-
Are the days of “natural” cosmetics coming to an end?
-
Thanks, Phil. Perhaps I read a bit of bad info about that.
-
MarkBroussard said:@ketchito:You actually need two or three ingredient definitions. (1) Natural (The USDA definition is a good start; (2) Naturally-Derived, meaning ingredients that use precursors that are naturally derived, plant-based, but synthetically modified to yield the final ingredient; (3) Nature-Identical, but synthetically manufactured. But, I doubt that will ever happen by the FDA.
In looking at their products, the Oars + Alps natural claims focused on the natural ingredients they did use in their products, but completely ingnored the PEGS and other synthetic ingredients they also used, so it was a pretty blatant case of making false natural claims. They clearly were not following any natural standards, so they can’t use that as a defense of any kind.
I think given the egregious violation, this case will get settled out of court.
@MarkBroussard I think that’s precisely why things get complicated: different organizations come up with their own definition of natural to favor their own interests (or the ones of their clients). As a chemist, it blows my mind that something can be called natural even though it was made synthetically. And it makes me sad all the shame it’s being put onto the synthesis of chemicals. This only reflects on the huge divorce there is between people and science, and the lack of ethics and transparency there is in the industry.
-
Perry said:Cosmos and Natrue are simply organizations that just made up their own standard. There is nothing official about them. There is nothing stopping anyone from starting their own competing natural standard and providing certifications.
The assumptions of such a certificate should not be against the law. If there is a legal definition of a “natural cosmetic”, you cannot come up with another conflicting definition and sell the product as natural. Therefore, I think that if such a definition were actually to be made, it would not allow less than Natrue or Cosmos, and ingredients that are natural, of natural origin and identical to natural, would be allowed. Otherwise, these organizations would have to change their rules, and most of the products would lose their certification, because most probably use preservatives like Sodium Benzoate. I don’t think this will happen.
Certification organizations and certified companies would be the most “disadvantaged” if a legal definition were to be established, because why pay for a certificate if you meet the legal definition for free.
It is difficult to check whether the manufacturer actually uses an ingredient of natural origin in each batch, and that they are much more expensive than synthetic, I see a lot of scope for abuse in the case of ingredients that may be of natural origin or may be synthetic.@PhilGeis Not natural, it is of natural origin: https://minasolve.com/news/minasolve-launches-three-antimicrobial-solutions-based-on-biobased-caprylyl-glycol/
-
The reason different organizations have come up with their own definition of natural is to provide some guidance or set a common framework for natural products. Why? Because there is strong consumer demand for natural personal care products and governments have failed to address the issue in creating a legal definition. This applies not just to individual ingredients, but also the processes that are used to manufacture those ingredients and simple chemical reactions like esterification. The Natural Cosmetics Act solves the problem and its primary proponents are companies within the natural industry who want the goverment to put a legal definition/framework in place. If you are familiar with the various natural standards, you will find that there are some minor differences between them, but they are basically all the same thing.
By synthtically made ingredients being called natural, are you referring to Nature-Identical, but synthetically manufactured ingredients, such as Citric Acid? If so, this is necessary because it is not economically feasible to produce Citric Acid from biomass on a commercial scale. In many cases, you would do far more damage to the planet if you restricted the production of Nature-Identical compounds to extraction from biomass than if you allowed synthetic production of Nature-Identical compounds.
And, you will, by necessity, need to allow the use of some select synthetics for use in natural products. Take Sodium Benzoate & Potassium Sorbate, both of which do not occur in nature, although their precursor acids do, but the salts are more commonly used as preservatives. But, I am unaware of any purely synthetic compound that is allowed by any of the natural standards unless there simply is no natural or nature-derived alternative and that ingredient is absolutely critical to making safe products. This is particularly true with preservatives.
It’s all definitional, by necessity. It confounds me the howling about lack of transparency and ethics, when it is the natural industry itself who are the main proponents of government passing the Natural Cosmetics Act. It’s companies like SC Johnson who are the culprits, but then you find companies engaging in deceptive advertising in all segments of the cosmetics industry and no one would really consider SC Johnson a player in the natural segment of the industry.
