Personal-Care Industry Leaders Issue Call For Green Chemistry Solutions

J&J, P&G and other members of the Green Chemistry & Commerce Council (GC3) have issued a list of green chemistry technology needs for formulating personal-care and household products to guide submissions to a competition for innovative startups. Winners will present before potential development partners at a networking event in May 2018.

Non-sensitizing preservatives, non-sensitizing fragrance raw materials and naturally derived hair-conditioning agents are among green chemistry technology needs cited by leading personal-care and household products firms in a call for entries from startups in an innovation competition.

The Green Chemistry & Commerce Council is holding the competition, which will allow up to 10 companies to present on the main stage at its 3^rd Annual Green & Bio-Based Chemistry Technology Showcase and Networking Event, slated for May 8, 2018, the first day of GC3's Innovators Roundtable in Kingsport, Tenn.

GC3 describes itself as a cross-sectoral, business-to-business network of companies and other organizations working collaboratively to advance green chemistry across sectors and supply chains.

It grew out of a sustainable business and safer chemistry roundtable co-hosted in 2005 by the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, where it now is based.

GC3's members include Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble Co., L'Oreal USA, Inc., and Beiersdorf AG, which are named among firms attending the technology showcase event. In advance they've submitted a list of specific green chemical and material technologies "for which they are actively seeking new green chemistry solutions," according to a notice on the GC3 website.

The list of wants includes biodegradable alternatives to chemicals such as sodium lauryl ether sulfate, aka sodium laureth sulfate, as well as environmentally friendly surfactants (see table).

The GC3 members also are looking for antimicrobials and preservatives that are non-sensitizing at levels needed for preservation of personal care and household products. They're also interested in "antimicrobials or technologies that are non-biocidal" – i.e., that do not require registration under the EU's Biocidal Products Regulation. (Also see "EU Endocrine Disruptor Guidance Open For Comments; Benefit Cosmetics Recall; More News In Brief" - HBW Insight, 11 Dec, 2017.)

UV filters/light stabilizer ingredients with low aquatic toxicity also make the list.

GC3 currently is conducting stability and antimicrobial effectiveness testing on five finalist entries in a separate competition it launched in April 2017 to surface promising early-stage preservative technologies for use in the personal-care and household products sectors.

In addition to commanding the spotlight at the GC3 event, winning applicants will have the chance to network with GC3 companies and potentially engage in joint development, licensing, investment and other partnership opportunities.

GC3 says the event is attended by angel and venture funds in addition to chemical suppliers, major consumer product manufacturers and retailers.

Startups must submit their applications by Feb. 16, 2018. Decisions are expected in March 2018, according to the notice.

GC3 Co-Director Monica Becker said in a Dec. 21 email that the group has done a "very soft launch" of the competition to its email list, but a broader announcement will be made in early 2018.

New Preservative Solutions On The Horizon?

Separately, GC3 is conducting stability and antimicrobial effectiveness testing on five finalist entries in a competition it launched in April 2017 to surface promising early-stage preservative technologies for use in the personal-care and household products sectors. (Also see "GC3 Preservatives Competition Deadline Nears With 15 Applicants So Far" - HBW Insight, 10 Aug, 2017.)

The group says it received 48 submissions in total. Category 1 sponsors, which include J&J, P&G, Beiersdorf, Colgate-Palmolive Company, Unilever and Beautycounter, as well as the Environmental Defense Fund and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, are involved in the review and judging process.

Dow Microbial Control, Lonza, Schülke, Symrise, and Thor are listed as Category 2 sponsors with potential partnership stakes in winning technologies. They do not have a role in selecting finalists.

Results are expected in March, and GC3 is targeting April for an event to bring finalists and potentially a handful of runners-up together with its member manufacturers and chemical suppliers so they can present their technologies and connect with possible partners.

Three to five cash prizes will be awarded to winners from a pool of $175,000.

New preservatives are in high demand due to increasing regulation and consumer pressure that have rendered unusable numerous preservatives with time-tested efficacy.

There is skepticism from some corners of industry that a preservative technology, let alone multiple, will emerge from the GC3 challenge with real potential to be developed for wide commercial use.

