Under the microscope: FILORGA Optim-Eyes Makeup Remover Serum
Eye Serum Makeup Remover
110 ml, 24,90 €
Filorga presents itself as the “the medi-cosmetic revolution” (=THE MEDI-COSMETIQUE REVOLUTION) highlighting “high performance anti-aging solutions (hyaluronic acid injections, anti-aging mesotherapy, peelings) used by leading aesthetic medical practitioners and surgeons in over 60 countries.”
Filorga, therefore considers itself to be a brand directly “inspired by aesthetic medicine (….) with innovative preparations and high-tech agents developed in its Laboratory.”
So, by interpreting the marketing message and schematizing it slightly, we could imagine that Filorga possesses “formula secrets” which other bands don’t have and therefore their cosmetic treatments could be more “effective”, closer to the results obtained by cosmetic surgery, all this, of course, without having to pass by the operating theatre.
Great! It will save us some money!
So what about if we take a look behind the scenes to see which components Filorga works with?
Here is the manufacturer’s presentation of the product, Filorga Optim Eyes Serum*:
DARK CIRCLES – PUFFINESS – WRINKLES
TRIPLE ACTION EYE CARE TO REDUCE DARK CIRCLES, UNDER-EYE BAGS AND WRINKLES IN A SINGLE STEP.
/ Dark circles: A (matrikines + chrysin) complex fosters the elimination of pigmented residue to reduce the colour of dark circles.
/ Puffiness: Powerful peptides act on microcirculation to decrease the volume of under-eye bags.
Wrinkles: A trio of smoothing active ingredients containing hesperidin to remove creases from the eye area.
Fresh, melting and moisturizing texture – can be refrigerated. 15ml.
Filorga’s product is therefore a make-up remover that acts both as a serum for the eyes, “strengthening the eyelashes” and “revitalising the eyes”, thanks, most especially to the famous “oleo-clean” complex… A complete programme…
Let’s take a moment to check the composition of the product by analysing the list of components, in the INCI list more closely:
AQUA (WATER,), PARAFFINUM LIQUIDUM (MINERAL OIL), DIMETHICONE, ISOHEXADECANE, PENTYLENE GLYCOL, PEG-8 CAPRYLIC/CAPRIC GLYCERIDES,BUTYLENE GLYCOL, SODIUM CHLORIDE, CAPPARIS SPINOSA FRUIT EXTRACT, OCTYLDODECYL MYRISTATE, PERFUME (FRAGRANCE), STYRENE/VP COPOLYMER, DISODIUM EDTA, ACETYL TETRAPEPTIDE-5, DEXTRAN, SORBIC ACID, ACETYL TETRAPEPTIDE-3, TRIFOLIUM PRATENSE (CLOVER) FLOWER EXTRACT, CI60725 (VIOLET 2), CI61565 (GREEN 6)
As always, it is the first 8-10 components that make up the majority of the product’s “profile”. The first component being present in the highest quantity with the following components presented in a descending order.
And the beginning of the list is composed of a series of components derived from petro chemistry (mineral oils) and silicones, Paraffinum Liquidum (2nd), Dimethicone (3rd), (silicone), Isohexadecane (4th) etc. These are the more “basic” moisturizing components, not very interesting in terms of beauty treatment properties, – apart from their moisturising powers (and their cost, which is much lower than vegetable oils, for example).
To this are added some plant extracts and active beauty treatment ingredients.
But in the end, the famous “oleo-clean complex” announced by Filorga, is far from being the basic foundation of the formulation, which consists of water, followed by a majority of components from petro chemistry.
Some controversial substances have slipped into the formula of Filorga’s make-up remover:
- DIMETHICONE, part of the silicones, an environmentally problematic substance (non-biodegradable), polluting.
- Components based on mineral oils Paraffinum Liquidum, Isohexadecane, etc.
- PEG-8 CAPRYLIC/CAPRIC GLYCERIDES. Part of the ethoxylated substances. Obtained from extremely reactive and toxic gases resulting from a chemical process which imposes the most stringent of safety measures. PEGs are also likely to make the skin barrier more permeable to other substances and are not very biodegradable, therefore polluting.
- The complexing agent Disodium EDTA, which is not very biodegradable and polluting.
- There is a question mark regarding the “Perfume”, as it is impossible to ascertain, with the simple INCI designation, whether these are natural fragrances (based on essential oils/fragrances) or conventional fragrances which may contain very controversial substances: phthalates or musk compounds, Lilial, etc.
