This is so interesting. It’s great to hear of a brand that a) works and b) you know can be trusted. I’m in the UK but will try and purchase. Thank you. ☺️
DIEUX has built an entire brand identity around transparency, consumer education, and calling out deceptive skincare marketing.
Which makes the marketing for Deliverance incredibly hard to ignore once you actually examine the formula.
The product prominently claims:
“5% peptide blend.”
The average consumer hears that and understandably thinks:
“This formula contains 5% peptides.”
But the INCI list strongly suggests that is not remotely true.
Here’s why.
In cosmetics, ingredients are listed in descending order.
In Deliverance, the peptides appear near the absolute bottom of the ingredient list, after phenoxyethanol. Phenoxyethanol is capped at 1% maximum in cosmetic formulas.
That means the peptides themselves are almost certainly present at well under 1%.
Probably far under 1%.
And yet the marketing heavily leans on:
* “2% N-Prolyl Palmitoyl Tripeptide-56 Complex”
* “3% Palmitoyl Hexapeptide-52 Complex”
Notice the word:
“Complex.”
That is doing an enormous amount of work.
Because these are almost certainly supplier blends containing:
* water
* glycols
* stabilizers
* botanical extracts
* solvents
* delivery materials
* and tiny amounts of actual peptide
In other words:
they are counting the entire premade raw material blend toward the percentage claim, not the actual peptide actives themselves.
Based on the ingredient order, a far more realistic estimate is probably something like:
* ~0.01% to 0.05% actual peptide for one complex
* ~0.02% to 0.08% for the other
Combined actual peptide content may realistically land somewhere around:
~0.03% to 0.1%.
Not 5%.
To be clear:
that does not automatically make the formula ineffective. Peptides are often designed to work at low concentrations.
But that is exactly what makes this so disingenuous.
DIEUX understands cosmetic chemistry better than almost any consumer brand on the market. They know consumers interpret “5% peptide blend” as peptide concentration. They know the INCI list tells a completely different story. They know most consumers will never understand the distinction between a peptide complex and actual peptide loading.
And they market it that way anyway.
That is not radical transparency.
That is precision-engineered consumer interpretation.
Ironically, the formula probably does not even need this kind of inflationary framing. The meaningful parts of the formula are likely the niacinamide, humectants, barrier support ingredients, silicones, and overall formulation architecture.
But “carefully formulated barrier-support serum with low-dose peptides” does not sound as sexy as “5% peptide blend.”
So they chose perception over clarity.
Exactly like the brands they claim to be different from.
Kevin, it’s hardly “trashing” to question whether consumers are being given an accurate impression of active concentration.
And no, I did not miss your validation of the 5% claim. I’m saying your validation is conflating supplier complex percentage with actual peptide loading, which are not the same thing.
That distinction is precisely the issue.
A formula can legally contain 5% of a peptide COMPLEX while containing a tiny fraction of actual peptide actives within that blend. Based on the INCI positioning, that appears far more likely here than a literal 5% peptide concentration. In fact it's far less, as I have explained.
That was my point then, and it’s still my point now.
I posted about your brand on my socials back in March of 2019 after reading about Schaf in a BeautyMatter article and thinking its gender-neutral marketing plan was worth mentioning at the time.
The products looked generic, and I wasn't sure whether they were White Label or Private Label, but it didn't really matter because I was commenting on the marketing, not the formulations.
Now that I've gone back to look more carefully, I see the effects of ingredient fear-mongering all over your marketing and product descriptions.
You've immediately lost credibility in my eyes by citing those fear-mongering political lobbyists at EWG as validation of your product's "safety". And everyone in the industry knows about the pay-for-play Leaping Bunny certification game.
Disappointing.
Then I noticed you made a 4% peptide claim on YOUR moisturizer, and the peptide is pretty close to the end of the INCI - which is exactly what you're here trashing Dieux for doing with their 5% peptide claim - saying it's so close to the backend of the INCI, and that it couldn't possibly have that percentage...without any actual proof except your "opinion".
Interesting that you feel confident in calling them out when you're doing something very similar. I believe the word for this is hypocrisy.
You know what they say about people in glass houses...
Kevin, I appreciate the response, and for the record I am not interested in a personal fight, nor am I questioning whether the claims meet regulatory requirements.
Health Canada requires substantiation for percentage claims, and Schaf’s claims are substantiated accordingly.
As for the “fear-mongering” point, I think there is an important distinction between fear-based marketing and formulation philosophy.
Schaf was built around minimizing common irritants and sensitizers because many consumers are overwhelmed by increasingly aggressive, overcomplicated routines. That is not the same thing as claiming other products are “toxic” or unsafe.
