Guest guest Posted December 2, 2002 Report Share Posted December 2, 2002 On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 19:03:30 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time), Sharon wrote: >I am currently reading with great interest the informationÿ on Midecol CF.ÿ I just uploaded some two additional files on Midecol CF into the Preservative Info folder. Midecol CF Patent - Intro and Claims.pdf Midecol CF - Information and Literature Summary.pdf Maurice -------------------------------------------------------- Maurice O. Hevey Convergent Cosmetics, Inc. http://www.ConvergentCosmetics.com ------------------------------------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2002 Report Share Posted December 2, 2002 So is it to early to have a decision rendered on Midecol CF? The research and everything else is very promising - from my very layman's eyes. Yoki I cried unto the Lord with my voice,and he heard me out of his holy hill. Selah Midecol CF On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 19:03:30 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time), Sharon wrote: >I am currently reading with great interest the informationÿ on Midecol CF.ÿ I just uploaded some two additional files on Midecol CF into the Preservative Info folder. Midecol CF Patent - Intro and Claims.pdf Midecol CF - Information and Literature Summary.pdf Maurice -------------------------------------------------------- Maurice O. Hevey Convergent Cosmetics, Inc. http://www.ConvergentCosmetics.com ------------------------------------------------------- Post message: Cosmeticinfo Subscribe: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cosmeticinfo Unsubscribe: Cosmeticinfo-unsubscribe List owner: Cosmeticinfo-owner URL to this page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cosmeticinfo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2002 Report Share Posted December 2, 2002 my really quick skimming of the info provided would lead me to say " no " . There were several instances where the degree of preservation didn't meet established parameters, most noticeably in cosmetic cream. Whether the BP parameters are relevant or not, I can't say... There was also no mention that I could see of the pH range in which it was stable, although there was mention that the fatty acids would saponify in an alkaline base (which, frankly, could really mess up a product's consistency). Also nothing I saw on temperature stability, although I could have missed that. Admittedly, I read through it very quickly, but didn't see anything on whether or not it had been descented. Neem oil REEKS, and if they're recommending a 1% add rate of this stuff, it had better not have a characteristically neemy odour! My other serious concern would be with the fact that this IS a 'natural' product and therefore the efficacy of the product would vary from batch to batch (this is mentioned just before the literature citations). This to me means that the variation in efficacy could vary dramatically from batch to batch, which would be a very serious concern to me. I think I'll stick with Germaben II & Phenonip! *grin* Jules, who really is going to go back to the books for another hour or so... > So is it to early to have a decision rendered on Midecol CF? The research > and everything else is very promising - from my very layman's eyes. > Yoki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2002 Report Share Posted December 3, 2002 Aside from the fact that neem stinks - I will have to take your word for it - isn't it true that when using a natural preservative that you may not necessarily use that standard ratios of .2% - 1%. Remember, the synthetics you have to because they were engineered that way so as not to damage the product nor the person. Let's face it, in too large of an amount all of the synthetics would kill us or make us so sick that we would wish that we were dead. If we say that for example the ratio for natural preservatives is around 5%, would not that then begin to offer some protection? when you get a chance to really look at the info, it says that at 1% it began to provide the treatment that was necessary in most of the products it was tested. So at probably a higher rate, then it would be doing comparable to the synthetics. Now the fact that neem stinks, I am sure that they could deodorize it; much like they do for cocoa butter. I will defer to your judgement as to the pH of the product. I would not even began to hazard a guess at that. But let us say that all other variables were in place, would not upping the percentage of the natural preservative do the job sufficiently? Just a thought? Yoki I cried unto the Lord with my voice,and he heard me out of his holy hill. Selah Re: Midecol CF my really quick skimming of the info provided would lead me to say " no " . There were several instances where the degree of preservation didn't meet established parameters, most noticeably in cosmetic cream. Whether the BP parameters are relevant or not, I can't say... There was also no mention that I could see of the pH range in which it was stable, although there was mention that the fatty acids would saponify in an alkaline base (which, frankly, could really mess up a product's consistency). Also nothing I saw on temperature stability, although I could have missed that. Admittedly, I read through it very quickly, but didn't see anything on whether or not it had been descented. Neem oil REEKS, and if they're recommending a 1% add rate of this stuff, it had better not have a characteristically neemy odour! My other serious concern would be with the fact that this IS a 'natural' product and therefore the efficacy of the product would vary from batch to batch (this is mentioned just before the literature citations). This to