Code of Conduct
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    21,407

    Default Make-up vs perfume restrictions and industry behavior

    Both makeup and perfume industries are subject to restrictions and regulations. But is the makeup industry more willing to circumvent them than the perfume industry?

    By chance, during one of those lazy youtube browsing, I learnt that the FDA has not approved many ingredients for eye shadows. But this doesn't prevent many brands from using them. The solution: call the product "pressed pigment" and write on the eye palet box that they are not to be used on the eye. The consumer of course will ignore the warning and use them as intended on the eye.

    I can only think of one example of a perfume brand that calls the perfume "for clothes" (the Zoo). Bottom line: the industry thinks that customers are willing to ignore regulations if the product is better, and thus are willing to find ways around them, whereas the industry doesn't think this to be the case for perfumes.

    To be fair, I don't think that these pigments are forbidden in Europe (but am not sure), and it's possible that the EU wouldn't allow this trick. But still-I do have the impression that the industry is putting much more effort in the development of makeup than perfume. Call it the youtube effect...

    cacio

  2. #2

    Default Re: Make-up vs perfume restrictions and industry behavior

    No idea. But we are bombarded with the use by date on cosmetics, which is never ever a proper use by date such at 5/4/19 always the 6/12/18/24 months thing. Well known that powder products do not go off despite them trying to push it going off. Liquid products I go by smell and if the texture has changed.

    Now, most powder eyeshadows have mica which has been used in cosmetics since the Cleopatra did her khol. And even in the EU, you get the odd brand stating there is mica in a seperate statement.

    I think the crackdown on perfume more because of it might go into your bloodstream thing?
    DONNA

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    21,407

    Default Re: Make-up vs perfume restrictions and industry behavior

    Possible, but that's all stuff that is on skin, so there shouldn't be much difference.

    My guess is simply that with all the youtube videos of vibrant, high coverage makeup, customers are demanding these products, even if they are restriced, and firm find ways to circumvent the regulations.

  4. #4
    Basenotes Plus

    Cook.bot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Tracks, Wrong Side of
    Posts
    5,104

    Default Re: Make-up vs perfume restrictions and industry behavior

    Wouldn't something that's applied to your eye be far more likely to enter your bloodstream than something that's only applied to the outer layer of your skin?

  5. #5

    Default Re: Make-up vs perfume restrictions and industry behavior

    No, if you get something in your eye(usually eyelash), you just remove it as it will annoy the eye straight away. Eyeshadow fallout as it is known happens under the eyes.
    DONNA

  6. #6
    Champion Thread Killer

    kbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Big Blue Marble
    Posts
    27,628
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Make-up vs perfume restrictions and industry behavior

    Quote Originally Posted by Cook.bot View Post
    Wouldn't something that's applied to your eye be far more likely to enter your bloodstream than something that's only applied to the outer layer of your skin?
    Skin is (approximately) 0.6mm thick on the body, 0.12mm thick on the facial skin, thinnest on the lips and around the eyes (0.3mm on the eyelid) and thickest on the palms and soles (1.2mm to 4.7mm). This would indicate to me that products applied to the eyelids would have a faster entry rate into the bloodstream than anywhere else on the body except the face and the lips. I would have to qualify that statement with the supposition that the underlying blood supply is equal in all areas of skin and that is probably not true. Directly to the eye? Probably very quick.
    One if by land...two if by sea...three if by air....
    Mike I'm Erika Grate , a Djin!--Or a Nym?

  7. #7
    Basenotes Plus

    Cook.bot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Tracks, Wrong Side of
    Posts
    5,104

    Default Re: Make-up vs perfume restrictions and industry behavior

    Quote Originally Posted by kbe View Post
    Skin is (approximately) 0.6mm thick on the body, 0.12mm thick on the facial skin, thinnest on the lips and around the eyes (0.3mm on the eyelid) and thickest on the palms and soles (1.2mm to 4.7mm). This would indicate to me that products applied to the eyelids would have a faster entry rate into the bloodstream than anywhere else on the body except the lips. I would have to qualify that statement with the supposition that the underlying blood supply is equal in all areas of skin and that is probably not true.
    Good points, but I was actually thinking more of products entering through the fluid in your eye.

    People put eyeshadow (usually in pencil form) on this area all the time -- it's called "applying to the waterline", the area above your lower eyelashes. And anyone who's ever gotten mascara in their eyes knows the stinging pain of that unhappy accident.




Similar Threads

  1. Why the Perfume Industry Stinks
    By petruccijc in forum General Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 27th September 2010, 11:26 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 6th September 2010, 11:13 AM
  3. Postal Restrictions: Flammables/Perfume--do you comply?
    By Quarry in forum Female Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 28th November 2006, 12:45 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Loving perfume on the Internet since 2000