Beauty Industry Professionals May Be Their Own Worst Enemy

Posted by katherinecorkill on August 6, 2012 · 16 Comments

Making Claims To Push The Envelope

I cannot even count anymore how many upstarts have come into the beauty industry game with little to zero knowledge on what they can and cannot say in regard to marketing claims. They are consistently pushing the envelope for trying to make claims on their cosmetics that would be tantamount to being categorized as a drug. Basically trying to gain any edge over their competitor even if it means s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g the truth.

The war is waged it seems within our industry as those who defend synthetics battle with the organic / natural crowd, until one day there will be a winner, and it may be our government with overreaching, onerous regulation founded on misnomers, beauty claims, and non scientific rhetoric. Many in the beauty industry will come out the loser, and it will be in part, for the types of marketing claims they are making, including negative campaigns on certain ingredients. This area should not be black and white, because you can combine science with nature to create great products using all types of ingredients to achieve excellence. It doesn’t have to be an either or scenario. Us against them is detrimental to our industry as a whole. We should all be on the same team and work together to continue to create safe beauty products.

Furthermore, many claims that are made by beauty insiders are way over the top or are without any sense to the claim….basically, it just isn’t a logical statement.

However, this is not isolated to newbies in the market, but is also being propagated by those in business for 10 years or more, or by well meaning beauty bloggers…… because they can. Just because the FDA or FTC has not rapped on their proverbial door, doesn’t mean what they are doing is valid, legal or proven.

Why Beauty Insiders Can Be Their Own Worst Enemy

The multitude of claims some of my fellow beauty entrepreneurs make without scientific evidence to prove their claim, hurt us as an industry and are part of the reason we have the EWG and Campaign for Safe Cosmetics breathing down our necks. They instill fear through ignorance, which then foments to hate, all based on theory or an ideology by their target market.

However, with that stated, the EWG and Campaign for Safe Cosmetics lose credibility when they use these claims made by the indiscriminate beauty professional to create their scare campaigns with little to zero evidence of said claim to support their assault on many different ingredients. Unfortunately, watchdog groups gather strength to try to create new legislation out of the unsubstantiated claims made by the beauty industry. So we have no one else to blame to an extent, but ourselves when things go awry.

An example: A beauty product, once upon a time, made a claim as to 60% of the product is absorbed for the nourishing, age defying benefit of it’s lovely ingredients. Basically instilling in the potential customer, that their exceptional product will feed and replenish aged skin, restoring it to it’s youthful appearance. However, toxic chemicals that can be absorbed into our blood stream, and there is no denying they are out there, such as chemical pesticides, and can even affect our nervous system, should not extrapolate to those used in cosmetics or be lumped into the ideology, “it is a chemical, therefore we absorb it.” All chemicals are not created equal.

However, based on this simple marketing proclamation, the CFSC and EWG played on this hook and have used it throughout their literature as to supporting that 60% of all chemicals, harmful or otherwise, are absorbed through the skin into our blood stream. This has been totally misrepresented and has been regurgitated by…. oh so many bloggers, and there is no evidence to support this, other than taking a marketing claim and spinning it to the detriment of us, and the benefit of the argument goes to the opposing team, EWG and CFSC. The Beauty Brains had a similar open discussion about how “5lbs of chemicals are absorbed by the skin every year”…..c’mon now, does this seem logical to you? Can you or I even utilize that much product in a year?This type of ideological proclamation is a primary example of what our industry has to deal with on a regular basis. Fortunately, more and more individuals are seeing through the facade of these types of claim.

Through the use of different types of penetration enhancers we can achieve great things, not only with skincare products, but with pharmaceuticals. So penetration enhancers aren’t necessarily the enemy as EWG and CFSC would paint all of them with a broad brush. However, factual studies have shown that various penetration enhancers will only go so deep and something designed to deliver medicine through the skin to the bloodstream, will not typically be utilized in a beauty product.

Penetration Enhancers – Friend or Foe is an article I wrote, providing the science in regard to how they work and the incredible, even problematical factors it requires for an ingredient to penetrate our otherwise impermeable barrier, the skin. Basically it requires a ‘perfect storm’ to create the advantage for which they are used.

