[article]
Titre : |
Effective preservation with multifunctional naturals |
Type de document : |
texte imprimé |
Auteurs : |
Fernando Ibarra, Auteur |
Année de publication : |
2008 |
Article en page(s) : |
p. 86-88 |
Note générale : |
Bibliogr. |
Langues : |
Anglais (eng) |
Index. décimale : |
668.5 Parfums et cosmétiques |
Résumé : |
Alternative preservation is becoming more and more popular, and many products that claim to be “preservative free” or “free of synthetic preservatives”, “paraben free” etc are on the market. Since the consumer perception of preservatives is not very positive, many chose their preferred cosmetic products according to the “free of…” claims. There have been many debates in the industry, criticising that development and blaming cosmetic manufacturers or raw material suppliers for this trend. Indeed many manufacturers proactively use the absence of traditional preservatives to position their products. The basic core of this conflict is that, on one hand, there are good reasons to do without some (but not all) traditional preservatives because of toxicological matters. On the other hand, there is an undisputable need for preservation in nearly all cosmetic products. The fact that an increasing number of products is nowadays preserved with alternative ingredients shows that the concepts work effectively – since the same microbiological test methods are used for the assessment of product safety. A survey from a German governmental testing institute revealed that in 400 cosmetic products that were sampled randomly, there were no differences in microbiological quality between those with traditional and alternative preservation.1 So, in the end there are supporters of both, traditional preservatives and alternative systems. The advantages and disadvantages of most traditional preservatives have been discussed extensively2,3 and will not be focused on in the following overview of alternative preservation systems. There have also been a number of introductions and updates on alternative4,5 or natural preservation systems.6,7 As the differences between both terms are not always entirely clear and furthermore there are many products in the market, in which traditional preservatives are blended with alternative antimicrobial ingredients, there is still need for a clarification on the definitions of traditional, alternative and natural systems for preservation. The main reason for the discrimination is not given by scientists or by efficacy data, but by the European Cosmetics Directive and other similar laws in other parts of the world. Whenever preservatives are collected in a positive list as in Europe (Annex VI of the Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC), the definition of a preservative is fixed. So the possibility to use marketing claims like “preservative free” is a simple consequence of the governing legal environment as soon as there is no substance from Annex VI in the end product. There are some established ways of alternative preservation that are very effective and not at all debated, like the use of ethanol. Ethanol falls exactly in the same category as most ingredients for alternative preservation and is used extensively for alternative preservation concepts. Alternative preservation systems normally have well documented cosmetic functions like hydrating, refatting, perfuming or others. These cosmetic functions (defined as “primary function” of the respective ingredient) are a crucial requirement for the legally correct use of such antimicrobial raw materials. One of the highlights of the continuing controversy about preservatives were scientific publications that were intended to show a correlation between breast cancer and the use of parabens in deodorants. There was never proof of a causal connection, but only findings that a significant number of samples of cancer tissue contained parabens. Certainly, if tested, there would be a similarly significant amount of healthy tissue containing parabens – or other compounds present in cosmetic products. So there is certainly no reason to panic when such weak scientific conclusions reach the public. However, there are also cases where “experts” trivialise the fears of the public and by doing so act in quite the same way (i.e. not scientifically) as the mass media do – only in the opposite direction. This is for instance the case when the use of formaldehyde releasers is discussed and their supporters lecture about differences between risk and hazard and the safety at the allowed use levels. Why is it so hard to accept that consumers who buy products to promote their health and wellness are not happy about carcinogens on their skin – in whatever concentration? Many ingredient suppliers have noticed that there are still many means to avoid ingredients with such [marketing] disadvantages and develop new and innovative systems for alternative preservation. |
Note de contenu : |
- Alternative preservation approach
- Preserving natural cosmetics |
En ligne : |
http://www.personalcaremagazine.com/Print.aspx?Story=4119 |
Format de la ressource électronique : |
Url |
Permalink : |
https://e-campus.itech.fr/pmb/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=22100 |
in PERSONAL CARE EUROPE > Vol. 1, N° 1 (09/2008) . - p. 86-88
[article]
|