We have been saying it for years. There are roughly 2 types of companies who proudly write "paraben-free" on their products. 1. Those who have no idea what they are doing. 2. Those who think that it is OK to fool consumers. Thank you for this awesome video!
I am happy with this change because there is much confusion about what is OK and not OK to use in cosmetic products. We are an EU REACH compliant brand and like to use that baseline as our starting point to keep our product healthy for our customers. Unfortunately, in the US there is a demand for Paraben-free, Sulfate-Free, etc products. Do these new rules only apply to the marketing materials for your products or do they restrict using icons on the labels and external box? We are also paraben free, sulfate free and phthalate free brand and do use icons to identify this. Also, do these new rules only apply to "for sale" products or also to free products that will be included in a beauty box?
The guidelines put out by the EU have now established guidelines brands and COURTS can use as evidence to determine 'truthfulness' 'fairness' and 'honesty'. So while the EU is being strict on this, EVERY court around the world can use this as 'evidence' to determine 'truthfulness', 'fairness' and 'honesty'. In other words, give it time, and REPORT those who are untruthful or misleading in their claims (including logos). Courts can use this official document no matter where they are in the world and it takes action to make brands see misleading consumers about potential harm (which is untruthful) is no longer acceptable. With this guidance document, brands can no longer say 'I didn't realise' or 'I didn't know' because this guideline now very clearly outlines what is or is not acceptable to a regulator. Report those who don't comply and if enough other brands do it, we'll see that level playing field soon enough. You can tell I'm also for it! Happy formulating!
Unfortunately, I still see some small indie brands advertising free from claims on social media and large brands are dumping their products in countries with less strict regulation enforcement.
Yes, it is unfortunate, but once regulators are on board around the world it will improve. My recommendation to brands in countries where the guidelines are not enforced is to FOCUS on the true benefits of your products (which is not what they are free from!!!) and also FOCUS on your true points of difference (it is no longer a difference to say ‘free from’, since so many brands now do it). Small brands think they need to be free from everything to be successful, but they actually need a STRONG point of difference and TRUE benefits. I cannot emphasise this enough, please watch this workshop series, first video is FREE and focuses on the positives and how to succeed - compliantly, no matter where you are in the world: personalcarescience.com.au/BrandManagement/CosmeticBrandBusinessWorkshops-482/ :)
To provide you with specific advice we do need to review your exact situation and allocate time to do so, please purchase consulting time here: personalcarescience.com.au/Advice/cosmeticformulation,brandadvice-797/ And we’ll be in touch to discuss the next steps. Happy formulating!
Hopefully we'll see it come across to other markets - as the bigger multi-nationals have to apply these rules, you'll see more reports on bad 'free from' claims by smaller companies to level the playing field, so it will take time but we will see these rules get used by EU courts, and other courts particularly in ASEAN and African regions (as they follow the EU). As these are rules to be used by EU courts when making their decisions, they can also be used as evidence and a basis for judging 'misleading and deceptive' behaviour and 'truth' in marketing by other countries. So its a win - that will take time! :)
Thank you for the informative video. I have a question: Is it now allowed to market a deodorant by claiming it "aluminium free"? In general deodorants are anyways always aluminium free and only antiperspirants contain aluminium so if a product would not anyways contain that ingredient you would not in general to be allowed to use that as a claim. However the difference between an antiperspirant and a deodorant is very unclear to most consumers and people often talk both of them as deodorants in everyday language so will it just be considered as an helpful information or a forbidden statement? I haven't been able to find an answer to this one so I appreciate if you are able to help.
If you are in EU, then you can't say a deodorant is 'aluminium free' because that would be non-compliant with their Free-from rules - because aluminium chlorohydrate ONLY gets used to 'plug' the sweat duct in anti-perspirant products. It does not get used in deodorants. if it is used, it is by default an anti-perspirant, so deodorants don't contain aluminium. Therefore you can't claim 'aluminium free' for a deodorant, because it would not normally be found in a deodorant. Hope this helps. You can also see more on the Free From rules here: th-cam.com/video/yeh3XmwpYxQ/w-d-xo.html Thanks for watching :)
We have loads of videos that can help you out! Please go to the search bar on our channel: th-cam.com/channels/czaVLd160LPFdn9E8hrYxA.html And enter the topic to find related videos. Happy formulating!
