Fancy Names to Fool You
According to one survey of 2,300 individuals, respondents reported using an average of nine personal care products daily, containing a combined total of approximately 126 unique ingredients. About one percent of men and nearly 25 percent of women reported using 15 or more products each day.
Article Update — March 26, 2026:
This article was originally published August 2016, and has been updated to reflect newer toxicology research, dermatology findings, and regulatory developments. Additional sections have been expanded for clarity and accuracy while maintaining the original intent of the article.
Your daily routine may include shampoo, toothpaste, soap, deodorant, hair conditioner, lip balm, sunscreen, body lotion, shaving products, makeup, or styling products. For many families, this exposure pattern also extends to children through commonly used items such as sunscreen, diaper creams, shampoos, and lotions.
Most people apply these products without a second thought, often assuming that all cosmetic ingredients undergo extensive pre-market health testing or long-term exposure evaluation. In reality, regulatory oversight of cosmetics differs significantly from that of drugs, and safety determinations may rely largely on existing ingredient data, historical use patterns, and manufacturer safety substantiation rather than formal pre-market approval requirements.1
Wow — that is a lot of substances coming into contact with our bodies every single day. So what exactly is in many of these products?
This article is Part II of a series examining commonly used preservative systems and formulation ingredients found in modern personal care products. If you have not yet read Part I, you may wish to review it for important background context before continuing.
Click here to read Part I.
Many newer preservatives marketed today sound appealing, especially to lotion crafters and consumers seeking alternatives to traditional ingredients such as parabens. Trade names like Germaben, Phenonip, Optiphen, Optiphen ND, NeoDefend, Germall Plus, LiquaPar, and Linatural often suggest innovation or improved safety profiles. In addition, ingredients such as sodium laureth sulfate and sodium lauryl sulfate, while not preservatives themselves, remain extremely common in cleansing products and deserve discussion due to their widespread daily use.
Rather than repeating the detailed foundational discussion already covered in Part I, this article will focus on how many of these newer preservative blends are formulated, what they contain chemically, and why their safety profiles may still warrant thoughtful evaluation. These systems are often promoted as modern solutions designed to prevent microbial growth in personal care formulations — but the question remains whether their risks are fully understood or simply presented differently through updated marketing language.
A Word About “GRAS”
“GRAS” stands for Generally Recognized As Safe. It is an FDA designation meaning that a substance is considered safe by qualified experts under certain intended conditions of use, allowing it to bypass some of the more rigorous approval pathways outlined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.2,3
Many consumers assume that if an ingredient carries a GRAS designation, it has been comprehensively evaluated for long-term safety in all real-world exposure situations. In practice, GRAS determinations are typically based on expected exposure levels, historical patterns of use, and the scientific evidence available at the time the decision is made. As additional research emerges, scientific perspectives on safety can change — sometimes significantly.
It is also important to recognize that regulatory decisions are not made in a purely scientific vacuum. They exist within broader policy environments where economic realities, technological feasibility, public-health priorities, and at times political pressures can influence how risks are weighed and communicated. This does not mean that science is ignored, but it does mean that regulatory conclusions often represent negotiated risk-management judgments rather than absolute guarantees of long-term safety under every possible condition of use.
Furthermore, many safety determinations rely on a “weight-of-the-evidence” approach. This means that reassuring findings may exist alongside unresolved concerns. Questions involving cumulative exposure, repeated daily use, ingredient interactions, and vulnerable populations are not always fully settled at the time a substance becomes widely incorporated into consumer products.
For these reasons, the presence of GRAS status should not automatically end the conversation. At Nature’s Complement, we believe it is reasonable to examine emerging scientific evidence carefully and to make formulation decisions based on a cautious interpretation of the available research. This independent evaluation may sometimes lead to conclusions that differ from existing regulatory positions.
With that perspective in mind, let’s return to the discussion of today’s widely marketed preservative systems and what they are actually composed of.
Germaben
Germaben is a widely used preservative blend intended to inhibit the growth of bacteria, yeast, and mold in cosmetic and personal care formulations. Commercial formulations marketed under this name typically contain a combination of parabens (such as methylparaben and propylparaben), propylene glycol as a solvent, and diazolidinyl urea as an additional antimicrobial component.4
Products such as Germaben II are commonly promoted as convenient, broad-spectrum preservative systems for small-scale formulators, hobbyists, and independent cosmetic manufacturers.5 While this convenience can be appealing, it also means that users may incorporate complex preservative chemistries without fully understanding their individual toxicological profiles.
Because Germaben blends contain parabens, they fall into a category of preservatives that have generated ongoing scientific debate regarding endocrine-active properties and potential long-term exposure implications.6,7 Although regulatory agencies continue to consider parabens acceptable for use at certain concentrations, research exploring estrogen-receptor activity and tissue accumulation has contributed to continued public and scientific scrutiny.
Material safety data for related formulations such as Germaben II indicate the presence of diazolidinyl urea, a preservative associated with irritation potential and sensitization risk in some individuals.8 This compound belongs to a class of preservatives known as formaldehyde releasers, meaning that under certain formulation conditions they can gradually decompose to release small amounts of formaldehyde.9
The rate and extent of formaldehyde release from such compounds can depend heavily on formulation factors including pH, temperature, storage conditions, and interactions with other ingredients in the product matrix.10 In real-world cosmetic formulations, these variables are not always independently evaluated once complex mixtures are created.
