it in ice cube trays and only melt a few at a time.... and throw it out after 2 weeks.

And I COMPLETELY forgot to post this ::smacking head::

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&amp;call_pageid=971358637177&amp;c=Article&amp;c id=1052251572568

A few quotes...

"Quite by accident, eight years ago, she learned of research at the University of Bordeaux. It indicated that the antioxidants and saturated fatty acids in grape seeds are 50 times more effective in protecting and nourishing human skin than Vitamin E. A pharmacology professor visiting the winery told the family they were foolish to throw away their grape pips."

Sooooo I'm assuming this means that the oil IS the extract (??)

"She goes on to explain that grape's tartaric acid is less harsh than citric acid found in lemons, a popular ingredient in beauty products in recent years and that the saturated fatty acids found in those little pips are easily absorbed into the skin, making them powerful moisturizers."

I found this in my Saturday newspaper the day AFTER I posted my question. So it really is true.... "when the student is ready, the teacher appears" :D

Nope, they'd be referring to the Pycnogenol extract. The extract is different from the oil. And yes, it is one of the most powerful antioxidants out there!

Rachel,

These "buggies" that you refer too, that can "blind" someone, could you present some scientific evidence that the mold that grows on someones' homemade products can blind them?

I'll give the community MY scientific evidence.

I started handcrafting creams, and lotions three years ago, and still have some of those bottles. There are none of the above-mentioned synthetic preservatives in any of my products, and they have not gone rancid, nor have they grown visible or invisible mold. I put "natural" vitamin e, not synthetic, in my creams, include jojoba oil, vitamin a, and c, and a tincture of green tea that I make with vodka, and green tea from the health food store.

The whole point of handcrafting is to AVOID chemicals, and to take control over what we put in our bodies.

I am not blind, have very healthy, soft skin, and look ten years younger that my age. I've even scooped mold off of products that have spoiled because of their delicacy, and used the un-moldy portions, and my eyes work just great!!

For more information about the dangers of common chemicals in skin-care, visit www.freelife.com, or visit Aubrey Organics site. He's a giant in the industry, and his products are found on the shelves of every natural food store in the country, including Trader Joe's and Whole Foods. He uses NO synthetic preservatives in his products.

Rachel, its' not about taking these things personally.

It's about women DYING from cancer EVERY DAY, and the role that chemicals plays in this.

Chemists are educated to disregard the documentation of the dangers of these chemicals. What bothers us handcrafters is that these forums are a place for us to search for ALTERNATIVES, not to have the mainstream re-inforced by mainstream thinkers. We're trying to save lives, and that is not a joke.

Actually, I believe it was some eye cosmetics that caused the blindness. Yes, you may not get that with a creme... but you could definitely get some bacterial / fungal infections.

I appreciate your stance on the all-natural... but wonder if you've had APC testing / challenge testing on your products? If so, and the results came back good, that's great! I'd be more than willing to hear about what you've done. If, as you say though, you've had mold growing that you've scooped off and continued to use... that's something I don't feel is safe, and I wouldn't use. I handle my food carefully, and I handle my skin care carefully, as well.

Thanks for the links - I've seen AO and sites like that before, and generally prefer to see the studies themselves. If you can forward any studies to me that show what these sites claim, I'd be more than happy to see that data! (I noticed that they don't have references)

Rachel,

These "buggies" that you refer too, that can "blind" someone, could you present some scientific evidence that the mold that grows on someones' homemade products can blind them?

I think it's bacteria rather than mold they're worried about, specifically Pseudomonas sp. . From my Google search, it looks like they can cause corneal ulcers if they end up in your eye, which is expecially prone to happening in eye makeup.

Hmm, here's a source:
Wilson, L.A., and D.G. Ahearn. 1977. Pseudomonas-induced corneal ulcers associated with contaminated eye mascaras. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 84:112-119.

Here's a nice URL (scroll down to Adequacy of Preservation) http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-hdb3.html

You can also go to www.fra.gov and try typing "preservatives blindness" into their seach engine. That should get you a lot of stuff.

The whole point of handcrafting is to AVOID chemicals, and to take control over what we put in our bodies.

Um, you can't really avoid chemicals. Everything's made up of chemicals. You're made up of chemicals. The stuff you mention... vitiman E, A, C, vodka (ethanol), etc.... it's all chemicals.


I'll give the community MY scientific evidence...

I am not blind, have very healthy, soft skin, and look ten years younger that my age. I've even scooped mold off of products that have spoiled because of their delicacy, and used the un-moldy portions, and my eyes work just great!!

With respect, that's not scientific evidence. The assertion isn't that everyone who uses cosmetics with no preservatives will go blind, simply that it can and has happened and is a big enough risk that it causes many people concern. The fact that it hasn't happened to you doesn't prove that it doesn't happen to anyone, or even that it hasn't happened to a fair number of people.

Chemists are educated to disregard the documentation of the dangers of these chemicals.

I don't know how chemists are educated, but if they're educated like other scientists, thy're not trained to disregard documentation of anything. It's true that ideas that are out of the mainstream are harder to get heard, just like in any other community. It's not true that there's some giant conspiriacy to keep alternative ideas down. Every commonly accepted scientific idea today was once someone's nutso alternative theory... with enough evidence in its favor that it overcame people's "idea inertia" to be commonly accepted.

As a number of philisophers of science point out, this "idea inertia" isn't necessarily a bad thing. After all, nothing succeeds like success. Science is a messy process and evidence can conflict or mislead. If a theory has been highly successful for some time, it should take a lot of evidence to overturn it.