Regarding Mineral oils
The BFR recently published a reassuring conclusion regarding the application on the skin of cosmetic products based on mineral oils which do not pose health problems.
This does not remove the issue of the occlusive effect in high concentration, nor the “inert” quality of the raw material, making it less interesting than mineral oils, or the environmental problem.
So this famous “Two-phase make-up remover”: enriched with oleo-clean complex” highly praised by Filorga, is in fact an “ultra-classic formulation”, almost dated, whose basic components are derived from mineral oils or silicones, as well as other components which are problematic for the environment. All this distributed below in the list of the few interesting beauty care substances and plant extracts.
Perhaps the “innovative formulas and high-tech ingredients” promoted by the brand are all hidden in other Filorga products?
A simple look at the formulations of creams or sunscreens on the site confirms the presence of many other controversial components (PHENOXYETHANOL, CHLORPHENESIN, SYNTHETIC FLUORPHLOGOPITE, HOMOSALATE, ETHYLHEXYL METHOXYCINNAMATE, BHT, etc., etc.…)
“Innovative formulas” or perhaps not as innovative as all that (see product formulation) … boosted by controversial components… Thanks, we’ll come by another time.
And we’ll also try to find other alternatives to cosmetic surgery, by the way.
The same article in french over here : https://blog.laveritesurlescosmetiques.com/la-verite-cosmeto-du-mois-analyse-demaquillant-filorga/
As seen in other articles, there is often a gap between the product’s marketing claims… and the reality shown in the ingredient’s list.
Fondant Shower Gel
With almond and orange flower petals
Fine soap-free foam
NUXE is one of the brands which offers both certified organic ranges (the “Nuxe Organic Beauty” range) and products which are not certified.
Sometimes this can cause confusion to customers who tend to believe that the entire brand is formulated in the same way.
An analysis of the component list can be useful for products which are not certified.
The Fondant Shower gel selected here is not part of the certified range.
Here is the description of the product on the brand’s website:
“With almond and orange flower petals, this soap free Fondant Shower Gel gently cleanses the skin. An essential part of your daily routine, you’ll love its smooth foam and delicate fragrance.
Ingredients of natural origin almond and orange flower petals … Paraben-free.”
Contains at least 96 % of natural origin ingredients
Ingredients/ INCI: AQUA/WATER, SODIUM LAURYL SULFATE, GLYCERINE, CAPRYLYL/CAPRYL GLUCOSIDE, ACRYLATES/C10-30 ALKYL ACRYLATE CROSSPOLYMER, PARFUM/FRAGRANCE, PHENOXYETHANOL, GLUCONOLACTONE, SODIUM HYDROXIDE, SODIUM COCOAMPHOACETATE, LAURYL GLUCOSIDE, SODIUM BENZOATE, CITRIC ACID, TETRASODIUM EDTA, 1,2-HEXANEDIOL, CAPRYLYL GLYCOL, SODIUM COCOYL GLUTAMATE, SODIUM LAURYL GLUCOSE CARBOXYLATE, CALCIUM GLUCONATE, CITRUS AURANTIUM DULCIS (ORANGE) FLOWER EXTRACT, PRUNUS AMYGDALUS DULCIS (SWEET ALMOND) FLOWER EXTRACT, TROPOLONE [N2102/A].
As always, it is the first 5-8 components that make up the majority of the product’s “profile”.
Generally speaking, a shampoo is made up of about 70% water, (or more). Then come washing bases (about 20%) and the rest, ancillary components (additives, plant extracts, etc.).
As far as shampoos, (or even shower gels, for example), are concerned, what is essential is the choice of washing bases (also known as surfactants) which can either be very gentle, well tolerated by the skin, or irritating and/or problematic for the environment.
The formulation here consists of a mixture of a irritating surfactant Sodium Lauryl Sulphate (2nd position), present in large quantities, combined and softened by softer surfactants such as Caprylyl/Capryl Glucosideine (4th) and Sodium Cocoamphoacetate and Lauryl Glucoside much lower.
We are still quite far from a « washing base of vegetal origin ».
The advantage of this type of formulation for manufacturers is that the main surfactant, Sodium Lauryl Sulphate, considered to be the most irritating surfactant, is also among the cheapest of the surfactants.
The most gentle, skin-friendly sugar-based washing bases, « acylglutamates », are also the most expensive.