Ten Most Common Claims Which Also Reflect Myth

Free From~ This statement has become the mantra for large commercial brands, with the smaller brands following suit as a way to convey that their product is somehow safer than their competitors.
- Danger of Claim: It can reinforce the idea that if something is “free from” a certain ingredient, that the missing ingredient is somehow “dangerous.” And what was once part of the formula has since been removed, when it may have never been in the product in the first place. This is marketing to the consumer that has been led to believe natural is better and everything else will kill them. Example: Parabens, sulfates, etc. get a bad rap, when there is actually scientific data that shows these are perfectly safe for personal care use in the recommended dosages within the cosmetic formula. Or if it is a leave on or rinse off product will also determine ratios. Any chemical in its full strength has the potential for causing harm, yet these are not offered to the end user, ever.
Chemical Free~ Another claim that bears no reality in truth or common sense. Nothing formulated can be without chemicals as all things are chemical….natural or synthetic, makes no difference, it is just the manner in which they are derived or created. Again, shamelessly used for SCARE tactic marketing.
- Danger of Claim: This connotes the idea, all things chemical are hazardous to our health…..think of water, essential oils, olive oil, etc…..these appear to be benign now don’t they? However, from the point of view of the overstated 60% absorption claim, these are all potential penetration enhancers. This claim also overlooks the fact of what the product is packaged in. There is no getting around the chemical processes that goes into creating the packaging, such as a jar or tube, technically.
Hypoallergenic or Noncomedogenic~ These terms are not even recognized by the FDA and there actually isn’t any proven data in clinical trials, and has yet to be tested by the US Food and Drug Administration as to the validity of such terms.
- Danger of Claim: Any ingredient could cause a problem for any individual and this connotes that it won’t cause a problem….sorry, but trial and error only, unfortunately. Up to 10% of the population can and will have a reaction to something the majority of the population won’t have. This includes a developed allergy after using an ingredient for years. Our bodies are ever changing. Those with acne may have a similar reaction. What won’t cause acne on one individual may be horribly occlusive to another.
Dermatologist / Clinically Tested~ This is a claim that can be made based on a single doctor trying it out on themselves or a patient. Based on this perception it is theorized by the end user, it must be a proven product. A clinical study performed by the manufacturer on a small number of people will not constitute nationally, what can occur if millions use the product.
- Danger of Claim: Gives the perception that it must be safe and work because a doctor or a clinical study said so, but is not necessarily the reality. Safety and efficacy data will change as high volume of users join the pool, and this is PURE marketing!
Anti-aging Formula~ This ties into penetration enhancers being utilized within a skin cream and are designed to assist beneficial ingredients in penetrating into the otherwise impermeable surface layers of the skin to restore soft, supple skin with more elasticity.
- Danger of Claim: EWG and Campaign for Safe Cosmetics have underscored this message as a penetration enhancer being the carrier of chemicals to the blood stream. When in reality, penetration enhancers for the purpose of cosmetics are only skin deep and are not geared toward penetration through the dermis layer into the blood brain barrier as would be the desired effect with a topical drug. Permanent change does not occur with any cosmetic, and only maintains the skin as long as the product is being used.
Non Toxic / Harmful Chemicals~ What does this even mean? Who and what entity is deciding what is toxic or not? This is yet to be determined and will continue to be debatable since EWG and CFSC think anything, other than naturally derived, is toxic to our bodies. The majority of scientific research does not support the validity of this marketing claim. Plus, too much of anything natural or synthetic can cause issues for some.
- Danger of Claim: This statement plays into the fears of the consumer and reinforces the CFSC’s campaign rhetoric against beauty industry leaders and their products. Such as lead being added to lipstick which is categorically FALSE and is considered a contaminant, which is found also in drinking water and the foods we eat that are grown in the ground.
100% Pure / Natural / Organic~ This connotes that only natural chemicals are safe for the body and that synthetic chemicals are the bane of our existence and will give us cancer or worse. There is no human scientific data to support this claim. And animal studies do not extrapolate to humans despite how hard watchdog groups try to convince us.
- Danger of Claim: Beauty products labeled as natural are less tested and scrutinized than are synthetic products and pharmaceuticals. In fact, most compounds as they exist in their natural state cannot be formulated into skin care products. They first must be chemically altered before they can be incorporated into cosmetics, thereby negating the claim of being pure and natural.
FDA Approved ~ This marketing claim gives the unwitting consumer the idea the product is endorsed by the FDA, and the product must have been tested by the FDA to show proof of the companies claim of safety and / or efficacy.
- Danger of Claim: This is outright FALSE and is actually in violation of FDA regulation. FDA does not approve any finished product for the end user in the cosmetic and beauty industry. Only prescription and OTC drugs and medical devices are FDA approved for their intended purpose.
Does Not Contain Fillers~ This marketing claim is designed to intimate that their product is formulated with nothing but pure and essential ingredients only, and that no fillers are used to create a less than desirable product, supposedly.
- Danger of Claim: This insinuates that somehow a filler ingredient is cheap and makes another product substandard. Unfortunately, this bears no weight in actual truth. Those that claim their ingredients are the ultimate and then claim fillers as bad, are also ingredients that are used as filler. Mica for instance is not only an essential ingredient to the formulation of the majority of mineral makeup, but it is also a FILLER ingredient. By definition a filler ingredient is used for finish of product, bulking agent, or any ingredient utilized for the desired effect for smooth application. There is no actual separation of the two. Water can be considered a filler ingredient, since it is not typically essential but makes up the bulk of many skin care products.
Non Irritating~ This gives the end user of a product the assurance that their otherwise sensitive skin, will not have any problem with the product. This expands on item 3.
- Danger of Claim: The problem with this claim is everyone’s skin is different. There are ingredients that have a long standing history of safety and efficacy, yet there will be the small percentile that will have irritation when using it. Mineral makeup for instance works well for the majority of women, Bismuth Oxychloride excluded, but for a small number, no matter how much they hope, they will always have an irritant reaction and can never wear minerals, no matter its’ popularity. We disclose this fact, by using only ingredients with known lower irritant risk factors, but still, only the end user will determine what is right for their skin or how they’ll react through testing it on themselves. It may not be a single ingredient, but when used in combination with another or its presumed ratio, is where the problem lies. So by not purchasing something because one may see a certain ingredient of concern, they may be missing out on what otherwise could be fantastic for their skin. Always TEST…TEST…TEST the product for absolute certainty.