Love your videos Belinda! 😍 Just one question, what about oxybenzone? I mean some say it’s bad for people and some say it’s ok, and some say it’s bad for the coral reef. Is it ok for a label to say oxybenzone free then? Maybe it could be for people to choose whether they want to use sea friendly sunscreen. And it wouldn’t necessarily mean oxybenzone is bad for people. 🤔
'Reef safe' is still an ongoing debate, and needs proper testing to support. I have written a short article on this, please access here: cosmetics.specialchem.com/tech-library/article/sun-care-regulations-roundup . All sunscreens are tightly regulated, by input, to ensure safe use, so from a 'safety' perspective, it should not be suggested as unsafe. From a reef perspective, 'reef safe' needs proper testing, not just avoidance of certain materials, to support the need for a 'free from' claim. Please read that article it explains what I mean and why. Happy formulating!
What about Naticide? It is a preservative but since this is a tradename that you're not allowed to use in the INCI-list you have to call it parfum or fragrance. Sinerga (the developer) even says on their website and product flyer that you can/are allowed to claim 'preservative free' when you use this preservative in your product.
You can't claim preservative free because it is ACTING as the preservative, so it does not comply with the EU rules! For example, if you remove it from the formula, micro-organisms would grow, which means it IS a preservative and shouldn't claim to be a preservative free formula. This is exactly the misunderstanding these new guidelines are intended to clarify. Hope this helps.
I didn't`t understand why 'free from alcohol' in mouthwash is ok, or 'free from acetone' in polish remover is ok (both of these ingredients are safe within regulatory limits and, in fact, permitted to use in cosmetic), while 'parabens free' or 'sulphates free' are not ok. Don't these manufactures imply that alcohol or acetone might be harmful? I'm confused because it does't sound consistent for me. Please, clarify. Thank you!
Free from alcohol is permitted where the product may normally contain alcohol - for example mouthwash - because some consumers want to avoid accidental ingestion; for religious or other reasons. This makes it acceptable, because it’s a consumer choice based on religious or health reasons. Free from acetone is again okay for nail polish removers because some people can’t handle the smell. Free from animal products is again okay, because some people want to avoid animal products (eg vegans). Note that none of these claims are related to safety or harm - they are lifestyle choices. But what lifestyle choice are you making to avoid a paraben? Because you are scared of them? You shouldn’t be. That is how the regulators consider it when ruling where free from is suitable (lifestyle choice) vs unsuitable (fear). Learn how to ensure your claims comply with our Certificate in Cosmetic Labels & Claims personalcarescience.com.au/BrandManagement/CertificateinCosmeticLabelsClaims-1979/ or other courses.
@@theinstituteofpersonalcare6401 , thank you very much for the clarification! I'm totally on your side regarding this topic. I just wanted to see more cohesion in cosmetics regulation:) It looks like some groups of people are in more preferential position (like vegans or religious groups), they can make choices even if the products on the market, they are choosing from, are all safe. And labelling/claiming is about safety. A person who read "acetone-free" or "animal materials free" may think "Oh! they claimed it specifically because it might be harmful for some people, otherwise they will not put it on label"... I think, there is might be a lot of misunderstanding among consumers. But, we have what we have:) Thank you again for the amazing work you are doing, Belinda! I'm your happy student, by the way)) Just started the semester!
Thank you. We have loads of videos that can help you out! Please go to the search bar on our channel: th-cam.com/channels/czaVLd160LPFdn9E8hrYxA.html And enter the topic to find related videos. Happy formulating!
Please also join our Facebook group: Cosmetic Raw Materials for Small Brands: facebook.com/groups/1734896293290235/ to find other materials and suppliers around the world.
No - because you wouldn’t need a preservative in a lipid based/water free formula. Learn how to ensure your claims comply with our Certificate in Cosmetic Labels & Claims personalcarescience.com.au/BrandManagement/CertificateinCosmeticLabelsClaims-1979/ or other courses.
There is nothing wrong with sulphates when in a balanced formula, so no, you shouldn't be claiming sulphate free either. Even sodium lauryl sulphate, when formulated with appropriate amphoteric and non-ionic surfactants is made mild enough for baby products, so it is not correct to imply any harm from sulphate materials.
We have loads of videos that can help you out! Please go to the search bar on our channel: th-cam.com/channels/czaVLd160LPFdn9E8hrYxA.html And enter the topic to find related videos. Happy formulating!
Fear marketing has been used mostly by indie brands who don't have a large budget for advertising and hiring celebrity endorsers. I've noticed big brands simply followed suite when they noticed a lot of consumers buying into this claims.
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
We have been saying it for years.
There are roughly 2 types of companies who proudly write "paraben-free" on their products.
1. Those who have no idea what they are doing.
2. Those who think that it is OK to fool consumers.
Thank you for this awesome video!
