HoneyDew
Well-Known Member
I thnk they have been on this site.
Info regarding CON...check this out
- Thread starter LongHairDreams
- Start date
I thnk they have been on this site.
Sunshine_One
Well-Known Member
Yep, and another is Shellac (Fiber One Bars have this for example) Shellac is a brittle or flaky secretion of the insect Kerria lacca, found in the forests of Assam and Thailand.
I mean honey is from a bug, too. So I guess it is not all that bad.
Well...you make a great point!
LOLETA: But we always knew where honey came from. I had NO idea...red beetles where in my yogurt! Can you tell I'm still FIRED up ova that! LOL
HoneyDew
Well-Known Member
[/B]
Well...you make a great point!
ETA: But we always knew where honey came from. I had NO idea...red beetles where in my yogurt! Can you tell I'm still FIRED up ova that! LOL
LOL. Girl I stopped buying those fiber one bars because of the Shellac. I don't know - honey is just different, like you said. I just tell myself that about the honey to make myself feel better.
InnerSoul
Active Member
Yes, great example. This info came out (at least tht's when I discovered it) last year. I believe the bug in question is CARMINE a beetle. They use it for the red color in many foods...most widley found in YORGURT...yes, strawberry, rasberry etc. It stopped me cold from my beloved Yoplait. Now I spend at least 10 min reading labels on yogurt before I purchase. All these years they were putting buggs in our yogurt.
http://money.aol.com/bw/general/canvas3/_a/whats-in-my-food/20060808141909990001
http://www.naturalnews.com/002043.html
just read through one of the links...oh my !
InnerSoul
Active Member
[/b]
Well...you make a great point!
ETA: But we always knew where honey came from. I had NO idea...red beetles where in my yogurt! Can you tell I'm still FIRED up ova that! LOL
I love my honey too and won't give it up.. but I am with you on the info on the crushed red beetles in my yogurt.. not very appealing. But the bright side of it is the protein
... "slimy yet satisfying"-lion king movie when simba had to eat bugs!
Soul♥Flower
Well-Known Member
^^^ that's what I've been wondering
LongHairDreams
New Member
I haven't but im going to buy some soon to see if my hair feels a difference.
Yep, and another is Shellac (Fiber One Bars have this for example) Shellac is a brittle or flaky secretion of the insect Kerria lacca, found in the forests of Assam and Thailand.
I mean honey is from a bug, too. So I guess it is not all that bad.
i hear ya, the only thing is that we eat the honey- not the bug!
no offense to those of us who may eat buggs- i hear there high in protien
, lol.
Empress Yahudah
New Member
I was thinking the same thinghonestly, i dont think they will change it back. I think they are trying to target a "new customer base"
♦K.O♦
New Member
They must have forgotten that black people, while a racial minority, have the hair product industry on LOCK.
chebaby
Well-Known Member
i dont use the shampoo but i do know that whatever works for your hair works. whats the point in getting mad when it works. i understand it was a lie but still, it works
That's lying. I don't want secret ingredients in my hair products or anything I buy.
Classic Okie-Doke...
glamazon386
Well-Known Member
Sulfates are foaming agents; they come in different forms (Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Ammonium Laureth/Lauryl Sulfate). There are also gentler derivatives made from sugar and other natural ingredients. Jonathan, Ojon, and Phyto are brands that use the derivatives in which they can claim to be sulfate-free. These derivatives are very expensive and that is why people pay more than $20 for shampoo
CON shampoo definitely had and has sulfates!
Exactly. They probably just have it listed as another name on the bottle. I always hated that shampoo as a child because it made my nose burn. And in my experience any shampoo that makes my nose burn has sulfates in it.
macherieamour
New Member
Yep, if they move to another part of the product aisle (near john frieda and redken) we will know for sure
f so, good luck cause white products spend millions differentiating themselves via advertising and marketing. They will have to go up against the Pantenes and L'Oreal heavy hitters. At least, they had us on the underground tip!