The American Academy of Dermatology wrote an excellent article on Cosmeceuticals and addresses in a common sense language, how and why skincare is devised for providing actual benefit to the end user. They further establish the premise of many claims and what is reality versus marketing puffery.

There Is No Getting Around Marketing Claims, Though Less Common

The term “cosmeceutical” is often used in cosmetic advertising and may be misleading to the consumer. In fact it connotes that it might be similar to a pharmaceutical product, so they conclude that cosmeceuticals are required to undergo the same testing for efficacy and safety as required for medication or OTC drugs. The perception by the customer is this has more intrinsic value so this is why they cost more, when in reality, may actually be less effective and/or have substandard ingredients.

However, according to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act “does not recognize any such category as “cosmeceuticals.” A product can be a drug, a cosmetic, or a combination of both, but the term “cosmeceutical” has no meaning under the law.

Additionally, the FDA states that: “Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act defines drugs as those products that cure, treat, mitigate or prevent disease or that affect the structure or function of the human body.While drugs are subject to an intensive review and approval process by FDA, cosmetics are not approved by FDA prior to sale. If a product has drug properties, it must be approved as a drug.”

To avoid inquiry and punitive action by the United States Federal Trade Commission, cosmeceuticals which do not intend to be regulated as drugs by the FDA, are carefully labeled to avoid making statements which would indicate that the product has drug properties. Any such claims made regarding the product must be substantiated by scientific evidence as being truthful.

Besides, it is to the financial gain of the manufacturer that their products are not regulated by the FDA as drugs, because the FDA review process for drugs can be very costly and may not yield a legally-marketable product if the FDA denies approval. However, to further expand on item 8, the reputation of the product may be falsely enhanced if the consumer incorrectly believes that a “cosmeceutical” is held to the same FDA standards as a drug.“Pharmaceutical Grade” buzz words also used to describe many cosmetics, including some mineral makeup companies, is no different. This is pure marketing hype, insinuating that the product will perform better than others on the market and the connotation is, it will do something for the skin, such as heal or cure something. Also in violation of FDA since if this claim were true, without the proper studies and / or drug monograph including all the warnings provided on the label, this product would be considered mis-branded. Another reason to pay close attention to labels. I also wrote an article as it relates to FDA approved Sunscreens and their respective SPF. All equates to being an OTC drug which includes the FDA required drug monograph.