Thank you
Please email us for full references on this topic absolutely FREE: info@personalcarescience.com.au
I am happy with this change because there is much confusion about what is OK and not OK to use in cosmetic products. We are an EU REACH compliant brand and like to use that baseline as our starting point to keep our product healthy for our customers. Unfortunately, in the US there is a demand for Paraben-free, Sulfate-Free, etc products. Do these new rules only apply to the marketing materials for your products or do they restrict using icons on the labels and external box? We are also paraben free, sulfate free and phthalate free brand and do use icons to identify this. Also, do these new rules only apply to "for sale" products or also to free products that will be included in a beauty box?
The guidelines put out by the EU have now established guidelines brands and COURTS can use as evidence to determine 'truthfulness' 'fairness' and 'honesty'. So while the EU is being strict on this, EVERY court around the world can use this as 'evidence' to determine 'truthfulness', 'fairness' and 'honesty'. In other words, give it time, and REPORT those who are untruthful or misleading in their claims (including logos). Courts can use this official document no matter where they are in the world and it takes action to make brands see misleading consumers about potential harm (which is untruthful) is no longer acceptable. With this guidance document, brands can no longer say 'I didn't realise' or 'I didn't know' because this guideline now very clearly outlines what is or is not acceptable to a regulator. Report those who don't comply and if enough other brands do it, we'll see that level playing field soon enough. You can tell I'm also for it! Happy formulating!
Unfortunately, I still see some small indie brands advertising free from claims on social media and large brands are dumping their products in countries with less strict regulation enforcement.
Yes, it is unfortunate, but once regulators are on board around the world it will improve. My recommendation to brands in countries where the guidelines are not enforced is to FOCUS on the true benefits of your products (which is not what they are free from!!!) and also FOCUS on your true points of difference (it is no longer a difference to say ‘free from’, since so many brands now do it). Small brands think they need to be free from everything to be successful, but they actually need a STRONG point of difference and TRUE benefits. I cannot emphasise this enough, please watch this workshop series, first video is FREE and focuses on the positives and how to succeed - compliantly, no matter where you are in the world: personalcarescience.com.au/BrandManagement/CosmeticBrandBusinessWorkshops-482/ :)
Thanks Belinda
Thank you for watching! :)
Thanks for this informative video. Can we make the claim 'MIT-free' on a shampoo to be marketed on the EU?
To provide you with specific advice we do need to review your exact situation and allocate time to do so, please purchase consulting time here: personalcarescience.com.au/Advice/cosmeticformulation,brandadvice-797/ And we’ll be in touch to discuss the next steps. Happy formulating!
Great thanks Belinda
Glad you liked it.
Too bad this is only in the EU!
Hopefully we'll see it come across to other markets - as the bigger multi-nationals have to apply these rules, you'll see more reports on bad 'free from' claims by smaller companies to level the playing field, so it will take time but we will see these rules get used by EU courts, and other courts particularly in ASEAN and African regions (as they follow the EU). As these are rules to be used by EU courts when making their decisions, they can also be used as evidence and a basis for judging 'misleading and deceptive' behaviour and 'truth' in marketing by other countries. So its a win - that will take time! :)
Thank you for the informative video. I have a question: Is it now allowed to market a deodorant by claiming it "aluminium free"? In general deodorants are anyways always aluminium free and only antiperspirants contain aluminium so if a product would not anyways contain that ingredient you would not in general to be allowed to use that as a claim. However the difference between an antiperspirant and a deodorant is very unclear to most consumers and people often talk both of them as deodorants in everyday language so will it just be considered as an helpful information or a forbidden statement? I haven't been able to find an answer to this one so I appreciate if you are able to help.
If you are in EU, then you can't say a deodorant is 'aluminium free' because that would be non-compliant with their Free-from rules - because aluminium chlorohydrate ONLY gets used to 'plug' the sweat duct in anti-perspirant products. It does not get used in deodorants. if it is used, it is by default an anti-perspirant, so deodorants don't contain aluminium. Therefore you can't claim 'aluminium free' for a deodorant, because it would not normally be found in a deodorant. Hope this helps. You can also see more on the Free From rules here: th-cam.com/video/yeh3XmwpYxQ/w-d-xo.html Thanks for watching :)
This is awesome. Thank you for this.
Glad you liked it!
hi belinda great video as always ..thanks..
We have loads of videos that can help you out! Please go to the search bar on our channel: th-cam.com/channels/czaVLd160LPFdn9E8hrYxA.html And enter the topic to find related videos. Happy formulating!
Love your videos Belinda! 😍
Just one question, what about oxybenzone?
I mean some say it’s bad for people and some say it’s ok, and some say it’s bad for the coral reef.
Is it ok for a label to say oxybenzone free then?
Maybe it could be for people to choose whether they want to use sea friendly sunscreen.