-
What I suspect will most likely happen (in the US, at least) is that to be able to market a product with a Natural seal, is that you will first have to have your product reviewed by an approved certifying body, just like you do in Organics. There will be one government-sanctioned/approved definition of Natural and the definitions offered by private organizations such as Natrue, Cosmos, etc. won’t be recognized or necessary. But, those organizations are well set up to become the ceritifying bodies, so they won’t go away, but their seals will be meaningless in the marketplace. Frankly, they’re kind of meaningless in the present.
-
“ Natural and the definitions offered by private organizations such as Natrue, Cosmos, etc. won’t be recognized or necessary.“
This is kind of what happened to the Leaping Bunny seal for products produced in the EU. Once the EU banned animal testing, Leaping Bunny became mostly irrelevant.
-
@MarkBroussard The stardard I like the most for natural ingredients, is the one set by…nature ????Isolation, solvent extraction, biotechnological manufacture may all well fit within this scope.
And of course I like synthetics (I’m a chemist), but there should be NO shame on calling an ingredient synthetic, if that’s what it is. And that’s what I call transparency….not using some twisted standard made to fit some “consumer need”. Consumers don’t need “natural” or synthetics, the industry made them believe that. They do need safe and well perfoming products, where ingredients and final products cause the least damage to the environment. Now I can apply to a congress position. My moto would be: I wear synthetics, and I love it! ????
-
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5017/text?r=4&s=1
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5872?s=1&r=3The Natural Cosmetic Act you discussed is the first or second document?
In Natrue, the required amount of natural substances other than water is quite small (depending on the product), according to Cosmos Natural water is included as a natural ingredient and they don’t require minimum amount of other natural ingredients. But in the first document they require 70% of natural substances other than water. It’s a lot.
I thought the citric acid was mostly of natural origin, not from citrus, but from the fermentation of glucose from plants. -
Consumer wants, needs and desires drive a market, not the other way around unless you are intent on failure. It is perferctly reasonable for a consumer to say “I want personal care products that do not contain any synthetic ingredients”. That creates a stretch goal for industry and has driven an expolsion in the development of new natural and naturally-derived ingredients and products. Your standard of isolation, solvent extraction, biotechnological manufacture are indeed the basis of defining natural ingredients.
Natural was primarily driven by consumers who had sensitive skin issues and those concerned about the safety of putting synthetic chemicals on their skin or just a philosophical want for natural only. That was the driving force behind the development of the natural segment of the market, not companies try to convince people they needed natural ingredients. Many of us in the natural market do not use essential oils for instance. They are natural, but can be harmful to the skin. There are a variety of natural ingredients that we won’t use because, although natural, they may not be safe or have other drawbacks. So we disciminate equally between some natural ingredients and synthetic ingredients.
Now you get down to the issue of product safety, which is where select synthetics and nature-identical synthetics play a role in the natural market, particularly preservatives. For the most part consumers understand this, but they are looking for the most benign synthetics available which is why there is a tolerance in the natural market for Sodium Benzoate that has a natural analog in Benzoic Acid, for instance. For the absolute purists, there’s always ethanol.These consumers just don’t want to use syntetic ingredients that are not absolutely necessary to the safety of the product. Unfortunately, some companies use “Made Without” marketing claims to easily communicate to consumers that they don’t use certain synthetics. If the Natural Cosmetics Act passes, that type of marketing would not be used nearly as much … just put your Natural seal on your product is all you would need.
-
grapefruit22 said:https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5017/text?r=4&s=1
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5872?s=1&r=3The Natural Cosmetic Act you discussed is the first or second document?
In Natrue, the required amount of natural substances other than water is quite small (depending on the product), according to Cosmos Natural water is included as a natural ingredient and they don’t require minimum amount of other natural ingredients. But in the first document they require 70% of natural substances other than water. It’s a lot.
I thought the citric acid was mostly of natural origin, not from citrus, but from the fermentation of glucose from plants.It’s both. The bill failed to advance out of committee on it’s first submission and was reintroduced when a new Congress was seated.