And yes, 2019 was also a very different skincare landscape. The industry has changed dramatically since then. Ingredient literacy exploded, multi-step routines became normalized, and skincare marketing became increasingly centred around actives, percentages, stacks, and optimization culture. The consumer conversation today is fundamentally different than it was six years ago.
My broader point was about consumer interpretation in modern skincare marketing, specifically the growing gap between how technically accurate claims are constructed and how consumers understandably perceive them.
That issue extends far beyond Dieux. Frankly, it applies across much of the skincare industry, because all consumer industries are ultimately shaped by marketing incentives.
I also agree that low-dose peptides can absolutely be effective. Concentration alone does not determine efficacy. Formulation architecture matters enormously.
What I was questioning is whether consumers generally understand the distinction between a supplier complex percentage and actual active peptide loading when they encounter front-of-pack percentage claims. I think that is a fair discussion to have.
Reasonable people can disagree on where the line sits between technically accurate marketing and sufficiently clear consumer communication.
But I am happy to leave it there unless there is interest in having that discussion in a more constructive and less adversarial way.
I do not want to be adversarial, but you threw down - I'm just responding.
It was you who showed up in my comments, trash-talking DIEUX's transparency claim, then felt the need to take it a step further by writing your own article and naming me.
I can see now that you're the type of person who escalates a situation and then acts like a victim when people clap back.
So, if you're going to try to paint me as a villain when I defend what I've published, just know I'm not going to remain silent.
Kevin, fair enough. I did challenge the interpretation of the marketing claims, and I understand why you responded.
But for clarity, I am not trying to paint you as a villain, nor am I claiming victimhood because someone disagreed with me publicly.
I raised a broader concern about how percentage-based skincare marketing is often interpreted by consumers in today’s market, especially as skincare has become increasingly centred around actives, percentages, and ingredient narratives over the past several years.
You clearly disagree with my interpretation, and that is your right.
I also think there is a meaningful distinction between regulatory compliance and consumer perception, and I still believe that discussion is worth having across the industry as a whole.
In any case, I have no interest in turning this into a personal back-and-forth. I respect your experience in cosmetic formulation, even where we disagree.
I love Dieux and its founders, Charlotte Palermino and Joyce de Lemos. It’s rare to see a beauty brand lead so unapologetically with science and transparency. I especially appreciate their willingness to call out greenwashing and challenge misinformation surrounding organizations like the Environmental Working Group. Palermino’s commitment to social justice also makes the brand stand out — she rejects the outdated idea that beauty companies should “stay in their lane” and instead recognizes that values and advocacy matter. On top of all that, the products themselves are genuinely exceptional. Thank you for this great post, Kevin.
I suppose there is an answer out there but here’s my question - and no judgment because I find Charlotte to be engaging, bright and informed in every podcast I’ve heard her on - why all the religious references (including the name which is the plural of god in French)? Angel, mercy, deliverance etc.
Why not use religious or spiritual terms? They've been used in global cosmetic and fragrance marketing since...forever.
Your asking this question makes me wonder whether you're offended (because you're a religious person) or just trolling (which seems possible after looking at your profile).
I am neither! No need to be defensive (especially after I just sung her praises) or offensive. It’s just quite specific for an entire product line, not just one product, and I thought you might have insight after such a deep dive.
I wasn't being defensive, nor was I being offensive. Typically, a social profile with no profile image and an account name followed by a string of numbers is a troll or a bot. That's not shade, that's logic.
I apologize if I upset you, but I often feel that people expect on-demand answers from me when they have the same research tools I do. If you're truly interested in the reasoning behind Dieux's use of spiritual terms, why haven't you researched and/or reached out to them?
Kevin, I have to thank you once again. I picked up the forever eye mask, Auracle, and Instant Angel at my local beauty crackhouse, and within two days, my skin already looked plumper, dewier, younger, just more alive. Looking forward to seeing how it looks after a month of using these. I've worn out my barrier a few times in the past couple years with too many actives, so this feels heaven-sent (and Kevin-sent!)
I use Perplexity for its robust research engine. But I don't use it to write the content. If you familiarize yourself with the writing on my old blog and on social platforms (especially Instagram), I've always sounded like this. Because of the amount of research I put into each article/post, I sometimes need to be mindful of sounding too technical, which I agree can read like AI. I do use Grammarly because my spelling is atrocious. But the actual articles are all mine.
For reference, this was an IG post from 2021, long before we had AI access. The writing style and tone are the same.
This is so interesting. It’s great to hear of a brand that a) works and b) you know can be trusted. I’m in the UK but will try and purchase. Thank you. ☺️
Love this brand! Thanks for the fantastic coverage.
So good! You turned me on to the silicone eye patch and eye cream and I love them both. You are such an amazing resource.
awwwww, thanks Terri. 💙
You are welcome. And I just bought that Prequel Vit C serum you recommended.
