Hair Care Tips
Ensure that the hair that is forming beneath the surface of your scalp is healthy by avoiding too much of sweets, chocolates, cakes & cookies. Replace them with fresh fruits & vegetables.
What the labels don't say
Wait before you get taken in by the lustre of a starlet’s tresses and reach out for that bottle of amla oil. Stop before you begin the hour-long champi with your favourite coconut oil. For all you know, you may actually be rubbing light liquid paraffin (LLP) into your precious curls.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of Maharashtra is ready to go on record saying that most manufacturers in the Rs 3,000-crore Indian cosmetics industry are rampantly misleading consumers with tall claims.
“Cosmetics manufacturers across the board are using loopholes in the law to make false claims and sell dreams to unsuspecting and unaware consumers. Ninety-nine percent of these claims are false. The biggest brand names in cosmetics and the personal care industry are involved in this racket,” FDA Commissioner A. Ramakrishnan told Tehelka. He has recently been posted as Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Maharashtra.
This affliction goes beyond hair oils. FDA has found that from face creams to soaps and other items of personal care, cosmetics companies are taking the general public for a ride. The industry, of course, sees the whole issue differently.
“The cosmetics industry is competing with international brands and each cosmetic product is promoted on consumer insights — so we are just communicating accordingly,” said Ashok Gupta, Vice-President (Legal), Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL).
“Tall claims by cosmetics manufacturers are not specific to India. It happens in various degrees across the world. We are in the process of bringing about amendments in the Drug and Cosmetics Act in consultation with all stakeholders to find a way out. We are discussing whether listing the percentage of key ingredients would solve the problem. The whole process is at a preliminary stage really,” said Ashwini Kumar, Drug Controller of India.
This will give consumers the power to make more informed choices for sure. But cosmetics and personal care products companies point out a practical problem. “Often the ingredients are many, so it is difficult to enlist all of them with their percentages. Besides, we are not comfortable with sharing the formulation details because of competition,” said a public relations official of Marico Industries Ltd.
Marico, a market leader in hair oil, has five brands in the segment: Parachute, Parachute Advansed, Parachute Jasmine Coconut oil, Parachute Sampoorna, and Hair and Care. Marico claims that their brand Parachute is 100 percent pure coconut oil with no additives.
But, the first two brands apart, the others are a mixture of LLP and other ingredients including some vegetable oils. Interestingly, the package for Parachute Jasmine Coconut Oil, for example, shows coconuts, leading consumers to believe that it is a coconut oil. The real story is quite different. The percentage of coconut oil in such mixed oils is generally so low that they have negligible or no therapeutic value.
“With respect to Parachute Jasmine and Sampoorna, we wish to clarify that no therapeutic claims are being made. Parachute Jasmine is a perfumed non-stick hair oil and is so positioned. Sampoorna has significant content of coconut oil in addition to almonds and hibiscus and is for strong and healthy hair,” said Saugata Gupta, marketing head, Marico. It is still unclear why despite minimal presence of coconut oil, Marico puts the picture of a coconut in Parachute Jasmine and calls it coconut hair oil.
“This practice is a decade old. Till the mid-90s, the admixture of mineral and vegetable oils/key ingredients stood around a ratio of 20:80. It has been completely reversed now,” said Ramakrishnan. This is happening because the back-to-nature movement has forced cosmetics majors to compete with traditional products by bending every rule in the book.
A series of recent investigations and raids by the FDA have brought into focus the old problem of misbranding and misinformation. “We have found that Hindustan Lever’s Clinic Milk Protein Shampoo has negligible milk protein and Parachute Hair Cream which showed the picture of a coconut on the package, had no coconut at all,” he added.
In India, cosmetics standards are prescribed under rule 150A of the Drug and Cosmetics Act. The Bureau of Indian Standards (bis) specifies these norms for finished cosmetics. But a problem arises due to the absence of detailed laws for labelling ingredients in these products. bis stipulates that manufacturers list key ingredients for consumers’ benefit but stop short of defining the term “key ingredients”. It leaves it to the manufacturers to decide what constitutes their “key ingredients”. Taking advantage of this loophole, manufacturers are listing ingredients present only in traces as “key ingredients”, while on the other hand they are cleverly avoiding naming the ingredient that largely constitutes the product. Tall claims are then made on the packages or in ads promoting “key ingredients”. The various Lux toilet soaps of HLL, for example, claim to contain ingredients ranging from “honey to orchids with jojoba oil and almonds”.
The listed ingredients are also used to lead the advertising campaigns. But in effect, there are no clinical studies to prove whether presence of these ingredients in such low percentages can have any therapeutic effect.
