We’re trying to reduce chemical additives in our lives and my husband bought this thinking it was 100% pure aloe vera gel. In fact, “Aloe Barbadensis leaf juice” is only one ingredient listed among many chemical-sounding names. He now knows to read the ingredient labels!
What do you savvy shonky spotters think? Is this label misleading?
Puffery in that it is a gel (somewhat firm compound) just not all Aloe as some might think from the label. Also the Aloe used was pure…it’s the ‘smart advertising’ use of words that skirt around what would be unlawful.
Legal puffery but I’m against such use of Puffery.
I tend to agree. It is 100% gel, which possibly means there isn’t anything but gel in the bottle (I am trying to think what else there could be…maybe air bubbles, scrubbing solids, nanoabrasives etc). But the photo shows air bubbles, maybe this isn’t classed as anything or is part of the gel.
It looks like they have changed the wording in recent time as the old wording would have been misleading where is states ‘Pure* Aloe Gel’…
with the * being 'plus stabiliser and required preservatives. This wording has been removed in more recent batches as one would be required to read the fine print to see that it isn’t in fact pure.
Back to your bottle. not shonky, especially since it is 100% gel and the additional ingredients are provided on the label.
pros - cooling sensation, doesn’t irritate sensitive skin
cons - aloe vera is the 8th ingredients, doesn’t feel natural, doesn’t speed up the healing process
Aloe After Sun Gel lists alcohol as the second ingredient and contains a mere token amount of aloe, making this a bad choice for after sun or any other time.
I researched and tried various brands of aloe vera gel over the period 2011 - 2018. I had settled on “Plunketts” for a couple of years, and then I discovered https://www.aloeveraaustralia.com.au/. Not only is is the best aloe vera gel I have tried, but it is grown, processed and packaged in Queensland (I am in the Northern Territory), and I now return my empty 1-litre tubs to be refilled, so there is no need to keep buying new single-use plastic tubs.
This company makes no misleading claims, and labels the product as “98%” or “99%”.
Curious question, how do your return your tubs for refilling and at what cost? While commendable regarding plastics overall is it productive, counter-productive, or about deuce? If you drop your tubs in whilst in Brissie that might work well, but if you had to send it from Alice or Darwin or points less populated?
I have five one-litre tubs, and send them to be refilled when four of them are empty. The tubs are stackable, so I take the lids off and stack them before posting them, and the same containers are returned to me when they have been refilled. I can’t remember how much the postage costs (note that Australia Post reconfigured and simplified its pricing a year or two ago, and will probably need to modify it again to enable package refilling as a normal practice in the near future).
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “…regarding plastics overall is it productive, counter-productive, or about deuce?”, but the difference between ordering the product in new tubs every time, and returning the tubs to be refilled, is that no further plastic tubs are brought into the world for our descendants’ pleasure, and using road freight to return them Darwin > Brisbane means that once Australia starts to move with the rest of the world in the electrification of transport, no smoke from setting fire to stuff (ie. emissions) will be involved, and emissions are already about one-sixth of what they would be by air freight.
Whether the direct and indirect costs of transport &| postage and packing made it worthwhile, or if the additional costs such as packaging, fuel and the resultant pollutions from same resulted in a net disadvantage or advantage. For perspective a similar question about electric vehicles is where one also needs to consider the costs of the mining + battery production + disposal + charging as offsets, not just the pollution saved by using EVs.
‘Deuce’ is tennis-talk and I simplistically use it to suggest the arguments +/- are roughly equal, although it is a bit more complicated than just that.
The difference between ordering the product in new tubs every time, and returning the tubs to be refilled, is that no further plastic tubs are brought into the world for our descendants’ pleasure, and using road freight to return them Darwin > Brisbane means that once Australia starts to move with the rest of the world in the electrification of transport, no smoke from setting fire to stuff (ie. emissions) will be involved, and emissions are already about one-sixth of what they would be by air freight. Overall, a much smaller footprint than the old one-way consumption/waste model.
PS Don’t forget about mining + oil extraction + oil transport + oil refining + fuel transport + fuel storage/leakage/evaporation (in addition to mere air pollution) if you want to challenge one of these 21st-century EV users in the future, to save the embarrassment of having it pointed out to you by them.
I just looked it up. It cost me $13.80 to return four empty tubs from Darwin to Brisbane to be refilled.
The way I look at this sort of thing is, “It only cost me $13.80 to keep this polypropylene out of the ground”.
Happily, being indigenous British (still the vast majority of us) residents of the richest country in the world, we’re not actually as poor as we claim to be.
