GREENGATE

Due to popular request many people have asked me to republish my writing and video on Green Cosmetics. This is the pre-edited piece I submitted to an international magazine before it was published in 2008.

Let me know if you have any questions. I will also be following up on this piece with my current thoughts on natural beauty care. Enjoy!

BREAST CANCER VIDEO

GREENGATE
By Mary Schook

We live in an exciting time in cosmetics and skincare! Consumers are currently more educated than ever before about the wide array of product ingredients and packaging choices, but with the rapid upswing in naturals do we really know what we are buying? Does natural really mean better? Does natural even really mean natural?

After a tumultuous 2008 Presidential election and the recent hit to the economy one would think that nothing else could be more taxing or confusing, yet the fact of the matter is the beauty industry is going through it’s own mortgage crisis. Many consumers and even business owners view the current state of the market as the Wild West when it comes to organic and natural personal care products.

For entertainment purposes I’ll call the current state of the industry Greengate. On the far left we have the super corporate conglomerates. On the far right there are the indie or independent companies that tend to be the smaller companies, but before we delve into Greengate, we need to explore how we ever reached this point of mass confusion in the first place?
As a former top makeup artist and current owner of one of NYC’s top anti-aging centers I have always made it my business to stay ahead of the technologies and trends through my greatest source, the packaging and cosmetic conventions.
When I first entered the convention scene over 15 years ago the personal care industry was just at the verge of hitting the age of technology. Consumers demanded lipsticks that lasted all day and mascaras that would go to great lengths without smudging. Creams filling the pages of magazines promising the miracle of youth in a jar and foundations swore luminous coverage throughout the day. The seduction of advertising made the public think we could all become genetically superior beings after observing the commercials and relishing the ads touting the transformation of countless flawless faces, lengthened lashes, cellulite-free legs, and anything else a woman could ever desire through the introduction of Photoshop® and CGI.

It’s not that women didn’t always want these things. We know dating as far back as Cleopatra youth was what people had always desired the most, yet technology brought us hope and ad copy writers made us think that all of those things could be effortlessly achieved with that one magic bottle of cream because technology was now going to save us all. The consumer demanded results and companies quickly recognized that buyers were willing to pay any price for those promises. Even as recently as three years ago one popular company commanded as much as $700 for one ounce of precious anti-aging serum.

The greatest marked evolution in the industry was the introduction of technology through nanotechnology used in anti-aging. Nano means at a cellular level. Up tp that point most creams sold on the market couldn’t get past the epidermis, the first layer of skin which happens to be dead anyway. The particles were too large, but if you make those particles small enough to enter the cell through nano technology it would most likely deliver the “goodies” to the lower layers of the skin. Keep in mind that also means chemicals, which are foreign to our bodies, are also more likely to enter the blood stream.

According to Oxana Beauregard of the NYC’s prestigious esthetics school, Atelier Esthetique, a new scenario surfaced from all of the new skincare advancements. Instead of there being only four skin types: dry, normal, oily, and combination, a fifth one surfaced: sensitive. Formulations made popular on the market that were fast-acting for acne, hyper-pigmentation, and other conditions were more likely to come at a cost to the skin by destroying the delicate balance the skin must have to protect itself. Sensitivities and hyper-pigmentation can begin to surface with exposure to the sun and can even cause an increased susceptibility to skin cancer!

One of the first people who dared to enter the scene and make the public aware of some of these possible problems (after trying to resolve her own skincare issues) was a woman named Paula Begoun, the Cosmetics Cop, and best selling author of Don’t Go To The Cosmetics Counter Without Me. Wait a minute! Why does there even need to be a cosmetics cop? Doesn’t the FDA already regulate our cosmetics and skincare? That’s where the first misconception begins. The FDA does not regulate our skincare and cosmetics the way you think they may. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act products are allowed to be released to the marketplace without FDA approval, which includes the absence of any safety testing. Companies are not even required to substantiate their claims. Manufacturers are only left to bide by the small list of prohibited substances that are banned such as color additives or bovine products imported by countries on the mad cow disease list. They must also disclose all ingredients in descending order of quantity on their labels according to the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. As the law stands anyone could come out with a product or a line with enough capital and a compelling story.

The real problem lies in the companies from both the left and the right who have abused these privileges. In the United States companies have the right to make claims under the first amendment, the freedom of speech as long as they stay within the minute guidelines administered by the FDA. That first amendment and lack of regulation is what brings us up to Greengate.

Shortly after the technology portion of the industry was beginning to take shape so were the smaller independent companies. These small companies were coming out with products that fit a niche and a need. One such company that impressed me at a California trade show eight years ago was called Illuminare Cosmetics. Founder and president Ruthie Molloy was able to formulate the first pure liquid mineral makeup on the market with long-lasting wear and broad-spectrum sun protection. Her greatest philosophy was not about what she puts in her products, but what she keeps out of them. You won’t find wild orchid extract or any ylang ylang. She finds that adding extra ingredients only adds a potential risk of irritating the skin. Her products are meant to perform and do what they say. That should be enough right?

Several other companies followed similar philosophies, but they weren’t so easy for the public to find. These indie products were usually found in specialty stores or in small sections of a Whole Foods or other green marketplaces. It wasn’t until a report of a study surfaced about parabens found in breast tissue samples did an entire natural industry go from specialized to mainstream. Word of this report spread like wildfire throughout the public via the internet and press. Overnight paraben became a dirty word. Consumers began a witch hunt to search out products without parabens which caused a new division of the beauty industry to emerge: the Organics, Naturals, 100% pures, Paraben Free’s and any other concept in natural branding and trending.

