Finally, I Have Worked Out What The Story of Cosmetics is Really About

Since I was a teenager in the Seventies, I’ve always regarded myself as a pretty green. Green in the environmental sense that is.  I remember the campaign to get lead out of petrol with affection.  I studied Environmental Science at university and can remember talking long into the night about issues affecting the planet.  I think I even joined the Ecology Party, the forerunner of the Green Party when I was about 18 – though I don’t remember doing anything other than pay the subscription.

Jobs were short when I graduated and I got a job formulating cosmetics rather than doing the environmental work I had originally had in mind.  I was surprised to find myself in an industry where people seemed pretty positive about issues close to my heart.  Biodegradable surfactants were a new thing but there was never any question of using anything else.  I have spoken on other blogs about the fact that formaldehyde was still in use then, but was being removed purely at the initiative of the chemists in the labs.

Given this, I have always listened with care and attention to the environmental lobby.  For a long time I didn’t have any problem with being an environmentalist as well as being a scientist at the same time as developing cosmetics.   They all seemed to be going in the same direction.

So when I first heard about an American pressure group called the Environmental Working Group I was predisposed to support them.  I came across the Skin Deep database and was initially quite impressed with the idea.  In fact I am still impressed with the idea.  Why not collect all the information about cosmetic raw materials onto a database and make it available to the public.  I hope somebody does it some day.  Even when I started looking things up on the Skin Deep database and found it to be almost comically inaccurate I still gave the people behind it the benefit of the doubt. I imagined enthusiastic young volunteers – probably in California – punching data in during all night long sessions powered by idealism and pizza.  I assumed that they would be getting complaints and would be putting it right shortly.   You always have to give people a bit of time to get things straight.

Then I saw the Story of Cosmetics video.   This really changed things.   Whatever else you think of it, this is a professional piece of work.  Time, effort and money has gone into it.  And you can’t miss that it is propaganda not advocacy.  It sets out to scare.

Even now, I was prepared to justify it to some extent in my mind – as you will see if you read my post from only a few days ago.  They had gone off the scale for accuracy, but maybe they felt that they had to use modern techniques to get their message across.  I started to think of the EWG as sort of green Lenninists.  They had betrayed the ideals of the revolution,  but they were still radicals.  They had chosen the wrong way to go about fighting the system, but they were still against the system.  Even when I heard about the very large salaries that the directors of the EWG were drawing from their organisation I still did not realise what was really going on.

But now I understand.  Did I say I was green?  Well I sure was.  Green in the sense of being inexperienced and unknowing in the ways of the world.

Today I saw a hand out from a recent trade fair in the US.  In it, a company called American Private Label, was pitching its services to American retailers.  Consumers, it says, want safe cosmetics.  What are safe cosmetics?  Well you have to avoid parabens, phthalates, synthetic fragrances etc.  But it wasn’t a list of all the things that have got bad head lines.  It was specifically the things that the EWG have been campaigning about.  Helpfully the names as they appear on the ingredient list that you needed to avoid were spelled out.

Almost every product on the market would fall foul of this list, including ones from companies that specialise in very green products.

Two things made it clear to me beyond any doubt that there was a link between this company and the EWG.  First, one of the slides called for companies to sign the Safe Cosmetics Compact.  This is being organised by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, definitely a group completely within the EWG’s orbit.  Secondly, they described their services as Green Chemistry.  I was instantly reminded of the reference in the Story of Cosmetics to green chemists who were working to solve the problems caused by the unsafe ingredients in modern cosmetics.  I had no more thought that these green chemists actually existed than that the supposed carcinogens in shampoo actually existed.

I had taken it as an a bit of idealistic wishful thinking. In fact it was a sales plug.

Now things that had puzzled me fell into place.   The EWG’s ambition is no mean one.  They intend to create a new category of cosmetic product and to supply that category via American Private Label and probably other companies as well.  American Private Label already offer branding, packaging, QC and manufacturing.  But no doubt there are other sales to be made.

Now I could see it all.  I had imagined the EWG, which is extremely well funded, had got its money from donations.  Clearly not – this is big business in every sense of the word.  Why were they ignoring pleas from small natural companies who you would think would be their natural allies?  Because they are in fact their competition.   Why is the science on their website and in their reports so poor?  Because it isn’t science at all.  The aim is to make a case against their competition not inform the public about risk.

And let me emphasise this proposition is aimed at retailers.  It is not a grassroots consumer protest.  The video has been created as part of a programme to sell stuff.  The Safe Cosmetic Act is a publicity stunt.  If it alarms small producers, that is irrelevant.  If it infuriates scientists, that doesn’t matter.  The object is to deliver a tranche of consumers to the shops who will seek out ‘safe’ cosmetics.  And just as importantly they will be in a position to satisfy that demand with suitable products.  In his talk, David Pollack the CEO of American Private Label said that retailers should create ‘safe cosmetic’ areas in their stores.  These would be much like the organic sections they currently have.