As awareness of formaldehyde-releasing preservatives has increased, many consumers have begun seeking products formulated without these systems. However, preservative blends marketed under proprietary trade names can make it difficult for non-chemists to recognize the underlying ingredient chemistry involved.
For formulators who prefer to minimize the use of formaldehyde-releasing preservatives or endocrine-active preservative classes, avoiding blended systems such as Germaben may be a deliberate formulation choice. At Nature’s Complement, this is one of the reasons such preservative systems are not used in our products.
Phenonip
Phenonip is another commonly marketed preservative blend used in cosmetic and personal care formulations. Commercial formulations typically contain phenoxyethanol combined with multiple parabens, including methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben, and butylparaben.11 The use of blended systems like this can make it less obvious to formulators and consumers how many individual preservative agents are actually present in a single ingredient trade name.
Phenoxyethanol, also known as ethylene glycol phenyl ether, belongs to a broader class of compounds known as glycol ethers.12 Glycol ethers are widely used industrially as solvents in coatings, cleaners, inks, and other chemical applications, while certain members of this chemical family are also used in pharmaceuticals and cosmetic products as preservatives or formulation aids.
Toxicological research on some glycol ethers has identified potential systemic effects at sufficient exposure levels, including impacts on liver and kidney function as well as hematologic parameters in experimental settings.13,14 Although regulatory agencies consider phenoxyethanol acceptable for use within specified concentration limits in cosmetics, ongoing discussion continues regarding cumulative exposure patterns and sensitive populations.
As discussed in Part I of this series, parabens themselves remain the subject of continued scientific debate due to their documented ability to interact with estrogen receptors and their detection in human tissues. When multiple parabens are combined with other preservative agents in proprietary blends, the overall exposure profile may become more complex than consumers initially realize.
For formulators seeking to simplify ingredient systems or avoid certain preservative classes, understanding the underlying chemistry of trade-named blends such as Phenonip can be an important step toward more intentional formulation choices.
Optiphen
Optiphen is a trade name used for preservative systems commonly composed of phenoxyethanol combined with caprylyl glycol (1,2-octanediol), with some product variants also including organic acids such as sorbic acid or benzoic acid.15 As with other proprietary preservative blends, the marketing name can make it difficult for formulators and consumers to immediately recognize the underlying ingredient chemistry.
Phenoxyethanol has already been discussed earlier in this article and in Part I of this series. Caprylyl glycol, meanwhile, is typically used as both a humectant and antimicrobial booster that can enhance preservative efficacy in cosmetic formulations.16 Although generally considered to have a relatively low toxicity profile at cosmetic use concentrations, it has been associated with irritation potential and occasional sensitization reactions in susceptible individuals.
Dermatology literature has documented cases of allergic contact dermatitis linked to certain modern preservative substitutes and antimicrobial booster ingredients used in so-called “hypoallergenic” cosmetic products.17–23 These findings highlight the broader point that replacing one preservative system with another does not automatically eliminate the possibility of adverse skin reactions.
Some marketing materials describe ingredients in these systems as being derived from naturally sourced starting materials. While this may be technically true at the raw-material level, the final cosmetic ingredient is typically produced through multi-step chemical processing designed to achieve consistent purity, stability, and antimicrobial performance.24
Safety data sheets for related formulation ingredients may also note irritation potential affecting the eyes, skin, or respiratory tract under certain exposure conditions.25 For formulators seeking to minimize the use of synthetic preservative boosters or complex blended systems, understanding the full chemical context of products marketed under names like Optiphen can be an important part of making informed formulation choices.
At Nature’s Complement, the decision to avoid such preservative systems reflects a broader formulation philosophy focused on simplicity, transparency, and cautious interpretation of emerging safety research.
Optiphen ND
If Optiphen itself raises questions, then what makes the “ND” version supposedly more advanced? Optiphen ND is a variation of the original preservative system that replaces caprylyl glycol with organic acids. Its typical composition includes phenoxyethanol, benzoic acid, and dehydroacetic acid.26
So in essence, this version swaps one component for another and adds additional preservative agents — but does that actually make it meaningfully safer, or simply different?
Dehydroacetic acid is commonly used as a fungicide and bactericide in cosmetic and industrial applications. Although it is often presented as a milder alternative preservative, available dermatology literature indicates that it is increasingly being recognized as a potential contact allergen in some individuals.28
Toxicology data from oral exposure studies also show that certain forms of dehydroacetic acid (such as its sodium salt) can interfere with vitamin K–dependent processes, leading to anticoagulant effects and hemorrhagic outcomes in animal models at sufficient doses.29 While dermal exposure is not directly equivalent to oral dosing, these findings highlight that the biological activity of this compound is not trivial.
Benzoic acid, another component of Optiphen ND, is naturally present in some foods at low concentrations and is widely used as a preservative. It has been granted GRAS status for certain applications.30 However, this does not mean it is entirely without biological activity. Experimental studies have demonstrated that benzoic acid can exhibit genotoxic effects in vitro under certain conditions, particularly at higher concentrations.31
In addition, toxicological reviews have noted that benzoic acid can act as a skin and eye irritant and has been associated in some cases with hypersensitivity reactions such as urticaria, asthma, and other allergic-type responses following exposure.32
Regulatory bodies have evaluated these risks and determined that benzoic acid is acceptable for use within defined limits. However, for formulators who prefer to minimize exposure to compounds with documented biological activity — particularly when used repeatedly and in combination with other ingredients — this may still be an area worth careful consideration.
