CosmeticOBS - L'Observatoire des Cosmétiques

Agrégateur de news

L'agrégateur de news est un service qui réunit de façon automatique tous les sujets d'actualité en rapport avec le secteur cosmétique publiés dernièrement sur Internet, tous médias confondus.

17 juin 2019 What you need to know about the chemicals in your sunscreen

By Consumer Reports Consumer Reports June 17 at 2:00 PM

Consumer Reports has no financial relationship with any advertisers on this site.

There have been a lot of worrisome reports recently about the health effects of sunscreens with chemical ingredients such as oxybenzone and avobenzone, substances shown to protect skin from the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) rays, which can cause sunburns and skin cancer.

Some experts are concerned that these chemicals may be absorbed through the skin, leading to skin irritation, hormonal disruption – even skin cancer. The Food and Drug Administration recently called for more research on the safety and effectiveness of these chemicals. In May, a preliminary study by FDA researchers found that the chemicals may be absorbed into the skin at levels higher than previously believed. And a report published in March suggests there may be risks to developing fetuses when pregnant women are exposed to oxybenzone.

Adding to the confusion, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) says sunscreen is safe, but the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) tells parents it’s best to not use sunscreens with oxybenzone on their kids.

With about 5 million cases of skin cancer diagnosed each year – more than 90 percent of those attributed to UV exposure – experts don’t want Americans to stop using their sunscreens.

Don Huber, director of product safety at Consumer Reports, says, “There is overwhelming evidence that sunscreen protects against skin cancer and other harmful effects of the sun, so consumers need to continue to use it while scientists do more research on the safety of sunscreen ingredients.”

So what’s the bottom line for you and your family this summer when it comes to sun-protection safety? Here’s what you need to know right now.

What the data shows

Safety concerns about chemicals in sunscreens exist because these ingredients can be absorbed through the skin. With many Americans now using these products more frequently and in larger amounts than in the past, this concern has grown.

“We’ve been asking that people use sunscreen on a daily basis all year-round and apply it every few hours during prolonged sun exposure,” says Henry Lim, a dermatologist at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit and immediate past president of the AAD. That raises the question of whether ingredients that were thought to be safe when used occasionally – once or twice a week at the beach or pool, for instance – could be harmful in larger daily doses.

The FDA previously reviewed the safety and effectiveness of all active ingredients used in sunscreens today and said it would allow them under certain conditions. But the agency is now asking the sunscreen industry to provide additional safety information on 12 common chemical sunscreen ingredients, including oxybenzone, avobenzone, homosalate, octinoxate, octisalate and octocrylene.

“This request for additional data does not mean that the FDA has concluded that these 12 ingredients are unsafe,” says Theresa Michele, director of the division of nonprescription drug products at the FDA. “The goal here is to get the data and validate the safety and effectiveness of all these ingredients.”

The toxicity of some of the above-mentioned ingredients has been more thoroughly researched than others, and few studies have been done with the actual sunscreens you buy at the store, Huber says, so the FDA’s decision to get more data is a good one.

In response to the FDA’s proposed sunscreen safety changes, the Personal Care Products Council, a trade association that represents sunscreen manufacturers, issued a statement saying that the 12 ingredients in question had been found to be safe and effective in Europe and in other countries. While noting that it looked forward to working with the FDA to address the agency’s questions, the council also said that the “precise studies proposed by the FDA are not the only ways to obtain the data they need.”

Concerns about oxybenzone

Of the 12 ingredients the FDA is investigating, the one most often flagged as potentially worrisome is oxybenzone. This chemical is widely used in sunscreens because it effectively protects against UV rays, those that are mostly responsible for sunburn (UVB) and skin cancer (UVA).

There’s evidence that oxybenzone is absorbed through the skin more than was once thought, and in some studies, researchers have found detectable levels of it in human blood and breast milk. Based on animal studies, there’s concern that it could interfere with the normal function of a number of hormones, including estrogen.

In a 2001 study, researchers from the University of Zurich in Switzerland found that rats who ate food with oxybenzone mixed in had a 23 percent increase in uterine size.

“There’s a difference between eating a substance and absorbing it through the skin, however,” Huber says. A study published in the Archives of Dermatology calculated that the average-size American woman would have to apply sunscreen to 100 percent of her body every day for nearly 35 years to get the same dose of oxybenzone as the rats did. And, according to Lim (a co-author of this study), there have been no studies that have shown any harmful effects in humans, despite the evidence of absorption.

Still, a paper recently published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology suggests that pregnant women who use sunscreen with oxybenzone daily might absorb enough of the chemical to increase the risk of a birth defect called Hirschsprung’s disease. Children with this condition are missing nerves in the lower colon or rectum, which prevents stool from moving through the bowel normally. The report’s findings don’t prove that oxybenzone exposure causes the condition, but it’s another piece of information that underscores the need for more research on oxybenzone and other sunscreen ingredients.

The AAP advises parents to avoid using sunscreens with oxybenzone on children, if possible.

“Studies in laboratory animals and other laboratory studies show that this chemical can mimic the actions of hormones that naturally occur in the human body. This is called endocrine disruption,” says Sophie J. Balk, an attending pediatrician at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore in the Bronx and a member of the AAP Council on Environmental Health. “As pediatricians, we are concerned about the effects of chemicals on fetuses, infants and children because their endocrine systems and other organ systems are rapidly growing and developing. There’s no research to prove adverse effects of oxybenzone on children, but there is concern.”

She notes that while a majority of the studies are specific to oxybenzone, the AAP is concerned about all chemical active ingredients in personal care products.

There is also some evidence that oxybenzone may be harmful to coral reefs, and some communities have passed legislation to ban the sale of sunscreens that contain it.

