-
Are the days of “natural” cosmetics coming to an end?
-
Natural preservative performance is generally garbage.
Folk concerned with the bogus claims of clean beauty/natural/etc. might find this article of interest.
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1239&context=wmblr -
Thanks, that article perfectly makes the case for:
(1) Passing the Natural Cosmetics Act
(2) FDA defining Natural
(3) Creating an FDA Natural seal for products to claim Natural and making those products go through a certification body just like Organic personal care products.
(4) Prohibiting “Free From” marketing
I would further add that the 1% rule should be eliminated and all ingredients must be listed in descending order.
All that’s needed is for Congress to act. The Natural Cosmetics Act is really good proposed legislation. It’s a shame that it is not getting more traction in moving out of committee.
-
I can’t believe how popular this discussion is.
I’m 28 and even I don’t remember the world before paraben free
But I don’t think people really believe parabens can cause cancer. It would mean they believe that safety regulators are completely failing, and that there may be an ingredient in any product that can kill us. I believe that this is simply a doubt.As for the effectiveness of the products (I do not mean stability or preservation systems), I would say that the average natural product is inferior to the average synthetic product, because they are more difficult to formulate and require greater knowledge of the ingredients. It doesn’t mean that there are no natural products as good as the best synthetic ones, because there are many such products.
I don’t believe that people can rate a product higher just because it is natural and they “feel” better with it. Then everyone would eat kale chips instead of the traditional ones.
It would be better if natural cosmetics were regulated somehow, but to be honest, I’m a fan of natural cosmetics, but some rules piss me off. For example, this rule that the product must contain 70% ingredients of natural origin, where water is not a natural ingredient. In most products most of the composition is water. So if you want to meet this requirement, you have to use a hydrosol instead of water. In practice you start importing tons of water from another continent. Usually, Aloe Vera Juice is used to achieve the required %. If someone wanted to use this ingredient for specific benefits, they could just order 200 x concentrated powder. But through the shackles of the certificate / requirements this cannot be done and you have to import “water”.
I believe that natural products may (but they don’t have to) be an ethical choice. If, for example, you want to make a hair oil and you have a choice: use silicones or use biodegradable oil, the production of which uses fruit hand picked from the tree, and this work is the only or the main earning opportunity for the locals, the second option is for me the more ethical one. But making a palm oil derivative product so oily that no one will want to use it is not a good option, even though the product would be natural.
-
Our oceans are full of plastic, and microplastics, it is heart breaking to hear about its effect on marine animals.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/marinedebris/plastics-in-the-ocean.htmlOur local water ways are contaminated with PFAS, pesticides, polyfluoroalkyl…affecting the quality of our tap water.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/water-poll/index.cfmThen you have nitrogen run off, algae bloom, climate change…….
No wonder some consumers are concerned about the presence of Petro chemicals in their cosmetics…. They want change; chemical free, natural and sustainable!
The subtleties of cosmetics chemistry and its preservation challenges are too complex of a subject to resonate with the masses. As a consumer It takes dedication, research, and a magnifying glass just to understand and recognize basic cosmetic ingredients on a label.
I agree that consumers should be protected with an official definition for natural and optimally a rating system for natural, but also for sustainability so consumers can buy products that reflects their values. Maybe a cosmetic safety rating should also be used….
-
Perry said:The EWG skin deep database doesn’t rank ingredients by how well they align to people’s values. They rank them by a fear based metric - toxicity.
@Perry
I have only had 4 clients ever want to use the EWG database to reference products and ony 1 actually seek an EWG verification. So, i wonder just how influential EWG really is. But …
Go to EWG skin deep and enter “Bisabolol” … you get a nice, clean website with the 1-10 (green to red) scoring bar, a 1-2 ranking for Bisabolol in a green circle indicating it is safe. And a Concerns listing again with the green to red indicator lights. There is more detailed information on tabs. So, a quick glance and if you see a 1-2 in a green circle, the product is safe. If you see 8-9 in a red circle, it’s Danger Will Robinson.
Now go to CIR. Type in Bisabolol. You get a webpage that looks like it was developed in Y2000. Click on Report and a 10-page PDF downloads. You have to read the summary to understand the safety info.
Even though CIR is THE source for the most scientifically valid information it has not countered EWG by making CIR’s information available in a consumer-friendly format.
That is why EWG has been able to gain traction with consumers … it presents information in an easy to read format. Consmumers want a number in a colored circle. They are not going to read a 10-page PDF.