This is why there are very few products formulated exclusively with these very gentle washing bases.
But other problematic and controversial substances have also crept into the formula:
- Phenoxyethanol, a controversial synthetic preservative, with a proven toxic potential (harmful to the liver, in particular).
- In addition to environmentally problematic raw materials, the film-forming agent Sodium Acrylates/C10-30 Alkylacrylate Crosspolymer, for ex.
- and Tetrasodium EDTA, polluting substances.
One might think that cosmetic components classified as « pollutants » would generally be « less problematic » than the controversial components classified as toxic to health. Except that everything is connected…
For example, plastic micro beads* that pollute lakes and oceans are ingested by fish. The fish that, later on, we eat.
This video shows a very graphic description of this:
- In France, the marketing of products containing plastic microbeads in rinsed cosmetics, products that are rinsed with water, have been banned as of 1 January 2018. But the oceans and lakes are already heavily polluted by these substances. Plastic microbeads also come from other everyday products: laundry, clothing, etc.
But where have the « ingredients of natural origin » displayed in the description gone?
The « almond and orange flowers » praised in the product description have been relegated to the last three components in 20th and 21st position, so they are present in infinitesimal quantities.
In the category « problematic and controversial substances » we find: irritating surfactants, a dubious synthetic preservative and polluting components. And the percentage of natural ingredients displayed no longer makes much sense either.
Not so great on the whole…. and quite far removed from the « vegetal promises », of the flower petals.
DIOR Forever Undercover Foundation under the microscope Cosmetic Truth of the Month:
24 Hour Full-Coverage Foundation
(price per litre: 1 517 €/l)
Product description and features – as presented on the DIOR website:
« Dior Laboratories, experts in both finish and wear, reinvent extreme correction with Diorskin Forever Undercover. This fluid, 24-hour* full coverage foundation combines maximum complexion control with a natural matte finish for a result that is « »Kiss-Proof. Touch-Proof. Life-Proof. All Night. All Day. » » Peter Philips, Creative and Image Director for Dior Makeup, describes his view of this neo-camouflage: “Incorporated in a very fluid texture, the high concentration of pigments ensures perfect blemish correction.
« Diorskin Forever Undercover contains the highest level
of pigments in the range; almost twice as many as in the original Diorskin Forever fluid foundation, for a perfect camouflage. The water-based formula creates an ultra-fine, highly pigmented and weightless mesh on the skin, providing an imperceptible matte finish for 24 hours.*
In a similar previous article and product test (L’ORÉAL Accord Parfait Highlight Iluminateur August 2017) we also noticed that in make-up products the ingredients that play a major role are mineral ingredients, colour pigments, etc., supplemented by “more or less” natural substances for the hydration or texture part of the formula (fluid, matt, coverage etc.…) for example.
Absence of vegetal ingredients
Just as for the L’Oréal product, the presentation of the DIOR product doesn’t mention any natural or vegetal substances… which could imply that natural substances play a major role in this make-up product. For the simple reason that there is ABSOLUTELY NO authentic vegetal substance whatsoever in this product…
Not a drop of plant-based oil, natural wax, plant-based extract, or natural essential oil…
The brand mentions a “water based” fluid, but as we are dealing with a foundation and not a floral water here, it is likely that water plays a minor role in the product’s features.
In any case a “water-based” foundation or make-up product has not been invented yet.
Of course there are also other « moisturising substances” such as glycerine, which can on the other hand, come from different sources: plant-based (vegetal oils), animal or synthetic. It is difficult to identify the exact sources of the glycerine used, by looking at the INCI list.
Natural & certified organic cosmetics on the other hand, basically do not allow plant-based glycerine, for other producers and brands, the question remains open.
Cyclopentasiloxane (D5), Aqua (Water), Alcohol, Trimethylsiloxysilicate, Phenyl Trimethicone, PEG -, Glycerine, Silica, Vinyl Dimethicone/Methicone Silsesquioxane Crosspolymer, Disteardimonium Hectorite, Sodium Myristoyl Glutamate, Butylene Glycol, Glyceryl Undecyl Dimethicone, Phenoxyethanol, Propylene Carbonate, VP/VA Copolymer, Parfum (Fragrance), Tetrasodium EDTA, Aluminum Hydroxide, Rosa Multiflora Fruit Extract, Linalool, Limonene, Citronellol, BHT
[+/- May contain: CI19140, CI42090, CI77007, CI77163, CI77491, CI77492, CI77499, CI77891)
But what jumps out at us, when we look at the overall formula, is that it is based entirely on synthetic ingredients, mainly silicones, for texture or moisturising, synthetic preservatives for conservation and synthetic solvents, etc.
