We recently worked with Allured to launch a Natural Cosmetic Formulating course.  If you haven’t signed up to receive the free report on the subject be sure to go get it here.

Formulating natural cosmetics

While working on that project I discovered a bit about the naturals cosmetic market which I thought was interesting and would share here.

Natural cosmetic market

Finding market data about any cosmetic area can be a little challenging if you aren’t signed up with a market research company like Mintell or IRI.  However, if you read GCI, Cosmetics & Toiletries or some of the other cosmetic industry magazines, you can get hints of data.

Here is some data about the natural cosmetic market that you might find interesting.  The data represents the annual sales of natural cosmetics in the US circa 2008.  It’s a little old but it gives you a good idea of the distribution and size of the market.

• Color Cosmetics – $419 million
• Hair care – $1.7 billion
• Baby care – $159 million
• Nail care – $24 million
• Bath items – $147 million
• Deodorants – $217 million
• Shaving – $138 million
• Skin care – $3.05 billion
• Soap – $998 million
• Fragrance – $352 million
• Total personal care – $7.92 billion

So, if you’re getting into the natural formulation market, that’s what the market looks like.

I was reading some of my latest Twitter updates when I saw another claim about a beauty product being “chemical free.” Reading claims like this really bug me because nearly EVERYTHING is a chemical.

There is no such thing as a Chemical Free Sunscreen!!! Zinc Oxide and Titanium Dioxide are CHEMICALS!!

Alright, enough of that. I’ll calm down. But it does remind me of all the other misleading cosmetic claims that I see from cosmetic marketers. Here is a list of 10 of the most misleading cosmetic claims that I could find.

What makes a claim misleading?

Before I get to the list, I want to define my terms. There are plenty of more egregious claims than the ones on this list but typically those are direct lies. (e.g. cosmetics that say they will regrow your hair).

The claims listed here are not lies per se, the companies no doubt have supporting tests. However, they are specifically made to mislead consumers.

1. Natural, organic, green, etc.

This claim can mean anything because there is no specific definition for ‘natural’. Some companies argue that if an ingredient comes from a natural source then it’s natural. They conveniently overlook the fact that they chemically modify it to make it work the way they want it. And ‘organic’ is not much better. True, there is a USDA organic certification program but it is not required that a cosmetic company follow it to use the ‘organic’ claim on their products.

Why it is misleading – Companies who use this claim want consumers to believe that the products they produce are “safer” than other cosmetics. Natural / organic / green cosmetic are not safer.

2. Chemical free.

Every cosmetic or personal care product you would buy is made of chemicals. There is no such thing as a ‘chemical free’ cosmetic. Water is a chemical. Titanium Dioxide is a chemical.

Why it is misleading – It’s just wrong. It also is made to imply that the product is “safer” than cosmetics made with chemicals. The products are not safer. This is just wrong.

3. pH balanced

Skin and hair products often advertise themselves as ‘pH balanced’ as if that is supposed to be some big benefit. What products are sold that are not pH balanced?

Why it is misleading – Companies who make this claim try to imply some superiority over products that are not making this claim. They want consumers to believe that the products will be less irritating and will work better. They won’t. Why? Because any decently formulated product will be made in a pH range that is compatible with skin and hair. A consumer will never notice a single difference between a product that is “pH balanced” and one that is just normally formulated.

4. Hypoallergenic

Companies make this claim because they want consumers to believe that their products will not cause allergies. But the FDA looked at this issue in the 1970′s and essnetially concluded that the term hypoallergenic has no real meaning so anyone can make this claim.

Why it is misleading – Hypoallergenic products are not safer or more gentle even though this is what the claim is meant to imply.

5. “Helps” claim

While it would be illegal to make a claim that a cosmetic product fixes some particular problem directly, it is perfectly fine for companies to claim that the product “helps” fix a problem. Since the word ‘help’ is sufficiently vague any product could support a claim that it is helping some condition whether it is or not.