But not every small company felt pressured to jump on the green wagon right away. Luca Sunscreen, a line developed by MD pathologist Karl Gruber decided to consciously keep the parabens in his sunscreen line. Furthermore Karl Gruber states the studies on the breast tissue samples were incomplete and inconclusive. Parabens have been around for over 20 years and have been derived by natural sources such as blueberries. Parabens are also known to have the least amounts of reactions in skincare products. If there was a substantial risk Karl said he would be willing to reformulate in a second. He feels as an indie company and it’ s easier for him to reformulate than it is for the bigger companies. Keep in mind Luca was developed because Gruber couldn’t locate any sunscreens on the market that protected from both UVA and UVB rays. His son Luca was allergic to everything on the market. Why would Gruber want to keep in chemicals deemed toxic to even his own son?
Furthermore Karl is concerned that the alternative preservative choices out there are too new on the market. There is a greater risk of consumer reacting to a product. In addition many “green” companies are stabilizing their formulas with ingredients that sound green such as Grapefruit Seed Extract which is synthetically produced from Grapefruits Seeds under a chemical synthesis.

Then the evangelical side of the right wing came full force this past summer when the former founder of Aveda, Horst Rechelbacher launched a line that called Intelligent Nutrients. IN is a 100% certified organic line that simply states if we can’t eat it why should we wear it? We have an obligation to the planet and ourselves to eliminate all chemicals in our products. Our skin is the largest organ on our bodies and is semi-permeable. Makes sense right?
But is everyone going to love the smell, texture, or performance of 100% organic. Only time will tell with that, but Horst has always been one ahead of his time.

Who’s also ahead of their time are the Koreans. I would speculate they are at least 12 years ahead of us. We owe so many of our beauty innovations to them. At the past Vegas convention this summer my jaw dropped when I saw the amount of parabens contained in their products they chose to feature at the show. They said that the Koreans took out the chemicals and went natural years ago, but manufacturers soon became worried after seeing the hightened number of reactions and a cutback in sales for natural formulations. The Korean skincare industry literally panicked after they saw they were eliminating their consumer all together. So they went back to adding in the parabens.

Some speculate the refusal for the US industry to change is because of cost. The left have said that packaging, reformulation, and eliminating these chemicals is cost prohibitive. Clarissa Richardson of design firm Richardson Sadeki and one of the original developers of the world renowned Bliss Spas in New York says when it comes to retail there is no excuse for not creating a natural product.

With mounting pressure from the public the companies on the left are in fact taking steps to go green. Jergens just launched with what they claim is a 90% natural ingredient moisturizing line called Jergens Naturals Moisturizer, but whether all companies from the left and right like it or not the confusion may be drawing towards a legislative and regulated direction. Over the past year Dr. Bronner’s magic soaps filed a lawsuit over misleading organic labels to companies they felt were misleading the green community. Among the implicated are Oasis and Eco Cert, two third party companies, for certifying products containing conventional agricultural or petrochemical ingredients. In addition some of the other named parties on the suit are Estee Lauder, Stella McCartney’s CARE, Jason Natural, Avalon Organics, and Nature’s Gate Organics. The choice these companies have is to either change the formulations or discontinue Organic claims.

Of course Greengate has many more facts, details, studies, debates, but instead we have decided to allow you exercise your consumer power and draw your own conclusions by bestowing our Guide of top ten of things to help you make more informed choices as a consumer:

1. Research over 37,000 products through the non-profit Environmental Work Group
at www.cosmeticsdatabase.com
Or you can also check out these other great sites for more places to do research:
www.smartskincare.com
www.organicconsumers.org
www.cosmeticscop.com

2. An unknown factoid is TV networks keep cosmetic companies honest by holding them legally responsible to substantiate their claims. So you can believe some things you see on t.v!

3. Be responsible by reporting any reactions to skincare or cosmetic products to your local department of consumer affairs or the store you purchased from. In fact if you join Sephora’s beauty insider program every time you make a return they will notate the ingredients listed in the product you are returning and alert you should you try to make a purchase with similar ingredients that may cause you react to a product.

4. Try looking in the ever-growing beauty section of your local bookstores for fun green guides like The Little Green Book of Beauty by Sarah Collard. It contains 250 tips for an Eco Lifestyle.

5. Don’t leave leftover product in your containers. It’s a definite sentence of that bottle or jar hitting the landfill instead of the recycling circuit according to

6. Try to buy products with fewer ingredients. You’re less likely to have a reaction.

7. When it comes to recycled packaging, not everything is really recyclable. For instance using corn as an alternative plastic sounds nice, but there aren’t any facilities to recycle the alternative material. The smartest choice is to buy products featuring the PETA 1, 2, or 3.

8. Even though there is some regulation in the organic food industry don’t take for granted that the line of division will be clearly drawn.

9. Seek out companies that not only want to educate about their products, but also want to educate on skin, sun care, organic, or any other means to help the consumer.
www.sophyto.com is a wonderful company that is trying to do just that.
Other companies are also signing the Compact for Safe Cosmetics which is an agreement companies have signed to replace their hazardous material with safer alternatives within three years. Sadly enough several of the major cosmetic companies have yet to get on board.

10. The greatest power a consumer has is not to buy a product according to Ameena Meer, an ad executive and owner of Take Out Creative Agency of NYC.


We’d like to hear your voice? Is organic important to you?
Should companies be accountable for what they advertise? How far is the first amendment allowed to go? Should consumers continue to have choices or should the FDA tighten up regulations?