My bet is on beeswax for the non-vegan ingredient.
Probably this and a synthetic emulsifier/surfactant or the like.
“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
It’s definitely matte in the USA.
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.
Blonde = female; blond = male
I thought it was blond = hair colour and blonde = person with blond hair.
It’s matte in the US. I think the manufacturer is just being silly
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!
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…
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
I’m like 90% sure it’s matte in the UK.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
I think you might have gotten old stock when you bought a ‘new’ tin. When I look on their website, it only has the vegan formulation listed, and the ingredients do appear to be derived from non-animal sources.
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.
“Now made with actual
bitchbeach boys!!”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.
Clearly they’ve added unnatural meat to the formula! Ew!
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?
