Speakers and panelists at the Personal Care Products Council’s Science Symposium Oct. 23-24 discussed options for reaching consumers with relevant safety messaging, feeling under siege by NGOs propagating chemophobia and consumer demand for ingredient replacements that science does not support.

“People want to make it seem as though we are selling very hazardous products,” observed Jack Linard, head of Unilever’s personal-care regulatory affairs team for North America, in his Oct. 23 presentation on green chemistry and alternatives assessment. “Really, we are among the safest products in the world.”

He went on: “We want to dispel the myth that all chemicals are bad. People don’t realize that chemicals are everywhere.”

In the absence of regulatory action to their satisfaction, consumer watchdog groups and environmental NGOs increasingly have been petitioning manufacturers to reformulate products and pressuring major retailers to act as gatekeepers by imposing restrictions and bans on ingredients in personal-care products carried in their stores.

Walmart announced a plan in September to prioritize chemicals for elimination from cosmetics in its beauty aisle Also see "Walmart Program Seeks Greener Beauty, Greater Supplier Transparency" - HBW Insight, 16 September, 2013.. Target followed with an initiative unveiled Oct. 14, under which the retailer will reward vendors for improving the sustainable profiles of their products, focusing largely on chemicals of concern and leveraging consumer-facing GoodGuide.com’s data-analysis platform Also see "Target To Reward High-Scoring Personal Care Under Sustainable Standard" - HBW Insight, 4 November, 2013..

Meanwhile, market leaders like Procter & Gamble Co. and Johnson & Johnson have launched programs to phase out the use of controversial ingredients despite the potential for their safe use, citing consumer demand rather than any clear safety issues.

The trend has many manufacturers concerned, given the costs associated with reformulation and the risk that alternative ingredients may prove more problematic than the chemicals they replace, creating a kind of “risk treadmill” ([A#02131028008]).

To stem the tide, speakers suggested, industry must educate consumers or change the conversation to highlight legitimate hazards.

“We need good science and a good PR person,” said Janet Blaschke, CEO of International Cosmetics & Regulatory Specialists, LLC, during an Oct. 24 roundtable discussion concluding the symposium’s Microbiology Workshop.

A growing call for milder preservatives, or the elimination of preservatives from cosmetics altogether, is a prime example in industry’s eyes of public demand that actually threatens to undermine safety in the marketplace.

Linda Sedlewicz, country manager at Schülke & Mayr GmbH – responsible for the preservative and industrial hygiene firm’s introduction and promotion of product lines across the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico – provided perspective during the roundtable.

The “natural, preservative-free trend is coming from food,” she said, and consumers are beginning to expect the same practices in the cosmetics sector. However, there are practical considerations that make the trend less viable on the cosmetics end.

“Would you be willing to keep your hand cream in the refrigerator to maintain it for a longer period of time, or to take your shampoo out of the freezer the night before you want to use it?” she asked. “It is absurd.”

Consumer behavior and use habits do not allow for the safe marketing of preservative-free cosmetic formulations, Sedlewicz said.

“You cannot take a wide-mouth jar of a hand cream and leave it open in your bathroom [without preservatives],” she pointed out, adding that consumers would not do that with a food product like salad dressing, so the need for preservatives is not as pressing.

“The consumer needs to be aware” that cosmetics without preservatives pose “a health hazard,” the exec maintained.

Evelyn Coelis, issue manager in trade group Cosmetics Europe’s Technical Regulatory Affairs department, also called for stronger outreach during a session on EU regulations. “Consumers only hear one side of the story. They hear the negative message on preservatives – how bad they are, how toxic they are,” she said.

“We need to, as an industry, come together on messaging” to impress on consumers the importance of preservatives, she suggested, calling for “a global, one-voice industry-defense strategy.”

Sedlewicz suggested that industry’s message may be received best by the public if it is channeled through an outside proponent or authority.

“If we can somehow divorce the opinion from the industry and get key dermatologists, key players of some sort … who can say, ‘If your product is not preserved you can get an eye infection,’” it may have a better chance of hitting home with consumers predisposed to distrust industry, she said.

Message To Consumers Tough To Package

While speakers agreed that amplified messaging is necessary to counter negative consumer sentiment regarding the use of preservatives and other vital chemicals in cosmetics, there was no clear consensus on the shape such communications should take.

Charles Jones, distinguished scientist in the Dow Chemical Company’s personal-care division, was skeptical that efforts to clarify scientific concepts for consumers can be effective.

“We all manufacture products, finished goods, that are safe and are preserved,” said Jones, expressing his personal opinion during the roundtable. But “I think approaching people with science is never going to work.”

He proposed appealing to consumers via blunter techniques, on a more visceral level, employing graphic images such as those FDA has used in its public-health messaging to discourage smoking.

Rather than portraying the potential effects of cigarettes on users’ bodies, industry could use visuals of baby wipes covered with mold and other cosmetic products rendered unusable and likely harmful due to the absence of preservatives, Jones suggested.

“I would show things that get people’s attention,” he said.

Improving Web Presence Is Key

Speakers at PCPC’s Science Symposium noted that many web sources and blogs are not only rife with misinformation related to chemicals safety, but more visible to Internet surfers than sites deemed authoritative.

Jones pointed out that a Google search for “sunscreens” gives top billing to the Environmental Working Group’s Sunscreen Guide, which PCPC has faulted for sending confusing messages to the public about the value of sunscreen use and the safety of certain UV filters Also see "Most U.S. Sunscreens Not So Hot, Reflecting FDA Failures – EWG" - HBW Insight, 27 May, 2013..

According to Jones, industry must work to become a leading source of information online. Personal-care companies and industry representatives should consider investing in search engine optimization to ensure that credible sites are prominently listed when consumers use the Internet to investigate safety issues.

Having a strong online presence is all the more important as mobile applications proliferate and consumers increasingly have ingredient safety information from various sources available to them at the touch of an iPhone button.

Think Dirty, for example, is a new mobile app that rates personal-care products based on the perceived safety of their ingredients, drawing from information provided by government agencies and NGO reports, among other sources. The app enables shoppers to scan product barcodes and compare the safety profiles of items while browsing store aisles Also see "App Targets “Dirty” Cosmetic Ingredients To Inform Consumer Decisions" - HBW Insight, 21 October, 2013..

Chemicals Crisis: Industry Messaging Needed To Counter Misinformation

More from United States

More from North America