Limits of mineral products?

The FDA says that there’s enough evidence to conclude that titanium dioxide and zinc oxide – ingredients that are used in mineral (sometimes called “natural”) sunscreen products – don’t warrant the same health concerns as chemical sunscreen ingredients such as oxybenzone. That’s because they sit on the surface of the skin and aren’t absorbed. But some experts, including those at Consumer Reports, note that they also don’t necessarily protect the skin as well as sunscreens with chemical ingredients.

“The AAD has always urged consumers who are concerned about chemical sunscreens to use mineral ones,” Lim says. “But because titanium dioxide and zinc oxide work by deflecting rather than absorbing UV rays [as chemical ingredients do], they are not as efficient filters as most chemical ingredients.”

Mineral sunscreens have consistently underperformed in CR’s testing, not always testing at the claimed SPF label on the package and failing to provide adequate protection from either UVA or UVB rays. None of the 18 sunscreens in our ratings that contain only titanium dioxide, zinc oxide or both scored high enough to receive a recommended designation from CR. But some did better than others and could be alternatives if you’re concerned (see below).

Protect yourself in the sun

“Patients often ask me about the health risks of sunscreens,” says Joshua Zeichner, director of cosmetic and clinical research in the department of dermatology at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City. “I’ve even had patients wonder if it’s safer to go without.”

But, says Lim, “the negative effects of sun exposure – skin cancer and premature skin aging – are very well known. And using sunscreen has been shown to decrease those risks.” That’s why the FDA isn’t recommending that consumers avoid any of the active ingredients (including chemical ones) currently in sunscreen, many of which have been in use in the United States for more than 20 years without proved claims of negative health effects.

That advice applies to pregnant women and children, too. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that pregnant women use sunscreen and doesn’t have a policy on the safety of the ingredients in it. And despite its concerns about oxybenzone, the AAP stresses that using some form of sunscreen is better than not using sunscreen.

“We want kids to be outside playing and enjoying the outdoors, being mindful of the importance of sun protection,” Balk says. “Using sunscreen is one way to prevent sunburn. Clothing and hats can provide an important barrier against UV rays. A child wearing a swim shirt and swim shorts will need less sunscreen, since parts of the body will be covered. And timing outdoor activities before 10 a.m. and after 4 p.m. avoids peak sun.”

(According to the AAP, babies under 6 months should be kept out of the sun or covered with protective clothing, with sunscreen used only on small areas, such as the face, if protective clothing and shade aren’t available.)

Lim also advises consumers to think of sunscreen as just one part of a total sun-protection plan that also includes covering up with clothing (or a rash guard), wearing a broad-brimmed hat and seeking the shade or staying indoors between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. This approach will help you shield your skin and allow you to skip applying sunscreen on covered body parts.

If you’re particularly concerned about the possible effects of oxybenzone, there are chemical sunscreens without it. Walgreens Hydrating Lotion SPF 50 and Hawaiian Tropic Sheer Touch Ultra Radiance Lotion SPF 50 scored well in our ratings.

And if you want to use a mineral sunscreen, our tests show that California Kids Super Sensitive Lotion SPF 30+, Badger Active Natural Mineral Lotion SPF 30 (Unscented) and Goddess Garden Everyday Natural Lotion SPF 30 will offer some protection, although not as much as our top-rated products.

Copyright 2019, Consumer Reports Inc.

Read More

Environmental toxins are seen posing risks during pregnancy

The negative health effects of too much noise go well beyond hearing problems

The warning signs of skin cancer

Consumer Reports is an independent, nonprofit organization that works side by side with consumers to create a fairer, safer, and healthier world. CR does not endorse products or services, and does not accept advertising. Read more at

++ Lire plus ++ -- Refermer --

15 juin 2019 Analysis | Dangerous skin bleaching has become a public health crisis. Corporate marketing lies behind it.

As a result, when African nations ban bleaching products, the bans will probably backfire By Ramya M. Vijaya June 15 at 7:00 AM

In the past several years, multinational corporations have heavily marketed the idea that lighter skin leads to more prosperity. As a result, dangerous skin bleaching has become a public health crisis, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). In response, the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) recently passed a resolution recommending a regional ban on cosmetics with hydroquinone, a skin-bleaching agent – a ban that looks likely to pass. Several countries, including Ghana, Rwanda, South Africa and Sudan, have also banned bleaching cosmetics in recent months.

Despite these warnings and bans, the skin-whitening industry has experienced phenomenal growth in parts of Asia and Africa in recent years. A WHO report found that nearly 77 percent of Nigerian women reported using skin-lightening products regularly. In India, 61 percent of the skin-care market consisted of skin-lightening products. Analysts project still more growth in years to come. However, in my research on the cosmetic industry’s global colorism marketing, I found that banning bleaching agents is counterproductive and might exacerbate the crisis, as I explain below.

Multinational brands dominate growth in the skin-whitening industry

Market research shows continued, exponential growth in the global market for skin-whitening products. One forecast projects the industry to reach about $24 billion in value by 2027. Another puts the figure at $31.2 billion by the year 2024. Multinational brands Unilever, Beiersdorf and L’Oreal are the three dominant players in this industry globally. In India and Nigeria, the two country case studies in my chapter in the book “Race in the Marketplace,” Unilever and Beiersdorf have the largest market shares respectively. The dominance of multinational corporations in the industry is creating a new dynamic in colorism, the preference for lighter skin tones even among nonwhite majority populations. Their marketing is amplifying colonial-era associations of power and privilege with white skin already embedded in parts of Asia and Africa.

Attempting to cash in on a growing, aspirational middle-class consumer base in these regions, companies use advertising to link lighter skin with perceptions of not just beauty but also socioeconomic mobility.