Oops. OK. I'm off the soapbox now. :D

Thanks, Bethany. That was the case I was thinking about... the mascara! :D

Prepare yourself Bethany.... for once I'm going to agree with you :o and Rachel, of course.

According to the studies that Rachel has cited, it's the solvent used to extract the grapefruit seed that is the anti-microbial, not the GFS itself. I've used a lot of Aubrey products and that's what he uses.

If you have mold growing on your cosmetics you should dump the entire batch. Surely, that's just logical sense.

And, I think when temporah said she didn't want to use chemicals, I assume she means synthetics.

And, thanks Rachel for the info about GSO.... ::off to search for GSO source pycnogenol::

HTH, Sheba

Prepare yourself, Sheba! :D The pycnogenol stuff can be reeeeeeeally pricey. That's why I prefer vitamin e. I mean, you only need 0.2% vitamin e for it to work. Vitamin e is still very effective, and a lot less expensive.

If you want something that works better than just vitamin e on it's own, there's a blend of tocopherols - called T-50, or something. Don't know if it's available retail or not... if you find it online wholesale you could always call and ask for a free sample, lol! Anyways, the tocopherols together work synergistically and provide better protection than the alpha-tocopherol on its own.

And I'm not sure how documented the use of grape seed extract is in cosmetics. Some antioxidants work better in cosmetics than others, you know. But internally, it's great - at least from the research I've done.

Dear Rachel and Bethany,

I do enjoy a good debate, so I'll introduce the concept of "small percentages", and whether it's a valid defense.
(And I don't want to sound like I'm shoving my opinions down anyone's throat, so forgive me if I do)

The whole idea that "chemical" (and yes, I do understand that everything is broken down into chemical components, so that is not what the word "chemicals" means when I use it) preservatives are used in tiny quantities is an inaccurate statement in light of the fact that these preservatives deposit in the human system. So do formaldehyde-based systems. (This has been documented by morticians, as well as by the medical community that routinely finds deposits of parabens in post-mortem organs of deceased cancer patients.

In terms of mold, My father, who is French, taught me that there is nothing wrong with trimming mold off of a good hunk of cheese and eating the rest (assuming the flavor is still good!). Blue cheeses are deliberately made with mold threads in them. On the other hand, high levels of certain molds are toxic enought to cause cancer. But my occasional moldy creams for personal use are nothing that I'm worried about. That's just a personal decision....

I often use essential oils as preservatives as well. After all, myrrh, and frankinsense were used to preserve dead bodies thousands of years ago....

The FDA requires no long term studies on the health hazards of cosmetic ingredients, and that is something that I think most consumers are not aware of. Commercial products are chock full of harmful "chemicals",just look at the debate over pthalates. Millions of teething toys were retracted because they were made out of PVC plastic, which contains pthalates. Yet, despite documented levels of pthalates in perfumes, nothing has been done about those products. Pthalates actually cause birth defects, and low fertility levels in men, as well as some genital disformity.

Well, enough. I've said my piece.

Teporah

In terms of mold, My father, who is French, taught me that there is nothing wrong with trimming mold off of a good hunk of cheese and eating the rest (assuming the flavor is still good!). Blue cheeses are deliberately made with mold threads in them. On the other hand, high levels of certain molds are toxic enought to cause cancer. But my occasional moldy creams for personal use are nothing that I'm worried about. That's just a personal decision....


As someone who has mold allergies, and has a parent with very bad mold allergies... Please don't recommend your personal practice to other people. I've never used a moldy product on my body and I don't think I ever would, because of the potential severity of the allergic reaction I could have. Smelling pretty or looking good, or trying to avoid chemical preservatives because of ideals, is not worth going to the ER because of anaphylaxis.

But my occasional moldy creams for personal use are nothing that I'm worried about. That's just a personal decision....


don't you ever worry about getting a bad eye infection and possibly losing an eye? not just mold grows in unpreserved products- bacteria and amoebas can live there too, and they aren't always so easy to spot.

h

But my occasional moldy creams for personal use are nothing that I'm worried about. That's just a personal decision....


don't you ever worry about getting a bad eye infection and possibly losing an eye? not just mold grows in unpreserved products- bacteria and amoebas can live there too, and they aren't always so easy to spot.

h
Agreed.... as said before, the bacteria is there LONG before you see it.

Rachel - thanks for the heads up on the pricey pycnogenol! I like Vit E as well, but wanted to experiment with more powerful antioxidants, which is why I've been experimenting with green tea.

I have to assume that anyone with mold allergies avoids products that contain mold....

and anyone worried about cancer avoids product with cancerous chemicals. I'm no allergic to mold, and am not at all worried about the OCCASIONAL mold on a product (only two of my creams have ever spoiled in under a year) causing an eye infection, but all of the women in my family have had breast cancer.

Teporah

:shock: :shock: temporah, if it can cause an eye infection, i would surely avoid it. please dont mine me saying this. but i personally feel that you can avoid those. accidents never come with forewarning.

This has been documented by morticians, as well as by the medical community that routinely finds deposits of parabens in post-mortem organs of deceased cancer patients.

Any references? :D

Here are some links:
http://www.naturalbeautysolutions.net/beauty_secrets.htm
www.Freelife.com
AlternativeAnswers@yahoo.com

There are many documented studies of the items I've mentioned. A major vaccine was retracted because its mercury-based preservative caused terrible problems.

I really don't mind a healthy debate. It's important to hear opposing opinions.

Teporah

First link doesn't work... the second link has no references... and the third is an email address.

