I’ve never seen labeling like this before. Interesting.
I wish more products would do this. It’s super interesting.
Can we start doing this with everything?
Inb4 food corporations go: Water - water - extra weight for cheap
ingredient lables can be pretty long. I think we need a QR code with this and much more information. it should be able to back track where you product came from and such.
Can QRs fit enough text to hold all the ingredients and their descriptions?
I’d hate it if they were just links to some crappy government website that’ll inevitably go down couple of years down the lineMaximum 4296 alphanumeric characters, but that’s with the largest-sized code and low/no error correction (so not always practical).
And with only the English alphabet, just like in the good old days of ASCII.
When I was a kid, in my country all machinery and electronics were accompanied with full mechanical and electrical schematics.
A lot of times it’s because those things required maintenance, and it was possible to do with basic tools.
Most things these days aren’t built with maintenance in mind, mostly because they’re obsolete before they need to be fixed.
There are certainly things that doesn’t apply to, but for a lot of consumer products, it is.
The problem is a lot of nasty things come from less scary sounding things. For example:
Ingredient: Ricin, Where it comes from: Castor beans, What it’s used for: Poison.
There’s historical truth to this. In toothpaste, no less.
Ingredient: Asbestos
Comes from: naturally occurring mineral
Used for: mild abrasive
Hey it’s me!
Get back in the toothpaste!
Imagine this on a bar of chocolate. Ingredient: cocoa powder, what it does: flavouring, where it comes from: child labour and exploitation.
Mmm, peppermint
squirts the entire tube into my mouth
Love me some open source hygiene products! Blueland, the company that makes the cleaning sprays I use, does the same thing.
I hate to rain on a parade, but it’s marketing bullshit. Aqua comes from water, isn’t it? Purified one at that? “Vegetable”? Calcium fluoride is a source? “Natural ore” as opposed to an artificial lab grown ore?
It kinda looks nice unless you actually read it, or know what words mean. And if you do it’s obvious ploy to capture very ignorant people.It kinda looks nice unless you actually read it, or know what words mean.
Teaching children is pointless because it might look nice, but if you already know the stuff then you would recognize that it’s all fairly trivial, well-known stuff. No reason to point it out.
You just demonstrated that you actually don’t know what words mean.
You can find those things out. Natural ore means it comes from natural deposits (its not a lab-formulated compound).
Some people prefer natural ingredients. Thats it.
Otherwise its very common with synthetic or refined chemical ingredients in toothpaste, like:
-
Sodium fluoride / stannous fluoride (lab-produced, though based on natural elements)
-
Artificial abrasives (engineered silica)
-
Detergents like sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS)
-
Synthetic preservatives, flavors, or colorants
Same reason people want to grow their own food. They know whats in it and what they put in their body.
-
What, you don’t feel more informed to know that your glycerin comes from a miscellaneous vegetable?
Natural ore made me laugh. I mean, asbestos and beryllium are naturally occurring ores too…
I bet asbestos would make for a killer toothpaste, actually.
Why did they feel the need to church up “water”
Found this on Wikipedia:
Deionized water is very often used as an ingredient in many cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. “Aqua” is the standard name for water in the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients standard, which is mandatory on product labels in some countries.
I have bad news about the first ingredient, calcium carbonate.
It contains lead!Edited for clarity: it is derived from chalk as the toothpaste explains and effectively all chalk on Earth is contaminated with lead as shown in the article below, which uses x-ray fluorescence to confirm the presence of lead, cadmium, mercury, arsenic.
In general, you want to avoid the following ingredients in your toothpaste if you are trying to minimize lead exposure:
- Bentonite Clay
- Hydroxyapatite
- Calcium Carbonate
- Hydrated Silica
- Titanium Dioxide
This is such a pointless thing to take umbrage with. Looking at the table showing the levels and picking one of the highest ones from a brand I’ve heard of: Colgate Total Whitening comes in at 539 ppb of lead. We’ll call that 0.539 ppm to make the maths slightly easier, because that’s equivalent to μg/g.
Let’s say you really load up your toothbrush and use 2ml instead of a pea-sized blob, and assuming a specific gravity of 1.30, that’s 2.6g of toothpaste, of which 0.539 μg/g is lead. So you would ingest 2.6g × 0.539μg/g = 1.3936μg of lead if you swallowed all of that toothpaste every time you brushed your teeth.
Apparently young children swallow 0.053-0.3g of toothpaste, so let’s go roughly in the middle and say you swallow 0.18g, so 0.18 × 0.539 = 0.097μg of lead. Call that 0.1μg and you brush twice a day, so 0.2μg of lead per day from brushing your teeth. If you use a pea-sized amount, then halve that to 0.1μg.
The EPA’s maximum allowable limit of lead in drinking water is 15ppb, but is lowering to 10ppb (ppb = μg/litre) in 2027. So let’s say you live somewhere well below that limit and it’s 5ppb in your area. You’re supposed to drink 1.5 to 2 litres of water a day, so at 5μg/litre that’s 7.5 to 10μg of lead per day from drinking water, or 75 to 100 times more than the amount from brushing your teeth.
JFC can we make this list obligatory on all products?
It’s so amazing to finally just read in plain English what an ingredient is supposed to be doing.
Maybe even add a few columns?
Peanut butter:
- ingredient: Peanut
- Where it comes from: Peanut
- What it does: Peanut?
What it does: adhesive (sticks to the roof of your mouth)
Note that products derived from palm oil should be avoided if you can. https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/8-things-know-about-palm-oil
That article you linked seems to be saying that palm oil is actually really good?
It says that it is a major driver of deforestation because people are tearing down trees to grow more of it because it’s a very useful and versatile oil.
It later says that switching away from palm oil isn’t a solution because palm oil is actually such an efficient crop that if you used something else the amount of land needed to produce enough oil would drive far more deforestation.
The article is a call for more regulation on deforestation, not a call to not use palm oil. It in fact almost argues the opposite.
It’s not just deforestation, especially in Orangutan habitats that are endangered. They are also rife with forced labor, ie slave labor. They lure desperate foreigners with promises of good jobs, baiting and switching them with a life of slavery doing hard, very hard labor, including kids. The families can sometimes bail them out by paying several thousand dollars, a lot of money to these impoverished bangladeshis and Indians and the like.
Many of the desparate migrants that can speak english well are now sold to chinese gangs to run romance scams from slave compounds, a 40 billion dollar a year industry just in S. Asia they figure now, pig butchering and the like.
For sure. But the problem isn’t palm oil itself, which seems like something of a miracle plant when compared to other sources of vegetable oil. It’s that the supply chain for it is rife with abuse. Similar to coffee, or honestly, most things that are harvested predominantly in poorer countries with less oversight.
But, like coffee, it seems there are organizations that certify certain palm oil suppliers as “cruelty free,” so it’s probably better to try and hunt those out in favor of foregoing palm oil entirely, which seems like a pretty incredible product otherwise.