As always, it’s the first 5-8 components, that make up the majority of the product’s overall “profile”. And the formula does not get off to a very good start, since the very first component, present in very great quantities, is a silicone-based component: Cyclopentasiloxane (D5) a suspected endocrine disruptor.
Other problematic components which have crept into the formula:
- Phenoxyethanol, a controversial synthetic preservative, proven to have toxic potential (particularly harmful for the liver)
- A whole bunch of environmentally problematic silicone-based ingredients, (non-biodegradable) polluting): Trimethylsiloxysilicate (4th), Phenyl Trimethicone (5th), Vinyl Dimethicone/Methicone Silsesquioxane Crosspolymer, (9th) Glyceryl Undecyl Dimethicone (13th)
- Tetra sodium EDTA, a problematic ingredient for the environment, polluting
- BHT, a chemical antioxidant (classified as an endocrine disruptor)
- PEGs, ethoxylated substances. Obtained from extremely reactive toxic gasses, resulting from a chemical process which imposes the most strict security measures. PEGs are also likely to make the skin barrier more permeable to other substances and are not very biodegradable, therefore polluting.
- CI19140 synthetic yellow dye (azo dye). Azo dyes (synthetic pigments) can trigger allergic reactions. Some azo dyes are classified “possible carcinogens”.
Therefore, to sum up, apart from water, alcohol and some covering pigments, the product is mainly based on synthetic ingredients, silicones, synthetic solvents and other controversial substances (synthetic preservatives classified as endocrine disruptors or other environmentally problematic substances)…
Forever Undercover… The name is just perfect, with a formulation of this kind, the brand’s foundation, considered very high-end, has every reason to remain undercover and keep a low profile…
There are many warnings in the press regarding essential oils. Some are justified and some are so exaggerated that the slightest trace of essential oil diluted in the composition of a formula becomes as suspicious as a component in a proven toxic, endocrine disruptor, or becomes controversial at another level.
Of course, essential oils are very powerful substances (which is also what makes them effective). They are active concentrates that are used within the framework of specific protocols and which can become problematic if used incorrectly, in too high a concentration or undiluted, for example. Some essential oils, used pure, can be photosensitizing or cause discomfort if the dosage is not respected.
The advantage of these substances is that they have been used in traditional pharmacopoeia for centuries and their use, function, warnings and of course also their multiple advantages, even in interaction with other herbal substances, have been studied and documented for a long time.
This is not the case for a large number of chemical substances, whose interaction with other chemical substances and the effects of their daily use have not yet been studied in the long term, or even in the medium term, for that matter.
This is a reference to the famous « cocktail effect » that can result from combining these chemical substances and which of course does not essentially concern the problem of cosmetics.
Many users, who are increasingly better informed, are now turning to certified natural and organic cosmetics to avoid the range of controversial components found in conventional cosmetics.
Here, once again, we come across warnings about the famous « allergens » derived from essential oils. The prevailing distrust towards essential oils in France seems to be generally established in the minds of consumers and the press.
So is this distrust justified or not?
For years consumer tests in France have tended to systematically downgrade natural and organic cosmetics containing components, fractions of essential oils, classified as potentially allergenic (such as Linalool and Geraniol*).
*The leading German consumer magazine ÖKOTEST does not work in the same way.
In cosmetics, essential oils are used both for their intrinsic care properties (soothing, astringent, purifying, etc.) and/or as perfuming substances, for example. Depending on the context of the formulation, they can also contribute to product preservation.
For example, certified natural and organic cosmetics products are exclusively perfumed with essential oils. Synthetic perfumes (just like synthetic preservatives, etc.) are not authorised by the demanding, much stricter specifications recommended in the « conventional » cosmetics industry.
Of course there are also certified organic cosmetics ranges that are « fragrance-free », but in general, essential oils are among the components widely used in natural and organic cosmetics.
So would users also be willing to give up the pleasure of perfumes in their cosmetic products?
If we wanted at all costs to avoid the use of essential oils, or components derived from essential oils, we would be obliged « by default » to use products that contain synthetic perfumes instead, in fact most « conventional » products are perfumed with synthetic perfumes, grouped under the generic term « perfume/fragrance ».