What I'm saying is, I haven't seen the documented studies you refer to about the dangers of preservatives in cosmetics. I'm not talking about preservatives in vaccines; but preservatives in cosmetics. That's what this thread is about.

And suppose you would rather not use parabens... that's still no reason not to preserve your cosmetics and risk bacterial damage or infections. There are paraben free preservatives out there, and even naturally based preservatives. But I still maintain that using no effective preservative is unwise. Of course, if you're making the products just for yourself, and not selling them, then that's a different issue. That's your choice, and the FDA can't do anything about it.

There's 2 ingredients on the Free Life page that are in preservatives, the imazolidinyl urea, and the propylene glycol. I don't see the references for the things they are saying... and even so, there are natural products commonly used and available that do the same thing. For example, essential oils can also cause skin reactions, allergic reactions, dizziness, loss of sleep. They also penetrate the skin and are found in major organs in the body.

I'm not debating natural vs. synthetic. I'm concerned about properly preserved products vs improperly preserved products. I'm also willing to learn any the negative aspects of preservatives... but haven't really seen any substantial evidence. I also haven't seen any evidence that unpreserved cosmetics are safe and healthy.

I apologize for the links being troublesome. I've contacted freelife and am waiting for a response. I had previously downloaded seven documents by an environmental organization that does research on many topics.

The name of the organization is Environmental Working Group.
Here are the titles of the reports:

Parabens are Estrogenic
Estrogen a Carcinogenic
Chemicals and Your Health
Cosmetic Studies
US Americans Absorbing Chemicals
Safe Shopper Danger List

I believe that Terressentials, which is a large natural cosmetics manufacturer, has alot of info. as well. When I get some updated links, I'll definitely send them.

I think a completely unpreserved product is silly, even if its made for use in the home. I do believe in natural preservation.

Vitamin, A, C, And E, as well as Green Tea, and many essential oils have a good track record.

The only naturally preserved hand-crafted products that I've notice spoiling quickly are those that contain infusions, so I avoid those. I don't want to waste my money on something that doesn't last, but I've tried many, many products that contain water such as lotions, from several different lines that are on the shelves of stores, and none of them have ever spoiled. I have a lotion that I bought two years ago from Celestial Body, and it's fine.

The problem with the parabens, (from the research that I've read) is that in the same way they disrupt natural enzyme activity in a product, they deposit in the human organs, and disrupt the natural enzyme activity within our bodies.

I"ll forward some links.

https://www.ewg.org/

This is the home page for Environmental working group, There are thousands of studies (check body under subject search) on various topics.

I'm really not good at supplying links.

It's http://www.ewg.org/

A general search under the report name: Parabens are Estrogenic, will give search results about research on parabens using rats...

www.nutritionbreakthroughs.com

More info about parabens...

I can't seem to find anything about parabens on the Environmental Working Group site - using their search engine at the bottom of the page and typing "paraben" showed nothing coming up. Would you be able to link to the specific articles you're talking about? All you need to do is highlight the address bar of where the article is, hit CTRL and C, and then paste it here by hitting CTRL and V.

On the Nutrition Breakthroughs page, all I could find was one article about the natural hair and skin care. I'll try to look up the references that they had there, and see what they say.

Have you found your references for "This has been documented by morticians, as well as by the medical community that routinely finds deposits of parabens in post-mortem organs of deceased cancer patients." yet?

Do you have any evidence, besides the Nutrition Breakthrough page, that vitamins A, C, and E make an effective preservative? I know all three are antioxidants, but I'm not aware that they have any activity that would work against the bacteria, fungi, molds, and yeast that grow in cosmetics. Nor am I aware of green tea having those properties. Have you had your products APC or challenge tested to back that up?

Because again, even though your products or those that you have tried (whether Celestial Body or someone elses') may have not appeared to have spoiled, bacteria is invisible. Yes, it may not have smelled rancid, but there could have been harmful bacteria there in swarms. Obviously, you wouldn't see them there.

So, I'll look into the information about the parabens... although that wouldn't stop me from using preservatives, because there are paraben free alternatives. Parabens are a common ingredient in preservatives, it is true, but there are options.

But seriously, I haven't seen ANY information about vitamins A, C, and E being an effective preservative. Not an antioxidant, but a preservative... protecting against bacteria, mold, fungi and yeast not only while it's fresh and sealed, but when the product has had fingers in it, been sitting in a humid bathroom, or whatever.

If you've got information about the vitamins being effective, then I'd appreciate it.

i managed to find one of those references, rachel... (and its only an abstract, you have to pay for the entire article, drat)

http://www.ingenta.com/isis/searching/ExpandTOC/ingenta?issue=infobike://ap/to/1998/00000153/00000001&amp;index=2&amp;WebLogicSession=PtlFT4izDLYW9YmWZ wqP|

the one from the journal of investigative dermatology is just too old and its not on their site any more.
(at least not that i could find - i think it only goes back to '65...)

good luck!

There's 2 ingredients on the Free Life page that are in preservatives, the imazolidinyl urea, and the propylene glycol. I don't see the references for the things they are saying... and even so, there are natural products commonly used and available that do the same thing. For example, essential oils can also cause skin reactions, allergic reactions, dizziness, loss of sleep. They also penetrate the skin and are found in major organs in the body.


Not to mention that, from glancing at it, a lot of the stuff on the Free Life page are simply untrue.