In the early 2000s, Unilever began airing what became a notorious commercial for its Fair and Lovely whitening cream on Indian television. In the ad, a dark-skinned daughter hears her father lament the family’s low economic status. After she starts to use Fair and Lovely, her skin becomes visibly lighter, she lands a higher-paid job as a flight attendant, and the family’s circumstances improve. This commercial marked a more aggressive era in the marketing of colorism. While in the past, skin-whitening products alluded vaguely to white as a beauty ideal, the newer marketing strategies directly underscored the economic and social mobility associated with whiteness and explicitly linked darker skin to socioeconomic stagnation.

There is also an emphasis on global imagery such as Western-style clothes, images of international airports and international beauty pageant contestants. A 2017 Nigerian Beiersdorf commercial featured a scene in which the black skin of Miss Nigeria Omowunmi Akinnifesi turned practically white as she applied the Nivea Natural Fairness moisturizer.

Those who can’t afford the expensive cosmetics use cheaper bleaches

This new global marketing has created a segmentation or a split in the industry. While multinational brands target the middle class and link skin tones to economic success, low-income, working-class consumers who are priced out of the higher-end branded products have sought out cheaper, local products with harmful bleaching agents such as hydroquinone.

Multinational companies responded to bans on bleaching by creating a distinction between harmful bleaching and so-called natural whitening products. Beiersdorf’s Nivea Natural Fairness cream touts the use of berry extracts that supposedly reduce overactive melanin without the use of bleaching agents. Unilever, which makes Fair and Lovely along with Pond’s, claims the melanin-reducing benefits of its patented version of Vitamin B3 work without bleaching. L’Oreal similarly claims its White Perfect range of products “unload excess melanin” with a special ingredient called Melanin-Vanish.

This segmenting of the market into the old bleaching products and the new “natural,” “scientific” and “melanin-controlling” global brands has resulted in a dual market where those who cannot afford the branded products but want to see similar results buy more unsafe bleaching products illegally. Government bans on harsh bleaching ingredients have only resulted in a thriving black market in countries such as Ghana, Ivory Coast and Nigeria. Individuals discount the cost to their health when compared with the perceived cost of lost opportunities for social mobility and global reach promoted aggressively by multinational brands.

Moreover, advertising that casts melanin as a kind of abnormality that needs to be controlled normalizes skin lightening, which encourages bleaching.

Bans on bleaching agents in individual countries or regions are likely to be ineffective as long as multinational corporations continue to aggressively market globalized, whiteness-based notions of beauty and social mobility. At times, local groups push back. Women’s groups protested the Fair and Lovely commercial, which the company eventually withdrew. But subsequent ads have continued to show lighter skin as leading to socioeconomic mobility and success. Similarly, many Nigerians and others in the region protested the Nivea commercial; the company withdrew the ad in Ghana.

Nevertheless, these companies continue to use imagery and vocabulary about whitening, fairness and skin brightening that would be unacceptable in the Western markets where these companies are headquartered. Without coordinated global effort against multinationals’ colorist advertising, including social media and other consumer activism, bans alone are likely to remain ineffective.

Ramya M. Vijaya is a professor of economics at Stockton University and co-author of “Indian Immigrant Women and Work” (Routledge, 2017) and “Seeing White: An Introduction to White Privilege and Race” (Rowman & Littlefield, 2011).

++ Lire plus ++ -- Refermer --

13 juin 2019 L'Oréal Paris est la marque française la plus puissante

Le géant des cosmétiques, et ses différentes marques, monopolise le classement établi par le cabinet spécialisé Brand Finance. Mais en termes de valeur, le poids lourd reste Total.

Jane Fonda, Eva Longoria, Leila Bekhti, Louise Bourgoin et désormais Céline Dion…Pour séduire sa clientèle, L’Oréal Paris n’hésite pas à s’offrir les services de nombreuses stars françaises et internationales. Et cet effort marketing semble payant. La marque est la plus puissante de l’Hexagone, selon le classement annuel du cabinet Brand Finance, basé à Londres. Ce dernier tient compte de l’investissement marketing, de l’image de la marque et de son impact sur la performance de l’entreprise. Sur une note de 100, L’Oréal obtient 88,6. Le groupe parvient même à placer dans le top 10 trois autres de ses marques: Lancôme (5e, 86,2), Garnier (6e, 85,9) et Elsève (9e, 84,8).

L’Oréal devance ainsi Free qui, avec une note de 86,7, est deuxième du classement. Michelin arrive à la troisième position avec un score de 86,3. Mercure, qui est aussi la marque d’hôtels la plus forte au monde selon Brand Finance, fait une spectaculaire remontée en passant de la 39e à la 4e place (86,2). Dans le reste du top 10 figurent Safran (7e, 85,5), Guerlain (8e, 85) et Hermès (10e, 84,8). Le cabinet souligne également la présence dans le classement de, seule marque présente parmi les licornes françaises. La société est certes 97e mais elle fait une entrée remarquée dans le top 100 ce qui démontre “la pertinence de son modèle, l’engagement de ses clients, soutenu par une internationalisation croissante avant le changement de marque sous”, salut l’étude.

En plus de leur rayonnement, Brand Finance s’est également penché sur la valeur des marques. Le classement s’en trouve complètement chamboulé. Total s’empare de la première place avec une marque valorisée à 21,69 milliards d’euros. Les arguments du pétrolier sont lourds: acquisition de l’activité de gaz naturel liquéfié d’Engie, lui permettant d’être le second fournisseur mondial de GNL, proximité avec les consommateurs via son réseau de 16.000 stations-service, intégration de Direct Energie, investissements dans la production et la fourniture d’énergie bas carbone…. D’après les auteurs de l’étude, Total “est une marque forte qui construit avec intelligence sa cohérence au-delà du paradoxe propre à la transition énergétique. Cela pourrait lui permettre d’en tirer les bénéfices pour renforcer l’expérience client en répondant aux attentes clés tout en créant les opportunités commerciales du futur”.

