Charles Sternberg, Assistant Editor03.24.21
There is no doubt that beauty brands are increasingly emphasizing natural ingredients and claiming labels such as “clean beauty,” “all-natural,” or “derived from nature.” Preference for natural ingredients is particularly strong among consumers who wish to avoid certain “undesirable” ingredients, such as sulfates, parabens or phthalates.
Consumer behavior may have shifted in recent years to favor natural ingredients in cosmetics, but are they actually better than those created in a lab by chemists? The International Federation of Societies of Cosmetic Chemists (IFSCC) held an online debate this week regarding natural v. synthetic ingredients in cosmetics. The debate moderator was Perry Romanowski.
The Environmental Imperative to Move Toward Natural Ingredients
Dr. Barbara Olioso, natural formulation consultant, speaker and writer, believes that natural ingredients are better. She contends that petrochemicals created by the cosmetics industry’s current linear model of production are a major contributor to global warming and pollution.
“The question is not of if we must go green,” Olioso argues. “Rather the question if how and when we go green.”
“Naturals with circular design are the only direction for the industry to evolve at the time of climate change,” she says. “Natural ingredients are more than just about beauty, they are about the legacy of the industry, fitting with Net Zero targets, water pollution reduction and consumer values.”
An example of how pollutants released by the cosmetics industry into the environment can come back to us in a different way is 1,4 dioxane, a residue found in many cosmetic ingredients, such as PEGs, SLES, polysorbates. Once it ends up in drains and water purification systems, it can find its way into tap water.
Because the EPA (the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) classifies 1,4 dioxane as a potential carcinogen, New York State has taken the drastic decision to restrict personal care products content of 1,4 dioxane to a few ppm (parts per million) via a bill.
Olioso admits that there are challenges that come along with formulating with natural ingredients, but she believes that although the cost is higher than using petrochemicals, this is a small price to pay to create a better world.
Chemical Structure Over Source
Not everybody sees natural ingredients as the golden pathway to a better tomorrow, though. Dr. Ricardo Diez, a professor at Rutgers University with over four decades of experience as a chemist in the industry, questions whether natural ingredients are really as virtuous as people claim.
“What makes something good is the chemical structure, not the source,” he says.
First, Diez takes issue with the label “natural,” itself, which he believes is very nebulous and vague. He argues that the term has no real definition and that it is mostly an empty buzz word propped up by marketing.
For example, Diez challenges the assumption that natural ingredients are safer. There is no evidence that this is true, he says. Rather than performing rigorous research and studies to prove the efficacy of natural ingredients, lobbyist groups like EWG often make companies pay for good ratings. He pointed to a case where EWG gave two products with the same formulas vastly different safety ratings. The ratings, were not based on how efficacious or clean the products were, rather they were based on whether EWG was paid by the company, Diez claims.
Furthermore, Diez challenges the idea that we can change the world through the cosmetics industry. He says that he is not opposed at all to finding more sustainable, environmentally-friendly formulation solutions, but he posits that the cosmetics industry is contributing less to environmental catastrophes than some might have you believe.
“If you’re worried about oils in cosmetics, look at your car and how much gasoline you use to go for even a short drive,” he says.
His point is that the cosmetics industry is only a small part of the larger environmental problem and that fear mongering and harsh regulations will hurt the efficacy of products more than they will do good for the planet.
Instead of scaring consumers away from ingredients created with complex chemistry in the lab, Diez contends that cosmetic formulators should focus on using fewer ingredients. Natural formulations often contain more ingredients, or “extras” which ramp up production costs and energy required for manufacturing the product. If a shampoo can be created that only contains three ingredients, instead of fifteen ingredients, then that is better, Diez says.
The issue of natural ingredients vs synthetic chemicals has the industry divided, but both sides can agree that global warming and pollution are issues that need to be addressed.
Consumer behavior may have shifted in recent years to favor natural ingredients in cosmetics, but are they actually better than those created in a lab by chemists? The International Federation of Societies of Cosmetic Chemists (IFSCC) held an online debate this week regarding natural v. synthetic ingredients in cosmetics. The debate moderator was Perry Romanowski.
The Environmental Imperative to Move Toward Natural Ingredients
Dr. Barbara Olioso, natural formulation consultant, speaker and writer, believes that natural ingredients are better. She contends that petrochemicals created by the cosmetics industry’s current linear model of production are a major contributor to global warming and pollution.
“The question is not of if we must go green,” Olioso argues. “Rather the question if how and when we go green.”
“Naturals with circular design are the only direction for the industry to evolve at the time of climate change,” she says. “Natural ingredients are more than just about beauty, they are about the legacy of the industry, fitting with Net Zero targets, water pollution reduction and consumer values.”
An example of how pollutants released by the cosmetics industry into the environment can come back to us in a different way is 1,4 dioxane, a residue found in many cosmetic ingredients, such as PEGs, SLES, polysorbates. Once it ends up in drains and water purification systems, it can find its way into tap water.
Because the EPA (the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) classifies 1,4 dioxane as a potential carcinogen, New York State has taken the drastic decision to restrict personal care products content of 1,4 dioxane to a few ppm (parts per million) via a bill.
Olioso admits that there are challenges that come along with formulating with natural ingredients, but she believes that although the cost is higher than using petrochemicals, this is a small price to pay to create a better world.
Chemical Structure Over Source
Not everybody sees natural ingredients as the golden pathway to a better tomorrow, though. Dr. Ricardo Diez, a professor at Rutgers University with over four decades of experience as a chemist in the industry, questions whether natural ingredients are really as virtuous as people claim.
“What makes something good is the chemical structure, not the source,” he says.
First, Diez takes issue with the label “natural,” itself, which he believes is very nebulous and vague. He argues that the term has no real definition and that it is mostly an empty buzz word propped up by marketing.
For example, Diez challenges the assumption that natural ingredients are safer. There is no evidence that this is true, he says. Rather than performing rigorous research and studies to prove the efficacy of natural ingredients, lobbyist groups like EWG often make companies pay for good ratings. He pointed to a case where EWG gave two products with the same formulas vastly different safety ratings. The ratings, were not based on how efficacious or clean the products were, rather they were based on whether EWG was paid by the company, Diez claims.
Furthermore, Diez challenges the idea that we can change the world through the cosmetics industry. He says that he is not opposed at all to finding more sustainable, environmentally-friendly formulation solutions, but he posits that the cosmetics industry is contributing less to environmental catastrophes than some might have you believe.
“If you’re worried about oils in cosmetics, look at your car and how much gasoline you use to go for even a short drive,” he says.
His point is that the cosmetics industry is only a small part of the larger environmental problem and that fear mongering and harsh regulations will hurt the efficacy of products more than they will do good for the planet.
Instead of scaring consumers away from ingredients created with complex chemistry in the lab, Diez contends that cosmetic formulators should focus on using fewer ingredients. Natural formulations often contain more ingredients, or “extras” which ramp up production costs and energy required for manufacturing the product. If a shampoo can be created that only contains three ingredients, instead of fifteen ingredients, then that is better, Diez says.
The issue of natural ingredients vs synthetic chemicals has the industry divided, but both sides can agree that global warming and pollution are issues that need to be addressed.