“The consumer does get the benefit from the product, but the claimed benefit may come from a combination of various ingredients,” said HLL’s Gupta. So Clinic Plus hair oil which is mainly LLP (called mineral oil on packages), may claim to be anti-dandruff. But in reality, the effect comes from the emollient nature of LLP which soothes flaky skin and not from the minimally present anti-dandruff ingredient alone. In fact, the anti-dandruff ingredient may be so little that it may not be of any use against dandruff at all. Still the company uses it as the product’s usp.
“All this is happening because bis doesn’t specify that ingredients should be listed along with the percentage of their occurrence in a given volume. Labelling laws are not well defined. So the manufacturer’s claims are often false. Tall claims need to be investigated and validated by regulators,” said Ramakrishnan.
He rues that there are no legal guidelines to penalise an offender and none of the food and drug regulatory bodies have powers to restrict offenders. In fact, the buck just keeps passing. “We are trying our best to look into both consumer and industry interests. But in cases of a lapse, the overall responsibility for follow-up does not rest with us. In case of cosmetics, they come under the purview of the ministry of health,” said a senior bis official.
And this happens in soaps as well. So don’t expect your bath-soap to make you fair, or take away that body odour. The promise of a milk and honey bath in a packet can’t do what it did for Cleopatra’s skin. This is again conning the consumer with “key ingredients”.
“Savlon, for example, claimed initially that it had anti-bacterial properties. But when we tested it we found that the anti-bacterial compound was present in such low percentage that it would not affect any bacteria. But if it were present in required amounts, the soap would have been a medicinal product,” said Ramakrishnan. “When this was pointed out to the makers of the soap, they withdrew the word ‘anti-bacterial’,” he adds.
And don’t take any soap which promotes itself as deodorant at face value.
Though Godrej’s Cinthol soap sells itself as a deodorant soap, it is licenced as a cosmetic soap. Now if it claims to be a deodorant soap, it should have anti-bacterial action. For this, the standards are laid down under the drug licence and Cinthol does not claim to be a medicated soap. So, is Godrej making a tall claim when it calls Cinthol International a deodorant soap (that is a soap with anti-bacterial properties) which in effect means a medicated soap?
Tehelka asked Godrej to respond to this query. After exchanging several e-mails, Godrej finally sent a one-line reply which did not address the query at all. “Godrej Cinthol soap is manufactured under licence from FDA and all specifications of the FDA licence are strictly adhered to,” the spokesperson of Godrej Consumer Products said
HLL’s Lifebuoy International is yet another story. With a Total Fatty Matter (TFM) of 40 percent, it is not at all a soap. Neither does the company claim it as one, it cleverly calls it a “bathing bar” to avoid being indicted by authorities for false claims. But advertisements show it as a soap. “Since a TFM of 40 percent does not render even soaping action, HLL adds 4 percent surfactant (a compound which helps build lather),” said Ramakrishnan. Priced at Rs 12.50 for 100gm, the soap also seems pricey given its low production cost.
bis specifies a TFM of 76 percent for Grade 1 soaps, 65 percent for Grade 2 soaps and 60 percent for Grade 3 soaps. The higher the TFM, generally, the soap quality is better, and lower TFM leaves the skin dry. But lower TFM has not brought down the price, which stands at Rs 12.50 for a 100gm bar.
There is also a view that since any lapse in food or drugs calls for filing an fir, it is the responsibility of a state’s FDA to spearhead the process. But the guidelines are a bit hazy in this context. “We try and take action whenever anybody crosses the ground rules. Detailed labelling may not always be possible and even if it is there, as in some advanced countries, it is not a foolproof mechanism to check ingredients. Besides, it is impossible to track each and every lapse, so it is also the consumer’s responsibility to practise some self-regulation while buying various products,” said Kumar.
Returning to hair oils, the question is: How does a consumer decide or practise self-regulation when information about the product is limited? The other weak link is the bis stipulation which allows mixture of mineral and vegetable oils for hair oil compositions but does not specify the admissible ratio for it. So we get bottles of coconut, amla, henna and even almond oils which have only a fraction of a cent or less of any of these ingredients. But why is LLP such a favourite with hair oil makers?
“LLP, costing between Rs 20 to 25 per kilo, is the cheapest available oil. Vegetable oils cost much more. For example, coconut oil costs around Rs 100 to 125 per kilo,” said Ramakrishnan
“In plain and simple terms, you are being conned. The low price of LLP and its high percentage of presence should make your hair oil much cheaper than any vegetable oil, least of all coconut oil,” said Consumer Guidance Society of India Member Dr AR Shenoy.
Most cosmetics majors were highly evasive when quizzed about the percentage of various ingredients in their formulations. The responses ranged from “don’t know” to “can’t tell” to “won’t say”. “Issue here is proprietary information. If I give formulation details, somebody else benefits from my R&D,” Gupta said.
