MarkBroussard
Forum Replies Created
-
You calculate the % of each component of the blend included in the full formula. For example: Sodium PCA, assume 10% in Fision Hydrate. So, 5% Fision Hydrate would contribute 0.25% to 0.5% Sodium PCA in the full formula. The compositional analysis provided by the ingredient manufacturer would be the source of this information.
-
I suspect the great majority of consumers don’t know about the 1% rule and would not know how to determine where the 1% line is. It seems to be an arbitrary, unnecessary rule. Listing all ingredients in descending order would be much more beneficial to consumers.
-
Or the other way around. Assume Ceramides were included at 0.2%. And that Ceramides had been listed in proper descending order of inclusion.
But, in re-labeling the product, Ceramides were moved to the top of the 1% line. Consumers could come to the conclusion that the quantity of Ceramides had been increased in the new, revised LOI, if they compared the two, when nothing had changed at all except reordering the listing below the 1% line.
-
Deceive consumers. Let’s say Hyaluronic Acid is added at 0.001% in a formula, but HA is placed as the lead-off ingredient of the 1% line. The company’s advertising talks about HA being able to hold 1,000X its weight in water. Consumers think they’re purchasing a product with a sufficient quantity of HA to provide good moisturization.
What other reason could possibly be the logic behind the 1% labeling rule? Manufacturers certainly know the exact percentage of each ingredient in a formula.
-
No, duping is inaccurate, both above and below the 1% line. All you really know is the relative order of ingredients.
-
Even if you dupe, you’re not going to get the percentages of the ingredients correct. You might come close, but it will not be exact.
You can include an ingredient at 0.01% and list it at the top of the 1% line. But, if you did include all of the ingredients in descending order, on a dupe, you will still not get it exactly right.
-
Yes, that is why they add the gelling agent to the water phase … to slow the migration of water from the matrix.
I find Sunflower Oleosomes interesting to work with.
-
I think a lawsuit for false advertising/misrepresentation would probably prevail here. By using the term “Organic Beauty” most consumers would be lead to believe they are buying an organic product.
-
Acticire MB allows you to incorporate some water into an anhydrous formula. All that’s going on here is brute-force jamming the ingredients together. I doubt that it would be long-term stable compared to an emulsion.
-
Yes, the expiration dates are made up. Similar to expiration dates on food products … those dates represent “peak freshness” and mean that after that date the food product will begin the process of spoiling.
The explanation that you could put an ingredient in a product one day before its expiration date, yet then claim the product has a 2 year stability is pretty much an admission that the expiration dates are relatively meaningless.
-
The term they are using is Innersence Organic Beauty. They are not claiming that the product is Organic Certified or Made With Organic Ingredients, both of which are legal certifications and bear a seal. The word Organic is not necessarily being used in the sense of some of the ingredients being certified organic.
Rather, I think what they are referring to with the tag line Organic Beauty is beauty that is of living matter. The word “Organic” does have a definition that has nothing to do with cosmetic ingredients and they are probably using it in this context. They are trying to associate the company’s brand name Innersence with the concept of Organic Beauty, not organic certified products. It is a distinction that will be lost on many consumers.
Nothing illegal here. But, yes, it is misleading. But, this is nothing more than lying liars lying to dupes and rubes who want to be lied to … I think that’s how it works.
-
Perry said:@MarkBroussard - I don’t think anyone has tried the “supernatural doesn’t exist so everything is natural” defense.
There’s no defense for SC Johnson in this case.
The moral of the story is: Don’t use the word Natural. Instead use Naturally-Derived. If your product contains synthetics, don’t try to pass it off as Natural.
The company that SC Johnson acquired had been in business for 4 years prior to its acquisition by SC Johnson. Within months of the acquisition one consumer filed a “complaint” and the lawyers are trying to expand this into a class action lawsuit. This is much more about money for the lawyers than it is about Natural.
-
They are simply not going to be able to substantiate a natural claim with a product containing Phenoxyethanol and PEG-100 Stearate. That’s cut and dried.
-
What is not normal is that a junior formulator only 3 months into the job does not have the good common sense to prepare a sample at the request of a supervisor from HO. The office manager is certainly going to remember this when it comes time to consider you for promotion or pay raise. SMH
-
PhilGeis said:Big cosmetics companies are run by managers from advertising/marketing. They want to convert to the growing natural market.
Until this year (see my comment above) preservatives were a sidelight of big chemical companies - specialty chemical divisions. These are low volume, high-priced commodities chemicals - all out of patent
Of course they do. Strong consumer demand & high growth rates that they are not seeing in traditional markets.
-
The marketing language used and claims made are the responsibility of the company marketing and selling the products. No party downchain would be involved unless they represented to the founders that the product could be marketed as natural in which case the founders would have a claim against that party.
The company was acquired by SC Johnson and it then became SC Johnson’s responsibility regarding ensuring that the marketing language was accurate.
-
@Perry
Fair point, and yes you are correct.
But, look at the FDA response. Nowhere does it mention that Phenoxyethanol is not recommended to be included in products for children under 3 years of age, particularly in a nipple cream the presents an opportunity for oral ingrestion by infants. That product should never have been on the market.
It also does not say anything about Phenoxyethanol and Chlorspenesin being safe ingredients for use in numerous other personal care products.
The messaging is correct as it relates to nipple creams, but is totally botched in that it makes no mention of the safety of Phenoxyethanol and Chlorspenesin in products for consumers aged 3 and up.
-
It’s only asymmetric warfare if one side does not even put up a fight. “Companies managements - LOreal, P&G, Estee, etc. were never interested to the point of mounting a public defense.”
This is a typical entrenched industry response to an emerging threat: (1) dimiss the threat as not credible, nothing to worry about; (2) when the threat gains some traction, issue tepid press releases that no one reads; (3) as the threat gains momentum, demonize the threat; (4) Bitch and moan the loss
Over the past year, the ramp-up against Phenoxyethanol has been increasing.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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
-
The higher the MW of the HA the longer it generally will take to fully hydrate. You just have to keep it stirring until it is fully hydrated and that can take a couple of hours or so.
-
@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.