At Nature’s Complement, our approach is to err on the side of caution when the safety profile of an ingredient depends heavily on exposure assumptions, dosage thresholds, or incomplete long-term data. For that reason, preservative systems such as Optiphen ND are not used in our formulations.
NeoDefend
NeoDefend, like many of the other preservatives discussed so far, is not a single ingredient but a blend of multiple chemical components. According to available safety and product data, it is typically composed of glucono delta-lactone, sodium benzoate, and calcium gluconate.33,34
Once again, we are looking at a product marketed under a single trade name that actually represents a combination of several distinct chemical substances — each with its own properties, uses, and potential effects.
So what exactly are these ingredients, and what do they do? Let’s take a closer look at each one.
Glucono Delta-Lactone
According to available ingredient databases, glucono delta-lactone (GDL), also known as gluconolactone, is commonly used as a food additive and is generally regarded as having a relatively low toxicity profile.35 At first glance, that might make it seem like a reassuring ingredient.
However, the fact that an ingredient is considered safe in a food or single-ingredient context does not automatically mean it behaves the same way in a multi-component cosmetic formulation.
Gluconolactone is derived from glucose and can participate in biochemical processes under certain conditions. For example, microbial systems such as yeast are capable of metabolizing related compounds, and environmental factors like pH can shift significantly depending on concentration and formulation conditions.36 This raises reasonable questions about how stable or effective it may be as part of a preservative system when combined with other ingredients.
A review of available literature shows that gluconolactone is more commonly described as a pH-adjusting agent, chelating agent, or mild antimicrobial contributor rather than a strong, standalone preservative. In many formulations, its effectiveness appears to depend on synergy with other ingredients rather than acting independently.37
In addition, glucono delta-lactone is typically produced from sugar sources through controlled fermentation processes.38 These sugars may be derived from crops such as corn or sugar beets, which are frequently genetically modified in the United States. Depending on sourcing and processing, this raises the possibility that some forms of this ingredient may originate from genetically modified feedstocks.39
For formulators who prioritize full transparency in sourcing and functionality, uncertainties about ingredient origin, processing methods, and standalone preservative strength can be enough to warrant caution. At Nature’s Complement, when there are unanswered questions about how an ingredient performs or where it comes from, we prefer to take a more conservative approach.
Sodium Benzoate
Sodium benzoate is the sodium salt of benzoic acid and is widely used as a preservative in both food and cosmetic products.40 At first glance, this may seem reassuring given its long history of use.
However, further investigation shows that under certain conditions, sodium benzoate can participate in chemical reactions that produce benzene — a known human carcinogen — particularly when combined with ascorbic acid (vitamin C).41 Factors such as heat, light exposure, and storage time can influence the rate at which this reaction occurs.
Regulatory agencies have evaluated this interaction and have found that most tested products remain below established safety thresholds. Even so, the fact that a carcinogenic compound can form under realistic conditions raises valid questions about formulation stability and long-term exposure, especially when multiple reactive ingredients are present.
In addition to these concerns, experimental studies have reported that sodium benzoate can exhibit genotoxic effects in vitro, including DNA damage and chromosomal alterations under certain conditions.42 While these findings are typically observed at concentrations or exposure conditions that may not directly reflect typical consumer use, they still contribute to the broader discussion about cumulative exposure and biological activity.
Animal studies have also suggested that high levels of sodium benzoate exposure may influence neurological function and behavior.43 As with many toxicology findings, the relevance of these results depends on dose, duration, and route of exposure, but they highlight that this compound is not entirely biologically inert.
When evaluating preservative systems that rely on ingredients like sodium benzoate — particularly in combination with other reactive compounds — it becomes reasonable to ask not just whether an ingredient is allowed, but how it behaves in real-world formulations over time.
Calcium Gluconate
Calcium gluconate is commonly used as a mineral supplement and as a source of calcium in both medical and nutritional applications. Chemically, it is the calcium salt of gluconic acid.44 Gluconic acid itself can occur naturally in certain foods and is generally considered to have a low toxicity profile.
Based on the available literature, calcium gluconate does not appear to raise the same level of concern as some of the other ingredients discussed in this preservative system — at least when considered on its own.
However, as has been a recurring theme throughout this article, ingredients are rarely used in isolation in real-world formulations. When combined with other compounds such as sodium benzoate and glucono delta-lactone, the overall behavior of the system becomes more complex and less predictable without specific formulation testing.
For this reason, even ingredients that appear relatively benign individually may still warrant careful evaluation when used as part of a multi-component preservative system.
NeoDefend, as a combined system, does not align with the formulation approach used at Nature’s Complement. While calcium gluconate itself may be worth further exploration in isolation, the full blend introduces enough uncertainty that we choose not to use it in our products.
Germall Plus
According to its INCI designation, Germall Plus is a preservative blend composed of propylene glycol (1,2-propanediol), diazolidinyl urea, and iodopropynyl butylcarbamate.45 Once again, we are dealing with a trade name that masks a combination of multiple active chemical components.