Why it is misleading – Companies use the qualifier “helps” to be able to make a claim that they want even though they can’t support it. For example, when a skin product says “…moisturizes to help strengthen the skin’s barriers function…” they really want consumers to think that the skin’s barrier function will be strengthened. However, they don’t have any evidence that the product will do this. Adding the word ‘Helps’ lets them make the claim without having to have the evidence.

6. Patented formula

Companies love to claim ‘patented’ or ‘unique’ or ‘exclusive’ formula. What they want consumers to believe is that the formula is someone special and will work better than competitors.

Why this is misleading – It’s relatively easy to find some way to patent a formula but that doesn’t mean the patent will somehow make the product a superior personal care product. Often cosmetic patents are just technicalities that made it past a naive patent examiner. Typically, the patent has nothing to do with how well the formula performs.

7. Makes hair stronger

This is a pet peeve of mine. Products that claim to make hair stronger do not make hair stronger. What they really do is make hair less prone to breakage when it is being combed. This isn’t hair strength, it’s conditioning.

Why this is misleading – If you test the strength of hair with a tensile test or other force measuring device, you will discover that hair is not actually stronger. But consumers are meant to believe that hair becomes stronger even though it doesn’t.

8. Boosts collagen production

You find this claim in lots of cosmetic products.

Why it is misleading – If the product actually increased the amount of collagen your skin produced, it would be a mislabeled drug. Cosmetics are not allowed to have a significant impact on your skin metabolism.

9. Reduces the appearance of wrinkles

Most any anti-aging product is going to make this claim and it’s very likely true. However, the message that consumers get from this claim is different than the words that are written and marketers know this.

Why it is misleading – While the product is only reducing the “appearance” of wrinkles consumers read that and believe that the product will somehow get rid of wrinkles. It won’t. Almost no cosmetic skin cream is going to get rid of wrinkles. They might make wrinkles look less obvious but this isn’t what consumers think when they read a claim like that.

10. Proven formula

The term proven is powerful in the consumers mind even though it doesn’t have to mean much of anything.

Why it is misleading – Marketers know that the term ‘proven’ automatically makes consumers think that the product works. And maybe it does work, but it almost never works in the way (or to the extent) that consumers will think it works. This is why it is a misleading claim.

Claims and the cosmetic chemist

Unfortunately, cosmetic companies have to make misleading claims because this is what consumers respond to. There are certainly some claims that are more egregious than others but as a cosmetic chemist you should be able to recognize those and help your marketing department find ways to make non-misleading claims. It’s not easy but someone should be doing it.

If you spent any time on the web this week, it would have been difficult for you to avoid the news of the impending Internet censorship legislation called SOPA and PIPA. Some major websites went dark and thousands of others modified their websites, facebook pages and twitter feeds in protest. You can read more about the issue here.

SOPA PIPA and Cosmetics

While looking at the list of companies that support this awful legislation, I noticed a number of companies from the cosmetic industry. They include…

3M
Chanel
Coty
Dow Chemical Company
Estee Lauder
Johnson & Johnson
Dolce & Gabbana
L’Oreal USA
Personal Care Products Council
Pfizer
Revlon

I don’t get it. Why would these cosmetic companies support censorship of the Internet? What is the benefit to them?

Chemcial companies like 3M & Dow Chemical? How does online piracy affect them?

The only thing that I can think of is that these companies are worried about pirated copies of their make-up or brands being made available on the Internet.

The PCPC is on the list of supporters!!! What the hell!!? A majority of their member companies don’t even support it. Very troubling PCPC.

Seriously, what are these organizations thinking?

There was a recent study on parabens that made the news. It was research published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology conducted by Dr. Philippa Darbre and Mr Lester Barr.