SparklingFlame
New Member
You could be right though. Before the bottle was plain and generic looking now they have it all jazzed up and no is complete with "organic" ingredients. Yeah your theory sounds plausible. Oh well. I guess they want to loose a boatload of $$$.Yep, if they move to another part of the product aisle (near john frieda and redken) we will know for sure
f so, good luck cause white products spend millions differentiating themselves via advertising and marketing. They will have to go up against the Pantenes and L'Oreal heavy hitters. At least, they had us on the underground tip!
HoneyDew
Well-Known Member
What is the point of labeling if it is all a lie?
I I check the ingredients on something that I eat or use on my body and choose to buy it or not because I want to eliminate or incorporate certain things, that should be my choice.
There are vegetarians that would be upset if they found out a product does, in fact, have animal ingredients in it, even though it is not on the label. It may not have hurt them and served a need, but it is still wrong.
It is false labeling and honestly, I am surprised someone there even admitted to this because from a bit of research it does not seem legal.
HoneyDew
Well-Known Member
Check this out: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-lab4.html
It is illegal to introduce a misbranded cosmetic into interstate commerce, and such products are subject to regulatory action. Some of the ways a cosmetic can become misbranded are:
-its labeling is false or misleading,
-its label fails to provide required information,
-its required label information is not properly displayed, and
-its labeling violates requirements of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 [FD&C Act, sec. 602; 21 U.S.C. 362].
What labeling information is required?
The following information must appear on the principal display panel:
An identity statement, indicating the nature and use of the product, by means of either the common or usual name, a descriptive name, a fanciful name understood by the public, or an illustration [21 CFR 701.11].
An accurate statement of the net quantity of contents, in terms of weight, measure, numerical count or a combination of numerical count and weight or measure [21 CFR 701.13].
The following information must appear on an information panel:
Name and place of business. This may be the manufacturer, packer, or distributor. [21 CFR 701.12].
Distributor statement. If the name and address are not those of the manufacturer, the label must say "Manufactured for..." or "Distributed by..." [21 CFR 701.12].
Material facts. Failure to reveal material facts is one form of misleading labeling and therefore makes a product misbranded [21 CFR 1.21]. An example is directions for safe use, if a product could be unsafe if used incorrectly.
Warning and caution statements. These must be prominent and conspicuous. The FD&C Act and related regulations specify warning and caution statements related to specific products [21 CFR part 700]. In addition, cosmetics that may be hazardous to consumers must bear appropriate label warnings [21 CFR 740.1]. An example of such hazardous products is flammable cosmetics.
Ingredients. If the product is sold on a retail basis to consumers, even it it is labeled "For professional use only" or words to that effect, the ingredients must appear on an information panel, in descending order of predominance. [21 CFR 701.3]. Remember, if the product is also a drug, its labeling must comply with the regulations for both OTC drug and cosmetic ingredient labeling, as stated above.
It is illegal to introduce a misbranded cosmetic into interstate commerce, and such products are subject to regulatory action. Some of the ways a cosmetic can become misbranded are:
-its labeling is false or misleading,
-its label fails to provide required information,
-its required label information is not properly displayed, and
-its labeling violates requirements of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 [FD&C Act, sec. 602; 21 U.S.C. 362].
What labeling information is required?
The following information must appear on the principal display panel:
An identity statement, indicating the nature and use of the product, by means of either the common or usual name, a descriptive name, a fanciful name understood by the public, or an illustration [21 CFR 701.11].
An accurate statement of the net quantity of contents, in terms of weight, measure, numerical count or a combination of numerical count and weight or measure [21 CFR 701.13].
The following information must appear on an information panel:
Name and place of business. This may be the manufacturer, packer, or distributor. [21 CFR 701.12].
Distributor statement. If the name and address are not those of the manufacturer, the label must say "Manufactured for..." or "Distributed by..." [21 CFR 701.12].
Material facts. Failure to reveal material facts is one form of misleading labeling and therefore makes a product misbranded [21 CFR 1.21]. An example is directions for safe use, if a product could be unsafe if used incorrectly.
Warning and caution statements. These must be prominent and conspicuous. The FD&C Act and related regulations specify warning and caution statements related to specific products [21 CFR part 700]. In addition, cosmetics that may be hazardous to consumers must bear appropriate label warnings [21 CFR 740.1]. An example of such hazardous products is flammable cosmetics.