Derrière Total figure Orange, dont la marque est valorisée 18,08 milliards d’euros. Le géant des télécoms, qui dominait le classement ces quatre dernières années, perd sa première place en raison d’ “un marché national des télécommunications saturé et ultra-concurrentiel et où la guerre des prix continue à faire rage”, juge l’étude. Axa (13,48 milliards) est sur la troisième marche du podium. Le luxe est aussi bien représenté dans le top 10 avec des marques comme Cartier (valorisée 11,7 milliards), Vuitton (11,7 milliards) et Chanel (9,8 milliards). Cette dernière fait son entrée dans le Top 10 avec la croissance la plus élevée des 100 marques.

Hayat Gazzane - Le
++ Lire plus ++ -- Refermer --

13 juin 2019 Quelles sont les 10 marques françaises les plus puissantes ? - Economie

Jeudi 13 juin, le cabinet britannique Brand Finance a publié son étude annuelle sur les marques française les plus puissantes. Spécialisé dans la stratégie et dans l’évaluation des marques, Brand Finance a noté la force des marques sur 100. À retrouver ci-dessous, le top 10 est presque entièrement trusté par les industriels.

“Une marque forte améliore la performance de l’entreprise”

La notation de Brand Finance s’appuie sur des critères tels que l’investissement marketing, l’image de la marque, l’impact de ces facteurs sur la performance de l’entreprise et l’analyse comparative des concurrents.

“Une marque forte, par son impact sur le choix, les primes volume/prix ou la fidélité a toujours amélioré la performance de l’entreprise. Elle est un contributeur majeur à la réduction des risques comme à la compétitivité et la croissance”, fait remarquer dans le rapport Bertrand Chovet, directeur général de Brand Finance France.

L’Oréal, aisément premier

Deuxième capitalisation boursière française, L’Oréal tient une première place confortable avec sa marque L’Oréal Paris. Le groupe de produits cosmétiques occupe également la cinquième place du classement avec Lancôme, la sixième place avec Garnier et la dixième avec Elsève.

Derrière la multinationale, Free occupe la deuxième place du podium. De quoi consoler l’opérateur français après une année 2018 difficile. L’équipementier automobile Michelin est quant à lui troisième, un nouveau gage du bon bilan de Jean-Dominique Senard.

La remontada de l’année revient à Mercure (AccorHotels). L’hôtelier français passe de la 39e place en 2018 à la quatrième en 2019.

Total est la marque la mieux valorisée

Brand Finance a également classé les marques françaises par leur valeur. Celle-ci estime “les revenus futurs potentiels attribuables à la marque”. “Cet autre indicateur de performance majeur permet, lors du pilotage d’une marque, de corréler la contribution de la performance avec les dépenses, comme de déterminer ce qui est coût et ce qui est investissement”, explique Alexandre de Coupigny, directeur exécutif de Brand Finance France.

Brand Finance place Total à la première position avec une valorisation de 21,69 milliards d’euros. Le pétrolier français voit sa valeur augmenter de 21,7% par rapport à 2018 et gagne une place sur le classement. Selon Brand Finance, cette progression est due aux acquisitions de Total dans le gaz naturel liquéfié, à son réseau étendu de 16 000 stations-services qui assure une proximité avec les consommateurs et à ses investissements dans l’énergie bas carbone.

Orange perd ainsi sa première place et voit sa valeur diminuer de 4,2%. “Conséquence d’un marché national des télécommunications saturé et ultra-concurrentiel et où la guerre des prix continue à faire rage entre les quatre acteurs”, commente Brand Finance.

Plus généralement, le cabinet note la vitalité des marques industrielles. Beaucoup connaissent de belles croissances de leur valeur comme Airbus (+20%), EDF (+24%), Engie (+25%), Michelin (+29%), Peugeot (+39%), Safran (+47%), Thales (+36%) ou encore Vinci (+14%).

L'Usine Nouvelle -
++ Lire plus ++ -- Refermer --

12 juin 2019 Colgate Designs New Recyclable Tube

× Expand

Colgate has finalised the design of a first-of-its kind recyclable toothpaste tube that sets a new standard in the industry. The Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) last week announced its recognition of the new tube - an essential step in bringing it to the public. The Colgate design is the first oral care or personal care tube to earn APR recognition for recyclability.

Under development for more than five years, the tube will debut under the Company’s Tom’s of Maine brand in the U.S. in 2020. Roll out to select global markets under the Colgate brand will follow. The Company plans to fully convert to recyclable tubes by 2025, when all of its products will be in 100% recyclable packaging.

“Building a future to smile about means finding new packaging solutions that are better for the planet, but until now there hasn’t been a way to make toothpaste tubes part of the recycling stream,” said Justin Skala, Executive Vice President, Chief Growth & Strategy Officer for Colgate-Palmolive. “Once we’ve proven the new tube with consumers, we intend to offer the technology to the makers of plastic tubes for all kinds of products. By encouraging others to use this technology, we can have an even bigger impact and increase the long-term market viability of this solution.”

Plastic tubes are a popular choice in a varied range of product categories - from cosmetics and personal care products to pharmaceuticals and food. Toothpaste alone accounts for an estimated 20 billion tubes annually around the world. Said APR President Steve Alexander, “The Association of Plastic Recyclers appreciated the opportunity to partner with Colgate on this important project. Tubes are one of the most widely used forms of plastic packaging that still cannot be recycled. There is a lot of work ahead, but we believe Colgate is off to a great start.”

