≡ Menu

Be careful what you believe about ingredient lists

Design A Thought says…While I am a lover of these “chem free” products I love them because (I must stress some of them! you have to carefully look at the ingredients list!) they are using the ingredients grown from our good earth not cheaply mass produced in a lab so some company can reep the profits. I found that through some careful research, many of my products contained harmful chemicals which could be substituted with a natural one. But there goes profit, the cheaper the product the more of us hard up people with loads of bills are going to buy them. Not all of us have the knowledge to know what goes into our beauty products but it would be great to hit all of these companies on the head, I have noticed that the companies who, in detail, place their ingredients list openly, for example my old A’kin lavender shampoo give their customers the knowledge.

This type of ingredients list makes me feel happy because I know exactly whats in the bottle, some of these chemical names I cannot even begin to try to pronounce. In my personal opinion I believe that products should state what percentage of its ingredients are botanically sourced. This puts the power to the consumer. Botanically sourced! Thats it.

The Beauty Brains respond:

Here is the list of ingredients that Design A Thought referenced in her question:

A’kin Lavender Shampoo Ingredients

aqua (purified Australian water*) *BP 2007 standard
citric acid (botanical source)
cocamidopropyl hydroxysultaine (from coconut)
disodium cocoamphodiacetate (from coconut)
glycerin (botanical source)
glyceryl laurate (botanical source)
lauryl glucoside (from coconut, palm & glucose)
sodium citrate (botanical source)
sodium cocoyl glutamate (from coconut & sugar cane)
sodium gluconate (from GMO free corn)
sodium hydroxymethylglycinate
sodium lauroyl sarcosinate (from palm)
sodium lauryl sulfoacetate (from palm)
sorbitol (from GMO free maize)
pelargonium graveolens (geranium) flower oil
rosmarinus officinalis (rosemary) leaf oil
elettaria cardamomum seed oil
lavandula angustifolia (lavender) oil (certified organic)
citrus aurantium amara (bitter orange) leaf oil (petitgrain)
pogostemon cablin oil

You’ve been greenwashed!

The truth is that there is nothing natural about Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine. The only way you can produce it is to create it in a lab!

The same is true of the following:
glyceryl laurate
lauryl glucoside
sodium citrate
sodium cocoyl glutamate
sodium gluconate
sodium hydroxymethylglycinate
sodium lauroyl sarcosinate
sodium lauryl sulfoacetate

You are falling for what we call in the business “greenwashing”. Every one of these chemicals is synthetically produced in a lab. The starting materials are irrelevant. In fact, these are the same starting materials that the Big Corporations use, they just don’t put the parenthetical information on the label. Which, incidentally, in the United States is illegal.

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • Eileen November 20, 2014, 10:16 am

    Greenwashing! Love it! I’ve often wondered why some brands will do parenthetical labeling when the actual name of the ingredient is exactly the same as you’d find on a product that doesn’t resort to parenthesis. I guess it is basically a “See how natural I am!” marketing approach that appeals to a lot of people. I’m not saying it is good or bad, just that it is advertising hype.

    Since we’re all living, breathing, walking, talking chemical factories to begin with, an ingredient’s origins has never mattered much to me unless I have a particular moral/ethical issue with it. For example, I like to know whether the squalane in a product is plant derived or whale derived–that type of thing. But then remember, I’m old enough to be all too familiar with those commercials like the one you posted where the model’s face was dusted with radioactive powder! LOL

  • Colin November 23, 2014, 8:25 am

    Well said Perry. The intentions of the EU regulations were to require consistent labelling across products. The reason for the listings is to allow people with allergies to particular ingredients to avoid buying products that give them a medical problem. The motivation of ingredient lists in the US was identical. I have a feeling that both sides of the Atlantic the enforcers have allowed companies like this one who have abused the system to get away with it. This means that they could probably argue custom and practice as a defence.

    But it remains a rather immoral thing to do – it is hard enough for non-chemists to read an ingredient list even when it is correctly presented. I’d urge consumers with a conscience to vote with their pockets and not buy products that pack the ingredient lists with unnecessary verbiage.

    Incidentally, I don’t see a preservative listed? Did you leave it off?