Article by: Perry Romanowski

While accompanying my wife on a trip to the grocery store I saw this gem in the wine section.

20111204-162635.jpg
The claim of “no sulfites detected” seems like an evolution in the ridiculous “no” claims trend. Does this mean the chemical is in there but they just didn’t test for it?

I could see it now, a company could make a cosmetic with any chemical they want and as long as they don’t test it for any chemical they could claim “no sulfates” or “no parabens detected”.

Showing just how silly the “no” claims are.

6

6 comments

  1. Julie

    My favorite claim was a woman on QVC who said, “It doesn’t have parabens, so that means it’s good for you!” My coworkers and I are constantly pointing out other things like that. Donuts: No parabens, which means they’re good for you!

    1. Perry

      That’s funny!

  2. Eliza

    LOL Perry & Robert & SoapyGuy 🙂
    The only ‘no’ I personally care for is ‘no animal testing’ but even that is hard to prove because of REACH and previous animal testing of ingredients.
    So do I understand it right that you guys don’t formulate for companies with a ‘no …’ marketing angle?

  3. Robert Zonis

    I love it – it’s just as good as the statements that proliferated a while back on cosmetic labels: “Dermatologist Tested”. Please note that no mention was every made of whether or not these products actually PASSED the testing – it was apparently good enough for the general public that a doc had tested the products. Additionally, nothing was said about what TYPE of testing it was, either – they could have been testing if it cured cancer, or prevented poison ivy, or stained your clothes – but, by gum, it was tested.

  4. SoapyGuy

    Or they did test for it, but their test has a high detection limit.

    1. Perry

      Good point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *