Be Cautious of All-Natural Cosmetic Preservatives

[Guest guest]

I came across this article in my files and wanted to pass it on - as it

is always a topic of interest ...

 

*Smile*

Chris (list mom)

 

http://www.alittleolfactory.com

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Be Cautious of " All-Natural " Cosmetic Preservatives

By NewsUSA

 

Americans' fascination with " all natural " products has opened the

floodgates for profiteering in the cosmetics industry, according to

recent research.

 

Some cosmetic manufacturers are claiming their products are better

because they are protected against harmful bacteria by natural

preservatives such as grapefruit extract. But according to researcher

G.Y. Ednak, Ph.D., such claims are exaggerated.

 

" The truth is that grapefruit seed extract is far from perfect, " Dr.

Ednak says. " Grapefruit seed extract is less effective against at least

one common species of bacteria (pseudomonas airuginosa) and has

experimentally been shown to be an eye irritant. "

 

In today's highly competitive market for beauty products, adding the

words " all natural " can dramatically increase sales, but such claims can

be detrimental to the buyer.

 

Natural or Not?

" Naturally preserved " cosmetic products generally require 3 to 4 percent

of grapefruit seed preservative to be effective. But after opening the

product and sticking fingers in the jar, these so-called natural

preservatives are less likely to provide broad-spectrum, antimicrobial

protection.

 

On the other hand, chemical preservatives extend shelf life in stores,

as well as in homes, with just one-tenth of one percent of the chemical

preservatives methyl and propyl paraben.

 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said repeatedly that there is

no effective natural preservative available for use in cosmetics. Heinz

Eierman, director of FDA's division of cosmetic technology, first made

this statement more than 15 years ago. The risk of improperly preserved

cosmetics developing microbial pathogens was evident even then.

 

John Bailey, the current director of FDA's division of cosmetic

technology, reaffirmed Eierman's statement earlier this year.

 

Fighting Contamination

Contaminated hand creams and lotions used in hospitals led the U.S.

government to conclude that using cosmetics without chemical

preservatives could be dangerous. Particularly vulnerable are persons

with burns, inflammation, broken or diseased skin, as well as the

elderly or debilitated.

 

Methyl and propyl paraben, as well as imidiazolidinyl urea - the most

common cosmetic preservatives - have been proven effective without

adverse effect to virtually all users since the mid-1930s. They remain

effective today. After extensive research and testing, the FDA has not

changed its position.

 

The important issue is long-term preservation during usage of the

product. The experts still agree that a purely natural preservative,

effective against all species of common cosmetic bacteria, has not yet

been found.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

speaking of which, I can't remember which unreliable online forum I heard it

from, but someone was all shocked that a toiletry she had been using didn't

have any chemical preservatives b/c she thought that the FDA *required*

them. Is that true? I know the FDA likes to side on cancer-causing

parabens, but i didn't think they required them. I suppose I could go look

it up on the FDA site but its soooo unfriendly.

 

 

-

" Christine Ziegler " <chrisziggy

 

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 9:14 AM

Be Cautious of " All-Natural " Cosmetic

Preservatives

 

 

I came across this article in my files and wanted to pass it on - as it

is always a topic of interest ...

 

*Smile*

Chris (list mom)

 

http://www.alittleolfactory.com

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Be Cautious of " All-Natural " Cosmetic Preservatives

By NewsUSA

 

Americans' fascination with " all natural " products has opened the

floodgates for profiteering in the cosmetics industry, according to

recent research.

 

Some cosmetic manufacturers are claiming their products are better

because they are protected against harmful bacteria by natural

preservatives such as grapefruit extract. But according to researcher

G.Y. Ednak, Ph.D., such claims are exaggerated.

 

" The truth is that grapefruit seed extract is far from perfect, " Dr.

Ednak says. " Grapefruit seed extract is less effective against at least

one common species of bacteria (pseudomonas airuginosa) and has

experimentally been shown to be an eye irritant. "

 

In today's highly competitive market for beauty products, adding the

words " all natural " can dramatically increase sales, but such claims can

be detrimental to the buyer.

 

Natural or Not?

" Naturally preserved " cosmetic products generally require 3 to 4 percent

of grapefruit seed preservative to be effective. But after opening the

product and sticking fingers in the jar, these so-called natural

preservatives are less likely to provide broad-spectrum, antimicrobial

protection.