And it wouldn’t necessarily mean oxybenzone is bad for people.
🤔
'Reef safe' is still an ongoing debate, and needs proper testing to support. I have written a short article on this, please access here: cosmetics.specialchem.com/tech-library/article/sun-care-regulations-roundup . All sunscreens are tightly regulated, by input, to ensure safe use, so from a 'safety' perspective, it should not be suggested as unsafe. From a reef perspective, 'reef safe' needs proper testing, not just avoidance of certain materials, to support the need for a 'free from' claim. Please read that article it explains what I mean and why. Happy formulating!
What about Naticide? It is a preservative but since this is a tradename that you're not allowed to use in the INCI-list you have to call it parfum or fragrance. Sinerga (the developer) even says on their website and product flyer that you can/are allowed to claim 'preservative free' when you use this preservative in your product.
You can't claim preservative free because it is ACTING as the preservative, so it does not comply with the EU rules! For example, if you remove it from the formula, micro-organisms would grow, which means it IS a preservative and shouldn't claim to be a preservative free formula. This is exactly the misunderstanding these new guidelines are intended to clarify. Hope this helps.
I didn't`t understand why 'free from alcohol' in mouthwash is ok, or 'free from acetone' in polish remover is ok (both of these ingredients are safe within regulatory limits and, in fact, permitted to use in cosmetic), while 'parabens free' or 'sulphates free' are not ok. Don't these manufactures imply that alcohol or acetone might be harmful? I'm confused because it does't sound consistent for me.
Please, clarify. Thank you!
Free from alcohol is permitted where the product may normally contain alcohol - for example mouthwash - because some consumers want to avoid accidental ingestion; for religious or other reasons. This makes it acceptable, because it’s a consumer choice based on religious or health reasons. Free from acetone is again okay for nail polish removers because some people can’t handle the smell. Free from animal products is again okay, because some people want to avoid animal products (eg vegans). Note that none of these claims are related to safety or harm - they are lifestyle choices. But what lifestyle choice are you making to avoid a paraben? Because you are scared of them? You shouldn’t be. That is how the regulators consider it when ruling where free from is suitable (lifestyle choice) vs unsuitable (fear). Learn how to ensure your claims comply with our Certificate in Cosmetic Labels & Claims personalcarescience.com.au/BrandManagement/CertificateinCosmeticLabelsClaims-1979/ or other courses.
@@theinstituteofpersonalcare6401 , thank you very much for the clarification! I'm totally on your side regarding this topic. I just wanted to see more cohesion in cosmetics regulation:) It looks like some groups of people are in more preferential position (like vegans or religious groups), they can make choices even if the products on the market, they are choosing from, are all safe. And labelling/claiming is about safety. A person who read "acetone-free" or "animal materials free" may think "Oh! they claimed it specifically because it might be harmful for some people, otherwise they will not put it on label"... I think, there is might be a lot of misunderstanding among consumers. But, we have what we have:)
Thank you again for the amazing work you are doing, Belinda! I'm your happy student, by the way)) Just started the semester!
Great great content well explained - on point! ♡♡♡♡ :)
Thank you. We have loads of videos that can help you out! Please go to the search bar on our channel: th-cam.com/channels/czaVLd160LPFdn9E8hrYxA.html And enter the topic to find related videos. Happy formulating!
Please give me the link to Facebook for raw materials
Please also join our Facebook group: Cosmetic Raw Materials for Small Brands: facebook.com/groups/1734896293290235/ to find other materials and suppliers around the world.
Can you claim 'preservative free' for a lipid formula (water free)?
No - because you wouldn’t need a preservative in a lipid based/water free formula. Learn how to ensure your claims comply with our Certificate in Cosmetic Labels & Claims personalcarescience.com.au/BrandManagement/CertificateinCosmeticLabelsClaims-1979/ or other courses.
@@theinstituteofpersonalcare6401 , thank you very much!
What about sulphate free?
There is nothing wrong with sulphates when in a balanced formula, so no, you shouldn't be claiming sulphate free either. Even sodium lauryl sulphate, when formulated with appropriate amphoteric and non-ionic surfactants is made mild enough for baby products, so it is not correct to imply any harm from sulphate materials.
Thanks! Sadly, capitalism has lead to greed and misleading the public.
We have loads of videos that can help you out! Please go to the search bar on our channel: th-cam.com/channels/czaVLd160LPFdn9E8hrYxA.html And enter the topic to find related videos. Happy formulating!
Fear marketing has been used mostly by indie brands who don't have a large budget for advertising and hiring celebrity endorsers. I've noticed big brands simply followed suite when they noticed a lot of consumers buying into this claims.