Let’s start with propylene glycol. This compound is a member of the glycol family and is widely used as a solvent, humectant, and formulation aid in cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and industrial applications.46 While it is often considered relatively safe at typical use concentrations, its safety profile is not entirely without discussion.
Clinical and dermatological literature has documented that propylene glycol can act as a skin irritant and, in some individuals, a sensitizer capable of causing contact dermatitis.47 The likelihood of irritation can depend on concentration, frequency of exposure, and individual susceptibility.
At higher exposure levels — particularly in medical or ingestion contexts — propylene glycol has been associated with systemic effects including metabolic disturbances and central nervous system depression.48 While these effects are not representative of typical cosmetic use, they demonstrate that this compound is biologically active rather than completely inert.
Some experimental research has also explored potential effects of glycols on cellular processes such as tissue remodeling and wound-related mechanisms. While the implications of these findings for real-world cosmetic use are not fully established, they contribute to ongoing discussions about how repeated exposure may interact with normal skin function.49
In addition, broader toxicology research has shown that certain glycol compounds can produce reproductive and developmental effects at sufficient exposure levels, particularly within the ethylene glycol family.50 Although propylene glycol is generally considered less toxic than these related compounds, “less toxic” does not necessarily mean biologically inactive.
For formulators who aim to minimize exposure to ingredients with known irritation potential or systemic activity at higher doses, even widely accepted compounds like propylene glycol may not align with their formulation philosophy. At Nature’s Complement, our approach is to avoid ingredients that fall into this category whenever possible.
Diazolidinyl urea has already been discussed in Part I of this series as a formaldehyde-releasing preservative, and for that reason alone this blend does not meet our formulation standards. But let’s take a closer look at the third component as well.
Iodopropynyl Butylcarbamate
Iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC) is a preservative used in a wide range of products, including cosmetics as well as industrial applications such as paints and coatings.51 Its primary function is as an antimicrobial agent, helping to prevent the growth of fungi and certain bacteria.
Chemically, IPBC belongs to the carbamate class of compounds.52 While some carbamates are known for their use in agricultural insecticides, IPBC is used in cosmetics for its preservative properties rather than as a pesticide. That said, its classification within a broader family of biologically active compounds highlights that it is not an inert substance.
One of the most consistently reported concerns with IPBC in dermatology literature is its potential to cause allergic contact dermatitis. Numerous patch-test studies have identified it as a sensitizer in certain individuals, particularly with repeated exposure.53
In addition, regulatory agencies have placed restrictions on how IPBC can be used in cosmetic products. For example, its use is limited in products that may be inhaled, due to concerns about respiratory toxicity under those exposure conditions.55 This suggests that safety is highly dependent on how and where the ingredient is used.
As with many ingredients discussed throughout this article, approval for use does not mean that an ingredient is appropriate for every formulation or every user. It often means that it is considered acceptable within specific concentration limits and exposure scenarios.
For formulators who prioritize minimizing exposure to known sensitizers and biologically active preservatives, ingredients like iodopropynyl butylcarbamate may not align with that goal. At Nature’s Complement, this is one of the reasons we choose not to use it in our products.
LiquaPar Oil
LiquaPar Oil is a preservative blend composed of isopropylparaben, isobutylparaben, and butylparaben.56 In other words — a combination of parabens under a different name.
Given the discussion in Part I regarding parabens and their ongoing scientific scrutiny, this is one of those cases where the trade name sounds new, but the underlying chemistry is very familiar.
For those interested in reviewing the formulation details directly, the product safety data sheet provides additional information on composition and handling.57
Linatural
Linatural turned out to be one of the more interesting systems to research — mainly because there is no single “Linatural.” Instead, there are multiple variations, each with different ingredient combinations marketed under the same general branding.
According to supplier documentation, Linatural formulations range from essential oil–based blends to more complex systems containing glycols, organic acids, and preservative boosters.58 Below are several examples:
Linatural CO-NLP-1 (sounds promising)
Certified organic orange oil, lemongrass oil, sunflower oil, and naturally denatured alcohol
Linatural MBS-1 (less promising)
Propanediol (“natural” source), ethylhexylglycerin, potassium sorbate
Linatural MBS-2
Caprylic acid, propanediol, lauric acid, potassium sorbate
Linatural MBS-3
Caprylic acid, propanediol, lauric acid
Linatural MBS-4
Propanediol, ethylhexylglycerin, benzoic acid
Linatural MBS-PRO-1
Glycereth-2 cocoate, benzyl alcohol
Linatural NLP
Curry leaf oil, cinnamon leaf oil, natural alcohol
Linatural NLP-O
Orange oil, lemongrass oil, sesame oil
What becomes clear very quickly is that the term “Linatural” does not refer to a single consistent preservative system. Some variations lean heavily on essential oils and alcohols, while others incorporate the same types of synthetic or semi-synthetic preservative components seen throughout this article.
So once again, the question becomes less about the name and more about the underlying chemistry of each formulation.
Let’s take a closer look at some of these individual ingredients.
