Weird Product Wednesday: Deva Curl One Condition

One Condition is weird, you ask? Since when?

Since they decided to change the ingredients, of course.

The original product -- which smells more divine than any conditioner I have ever experienced -- contained the following:

Aqueous Extracts of: Achilea Millefolium, Chamomilia Recutita (Matricaria), Cymbopogon Schoenanthus, Humulus Lupulus (Hops), Melissa Offcinalis (Balm Mint), Rosmarinus Offcinalis (Rosemary); Cetearyl Alcohol, Behentrimonium Chloride, Glycerin, Amodimethicone, Olive Oil, Cetrimonium Chloride, Cetyl Esters, Propylene Glycol, Trideceth-12, Diazolidinyl Urea, Methyl Paraben, Propyl Paraben, Fragrance.

Lots of people loved it, despite the fact that it contained a silicone (which Massey made her millions railing against) and had no protein (which Massey says in her book that a good conditioner should have). I suppose we could argue that the hops in the formula counted as protein, but I have not been able to find anything that proves this conclusively. If you can point me somewhere to see that kind of proof, by all means, do so.

Please note that the above list of ingredients is taken directly from the bottle I possess (bought more than a year ago). The first item is misspelled. It should be achillea (two l's) millefolium. So right off the bat, it's clear that somebody wasn't doing their due diligence on ingredient fact-checking. By the way, achillea millefolium is yarrow, another fact that the label does not disclose.

The next item, Chamomillia Recutita, also goes by Matricaria Recutita, and is basically chamomille. Cymbopogon Schoenanthus is also known as "camel grass" (so you can see why using the Latin name is preferred) and also as lemongrass, and it is a fragrant herb with no medicinal uses. The rest of the ingredients before the semi-colon are explained in parentheses and we can see, thanks to the semi-colon, that this list represents an herbal blend. And because this blend is at the top of the list, we can deduce that it figures prominently in the formulation. (To learn more about how to read an ingredient list, check out this blog post by the Beauty Brains.)

So now we are told that the new product contains the following ingredients:

Water (Aqua), Cetearyl Alcohol, Behentrimonium Chloride, Glycerin, Glycol Distearate, Cetyl Esters, Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride, Oleo Europaea (Olive) Fruit Oil, Melissa Officinalis (Balm Mint) Extract, Humulus Lupulus (Hops) Extract, Cymbopogon Schoenanthus (Lemongrass) Extract, Chamomilla Recutita (Matricia) Extract, Rosmarinus Officinalis (Rosemary) Extract, Achillea Millefolium (Yarrow) Extract, Propylene Glycol, Cetrimonium Chloride, Citric Acid, Diazolidinyl Urea, Iodopropynyl Butylcarbamate, Fragrance (Parfum).

Do you see what has happened? What is the main ingredient in this product now? Why, it's water! And after the emollients, fatty alcohols, and humectants (6 to be exact), there is some olive oil, which is nice. I've always thought that was one of the better ingredients in the previous formula, too. I am a big fan of olive oil.

But then comes the list of botanicals. And it is remarkably similar to the list from the old product.

Hey, wait a minute. Didn't Deva say that it was removing the amodimethicone because the company had finally found botanicals to replace it? Do you see any new botanicals in this list? And why, if botanicals are now so important, do they appear lower on the ingredient list than they did before? In other words, why do we have more fillers in this version of the product and a lower percentage of botanicals?

Don't you find that weird?

The parabens do appear to be gone, if those were a concern to you, and there is no mention of silicone, so that's a plus, too.

So, you're still paying $18 for 12 ounces but now you're getting fewer botanicals, a higher percentage of fillers, and the lingering memory of a labeling saga that reeks of something far less pleasant than lemongrass.

Lorraine Massey wrote to me

Gentle readers, gather round. I want to share an email I received from Lorraine Massey today. (I don't think she'd mind my putting it out for the world to see.)

dear Sage!
came across your blog ,someone 4warded it to me!!
so sorry about your frustration with me ,but i never claimed to be an author!
we never even thourght [sic] we would sell as many copies as we did!!
YES , i am updating & expanding CG as we Curl!!
thank you ,its curly girls like you that push me to try even harder
much curLOVE
lorraine ox

She is obviously responding to my post of a few weeks ago, in which I implored her to speak up about several discrepancies between the philosophy in her book and the ingredients in her products. Mainly, though, the post asked her publicly to update her book in order to address these discrepancies.

She must subscribe to Google Alerts or something because she found me and wrote to assure me that another book is coming.

Most of us knew that already, thanks to the Curly Girl Challenge. And for the most part, it's good news. As long as the book has more substance than the first one, that is.

I am touched, honored, and flattered that Lorraine would take the time to write me. It's also good business. Her timing is interesting, though, isn't it? For those of us who've been following the controversy at NaturallyCurly about the Curly Girl Challenge, Lorraine's response comes up a little short, I'm sorry to say.

I wrote her back, and here is what I said:

Lorraine:

What a pleasure to hear from you! I'm very flattered that you took the time to write me, and I'm excited to know that another book is in the works. I'd heard about it through the Curly Girl Challenge you are conducting with the help of NaturallyCurly.com.

I'm not sure whether you know that you and Deva are not getting good press at the moment. There is confusion over not only the contest, but the Deva line of products. And nobody from Deva is representing the company in a manner that adequately addresses the NC.com community's concerns, which is only adding fuel to the fire and raising the level of debate. In fact, I am sharing this email with the readers of my blog at http://jillipoo.blogspot.com because many of us are following this topic with great interest.