Final Word

So don’t get caught up in the mumbo jumbo of marketing finesse with claims that “sound to good to be true” because they usually are. I do feel however, that it is important to let the customer know what a product “does not contain” such as gluten, and in this context we offer it as a quick reference to check for any allergic or sensitivity issues. But of course always read the full ingredient list to make sure nothing else might cause problems for your skin.

And to further stipulate, when represented as a reference for making sure nothing is in the product to pose a possible problem, it will not create the same concern that “FREE FROM” can, and doesn’t connote that the ingredients listed are somehow “unsafe”, but rather, they are an ingredient we have chosen not to add to our products based on two parts, personal preference and consumer demand.

And if we can all get on the same page as an industry, we won’t all be standing around scratching our heads in confusion and surprise, uttering the word……………………………….

Click here for reuse options!

Print Friendly

Be Sociable, Share!

More about the author: Katherine Corkill is the founder and creative director of Sterling Minerals Cosmetics. She became inspired to create products that would assist men and women in restoring the radiant healthy skin of their youth. Read more from this author

Filed under Information · Tagged with beauty industry tales, cosmeceuticals, katherine corkill, makeup ingredient facts, makeup ingredients, making a cosmetic claim, Personal Care Truth, product labeling, safe cosmetics, sunscreen

MsClogs

Interesting article. There are however some studies that suggest links between certain ingredients used in common cosmetics and certain health effects, so whilst the author makes the valid point that there aren’t any definitive studies that demonstrate that certain chemicals “will give us cancer or worse” it is important to note that no scientific study is generally 100% conclusive and that certain links do exist.

I also think the point in the article about animal testing is underplayed a bit, as some consumers simply do not want to buy products that have been tested on animals from an ethical perspective. Natural products may then be “less tested” but many consumers are happier with this than knowing that their favourite skin cream was tested on animals.
- Dene62
  
  The use of claimed links is often highly misleading. I have seen cases of studes categorically stating that there is no proven link, only for that very same study to be cited in an “x has been linked to y” type of claim. A claimed link is pointless unless there is actual proof of cause and effect. I could argue a link between water and cancer, because water is present in all cancer cells. Now I’ve made that statement here, it can now be claimed that water has been linked to cancer!
  
  The whole issue of animal testing is highly emotive, and there is so much confusion in the market about the meaning/relevance of some of the associated claims. I find it ironic that it is often the same consumers bemoaning the (mythical) “complete lack of safety testing on 90% of cosmetic ingredients” who also are entirely happy to use “natural” cosmetics with virtually no safety data! This is possibly linked to the naive assumption that natural is safe and synthetic is dangerous – there is no greater myth about cosmetics.
Dene62

Katie, a great article, as always, and I agree with most of the points raised (although I am not sure about the origin of the “60% is absorbed by skin” claim – there was a study carried out in Italy some years ago that found 4 substances – none of which are used in cosmetics – were absorbed up to 60%, and this may have played a part – possibly both scenarios are true). I am delighted to be able to inform readers that the forthcoming EU Cosmetics Regulation will prohibit the vast majority of “free from” claims, so these insidious, misleading claims will mostly disappear within the EU. Perhaps the USA will follow? I am not certain that “Gluten free” is a justifiable claim because, unless I am mistaken, people who react to gluten in foods do not react to topical application. Perhaps someone else can confirm this, though?
- http://www.sterlingminerals.com/ Katherine
  
  Yes Dene, I am aware of the Italy study, but maybe I have misstated the other, however if memory serves me right, a while back this was stated by the “we know who” on a twitter, along with a chronic retweet stream during the fight of of the new legislation during the Colorado hearings. So to find this in print anywhere, was daunting. But I also have no problem if anyone cares to refute this because it is a benign comment and the real issue falls under those that categorically market to the baby boomers about what their products will do for anti aging respectively. This is overall the problem and what EWG and CFSC are focused on. But thanks for clarifying and focusing on that one minute detail….;~) .
  - Dene62
    
    Yes, I was nit-picking! lol But I wanted to make the point about the new EU regulation, which was much more important.
- http://www.sterlingminerals.com/ Katherine
  