The key findings of the research includes

1. Parabens were detected in 99% of all breast tissue samples

2. An average of 85.5 ng/g was found. Four times higher than work done in 2004.

3. Propylparaben and methylparaben had the highest levels detected

The researchers conclude…

Mr Lester Barr – “Our study appears to confirm the view that there is no simple cause and effect relationship between parabens in underarm products and breast cancer”

Dr Darbre – “The fact that parabens were detected in the majority of the breast tissue samples cannot be taken to imply that they actually caused breast cancer in the 40 women studied”

Darbre further concludes that the fact that parabens are found in breast tissue justifies further investigation.

What’s the story?

The study is interesting and presents a bit of a mystery. Why are parabens being found in breast tissue? Where are they coming from? As Darbre says, more research is needed.

But the story I most want to write about is the way that this story is being reported.

Take a look at these different headlines about the same press release.

From Science Daily…

Parabens in Breast Tissue Not Limited to Women Who Have Used Underarm Products

From Cosmetics Design…

Study finds no link between deodorant use and breast cancer

Then from Red Orbit…

Possible Link Between Personal Care Products, Breast Cancer Studied

And NHS…

Deodorant chemical ‘found in breast tumours’

And finally Healthcareglobal.com

Popular cosmetic chemical found in breast cancer tissue

Viva la difference

How is it that all of these media outlets got the same press release and came up with completely different headlines?

None of these headlines are lies per se. But they all communicate a different message.

The Science Daily headline (which I view as the least biased source) captures what I see as the main point of the study. Parabens are found in breast tissue whether people have used deodorants or not.

The Cosmetic Design headline is clearly biased to tell the story in a way that exonerates the cosmetic industry. They don’t lie but they do miss the point of the research.

The next few headlines are much more sensational however, and communicate the message that the study somehow links parabens, cancer and the use of cosmetics.

The study does the exact opposite!!

I guess it just goes to show that way you tell a story is just as important as the facts that go into creating it.

In my view, this research provides no new information to the debate. Unfortunately, chemophobes will look at this research as a new reason to ban parabens from cosmetic products.

Sigh

Very clever summary of how to spot quackery. In the cosmetic industry, you can find examples of people selling products using all of these methods.

Here is a list of their Red Flags of Quackery. If you see them in a cosmetic ad, it might be quackery.

1. Testimonials
2. Helps your body
3. Celebrity Doctor
4. Ancient Wisdom
5. Secret/Conspiracy
6. Buy my book
7. Miracle ingredient
8. Non-MD Doctor
9. Natural
10. Quantum
11. Toxins
12. Energy
13. Magnets
14. Hostility to criticism
15. Western Medicine

Perhaps in a future post, I’ll list examples of cosmetic products sold using these red flags.  Some of these apply more to health products but lots of cosmetic products are marketed using these quacky techniques.

Why?

Unfortunately, they often work.

If you work in the cosmetic industry, then you should know about the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and their off-shoot group the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. The EWG focuses on providing information while the CFSC attempts to get legislation passed. Ostensibly, they are consumer advocacy groups who endeavor to ensure that cosmetic manufacturers produce only safe products.

A laudable goal and one that all cosmetic chemists can get behind.

However, cosmetic chemists, formulators and the cosmetic industry already support this goal so the cosmetic products we produce are already safe. The EWG & CFSC are unnecessary.

But I’m certain that the good folks at these groups would disagree. From their perspective cosmetics are not safe. And cosmetic chemists can not be trusted to create safe formulas. They seem to believe that there are cosmetic chemists who want to create formulas that will poison their families and cause widespread cases of cancer. They don’t think very much of cosmetic chemists or formulators.

Problems with these groups

The primary place that consumers (and beauty bloggers) find out about the EWG is through their online ingredient resource called the Skin Deep database. It’s an interesting concept and they’ve clearly put a lot of work into it. Unfortunately, it is full of misleading information & many things that are just wrong.

Skin Deep database Flaws

There are a few obvious flaws in the database that have been pointed out to the EWG but they don’t seem interested in changing them. Here is what I mean.