Examples:

I'm wondering if they ever actually read the MSDS information on Propylene Glycol before they wrote "The data sheet for propylene glycol warns of severe health consequences and reactions, because PG has systemic consequences such as brain, liver, and kidney abnormalities. " Type "MSDS Propylene Glycol" into Goolge and you'll get tons of hits. It's simply not that scary. (Especially compared to, say, the MSDS on acetic acid -- ie, vinegar, often put forward as nice and safe. Er, which it is, but the moral of the story is that the fact that something is scary in pure form doesn't necessarily imply that it's scary as normally used.)

Also, I'm not a chemist of any sort and even *I* know that the natural subsitutue for propylene glycol is glycerin, not "essentail oils etc".

A few nice references on the non-evils of mineral oil (ie, how it doesn't "coat the skin like plastic, clogging the pores... and promoting acre") are chapter 4 of Conditioning Agents for Hair and Skin, "Petrolatum: Conditioning through occlusion" by David Morrison. (The book is edited by Randy Schueller and Perry Romanowski and is volume 21 of the Cosmetic Science and Technology Series.) The article is about petrolatum, of course, but a lot of it applies to mineral oil as well. A quick blurb by the same author, "Mineral Oil Myths and Cosmetic Formulation" in Cosmetics and Toiletries, 116(1) is also worth looking at, with references.

The SLS stuff is a well-known urban legend (check it out at www.snopes.com) In her hair care book Paula Begoun interviews Dr. Green (who wrote the study cited by Free Life as saying that SLS destroys children's eyes, etc, quoting him as saying things like, "My work was completle misquoted" and "No one in my family has changed the way they buy shampoos, and they all contain either SLS or SLES."

OK, end soapbox now. Suffice it to say that I feel Free Life lacks credible scientific authority. :D

i managed to find one of those references, rachel... (and its only an abstract, you have to pay for the entire article, drat)


Ooh, but Rutgers subscribes to the journal online. I love the Internet! I suppose it would be naughty of me to email people the .pdf. Which wouldn't necessarily stop me... :twisted:

I'm not a chemist, but what I glean from this is that:

1) Parabens can act like estrogen, only much, much weaker (2,500,000 time less, in the case of methylparaben, larger parabens are stronger.)

2) If you inject massive quantities of large parabens (like butylparaben) into rats, their uteruses gets bigger.

3) It looks like most of the parabens leave the body in the urine very quickly, but they can't be sure.

4) Lets do some more studies!

So, I now know to refrain from injecting 400-800mg/kg/day of pure butylparaben into myself. Of course, not injecting oneself with various chemicals except at the advice of a doctor is usually good advice in general. I think I still feel OK about using it in my shampoo, though.

Edited to add:

The article is entirely about the effects of parabens on what appears to be estrogen-detecting yeast and on immature female rats. There's nothing on humans, nothing on cancer, and nothing was done on the effects on male fetuses in utero as the the Nutrition Breakthroughs website claims.

(Edited again to correct the name of the website. Then edited again because I still got it wrong the second time around... :-) )

Thanks, Sweet Peach! I actually *just* found the abstract at another site, toxline or something like that. Incidentally, I also did a search on the same site for carcinogenicity and parabens - it appears that neither of the 4 parabens regularly used have no evidence of carcinogenicity or being a mutagenic. I'll keep browsing around the site, though, to see what else I can find. I think I'll bookmark that site... it's really quite good!

Ok, I thought I'd post the abstracts I found:

Propylparaben
Authors:

BIBRA working group

Source: TA:Toxicity profile. The British Industrial Biological Research Association PG:8 p YR:1989 IP: VI:


Abstract:

Propylparaben was an irritant to the skin of man. In volunteer studies, it exhibited a low sensitizing potential. The paraben esters as a generic class are rare skin sensitizers when applied to the intact skin of man. Application to damaged skin is a more common cause of sensitization. A methyl:ethyl:propyl mixture has been shown on oral administration to exacerbate pre-existing skin complaints. A low acute oral toxicity has been demonstrated for propylparaben in laboratory animals. Limited long-term oral studies in rats indicated a low toxicity and have generated no evidence of carcinogenic activity. In short- term oral studies forestomach changes were reported in rats, but not in hamsters. Propylparaben was no mutagenic in Ames bacterial tests. It has not been investigation in detail for reproductive effects


Methylparaben
Authors:

BIBRA working group

Source: TA:Toxicity profile. The British Industrial Biological Research Association PG:10 p YR:1989 IP: VI:


Abstract:

Methylparaben was an irritant to the skin and eye of man. In volunteer studies it exhibited a low sensitizing potential. The paraben esters, as a generic class, are rare skin sensitizers when applied to the intact skin of man. Application to the damaged skin is a more common cause of sensitization. Methylparaben and a methyl:ethyl: propylparaben mixture have been shown on oral administration to exacerbate prexisting skin complaints. A limited number of more severe reactions have been reported from ingestion or injection of methylparaben in preparations. The ester demonstrated a low acute oral toxicity in laboratory animals. Limited studies involving repeated oral administration indicated a low toxicity in dogs and rats. Repeated oral administration was without reproductive toxic potential in a range of species. Preliminary carcinogenicity studies in rats receiving methylparaben in the diet or treated by injection gave no indication of chemical carcinogenic potential. Methylparaben was not mutagenic in the Ames bacterial test. It was able to induce chromosomal damage in mammalian cells in culture, but no similar activity was seen in rats or mice treated orally.


So it would seem that while they may have some slight endocrine disrupting potential, they're not carcinogenic. And then, it's important to see how much was given to get the endocrine disruption. In the one abstract I found, 100 - 200 mg per kilogram of body weight were injected "from gestation day 6 to postnatal day 20".