  Oh I forgot Dene, to answer your question about “gluten free” you are absolutely correct, it is not something that is absorbed through the skin and the Mayo Clinic supports this, however, it is a real problem for women that use lip colors that contain it and then lick their lips. The majority of gluten comes from wheat germ oil used in lip colors and I have had many customer ask what is my source for vitamin E which is typically from the aforementioned. So I clarify on our labels and at the site that it is sourced through Rice Bran Oil. We also must make sure we don’t deal with cross contamination such as having the rice bran oil be processed at a wheat germ oil plant. Hope that clarified it for you. Cheers.
  - Dene62
    
    Yes, thanks, Katie – I can see that the claim makes sense under those circumstances!
http://profiles.google.com/nancyaliedel Nancy Liedel

As the owner, creator, formulator, head cook and bottle washer of a small cosmetics company, I’ve been struggling for WEEKS about how to make a video saying exactly what you just said. However, as an owner, formulator, etc, I have not been able to say this properly. Maybe it’s the hysterical laughter I get into when I think of someone putting, “Filler Free,” Chromium Oxide Green on their face. Oh, wait that causes cancer, but only if you use it in California.

There is a marriage between science and natural that has yet to be found and some of the worst, insulting crap is on the haven of really good small formulators, and the horrific, ETSY ”My soap has no parabens!” Really? Oh, so you’re implying soapers use parabens? Cause I’ve not seen a soap formula once, that would contain parabens.

Or the other day when a young woman wrote she used Vodka in her homemade room freshener Have fun when the ATF comes battering down your door. Then the guy that formulates all vegan. How nice, with silk and honey.Um, if you don’t know that silk and honey are not vegan, quite formulating and selling to the poor unsuspecting.

I refuse to make claims that I am not free to make, are illegal, or just plain insulting. It’s going to cost me sales. Which makes me feel ill. That years of study and hard work are going to make me the devil for not picking up that nice green leaf, and putting it on your face. Just cause it’s poison ivy. I always read people with a disgusted tone, as much as can be read, stating, “Yes, everything is made of chemicals, that’s not what I meant and *you* know it.” No, no I do not. If you do not know how to read the periodic table and what a group and period mean, know what pH means, or know that everything is made of chemicals and some plants have far more chemicals than you find in a typical perfume, you make yourself sound stupid. Sadly, not everyone knows the difference between these things and will run to the store for the latest and greatest all natural. A product I personally used in a formula and could not make come out without mold, fungus, yeast or germs. However, I can make it come out clean and safe using something the consumer has been goaded into fear of.

It’s not the small guys, either. Marketing departments push chemists to say things to sell their products and when you look at the ingredient list for the precious all natural, “THANK GOD SUPER NATURAL CHEMICAL X,” there is less than one percent of it.

It’s not science against the consumer. It’s a lack of common sense on the part of formulators, consumers, the EWG, and marketing. It’s a simple desire to paint anyone who has studied science as an evil beast who wants everyone dead. Now, why on earth would anyone want that? We have beauty to create and that is not at the cost of the consumers safety in anyone’s mind. This is not a religion and testing is needed, but no one is really wanting to kill anyone, they just want the public to think the competition is.
- Dene62
  
  Amen to all that, Nancy!
- http://www.sterlingminerals.com/ Katherine
  
  Thanks Nancy for the very feedback as to what I was referring to. It is satisfying to know that you too are careful about your claims. Parabens are still a huge issue, and I could have included it in her as a “stand alone” However I felt it was more important to lump it in with the “free from” aspect since this too is a marketing ploy overall.
Rodolfo_Baraldini

MsClogs : I suspect a nonsense or inconsistency in some fearmongering campain about the health risk related to some cosmetic ingredient.
It is true, there are many substances where we could find a possible or potential link with human health risk, but the many of these suspects ( expecially about the carcinogenic risk ) are consequences of animal testing.
Usually, the same promoters of these information campains declare the animal testing useless and not relevant in order to assess the safety or risk for humans.
I don’t understand.

Katherine : I agree completely with your article and I add my thesys…
this ingredient obsession related with the cosmetic safety is the undesired son of decades of cosmetic marketing, with the cosmetic product identified with the “emotional ingredient”.
The absence of substantiation of decades of communication about “miracle ingredient” , real TOTEM, is now reflected in pseudoscientific hoaxes about the morbid danger of some cosmetic ingredient, real TABOO.