-
@MarkBroussard - I agree, the EWG format is vastly more consumer friendly & slick. It also is much easier to search, it looks better, and has listings for pretty much any ingredient you might look up.
But it’s also simplified to the point where it presents misinformation. As Einstein said, “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
Bisabolol has an LD50 of about 15.1 ml/Kg in mice
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/109158189901800305If you take too much, it can definitely kill you.
For comparison, DMDM Hydantoin has an LD50 of about 2g/kg
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10915818809023133#:~:text=The%20LD50%20dermal%20and,irritating%20to%20moderate%20skin%20irritation. The EWG gives it a 6 safety rating.By this toxicological measure, Bisabolol (ewg rated 2) should have a less safe rating than DMDM Hydantoin (ewg rated 6).
Sure, if you make a pretend scale where you ignore complications (e.g. dose matters as does route of exposure) it’s easy to make something more easily read by consumers. The CIR cares about accuracy and nuance, not color coded fairy tales.
-
@Perry:
What I am saying is: Why does CIR not come up with a consumer-friendly interface since it has superior information? If consumers are getting alot of information/misinformation from EWG and CIR does not counter, then you may have more perfectly fine ingredients come under attack in the future.
CIR could do a ranking like EWG + recommended maximum concentrations in products, for instance. The average consumer is not going to be concerned with an LD50 or even know what an LD50 is.
If CIR is not going to counter EWG in its marketing efforts, is it really productive to complain about it? I’d suggest that CIR should indeed pay attention those color coded fairy tales because a growing consumer base is.
It concerns me not on a personal basis, since I deal with EWG very little as my clients don’t pay it any attention. But, this is how entrenched industries end up loosing some battles.
-
@Perry:
I think if you check your numbers you’ll find that the LD50 of Bisabolol is 13.8g/KG, so it has a much higher LD50 than DMDM, therefore not as toxic as DMDM
-
CIR and consumer friendly toxicology? Perhaps read CIR summaries - they offer safety-in-use specific ranges and context for formulators. Consumers will not know concentrations
EWG is given to the amateur and meaningless color-coded assessment so readily exploited by the scare mongers. Please remember. EWG is a business, selling its endorsements at least formerly for a piece of the action. -
Exactly my point, Phil. EWG presents a potential threat to the use of certain ingredients if there is sufficient consumer backlash based on an EWG rating of 5, for instance. Again, I don’t know how influential EWG is as I rarely encounter requests for EWG-compliant formulas. The issue is that the amateurs are the consumers.
-
@MarkBroussard - One needs only to look at the organizational numbers & staff to answer that question.
CIR - 11 (most of whom are subject experts who write reports)
Unknown annual funding level but sponsored by PCPC who generated $19 million in 2020 of which ~$10 million went to PCPC salaries. How much of the remaining amount funds CIR? Who knows, but I would guess ~$2 million?EWG - 64 ( 8 people with “science” in their titles, the rest are web designers, communicators, lawyers, etc.) The generated $12 million in 2020. This would all go to running their organization.
So, it’s not surprising why CIR hasn’t made something like EWG. The organizations are built to do different things.
CIR reviews the science.
EWG uses the work of CIR, then tells the story they want to tell. -
EWG is a lucrative tool of the clean natural cosmetic marketing. Why would there be a backlash? Doubtful many consumers get even in the shalllow weeds of EWG and bet many that do are looking to confirm the wisdom of their choice. To that, CIR’s conclusions that a material is safe-in-use just not sensational enough.
Don’t know consumer acceptance of EWG. Noteworthy- this year for the 1st time, P&G advertising blew off its technical folks and got in bed with EWG clowns for one shampoo formula. -
I’m referring to a backlash against a particular ingredient because consumer resistance builds to that ingredient based on its moderate to high EWG score. Take Phenoxyethanol, it has an EWG score of 2-4 (Orange). There is growing resistance to Phenoxyethanol by some retailers. Is that a function of the EWG score? … I don’t know, but the resistance is coming from somewhere.
Yes, I suspect … most consumers see the 1-2 in a green circle and don’t look any further. If they see an 8-9 in a red circle they reject the ingredient.
Why would P&G (and other major industry players) not put more money behind CIR to create a competitor/counterbalance to EWG? It’s not just the information you have, it’s also how that information is presented and digested by consumers.
-
Right - the scare mongering.
CIR is a professional, largely academic group of unbiased scientists. They’re not about to engage in any promotion.
