- within Compliance topic(s)
Native Cosmetics' moisture absorption claims are all wet, says division
Let's Talk About Sweat, Baby
Some of us shvitz, some of us stink and some of us do both. Luckily, this is America, and you have options.
Depending on what happens under your armpits, you might want an underarm hygiene product to block moisture, mask your odor or a little bit of both.
Here's how it works: Antiperspirants contain an ingredient that deodorants lack: aluminum. Aluminum combines with liquid sweat to create a gelatinous substance (shudder) that blocks up sweat glands for a little while. So, deodorants may make you smell better, but antiperspirants will clog up your shvitzing altogether (and if they're scented, make you smell better too).
For more than you ever wanted to know about how sweat works, why it stinks and how armpits resemble tropical rain forests, read this article. Interesting, if grody, stuff.
Going Native
With that background out of the way, we move on to a showdown between Native Cosmetics and Tom's of Maine before the National Advertising Division (NAD) in June. Both companies make competing deodorant products. But Tom's thought that Native went too far by effacing the line between deodorant and antiperspirant with marketing claims, including:
"Effective Protection. We tested thousands of ingredients before finding a recipe that feels light and fresh under your arms but provides you with effective protection against odor and wetness," and "We use baking soda to neutralize odors, arrowroot powder to absorb moisture and acidophilus, a naturally occurring probiotic found in your intestines." (Say what?!)
The Takeaway
Tom's told the NAD that it believed that Native had no solid backup for its anti-wetness claims. NAD agreed, pointing out problems with a number of Native's claims, including whether "in vitro testing using a back-skin mimic in the Water Vapor Transmission Rate test" was relevant to consumers.
"Back-skin mimic"? We don't even want to know.
NAD also held that Native's testing of individual ingredients rather than the final product undermined its claims, and significant potential biases existed in the screening questions for the tests.
Rather than go along with NAD's recommendation to discontinue its claims, Native has decided to appeal to the National Advertising Review Board.
Looks like this dispute rolls on.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