And among these synthetic perfumes, we also find the famous phthalates, classified as endocrine disruptors or other equally controversial substances, or musk compounds, which are also very problematic, and can stick to tissues. Some chemical fragrance substances are often also potentially allergenic and are added to the impressive cocktail of problematic synthetic substances that can be found in a conventional cosmetic product.
So is there any real justification in putting components from essential oils that are potentially allergenic for some people, on the same level as proven, reprotoxic, controversial, toxic and polluting components?
What exactly are the perfuming substances which are considered to be potentially “allergenic”?
In the list of substances identified by the CSSC (Chemical Safety and Surveillance Committee) as potentially allergenic, some fragrances may be more or less problematic or controversial. Among the substances that must be reported « separately » on the INCI list, i.e. outside the generic term « perfume » or « fragrance » usually used, (if they exceed a certain concentration threshold), both natural and chemical substances are to be found.
And among this list of components there are also components derived from essential oils (Citral, Limonene, Geraniol etc.).
These components are isolated parts (fractions) of essential oils used for example in natural and organic cosmetics as perfume and partly also for preservation. This also means that they are present in very small quantities, usually listed at the end of the INCI list. It is therefore these isolated components, these fractions of essential oils (and not the essential oil as a whole) that need to be declared at the end of the list.
What are the differences between these categories of potentially allergenic substances?
The allergenic potential for all these substances is not identical, and the in-depth studies and research work carried out by the German Federation for Information in Dermatology Clinics (IVDK, Informationsverbund Dermatologischer Kliniken*) has made it possible to assess and differentiate the risk of the various substances.
The principle is simple: if a substance is used frequently and is rarely found to be allergenic, the allergenic potential should be considered low.
If, on the other hand, a substance is rarely used, but triggers frequent allergies in tests, its allergenic potential is considered high.
Most of these substances fall into the category of « less problematic » substances, only a few substances really stand out for their higher allergenic potential.
High allergenic potential:
Oak Moos Evernia Prunastri Extract
Tree Moos Evernia Furfuracea Extract
Methylheptincarbonate (Methyl 2-octynoate)
Intermediary allergenic potential:
Hydroxycitronellal, Hydroxyisohexyl 3-Cyclohexene Carboxaldehyde (trade name: Lyral)
The least problematic:
Butylphenyl methylpropional (Lilial). (However concern as possible endocrine disruptor)
Coumarin (study by the BFR which nevertheless advises against intensive use in food/ and cosmetics)
Should all products containing, for example, Citral, Geraniol, or Linalool, be systematically avoided?
What are the alternatives?
All substances derived from essential oils can of course also cause allergic reactions in some people. There is not a single substance, even natural, which is 100% guaranteed of not causing a reaction, obviously.
Generally speaking, all natural substances can also sometimes trigger allergic reactions. Some people, for example, have grass allergies, others are allergic to strawberries or citrus fruits.
Usually the people concerned know what triggers their allergies and simply avoid these substances on a daily basis.
The same logic applies to components derived from essential oils. If peeling an orange or approaching a bouquet of roses causes an allergic reaction, it is best to simply avoid products containing essential oils derived from citrus fruits (Citral, Limonene etc.) or rose (Geraniol), etc.
A BDIH study carried out in 2010 on Geraniol also confirms the need to distinguish between « Geraniol »… and « Geraniol », i.e. Geraniol as an essential oil component and chemically isolated Geraniol.
In this study on 50 people, none showed an allergic reaction to essential oils, which contained Geraniol as a natural component. On the other hand, 20% of the participants reacted to the synthetic molecule, isolated Geraniol.
These distinctions are important, just as important as the distinctions in the IVDK study, which provide a differentiated ranking of the subject.
Systematically avoiding any product that contains fractions of essential oils that are potentially allergenic for some people seems an excessive and illogical approach.
In particular because the alternatives proposed, from conventional products to synthetic perfumes, often contain a wide range of components that are proven to be toxic, problematic or polluting.
And to systematically warn against products containing components based on essential oils, and treat them as being potentially equally problematic as mainstream conventional products, without moderating the context, surely contributes nothing to making progress on the debate.
Two shampoos for curly and frizzy hair confronting each other in a cosmetic « match ».
« Dark N Lovely » against « Noire O Naturel »
In this chapter we will regularly be presenting two comparable products from two different brands, very often one from the « conventional » sector and the other from a certified, organic brand.