DIEUX has built an entire brand identity around transparency, consumer education, and calling out deceptive skincare marketing.
Which makes the marketing for Deliverance incredibly hard to ignore once you actually examine the formula.
The product prominently claims:
“5% peptide blend.”
The average consumer hears that and understandably thinks:
“This formula contains 5% peptides.”
But the INCI list strongly suggests that is not remotely true.
Here’s why.
In cosmetics, ingredients are listed in descending order.
In Deliverance, the peptides appear near the absolute bottom of the ingredient list, after phenoxyethanol. Phenoxyethanol is capped at 1% maximum in cosmetic formulas.
That means the peptides themselves are almost certainly present at well under 1%.
Probably far under 1%.
And yet the marketing heavily leans on:
* “2% N-Prolyl Palmitoyl Tripeptide-56 Complex”
* “3% Palmitoyl Hexapeptide-52 Complex”
Notice the word:
“Complex.”
That is doing an enormous amount of work.
Because these are almost certainly supplier blends containing:
* water
* glycols
* stabilizers
* botanical extracts
* solvents
* delivery materials
* and tiny amounts of actual peptide
In other words:
they are counting the entire premade raw material blend toward the percentage claim, not the actual peptide actives themselves.
Based on the ingredient order, a far more realistic estimate is probably something like:
* ~0.01% to 0.05% actual peptide for one complex
* ~0.02% to 0.08% for the other
Combined actual peptide content may realistically land somewhere around:
~0.03% to 0.1%.
Not 5%.
To be clear:
that does not automatically make the formula ineffective. Peptides are often designed to work at low concentrations.
But that is exactly what makes this so disingenuous.
DIEUX understands cosmetic chemistry better than almost any consumer brand on the market. They know consumers interpret “5% peptide blend” as peptide concentration. They know the INCI list tells a completely different story. They know most consumers will never understand the distinction between a peptide complex and actual peptide loading.
And they market it that way anyway.
That is not radical transparency.
That is precision-engineered consumer interpretation.
Ironically, the formula probably does not even need this kind of inflationary framing. The meaningful parts of the formula are likely the niacinamide, humectants, barrier support ingredients, silicones, and overall formulation architecture.
But “carefully formulated barrier-support serum with low-dose peptides” does not sound as sexy as “5% peptide blend.”
So they chose perception over clarity.
Exactly like the brands they claim to be different from.
So you, a brand owner, decided to drop by and trash a competitor in the comments. Classy.
I guess you conveniently missed the part where I list the two peptides, and the percentages that validate the 5% claim. 🤨
Kevin, it’s hardly “trashing” to question whether consumers are being given an accurate impression of active concentration.
And no, I did not miss your validation of the 5% claim. I’m saying your validation is conflating supplier complex percentage with actual peptide loading, which are not the same thing.
That distinction is precisely the issue.
A formula can legally contain 5% of a peptide COMPLEX while containing a tiny fraction of actual peptide actives within that blend. Based on the INCI positioning, that appears far more likely here than a literal 5% peptide concentration. In fact it's far less, as I have explained.
That was my point then, and it’s still my point now.
I posted about your brand on my socials back in March of 2019 after reading about Schaf in a BeautyMatter article and thinking its gender-neutral marketing plan was worth mentioning at the time.
The products looked generic, and I wasn't sure whether they were White Label or Private Label, but it didn't really matter because I was commenting on the marketing, not the formulations.
Now that I've gone back to look more carefully, I see the effects of ingredient fear-mongering all over your marketing and product descriptions.
You've immediately lost credibility in my eyes by citing those fear-mongering political lobbyists at EWG as validation of your product's "safety". And everyone in the industry knows about the pay-for-play Leaping Bunny certification game.
Disappointing.
Then I noticed you made a 4% peptide claim on YOUR moisturizer, and the peptide is pretty close to the end of the INCI - which is exactly what you're here trashing Dieux for doing with their 5% peptide claim - saying it's so close to the backend of the INCI, and that it couldn't possibly have that percentage...without any actual proof except your "opinion".
Interesting that you feel confident in calling them out when you're doing something very similar. I believe the word for this is hypocrisy.
You know what they say about people in glass houses...
Kevin, I appreciate the response, and for the record I am not interested in a personal fight, nor am I questioning whether the claims meet regulatory requirements.
Health Canada requires substantiation for percentage claims, and Schaf’s claims are substantiated accordingly.
As for the “fear-mongering” point, I think there is an important distinction between fear-based marketing and formulation philosophy.
Schaf was built around minimizing common irritants and sensitizers because many consumers are overwhelmed by increasingly aggressive, overcomplicated routines. That is not the same thing as claiming other products are “toxic” or unsafe.