 

On the other hand, chemical preservatives extend shelf life in stores,

as well as in homes, with just one-tenth of one percent of the chemical

preservatives methyl and propyl paraben.

 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said repeatedly that there is

no effective natural preservative available for use in cosmetics. Heinz

Eierman, director of FDA's division of cosmetic technology, first made

this statement more than 15 years ago. The risk of improperly preserved

cosmetics developing microbial pathogens was evident even then.

 

John Bailey, the current director of FDA's division of cosmetic

technology, reaffirmed Eierman's statement earlier this year.

 

Fighting Contamination

Contaminated hand creams and lotions used in hospitals led the U.S.

government to conclude that using cosmetics without chemical

preservatives could be dangerous. Particularly vulnerable are persons

with burns, inflammation, broken or diseased skin, as well as the

elderly or debilitated.

 

Methyl and propyl paraben, as well as imidiazolidinyl urea - the most

common cosmetic preservatives - have been proven effective without

adverse effect to virtually all users since the mid-1930s. They remain

effective today. After extensive research and testing, the FDA has not

changed its position.

 

The important issue is long-term preservation during usage of the

product. The experts still agree that a purely natural preservative,

effective against all species of common cosmetic bacteria, has not yet

been found.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for sending this on, Chris--I can't count how many times at

shows where one moment I'm explaining that there's no such thing as a

natural preservative proven to preserve reliably, and the next

explaining to another soaper that the GSE she'd used in her lotions as

a preservative is precisely why it grew that pretty green mold a week

after she made it.

Serra

 

 

On 5/18/05, Christine Ziegler <chrisziggy wrote:

> I came across this article in my files and wanted to pass it on - as it

> is always a topic of interest ...

>

> *Smile*

> Chris (list mom)

>

> http://www.alittleolfactory.com

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> Be Cautious of " All-Natural " Cosmetic Preservatives

> By NewsUSA

>

>

--

SerrasSecretSurplus is open once again!

http://stores.ebay.com/SerrasSecretSurplus

 

For your daily dose of cranky Serra

http://scentedstuff.blogspot.com

[Guest guest]

>

 

> speaking of which, I can't remember which unreliable online forum I

heard it

> from, but someone was all shocked that a toiletry she had been using

didn't

> have any chemical preservatives b/c she thought that the FDA

*required*

> them. Is that true? I know the FDA likes to side on cancer-causing

> parabens, but i didn't think they required them. I suppose I could go

look

> it up on the FDA site but its soooo unfriendly.

 

 

Hi Bonnie,

 

It is not required by the FDA to put a paraben into your product, but it

IS required by the FDA that a product not be contaminated with " filth "

or " injurious " to consumers. Putting a reliable preservative of some

sort (which do not necessarily have to be parabens) into a product that

has a good chance of rotting or growing nasties in it is not only good

for business (nobody can afford to get sued) and very important for the

safety and health of the end user of the item.

 

Below is one little snippet from the FDA web site about " Moldy Oldies "

 

*Smile*

Chris (list mom)

http://www.alittleolfactory.com

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-safe.html

 

" ... even one report of an acute injury, usually caused by a

contaminated product, results in quick action by the agency. " We'll

inspect the establishment, talk to the consumer, talk to the doctor,

collect samples, and analyze them to determine the extent of

contamination, " says Bailey.

 

Moldy Oldies

 

 

Contaminated makeup is the result of either inadequate preservatives or

product misuse. But contamination doesn't necessarily translate into

serious injury for the user.

 

 

" Cosmetics are not expected to be totally free of microorganisms when

first used or to remain free during consumer use, " according to a 1989

FDA report on contamination of makeup counter samples in department

stores. The report was based on a survey which found that over 5 percent

of samples collected were seriously contaminated with such things as

molds, other fungi, and pathogenic organisms.

 

 

Every time you open a bottle of foundation or case of eye shadow,

microorganisms in the air have an opportunity to rush in. But adequately

preserved products can kill off enough of the little bugs to keep the

product safe.

 

 

Occasionally, however, a product will be seriously contaminated.

According to FDA data, most cases of contamination are due to

manufacturers using poorly designed, ineffective preservative systems

and not testing the stability of the preservatives during the product's

customary shelf life and under normal use conditions. "