These products will be facing each other on the same ground : the ingredients list comparaison.
The commentator will remain at your side during the entire game and will also be explaining the basic rules, when they’re not completely clear or understandable.
Let the game begin : may the best team win !
For this month’s match, we have selected two hair care products : two different shampoos for curly and frizzy hair.
In the following product comparaison, both brands are aiming at the same goal : specific products for washing hair your properly and hair care in general for curly and fuzzy hair.
But on one side, the product uses mainly chemical ingredients, -with some controversial ingredients that slipped in between the lines-, whereas the other side plays the game of «natural ingredients only ».
Match opening, team presentation :
Dark N Lovely «Au Naturale»
Moisture – Replenishing Shampoo
with Mango Oil & Bamboo Milk
250 ml, price : 9,49 €
« Recipe for rich, natural hair.»
This brand belongs to the l’Oréal group and the product obviously targets an international consumer market (the product in itself is both in french and english).
Here’s how the brand itself presents the product :
«Our Moisture Replenishing Shampoo cleanses and provides a rich, quick lather that brings moisture for hair and scalp »
Another claim, meant to be reassuring :
« No mineral Oil, No parabens, NO Petrolum »
Well, well, well…
Let’s take the time to check the entire ingredient list and to analyse this INCI list in detail :
Ingredients / INCI : Aqua, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Cocamide MEA, Sodium Chloride, Parfum (Fragrance), Phenoxyethanol, Polyquaternium-7, Polysorbate 20, Potassium Sorbate, Glycol Stearate, Mangifera Indica Seed Oil, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Polyquaternium-10, Citric Acid, Sodium PCA, Disodium EDTA, Sodium Benzoate, Benzyl Salicylate, Linalool, Benzyl Alcohol, Bambusa Vulgaris, CI19140, CI47000, CI17200, CI42090
As always, it’s the 5-8 (approx.) first ingredients in a cosmetic product, that define the product’s overall « profile ».
In general, products like shampoos (or shower gels, for instance, too) are made of around 70% water, followed by surfactants (approx. 20%) and other remaining secondary ingredients.
When it comes to shampoos, (shower gels, etc) the most essential part remains the choice of appropriate surfactants.
These surfactants can be either very soft, -very well tolerated by the skin-, or more or less irritating, some can also be problematic for the environnement.
In this specific product, there is a mixture of an irritating surfactant, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, associated with a softer surfactant, Cocamidopropyl Betaine.
But the rest of the formulation can also be considered as problematic, as it includes some controversial synthetic preservatives, other ingredients that are problematic for the environment (polluting substances), and even some controversial azo dyes.
Here’s the detail of what could be considered as problematic in the product’s formulation,
- Phenoxyethanol; a controversial synthetic preservative, concern of organ system toxicity (liver) and classified as irritant.
- Polyquaternium-7 and Polyquaternium-10 which are quats, substances that are not very well biodegradable and considered slightly irritating.
- The Polysorbate belongs to the PEG category, which are ethoxylated ingredients. Ethoxylated ingredients on their own are of low concern, however, the process of ethoxylation is a a complex chemical procedure requiring extreme safety mesures (toxic and reactive gas). PEGs are also suspected to make the skin more permeable, enabling therefore the accumulation of more problematic ingredients. PEGs are also not very well biodegradable and therefore polluting.
- Other ingredients that are problematic for the environnement, as Disodium EDTA, for ex.
- The CI19140 and CI17200 colorants ; they belong to the group of azo dyes, coal-tar chemicals that are sometimes allergenic and linked to other toxicological concerns.
- The « Fragrance » in the INCI listing can also sometimes be considered as problematic :
as this product is not a certified organic product, it probably contains some synthetic fragrance. Synthetic fragrances very often also contain phtalates, classified as endocrine disruptors.
Of course there is also the Mango Oil (11th position) and the Bamboo Milk (21th position), but they can be considered as mere, -nearly insignificant-, « natural hints » as they don’t play any major role in the product’s formulation.
They are basically just there to give the product a « greener » outlook, but not as active, relevant cosmetic ingredients.
Another surprising element ; the bottle in itself really looks like a beverage bottle, an orange juice bottle to be more precise.
This product should therefore not be left unattended in the kitchen, if you have small children around, for instance.