Propanediol
Depending on the specific form, propanediol refers to a class of compounds related to glycols. In cosmetic formulations, it most commonly refers to 1,3-propanediol, which is chemically distinct from propylene glycol (1,2-propanediol), although the two are closely related.59
Both compounds serve similar roles as solvents and humectants, and while 1,3-propanediol is often marketed as a more “natural” alternative, it still belongs to the broader glycol family. For additional context on glycols and their potential concerns, refer back to the discussion under Germall Plus.
Ethylhexylglycerin
Ethylhexylglycerin is a preservative booster and antimicrobial agent that is commonly used in modern cosmetic formulations. As discussed earlier in the Optiphen section, it has been associated with cases of contact dermatitis and skin irritation in some individuals.60
Given its role as a sensitizer in certain cases, this is another ingredient that does not align with the formulation philosophy used at Nature’s Complement.
Potassium Sorbate
Potassium sorbate is widely used as a preservative in both food and cosmetic products and is generally considered to have a favorable safety profile at typical use concentrations.61
While it is not the strongest preservative on its own, it is often used as part of a broader system to inhibit microbial growth. On its own, this ingredient is not particularly concerning.
Caprylic Acid
Caprylic acid is a fatty acid commonly derived from coconut oil and is known for its mild antimicrobial properties.62 It is generally considered low-risk in cosmetic applications.
Lauric Acid
Lauric acid is another fatty acid found in coconut oil and other natural fats. It plays a role in lipid structure and has antimicrobial properties.63 Like caprylic acid, it does not raise significant concerns when used appropriately in formulations.
Glycereth-2 Cocoate
This is one of those ingredients where the name sounds simple, but the chemistry is more complex. Glycereth-2 cocoate is produced by reacting coconut-derived fatty acids with ethoxylated glycerin, meaning it contains polyethylene glycol (PEG)-type structures formed through ethoxylation processes.64
As discussed in Part I, PEG-related compounds raise concerns for some formulators due to their manufacturing process and potential for impurities depending on production quality. For that reason, this is another ingredient we choose to avoid in Nature’s Complement formulations.
I intentionally skipped over many of the essential oil–based ingredients such as orange, lemongrass, and similar plant-derived components. Not because they are irrelevant, but because the focus of this article is on potentially problematic chemical preservative systems. I plan to cover truly natural preservation methods and their mechanisms of action more thoroughly in Part III of this series.
That being said, it is important to remember that “natural” does not automatically mean completely safe. For example, citrus-derived ingredients such as orange and lemon oils can alter formulation characteristics and may contribute to an environment less favorable for microbial growth, but they can also contain compounds that are photo-sensitizing. Exposure to sunlight after application can, in some cases, lead to phototoxic reactions or increased susceptibility to sunburn.62
As far as Linatural is concerned, one of the biggest challenges is inconsistency. Many product labels simply list “Linatural” without specifying which formulation is being used. As we have seen, that could mean anything from essential oil blends to systems containing glycols, organic acids, or preservative boosters.
Even if a product uses one of the more favorable variations, there are still considerations such as sun sensitivity and formulation stability. In addition, product formulations can change over time, meaning that the specific version of Linatural used today may not be the same one used in future batches.
So what is my conclusion on Linatural? It depends on the specific formulation. There may be limited situations where certain versions could be considered, such as in controlled-use or overnight products. However, at this point, I have found that simpler approaches — including careful formulation practices, hygienic processing, and appropriate storage — can be effective without relying on complex preservative blends with variable compositions.
And honestly, the name itself is a perfect example of the larger issue. “Linatural” sounds soft, clean, and reassuring — almost like something you would wrap yourself in. But as this article has shown, names can be misleading. When it comes to preservatives, it is not the name that matters — it is the chemistry behind it.
Newer “Clean Beauty” Preservatives
Since this article was originally written, several newer preservative systems have become popular — especially in products marketed as “clean” or “natural.” However, once you look past the branding, a familiar pattern begins to emerge.
Most of these systems are built from the same types of ingredients already discussed in this article — organic acids, glycols, alcohols, and preservative boosters — simply combined and marketed under new names.
Geogard Ultra
Ingredients: Glucono delta-lactone, Sodium benzoate
This is essentially a rebranded version of the NeoDefend-type system already discussed. Contains ingredients with known biological activity and potential for reactive byproducts under certain conditions.65,66 Overall: Moderate concern depending on formulation.
Geogard ECT
Ingredients: Benzyl alcohol, Salicylic acid, Glycerin, Sorbic acid
Benzyl alcohol is a known irritant and potential allergen, while salicylic acid is biologically active and affects skin turnover.67 Overall: Contains active compounds that may irritate or affect sensitive skin.
Spectrastat
Ingredients: Caprylhydroxamic acid, Caprylyl glycol, Glyceryl caprylate
Uses antimicrobial boosters and glycols, which can contribute to irritation or sensitization in some individuals.68 Overall: Moderate concern, especially for sensitive skin.
Dermosoft Systems
Ingredients: Varies widely (often organic acids, alcohols, plant extracts)
Highly variable systems that may include antimicrobial acids and alcohols. Without knowing the exact formulation, safety cannot be easily determined.69 Overall: Unknown — depends entirely on formulation.
Microcare Blends
Ingredients: Typically phenoxyethanol, ethylhexylglycerin, organic acids
Often marketed as “gentle,” but typically contain known preservatives and sensitizers discussed earlier in this article.65,68 Overall: Contains ingredients of concern, particularly with repeated exposure.