In fairness, GC3 has made nothing in the way of promises to this effect, but speculation regarding the fruit its competition might bear is all but unavoidable.

David Steinberg of Steinberg & Associates, which provides regulatory compliance consulting for cosmetic and OTC drug manufacturers, has noted that preservatives must be pre-approved for use in cosmetics under the EU’s Cosmetics Regulation, requiring costly safety testing that may be seen as a questionable investment given the limited size of the personal-care market.

The EU's animal-testing ban for cosmetics also poses development challenges, though there may be workarounds for a preservative intended for use in personal care and other sectors not subject to the European Cosmetics Regulation. (Also see "BASF Ingredient Case Begs For Verdict: Do REACH Animal Tests Violate Cosmetics Reg?" - HBW Insight, 13 Dec, 2017.)

Generally, Steinberg takes a dim view of the "green" chemistry groundswell insofar as it may be reinforcing erroneous perceptions – for example that "natural" substances are invariably safer than synthetics – and contributing to the demonization of chemicals that experts have determined safe for cosmetic use.

Steinberg also has doubts about the newly announced green chemistry innovation competition and its capacity for generating solutions to the highlighted needs.

For example, the GC3 members seek "chemistries to prepare ethanolamides without the use of ethylene oxide for improved safety."

According to Steinberg, a former national president of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, "ethanolamines are made from the reaction of ethylene oxide and ammonia. If that is what they mean, whoever can do this with the same economics would get the Nobel Prize in Chemistry."

He suggested in an email to the Rose Sheet that the list of needs also lacks specificity in places and definitions for terms like "biodegradable," as well as clarity as to the testing standards against which solutions would be expected to prove themselves.

Generally, Steinberg takes a dim view of the "green" chemistry groundswell insofar as it may be reinforcing erroneous perceptions – for example that "natural" substances are invariably safer than synthetics – and contributing to the demonization of chemicals that experts have determined safe for cosmetic use.

From his perspective, industry's shrinking preservative palette is largely the fault of cosmetics marketing departments, which have driven the rise of "free of" claims highlighting the absence of perfectly lawful but distrusted or simply unfashionable ingredients. (Also see "Podcast: Preservatives Crisis Calls For Marketing Revolution" - HBW Insight, 28 May, 2015.)

Steinberg suspects that the same elements – "who wouldn't know salt from sugar" – are more behind the green technology needs notified to GC3 than industry chemists.

Pointing to the stated need for "mineral oil alternatives that are biodegradable and/or natural origin oils," he said, "For cosmetics, they already have been around for decades."

In other cases the needs read more like extravagances in wishful thinking, he suggested.

Clearly, however, leading personal-care companies have a keen interest in answering consumer demand for greener products and enough faith in the GC3 forum to back its projects financially.

Or perhaps the stakes are high enough that such firms can't afford to leave any stone unturned.

GC3 Member-Identified Green Chemistry Technology Needs
Technology Area	Description
Raw materials for formulated consumer products (including personal-care and household products)	Alternatives for cationic poly-electrolytes (quaternary ammonium derivatives or polyquaterniums), generally used as conditioning agents for skin and/or hair cleansing products, that are biodegradable and have low ecotoxicity Antimicrobials and preservatives that are non-sensitizing at levels needed for preservation for personal care and household products Antimicrobials or technologies that are non-biocidal (do not require registration per the Biocidal Products Regulation [BPR, Regulation (EU) 528/2012]) Biodegradable alternatives for polyacrylate-based chemistry, generally used as rheology modifiers or film formers Biodegradable alternatives for sodium lauryl ether sulfate (SLES) Biodegradable chelating agents for personal care and household products including dishwashing and laundry detergents Chemistries to prepare ethanolamides without the use of ethylene oxide for improved safety Fragrance raw materials that are non-sensitizing with a low risk of biodiversity loss Hair conditioning agents that are naturally derived Mineral oil alternatives that are biodegradable and/or natural origin oils Surfactants for laundry products that can remove hydrophobic soils Surfactants that are amphiphilic, especially alternatives to ethoxylated materials Surfactants that are anaerobically biodegradable Surfactants that are bio-based with low aquatic toxicity UV filters/light stabilizer ingredients with low aquatic toxicity