Tuesday 22 June, 2004
So Strawberry
I'm always on a quest to find better hair care products. Often I have a favourite for months or even years, then it becomes unavailable and I move into something else. Lately it's been mainly salon products - especially for coloured hair they are often best. The problem with those products is of course the price - I have to easily fork out up to £10 for a bottle of shampoo and another one for the conditioner. With shampoo it's not that big of a deal as one bottle will last me for 6-8 weeks as I don't need that much, even with a long hair. However conditioner is more tricky - my hair requires quite a lot to get it silky smooth. So often I buy a bottle from my salon when I go there - it runs out after few weeks, and then I buy a bottle from the supermarket that will keep me going until the next visit.
So I've been making experiments on different types of off-the-shelf conditioners - expensive "organic experiences", cheaper "natural herbal" types and every other gimmick they can think of... Yesterday I was just looking for something that smells nice and decided to give a kids conditioner a go - L'Oreal Kids So Strawberry - just because it smelled so nice. This morning I tried it for the first time, and I'm most impressed: first of all, the sweet strawberry smell is gorgeous, but it also does the job more than well.The package says "No tangles, no tears!" and that's exactly what it does - even the best salon products have never managed to make my hair so tangle free, just amazing.
So ok, I'm not four anymore, but it doesn't mean I can't still appreciate hair that is easy to comb trough. I have no issues with buying funny bottles, but I'm just wondering why "normal" shampoos don't automatically do this already.
Posted by kolibri at 22 June 10:07, 2004"No tangles, no tears!"
Except for the wee lil' bunnies at the L'Oreal labs.
# 2 - Sif (on June 22, 2004 02:04 PM):
Salon products in bulk sizes, with discount/stock/warehouse prizes. That, I tell you, is the way to go. Shampoos, conditioners, styling products, the whole lot. For several years I have maintained my colored, these days buttlong hair with products that cost way too much in retail (salons only), but less that super market stuff in the warehouse (where salon owners shop, too). Bottle sizes are from 1000ml-7000ml-10 000ml, which means I rarely have to drag myself over there. Quality is superb, no way I could have this hair without them! I color my hair at home once a month with harmful chemicals and cut it like 2 times a year, so it really needs good products to survive.
# 3 - Kolibri (on June 22, 2004 02:08 PM):
There's always a catch, isn't there.
Unfortunately it's the law to test incredients of these products to a certain safety standars, and all companies must adhere to these rules. In fact it's practically impossible to buy cosmetics where incredients haven't been tested with animals at some point. Even the ethical companies use the "5 year cut-off" rule which states that they can say the incredients haven't been tested with animals - within the past 5 years. Some of these tests can be carried out using vitro and other non-animal tests, but not all results are accurate in a tube. L'Oreal doesn't use animal testing (since 1990) for finished products (which means that this particular product hasn't been tested with bunnies, even if they could shed tears).
This is not to say that I don't agree with you - as far as I know, most animal testing for cosmetics is essentially unnecessary.
# 4 - inkling (on June 23, 2004 08:38 AM):
I work in the cosmetic human-testing field. Since people have become aware of animal testing of cosmetics, they've tried to avoid such testing of animals. Well, as we all agree, humans are not superior to animals, so cosmetic companies have turned to testing them on humans.
In order to protect fuzzy little bunnies, I have personally volunteered for several series of tests of cosmetics on my own body. After all, I'd rather feel the searing pain and endless agony of a new mascara as it is injected in my own eyes, rather than cause one bunny a brief moment of pain. After all, anything is acceptable in the name of looking good,
Oh my God, I told myself as I screamed bloody murder from the unbelievable burning of a new experimental hair coloring product as it literally peeled pieces off of my scalp, at least some innocent leporid doesn't have to endure what I am experiencing.
What's especially rewarding is the knowledge that I am helping people so that they can pretend to be environmentalists or animal lovers, while continuing to wear the artificial hair coloring and appearance-enhancing cosmetics that ironically make them look trendy. It's worth every agonizing day of experiencing the untold pain of having 17 different skin lotions injected under my skin. At least my pain can help them enhance their artificial appearance. And isn't that what's it's all about?
# 5 - Hakkis (on June 23, 2004 09:37 AM):
While LÓreal is not alone in its use of animal testing in the rather sordid world of cosmetics, it does stand out for the fact that it's largely owned by Nestle, a company that pretty much embodies globalisation sans ethics.
Might I recommed Body Shop and their very good shampoos and conditioners. While Body Shop isn't quite as nice and clean as they try to claim, they do beat LÓreal easily, and IMHO also make better products.
# 6 - Kolibri (on June 23, 2004 09:46 AM):
Ah, did not know about the Nestle connection, that's probably a bigger factor for me :(
Body Shop products are good, I've used them in the past. Quality is a slight issue with them though - I'd say good, but not excellent. I guess you can't have it all.
You can't add any more comments, but if you wish you can email the author.