• irotsoma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        I can see that, but the plural “ingredients” still makes my gut say it should be fewer.

        • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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?

          • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              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?

    • Muscar@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    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?

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

      • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

  • MadLegoChemist@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

      • BalooWasWahoo@links.hackliberty.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

      • MadLegoChemist@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        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).

        • restingboredface@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          It depends. Many vegans see any product that “exploits” animals as nonvegan. That includes things like down feathers, wool and honey.

          • Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.)

            • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              After a few sheers they’re off to the slaughterhouse once the wool quality degrades. The sheering is not for their benefit.

            • moody@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              31
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

    • SanderTuit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      6 months ago

      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).

  • faizalr@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    It should not really matter I think. Maybe its just a marketing strategy.

  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I save my ear wax and just reuse that for hair paste. You need one of the gyroscope cleaners though to get enough wax.