me means that the variation in efficacy could vary dramatically from batch to batch, which would be a very serious concern to me. I think I'll stick with Germaben II & Phenonip! *grin* Jules, who really is going to go back to the books for another hour or so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2002 Report Share Posted December 3, 2002 > Aside from the fact that neem stinks - I will have to take your word for it - isn't it true that when using a natural preservative that you may not necessarily use that standard ratios of .2% - 1%. Neem stinks to the High Heaven. Be careful about quoting standard ratios for preservatives, it depends on the preservative and the formula. >Remember, the synthetics you have to because they were engineered that way so as not to damage the product nor the person. Let's face it, in too large of an amount all of the synthetics would kill us or make us so sick that we would wish that we were dead. Preservatives are designed to kill micro organisms. Logic would seem to dictate that if used in large enough amounts that they would kill or injure larger species. Just because a preservative is " natural " is no indication that it would act any differently than a synthetic preservative. I would have thought that most people on this list would know that natural does not necessarily mean safe. If you look at allergies, it looks like people are allergic to the natural more than the synthetic. With the increased use of essential oils, more and more people are becoming sensitized to those oils. Recently, I have read about problems in Australia with Tea Tree oil, this is an oil that many in the US were using neat, and probably still are. I would like to see a natural preservative, but I wouldn't count on it being the Holy Grail. It would need to be effective in cosmetics, easy to incorporate, and not stink. Even then I would want to see a track record before I ever used it. Some people thought Myavert C was the answer until one of the larger natural companies had to recall their products because it failed. Right now you can make a product that is over 99% natural without taking unnecessary risk. If you consider the parabens natural (which technically you could because they come from the earth) you could make some products that are 100% natural. Pat. Peace, Joy, Serenity House of Scents tm. Body Oils, Fragrance Oils, Incense, Candles, Soap, Etc. pat@... http://www.houseofscents.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2002 Report Share Posted December 3, 2002 <. I would have thought that most people on this list would know that natural does not necessarily mean safe.> Pat - Did not mean to insult the " list " with my obviously sophomoric question. But that is MY belief. I do not doubt that natural products can be just as lethal as the synthetics that are produced. I have seen that more than enough times to know, however, if given a choice, I would much rather use the natural than the synthetic. I won't have to worry about an 'unknown' side effect that will never be known until we human guinea pigs let the companies know about it. I was raised to use both the natural and synthetic for health care. I have an asthmatic daughter that is too young for the rest of the asthma drugs and is allergic - severely - to the preservative that they put in the proventil. So I have turned to the natural to control her asthma. So yes I am well aware of the dangers of all. But I still stand by my belief that if we do choose to use natural, then maybe we need to just check the ratios that we are using. We live in such an imperfect world. There is never an easy answer to anything. Yoki I cried unto the Lord with my voice,and he heard me out of his holy hill. Selah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2002 Report Share Posted December 3, 2002 Yoki, I must take exception to one thing that you've said... > I won't have to worry about an 'unknown' side effect that will never be known until we human guinea pigs let the companies know about it. Given how little information has been quanitified on the use of 'natural' products, and their interactions with each other and with other 'synthetic' meds, I don't know how you can say that you won't have to worry about an 'unknown' side effect with a 'natural' product. For example - St. 's Wort has been used for years as a mild antidepressant, right? Hundreds of years of safe use, no problemo, right? Tell that to the pregnant women who didn't know that SJW decreases the efficacy of birth control pills. Now THAT's a depressing side effect! Excluding the 'synthetics' all together, we still don't have quantifiable information about interactions between 'naturals'. A product that has been used 'safely' in China for 300 years may not react well with a product that has been used 'safely' in South America for 300 years. Until recent years these products would virtually never have been used by the same person! Personally, I think the pharmaceutical firms and the regulatory agencies do an excellent job of preventing dangerous medications and interactions from making their way to consumers. People love to quote the Thalidomide example - but that was what, 30 years ago? I can only think of a handful of cases that are even remotely similar, thanks to clinical testing, computer modelling and responsible prescription. The worst cases have been when a drug or drug combination was prescribed improperly, like Fen-Phen. However, in the last five years there have been a large number of instances where we've learned that natural products can have serious interactions with other pharmaceuticals... I'm not knocking the use of natural products - I just think it's inappropriate to choose them based on a perception of lack of side effects when the evidence either suggests the opposite, or worse, a total lack of evidence. Jules/Vancouver BC (who has just about finished her study break...