False information

There is false information in the database but they don’t seem interested in fixing it. For example, they have a listing for Polyparaben. They even give it a chemical rating and call it an endocrine disruptor. Unfortunately, there is no chemical called polyparaben. It doesn’t exist. How they managed to come up with a toxicity score and links to studies about a non-existent chemical is baffling and it certainly doesn’t build faith in the reliability of their data. If they had a cosmetic chemist review the information they were putting up before entering it into the database, perhaps this wouldn’t be a problem. Clearly, they don’t. And they don’t care to fix it because this has been pointed out to them directly.

Nonsense ratings

Creating a hazard score is a dubious activity anyway (since it is the dose that makes the poison) but they aren’t even consistent within their own scoring system. For example, they have listings for both Sodium Coceth Sulfate and Sodium Laureth Sulfate. Cosmetic chemists know that these compounds are essentially identical with minimal differences. But somehow the Sodium Coceth Sulfate gets a 0 hazard score, while Sodium Laureth Sulfate gets a 4 hazard. This makes no sense.

Belief not science

Perhaps the worst thing about the EWG Skin Deep database is that they are unwilling to modify their conclusions when new evidence comes to light. They base their actions on a belief and use science only when it supports what they want to believe. Since they are a politically motivated group, they are unable to accept new science which might indicate an ingredient is more safe than previously thought. There is not a single instance of them changing their stance on any cosmetic ingredient.

No courage of their convictions

But the most galling thing about the EWG is that they are hypocrites who either don’t believe what they say or are more interested in making money off people than protecting them from “dangerous” products. For example, they list a Hall of Shame for sunscreens. In it they list specific products that are typical of “…what’s wrong with the sun protection business.” Of course, this does not stop them from making money through their Amazon Affiliate program by selling those same products. For example, they list Aveeno Baby Protection Sunblock as a Hall of Shame sunscreen because it is dangerous for babies but they’ll happily take your money if you want to buy the product.

This means they either do not care that they are making money off of products that they believe are dangerous…or…they don’t believe the products are really dangerous.

Either way, it’s shifty.

EWG and cosmetic chemists

If the EWG & the CFSC is to be believed, cosmetic chemists are evil people who do not care about the safety of the formulas they create. I think this is BS.

It’s the final holiday of the year, or more properly the first holiday of the year.  Anyway, in celebration of the holiday, I’m not going to create much of a substantial post today.  I’ll be back to regular posts tomorrow.

However, I just listened to a podcast about Consumer Reports.  There is some interesting stuff there.  Here’s a video post they did on Wrinkle Creams.  The results are not surprising to anyone who knows about cosmetic formulating.  They also have posts on Sunscreens, Eye Creams, and Wrinkle Serums.  Interesting.

Happy New Year!

Here’s just a quick post about what I think is the 5 most significant stories in cosmetic science during 2011.

1. J&J caves to fear mongering group and promises to reformulate baby shampoo.

2. FDA declares formaldehyde containing Brazilian hair straightening products to be unsafe.

3. P&G vows to stop using photoshop to touch up mascara ads.

4. French government has attempted to ban parabens.

5. Corporate mergers and acquisitions. Lots of chemical companies merged this year and so did a fair amount of finished goods companies. It’s getting tougher to be a cosmetic chemist for a small company these days.

Well, we’ll have a look at some of the more significant scientific events this year but what stories do you think were the most important in the industry?

Here is an interesting video explaining how P&G shifted their focus from merely creating excellent formulations to making products that make women feel better about themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJzeGL_5V5k

I’m not really sure how well they succeeded but they certainly changed the way products were advertised. They also had a huge impact on the role of consumer research in the development of cosmetic products.

If you have your own line, creating the best performing products is not good enough. You’ve got to create a compelling story too. P&G is a big reason why the industry has embraced this philosophy.

Is that good for cosmetic formulators? hmmmm

This recent story about P&G being cited by the NAD for publishing misleading mascara ads and their subsequent vow to stop doing it makes me ponder whether advertising and marketing corrupt cosmetic science.

