deleted by creator
Clearly they’ve added unnatural meat to the formula! Ew!
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.
I might be the non vegan ingredient.
My bet is on beeswax for the non-vegan ingredient.
Probably this and a synthetic emulsifier/surfactant or the like.
That would be vegan though
Not a natural ingredient though.
Okay, but Ephera’s comment was about the (non-)vegan ingredients.
And beeswax is an animal product.
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.
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).
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.
It’s some kind of hair gel, you don’t eat it.
It says paste right there though.
???
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.
Welp, looks like I won’t be licking your hair anytime soon you monster.
“Now made with actual
bitchbeach boys!!”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!
No more shiny cap either.
Matt paste, matte cap
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?
Who’s Matt and how come you’ve got his paste?
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?
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’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.
Damn, I guess you will have to find a new hair product to eat.
