-
Are the days of “natural” cosmetics coming to an end?
-
What you see in both the case of the SC Johnson and Burt’s Bee lawsuits is both companies are being sued by a single individual consumer and the lawyers are trying to expand those cases to class action status. And, there is a whole industry of lawyers who specialize in class action lawsuits, so they are always fishing for someone to sue.
Clorox had previously been the subject of a class action suit a few years back over a natural deodorant product that contained triclosan. So, in both of these cases you have corporate bad actors who know that their products do not comply with any Natural standards and know they use ingredients that violate those standards, yet in the case of SC Johnson they claimed Natural and Clorox claims % naturally-derived. And, that their products do not meet a reasonable consumer’s definition of Natural. So, in both cases the companies are in the wrong and set themselves up for the lawsuits.
To @PhilGeis‘s point, the cosmetics industry is rife with deceptive marketing claims all across the industry. The moral of the story here is that companies need to watch their marketing language to not set themselves up for lawsuits.
These suits will be settled, the companies will change their marketing language and life will move forward status-quo until such time that the government establishes a legal definition of Natural with products bearing that seal just as you have with Organic products.
-
@MarkBroussard - but wouldn’t you agree the natural certifications are also deceptive marketing?
Here is the EWG certifying the “natural” Attitude shampoo.
It’s a shampoo that contains - sodium coco-sulfate, coco-glucoside & sodium cocoyl isethionate. Those are synthetic.
As you say consumer expect natural products to be “free of synthetic chemicals” and yet here is a certifying body, claiming that a shampoo that obviously has synthetic ingredients in it is natural.
Just because the EWG or COSMOS or whatever natural brand claims that natural also means naturally derived, consumers will still come to the false conclusion that things labeled as “natural” don’t contain synthetic ingredients.
-
@Perry:
No, I would not call it deceptive marketing. By necessity they are trying to identify and qualify ingredients that are manufactured using plant-based, naturally-derived (renewable is also a component of the definition) precursors using defined chemical reactions such as esterification, if necessary, which is allowed under the various standards. It is just a practical approach to the issue.
I think a reasonble, educated consumer understands this. I suspect that most consumers seeking Natural are more educated on ingredients than the average consumer and do more research on ingredients and products.
Your final point makes the case for why the government needs to step in and identify Natural to give companies a clear, legal list of ingredients they can use along with Natural marketing language. That way consumers can simply look at a seal on a product and have confidence that it meets criteria approved by the FDA for the claims made regarding Natural.
-
@MarkBroussard - we just see it differently. When something is claimed to be natural, but it actually contains ingredients that are not found in nature or weren’t made by nature, that’s lying.
I know natural marketers don’t want to see it that way for practical reasons, but that’s what it is. I see most natural marketing as lying, no different than corporate greenwashing. These certification schemes just help codify the lie.
These brands could be truthful with a claim like
“naturally derived synthetic ingredients”.Why not tell the truth? I suspect it’s because the truth would sell less product.
Perhaps a reasonable, educated consumer understands that things labeled as “natural” actually contain synthetic chemicals, but the vast majority of consumers buying products aren’t reasonable/educated.
But I do agree the consumers and industry could benefit from FDA or EU creating a legal definition of ‘natural’ for claims.
-
I would most certainly call the credentialing org’s deceptive. Consider that SCJ et al. missed the mark by not starting their own.
Granted all this is BS regarding a product largely sold in BS. The only real damage is in preservation and there “natural” is at best ignorant often cynical BS.
As Perry said - why not tell the truth.
-
@Perry:
Yes, you have an asolutist view of the topic. I have a more pragmatic, practical view.
I think the standards bodies are making a good faith effort to try to define natural within the context of what is practically feasible. Consumers are seeking these natural products for a reason and most companies in the natural space are doing their best to deliver those products. But, you can only use the ingredients that are available. And, product safety is important and a first priority. Sure, naturally-derived synthetic ingredients is a good descriptor that companies could use.
The failure of government to adopt a legal definition of Natural is the root of the problem and consumers are not protected from the likes of SC Johnson who use deceptive advertising without a legal defintion of natural for claims.
-
According to the COSMOS standard, it is obligatory to indicate the percentage of ingredients of natural / organic origin.