About the “gluten free” claim I think it is very controversial. Anyway, for me, this is a claim related to the health. Could’nt be used without the regulation of FDA or Health governative regulation. Only a personal opinion. I have not any notice of cases of celiac reaction, neither after topical application nor a result of accidental ingestion of cosmetics with gluten (lipsticks, toothpastes, mouthwashes ..).
In Europe the “Gluten Free” claim is regulated only about food, with a limit of 20 ppm, relative to the quantity of potential ingestion of a food.May we reach this quantity of gluten in any lipstick applied on the lips at for example: 4mg/cm2 .
Have you different information ?
- http://www.sterlingminerals.com/ Katherine
  
  Thanks Rodolfo, The only information I provided was in my response to Dene below. I and the Mayo Clinic fully agree with this opinion, however, for celiacs it can be quite the disruption for them if they encounter even a hint of gluten, or so they say. As to linking this to any actual study, I have not done this, but to only give example of the question posed to the Mayo clinic.
  
  http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/celiac-disease/AN01623
  
  Belief is powerful as you stated and for a celiac they truly believe that any miniscule amount that may be ingested, even to the level of licking off their lip color, will cause them a severe reaction…..is it psychosomatic? Don’t know as I don’t have a gluten intolerance.
  
  The article is not necessarily a scientific piece, but written based on the ideology I have seen over the past few years as we see new legislation trying to be ratified, which would make it nearly impossible for small companies to function, allowing only larger conglomerates to overcome. Plus the FDA does little or has no power really to enforce many of the claims made by companies….sad but true.
  
  Also the inferences that I created are based on conversations I have had, not only with my customers, but with other scientists, chemists and formulators. Much of the adieu it seems boils down to semantics. And the hyperbole that this all generates has been an us against them mentality with naturalists against those that use something less than natural or organic. It is based on my personal experience and seeing blog after blog and tweet after tweet spreading disinformation or under the guise of “smoke and mirrors” how a certain ingredient is somehow the cure of what ails our aging skin…..it is a lot of hype, pure and simple and what I listed are just a few of the most recurring examples I have seen and experienced personally.
  - http://www.facebook.com/SueSawhillApito Sue Sawhill Apito
    
    “…as we see new legislation trying to be ratified by watchdog groups and their supporters, which would make it nearly impossible for small companies to function, allowing only larger conglomerates to overcome.”
    
    Isn’t that the truth – and it makes no sense because these groups demonize the corporate brands - yet the regulations they push for would only benefit the giants and will kill off the small Indie brands!
    
    “Plus the FDA does little or has no power really to enforce many of the claims made by companies….sad but true.”
    
    The FDA has the power to enforce their regulations AGAINST cosmetic brands making drug claims. The problem is…they don’t enforce the laws to a very great degree. One company I reported for use of illegal colorants is still using those same illegal colorants – but they were found to contain bacteria (my complaint was multi-faceted not just re the colorants) and this resulted in a product recall (100% Pure brand). But when I reported Ava Anderson Non-Toxic for selling illegal hand sanitizer with the same claims, many of the same ingredients, as the four brands featured in the FDA media campaign warning consumers against these illegal brands of the OTC drug product “hand sanitizer” – NOTHING was done. They are still selling this potentially hazardous and illegal product.
    
    The FTC has the ability to enforce illegal marketing claims…they just don’t enforce the laws either.
    
    More laws are not the answer – enforcement is.
    - http://www.sterlingminerals.com/ Katherine
      
      I can see that yet again, my fingers type slower than my brain goes.
      
      You’re correct, that actually should have read “manpower” and yes the laws simply need to be enforced, since creating new ones will not provide additional safety but only place further demands on an already understaffed, underfunded agency.
      
      I have seen the FTC step up to the plate however, on more than one occasion. They seem to be a bit more interested in enforcing medical claims, as they have done with weight loss and cellulite creams. There does seem to be the need for more enforcement, but not understanding the inner workings of the FTC, not sure what or why is the issue for not getting this done on more of these products.
http://www.facebook.com/SueSawhillApito Sue Sawhill Apito

I don’t see the situation with “claims” the same way as your article at all.
You’ve stated “the war is waged within our industry as those who defend synthetics battle wiht the organic/natural crowd”.