Rachel

I'm working on those links, and as I find the information, I'll post it. The site that originally posted those articles had found them on the Environmetnal Working Group site, so I'm daily weeding through them to find them as well. Estrogen has links to elevated cancer risks, though in a topical form, I'm still looking for the article. It's been proven that parabens deposit over time, so the minute amounts in shampoo for example, build up over a lifetime. (Again, I'll post items as I find them)There are no requirements for studies on the long-term effects of cosmetic ingredients, so information comes from a patchwork of studies.

Could someone post up a document that cronicles the afore-mentioned effects of a cream preserved by vitamin e,a, and c (such as blindness, eye infections, etc). Mascara was the only product that had a study attached to it.

Teporah

Ok, so let me just recap the things we’ve covered:
[list]
Cosmetics need preservatives to prevent the growth of bacteria, mold, fungi, and yeast
If the cosmetic is unpreserved or inadequately preserved, it may be dangerous due to high bacteria levels
There are several synthetic preservatives available, and few (perhaps one) natural preservatives available commercially
There are preservatives with parabens, and preservatives without parabens
From the evidence shown here, it would seem that parabens are not carcinogenic
From the evidence shown here, it would seem that parabens, when injected into the body of test animals, might have endocrine disrupting effects.[/list:u]

So having established the above, let’s look at what’s left to cover – what damage may be caused by unpreserved or improperly preserved cosmetics. There was the mascara incident mentioned above, that caused blindness due to the pseudomona. I personally have heard the story related by Angie, owner of the Herbarie. Her sister got an eye infection from using an improperly preserved crème. You can contact her if you wish to, to hear the story yourself if you wish. Some articles about cosmetics and preservation – not referenced, but produced by the FDA and Prevent Blindness.
[list]
http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:QpVQVUNe93oJ:www.preventblindness.o rg/resources/factsheets/Cosmetics.PDF+bacteria+%2B+cosmetics&amp;hl=en&amp;ie=UTF-8

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/975513403.html[/list:u]


Now, you asked for information about creams that had been preserved with vitamins a, c, and e, and documentation to back up the fact that they had caused blindness in some people. If you look back through my posts, I have not ever said that a crème preserved with vitamins a, c, or e has blinded someone due to the bacteria in it. Here’s what I said:

“I mean if they really want to go blind from bacteria, at least I did what I could to help.”

“Actually, I believe it was some eye cosmetics that caused the blindness. Yes, you may not get that with a creme... but you could definitely get some bacterial / fungal infections.”

So – we know that unpreserved products will grow bacteria, fungi and yeast. By the way, when I’m talking about products that need preservatives, I’m referring to products that either have water based ingredients in them, or those that will come into contact with water. Still, it might be wise to have preservatives in other oil based things, as well. If you are selling your products, it would seem that the FDA expects you to have them properly preserved:

SEC. 601. A cosmetic shall be deemed to be adulterated -
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdcact6.htm

(a) If it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling thereof, or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual, except that this provision shall not apply to coal-tar hair dye, the label of which bears the following legend conspicuously displayed thereon: ''Caution - This product contains ingredients which may cause skin irritation on certain individuals and a preliminary test according to accompanying directions should first be made. This product must not be used for dyeing the eyelashes or eyebrows; to do so may cause blindness.'', and the labeling of which bears adequate directions for such preliminary testing. For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph (e) the term ''hair dye'' shall not include eyelash dyes or eyebrow dyes.

(b) If it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance.

(c) If it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health.

(d) If its container is composed, in whole or in part, of any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render the contents injurious to health

(e) If it is not a hair dye and it is, or it bears or contains, a color additive which is unsafe within the meaning of section 721(a).


I would say that if a product has loads of potentially harmful bacteria in it, such as Staph or the Pseudomonas, then it would be adulterated. So what does a preservative need to accomplish in a product?

"Cosmetic products are not expected to be aseptic; however, they must be completely free of high-virulence microbial pathogens, and the total number of aerobic microorganisms per gram must be low. Since there are no widely acceptable standards for numbers, temporary guidelines are used instead. For eye-area products, counts should not be greater than 500 colony forming units (CFU)/g; for non-eye-area products, counts should not be greater than 1000 CFU/g.

The presence of pathogens would be particularly important in evaluating as unacceptable a cosmetic with a marginally acceptable count, e.g., 400 CFU/g for an eye-area product. Pathogens or opportunistic pathogens whose incidence would be of particular concern, especially in eye-area cosmetic products, include S. aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, P. aeruginosa and other species, and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Some microbes normally regarded as nonpathogenic may be opportunistically pathogenic, e.g., in wounds."

Here’s what we’ve covered: [list]
it’s important to have a preservative
preservatives are needed to keep harmful bacteria, mold, etc out of products
preservatives must be effective against bacteria, mold, etc in products
preservatives should be able to withstand normal use, ie, dipping fingers in, etc.[/list:u]

I’m assuming you’ll agree to that, since it appears to be common sense – there isn’t any point in including a preservative in a product if it doesn’t work, right? Or, if it only works when the product is fresh and new… or, if it doesn’t work if someone puts their fingers in it, stores it in a humid bathroom or leaves it in their hot car. It has to be practical, right?