Ingredients. If the product is sold on a retail basis to consumers, even it it is labeled "For professional use only" or words to that effect, the ingredients must appear on an information panel, in descending order of predominance. [21 CFR 701.3]. Remember, if the product is also a drug, its labeling must comply with the regulations for both OTC drug and cosmetic ingredient labeling, as stated above.
Esq.2B
Well-Known Member
Thanks for clearing that up.
I don't think there are sulfates in the CON.
Why would they have made the decision to list the fact that there were sulfates on the Blue bottle but not on the Red and Green bottles? What would have been the point of that?
And what "time" did they not have to include sulfates on the bottle? If that's the case no company would have included the sulfates on the label. Who wants to divulge that kind of info if they don't have to? CON is not subject to any different regulations from the other companies.
I don't buy it. They're telling a BIG FAT FIB.
And Allandra, as well as a few other posters said that they used the new formula and it's trash.
It's in one of the other threads about CON being discontinued.
Last edited:
Empress Yahudah
New Member
Hmm well lets see here.. I guess if u found out someone made ur favorite burger with ground beef and boo-boo and u found out u wouldnt be made cuz it was a bomb burger
There are people with allergies to sulfates and buy this and use it thinking its sulfate free since non are listed. That's not cool at all if they lie about that what other "secret ingredients" were left out of the label.
ETA: I have a cousin that last weekend asked me about a good sulfate free poo she can use since she is allergic and I told her CON green bottle. I called her with the quickness and told her scratch that and told her another to use.
Last edited:
Empress Yahudah
New Member
Im wondering if that rep got surfactant confused with sulfate
Vshanell
FKA Pokahontas
Hmm well lets see here.. I guess if u found out someone made ur favorite burger with ground beef and boo-boo and u found out u wouldnt be made cuz it was a bomb burger
There are people with allergies to sulfates and buy this and use it thinking its sulfate free since non are listed. That's not cool at all if they lie about that what other "secret ingredients" were left out of the label.
ETA: I have a cousin that last weekend asked me about a good sulfate free poo she can use since she is allergic and I told her CON green bottle. I called her with the quickness and told her scratch that and told her another to use.
aja1121
Well-Known Member
Well, you know this isn't the first time they reformulated and repackaged. I took it way back, I was referring to the yellow bottles. I've been a PJ since way back when and my mom has left my room and bathroom the way it was since I left. I was home for Easter and started throwing some stuff away and found some old staples and checked the ingredients for SLS, ALS, propylene glycol, petrolatum etc...and came across the CON that I had. I don't remember which one, I use to use all of them, mostly green and blue though.The ingredients you listed obviously don't have sulfates, but Decyl Glucoside, Trideceth-7 Carboxylic Acid are both surfactants. I imagine they used 2 to mimic the lather of a sulfate, although they both can stand alone.
Last edited:
aja1121
Well-Known Member
This isn't the first time they had the CON sulfate debate, I found this thread. Looks like different bottles say different things
http://www.longhaircareforum.com/showthread.php?t=2443
http://www.longhaircareforum.com/showthread.php?t=2443
MonaLisa
Well-Known Member
Hmm well lets see here.. I guess if u found out someone made ur favorite burger with ground beef and boo-boo and u found out u wouldnt be made cuz it was a bomb burger
And thanks @ Aja
gymfreak336
New Member
If yall remember, in Allure Magazine, either last year or the year before that, they had a hair special that featured 8-10 Little Known Miracle Products. One of them was CON, White girls, the 3b,3c set were RAVING about how great the shampoo was and how it was so conditioning to their hair. One girl made a comment that she hopes they never stop making it because all the usual "white" shampoo's don't work and that this "ethnic" product was her lifesaver. CON responded with "We have no plans of discontinuing the product and 
...and how it has been one of the best selling ethinic products since the 70's"............I think Macherie is right, maybe they saw $$$ when the white girls said they loved it.
...and how it has been one of the best selling ethinic products since the 70's"............I think Macherie is right, maybe they saw $$$ when the white girls said they loved it.
Proudpiscean
Well-Known Member
That's what I'm thinking. Everybody isn't all into ingredients like we are, she probably doesn't even know the difference.
Similar threads