Development of the Recyclable Tube

Most toothpaste tubes are made from sheets of plastic laminate - usually a combination of different plastics - often sandwiched around a thin layer of aluminum that protects the toothpaste’s flavor and fluoride. The mix of materials is pressed together into a single film, making it impossible to recycle through conventional methods.

To make a recyclable tube, Colgate chose high-density polyethylene (HDPE), the widely recycled “No. 2” plastic popular for bottle making. But because HDPE is rigid, it isn’t well suited for ultra-thin laminate sheets and soft, squeezable tubes.

Colgate’s “eureka moment” came when Company packaging engineers working at its Piscataway, NJ, technology campus recognized that they could use more than one grade of HDPE in their designs. The team then tested a dozen different combinations - using from six to 20 layers - to find the recipe that allows people to comfortably squeeze out all the toothpaste, protects the integrity of the product, and meets the demands of high-speed production.

To achieve APR recognition, Colgate also conducted tests to show that its toothpaste tube could navigate the screens and conveyor belts at the critically important Materials Recovery Facilities that sort recyclables. Colgate used Radio Frequency Identification tags to track the tubes and prove they would be properly sorted with plastic bottles. And to demonstrate that the recyclable tube material could be repurposed after recycling - another critical part of gaining APR recognition - the Company ground up the tubes to successfully make new plastic bottles.

Building Support for Recycling the Tube

Making a recyclable tube is only part of the challenge. While APR provides guidelines for recyclability in North America, Colgate will need to engage similar organizations in other parts of the world as it expands use of its new tube. It must also build awareness and support among other recycling stakeholders: the Materials Recovery Facilities that sort recyclables, the Reclaimers that produce resin from recycled plastic, the municipalities that operate recycling programs, and others.

The Company has help. It is already partnering with several groups, including More Recycling, a data and technology firm that works with companies and others to navigate the recycling infrastructure and support sustainable choices; and The Recycling Partnership, which provides grants, technical assistance and communication support to states, cities and communities to help residents recycle more and recycle better. “Colgate people are excited about this challenge and meeting our goal of 100% recyclable packaging,” said Ann Tracy, Vice President Global Sustainability, EOHS and Supply Chain Strategy. “We’re committed to using less plastic - and more recycled material - in our packaging. We’re helping to strengthen recycling by supporting the Closed Loop Fund and other efforts. And we’re exploring new ingredients and models, including TerraCycle’s Loop™ initiative for reusable, refillable packaging.”

++ Lire plus ++ -- Refermer --

12 juin 2019 Vêtements, médicaments, pesticides, vins… Une étude révèle l'ampleur de la contrefaçon en Europe

Dans l’Union européenne, les contrefaçons et les produits numériques piratés pourraient représenter 6,8% des importations, selon une étude réalisée par Europol et l’Agence européenne de protection de la propriété intellectuelle.

La contrefaçon et les produits piratés représentent un business florissant en Europe pour des réseaux criminels qui se professionnalisent. C’est la conclusion d’une étude de l’organisme de coopération policière Europol et de l’Agence européenne de protection de la propriété intellectuelle EUIPO. Le document évalue à 121 milliards d’euros le montant des importations de ces produits illégaux, soit 6,8% des importations en Europe.

Les activités criminelles liées à la contrefaçon sont menées par “des réseaux de crime organisé de plus en plus professionnalisés”. Le montant de contrefaçon est en “nette augmentation ces dernières années”, affirment ces experts qui constatent qu’ils touchent désormais “une gamme de plus en plus diversifiée”.

“Outre les habituels articles de luxe, une vaste gamme de produits de consommation courante est désormais dans la ligne de mire des contrefacteurs”, selon cette étude, qui cite notamment les produits cosmétiques, les composants électroniques, les pesticides, les produits pharmaceutiques, les produits du tabac, les jouets ou les pièces détachées automobiles.

Les produits numériques sont également visés. Ils “continuent d’être distribués via des portails BitTorrent et des réseaux peer-to-peer, mais aussi, de plus en plus, via des cyberlockers”, indique Europol dans un communiqué. “Dans de nombreux cas, ces sites web sont également utilisés pour cibler les consommateurs à l’aide de techniques de phishing ou de diffusion de logiciels malveillants”.

Pirater des chaîne de production légales

“Bien que la majorité des contrefaçons sur le marché de l’UIE soient produites en dehors de l’Europe, en particulier dans certaines régions d’Asie, la fabrication nationale au sein de l’Europe est une tendance croissante”, selon un communiqué commun d’Europol et de l’EUIPO.

Le rapport relève que dans le cas des médicaments contrefaits, les contrefacteurs “emploient des travailleurs hautement qualifiés et mettent en place leurs propres chaînes de production”. En outre, certains groupes organisés de contrefaçon de produits “produisent également différents types de drogues de synthèse”, selon Europol et l’EUIPO.

Selon l’étude, il semblerait aussi que la production de vêtements de contrefaçon soit “en hausse dans l’UE”. Certains groupes criminels importent aussi des vêtements sans marque pour ensuite leur coudre de fausses étiquettes. D’autre part, le secteur des vins et spiritueux est particulièrement prisé par la contrefaçon. Une pratique courante est d’apposer de fausses étiquettes de vins haut de gamme sur des bouteilles contenant un produit bon marché. Un autre mode opératoire consiste à “exploiter des chaînes de production légales un jour par semaine ou par mois pour fabriquer des contrefaçons”, explique le rapport.

Pascal Samama,Agence France-Presse - BFMTV
++ Lire plus ++ -- Refermer --

12 juin 2019 Les majors de la grande consommation contraints de s'attaquer au plastique

Attaquées pour leur contribution à la pollution de l’environnement au travers des bouteilles de plastique, les majors de l’industrie alimentaire s’efforcent de montrer patte blanche.

