Stearic acid an emulsifier?

[earlene]

The implications of that would be huge. With all the misinformation on the internet, I would love to see a citation of that. Can you provide a link of some sort to a credible source? Thanks!

See page 105 of Soap & Cosmetic Labeling by Marie Gale, regarding Incidental ingredients. And if you don't have that book, then look here:

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.100

https://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/Labeling/Regulations/ucm126444.htm

https://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/Labeling/Regulations/ucm126444.htm#clgl9

The above are for the US, and the US only. So for the EU and some other countries, other regulations may be more or less stringent. Even within the US, some state regulations are more stringent than the federal regulations, Florida and California, for example. One has to comply with the most stringent regulations for the locations in which one manufactures and sells. In my opinion, once someone starts selling internationally, the labeling requirements become that much more complicated.

N.B. I just learned something new regarding my current state. There is a requirement that any product containing lead must contain a warning regarding lead poisoning dangers. That lead me to wonder if the red oxide I use contains lead. Well, unfortunately, I don't know, but it could, making it illegal for me to even give this soap away in the state of Illinois without said warning on the label! This is huge for me because, even though I don't expect anyone to eat my soap, soap eating is a thing that I have to take into account when labeling soap.

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2017/NIST.IR.8178.pdf

 

[cmzaha]

I did not find anything Saponification mentioned as being condescending. You posted a link to the product you are interested in. We saw no listed preservative so some of us commented. There is nothing wrong nor condescending. I thought is was .5% or less for not listing an ingredient but the info can be found on the FDA site. You will have to dig. Since most if not all preservatives are a mix of ingredients so each ingredients can be less than 1 or .5 %. I list everything so I do not worry about weather I have to or not.

As was mentioned do some research the answer is there to be read. We share our knowledge here voluntarily and do not tend to list sources. All of us here have spend hours to years researching and share our knowledge. We do not always list our sources, sometimes we do. The information is most likely in the main book, most of us have for cosmetic labeling http://www.mariegale.com/soap-and-cosmetic-labeling-book/

Because a company has a fancy website, such as Epicuren and unlimited marketing budget does not mean they are big. They are a Laguna Hills based company with an in-house chemist team, who can test onsite. Laguna Hills is high money community in Orange County, CA. Most of use cannot do such so have to depend on outsourcing testing. I a guessing the families may strengths are in Marketing. I think I mentioned the company that had a lotion fail resulting in deaths was a large company. They had to recall a huge quantity of products.

Earlene got to it before I finished typing. If you still do not believe what is in the book research Cosmetics on FDA's page.

 

[DeeAnna]

...you are not obligated to put preservative in your ingredient list. Something about 1% or less ingredients need not be added.

Please do not add any more confusion to an already confusing topic. This is not correct.

According to the FDA, "...2. Ingredients present at a concentration not exceeding 1% may be listed in any order after the listing of the ingredients present at more than 1% in descending order of predominance. [§ 701.3(f)(2)]..." https://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/Labeling/Regulations/ucm126444.htm#clgl3 (my emphasis)

and Marie Gale also confirms this point, "...Ingredients that are present at less than 1% may be listed in any order after the ingredients present at 1% or greater...." http://www.mariegale.com/quick-labeling-faq/ (Marie's emphasis)

Along with Earlene and Carolyn, I also highly recommend a careful study of the FDA regs and also recommend Marie's book about labeling.

 

[cmzaha]

Please do not add any more confusion to an already confusing topic. This is not correct.

According to the FDA, "...2. Ingredients present at a concentration not exceeding 1% may be listed in any order after the listing of the ingredients present at more than 1% in descending order of predominance. [§ 701.3(f)(2)]..." https://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/Labeling/Regulations/ucm126444.htm#clgl3 (my emphasis)

and Marie Gale also confirms this point, "...Ingredients that are present at less than 1% may be listed in any order after the ingredients present at 1% or greater...." http://www.mariegale.com/quick-labeling-faq/ (Marie's emphasis)

Along with Earlene and Carolyn, I also highly recommend a careful study of the FDA regs and also recommend Marie's book about labeling.

Please excuse me if I was wrong. I am running on 2 hrs sleep with mom in the hospital and stepfather home. So the brain is not working well. It may very well have been the listing order I read of less than 1%

 

[earlene]

You didn't say it in the first place, Carolyn. Soapapprentice did. Your lack of sleep may be interfering with some things, but that's not one of them. Re-reading your post, though I do see that you may see that issue about what percentage of ingredient that has to be listed and where it may have come from. If I understand the regs correctly, and I could be mistaken, it's covered in the 'incidental ingredients' section. I wouldn't consider a preservative as an 'incidental ingredient' as defined therein, but I could see how some might choose to think so. I think they'd be wrong, but that's just me. I have found that interpreting regulations can be tricky at times and they can surely be written in the most confusing way possible!

 

[Saponificarian]

I am sorry if my post came across as condescending, it wasn’t meant to be so.

You are looking at this thread as your own to ask about using Stearic acid as an emulsifier but the truth is one newbie somewhere maybe a few months, years from now will read this thread and think it is okay to use GSE as preservative if it is not addressed.

I made Gennys Shampoo recipe, learnt shaving soap from Songwind’s thread. Made Lindy’s cream soap recipe, learnt Cold Processed Liquid soap from Irishlass.... These are threads from years ago and I still reference them so we owe it to people that will come here looking for information to put the right information out there.

Again I apologize if I upset you in any way.

 

[DeeAnna]

"...the truth is one newbie somewhere maybe a few months, years from now will read this thread..."

I agree with Saponificarian's point of view. I think she shared useful information in the spirit of being helpful.