The general impression given is that sharing such information would mean divulging their product secrets to competitors. In reality, however, all the product formulations are submitted to bis for approval and there is hardly any secrecy involved about the formulations.
Cosmetics majors, not to speak of the innumerable small-scale players in the hair oil segment, point at each other and gaps in law to shield themselves from the slippery issue of tall claims. But how did it all come to light in the first place?
The story began in Amravati, a small town in Maharashtra. An unsuspecting new parent bought an innocuous bottle of Johnson and Johnson’s Baby Oil and massaged his child. The infant soon developed blisters. When the use of the baby oil was stopped on medical advice, the blisters subsided. The angry parent then lodged a complaint with the state FDA and that really set the ball in motion. A series of investigations later it was established that Johnson’s Baby Oil, trusted by new parents across the country, is really 99.78 percent LLP mixed with traces of Vitamin D and Vitamin A (0.1 percent) along with other ingredients.
Doctors say that such low percentages of the key ingredients have next to no therapeutic value. So, by claiming such trace ingredients as the usp of a product, the manufacturer is taking the consumer for a ride. The absence of therapeutic value and tall claims apart, there is also the point that LLP may not be very suitable for a child’s sensitive skin. It is, at best, an emollient, but unlike vegetable oils, may sometimes clog the infant’s skin pores or lead to allergies. “The claims made regarding growth and development by baby oil manufacturers are not correct. It is the massage which does the trick, not any oil or emollient,” said Dr Amdekar, consulting paediatrician at Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai.
A study published by Delhi University College of Medical Sciences and Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital in The Indian Journal of Medical Research says: “Vegetable oils appear comparatively better in terms of growth and blood flow, sesame oil is a better choice for massage as it significantly improves growth as well as blood flow as compared to mineral oil which shows reduced blood flow. Available literature shows that vegetable oils are well absorbed from the skin while there is negligible absorption of mineral oil. Further, mineral oils may clog the pores of the skin.”
But the mineral oil did not just figure in baby massage oil. Johnson’s baby hair oil, the FDA found, was also largely LLP (99.789 percent) with a compound called D-Panthenyl Triacetate present in just 0.11 percent. But shockingly, it was this compound which figured as a “key ingredient” and tall claims that the hair oil nourished and kept roots healthy were based on its negligible presence. More investigations made it clear that from massage and hair oils to soaps and lotions, Johnson’s claim about their products’ therapeutic value to suitability for baby’s skin were largely inflated.
The Johnson and Johnson case opened up a can of worms. It was clear that if a company of Johnson’s repute was taking advantage of loopholes and cramming its baby oils’ with LLP, it was time to check what adult hair oil brands were up to.
This stirred a hornet’s nest. When FDA Commissioner Ramakrishnan along with other regulators and consumer activists decided to bring about an amendment based on their findings, they faced opposition from the bis sub-committee for cosmetics that approves such suggestions before sending them to Parliament. The amendment would require all cosmetics manufacturers to list ingredients used in a product along with their percentage in the product package.
Interestingly, industry representatives comprise more than 80 percent of the bis sub-committee. “So, in effect the cosmetics majors are today literally making the guidelines to regulate themselves. This is unfair. There should be equal representation of industry, regulators and consumer forums in such an important body,” said Ramakrishnan. But despite industry opposition, the amendment may finally come through.
Recently, Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss told Parliament: “No company can make claims without proving them with scientific data. Clinical trials have to be done. Cosmetics companies would be asked to prove their claims. How they do that is up to them but vague claims will not be allowed on labels.” Starting June 1, the health ministry is all set to ban cosmetics companies from carrying “misleading claims”. It will soon send notices to various cosmetics firms, asking them to either substantiate their claims or remove them from labels.
In 1999, the ministry had made it mandatory for companies to specify the expiry dates and in 2003, they were asked to list their main contents. The new law regarding listing of ingredients with their percentages will be in place in another three-four months. “But apart from amending the law to enforce proper labelling, what is required is a set of well chalked out legal guidelines to penalise offenders. At present, the regulatory bodies’ jurisdiction is not well-defined. This leads to lack of accountability and penal action,” said Ramakrishnan.
With wto regulations in place, many big cosmetics houses now manufacture their products in South East Asia. Since laws in those countries are not so stringent about labelling, they give disclosures a complete go-by.
“Laws have not evolved at the same pace as the sudden spurt of growth in cosmetics industry. Consumers in India are not very aware as well. So we are seeing a situation where there is rampant misuse of legal loopholes,” said Shenoy.
As each brand tries to outdo the other in an extremely competitive industry growing at an annual rate of 20 percent, both big and small brands are getting away thanks to the lacunae in regulations.