This is therefore a perfect «greenwashing example » ; using one or two main natural ingredients, like the ‘Mango Oil and Bamboo Milk’ as major sales argument. But these natural ingredient play in fact no significant, major role in this product.
The global formulation is mainly based on chemical ingredients, some of which are highly controversial and problematic for the environnement..
Sentence: « No mineral Oil, No parabens, NO Petrolum », so far so good !
… BUT «with» Phenoxyethanol, EDTA, azo dyes and a whole range of other controversial or problematic ingredients.
A product that could benefit from improvements, on every possible level…
Noire Ô Naturel
Crème de Shampooing
Aloe Vera, Mongogo, Sesame
Curly to frizzy hair
200 ml , price : 16,50 €
Here’s how the brand itself presents the product :
« Inspired from african beauty rituals, our cream of shampoo is made of plant butters ( shea, mango) and organic aloe vers juice known for their hair care benefits. Its very soft and SLS free formulation gives it its creamy texture without foam for a softly shampoo care. An enriches formula with organic oils (sesame, coconut) and mongongo soothes and nourishes your hair from roots to tips. »
Let’s take the time to check the entire ingredient list and to analyse this INCI list in detail :
Ingredients / INCI : Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice*,Aqua (Water), Helianthus Annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil, Beeswax *, Cetearyl Alcohol, Lauryl Glucoside, Butyrospermum Parkii (Shea) Butter*, Inulin, Arachidyl Alcohol, Yogurt Powder, Betaine, Decyl Glucoside, Glycerin, Mangifera Indica (Mango) Seed Butter, Coco-Glucoside, Schinziophyton Rautanenii Kernel Oil, Sesamum Indicum (Sesame) Seed Oil*, Cocos Nucifera (Coconut) Oil*, Cananga Odorata Flower Oil, Aniba Rosaeodora (Rosewood) Wood Oil, Rosmarinus Officinalis (Rosemary) Leaf Oil, Behenyl Alcohol, Tocopherol, Coco-Glucoside, Glyceryl Oleate, Arachidyl Glucoside, Dehydroacetic Acid, Sodium Hydroxide, Citric Acid, Benzyl Alcohol, Linalool.
* ingrédients issus de l’agriculture biologique
98% of the ingredients (total) are of natural origin
53% of the ingredients (total) are organic certified
Without SLS or ALS, paraben, silicon, GMO, artificial colorants or perfumes.
« Cosmétique Ecologique » certified by ECOCERT Greenlife according to ECOCERT guidelines, more details to be found here http://www.ecocert.com/cosmetique-ecologique-et-biologique.
As always, it’s the 5-8 (approx.) first ingredients in a cosmetic product, that define the product’s overall « profile ».
In general, products like shampoos are made of around 70% water, followed by surfactants (approx. 20%) and other secondary ingredients, then.
When it comes to shampoos, (or shower gels, for instance, too), the most essential part remains the choice of the proper surfactants. These surfactants can be either very soft, very well tolerated by the skin, or more or less irritating and as well problematic for the environnement.
This formulation is based on a mixture of sugar-based surfactants (acylgutamates) Lauryl Glucoside and Decyl Glucoside, and Coco-Glucoside (a bit further down the line).
These are the softest surfactants available, the ones that are also best tolerated by the skin. But these substances are also the most expensive ones, these surfactants are therefore very rarely used as primary, (main) surfactants in one product, like for example here.
The product is presented as a « crème de shampooing », -a creamy shampoo-, («a creamy, non-foamy texture»), which explains the high number of authentic vegetal oils and waxes, right from the ingredient’s list start.
And among the very first ingredients, there’s a vegetal sunflower oil, some organic beeswax, organic sheabutter and other natural ingredients that are particularly hydrating and offer specific skin and hair care like inulin (sugar), yogurt and vegetal glycerin.
Besides the fact that this product does not include any harmful, problematic or controversial ingredient, there is a whole list of entirely natural ingredients and authentic vegetal oils, with their precious intrinsic vegetal substances, like for example :
- Organic Aloe Vera gel : soothing, hydrating, nourishing and regenerating
- Mango butter : emulsifying, skin softening and nourishing properties
- Mongogo Oil : restructuring, hydrating and regenerating
- Organic Coco Oil : protecting, skin softening and emulsifying properties, shining hair
- Organic Sesame Oil : nourishing, softening, contains precious essential fatty acids
And of course this richness and large quantity of authentic natural ingredients, -mainly organic-, also has an impact on the price, this product is twice as expensive as the previous one, but it also contains twice as many natural high quality ingredients…
Sentence : This « crème de shampooing » presents itself with an exemplary formulation ; without any controversial and harmful ingredient whatsoever, this product derives its
strength essentially from « mother nature » and precious natural ingredients, carefully selected for their intrinsic benefits.