La pression sur les groupes agroalimentaires, grands consommateurs d’emballages en plastique, ne cesse de croître. En Europe, toute une série de produits en plastique à usage unique a été interdite et, en France, le projet de loi anti-gaspillage, attendu sous quelques semaines, devrait instaurer un bonus-malus sur les plastiques , qui pourrait atteindre 10 % du prix des produits.

Brune Poirson, la secrétaire d’Etat à la Transition écologique, multiplie les demandes d’efforts de la part de l’industrie agroalimentaire. Ce mardi, elle a ainsi obtenu des géants de la restauration rapide, McDonald’s, KFC, Burger King, Starbucks et Domino’s Pizza, qu’ils respectent d’ici à trois ans leurs obligations en matière de tri des déchets, afin notamment de pouvoir traiter le plastique.

Régulièrement attaquées pour leur contribution à la pollution de l’environnement au travers des bouteilles de plastique, les majors de l’industrie alimentaire, telles que Nestlé, Danone, Unilever ou Coca-Cola, s’efforcent de montrer patte blanche. Elles ont signé " un pacte avec l’Etat " fin février s’engageant à ne plus utiliser de PVC dans les emballages en France d’ici à 2022 et à " éliminer les autres emballages problématiques d’ici à 2025 “.

Un autre de leurs engagements est d’atteindre collectivement 60 % d’emballages en plastique effectivement recyclés d’ici à 2022, soit plus du double du taux actuel (26 %). Il s’agit aussi d’arriver à incorporer 30 % de matières plastiques recyclées dans les emballages d’ici à 2025. A la même échéance, tous les emballages devront être " écoconçus " afin d’être " réutilisables, recyclables à 100 % “.

Autre piste, le retour de la consigne. Plusieurs industriels, dont Coca-Cola, Nestlé et Danone se sont associés au projet de plate-forme d’e-commerce Loop de l’américain Terracycle. L’idée, proposer des emballages réutilisables. Une fois sa boisson ou son gel douche terminé, il suffit de joindre ce " supermarché durable digital “, qui envoie à domicile quelqu’un récupérer ces emballages. Lavés par Loop, ils sont ensuite réutilisés par les industriels.

Nivea, Body Shop, mais aussi les géants des biens de consommation comme Unilever ou P&G testent ce système lancé en mai en région parisienne. La cosmétique est en effet un gros consommateur de plastique, car il présente de nombreux avantages : légèreté, résistance, hygiène… Mais la demande des Millennials oblige les entreprises à changer de cap. L’Oréal s’est engagé à ce que, d’ici à 2025, 100 % de ses emballages en plastique soient rechargeables, réutilisables ou recyclables. Le groupe s’est associé avec Quantis, une société de conseil. Ensemble, ils ont fondé l’association SPICE, qui réunit 11 industriels comme Clarins, Coty, LVMH ou L’Occitane, avec l’objectif de créer " des emballages durables “.

Certaines marques proposent déjà des flacons rechargeables, comme Clarins pour les parfums Mugler. Le groupe a, depuis 2013, installé des fontaines de parfums dans ses boutiques. Un système aujourd’hui testé chez L’Oréal Paris, Lancôme et Yves Saint-Laurent. De son côté, L’Occitane a opté pour le plastique recyclé. La marque vise les 100 % de plastique durable en 2025. Aujourd’hui, le groupe utilise 2.500 tonnes de plastique par an, dont 57 % dédiées au flaconnage, soit quelque 100 millions de pièces par an. La marque a signé un accord avec Loop Industries, qui lui fournit un PET 100 % recyclé. La société Carbios travaille elle aussi sur le recyclage du plastique. Ce spécialiste de la chimie verte s’est allié avec L’Oréal, rejoint depuis par Nestlé Waters (Vittel…), PepsiCo et Suntory (Orangina, Oasis…).

Yves Rocher, de son côté, a décidé depuis le début de l’année de s’équiper de machines de soufflage pour finaliser lui-même la fabrication de ses emballages sur son site de La Gacilly (Morbihan). Cette intégration va lui permettre de produire 70 millions de bouteilles en PET par an et d’économiser des flux de camions entre fournisseurs et usine.

P&G, Unilever et Henkel sont aussi très engagés en matière d’écologie. Depuis 2011, ils ont lancé en Europe des lessives liquides plus concentrées. Ce qui a permis de réduire leur conditionnement à 3 litres au lieu de 5. Avec à la clef, 16.000 tonnes de matériaux d’emballage en moins à l’échelle européenne. Unilever s’est engagé à utiliser des emballages 100 % réutilisables, recyclables ou compostables d’ici à 2025. Chez P&G, l’enjeu est également au coeur des priorités. L’emballage de la nouvelle lessive Ariel (à 70 % d’origine végétale) contient déjà 35 % de plastique recyclé.

Marie-Josée Cougard,Dominique Chapuis -
++ Lire plus ++ -- Refermer --

12 juin 2019 New Unilever CEO Jope banks on recovery in sales growth

Unilever chief executive Alan Jope has for the first time offered hope that the maker of Dove soaps and Magnum ice creams will next year escape a period of stagnant sales that has dogged one of the world’s largest consumer goods groups.

The 54-year-old Scot, who succeeded Paul Polman in January, faces pressure from shareholders to reverse four years of slowing sales growth as Unilever struggles with challenges ranging from millennials ditching well-established brands to the growing popularity of new trends such as veganism.

In his first interview since taking the top job at the £140bn company, Mr Jope signalled that the centre of gravity at the Anglo-Dutch group would shift further from food to the higher-margin beauty and personal care market.