And I think the retailers will listen.  As the front page of American Private Label’s website says, the margins on this new category will be good.  I bet they will.  Will they be safer?  That question will probably not have even crossed their minds.  But just to be absolutely clear I believe that there will be no difference in safety between ‘safe’ products and established ones.

So I think I should end this post with an apology.  I write this blog with the idea that as an industry insider I have some knowledge and insight that might be useful to people who use the products of my industry.   I genuinely believed that I sort of knew what was going on.  But I have just realised that I completely missed the biggest marketing coup this business has ever seen.  I really couldn’t have got things more wrong.  Far from being a well meaning but flawed attempt to make the world better, the Story of Cosmetics is a sales pitch.  Nothing more.

___________________________

From the UK, Colin Sanders has been a formulator of cosmetic and topical pharmaceuticals for 27 years. Over that time he has formulated nearly every category of product including shampoos, cosmetic skin creams, pharmaceutical skin creams, face masks, lip balms and so on. He has been an active member of the Society of Cosmetic Scientists since 1985 and in 1999 organised the first of the Formulate shows. His degree is in environmental science and he continues to take a keen interest in the impact of human activities on the planet. He regards himself as an environmental activist and all round green. When not in the lab, he writes a blog, Colin’s Beauty Pages with the intention of entertaining and hopefully informing users of cosmetic and personal care products with some insider insights, a bit of science and his own opinions.


More about the author:  Guest posts are provided through article submissions. Read more from this author


Related posts:

  1. The True Story of Cosmetics: Exposing the Risks of the Smear Campaign
  2. Story of Cosmetics, The Critique
  3. What’s the Story? Health Claims Against Cosmetics – How Do They Look in the Light?
  • Anonymous

    love this! thank you for posting!! an amazing marketing ploy…and people love it ‘cuz it’s cute & fun. so scary!!

  • Anonymous

    The plug about “green chemists” in the “Story of Cosmetics” also made my ears perk up. Thank you for putting more pieces of the puzzle together. Now it makes sense why the “Story of Cosmetics” was released the same day the SCA 2010 was introduced to Congress, supported by Fran Drescher who just released her own skin care line. It does seem to be part of a larger subliminal marketing campaign for a “safe” cosmetics company conglomerate associated with the EWG. Sounds like nepotism to me.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RM6FYXYOF2F6DPIXTOEKXA3724 Bruce

    Colin
    I will debate with you about carcinogens in shampoo, but not about the existence of “green Chemists”. Here is a link to a website of John Warner, one of the founders of the “movement”: http://www.warnerbabcock.com/green_chemistry/12_principles.asp
    He is a brilliant PHD Chemist, and a great speaker, you should see him if you ever have a chance to. He has done some really great work.
    Just as the salaries of EWG can be discovered, so can the donors. I have seen a small list, and it was not dominated by corporations. I sometimes wonder who is supporting this site, and would love to see Lisa post a list of donors and amount donated, but I digress. Like I have said before I would also love to see someone make a database similar to skin deep, as I too have issues with it. They do list the references to where the ratings come from, and those references are scientific sources such as IFRA, NEJM, and even the CIR. So when you claim they are not science based it seems a bit misleading. I do agree with the need to rework the rating system. Hopefully, they will in the future.
    Yes the release of story of cosmetics and introduction of the safe cosmetics act of 2010 on the same day was no coincidence. This hardly proves a conspiracy, and is far from a sales pitch. There is money to be made in creating greener safer products, as people in the industry we have seen the trend for decades, but the EWG has no dog in that fight. I may be wrong, but these are my beliefs, and if you have data supporting otherwise, I welcome you to send it my way.

    Cheers
    Bruce

  • Dene Godfrey

    Colin, I am so pleased that this has been posted. There are several articles exposing the shortfall in common sense emanating from the EWG, but you have covered an entirely different angle, and done it extremely well! Putting the two together and publicising the combined issues that have been identified should be done for maximum effect!

  • http://twitter.com/BathBodySupply Allison B. Kontur

    I find this interesting:

    “David Pollock has over 25 years of experience in the skin care industry. Mr. Pollock has developed top selling products for some of the most recognized names in our industry and generated hundreds of millions of dollars in sales. His experience in formulating is augmented by his marketing and management experience as former Vice President at the Home Shopping Network, co-founder of Medi-Cell Laboratories, Founder of Clinical Results development laboratory, CEO of Hydron Technologies which generated over $100 million in sales through QVC and HSN, plus was in Senior Management with the Fuller Brush company. Today, Mr. Pollock has assembled a dedicated team of experts in formulating, manufacturing, marketing and distribution to create SMART Core Science.”

    It appears most of Mr. Pollock’s “experience” in the skincare industry is in marketing and advertising. Additionally, most of these companies listed (pertaining to skincare) are new companies with 2010 copyrights on their websites. Hydron Technologies also lists products which have either NO ingredients listed (a violation according to CFSC, I thought) or list ingredients that CFSC deems toxic such as retinyl palmitate. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if one of his companies helped formulate Fran Drescher’s line.