I confess that I am at a loss to figure out why so many questions continue to go unanswered. Rather than sending a representative to field questions and promote Deva at NC.com, why don't you speak to us directly, as you did to me via email? The Curly Community who frequent the forums there are rapidly losing faith in what you and Deva stand for. Nobody is happy about the situation. I would think that would be true of you most of all.

A Deva representative stated: "Any trace amount of a cone that was previously in Deva, has been removed. The reason it was there in the first place, was because we were unable to find a botanical replacement. However, I am happy to report that as of January 1st, 2009, DevaCurl is silicone free, paraben free, plastic free, resin free, sulfate free, botanically drenched and considered vegan. We have never tested on animals and we will never test on animals.

"Please note that by law, we have permission to finish any unused labels from 2008, but rest assured, any product that was filled in 2009, even with 2008 labels stands by our promise."

Some people have found the Challenge unclear and confusing. (I am not in that camp, but am just relaying some of the buzz to you.) More important, though, is the flurry of commentary that has arisen from the Deva rep's statement I quoted above. People are demanding to know:

1. How can Deva legally sell a product whose contents are not accurately represented on its label? Gretchen from NC.com tried to explain that Deva just wanted to use up all its labels. Are the costs of labels that big an expense for a company as large as Deva? And are labeling standards that loose in the United States? If so, it would seem that none of us should trust that what's listed on any product is actually what's inside the bottle/tube/jar. Why not put a new label over the old one, or at least date the bottles to help consumers know whether they are using the old or new formulation? Surely you can appreciate how ridiculous Deva looks when it makes a statement like that. You need to step in and clear things up.

2. Many of us, myself included, feel that DevaCurl OneCondition is the antithesis of what you say curly hair needs. It contains a silicone, and has no protein. (Your book states that a good conditioner should have a balance of protein, emollients, humectants, and moisture.) Although amodimethicone is a relatively light silicone, it is nevertheless present in OneCondition, and we can only assume, since Deva is your company, that you were fully aware it was there. Because you have been silent on this point, many of us have further assumed that you opted to put out such a product because it was financially expedient to do so. We'd probably even find it in our curly hearts to forgive you for that lapse in judgment if you'd just talk about it publicly. Your silence is forcing people to fill in the gaps, and when that happens, the truth is lost amid conjecture, accusation, and assumptions. The fact that Deva is now announcing that the silicone has been removed suggests that the company acknowledges it was mistake to have it in there in the first place.

3. The Deva rep says botanicals will replace the amodimethicone. What sort of botanicals? Because the new products aren't labeled properly, we cannot even consult the bottles for more information. Doesn't this lack of disclosure leaves Deva open to civil suits in the event that someone uses the "new" version that contains something they are allergic to? Why would Deva risk that? What is in the new formulation and why aren't you sharing the ingredient list?

Lorraine, I know you're busy but it wouldn't take long to address the curly community through NC.com and put a stop to all the rumor mongering and Deva bashing. A few hours of your time and some genuine transparency in lieu of the cutesy curl banter would go a long way toward winning back some customers and gaining new ones. It's a goodwill gesture that's long overdue, in my opinion.

Best regards,
Jill
(aka Sage Vivant)

Deva addresses the 'cone

At Naturally Curly, a representative from Deva has disclosed that the reason Deva has used amodimethicone lo these many years is because it couldn't find "a botanical replacement." Effective 2009, however, all conditioning products put out by the company will be 'cone-free.

Nice. Good news. I'd like to be happy, but there's something just not right about this situation. I couldn't address my misgivings on the discussion boards because I don't want to be the voice of negativity there, but I don't mind telling you here, at my blog, that I am suspicious of this sudden visibility of Deva. They have been untouchable and rather uncommunicative for years. And now, without warning, they are chatting up the curly community. Call me a curmudgeon, but it feels disingenuous. (Yes, I know that sounds strange from me, given my plea to Lorraine to open up about why she puts silicones in her conditioners. But I don't know... I just find this unprecedented transparency uncharacteristic and therefore, odd.)

I mean, here's a company that sprung up shortly after Lorraine Massey published her book. With no explanation or apology, it sold conditioners containing the very same ingredient Curly Girl advised us to avoid. The company also made shampoos, and although Deva was very keen on shouting from the rooftops about the absence of sulfates in those shampoos, it was odd that they had shampoos at all, if the advice in the book was to hold true. (Well, I take that back. The book says wavy-haired people might need the occasional shampoo. Were the shampoos, then, directed at wavies? Doesn't seem that way.)

My next beef: Why put out a product in the first place that doesn't conform to your very public philosophy? Why not wait until you *can* find the "botanical replacement"? Could they not wait because maybe there was too much money to be made in the interim? I was among the people who bought a bunch of Deva products the moment I learned Massey had created a line of them. I assumed, as surely many other unsuspecting curlies did, that the conditioner would not have silicones, given who its inventor was. But alas, the 'cones were there -- and just happened to have needed the "low poo" to remove them. Convenient, no?

And lastly, why the extended silence? Did the questioning on the part of the curly community just finally become too loud to ignore? Perhaps it was our incessant haranguing that eventually made it impossible for Deva to keep selling us a product that contradicted its founder's beliefs about acceptable hair product ingredients. If so, good for the curly community! It pays to be tenacious.

I will try to take Deva at its word and accept this new, friendly, unsiliconed face it wants to present to the world. But I'm watching you, Deva. I'm watching you.

[Added one day later: Naturally Curly, adding to the suspicious nature of all of this, removed that post and instead quoted the representative in a different post. I have updated the link above -- look for Gretchen's post on page two of that thread.]