-
MarkBroussard said:@ketchito:
Now you get down to the issue of product safety, which is where select synthetics and nature-identical synthetics play a role in the natural market, particularly preservatives. For the most part consumers understand this, but they are looking for the most benign synthetics available which is why there is a tolerance in the natural market for Sodium Benzoate that has a natural analog in Benzoic Acid, for instance. For the absolute purists, there’s always ethanol.Not with you on this Mark.
The preservative aspects is the worst. So-called naturals are more hype than effect and consumers and too many formulators understand none of it. Don’t think they looking for “benign” per se - they’re sold these synthetics claimed to be natural on undefined/ill defined natural hype with a some chemophobia. But I’m unaware of relevant consumer understanding of this group’s motivation. What they do not know is the much greater risk they assume with such preservatives.Don’t understand Sodium benzoate as “natural analog” esp. in the current discussion.
-
But to Perry’s original question - I’d say unlikely. Prob. a headwind vs. the Natural Cosmetics Act from folks using the term now including the credentialing org’s. Haven’t heard that the big guys push it.
And as Barnum said “……..btw @@grapefruit22
the second, 117th congress. -
So they really want as much as 70% of the extracts in the product? It is surprising and not in line with other standards.
Is it possible to preserve a product properly by using only preservatives of natural origin? I know this is a fairly general question, but maybe quite relevant. Preservatives of natural origin (not nature-identical) I found: Sodium Levulinate, Sodium Anisate, Benzoic Acid, Phenethyl Alcohol, Sodium Phytate (as chelating agent), Pentylene Glycol (as a booster). -
Let me clarify for you … what I am saying is that select synthetic preservatives are necessary to develop a safe product because that is where the natural options mostly fail or are simply not available. That is why Sodium Benzoate is allowed in most natural standards, even though it is synthetic. You could always use Benzoic Acid or Sorbic Acid as nature-identical synthetics, but the drawback is the limited solubility, so they will work in some product formats, but not in others.
I don’t advocate labeling a synthetic preservative as natural, but you’re going to have to allow certain synthetic preservatives in natural products, yet still call the product Natural. Most natural consumer resistence is on parabens and formaldehyde releasers and some retailers have put a target on phenoxyethanol. But, generally, people don’t have an issue with the organic acids, for instance.
The proposed Natural Cosmetics Act does accomodate the use of synthetics where no natural option is available. I suspect as this moves through the process, that there will be a defined list of allowed synthetics and this will mostly be in the area of preservatives.
-
grapefruit22 said:So they really want as much as 70% of the extracts in the product? It is surprising and not in line with other standards.
Is it possible to preserve a product properly by using only preservatives of natural origin? I know this is a fairly general question, but maybe quite relevant. Preservatives of natural origin (not nature-identical) I found: Sodium Levulinate, Sodium Anisate, Benzoic Acid, Phenethyl Alcohol, Sodium Phytate (as chelating agent), Pentylene Glycol (as a booster).Not surprising at all … 70% is in line with the “Made With Organic Ingredients” criteria. The standards organizations are private enterprises, so you can follow their criteria, but it has no effect in law, it’s just a private organization saying you comply with their criteria.
Yes, you can use Sodium Levulinate, Sodium Anisate, Phenethyl Alcohol, Phytic Acid and Pentylene Glycol at pH 4.8 and you will have an effective preservation system. But, using natural Phenethyl Alcohol would be prohibitively expensive. Most used is Nature-Identical.
-
Mark - I’m not with you on effective preservation.
Benzoate is hardly the synthetic answer to an effective preservative system.
The system you describe is not one that I’ve evaluated so I can’t address its risk. What I do know from P&G work and have seen with multiple clients subsequently is that the great majority of the natural systems are not adequately effective. They do pass USP 51 but that is not a validated risk assessment benchmark. -
I’m just being realistic about what preservatives will most likely make the cut into being allowed in Natual products as defined under NCA should it move forward
-
@MarkBroussard - “ It is perfectly reasonable for a consumer to say “I want personal care products that do not contain any synthetic ingredients“”
I don’t really think it is a reasonable request from a consumer. Because you can’t make a good functioning personal care product without synthetic ingredients. You’ve even said yourself that synthetic preservatives are needed.