And yes, 2019 was also a very different skincare landscape. The industry has changed dramatically since then. Ingredient literacy exploded, multi-step routines became normalized, and skincare marketing became increasingly centred around actives, percentages, stacks, and optimization culture. The consumer conversation today is fundamentally different than it was six years ago.
My broader point was about consumer interpretation in modern skincare marketing, specifically the growing gap between how technically accurate claims are constructed and how consumers understandably perceive them.
That issue extends far beyond Dieux. Frankly, it applies across much of the skincare industry, because all consumer industries are ultimately shaped by marketing incentives.
I also agree that low-dose peptides can absolutely be effective. Concentration alone does not determine efficacy. Formulation architecture matters enormously.
What I was questioning is whether consumers generally understand the distinction between a supplier complex percentage and actual active peptide loading when they encounter front-of-pack percentage claims. I think that is a fair discussion to have.
Reasonable people can disagree on where the line sits between technically accurate marketing and sufficiently clear consumer communication.
But I am happy to leave it there unless there is interest in having that discussion in a more constructive and less adversarial way.
I do not want to be adversarial, but you threw down - I'm just responding.
It was you who showed up in my comments, trash-talking DIEUX's transparency claim, then felt the need to take it a step further by writing your own article and naming me.
I can see now that you're the type of person who escalates a situation and then acts like a victim when people clap back.
So, if you're going to try to paint me as a villain when I defend what I've published, just know I'm not going to remain silent.
Kevin, fair enough. I did challenge the interpretation of the marketing claims, and I understand why you responded.
But for clarity, I am not trying to paint you as a villain, nor am I claiming victimhood because someone disagreed with me publicly.
I raised a broader concern about how percentage-based skincare marketing is often interpreted by consumers in today’s market, especially as skincare has become increasingly centred around actives, percentages, and ingredient narratives over the past several years.
You clearly disagree with my interpretation, and that is your right.
I also think there is a meaningful distinction between regulatory compliance and consumer perception, and I still believe that discussion is worth having across the industry as a whole.
In any case, I have no interest in turning this into a personal back-and-forth. I respect your experience in cosmetic formulation, even where we disagree.
I love Dieux and its founders, Charlotte Palermino and Joyce de Lemos. It’s rare to see a beauty brand lead so unapologetically with science and transparency. I especially appreciate their willingness to call out greenwashing and challenge misinformation surrounding organizations like the Environmental Working Group. Palermino’s commitment to social justice also makes the brand stand out — she rejects the outdated idea that beauty companies should “stay in their lane” and instead recognizes that values and advocacy matter. On top of all that, the products themselves are genuinely exceptional. Thank you for this great post, Kevin.
I suppose there is an answer out there but here’s my question - and no judgment because I find Charlotte to be engaging, bright and informed in every podcast I’ve heard her on - why all the religious references (including the name which is the plural of god in French)? Angel, mercy, deliverance etc.
Why not use religious or spiritual terms? They've been used in global cosmetic and fragrance marketing since...forever.
Your asking this question makes me wonder whether you're offended (because you're a religious person) or just trolling (which seems possible after looking at your profile).
Which is it?
I am neither! No need to be defensive (especially after I just sung her praises) or offensive. It’s just quite specific for an entire product line, not just one product, and I thought you might have insight after such a deep dive.
I wasn't being defensive, nor was I being offensive. Typically, a social profile with no profile image and an account name followed by a string of numbers is a troll or a bot. That's not shade, that's logic.
I apologize if I upset you, but I often feel that people expect on-demand answers from me when they have the same research tools I do. If you're truly interested in the reasoning behind Dieux's use of spiritual terms, why haven't you researched and/or reached out to them?
Thank you for these articles. I love it. I bought your recommendations for Dieux. I also bought the Prequel recommendation. Thank you. 😊
Kevin, I have to thank you once again. I picked up the forever eye mask, Auracle, and Instant Angel at my local beauty crackhouse, and within two days, my skin already looked plumper, dewier, younger, just more alive. Looking forward to seeing how it looks after a month of using these. I've worn out my barrier a few times in the past couple years with too many actives, so this feels heaven-sent (and Kevin-sent!)
Great write up of Dieux! But this does sound like ai writing…
I use Perplexity for its robust research engine. But I don't use it to write the content. If you familiarize yourself with the writing on my old blog and on social platforms (especially Instagram), I've always sounded like this. Because of the amount of research I put into each article/post, I sometimes need to be mindful of sounding too technical, which I agree can read like AI. I do use Grammarly because my spelling is atrocious. But the actual articles are all mine.
For reference, this was an IG post from 2021, long before we had AI access. The writing style and tone are the same.
https://www.instagram.com/kjbennettbeauty/p/CXyTrGJr28e/
I employ AI technology to make sure the information in my articles is accurate and easily citable - I don't allow it to write the articles for me.
I appreciate the transparency of the brand and of your writing/research.