Ferment-Based Preservatives (Leucidal, etc.)
Ingredients: Radish root ferment, lactobacillus ferment, often combined with potassium sorbate, sodium benzoate, or glycols
Frequently marketed as natural, but often not sufficient alone and combined with traditional preservatives to achieve effectiveness.69 Overall: Can be misleading — check for added preservatives.
What to Watch For
- “New” names that hide multiple ingredients
- Glycols (propanediol, phenoxyethanol, caprylyl glycol)
- Organic acids (benzoic, sorbic, dehydroacetic)
- Preservative boosters (ethylhexylglycerin)
- “Natural” systems that quietly include traditional preservatives
Bottom line: the name on the label often matters far less than the actual ingredients inside. If you don’t recognize the name, look up the ingredient list — not the marketing.
Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES) & Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS/SDS)
To clarify, these chemicals are not preservatives, but they need to be discussed because they are so prevalent in liquid soaps (including dish and dishwasher detergents), shampoos, liquid hand soaps, and other products where a lathering effect is desired.
We’ve grouped these two chemicals together because they are structurally and functionally similar. Sodium laureth sulfate is derived from sodium lauryl ether sulfate (SLES), while sodium lauryl sulfate is also known as sodium dodecyl sulfate (SLS or SDS). Both function as detergents, surfactants, and foaming agents, and are widely used in personal care products, pharmaceuticals, and household cleaners.63,64
Some sources have suggested that SLS/SLES products may be contaminated with compounds such as 1,4-dioxane or nitrosamines during manufacturing processes.65 However, while these concerns are discussed in regulatory and manufacturing contexts, clear, consistent quantitative evidence of harmful contamination levels in finished consumer products is not well established in the publicly available literature. That said, if such contamination were present at meaningful levels, it would be a serious concern given the known carcinogenicity of those compounds.
Based on available toxicological data, there is no strong evidence that SLS or SLES are carcinogenic under typical use conditions. However, there is substantial evidence that both are skin and eye irritants, particularly at higher concentrations or with prolonged exposure.66,67
For example, controlled studies have shown that sodium lauryl sulfate can cause mild to moderate skin irritation at lower concentrations and more severe irritation or corrosion at higher concentrations. Ocular exposure has also demonstrated the potential for significant irritation and damage if not promptly rinsed.
Additional research shows that individuals with sensitive skin or conditions such as atopic dermatitis may be especially susceptible to irritation from these compounds.68–72 In vitro studies have also demonstrated cytotoxic effects on certain cell types under experimental conditions.73
One of the more concerning aspects of these detergents is their ability to disrupt the skin barrier. Multiple studies have shown that SLS can alter the structure and integrity of the skin, increasing permeability and allowing greater penetration of other substances.74–77
This is important because the skin acts as a primary defense barrier. When that barrier is compromised, it may allow increased absorption of other ingredients present in the same product or applied afterward. This does not automatically mean harmful effects will occur, but it does raise valid questions about combined exposures and cumulative effects.
Sodium laureth sulfate (SLES) and sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS/SDS) have well-documented potential to cause irritation, dryness, and disruption of the skin barrier. Given that the goal of Nature’s Complement products is to support and improve skin health — not compromise it — we choose not to use these ingredients.
This means giving up the rich lathering effect often associated with liquid soaps. But in doing so, we are making a deliberate trade-off: prioritizing skin health over foam. At Nature’s Complement, that has always been — and will always be — the priority.
Conclusion To Part II
After researching these “new” ingredients, here is Rob’s chemistry-based perspective on many of today’s “safe” preservative systems:
“These products are often marketed as something entirely new, but in many cases they are built from the same underlying chemicals that consumers are actively trying to avoid — just repackaged under different names.
Another important point is that once multiple ingredients are combined, they don’t just sit next to each other — they can interact. Under certain conditions, chemical reactions can occur that may lead to the formation of unintended byproducts. Some of these reactions are well documented, such as the potential formation of …benzene in systems containing benzoates and ascorbic acid, or nitrosamine formation under specific conditions involving amines and nitrosating agents78,79.
The chemistry of these mixtures becomes extremely complex. In a finished product, you’re not dealing with a single ingredient — you’re dealing with a chemical system. While individual ingredients may be evaluated for safety on their own, predicting every possible interaction within a formulation is far more difficult. There are simply too many variables, including ingredient combinations, storage conditions, light exposure, and time.”
I think it is extremely important that these considerations are taken into account when adding any of these “natural” or synthetic ingredients to personal care products. Chemical interactions do not stop just because something is labeled “natural.”
This is a step that is often overlooked in formulation. Why? Because chemistry is not simple. Hiring a chemist can be expensive, and researching these interactions yourself can take an enormous amount of time. As an example, Rob and I spent months researching ingredients — and we are still not done.
At a certain point, you begin to ask yourself a different question: instead of trying to find the “perfect” preservative system, what if the better approach is to minimize or avoid these systems altogether?
Yes, I understand the trade-off. No preservatives means a shorter shelf life. That is why I refrigerate my products, offer smaller container sizes, and encourage customers to refrigerate products once they receive them.