In the end, it all comes down to whether you have to stick to the whole formula: “the product contains 98% ingredients of natural origin according to the X standard”, or you just use one word “natural”, because it is simpler and shorter. An additional explanation could be mandatory: “the product contains 98% ingredients of natural origin according to the X standard and 2% synthetic ingredients”, but this seems redundant.I wonder, if I dye my hair, is it then natural, of natural origin, or synthetic?
Large companies are also starting to focus on ingredients of natural origin. You can check the new Chanel and Kiehl’s products. And the new Shiseido brand:
https://www.ulebeauty.com/ -
PhilGeis said:Granted all this is BS regarding a product largely sold in BS. The only real damage is in preservation and there “natural” is at best ignorant often cynical BS.
Agreed. If this was a huge problem, the FTC and/or FDA would be taking action with Cease & Desist Letters, making companies change their marketing language and labels, etc. So, either the regulators do not see this as a big problem or they are not getting very many consumer complaints about it. And, maybe they are taking the position of letting industry resolve the issue through lawsuits unless they feel the need to step in.
Note in both of these cases the companies were sued by a single individual consumer with both law firms casting about to try to turn this single complaint into a class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs don’t cite any specific physical harm, mainly that the companies used deceptive, false advertising regarding the ingredients in their products … and, they did. In both cases, the companies being sued are tradional products companies trying to move into the natural segment of the market, not companies whose DNA is in the natural market.
It’s the companies whose DNA is in the natural market who are the primary backers and driving force that lead to the creation of the Natural Cosmetics Act lead by BeautyCounter, Credo and others.
-
The only difference is that those hiding behind Ecocert head fake have a better story.
-
I think formulas containing only 100% derived ingredients ( for example starting from biomass as raw material) CAN and DO work. Ive done some formulas… theyre more difficult to create but I think it is possible
-
natiyo123 said:I think formulas containing only 100% derived ingredients ( for example starting from biomass as raw material) CAN and DO work. Ive done some formulas… theyre more difficult to create but I think it is possible
What isn’t derived from nature - from biomass (what does that mean?). Can you be specific?
Can you be specific in terms of preservstives.
-
@natiyo123 - I agree. If you define natural as something that doesn’t actually occur in nature but uses synthetic chemistry to produce a new chemical from biomass, then you can definitely make a good performing “natural” product.
If however, you limit the definition to ingredients that exist in nature and are squeezed out of plants, I don’t think you can make many good performing cosmetics. -
PhilGeis said:natiyo123 said:I think formulas containing only 100% derived ingredients ( for example starting from biomass as raw material) CAN and DO work. Ive done some formulas… theyre more difficult to create but I think it is possible
What isn’t derived from nature - from biomass (what does that mean?). Can you be specific?
Can you be specific in terms of preservstives.
what Mr Perry said
For preservatives I use a lot from inolex they work well and also naturally derived organic acids and chelators like sodium gluconate etc
-
Perry observed “natural as something that doesn’t actually occur in nature but uses synthetic chemistry to produce a new chemical from biomass,” That’s :your “natural” ? Does that “biomass” include petroleum?
As cynical as that marketing is, it isn’t naturally -derived.Again - what ISN’T naturally derived?
If you’re preserving with only synthesized organic acids - you’re very unlikely to be preserving effectively.
-
If you want to know if something is natural, there’s the Dictionary of Natural Products. It’s not law but THE reference work for scientists. Sure, one has to read the publications to know more about a given molecule.The definition of natural is simple: Can be produced by living organisms in nature. This excludes petrol, which is obtained through physical and chemical processes over millions of years. Whether or not the substance you’re actually holding in your hands has been biosynthesised or obtained from petrochemicals is not part of the definition.An issue we have is that the prices for goods from renewable resources are often higher than classic petrochemistry which leads to the point where carbon footprint of the former can exceed that of the latter by far and is used by petrochemistry to discredit greener alternatives. However, this shouldn’t keep us from turning to green chemistry and biotechnology simply for the fact that these produce less waste and impact nature less. Even better would be to reduce, reuse, and recylce (in that order). Like citric acid, ascorbic acid and xylite, to give just some examples, were obtained from petrol and later manufactured with enzymes and green chemistry and even fermentation usually by using waste products such as wood pulp. Most of food grades are ‘green’ whilst technical grades are sometimes still petrochemistry, however more often from renewable feedstock and enzymatic/green tech.On the other hand, discussing the impact on nature with regard to cosmetics is hypocritical. Cosmetics aren’t needed, use up resources more urgently needed elsewhere, and are always wasteful and pollute our planted, no matter whether they’re pumped out of the earth or grown on fields where food or forest could otherwise grow.I think it’s still nice to know how things are obtained but honestly, most people don’t want to know where their food and clothes come from, how they are made, and where the waste goes. -
@Pharma - good points. To expand on your fourth paragraph point, it’s also useful to know that cosmetic ingredients derived from petroleum ensure that no part of the substance goes to waste. Since cosmetics represent a small portion of the total use of petroleum, it is usually the stuff that doesn’t work great for fuel that gets turned into ingredients for cosmetics (and other industries).