A prefect hair care product for curly to frizzy hair.
Visit the website and the free INCI ( cosmetic ingredients) search engine to evaluate your own cosmetic products.
Product Test : Baby wipes
Biolane wipes closely scrutinized
Face & Hands
Cosmetic wipes are, -as such-, not considered as cosmetics, but belong to the category called «frontier» cosmetic products (including for instance : lice treatments, mouthwash, dental floss, etc). These products can sometimes be classified in different legal definitions : the European Commission therefore defines them as cosmetic « frontier » products.
But as cosmetic wipes, -especially those for babies and children-, are common products, present in most of our bathrooms today, this product test made sense.
Over the last couple of years, consumer reports and test magazines have also picked up the subject of cosmetic wipes and revealed that they contained a number of problematic and potentially toxic ingredients.
It’s always interesting to first check the brand’s product presentation, in order to then compare the description with the actual ingredient list.
Product description, taken from the Biolane* website :
•Their formula, with high skin and ocular tolerance, is used to clean and refresh baby’s hands and face at any time and provide long-lasting moisturization*.
•The ultra-soft and resistant texture respects the fragility of baby’s skin and guarantees very delicate cleansing.
•Mildly scented, they leaves your baby’s skin soft, supple and perfectly protected
Tested under dermatological control.
Fibres 100% biodegradable.
Formulated at Physiological pH.
Alcohol-free, soap-free, paraben-free, phenoxyethanol-free and phthalate-free.
– Can be used at any time of day on baby’s hands and face.
– Does not require rinsing.
– Can also be used for nappy changing.
As this product is meant for babies and children, the brands is highlighting the «formulation’s security aspect» which makes perfect sense.
But let’s now have a closer look at the exact ingredients lists.
AQUA, PARFUM, METHYLPROPANEDIOL, TETRASODIUM GLUTAMATE DIACETATE, SODIUM BENZOATE, CITRIC ACID, CETRIMONIUM CHLORIDE, CHLORHEXIDINE DIGLUCONATE, SODIUM HYDROXIDE
And here comes a bit of a surprise….!
We can confirm the absence of parabens, alcohol and phenoxyethanol, but the entire ingredient list is far from «irreproachable» :
Instead of using artificial preservatives like parabens, or phenoxyethanol, for instance, the ingredient list contains another artificial preservative CHLORHEXIDINE DIGLUCONATE, just as problematic, but with a trickier name to remember.
Other problematic ingredients can be found in the product:
- CHLORHEXIDINE DIGLUCONATE : an artificial preservative, part of organohalogen compounds. These organohalogen compounds have a strong allergic potential, and are reactive elements, which can be accumulated in the tissues as, when penetrating. They also represent an environmental problem, as they are polluting.
- The preservative/emulsifier CETRIMONIUM CHLORIDE, belongs to the category of quaternary ammonium compounds, irritating allergens, that are also not very biodegradable.
- The «Perfume» or Fragrance indication in the ingredient list can sometimes also be considered as problematic : as this is not a certified product (in the sense of certified organic), chances are high that we are dealing here with a synthetic perfume, that can be problematic if this fragrance included for instance phthalates (=endocrine disruptors). Diethyl phthalate can often be found in fragrances as a «fixing agent» (enabling fragrances to last longer and and remain less volatils). Meaning also that this ingredient could be added to fragrances in this case without disclosure to consumers.
- In order to systematically avoid phthalates in your products, choosing natural and organic cosmetic products that are certified would be the best option. Artificial, synthetic perfumes and fragrances are simply not allowed by the different labels of natural and organic certified cosmetics.
On one side the brand claims the absence of certain artificial preservatives, insists on «high skin tolerance», states that the fibers are «100% biodegradable» and on the other side we can identify another controversial synthetic preservative, and some problematic, controversial and polluting ingredients.
Just as the product test of baby products from last year (link below, article in french), this exemple, -randomly chosen-, leaves us with a number of questions.
Baby and children products should be presenting themselves with «exemplary» formulations and ingredient lists, without any controversial, potentially allergen, toxic, polluting or problematic ingredient in any other respect.