Simple handling practices also matter. Use clean hands when dipping into jars. Avoid introducing contaminants. Be mindful when sharing products. These small steps can significantly extend product life without relying on complex chemical preservation systems.
You can read more about how I approach formulation and preservation in Part III of this article. In short, I focus heavily on cleanliness and controlled preparation. I thoroughly clean my workspace, sterilize containers with ethanol, carefully transfer products, and store them in opaque containers to limit light exposure.
Products are made in small batches, refrigerated prior to shipping, and typically delivered within a short time frame. While no system is perfect, this approach allows me to maintain product integrity without relying on the types of ingredients discussed throughout this article.
In my own testing, I have observed that properly stored products can remain stable for extended periods, with only minor oxidation at the surface layer over time.
When I started Nature’s Complement (formerly Tober’s Traditions), it was not intended as a business venture — it was a personal solution. Over time, others who experienced similar sensitivities began seeking out these products, and it became clear that there is a real need for alternatives.
Not everyone reacts to these ingredients — at least not in ways that are immediately noticeable. But for those who do, having access to simpler, carefully prepared products can make a significant difference.
At Nature’s Complement, the goal has always been to provide products that prioritize safety, simplicity, and skin compatibility — even if that means sacrificing convenience, shelf life, or the expectations created by mainstream products.
For Health,
Tober
*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This article is for informational purposes only and is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
References
1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Cosmetics Safety and Regulation. FDA website. Updated 2024. Accessed March 26, 2026. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS). FDA. Updated 2024. Accessed March 26, 2026. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generally-recognized-safe-gras
3. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §321(s).
4. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. Safety assessment of parabens as used in cosmetics. Int J Toxicol. 2008.
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Cosmetic preservatives and microbial contamination guidance. FDA.
6. Byford JR, Shaw LE, Drew MG, et al. Oestrogenic activity of parabens in human breast cancer cells. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2002.
7. Barr L, Metaxas G, Harbach CA, et al. Measurement of paraben concentrations in human breast tissue. J Appl Toxicol. 2012.
8. de Groot AC. Contact allergy to preservatives. Contact Dermatitis. 2013.
9. Flyvholm MA, Andersen P. Identification of formaldehyde releasers in cosmetic products. Contact Dermatitis. 2001.
10. Pontel LB, Rosado IV, Burgos-Barragan G, et al. Endogenous formaldehyde as a potential genotoxic stress factor. Mol Cell. 2015.
11. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. Final report on the safety assessment of phenoxyethanol. Int J Toxicol. 2007.
12. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for glycol ethers. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
13. National Toxicology Program. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of ethylene glycol ethers. NTP Technical Report Series.
14. Boatman RJ, et al. Toxicity and metabolism of ethylene glycol monobutyl ether. Toxicol Lett.
15. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. Safety assessment of multifunctional glycols as used in cosmetics. Int J Toxicol.
16. Personal Care Products Council. Cosmetic ingredient dictionary and handbook. Caprylyl glycol monograph.
17. Uter W, et al. Contact allergy to emerging cosmetic preservatives and boosters. Contact Dermatitis.
18. Warshaw EM, et al. Patch test reactions to modern preservative systems. Dermatitis.
19. Zug KA, et al. Contact dermatitis associated with newer cosmetic ingredients. J Am Acad Dermatol.
20. Heisterberg MV, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from cosmetic ingredients in sunscreens. Contact Dermatitis.
21. Schnuch A, et al. Sensitization patterns to cosmetic preservatives. Contact Dermatitis.
22. Johansen JD, et al. Trends in preservative allergy. Br J Dermatol.
23. Geier J, et al. Patch testing with cosmetic preservatives and related substances. Contact Dermatitis.
24. Patent literature describing industrial synthesis of cosmetic glycol derivatives.
25. Safety Data Sheet information for caprylyl glycol-containing cosmetic raw materials.
26. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. Safety assessment of benzoic acid, dehydroacetic acid, and related compounds as used in cosmetics. Int J Toxicol.
27. PubChem Compound Summary: Dehydroacetic acid.
28. Uter W, et al. Contact allergy to cosmetic preservatives and antimicrobial agents. Contact Dermatitis.
29. Yamamoto T, et al. Anticoagulant effects of dehydroacetic acid sodium salt in rats. J Toxicol Sci.
30. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Substances Generally Recognized as Safe: Benzoic acid. FDA.
31. Yilmaz S, et al. Genotoxic effects of sodium benzoate on human lymphocytes in vitro. Cytotechnology.
32. World Health Organization. Benzoic acid and sodium benzoate. Concise International Chemical Assessment Document (CICAD).
33. Safety Data Sheet: NeoDefend preservative system composition and handling information.
34. Manufacturer technical data sheet for NeoDefend preservative blend.
35. Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization. Evaluation of gluconolactone as a food additive. JECFA.
36. Microbial metabolism studies involving gluconolactone and pH-dependent fermentation systems. Appl Microbiol.
37. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. Safety assessment of gluconolactone and related compounds as used in cosmetics. Int J Toxicol.
38. Industrial production of gluconic acid and gluconolactone via glucose fermentation. Biotechnol Adv.
39. European Food Safety Authority. Gluconolactone production from glucose derived from maize and other crops. EFSA Journal.
40. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Substances Generally Recognized as Safe: Sodium benzoate. FDA.
41. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Benzene formation in beverages containing benzoate and ascorbic acid. FDA.
42. Yilmaz S, et al. Genotoxic effects of sodium benzoate on human lymphocytes in vitro. Cytotechnology.
43. Noorafshan A, et al. Effects of sodium benzoate on brain structure and behavior in animal models. J Chem Neuroanat.
44. National Institutes of Health. Calcium: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals. Office of Dietary Supplements.
45. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. Safety assessment of iodopropynyl butylcarbamate, diazolidinyl urea, and related preservatives. Int J Toxicol.
46. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for propylene glycol. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
47. Warshaw EM, et al. Contact dermatitis associated with propylene glycol. Dermatitis.
48. Arulanantham K, et al. Propylene glycol toxicity in clinical settings. Ann Pharmacother.
49. Studies examining effects of glycols on cellular function and tissue remodeling processes.
50. National Toxicology Program. Toxicity studies of glycol compounds and developmental effects.
51. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. Safety assessment of iodopropynyl butylcarbamate. Int J Toxicol.
52. European Chemicals Agency. Substance information on iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC).
53. Schnuch A, et al. Contact allergy to preservatives including iodopropynyl butylcarbamate. Contact Dermatitis.
54. Environmental Working Group. Ingredient safety summary: iodopropynyl butylcarbamate.
55. European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. Opinion on iodopropynyl butylcarbamate restrictions in cosmetics.
56. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. Safety assessment of parabens as used in cosmetics. Int J Toxicol.
57. Safety Data Sheet: LiquaPar Oil preservative blend.
58. Supplier technical documentation for Linatural preservative systems. Lincoln Fine Ingredients.
59. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. Safety assessment of propanediol as used in cosmetics. Int J Toxicol.
60. Uter W, et al. Contact allergy to ethylhexylglycerin. Contact Dermatitis.
61. World Health Organization. Potassium sorbate safety evaluation. WHO Food Additive Series.
62. Desbois AP, Smith VJ. Antibacterial free fatty acids: activities, mechanisms and applications. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol.
63. Dayrit FM. Lauric acid and its antimicrobial properties. J Am Oil Chem Soc.
64. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. Safety assessment of PEG derivatives in cosmetics. Int J Toxicol.
62. Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. Opinion on phototoxic substances in cosmetic products. European Commission.
65. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. Safety assessment of benzoic acid, sodium benzoate, and related compounds as used in cosmetics. Int J Toxicol.
66. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. Safety assessment of gluconolactone and related compounds as used in cosmetics. Int J Toxicol.
67. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. Safety assessment of benzyl alcohol and salicylic acid as used in cosmetics. Int J Toxicol.
68. Uter W, et al. Contact allergy to cosmetic preservatives and antimicrobial boosters. Contact Dermatitis.
69. European Commission CosIng Database. Cosmetic ingredient database and preservative function classifications.
63. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. Safety assessment of sodium lauryl sulfate and related salts. Int J Toxicol.
64. European Commission CosIng Database. Sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate ingredient profiles.
65. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 1,4-dioxane in cosmetic products and manufacturing processes.
66. Final report of the amended safety assessment of sodium laureth sulfate and related salts of sulfated ethoxylated alcohols. Int J Toxicol.
67. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. Safety assessment of sodium lauryl sulfate. Int J Toxicol.
68. Loden M, et al. Susceptibility to irritant dermatitis caused by sodium lauryl sulfate. Br J Dermatol.
69. Agner T, et al. Skin irritancy in atopic dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis.
70. Tupker RA, et al. Skin susceptibility of atopic individuals. Acta Derm Venereol.
71. Contact dermatitis from lauryl ether sulfate-containing detergents. Contact Dermatitis.
72. Shampoo dermatitis due to surfactants. Contact Dermatitis.
73. Babich H, et al. Cytotoxicity of sodium lauryl sulfate in vitro. Toxicol Lett.
74. Blank IH, et al. Penetration-enhancing effects of surfactants on skin. J Invest Dermatol.
75. Effendy I, et al. Stratum corneum barrier disruption by surfactants. Br J Dermatol.
76. Nielsen JB, et al. Effects of surfactants on skin permeability. Pharmacol Toxicol.
77. Ananthapadmanabhan KP, et al. Mechanisms of skin irritation from surfactants. J Cosmet Sci.
78. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Benzene formation in beverages containing benzoate and ascorbic acid. FDA.
79. Lijinsky W. Nitrosamine formation in cosmetic and pharmaceutical systems. Food Chem Toxicol.
Nature's Complement is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program. If you purchase products on Amazon through any of our affiliate links, we get a small percentage of the transaction, at no extra cost to you. We spend a lot of time writing the articles on this site, and all this information is provided free of charge. When you use our affiliate links, you support the writing you enjoy without necessarily buying our products. (However we would appreciate if you would do that too!) Thank you for helping to support our work, however you choose to do so.
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information and/or products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
[…] depth in our articles “Personal Care Product Preservatives, And The Truth” Part 1 and Part 2. However there are still many more chemical ingredients we still need to write about, such as […]
[…] is safe because it has GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) status by the FDA. But as we haveexplained previously (a few paragraphs down in the link), decisions on GRAS status have as much to do with politics as […]