Industry - PCPC - has totally butchered its response since Darbre opened the sewer outlet. -
Certainly PCPC could take the lead using data emanating from CIR. As a counter to the scare mongering. …
“Overall, the cosmetics industry donates approximately $134 million to charitable causes with a substantial contribution to cancer awareness and research”
There’s lots of money available from the industry that could be put to creating a counter to EWG with accurate information coming from CIR.
-
Forget it.
-
So, let’s presume that Phenoxyethanol comes under more intense pressure from consumers and retailers and is heading the way of Parabens … it’s less controversial, but are you saying the PCPC will not mount a vigorous defense on behalf of the industry and will cede the messaging battle to EWG.
-
PCPC has mounted to effective defense re parabens or formaldehyde releasers - phenoxy will find the same ineffective support. Toxicologists, chemists and microbiologists in companies and relevant PCPC committees are not influential for spending - advertising and marketing are,
-
It’s asymmetric warfare anyway. Once it is suggested that a chemical might have some negative effects, no amount of testing, PR, advertising or marketing will change peoples minds about safety.
Has there ever been a chemical that developed a bad reputation but was then rehabilitated? I can’t think of any examples.
Fear is just much more compelling. What article title would you click on?“Do chemicals in baby shampoo cause cancer?”
or
“Baby shampoos found to be safe to use”
its not surprising at all that fearmongering is winning.
-
Perry said:…
Has there ever been a chemical that developed a bad reputation but was then rehabilitated? I can’t think of any examples…Not exactly a chemical… but Botox did that trick :pensive:Else, you’re aboslutely right. It’s also very weird which articles find public resonance and which ones don’t. The original article about parabens was piss poor and nobody gave it any attention until someone somewhere… same goes for other scientific publications where there seems to be absolutely no correlation between impact factor, quality and scientific appreciation on one side and the effect on the ‘consumers’ world on the other. It doesn’t even have to do with fear (which certainly is a strong driving force) and sometimes takes one or two decades after publication to ‘hit the public’. -
Companies managements - LOreal P&G, Estee etc. were never interested to the point of mounting a public defense. They did invest in looking for new preservatives and that has been useless. The worst was the 3G search funded by every major company, Please read this BS report. It fails to say nothing came from the search. company https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352554120305696
-
There was a small glimmer of hope with some recent mergers. One, Arxada spin off of Lonza’s biocide business (DMDM H) buying Dow’s Microbial control (Isothiazolinones - Kathons) and Troy’s biocide biz. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352554120305696.
The other is Lanxess (Bayer AG chemical and biocide spin off) buying Emerald Kamala (benzoic, benzyl alcohol). https://lanxess.com/en/Media/Press-Releases/2021/08/LANXESS-completes-acquisition-of-Emerald-Kalama-ChemicalSpoken to managements of both - their objective is preservative development. Trust Arxada more but not much confidence.
-
Pharma is spot on re that f’ing idiot Darbe. No controls, tissue from some hosp in scotland, parabens in reagent controls never exposed to tissue and about the same level as found in tissue, etc. All her experiment s are designed to prove (rather than test) her chicken little hypotheses.
And the whole “endocrine disruption” for parabens is a technical scam. Orders of magnitude less affinity than estrogen or even phytoestrogens.
-
btw - my comment above “PCPC has mounted to effective defense re parabens or formaldehyde releasers - phenoxy will find the same ineffective support.”
the “to” was meant to be “no”.
This is typical of what was offered - article in technical press. Nothing funded to reach the public.
Krowka
JF, Loretz L, Geis PA, Davies I. 2017. Preserving the Facts on Parabens Cosmetics
& Toiletries June https://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/research/chemistry/Preserving-the-Facts-on-Parabens-An-Overview-of-These-Important-Tools-of-the-Trade-425784294.htmlPublic outreach was left to individuals- I gave talks to FDA and at Science Cafes in Ohio and Florida. Here’s Sylvia Cupferman in EU https://cosmeticobs.com/en/articles/news-34/preservatives-the-cosmetics-industrys-defence-strategy-3707
-
FDA recognized the problem in one aspect but does nothing more than publish https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/lam.12995
I’ve served as expert witness in multiple lawsuits over contamination and consulted in technical resolution of others. Always medium-sized guys driven by “priority lists” to weak unstable “natural” systems, made/packed out at other medium sized, less competent guys to a retailer. Contamination and they sue each other.
Log in to reply.