Lotion Testing/Safety

Soapmaking Forum

Help Support Soapmaking Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Interesting. I wonder how lush does it. Most of their products are all natural such as face masks are out on display in the stores. All of their bathbombs are unwrapped for everyone to pick up and handle with unclean hands etc.


My first point: "natural"
The word "natural" doesn't have a legal definition as far as regulating bodies are concerned. So you can call anything natural. I've seem chemically refined, bleached and deodorized ingredients called "natural" on ingredient supplier websites. In one sense, these are natural - the ingredient wasn't made in a lab. It was made from an agricultural product even if it was treated with chemicals.

Consumers all have different expectations on what "natural" means to them as well. Think about beeswax, for example. If a consumer says they want a product with "natural" beeswax, I'm sure they don't want raw unfiltered beeswax. But do they want mechanically filtered beeswax (that still has a smokey smell and yellow color)? Or do they want a beeswax that is white (naturally sun bleached) and deodorized (using clay instead of chemicals)? Do they even know the difference?


I'm currently trying to define what I will mean when I put the word "natural" on a product and how best to educate my consumers so they understand what I mean.

My second point regarding the microbiology of the Lush products you mentioned:

This is where the microbiology depends on the characteristics of the product. Bathbombs don't have very much free water (water available to be used for biological processes like growing), so bugs that would spoil the product won't grow. They also contain citric acid and can act as a "natural" preservative against some bugs.

Specifically talking about the face masks - just picking one, here is the ingredient list from their website: Water (Aqua) Propylene Glycol Honey Talc Kaolin Glycerine Chamomile and Marigold Petal Infusion(Matricaria Chamomilla and Calendula Officinalis) Carrageenan Extract (Chondrus Crispus) Rose Oil (Rosa Damascena) Vanilla Absolute (Vanilla Planifolia) Benzoin Resinoid (Styrax Tonkinensis Pierre) Titanium Dioxide*Coumarin Fragrance Synthetic Fluorphlogopite Iron Oxides Tin Oxide

They say green ingredients are "natural" and black text ingredients are "safe synthetics". (I had a formatting issue, so italics are "natural" - not sure the green will show up)

Looking at this as a microbiologist, right off I see propylene glycol which is used in many industries as a humectant (it absorbs water). Most microbes don't grow or live well in conditions where water is limited. For example, they won't spoil hard candy because the sugar holds onto all the water they would need to live. We say that these products are "low water activity" foods, cosmetics, etc. You can measure water activity, and we know scientifically that there is an actual number where the bugs that make you sick won't grow. The bugs that spoil are limited at a different number. This is the kind of information I talked to above with respect to providing sound supporting data or evidence that your product is safe.

Summary
Anyone can say anything is "natural" and there are many factors that can either support growth and survival of bugs, or limit growth and survival.

Hope this helps explain it a bit without giving you more information than you wanted :)


I understand that you have doubts, but I take the opinion that if a person has some ability to look for themselves, their understanding increases. A local college here taught the plate count technique in science this year, and all of the students did plate counts from swabs from around their own homes (that was interesting o_O): the process is not that hard, it's pretty cheap and gives good information.

The suggested plate check isn't meant for presentation to the FDA (or any regulatory body), or to be presented in evidence in any court of law.

I totally agree - anyone can do the techniques. I've supervised many lab techs who were not going to school to be scientists and their lab technique was better than some of the much more experienced lab analysts! Yes, micro is science, but like soaping, or anything else - it can be learned without having to walk out of some institute of higher education with an expensive piece of paper. Totally agree with your points! Sometimes a "quick and dirty" check of stuff in your production area can help you focus on where you really need to spend the money for testing. You just need to be sure you understand the data you are creating. For example, if the plates are full of bugs did it come from the product, or is your air quality just super bad leading to a false plate count?

Thanks for letting me geek out on this stuff ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Salted Fig is correct, I said I only do the in house to decide if I am going to be sending off the batch for plate and challenge testing. I would not waste money on a batch I know if potentially not a good batch.

I totally agree - anyone can do the techniques. I've supervised many lab techs who were not going to school to be scientists and their lab technique was better than some of the much more experienced lab analysts! Yes, micro is science, but like soaping, or anything else - it can be learned without having to walk out of some institute of higher education with an expensive piece of paper. Totally agree with your points! Sometimes a "quick and dirty" check of stuff in your production area can help you focus on where you really need to spend the money for testing. You just need to be sure you understand the data you are creating. For example, if the plates are full of bugs did it come from the product, or is your air quality just super bad leading to a false plate count?

Thanks for letting me geek out on this stuff ;)
Thankyou for all the great info, and I do understand the lotion could still be good and the contamination could come from elsewhere. It just gives me the idea if I want to spend the money sending in out for testing. Whether the contamination is directly from the lotion or countertop, utensils used etc, it is still present in my thinking.

Your posts remind me why I will not purchase DIY lotion.
 
I totally agree - anyone can do the techniques. I've supervised many lab techs who were not going to school to be scientists and their lab technique was better than some of the much more experienced lab analysts! Yes, micro is science, but like soaping, or anything else - it can be learned without having to walk out of some institute of higher education with an expensive piece of paper. Totally agree with your points! Sometimes a "quick and dirty" check of stuff in your production area can help you focus on where you really need to spend the money for testing. You just need to be sure you understand the data you are creating. For example, if the plates are full of bugs did it come from the product, or is your air quality just super bad leading to a false plate count?

Thanks for letting me geek out on this stuff ;)

Anytime ... I love a little (or more) geek stuff :D

Personally, if the air quality was that bad where the lotion is being made and tested, I reckon a plate test fail would still be a good heads up that something was seriously amiss (and although it's "false" in the strict lab sense, I think it would be an invaluable negative in the context you described ;))

I'm currently trying to define what I will mean when I put the word "natural" on a product and how best to educate my consumers so they understand what I mean.
Natural is an interesting argument (which I've done before and tend not to touch on too much). It would make it easier for everyone if there was a definition, but the FDA did not progress their paper on the idea. I'll just say that I use the Australian organic certification definition of natural - it's the strictest I have found, and sits well with the way I think about it. If you wish to discuss natural, it would be great to open a new thread (I can provide you with some links to previous discussions on the topic, if that would help you define your use of the word for yourself and your customers).
 
Anytime ... I love a little (or more) geek stuff :D

Personally, if the air quality was that bad where the lotion is being made and tested, I reckon a plate test fail would still be a good heads up that something was seriously amiss (and although it's "false" in the strict lab sense, I think it would be an invaluable negative in the context you described ;))


Natural is an interesting argument (which I've done before and tend not to touch on too much). It would make it easier for everyone if there was a definition, but the FDA did not progress their paper on the idea. I'll just say that I use the Australian organic certification definition of natural - it's the strictest I have found, and sits well with the way I think about it. If you wish to discuss natural, it would be great to open a new thread (I can provide you with some links to previous discussions on the topic, if that would help you define your use of the word for yourself and your customers).
:thumbs::thumbs: and I stay away from the word "Natural"...
 
Salted Fig is correct, I said I only do the in house to decide if I am going to be sending off the batch for plate and challenge testing. I would not waste money on a batch I know if potentially not a good batch.
Excellent idea to test in house to maximize your $'s spent on testing in an accredited lab. Just a small point that may be helpful and save you a bit more time and money.

When looking at the question "to challenge or not to challenge", I would base this on the risk of the formula, not the micro count in the product.
Example 1: You may have counts in the product that you test in your home lab at time zero (right after production), but your formula is something that will cause the bugs to die off super quick. If you make the choice to pay for challenge testing, you'll get results that make you happy, but cost you money you might have been able to spend somewhere else.
Example 2: When micro numbers are low, product sampling is like finding a needle in a haystack. So, let's say that you have no or low counts on your plates from the product you test in your home lab at time zero. Let's also say that your formula will support micro growth and you actually do have a small number of microbes present in the product. If you make the decision to not challenge based on your lab counts, you may miss something.

I'm not saying don't test at home. I think it's a great way to start to predict what will happen with your products! Just want to give some alternative thoughts on how you can use testing to maybe save a bit of cash.
 
Excellent idea to test in house to maximize your $'s spent on testing in an accredited lab. Just a small point that may be helpful and save you a bit more time and money.

When looking at the question "to challenge or not to challenge", I would base this on the risk of the formula, not the micro count in the product.
Example 1: You may have counts in the product that you test in your home lab at time zero (right after production), but your formula is something that will cause the bugs to die off super quick. If you make the choice to pay for challenge testing, you'll get results that make you happy, but cost you money you might have been able to spend somewhere else.
Example 2: When micro numbers are low, product sampling is like finding a needle in a haystack. So, let's say that you have no or low counts on your plates from the product you test in your home lab at time zero. Let's also say that your formula will support micro growth and you actually do have a small number of microbes present in the product. If you make the decision to not challenge based on your lab counts, you may miss something.

I'm not saying don't test at home. I think it's a great way to start to predict what will happen with your products! Just want to give some alternative thoughts on how you can use testing to maybe save a bit of cash.
Thankyou :thumbs: hope I don't bother you, but I sent you a pm...;) When someone in the field of expertise takes the time to help I do listen! A chemist I am not nor am I a Biologist. I loved biology in school until I had to dissect a froggie and I love froggies . On the other hand I have a 10 yr old granddaughter that love to dissect anything, the one I want to get a decent microscope for
 

Latest posts

Back
Top