I used to think fermentation was a good, sustainable alternative but then was informed that they still need a lot of farmland to grow the food for those little chemical producing buggers. Fermentation does not really save on farmland.
-
@Perry True that. However, cosmetics also upcycles and re-purposes other waste materials, not just from petrochemistry. Which is acutally great but maybe not exactly what consumers want to hear. Customer ‘Do you have any natural cosmetics?’. Me ‘Sure, we have fermented corn cubs, hydrolysed citrus peel, olive oil slurry, extracted rice husks… where are you going?’There’s still a long way to go until we have bugs which can live off our waste and don’t need farm land nor additives (which are too often synthetic, like vitamins, or minerals dug out in mines). Depending on what you ferment, some farm land can actually be saved… but if we want to replace traditional chemistry, then nope… sadly not.If those who want palm oil free knew that the alternative is often soy; just google ‘soy Amazon deforestation’… and that’s only one example out of thousands. You want to safe the planet? Support NRA or 10 g phenobarbital and then THIS. Bad joke aside, it’s really hard to decide what’s ‘good’ and ‘bad’ these days. What we know is that something has to change but too many would say A: not me and B: maybe later.
-
Actually, upcycling is quite a growing niche trend in cosmetics. I use an alternative to glycerin that is a barley ferment from the manufacture of gin that would normally be discharged into the water system. For consumers looking for natural personal care products, upcycled ingredients fit right into the ethos and more companies are bringing upcycled ingredients to the market. Renewable and sustainable has always been an element of the defintion of natural.
-
To answer the question: Are the days of natual cosmetics coming to an end? Absolutely not … we’re actually in the early stages of an era where many cosmetic ingredients are and will be made from biotechnology, green chemisty, upcycling of industrial waste materials, fermentation.
-
No - they’re not coming to an end. That claim continues with all its justifications and to no benefit to the consumer. As Barnum said, there’s a sucker born every minute.
-
PhilGeis said:No - they’re not coming to an end. That claim continues with all its justifications and to no benefit to the consumer.
Let me put a different spin on this. The natural segment of the industry has grown from just a couple to $billion to $50 billion in less than a decade. The consumers in the in the natural segment are probably the most knowledgable and sophisticed consumers of personal care products … they read labels and research ingredients. Clearly, these consumers see a benefit in purchasing and repurchasing natural personal care products and they are happy with the products they purchase. If they saw no benefit they would not purchase.
-
“The consumers in the in the natural segment are probably the most knowledgeable and sophisticated consumers of personal care products .”
What bull - these are the suckers I mentioned. They actually believe the ingredients are natural.What benefit?
-
What benefit?
They are happy with the performance of the products they purchase.
Consumers in this segment do their research and they are discriminating. That’s a simple fact of this market segment. In fact, that is why they purchase products in this segment … they are looking to avoid certain ingredients is a primary driver and they are looking for certain ingredients included in their products, be it because they like the performance or because it fulfills a desire for other aspects of the products they buy, such as sustainability. Consumers don’t just base their purchase decision on the ingredients in the bottle, but also on how those ingredients are sourced/derived.
-
Research - love it!
Avoiding safe ingredients makes them happy. Part of the chemophobic, virtue signaling (ala sustainability) BS.
This is a racket and there are always suckers. -
But they are growing in number…As a sales person, I don’t like most of them as clients, they suck. Sorry to say so! Knowing more about ingredients, doing research, and caring for something other than him/herself and beauty is actually a noble thing but it’s super hard to advise those folks because they think they know everything better. They use their smartphones to check labels when they could simply ask me (they usually ignore me completely although I might (most likely) know more than their stupid app and they’re usually not even willing to tell me what they actually try to figure out)… not trying to be cocky here but seriously… I could sometimes bash their heads against the wall and put their dumb phones up their A…
Log in to reply.
