Tag: safe cosmetics

Terms You Should Know In The Beauty Industry.

 

  • 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.

 

 

 

Real Hair Truth L’Oreal to Shelve ‘Salon Only’ Tag for Products!

WASHINGTON (CN) – L’Oreal can settle false advertising claims over supposedly salon-only products that are sold in stores by changing its labels, a federal judge ruled.
Alexis Richardson had led a class against the cosmetics company on behalf of consumers who purchased L’Oreal’s Matrix Biolage, Redken, Kerastase and Pureology products after August 30, 2008.
The April 2013 complaint alleged that L’Oreal deceptively labeled the products as “available only in salons” while nevertheless stocking them in Target, Kmart and other non-salon retail establishments.
“Plaintiffs allege that the salon-only label implies a superior quality product and builds a cachet that allows L’Oréal to demand a premium price,” according to the settlement-approval ruling filed Thursday.
The plaintiffs had filed the suit in Washington, D.C., after resolving related claims from an earlier action in the Northern District of California.
“In the course of those negotiations, L’Oréal provided plaintiffs with extensive documents and information relating to its anti-diversion and labeling practices,” U.S. District Judge John Bates wrote.
“But plaintiffs allege that, despite L’Orèal’s efforts, the products are available in non-salon establishments, and argue that L’Orèal’s labeling and advertising for these products is hence deceptive and misleading.”
As part of the settlement, class representatives can petition for no more than $1,000 each, and L’Oréal will pay up to $950,000 in attorney fees, costs and expenses. The settlement otherwise provides only injunctive relief.
In his approval order, Bates explained the class’s reasons for not trying to certify a damages class.
“First, assessing the value of the salon-only claims to consumers would be difficult, and L’Oréal has never attempted to do so,” the ruling states. “Second, assessing damages on a class-wide basis would be even more difficult – the information provided during the negotiation process revealed substantial price variations among retailers and in different regions, and indicated that non-salon retailers often sell the products at a lower price than do salon retailers, making damages to those purchasing the product in non-salon establishments difficult to analyze.”
Bates said he would defer to counsel’s assessment.
“And class members will retain their right to seek damages in individual actions, dispelling many concerns about foregone payments,” he added. “In these circumstances, an equitable-relief-only settlement may be approved.”
If the settlement wins final approval, L’Oreal will remove the “salon only” label from all of its U.S. advertising and labeling on products distributed in the states.
It will also discontinue manufacturing the labels for its U.S. products, and it will remove the “salon-only” claims from its websites and from any promotion materials.
Both parties have agreed to publish legal notices in USA Today for one week, referring class members to a website that contains a copy of the proposed agreement. Any objections to the settlement must be filed before the Fairness Hearing on October 11, 2013, when the final settlement will be approved.  It seems L’Oreal will get off easy for all the damages they have done to the so-called professional beauty industry.  Their anti- diversion rhetoric is a bunch of bullshit. And always has been.  Too late, Too little the damage has already been done!

“The Beautiful Lies” short trailer for the film

In August of this year 2013 the editing for the next film from the Real Hair Truth Series will begin. The title of the next film will be “The Beautiful Lies”. The film will encompass Entrepreneurs, Manufacturer Deception, Marketing, Ingredients, Product Labeling, Deceptive Labeling, Formulating your own Brand, Health and Welfare, Do You Know What You Are Using In The Salon?, And what’s in your Salon Products?. This so far has been a 4 year endeavor or filming, interviewing, traveling to create this film. I will have some very interesting interviews from OSHA, FDA for the topics of Health and Welfare. Being an entrepreneur is not an easy task and you will see a lot of interviews in the film regarding to entrepreneurship. The Up’s and Down’s of starting your own business from scratch, product lines, books, videos etc. Motivation, Perseverance, Ambition the film “The Beautiful Lies” covers it all. The film will be completed by December 2013. This film was solely funded by Jotovi Designs Inc., and is not seeking any form of Sponsorship. And as of February 11, 2011 “The Beautiful Lies” is copyright on this website including, without limitation, text, Images, software, logos, icons, and sounds recordings. Films and html code is owned or licensed by Jotovi Designs Inc.  All editorials, interviews, graphics on this site are protected by U.S. copyright and International Law. And is solely the full property of Jotovi Designs Inc. Jotovi Designs Inc. is a registered trademark with the U.S. Library of Congress. All rights are reserved.  Any destruction, copying, sales, advertising,  of this film by any party, and without the prior consent of Jotovi Designs Inc. will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the U.S Copyright and Trademark Law in the United States. Jotovi Designs Inc. does not endorse or conduct business with any or all the party’s interviewed in this film. This film was financed by Jotovi Designs Inc. and by no other parties. All party’s involved in this (Featured film) including, Editors, Sound Technicians, Paid Interviewed Personnel, Illustrators, Manufacturers, Videographers, Producers have been paid fully by Jotovi Designs Inc. and have no future claims or holdings to this (featured film) The Beautiful Lies.