First, I object to grouping organic and natural together because they are two different criteria – natural has no legal definition (but certainly is not meaningless) while the term “organic” is regulated by the USDA, regulation supported by the FDA.

I see JUST as many synthetic brands making false claims as I do organic brands and natural brands. They are equal opportunity offenders.

Each category of cosmetic product is equally guilty of both illegal claims (breaking FDA regulations for drug claims) and simply misrepresenting the efficacy of their products to consumers.

False claims not backed by science, designed to sell more products to unsuspecting and willfully ignorant consumers.

Or true claims which happen to be illegal because if something actually works due to “active” ingredients which have not been regulated by the FDA – then the claims may be factual but illegal.

Every type of cosmetic: synthetic, organic, natural or a combination of all – are guilty of making claims against their competition as well – like politics – claiming the “other guy” is bad, they are good.

My “pet peeve” of the past couple years, the CFSC “Champion” who claims to formulate “the ONLY Non-Toxic cosmetic company” – really – how HAVE we survived before her parents threw a few million dollars toward creating their “Teen” in a Tiara-type cosmetic brand!

As for the EWG/Campaign for Safe Cosmetics/Breast Cancer Action folks – I’m not sure why you have positioned them in your article as being anti-synthetic or pro-natural. A quick review of the ingredients in many of their “Champions” brands shows these products are mostly synthetic. They may be proportionally marketed as natural more than the commercial brands – but the reality is – they are no more natural than the commercial brands they rally against.

And that leads to what I feel is an issue worth taking legal action against – I have suggested a Class Action Lawsuit in the past, but did not get enough interest to pursue it.
The CFSC “Market Shift” Report highlights the 322 cosmetics companies, called “Champions”, that met the goals of the Compact.

This is a lie. This lie breaks FTC regulations for making false claims in marketing.
The Report states: Appendix D: Compact for Safe Cosmetics Compliance Requirements “Comply with the EU Cosmetics Directive.”

The EU Cosmetics Directive requires pre-market approval of cosmetics – not just “not” using certain ingredients. It requires ingredients be listed in INCI language. And it requires 26 allergins be listed on the ingredient label.

I have not checked all 322 companies but I am 100% certain – few if any follow ALL the EU Cosmetics Directive requirements. Many list ingredients in common language and not INCI language. And few list the mandatory 26 allergins in spite of containing ingredients known to contain them.

I wrote to Stacy Malkin when she was part of the Campaign, and informed the folks at Skin Deep – that one of the companies they paraded around as a spokesmodel for their Champions – was selling perfume that broke ALL the regulations AND was mislabeling some synthetic fragrances “as” pure, natural essential oils…when no such essential oils even exist. I did not receive even the courtesy of a reply.

What I don’t understand is why the corporate cosmetic companies who are the real target of the EWG/CFSC (I stopped believing they actually cared about the environment or people’s health years ago…) don’t take this organization on and EXPOSE their Champions who are violating the EU Cosmetics Directives.

I buy USDA Certified Organic cosmetics where I can, natural when I can and when the “claims” don’t wave any red flags for me, and corporate brands when the Certified Organic or natural brands are not what I consider safe alternatives (products containing water but not addressing the issue of preservation and germs to my satisfaction). Packaging and sustainability of ingredients also matters to me.

But being lied to matters to me the most of all…and knowing others are being lied to and don’t have the slightest clue… I just wish I knew what I could do.

I’ve reporte companies which lie about their status as “organic” to the USDA and companies breaking regulations to the FDA. I’ve blogged and posted and the result is more than a few cease and desist letters and not a whole lot more (other than one voluntary recall after the FDA investigation found eye shadow contaminate with bacteria – yeah!)

So if you don’t like the false claims and lies…what have you done? How many companies have you reported to the FDA for violation the rule and regulations for making drug claims for example? Me…four. I’m done. If someone wants to start a Class Action lawsuit – count me in, but I am done risking my families financial future trying to make a difference.
Pingback: Truth Or Myth? Cosmetic Claims That ‘Push The Envelope!’ | Paul Penders - Natural Herbal Skincare Products

Personal Care Truth or Scare

Beauty Industry Professionals May Be Their Own Worst Enemy

eNews & Updates

Follow Personal Care Truth

Support Personal Care Truth

Support the Truth

Ask for Evidence

Recent Comments

Archives