My bet is on beeswax for the non-vegan ingredient.
You would be right. I have the same packs. I don’t know if I bought old stock, but I bought the pack with the blue lid recently, the black lid pack is older.
The black lid pack contains bee wax and more water than the blue lid pack (64% vs 57% of the natural ingredients).
Probably this and a synthetic emulsifier/surfactant or the like.
That would be vegan though
It depends. Many vegans see any product that “exploits” animals as nonvegan. That includes things like down feathers, wool and honey.
Not sure how Wool exploits animals, shearing sheep is good for their health as I understand it (keeping them from growing things, or getting too heavy/waterlogged to move and just… laying there and dying, amomgst other things.)
Sheep are selectively bred for their wool. Before humans started doing so, wild sheep did just fine without the need for shearing. So it’s pretty similar to milk in that if you don’t milk a modern dairy cow it will suffer, that doesn’t make milk an ethical product.
After a few sheers they’re off to the slaughterhouse once the wool quality degrades. The sheering is not for their benefit.
Not a natural ingredient though.
And beeswax is an animal product.
Okay, but Ephera’s comment was about the (non-)vegan ingredients.
“Matt” paste? Isn’t it “matte” or am I taking crazy pills again?
Edit: What the fuck… It’s spelled differently in the UK, the US, and Canada (where I’m from). It’s matte in Canada, mat in US, and matt in the UK.
From the Government of Canada website: https://www.noslangues-ourlanguages.gc.ca/en/writing-tips-plus/matte-mat-matt
Pretty sure it’s matte in the US, too
Seconded. Literally have never seen it spelled mat.
“Mat” is a small rug usually for wiping shoes on. “Matt” is a boy’s name, short for Matthew. “Matte” means the opposite of glossy.
Mat is a man with no arms and no legs on the floor
In Swedish, mat is food
Colour me surprised, at least you greybeards have honour enough to spell some words correct.
‘u’ died with the Queen. Have yo no respect?
Shooldn’t it be Qeen, or did “U” get berried with her?
I appreciate your cheekiness, sir
It’s definitely matte in the USA.
Thirding the notion that it’s definitely not “mat” in the US. A mat is something you put on the ground, Matt is my cousin’s ex-fiance, and matte is a surface finish with little to no shine.
Really don’t know what people say English is hard to learn, we use the same word for so many things that there’s fewer words to learn /s
Why waste time say lots words when few words do trick?
USA here- matte
From the UK. I’ve never seen matte spelled as matt. CA, UK and AU are generally pretty close with spelling, whereas the US is usually off doing its own thing. It’s a similar thing to blonde and blond.
It’s matte in the US. I think the manufacturer is just being silly
Now I’m not saying anything, but I dated a Matt, and he did produce a lot of paste… I’d have to run the numbers to see if it’s viable for mass-production though.
Hmm, did you try it in your hair though?
… no comment
Yep all 3 are valid, matte is the new variant. https://www.etymonline.com/word/matte#etymonline_v_9722
And I’ve seen all 3 in use in the USA. It’s not matte = Canada. I’ve seen matte more than mat which is historically the spelling. The oed doesn’t list matt as the proper spelling but who knows with the brits.
Chamber’s dictionary has it as “Mat, or Matt, or matte” stating that it comes from the French “mat” or the German “matt”, so fuck knows where matte comes from!
Probably my Stavanger-dialect in Norway. It’s matt in Norwegian, but matte in my dialect.
The American spelling “matte” probably comes from the spelling “mate” derived from French “mate”, and doubling the “t” to differentiate it from “mate”. The British spelling “matt” was probably primarily influenced by the German word “Matt” considering the UK tended to have more German influence.
Alternatively, either (or both) may be an etymological spelling from Latin “mattus” (which means “drunk” but likely became a word for “pale” in French).
While I am a linguist, I only deduced this from a bit of Googling and a lot of speculating, so don’t take my word for it…
I’m like 90% sure it’s matte in the UK.
deleted by creator
Poor matt
Matt’s just fine, what do you think they made the paste out of? “Is that hair gel?”
Door mat
Format
You’re Matt
Who is Matt and why did they turn him into paste for the attention of surfers?
They didn’t turn him into paste… It’s the paste that Matt…uh…produces.
More fat
Black cat
It’s no longer labeled vegan. A lot of producers actively avoid the label, despite the fact that the Vegan Society would provide their stamp of approval. I’ve heard somewhere putting it on your product lowers sales. All this to say, are you certain it’s actually not vegan anymore?
Someone said the non vegan version has bee wax in it.
Definitely a thing. Vegan can be hidden somewhere on some products, or they might use different language.
I ran an experiment a few years ago at a party I hosted. I had two trays of Oreos. One labeled ‘Oreos’, the other labeled ‘Vegan Oreos’. Now, Oreos are vegan, but aren’t labeled as such. I had to refill the standard Oreos a couple times throughout the night. The ‘Vegan’ labeled tray ended the night with more than half still there. Vegan definitely plays a role in sales, and not always for the best.
