There has been a lot of talk about chemical pollutants in food and cosmetics for 10 years, but little has been said specifically about the makeup of everyone. What can we find regrettable in its formulations?
HJ: the biggest problem is the azo dyes, which happen to be the same as those used to dye clothes. They have an allergenic potential, but above all have the great disadvantage of accumulating in our fatty tissues, with all the serious disadvantages that everyone knows. Today, the authorities are aware of what is happening, and it is no coincidence that in the last three years, the European Community has banned half of these dyes.
J: it is important to point out that it is precisely because people like Hans-Jürgen have managed to find other solutions that things have evolved. The most toxic of the azo dyes could be removed, because the authorities knew there was an alternative. But it’s like asbestos, it took thirty years!
J: I’ll let you judge … I recently read a file from the journal ÖKOTEST: I was struck to see that three quarters of the makeup products tested were poorly rated because of the presence of paraffin. I thought she was gone … But no, she is everywhere! The same goes for silicones. It is true that both pose above all environmental problems, except for one nuance: a woman who uses a lipstick daily eats one stick per year … but we know that paraffin also accumulates in the body
What can we say about a problem that had been raised by the media at one time, that of the use of animal products such as whale fat, etc.
HJ: concerning warm-blooded animals, these are old problems . We are no longer there.
S: petrochemicals are there. It has made it possible to replace squalane like other animal products, all the more easily since it is less expensive.
J: we talked about warm-blooded animals. But it should be noted that the carmine used in organic as elsewhere comes from the animal world, since it is obtained from the cochineal. Without it, you can’t get naturally bright red. Consumers who do not want it must therefore learn to do without this nuance.
Beyond this specific case, there is a big vegan problem with cosmetics and makeup. Are animal tests, for example, used in conventional cosmetics?
HJ: they are now banned by the European Community. But we are faced with a paradox: tests are prohibited on finished cosmetic products, such as a lipstick or a mascara, for example. But not on its components … And all the more so the REACH program obliges manufacturers to prove that each ingredient used is harmless. And to prove it, it is necessary in particular to carry out tests, sometimes on animals … It is a paradox.
* Veganism is a consumption behavior which consists in trying to live without exploiting animals.
Many products are therefore no longer usable, for lack of this proof?
HJ: indeed, we can estimate that a third of the ingredients used today will disappear, simply because no one will want to pay to prove their harmlessness. A problem which unfortunately also concerns natural products, and this is a difficulty for us. If we find a good natural emulsifier for example, we will not be able to incorporate it into our formulations: no one will have enough interest to conduct the expensive studies which will make it possible to officially prove that it has no drawbacks.