So, we’re now looking to see what preservatives or ingredients are effective against bacteria. If you visit ISP / Sutton Lab’s page at http://www.ispcorp.com , and click on the “Skin Care” link at the top of the page and scroll down to the very bottom until you find “Preservatives”, you’ll be able to read about some of the synthetic preservatives available that are effective for cosmetics. There’s both preservatives with and without parabens, according to your preferences. Doing a search on the site will bring up more information about the preservatives they manufacture, such as which bacteria they are effective against. From what I read, they are effective against gram positive and gram negative bacteria, including the Pseudomonas one that caused the blindness in the mascara cases.

Next, on to the preservative system that you say you use successfully. I did searches for Google on the effects of vitamin C against gram positive and gram negative bacteria in cosmetics… and didn’t find anything. I did find, however, that vitamin c (at least in foods) seems to deteriorate fairly rapidly, so that’s something you may want to keep in mind. I also recall a conversation with a cosmetic chemist that I read once… mentioning that ascorbic acid was unstable in cosmetics, and that other vitamin c derivatives worked much better:

Stability of vitamin C derivatives in solution and topical formulations.

Austria R, Semenzato A, Bettero A.

J Pharm Biomed Anal. 1997 Mar;15(6):795-801.

Università di Padova, Dipartimento di Scienze Farmaceutiche, Italy.

The stability of ascorbic acid, ascorbyl palmitate and magnesium ascorbyl phosphate (VC-PMG) in both standard solutions and topical formulations was investigated by direct RP-HPLC analysis after sample dilution with a suitable aqueous-organic solvent mixture. The results showed that, whereas the two vitamin C derivatives were more stable than ascorbic acid, the ascorbyl esters showed significant differences. Esterification with palmitic acid in 6 position did not prevent hydrolysis of the molecule, either in solution or in emulsion; only the special preparation of products with high viscoelastic properties was able to reduce the typical behaviour of this compound. Conversely, the introduction of the phosphoric group in 2 position protected the molecule from break-up of the enediol system, confirming VC-PMG as a very stable derivative of vitamin C that may be easily used in various types of cosmetic products.

There are some brands of lotion that use the Magnesium Ascorbyl Phosphate, but it’s quite pricey from what I hear, and difficult to work with – I think I heard it estimated at several hundred dollars a pound.

Here are some more abstracts about vitamin c and their derivatives you may be interested in:

Stability of ascorbyl palmitate in topical microemulsions.

Spiclin P, Gasperlin M, Kmetec V.

Int J Pharm. 2001 Jul 17;222(2):271-9.

Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Ljubljana, Askerceva 7, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Ascorbyl palmitate and sodium ascorbyl phosphate are derivatives of ascorbic acid, which differ in stability and hydro-lipophilic properties. They are widely used in cosmetic and pharmaceutical preparations. In the present work the stability of both derivatives was studied in microemulsions for topical use as carrier systems. The microemulsions were of both o/w and w/o types and composed of the same ingredients. The stability of the less stable derivative ascorbyl palmitate was tested under different conditions to evaluate the influence of initial concentration, location in microemulsion, dissolved oxygen and storage conditions. High concentrations of ascorbyl palmitate reduced the extent of its degradation. The location of ascorbyl palmitate in the microemulsion and oxygen dissolved in the system together significantly influence the stability of the compound. Light accelerated the degradation of ascorbyl palmitate. In contrast, sodium ascorbyl phosphate was stable in both types of microemulsions. Sodium ascorbyl phosphate is shown to be convenient as an active ingredient in topical preparations. IN THE CASE OF ASCORBYL PALMITATE, LONG-TERM STABILITY IN SELECTED MICROEMULSIONS WAS NOT ADEQUATE. To formulate an optimal carrier system for this ingredient other factors influencing the stability have to be considered.
-------------------
[emphasis mine]

So, besides the fact that vitamin c doesn’t appear to be stable in emulsions, we’d have to determine whether or not it, or vitamins e and a, are effective when used in cosmetics against gram positive bacteria, gram negative bacteria, molds, yeast, and fungi, in order to believe that it is an effective preservative system for cosmetics. The question now is not whether there are any studies that show that cremes preserved only with vitamins have caused infections or blindness when used in the eye area. We already know that unpreserved or improperly preserved products will grow the bacteria, which can do the damage.

It's now a question of whether the vitamins a, c, and e actually are effective preservatives: whether they will effectively ward off the bacteria, mold, fungi, and yeast that can and will grow. So, off I went to Google. And I have to tell you, I couldn't find anything that indicated the fact that vitamin C will work as a preservative against bacteria in cosmetics. I know that vitamin E is used as an antioxidant and exhibits no antibacterial activity that we're looking for, so I went on to the vitamin A next, although I know it's also an antioxidant.

www.Cosmetic-Information.Com has this to say about your chosen ingredients:

Vitamin A and its naturally or synthetic derivatives are classified as retinoids. "Vitamin A" frequently refers to vitamin A alcohol (retinol), vitamin A aldehyde (retinal) and vitamin A acid (retinoic acid). Topical retinoic acid is FDA-approved for the treatment of acne, to reverse some of the signs of photoaging (including fine lines, hyperpigmentation, skin roughness), and to reduce the number of liver spots (senile lentigines). It is available in several prescription formulations. Retinol, present in many cosmetic formulations, is less potent and irritating than retinoic acid and is included in many cosmetic products.

Vitamin E appears to be useful in reducing UV light damage when applied to the skin before UV exposure. It appears to pass through the outermost layers of the skin and concentrate in the dermis. Vitamin E (listed as tocopherol) is also used as an antioxidant, in order to preserve the fatty components in cosmetic creams and lotions and thereby prevent discoloration and unpleasant odors.