Trailer for the film Beautiful LieS

Press Release for The Film “Beautiful Lie’s”
Beautiful Lie’s is being produced by Jotovi Designs, Inc., and will be released in December 2013. Beautiful Lie’s will encompass entrepreneurs, manufacture deception, ingredients, product labeling, deceptive labeling ,formulations, health and welfare, as well as uncovering what professionals are using in the salon and what is in salon/consumer products. In Beautiful Lie’s, we will hear from OSHA and FDA on the topics of health and welfare in beauty/cosmetic products.
“Beautiful Lies” will be completed by December 2013.
This film was solely funded by Jotovi Designs Inc., and is not seeking any form of sponsorship.
And as of February 11, 2012 “Beautiful Lie’s Copy Written in this Website (including, without limitation, Text, Images, Software, Logos, Icons, Sounds Recordings. Films and HTML code) is owned or licensed by Jotovi Designs Inc. All editorial content and graphics on this site are protected by U.S. copyright and owned by Jotovi Designs Inc.

GIB LLC, aka Brazilian Blowout Slapped on the hands by the Feds!

 

Here is the settlement!!!!!  Of course in my beauty industry you wont see this in a trade magazine, or posted by the any so-called industry website! Because it’s all about money. Advertising dollars are what sustain beauty industry publications, and independently owned websites. Behindthechair.com is owned by Loreal, and Hairbrained.me is an independently owned website. Advertising dollars are what sustain these entity’s. Modern Salon is owned by Vance Publishing Corp, and it goes on and on. Why would they write anything negative or truthful about the industry when they can potentially get the money from a manufacturer to have them buy future advertisement in their magazines or websites. It’s not about protecting you as a professional or informing you in a neutral way. It’s all about the coporate dollar, Not your health! The professional beauty industry preys on the non-educated, just like the cosmetic industry preys on the non-educated consumer.

The settlement requires GIB, LLC, which does business under the name Brazilian Blowout, to cease deceptive advertising that describes two of its popular products as formaldehyde-free and safe. The company must also make significant changes to its website and pay $600,000 in fees, penalties and costs.

“California laws protect consumers and workers and give them fair notice about the health risks associated with the products they use,” said Attorney General Harris. “This settlement requires the company to disclose any hazard so that Californians can make more informed decisions.”

Today’s settlement is the first government enforceable action in the United States to address the exposures to formaldehyde gas associated with Brazilian Blowout products. It is also the first law enforcement action under California’s Safe Cosmetics Act, a right-to-know law enacted in 2005.

In November 2010, the Attorney General’s office filed suit against GIB, LLC for violating five state laws, including deceptive advertising and failure to provide consumers with warnings about the presence of a carcinogen in its products.

The settlement covers two products used in a popular salon hair straightening process, the “Brazilian Blowout Acai Smoothing Solution” and the “Brazilian Blowout Professional Smoothing Solution”.

The complaint alleged the two products contained formaldehyde but were labeled “formaldehyde free.”
Proposition 65 requires businesses to notify Californians about certain exposures to chemicals in the products they purchase. Formaldehyde is on the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer.

The complaint alleged that that GIB – the manufacturer of the Brazilian Blowout products – did not inform customers or workers that formaldehyde gas was being released during a Brazilian Blowout treatment, and therefore product users did not take steps to reduce their exposure, such as increasing ventilation. Under the terms of the settlement, GIB is required to:

– Produce a complete and accurate safety information sheet on the two products that includes a Proposition 65 cancer warning; distribute this information to recent product purchasers who may still have product on hand; and distribute it with all future product shipments. The revised safety information sheet — known as a “Material Safety Data Sheet,” or MSDS — will be posted on the company’s web site.

– Affix “CAUTION” stickers to the bottles of the two products to inform stylists of the emission of formaldehyde gas and the need for precautionary measures, including adequate ventilation.

– Cease deceptive advertising of the products as formaldehyde-free and safe; engage in substantial corrective advertising, including honest communications to sales staff regarding product risks; and change numerous aspects of Brazilian Blowout’s web site content.

– Retest the two products for total smog-forming chemicals (volatile organic compounds) at two Department of Justice-approved laboratories, and work with DOJ and the Air Resources Board to ensure that those products comply with state air quality regulations.

– Report the presence of formaldehyde in its products to the Safe Cosmetics Program at the Department of Public Health.

– Disclose refund policies to consumers before the products are purchased.

– Require proof of professional licensing before selling “salon use only” products to stylists.

GIB will also pay $300,000 in Proposition 65 civil penalties, and $300,000 to reimburse the Attorney General’s office fees and costs.