Many times in many threads on SMF and other forums, you will see the discussion wander away from strict answers to the OP's question. That is the essential nature of a discussion forum. It might be frustrating or annoying at times, but that tendency is not going to go away.

I'm just as prone as anyone here about trying to educate people about the side issues as much as answering the original question. A lot of people on this forum are here to learn and I think it's important to make sure the information presented is reasonably sound.

 

[Saranac]

I can't day for sure, but I read on a couple of sites that Epicuren has several patented ingredients. My guess is they are not required to disclose the full ingredient make-up of their proprietary items. Perhaps additional emulsifiers and/or preservatives are hidden in the proprietary ingredients.

As I understand the laws in the US, incidental ingredients and proprietary ingredients can be withheld from an ingredient declaration, but there are rules for doing this--

In Soap & Cosmetic Labeling, the author states that an incidental ingredient is defined as one “that has no functional or technical effect” in the finished cosmetic (Gale, 2015, p. 105). As a result, I’m not sure how one could include an emulsifier and/or preservative* and claim either to be “incidental,” as both serve a purpose in the finished product. While it seems to be true that trade-secrets can be withheld from an ingredient declaration, Gale (2015) indicates that not only does a company have to file for approval with the FDA, but they still have to include “and other ingredients” on the label (p. 107). I haven’t seen the actual label of the product in question, so I do not know if those words are on the label. They are not, however, on the website.

*Unless, of course, the preservative is present in an ingredient that one is formulating with, and one’s usage of that ingredient results in a preservative level that is too low to be functional. If that is the case, the preservative can be considered incidental and withheld from the ingredient declaration (Gale, 2015, p. 107).

EDITED to quote Cellador and Soapprentice as I fear my response was rather out of context.
EDITED again as I wasn't paying enough attention.

 

[DeeAnna]

Saranac -- Good point. This is a much more nuanced concept than merely omitting ingredients if they are less than 1% of the formulation. I'm betting people are using this "no functional or technical effect" loophole in ways it should not be used, however. I'm sure people are doing this in the race to make their products seem more "natural" and "pure" than everybody else's.

 

[Soapprentice]

I’m sorry for confusion and hijacking.. I heard someone say it or may be I misunderstood it to be this way... also, this is in India. So, I am very sorry for the confusion.

They must be saying it with regard to the loophole discussed above. I am sorry, I shouldn’t have repeated anything without proper research.

 

[DeeAnna]

Hey there, Soapprentice -- I didn't think to look what country you are from, and that was a mistake on my part. Please accept my apologies for not checking.

Even though I don't see the "less than 1%" rule as being valid in the US, it may be perfectly correct in India. It would be a good thing to know this for sure -- is there a way for you to find out?

I’m sorry for confusion and hijacking.... I am sorry, I shouldn’t have repeated anything without proper research....

 

[Saranac]

I’m sorry for confusion and hijacking.. I heard someone say it or may be I misunderstood it to be this way... also, this is in India. So, I am very sorry for the confusion.

They must be saying it with regard to the loophole discussed above. I am sorry, I shouldn’t have repeated anything without proper research.

I, too apologize as I didn't realize you were in India. Also, I'm sorry for singling you out; I've removed your quote from my last post.

 

[Soapprentice]

Hey there, Soapprentice -- I didn't think to look what country you are from, and that was a mistake on my part. Please accept my apologies for not checking.

Even though I don't see the "less than 1%" rule as being valid in the US, it may be perfectly correct in India. It would be a good thing to know this for sure -- is there a way for you to find out?

No worries, I should have mentioned in the comment about me being from India as majority of people are from the US.
The resources here are very hard. We have to educate even drug department on some stuff sometimes. So it is going to take me a while to find out for sure.
Sadly, not a lot of stuff is available online either. There is an article recently by a research student claiming even making Handmade Soap needs cosmetic manufacturing licence. I’m working on finding about it currently.

 

[Soapprentice]

I, too apologize as I didn't realize you were in India. Also, I'm sorry for singling you out; I've removed your quote from my last post.

No worries.

 

[Rune]

I just read that it is very popular these days to hide preservatives as "parfum" or "fragrance" or under other substances, by using preservatives that has a dual function - fragrance materials and preservative at the same time, or an emollient and preservative, for example. Some newer types of "natural" preservatives can easily be hidden.

Naticide is an example of a preservative that can go undercover as a fragrance. And the finished product can be labeled as preservative-free. Naticide is constructed from fragrance materials, so you can hide it where it came from.

So preservative-free products, every fragranced product out there and products with active ingredients like certain emollients, they can have preservatives hiding in the dark.

 

[Naturelover]

parfum is an INCI name for Naticide Preservative.

 

[Naturelover]

I just read that it is very popular these days to hide preservatives as "parfum" or "fragrance" or under other substances, by using preservatives that has a dual function - fragrance materials and preservative at the same time, or an emollient and preservative, for example. Some newer types of "natural" preservatives can easily be hidden.

Naticide is an example of a preservative that can go undercover as a fragrance. And the finished product can be labeled as preservative-free. Naticide is constructed from fragrance materials, so you can hide it where it came from.

So preservative-free products, every fragranced product out there and products with active ingredients like certain emollients, they can have preservatives hiding in the dark.

I just read that it is very popular these days to hide preservatives as "parfum" or "fragrance" or under other substances, by using preservatives that has a dual function - fragrance materials and preservative at the same time, or an emollient and preservative, for example. Some newer types of "natural" preservatives can easily be hidden.

Naticide is an example of a preservative that can go undercover as a fragrance. And the finished product can be labeled as preservative-free. Naticide is constructed from fragrance materials, so you can hide it where it came from.

So preservative-free products, every fragranced product out there and products with active ingredients like certain emollients, they can have preservatives hiding in the dark.

parfum is an INCI name for Naticide Preservative.