Vitamin C is an antioxidant. It is important in the reactions that produce collagen, a major structural protein in the skin. It is also involved in scavenging reactive oxygen species (such as superoxide and hydroxyl radicals) that are produced in the skin at elevated levels in response to UV exposure. These reactive species damage DNA, proteins and cell membranes. Topically applied, vitamin C has only modest UV protective effects. This may be due to its instability and poor absorption. Some derivatives of vitamin C state that they have overcome these limitations.


It would seem from the searches that I have done that generally, vitamin C is used in cosmetics for stuff like uneven skin tone, lines, and wrinkles; vitamin E is used in cosmetics as an antioxidant and to reduce / prevent skin damage from the sun, and vitamin A is used as a topical acne treatment. I can't find anything about these products being used alone as an effective preservative against bacteria, fungi, or molds. Yes, they are often used in combination with other preservatives, since they're good antioxidants, but generally not alone.

I'm curious, though - where did you read that the vitamins alone make a good preservative against bacteria, mold and fungi? If it's so effective, then why doesn't Aubrey use it alone, and not bother with the grapefruit seed extract, which is potentially contaminated with preservatives already? Why don't other natural brands use it alone?

Ultimately, I can't prove to you that your preservative is or is not effective. But a lab can. Like I said (several times) in earlier posts, have you had your products APC or challenge tested? This would definitely show whether your product is effectively and properly preserved, or not. If, after challenge testing, your vitamin preservative comes out with flying colours, then more power to you! I bet you could patent a combination and sell it all over the world as a natural preservative. You'd have huge name brand cosmetics companies buying from you, because everyone would LOVE to state on their label, "100% naturally preserved with Vitamins!" I mean, it would be a big selling feature.

Challenge testing can be very expensive, though, so I'll pass on to you something a cosmetic chemist once recommended as a sort of "home challenge" test - it doesn't take the place of challenge testing by any means, but it gives you a better idea as to the effectiveness of your product than a regular APC would have done:

Although not a valid scientific test procedure, there is something that you can do to get an idea of how effective your preservative system is. This is NOT meant to be a substitute for a challenge test, but it will tell you a lot about the microbial integrity and effectiveness of the preservative system that you are using in a particular product.

Step 1) Make up your lotion and package the lotion in your standard bottle. Send one sample out for a standard Aerobic Plate Count (APC).

Step 2) If the APC count is low, give the other lotions out to your friends and family. If the APC count is high, you have microbial contamination and the batch should be destroyed. Large companies do not fill product until the product passes the APC testing. Otherwise, the product and packaging would have to be destroyed.

After your friends and family have use and, hopefully, abused your lotion for two to three weeks, have them return the now used bottles of lotion back to you.

Step 3) Send the partially used lotion bottles plus one un-used bottle of lotion out for another APC. This second round of testing will tell you how effective you preservative system worked in the real world.

Ideally, the bacterial count should be low. If it isn't, you have a problem.


Here's some other information about preservative testing, as well:

Preservative Testing

Preservative efficacy testing is an essential part of substantiating the safety of a product. Most large personal care manufacturers have a microbiology staff that performs preservative testing. Smaller companies may use the services of an outside micro lab for testing. The goal of efficacy testing is to determine, not only which preservative system to use against the strains of microorganisms to which the product may be exposed, but also that concentration of preservative that will preserve the product during manufacturing and under use conditions.

The microbiologist's most important procedure for testing if a sample is contaminated is the Aerobic Plate Count or APC. The APC is used to determine the number of viable organisms present in a sample. This is carried out on agar plates that contain materials that support microbial growth. Each colony is assumed to represent growth from a single organism.

Preservative testing is often lengthy and time consuming. Therefore, there are a number of fairly rapid screening methods that are used by microbiologists. The most common of these is called the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration or MIC test. This test determines the lowest concentration of the preservative system that will retard microbial growth. It uses inoculations of standard organisms that are representative of both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, yeast and mold.

In light of the previous discussion of all of the factors that may influence the activity of a preservative, it is essential to test the preservative system in the actual finished formulation. This is done by means of an Adequacy of Preservation Challenge Test or Challenge Test. For this test, the preservative is generally incorporated into a product base and "challenged" or inoculated with a large number of standard organisms along with various "house" organisms. "House" organisms are organisms that have adapted to a particular product or environment and whose metabolic activity is varied from the norm of its particular strain. They are often unique to a manufacturing plant. Assays are performed over a predetermined period of time, typically 4 to 8 weeks, sometimes with a rechallenge at 3 or 4 weeks.

Anyways, I've said enough. I'd definitely recommend you testing your products at least with the "home challenge test" outlined above, since that will give you a good idea of whether your products, the way you manufacture them, are safe.

Rachel

P.S. Out of curiousity, why do you use titanium dioxide? In the NTP's Tenth Report, they're listed under List A, or Known to Be a Human Carcinogen.

My comment concerning products with natural preservatives has been in reference to "creams and lotions", since the beginning, not in reference to cosmetics. I don't sell my hand-made products, nor do I even have time to make them anymore. I made them in the past because my husband is high-maintenance and I go broke buying lotions and eye creams for him. I purchase skincare products for resale from my sister company which specializes in crafting body-care products. So your advice about doing testing on products that I resell should be directed elswhere. The manufacturer is responsible for that.

A chemical that mimics hormones can potentially be cancerous. Hormone replacement therapy has come into question as of late because of its increased links to breast cancer. Parabens mimic hormones. Sometimes one needs to connect the dots.