  • Anonymous

    This is a fascinating look at the seldom-seen link between activism and commerce.

    The EWG and other “activists” pose a lethal threat to California’s fledgling Green Chemistry Initiative. If they have their way, they’ll murder the movement in its cradle by overburdening the regulatory agency responsible for running it and by opening the floodgates for a tidal wave of litigation.

    Read more about the threat to green chemistry here: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/21/2972951/activists-demands-threaten-to.html

  • Pingback: Who Put The Lead In Your Lipstick? — My Beauty, My Skin

  • Anonymous

    Personal Care Truth was started in May 2010 by a group of small business owners who recognized the need for an independent, science based platform to counteract the legislation that was presented this past spring in Colorado (that bill was defeated in part due to the advocacy of the founders of this site). From what I understand, this site was not funded and the founders collaborated on their own dime. I know this from having followed the creation of this website through the Indie Business Network.

  • veterinary technician

    this post is very usefull thx!

  • http://twitter.com/LVCskincare Teri Dourmashkin

    Thank you Colin for such an incredibly astute post.

  • Dene Godfrey

    I have never requested, nor been offered any payment for the several articles I have contributed to this site.

  • Dene Godfrey

    Hi Bruce,

    I believe that Colin is correct when he states that EWG don’t have the science. They USE science, but from other sources, then subject it to their strange hazard-only-based assessment system. This is not science – they take the information, much of which is transmuted into incorrect “facts” by the time it reaches Skin Deep, and distort it; ie taking it out of context and using it to scare consumers.

    The basic problem with Skin Deep is that it cannot do what it claims to be able to do, and there can never be an alternative web site that would be readily understood by the non-scientific consumer, as the real assessment of the safety of any product is based on risk, not hazard. How would this be presented? In the EU, each new product is assessed by a qualified expert, and the report constitutes part of the Product Information Pack, which is available for inspection by consumers. Every product on the market in the EU is deemed safe, by risk assessment. There is no need for any better alternative to Skin Deep in the EU. May I refer you to my piece on Skin Deep on this site, which better explains the shortcomings of the database?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RM6FYXYOF2F6DPIXTOEKXA3724 Bruce

    Dene
    I’d love a link to your comments on Skin Deep, I’m sure I’d half agree on most parts of it. So basically you are saying that there is no way to bring objective (if there is actual objectivity in the world) information to consumers about cosmetics/personal care products? Are the consumers just supposed to “trust” the industry, which is dominated by a lot of slick advertising, and marketing pitches. Currently with all the recalls in the auto, and pharma industry there is bound to be skepticism. I believe even Lisa recently replied with the “i’m from Missouri” comment on a separate discussion.
    How do we create a place where consumers can look up and compare one product to the other? I applaud EWG’s intentions, but agree the execution is flawed. The CFSC constantly applauds the EU’s approach, and it is no surprise that you say “There is no need for any better alternative to Skin Deep in the EU”. I think some of us on this side of the pond don’t quite feel so well protected by our governmental bodies. The cosmetic legislation pending is proof of this fact. Until we in the industry can be much more transparent that skepticism will continue, my $0.02.

    As always
    Bruce

  • Dene Godfrey

    @ Bruce – the link is http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/05/skin-deep-scratching-below-the-surface/ – if this doesn’t work, then just enter “Skin Deep – Scratching below the surface” into the search function at the top of the home page here. In the EU, the consumers are supposed to trust that the industry is complying with the regulations, which is why I think that it will be very useful for the USA to have something broadly along similar lines (but NOT the SCA!!!!!), then at least the EWG guns should be spiked. The slick advertising and marketing pitches are a totally different matter to that of safety, IMO.

    You say that the CFSC applauds the EU approach, but Stacy Malkan said she wanted manufacturers to submit their data for assessment by independent government scientists. When I informed her that, in the EU, INDEPENDENT data was assessed by independent government scientists, and they had concluded that methylparaben and ethylparaben were safe for use in cosmetics, and I then challenged her to accept this and accept that these parabens were safe, she failed to post my comments on her blog. I created a whole different post on this site dedicated to that situation – search for “The Truth, The Whole Truth, or Nothing But The Truth” for the detail.

    As far as I can tell, the same (or a similar) level of protection is available in the USA, but it is not currently being effectively enforced. The EWG capitalise on this, and distort and exaggerate the situation as a further part of their committment to scaring consumers.

    I used to say,as did you, that I applaud the intentions of the EWG (and I once put that in writing!), but I am no longer so sure that even their intentions are as good as they would have everyone believe.

    Keep on with your “two pennorth” (in English money) – I think we agree in the main part. :-)

  • http://www.uggbootsaustralia.de ugg austalia

    Took me time to read all the comments, but I really enjoyed the article. It proved to be Very helpful to me and I am sure to all the commenters here! It’s always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained!

  • Pingback: The Buzz from Bella Luccè

Content Protected Using Blog Protector By: PcDrome.