I haven’t really concluded one way or another but consider…

No it doesn’t

In the United States we have a law that makes it illegal to publish false advertising. You can say whatever you want about your products but you can’t lie. This means that every magazine ad, television commercial, radio spot, or claim on a website should be technically true. This means that if a company is making a claim, they must have some rationale for substantiating that claim.

So, if you say your shampoo cleans hair, you have to be able to demonstrate that the shampoo removes dirt & oil from your hair. This is pretty easy to do and is such a well established fact that no one would really question you for making the claim.

Similarly, moisturizers have to moisturize, hair gels have to hold hair, a lipsticks have to color lips.

This type of advertising does not corrupt cosmetic science.

Maybe a little

The problem with advertising is that if you say the same thing as everyone else, you can’t really stand out. For this reason cosmetic companies try to go beyond the standard claims. They make claims that are technically true (at least in a court of law) but imply something that is not true.

For example, a company may create an Aloe Vera body wash. From a practical standpoint, it will be the same formula as their standard body wash but they will put in an aloe vera extract, color the product green and add a fresh green scent. Since consumers have already identified Aloe Vera as moisturizing, healing, or otherwise “good” for their skin they will naturally associate this new body wash with the positive thoughts they have about aloe. Functionally, the new product is no different than the old product.

Is this corrupting the science? A little.

But the truth is, consumers are not interested in purchasing the most functional product. They want the glitz. They want pretty packages, colors, and fresh scents. If you create the best functional product you will not last long in the cosmetic marketplace without some glitz.

Maybe a lot

The advertising by P&G shows that indeed the cosmetic industry can be corrupted by misleading ads. When they take a model and airbrush out her lines, wrinkles, and uneven skin tone, they are crossing the line into false advertising. Or at least that is what the NAD said in this case.

I would suggest that this isn’t the only way that companies mislead. Sometimes they use science and their cosmetic chemists.

In the area of hair care, one of the most misleading claims about products is the one where they say it “makes hair 10 times stronger”. Or maybe they just say 2 times or 5 times or whatever. This is a lie. No hair product can make hair twice, 5 times or 10 times stronger. Hair products have very little effect on the strength of hair.

So how do they get away with making the claim?

That’s where science comes in. The claim is based on the fact that the product prevents hair from breaking and splitting. Scientists simply run a robotic comb through hair a number of times and they count the number of hairs that are broken. If you compare that to a control, you can get a measurement. So, if your product has 10 hairs broken and the control has 100 hairs, you can say it is 10X better. That would be turned into 10x stronger. But it’s not 10x stronger! You’ve simply reduced the probability of breaking hair.

In a court of law, you could probably support a claim like this so technically it is not lying. But from a scientific standpoint, I would argue that it is.

What to do

I always had a slight problem with the way science was manipulated by advertising to tell a story. However, there is no denying that glitz and story telling is more convincing to people to buy a product than the straight scientific story. You will be faced with the same dilemma as a cosmetic formulator. So, how do you handle it?

1. You could quit. Indeed, if this type of ethical dilemma troubles you, you probably shouldn’t be in the cosmetic business. You should go to a university and get a professor job. Success in the cosmetic field requires a little story telling.

2. Try to keep marketing honest. This is the approach that most cosmetic chemists take. You just need to be aware of when marketing is trying to cross the line too much and push back. Tell them if they are being blatently dishonest. In the P&G case, I wonder if any of the cosmetic chemists complained about the advertising.

3. Make the best products you can. This was always my approach. I figured if I made excellent products then even if people bought them with one expectation they would still be satisfied even if it performed differently than they expected. Yes, they may have bought the conditioner because they thought it was making their hair stronger. But it’s an excellent conditioner and whether it makes hair stronger doesn’t matter. Consumers don’t really want stronger hair anyway. They want hair that won’t break.

The cosmetic industry is part science and part business. Sometimes the business part may make you feel a bit uncomfortable but the reality is if people don’t buy your product your company won’t be around to keep you employed. And as long as you are producing the best product you can, don’t worry too much about what your marketers and advertisers are doing. Just do your best to keep them honest.