“This year we’ve set the guidance in the 3 to 4 per cent range, and I would hope that next year we would start to edge that up,” Mr Jope said. “Whilst I’m working with a sense of urgency, I don’t feel a sense of pressure externally.”

The Unilever veteran, whose more than three decades at the company has included stints running its operations in India and China, is one of a crop of new leaders being handed the job of reviving a major consumer goods group. Kraft-Heinz, PepsiCo, Colgate-Palmolive have all overhauled their management recently in a bid to reignite growth. Annual sales growth has waned to just 2-3 per cent across much of the industry, down from the 6-8 per cent companies enjoyed a decade ago.

Analysts are expecting Unilever’s underlying sales growth to pick up to 3.4 per cent this year from 2.9 per cent in 2018.

Since 2015 Unilever has focused its acquisitions on skincare and cosmetics products, with the beauty and personal care division accounting for almost three quarters of the €11bn it has spent on 30 deals. Over the same period, the company has sold €8bn of assets, largely in slower-growing categories of food such as spreads and margarines.

“Going forward, it’s highly likely that we will buy a lot of stuff in beauty and personal care, without disposing much of anything,” he explained in an interview in Paris. “Whereas in food, we will buy some stuff, not as much, and continue to dispose of assets that are intrinsically slower growth.”

However, Mr Jope was clear that the elusive recovery in sales growth would not come from chasing the start-ups producing plant-based meats, such as Beyond Meat, that have dazzled on the stock market this year.

“Plant-based eating is a megatrend and so the most important thing is making sure vegan and vegetarian options are available across our core brands,” said Mr Jope, who escapes the pressures of work by embarking on long motorcycle journeys with friends.

“Strategy is about going after what you should go after, not what you could go after,” he said. “We’re playing very aggressively on high-quality, fast-growing beauty and personal care assets, and more selectively on food assets, especially when crazy valuations are involved.” It bought a small Dutch brand called Vegetarian Butcher last year in what Mr Jope described as an “experimental foray”.

Mr Jope’s message on sales growth is likely be welcomed by investors, some of whom have questioned his decision to stick with Mr Polman’s target of lifting operating margins to 20 per cent by 2020. They argue that dropping the goal, which was made as part of Unilever’s rejection of a failed takeover bid from Kraft Heinz in 2017, would give Unilever more room to invest in the business. The new chiefs at PepsiCo, Beiersdorf and Colgate-Palmolive have all introduced so-called “margin resets” in recent months as they seek to invest in flagging brands.

Unilever has a clear path to the 20 per cent margin goal without sacrificing its push for faster sales growth, Mr Jope insisted.

“Our shareholders are very supportive towards our long-term, multi-stakeholder model . . . [they] don’t want me to do anything reflexively for a short-term win that could compromise the health of the business”, he said.

Defending the margin goal is one of several signs that Mr Jope’s tenure has begun with a strategy in keeping with the Polman era, when Unilever became a leading advocate on issues of sustainability and the environment, sometimes to the irritation of its investors.

The Unilever veteran has tried to cannily tweak the message to emphasise how having “purpose-led” brands that stand for ideals – such as social justice for Ben & Jerry’s ice cram and body positivity for Dove – will drive profits not only by attracting customers, but also sharpening its appeal as an employer.

“Brands with purpose grow, companies with purpose last, and people with purpose thrive,” said Mr Jope. “We’re proving that link and it will be our narrative for some time.”

Mr Jope added that Unilever’s longstanding approach of doing lots of relatively small deals, instead of a bigger transformative acquisition, had so far served it well.

If he does decide to embark on a more ambitious deal, however, he may have to return to the thorny issue of simplifying Unilever’s corporate structure – something it was forced to abandon last year after heavy opposition from UK shareholders.

The group’s complex structure, with a UK-listed plc and Dutch-listed NV corporate entity, makes doing any large spin-offs or acquisitions using stock harder. Moving to a single corporate entity with one stock listing would make such moves easier, Mr Jope explained.

Asked if he would want to revive the simplification move anytime soon, he said: “We’re actively working on it . . . We’re working on multiple scenarios looking at the legal, financial, and reputational implications of each of them.

“There is no fixed outcome and no preconceived solution, nor preconceived timing, and it may well end up back in the too-difficult box.”

In Paris,Leila Abboud,Personal Care Market - Financial Times (FT)
++ Lire plus ++ -- Refermer --

11 juin 2019 New Ways The Beauty Industry Is Testing Sustainable Practices

Data shows the packaging industry for consumer product goods, which includes personal care and beauty products, generates more than $25 billion in sales worldwide each year.

However, this demand comes with a major environmental impact: As much as 70% of plastic waste generated by the industry isn’t recycled. Instead, it ends up in landfills, according to the EPA.

Of this market segment, the cosmetics and beauty industry is a large contributor to the waste problem. Zero Waste Week data revealed that in 2018, more than 120 billion units of cosmetics packaging were produced globally – the majority of which were not recyclable.

When National Geographic recently took a deep dive into the cosmetics industry’s reliance on plastic and the implications of the waste associated with it, they found that for US-made products, plastic packaging is now used 120 times more than it was in 1960.

The good news is that small changes to these practices would make a major positive impact on the environment. Netherlands-based group LCA Centre found that if refillable containers were used for cosmetics, as much as 70% of carbon emissions associated with the beauty industry could be eliminated.

Reusable packaging is exactly what beauty brands like Olay are already testing. Olay recently announced that for three months it will test its top-selling Regenerist Whip moisturizer sold in refillable packaging. This test period will begin in October as part of the company’s larger sustainability plans. The effort is projected to save more than 1,000,000 pounds of plastic from entering landfills.

