Beauty is a Beast: Curbing the Cruel History of the Cosmetic Industry he beauty industry: once a vivisection-pitted horror of a minefield for ethical and eco- conscious consumers; now, a vibrant marketplace offering almost too much choice. From cruelty-free vegan cosmetics to plastic-free and zero waste products – the sector has had a veritable makeover. However, is it for the sake of the animals and the planet (all those chemicals!), or in order to stay current in a world which no longer brooks the (vegan) wool being pulled over its line of sight? Let’s take “no rinse” shampoos and conditioners, specifically – what with Plastic-Free Beauty Day coming up on the 17th June – Garnier’s 2021-released No Rinse Conditioner, which comes in a cardboardintegrated tube. Although it claims to save some “100 litres of water per tube” and offer a 92% smaller carbon footprint than “wash-out” products (with 63% of those products’ carbon footprint solely water use) – and although Garnier is progressing from being almost as bad as its sister company L’Oréal in the plastic pollution stakes (L’Oréal using 140,000 tonnes of plastic in 2018 alone) – is there anything really new and especially “green” about the “no rinse” concept? In short, no. It is joining in with other industry “greenwashing” (a term in this case which is, you know, ironic). Why? Because the company is still selling the less sustainable “wash-out” products, 52
most of which are made from between 60% to 85% water to begin with. Makes water wastage in almond milk production seem almost tame, doesn’t it? Garnier might have pledged “carbon neutrality and the creation of an effective water recycling loop system by 2030”, but like countries’ promises for Net Zero, proof of the truthfulness of the matter only time will tell. Furthermore, “No rinse” products normally use stearamidopropyl dimethylamine for a soft, no-water-needed and little build-up result, instead of washout products’ quaternary ammonium compounds (e.g. behentrimonium chloride), which are antistatic, antibacterial, and need water to wash them out after use. Neither sound particularly “natural”, do they? Well, there are those who are starting to argue that, instead of going to Nature and using up the planet’s natural resources, disrupting the lives of wild animals and other kingdoms of species – they’re arguing that synthetic innovation is actually a more sustainable option. Sounds quite similar to the reasoning behind cellular agriculture, doesn’t it?
justnaturalhealth.co.uk | Just Natural Health & Beauty