Love it. Science!
Not a randomized double-blind test, but science enough.
Huh. I always thought the white stuff was derived from milk
That’s why it’s spelled creme and not cream. The FDA has standards for milk content in anything labeled cream, but creme doesn’t mean anything.
That’s interesting! I also wonder if its a legal shielding technique to abandon the “vegan” label in case one of their upstream suppliers changes without notifying the manufacturer. If you never claim it to be vegan, you’ve in no danger of violation.
Vegan is not a regulated term. Plenty of products that say they are vegan still have animal products, such as honey.
There are people that hold specific definitions of the term “vegan”. If you never use the word, you can never run afoul of anyone’s definition.
The reason the vegan label lowers sales is that smart people already read the product label, so they know it’s vegan either way. Lazy people who don’t like thinking need to be told that something is vegan. Vegans tend to be smart, and vegan-haters tend to hate thinking.
I wouldn’t even be surprised if this is just a shift in marketing. The “Vegan” label, in particular, has fallen out of style as more and more men become obsessed with meat-based diets.
???
Keto, paleo, whatever the roid king is doing. The share of people picking that up and going “ew, vegan, it’ll probably turn me into a soy boy” is probably bigger than the share of people who only buy vegan products, OR the savings of cutting those 6% of natural ingredients are worth losing the latter share of buyers. Bottom line is the company’s bottom line.
It’s some kind of hair gel, you don’t eat it.
It says paste right there though.
It looks like the 91% natural ingredients version has benzyl alcohol as a preservative which is typically synthetically derived and in my experience can drastically shift the bio-based ratio.
As far as I can see, the rest of the ingredients are the same, but the sourcing of those ingredients could be different which could also shift the naturally derived percentage.
Isn’t that stuff bad for your hair?
Show me a gel/spray that isn’t. They are all going to be some form of ‘sticky,’ which means some form bonding, likely protein or carbohydrate based. Either of those will take oil from your hair when removed/washed off, and are obviously interacting with the keratin itself to create all the stickiness between hair strands.
I haven’t heard that before but I don’t work on hair care products very often. Benzyl alcohol is used as a preservative in lots of cosmetic products though. It can be considered an allergen for some people, but overall it’s pretty safe (as far as we know so far).
Who’s Matt and how come you’ve got his paste?
Damn, I guess you will have to find a new hair product to eat.
Welp, looks like I won’t be licking your hair anytime soon you monster.
You are showing them backwards - the NEW formulation is the one that says vegan. Did you buy the second one at Big Lots or something?
No more shiny cap either.
Matt paste, matte cap
I was about two make a whole lecture about percentage points but it just so happens it actually is ~6% less in this case.
It’s like when you want to make an unexpected factorial joke but they said 2! or 1!
I save my ear wax and just reuse that for hair paste. You need one of the gyroscope cleaners though to get enough wax.
gyroscope cleaners
You have my attention…
Sit on it and spin buddy
Have we just forgotten about the word “fewer” entirely at this point?
It’s not 6 fewer ingredients, it’s 6% less of the total being naturally derived.
It’s hilarious that you made an even dumber error in a try at correcting.
I’m not sure that applies here. Generally, when measuring something, you use less. Like I wouldn’t say , I just drank from my glass and it now has fewer waters in it. In this case, “natural ingredients” is a set of things that are being measured as a single “ingredient”. Like let’s say the natural ingredients are soot and berry juice. Would you say the paint has fewer or less soot and berry juice?
But then again language is all made up, the rules don’t matter, and you’re only truly wrong if the meaning is lost.
I can see that, but the plural “ingredients” still makes my gut say it should be fewer.
It depends on context. If you are dealing with a percentage of overall types of ingredients by volume without changing the variety of ingredients you would probably use “less”. Like if you reduced the mix of milk related ingredients. You would use “fewer” to indicate that the number of individual ingredients had changed. Like if they got rid of two of the ingredients of an original ten.
This could be a category error?
I guess it depends on if it is a case of there having had been 97 of 100 ingredients having been naturally derived and now only 91 of those ingredients are such. Which admittedly seems unlikely.
I mean it could be using the percentages of another number. Like if there’s 20 ingredients and you drop one it’s a 5% reduction or if you added other non natural ingredients that would cause the percentage to drop… But whether it’s less or fewer would depend on information we don’t readily have because we don’t know if it’s ingredients by volume or of it’s a reformulation of ingredients… and may be at the crux of this grammatical problem depending on what you assume is going on?
Mine fewer?
It should not really matter I think. Maybe its just a marketing strategy.
For someone that doesn’t appreciate the formerly creamy yet cruelty free texture, maybe.
I don’t get this brand in my place if not I’ll try it. Look promising.