Anitra Marsh, Associate Director of Brand Communications for Global Skin and Personal Care Brands at Procter & Gamble, explained that this program is just one step within the brand’s larger commitment to making more of its packaging recyclable or reusable. She went on to say that if this pilot is successful, P&G will want to expand it across more product categories.

“Olay hopes that this will pilot a new way of shopping for skincare and beauty products that could dramatically reduce the amount of plastic used in the industry,” she said.

Other major beauty brands have recently decided to test the waters with more eco-friendly efforts, too. Luxury brand Chanel just announced its minority stake in Evolved by Nature, a “green” chemistry company.

However, there are beauty brands within the marketplace like Naturally Serious that are already fully committed to eco-friendly products and packaging. This brand offers recyclable packaging in Forest Stewardship Council certified cartons that are manufactured with wind power in a carbon-neutral facility.

Rochelle Jacobs, Managing Director of Naturally Serious, explained that for them, the goal was to create a brand that was not only made up of cleanly-made and ethically- developed formulas, but that also translated the same responsible message through its packaging.

“Consumers are showing a great interest and need for a more sustainable lifestyle, and this also means ensuring their beauty products are fitting into this emerging category,” she said.

This shift toward more responsible packaging does indeed appear to be something beauty buyers are expressing interest in and appreciate. A Harris Poll survey found that 59% of women over the age of 35 say purchasing eco-friendly beauty products is important to them.

For New York-based beauty consumer Sara Zucker, this rings true. “I always read the packaging to see what the company stands for, which may impact my final purchasing decision,” she said on Twitter. “I’m sick of being wasteful, and recycling and sustainable practices make me feel like I’m doing less harm.”

Another beauty buyer, Jessica Paoli, echoed this sentiment. “If I already recycle the shipping box, the packing slip, and the promo postcard, I also want to be able to responsibly discard the container for what I actually purchased,” she said.

Will beauty brands rise to the challenge and lean into recyclable or refillable packaging? With legacy brands like Olay testing the waters, we can hope that more will follow suit.

Kaleigh Moore - Forbes
++ Lire plus ++ -- Refermer --

11 juin 2019 Cosmétiques toxiques ou sains: un guide pratique pour faire le tri dans la salle de bain

Encore près d’un produit cosmétique sur trois contient des perturbateurs endocriniens, des substances toxiques, irritantes ou fortement allergisantes, l’UFC-Que Choisir publie un guide pour aider les consommateurs à faire le bon choix.

Crèmes anti-rides pour les femmes, déodorants pour les hommes, produits pour la toilette des bébés, lesquels choisir? Afin d’aider les consommateurs à choisir les produits les plus sûrs, l’UFC-Que Choisir a sélectionné parmi les 170.000 références de son application, 171 produits cosmétiques du quotidien (dentifrices, shampooing, déodorants, crèmes hydratantes, après-rasages …), passés au peigne fin.

“Malgré les alertes exprimées par les scientifiques, pas moins de 143 substances préoccupantes restent encore autorisées du fait de la lenteur des procédures européennes et du lobbying des industriels”, explique l’association de consommateurs dans un communiqué. Parmi les produits jugés indésirables, ceux dans lesquels on retrouve des perturbateurs endocriniens. Exemple: le propylparaben dans la crème hydratante Mixa intensif peau sèche ou le shampooing Neutrogena T/Gel 2-en-1. L’UFC pointe aussi du doigt “des substances toxiques” comme le butylphenylmethylpropionate dans la crème de soin hydratante Nivea soft, et l’anti-rides Revitalift soin hydratant extra fermeté de L’Oréal, ainsi que les substances fortement allergisantes telle que la MIT dans le shampooing antipelliculaire 2 en 1 Head & Shoulders.

Du dioxyde de titane dans près de 7000 produits

Autre source d’inquiétude, la présence de dioxyde de titane dans de très nombreux produits cosmétiques, notamment des cosmétiques susceptibles d’être ingérés: des dentifrices, des baumes et des rouges à lèvres, des bains de bouche, y compris ceux destinés aux enfants. Pourtant, l’Anses, l’Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail a demandé aux autorités l’interdiction rapide du dioxyde de titane dans les produits alimentaires.

“Mais alors que l’union européenne examine actuellement la conformité de cette mesure au droit européen, il n’est pas exclu que celles-ci obligent la France à ré-autoriser ce colorant nocif”, écrit l’UFC dans son communiqué, estimant que “l’information des consommateurs est donc d’autant plus importante”.

Des produits sains pas forcément coûteux

Dans son numéro spécial, l’UFC-Que Choisir permet aussi de choisir des produits sains, sans produits indésirables, à un prix raisonnable. Du côté des soins pour les enfants est notamment cité le Shampooing Labell 2 en 1 abricot de chez Intermarché, à acheter “les yeux fermés”. Au rayon homme, l’UFC plébiscite la mousse Pro-tech system haute précision de Mennen. Carton rouge en revanche pour le gel à raser Fusion 5 peau ultra sensible de Gillette dans lequel on retrouve du propylparaben.

“Pour hydrater la peau, si à la crème Hydreane légère de la Roche Posay est indemne de toute substance à risque, on évitera la crème Eau précieuse matifiante purifiante qui cumule pas moins de trois perturbateurs endocriniens avérés ou suspectés”, écrit l’UFC.

Enfin, l’UFC-Que Choisir exhorte les autorités européennes à interdire sans délai les substances les plus à risque, notamment le dioxyde de titane.

Marie Dupin - BFMTV
++ Lire plus ++ -- Refermer --

Flux RSS

Les actualités en bref sont aussi disponibles via un flux RSS, à utiliser avec votre lecteur de flux préféré

Lien vers le flux RSS public :