As for bacteria, I use unprocessed water in the shower to clean my face and body in South America, and my skin is much softer and less dry using that water than the supposedly bacteria-free, chlorinated water in this country. As I've said before, toxic exposure to synthetic chemicals that are destroying our health and our environment are of much greater concern to me and many other people than "bacteria".

There are many grades of titanium dioxide.

My comment concerning products with natural preservatives has been in reference to "creams and lotions", since the beginning, not in reference to cosmetics.

Sure! That's what I was referring to, as well. Creams and lotions are cosmetics.

I purchase skincare products for resale from my sister company which specializes in crafting body-care products. So your advice about doing testing on products that I resell should be directed elswhere. The manufacturer is responsible for that.

You might want to pass this info on to that company then... because preservatives don't necessarily have to synthetic chemicals. Biopein is an option!

A chemical that mimics hormones can potentially be cancerous.

So then you'd say that foods that contain phytoestrogens are carcinogenic, as well?

There are many grades of titanium dioxide.

I wasn't aware of that. Which grades were shown to be carcinogenic, and which grade do you use? I emailed the Cancer Prevention Coalition a few months ago about TD, and Epstein hmself said (and I quote from the email) " I recommend phasing it out from cosmetics."

Which grades were shown to be carcinogenic, and which grade do you use? I emailed the Cancer Prevention Coalition a few months ago about TD, and Epstein hmself said (and I quote from the email) " I recommend phasing it out from cosmetics."

Really? That's interesting. I'd think that the UVA protection from the titanium dioxide would outweigh any risks from the TD itself...

I haven't done further research on it... but since Teporah seemed anxious to avoid all carcinogenic chemicals, I thought I'd mention it to her.

http://www.livingnature.com/talkwithus/latestnew.cfm

I thought this was a wonderful thread.

Teporah-I really feel for you and others with the concern about breast Cancer. My Mother and Grandmother both had it. G-ma died from it, but at 84. Mom went the alternative medicine route with hers and is still doing well many years later and wrote a book about her experience. Mom argues long and hard that there is just too much fear about Breast Cancer and I think she has a point.

I find myself looking at this from my plant care/pesticide/arborist background. It would be wonderful if we could live in a world without pesticides, insecticides, and so on. However, these products exist to fill a need, and often they came about because of a dire need.

That said there are many ways we can greatly diminish the usage of these products and sometimes lower the overall economic expense associated with production. In most cases though, you have to spend more on some other input, labor what have you to get the same or lesser result.

I personally cannot afford to buy only organic produce although I would like to. In order to get the amount of produce on the table that helps fight cancer, we have to use non-organic most of the time. Whenever there is an organic alternative at the same or nearly the same price we use it-why not?

When we can we grow a garden usually with low or no pesticide input. On those very rare occasions we have sprayed we know what we are doing and we are in control of the process. This in contrast to not knowing what the growers are doing. And, again this requires a lot of labor.

There are a lot of things I can do to help prevent cancer and lower my risk on a macro level such as eating enough produce and getting enough exercise, not smoking, etc. That's where I focus my energy first.

My feeling is that if it is affordable for you to avoid products with suspect compounds and they work as well as others do-go for it. We use non-aluminum deoderant for the most part in this house even though we understand that the scientific concerns are debatable-why not? we like the products and we can afford them-I don't feel like we have lost anything.

But on the other hand we don't know what all the other ingredients on the non-aluminum product are either, so are we jumping to conclusions that this product is somehow safer?

I don't believe it is possible to prevent every risk out there or even to know most of the potential risk factors. As someone said, they and their family members are allergic to mold, while other people routinely ingest it with zest and no health complications. So we are all different.

If it makes you feel better to try to avoid certain compounds in products, I say go for it. As for preservatives in commercial products they are there for a reason. Now for the caveat to that statement-but I also myself prefer fresh food when I can get it-I would much rather buy and eat bread that won't stay the same for four weeks.

I think there are people who would prefer to buy products without preservatives and other compounds without certain chemicals for whatever reason. The downside cost to this is that the shelf life is diminished and they should be tossed out even before they look bad in many cases.

Teporah, I totally understand your cheese analogy, but my general feeling is that the stomach(designed to digest many otherwise potentially harmful substances) is a much different organ than the eye, and, personally, I would not use a moldy product on or near the eye.

On the other hand we are still eating pickle relish that I canned three years ago, that the experts would say should have been tossed two years ago. I canned the stuff myself and I know it is filled with vinegar, turmeric, sugar, and mustard-which I believe all work to suppress the microbials, so after the sniff test we still use it. I understand the greater level of comfort that comes with having manufactured a product yourself or eating or using something made by someone you trust.

I think the key to dealing with the preservative/suspicious chemical compound is balance and your personal threshold of resources be they economic, time, allergic sensitivities or what have you.

I have been writing and researching a book about landscaping and common sense. There is a disproportionate concern about the use of landscape chemicals in the landscape and how they effect children compared to the immediate hazards of lawn mowers, swimming pools and believe it or not back yard play toys. Yet its the chemicals that get all the press, with some attention being paid to the pool issue. When you actually delve into the morbidity and mortality statistics the truly hazardous situations for children in the landscape are lawn mowers and the backyard swing.

We do too much worrying overall in this society about things that may be of minimal concern to our long term overall health(as long as they are correctly used) without addressing the macro issues.

I think preservatives fall into the overall category of minimal concern relative to their potential benefit for most people.

http://www.livingnature.com/talkwithus/latestnew.cfm
this link doesn't work... could you repost it?

www.livingnature.com
Go to news and talk.