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2002 Report Share Posted December 3, 2002 > Aside from the fact that neem stinks - I will have to take your word for it - isn't it true that when using a natural preservative that you may not necessarily use that standard ratios of .2% - 1%. True, it depends on the product being preserved and the likelihood that it will become contaminated. > If we say that for example the ratio for natural preservatives is around 5%, would not that then begin to offer some protection? when you get a chance to really look at the info, it says that at 1% it began to provide the treatment that was necessary in most of the products it was tested. I don't quite understand what your first sentence says. I agree that at 1% the product provided adequate protection in most of the products tested - although I do think it very alarming that the one cosmetic product tested did NOT meet criteria - which to me would all but end this discussion. If it won't preserve cosmetic creams, why consider it at all? >So at probably a higher rate, then it would be doing comparable to the synthetics. Not necessarily. If a product doesn't have adequate preservative action at 1%, it does not automatically follow that it would be adequate at 2%. 2% of a product as a preservative is too high, IMO, anyway. >Now the fact that neem stinks, I am sure that they could deodorize it; much like they do for cocoa butter. I don't think so. The literature seemed to imply that the preservative activity was as a result of many of the chemicals that are considered 'aroma chemicals', like the terpenes. In other words, take away the neem stink and you take away the active ingredient > I will defer to your judgement as to the pH of the product. I would not even began to hazard a guess at that. But let us say that all other variables were in place, would not upping the percentage of the natural preservative do the job sufficiently? Like I said, probably not - the information provided is inadequate. And again, one of my most serious concerns is that the product is not standardized. One would have to have a cert for each batch and then adjust their formulae each time in order to ensure adequate preservative activity, which could result in totally unreliable product quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2002 Report Share Posted December 3, 2002 And again, one of my most serious concerns is that the product is not standardized. One would have to have a cert for each batch and then adjust their formulae each time in order to ensure adequate preservative activity, which could result in totally unreliable product quality. Thank you very much. Then maybe it would be ok to continue to use a combo of the two then. That may seem somewhat redundant, but if using a natural preservative, then using a 'backup' is necessary according to research. Yoki I cried unto the Lord with my voice,and he heard me out of his holy hill. Selah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2002 Report Share Posted December 3, 2002 > Did not mean to insult the " list " with my obviously sophomoric question. Yoki, I doubt very much that you insulted anyone on the list, so if I were you I wouldn't worry about it. I believe that the majority of people on this list-including myself-would prefer to use natural ingredients if we could get the same results that we get with what we are currently using. We can't just jump on the bandwagon to hail in a new product that has no track record. Watch it, yes, and hope it works, yes. I doubt that there are many of us on the list that are big enough producers to be able to afford challenge testing for all our products. Because of this we need to be extra careful in the choice of preservatives that we use, and only use those that are tried and true with a track record. For me to use Midicol I would need to see it used by a major manufacturer for two years without problems. Pat. Peace, Joy, Serenity House of Scents tm. Body Oils, Fragrance Oils, Incense, Candles, Soap, Etc. pat@... http://www.houseofscents.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2002 Report Share Posted December 3, 2002 which begs the question - why use the 'natural' and unproved preservative at all, if you're going to use a backup synthetic anyway? Is being 99.5% " natural " that much more important than being 99% " natural " ? Especially when being 99.5% natural may still result in product contamination? I'm with Pat - I'd want to see it in major use for a minimum of 2 years before trying it myself, plus I'd want to see more substantive test data. Jules > Thank you very much. Then maybe it would be ok to continue to use a combo of the two then. That may seem somewhat redundant, but if using a natural preservative, then using a 'backup' is necessary according to research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2002 Report Share Posted December 4, 2002 It is all a matter of choice. I know because I have lived it. Almost lost a daughter to the wonderful synthetics that the doctors were touting so much. Had I followed my mind, I would not have had to go through that. I grew up using herbs and bushes alongside western medicine. I guess it is what you know. You can only speak from what you have lived. There will be those who will forever sing the praises of western medicine and there will be those who will sing the praises of 'alternative' medicine. I walk the line in between, but lean more towards herbs and bushes. Now back to soaping and the other good stuff :-) Yoki I cried unto the Lord with my voice,and he heard me out of his holy hill. Selah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.