I wonder, what natural brand on the market today would qualify as “natural” as in “doesn’t contain any synthetic ingredients”?
Burts Bees makes a body wash they claim is 97.8% natural origin. And they have this ingredient list?
“water, lauryl glucoside, decyl glucoside, fragrance, sucrose laurate, coco-betaine, betaine, citric acid, coco-glucoside, glyceryl oleate, glycerin, sodium chloride, tocopherol, hydrogenated palm glycerides citrate, lecithin, xanthan gum, ascorbyl palmitate, potassium sorbate, phenoxyethanol, citral, limonene, linalool“
Without synthetic chemistry you aren’t going to create Lauryl Glucoside or Decyl Glucoside which are the main functioning ingredients. How does this jive with a consumer expectation the the product “doesn’t contain any synthetic ingredients”?
As my UK colleagues would say, this is some jiggery pokery.
-
Burts Bee who claim to be natural is also dealing with a lawsuit over phthalates. https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/beauty-products/burts-bees-class-action-says-cosmetics-contain-harmful-forever-chemicals/
-
Yes, I agree that we should eliminate the use of the term natural. Science is a difficult concept for scientists much less the average person. People who are sensitive or allergic are desperate for natural products. They don’t understand that in order to not die, most ingredients are lab made. There’s no description for nature identicals and synthetic products that work better than nature. So I also don’t think demonizing a natural claim is scientific either. We need a better approach to educating consumers. For example, when the social distancing came out 6 feet was not scientific. Lab studies confirm that viruses can travel in the air over 20 feet if someone sneezes or coughs. But it would be near impossible for the average person to calculate 20. It would have made the pandemic worse to suggest that people maintain that distance. So hopefully y’all can feel me on this.
-
Perry said:@MarkBroussard - “ It is perfectly reasonable for a consumer to say “I want personal care products that do not contain any synthetic ingredients“”
I don’t really think it is a reasonable request from a consumer. Because you can’t make a good functioning personal care product without synthetic ingredients. You’ve even said yourself that synthetic preservatives are needed.
Actually, yes, you can, but not in all product formats.
-
ProfessorHerb said:Yes, I agree that we should eliminate the use of the term natural. Science is a difficult concept for scientists much less the average person. People who are sensitive or allergic are desperate for natural products. They don’t understand that in order to not die, most ingredients are lab made. There’s no description for nature identicals and synthetic products that work better than nature. So I also don’t think demonizing a natural claim is scientific either. We need a better approach to educating consumers. For example, when the social distancing came out 6 feet was not scientific. Lab studies confirm that viruses can travel in the air over 20 feet if someone sneezes or coughs. But it would be near impossible for the average person to calculate 20. It would have made the pandemic worse to suggest that people maintain that distance. So hopefully y’all can feel me on this.
@@ProfessorHerb
I don’t think there’s any putting that genie back in the bottle. Better for goverments to legally define Natural. Educating consumers is very difficult particularly as it relates to cosmetic ingredients. With a governement-approved Natural seal, consumers would be given confidence in the products bearing that seal. You already have the Organic seal … just use the same model.
-
what natural brand on the market today would qualify as “natural” as in “doesn’t contain any synthetic ingredients”?
-
One issue is that the term natural can’t be defined in a way that scientists agree on. But the GRAS is still a great alternative. But I agree that natural should be defined as best as possible for the scientific community since every scientist is using their own definition of the word and causing confusion. Practical for consumers and scientific for chemists. Also, natural isn’t a scientific term to begin with, its a social term. So there’s a lot of issues to sort out.
-
Cosmetic marketing has been and is driven by garbage claims - from marginally functional antiaging, hypoallergenic, reef safe, animal testing to the fantasies of natural, endocrine disruption, no whatever, sustainable, causes cancer, microplastics, formaldehyde. Credentialing organizations parasitize each of em - EWG, COSMOS Ecocert, animal testing bunch, etc.
At corporate or individual level - ethics are calibrated to the perception that success requires some degree of buying in.The major industry org’s for the last 2 decades tried to educate consumers on preservatives - no luck there.
@grapefruit22 - what ingredient isn’t “naturally derived”?
Log in to reply.