NATURALS
Cosmetics Cosmetic ingredients are regulated in Europe by the EU Cosmetic Products Regulation (EC) No.1223/2009. In the UK, a mirror regulation is in the process of being set up. In the USA, the FDA regulates cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients. In general, cosmetic ingredients should adhere to the following. ■ An ingredient must be safe to use on the skin. There are normally maximum limits on heavy metals, microbial levels and other potentially toxic residues. ■ Materials should have a specification, CoA (certificate of analysis) for each batch, TDS, MSDS and product information pack. ■ The ingredient or ingredient blend may also be registered with the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), which assigns an INCI name to the material. ■ Cosmetic ingredients are usually subject to CLP (Classification, Labelling and Packaging) regulations and need to be labelled with appropriate warnings. ■ Cosmetic ingredients are subject to REACH regulations.
Assessing the suitability of a food ingredient for cosmetics It is recommended to ask the supplier of the food ingredient if it has been used in cosmetics before and if they have any corresponding paperwork; ideally the material will have a CAS (Chemical Abstracts Service) number or chemical name to identify it properly. The REACH status of the raw material can also be checked using the CAS number. The safety data for the material should be requested and this can be used to check the general suitability of the raw material for cosmetics – microbial limits and heavy metal content are two of the main pieces of data to check. Special cases, such as high or low pHs or enzymatic activity that may be irritant to skin, need to be considered. It should not be taken for granted that a food ingredient is automatically suitable for cosmetics. In general, animal-based products such as animal collagen, gelatine or animal fats are not suitable for cosmetics, although this is entirely a marketing/vegan- suitable reason rather than a technical one.
Food microbiological limits Microbial limits vary considerably in food and food ingredients and this is one of the major pitfalls with using food ingredients in cosmetics. Food microbial limits can vary from less than 100 cfu/g to 108
cfu/g meaning that not all
ingredients will be suitable. The bacterial load will mainly be made up
of ‘friendly’ bacteria such as Lactobacillus, which produces lactic acid and plays a part in the fermentation process to produce foods such as yoghurt, sauerkraut, cheese, miso and many others. Bifidobacteria is also found in the gut and protects against other types of harmful bacteria. Harmful bacteria ‘pathogens’ are not
permitted in food. These include Salmonella, E. Coli, Listeria, Campylobacter and Staphylococcus aureus. If a particular food ingredient is found to have a high count of any
www.personalcaremagazine.com Figure 2: Mung beans
69
Figure 1: Alginate
type of bacteria it may not be suitable for use in cosmetics due to the high bacterial count, therefore the ingredient may need to undergo further processing before it is used in cosmetics.
Cosmetic microbiological limits Limits on cosmetic raw materials tend to be much stricter than those in food; this is because microbial limits in finished cosmetic products are low. For Category 1 products (Products for Under 3s, for use around the eye and mucous membranes), the limit is <100 cfu/g for bacteria, yeast and mould. For Category 2 products (all other products), the limit is <1000 cfu/g for bacteria, yeast and mould. In both cases pathogens should be absent. This means, in general, cosmetic ingredients should be <1000 cfu/g, ideally <100 cfu/g. Unfortunately, this can rule out many good
food ingredients that could be used, although specification values do not necessarily mean actual values, as shown in the case studies below.
Case study 1: Sodium alginate Sodium alginate is used as a thickener, stabiliser and texture modifier in cosmetics and food. It
is derived from alginic acid which is extracted from seaweed. Sodium Alginate (Algin) was sourced from
a food manufacturer with microbial limits of <5000 cfu/g; this was too high for use as a cosmetic ingredient. However, after further investigation and testing on many different batches, it was found to fall within the acceptable limit of <100cfu/g and the material was accepted for cosmetic use.
Case study 2: Mung bean starch Mung bean starch (Phaseolus Radiatus Seed Extract) is a white, bland starch which has applications in food as a batter ingredient in Asian food. In cosmetics, it had potential as a powder for use in creams, solid cosmetics and colour cosmetics. The specification was not given and only
basic information about the product was obtained. On testing, the material was found to consistently have levels of bacteria >10,000 cfu/g. Not suitable for further processing to reduce the microbial count, the material was rejected for use as a cosmetic ingredient.
Are cosmetics allowed to look like food? Cosmetic manufacturers need to be aware of the Food Imitations (Safety) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989). This requires all beauty and cosmetic products that are supplied by manufacturers but are not food to not: ■ Have a form, odour, colour, appearance, packaging, labelling, size of volume that is likely to cause people, especially children, to confuse the product with food. ■ Be likely to result in the product ending up in a person’s mouth and cause harm. This is most relevant to products that look, smell and taste like food. Scented products are very popular in the cosmetic industry. For example, there are an array of body washes, moisturisers, lip balms and even shampoos that come in different scents such as coconut, passionfruit, apple and strawberry. Under the regulations, these products must have appropriate labelling and packaging to make
October 2023 PERSONAL CARE
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108
