Some thoughts on "natural", "organic", &
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Tue May 26, 2009 9:54 am

As a member of the Society of Cosmetic Chemist, I receive news letters and notes from technical sessions around the world. Recently, a meeting in the UK produced some very interesting thoughts on "naturals", "organics" and "preservatives". I thought this information would be an interesting read.

Now remember, I am strongly for using natural raw materials in cosmetics (but not necessarily "organic"). I strongly believe in natural botanical materials and stable emollients such as jojoba, macadamia, olive, sunflower and the like. So, the views in these articles may or may not be the exact views that I hold on cosmetic chemistry. I do also believe that there is a place for synthetic or "naturally derived" ingredients in cosmetics, especially when it comes to preservatives. One scientist quite correctly points out that there are no approved "natural preservatives" and thus there can be no such thing as an "all natural" cosmetic product.

Here are the articles:

Natural ingredients are not necessarily safer or more effective, say cosmetic chemists

Cosmetic chemists fought hard against the idea that natural ingredients are inherently safer than their synthetic counterparts at this week’s cosmetic science symposium.

A number of speakers at the conference, organised by the UK Society of Cosmetic Chemists, spoke out against the media frenzy surrounding ingredients such as parabens and other synthetic preservatives.

Natural sells on fear of synthetic

For cosmetic consultant John Woodruff, ingredients should be chosen on safety and efficacy regardless of their natural or synthetic status.

“We owe it to the consumer to provide the most effective, safe product possible. Our choice of ingredients should depend on safety and efficacy not unfounded safety scares and efficacy studies that owe more to folklore than to science,” he said.

He went on to accuse some companies operating in the natural sphere of selling on fear not science, and damaging the reputation of the industry in general.

Kevin Roden, from Thor Specialties, also argued that natural is not always safer; adding that in the case of preservatives unapproved natural alternatives may be more toxic than approved synthetic ingredients.

Under EU regulation, if a preservative is used in a cosmetic, it must be chosen from Annex VI. As yet, there are no natural preservatives on this list so there are, by definition, no natural preservatives.

Companies wishing to use natural ingredients to preserve their products must argue these ingredients have been added for other reasons, which has led to the release of a number of ‘natural preservative alternatives’.

‘Illegally-used preservatives’

For Roden, these ‘preservative-free preservatives’ are simply illegally used preservatives. Their absence from Annex VI means they may not have been subject to the same extensive safety tests as those accepted on the list.

He highlighted the use of essential oils for their preserving properties saying that these must be used in high concentrations, or in combination, and care must be taken to avoid fragrance allergens.

In addition, sustainability may prove to be a problem for natural preservatives, according to Roden. Parabens are used in large quantities, replacing this with natural alternatives such as essential oils or curry plant leaves would require very large harvests.

Natural to complement synthetic in the future

However, Roden was positive about the potential of natural preservatives to complement the synthetic options already on offer.

Research suggests that some plant extracts may be able to reduce the amount of preservatives needed to have the desired effect.

This is due to their ability to block efflux pumps that bacteria use to remove toxic compounds from the cell, explained Roden. The antimicrobial actives added as a preservative could then build up inside the cell, and lower concentrations would be needed.

Being organic or natural won't necessarily make a product green

Contrary to popular belief, organic and natural cosmetic ingredients are not necessarily more environmentally friendly.

Some are, but some aren’t. And assuming they are without fully assessing each case is overly simplistic, just look at palm oil.

A push to move away from petroleum-based ingredients led to a massive upsurge in palm oil production. The resulting deforestation has led many environmental groups to campaign for sustainable production in an attempt to halt ecosystem destruction.

Although petroleum is not renewable, it is clear that the sudden switch to a supposedly greener natural alternative has had untold environmental consequences that could have been avoided with a more intelligent approach.

Fragrance ingredients also present a case where natural may not be more sustainable.

The sheer quantity of plants needed to produce even a tiny amount of certain ingredients means large areas need to be cultivated.

If this land could be put to better use, for example growing food, it is difficult to see this as anything other than excessively wasteful.

Equally, wild harvesting can present significant sustainability issues as over-harvesting can decimate natural populations of wild plants.

In addition, the energy costs in extracting an ingredient from its natural source can be very significant, further compromising its green status.

In some cases, synthetically producing certain ingredients might work out to be more environmentally sustainable, particularly if the potential of green chemistry to improve manufacturing processes is realised.

Ignoring synthetic options that might prove more efficient is irresponsible; and switching to natural or organic ingredients without fully assessing the environmental impact of the change is similarly reckless.

Furthermore, the natural and organic movement places an unrealistic focus on the part ingredients play in a product’s green profile.

If the industry really wants to go green and lower its ecological footprint it must tackle the full life cycle of a product. The most environmentally friendly option must be chosen for ingredients, manufacturing, packaging and product disposal.

Natural and organic ingredients will surely play an important role, but they are not the be all and end all.

Only when the whole of the product life cycle has been tackled in an intelligent manner will the industry become truly greener, and all involved can rightfully embrace the warm fuzzy feeling of being green.

http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/Formulation-Science/Natural-ingredients-are-not-necessarily-safer-or-more-effective-say-cosmetic-chemists/?c=AZRKmMghFomnbdAc%2F4QJXg%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

John

free skin care · Tue May 26, 2009 12:41 pm

Oh My- that's a lot to digest!! Though as an RN, I do try to instill in patients that "natural" isn't always safer.. Arsenic is natural after all....

free skin care · Wed May 27, 2009 3:34 am

I can agree to a lot of what is said in the article. I try to use a lot of "natural" cosmetics, but I'm not dogmatic about it. When synthetics serve better, then be it. I just don't like when in the ingredients list "dimethicone" follows "aqua"... this is just gap filler for tiles, no cosmetic to me. They have a good point about the consequences of the rising use of natural ingredients. Maybe one solution could be not to search constantly for the ingredient that will make us look even more young, wrinkle-free, babyface-like, beautiful Wink

? Dunno. There are surely some environment-friendly lines in organic cosmetics which try to avoid every harmful farming or whatever, but what happens if EVERYBODY starts to use them? But I don't think this is gonna happen...

free skin care · Wed May 27, 2009 4:47 am

so what is this deal about parabens about????? is it good or not?

free skin care · Wed May 27, 2009 6:33 am

I can't shut up on those topics so here are my two cents.
On the last part - that switching to natural is hurting the earth by deforestation and such is a problem that's more related to globalization and mass production rather than 'going green'.
There are too many products mass produced and then thrown away. So don't blame going green for a problem that's really caused by mass production. Huge companies thinking of nothing but greed and profit wanting to take over the market are producing too many products by the thousands - and that's completely unnecessary. Your local market can handle baking bread, and making natural skincare products to cater to a small area of people.

The other part at the beginning which speaks about safety and efficacy and cosmetic society 'must' to provide effective and safe ingredients to me it's just an excuse not to do it - not to do research, not to pay for natural ingredients that are usually more expensive than synthetic ones made in a lab by thousands if not millions.

In this battle, it's unfortunate but it's for the consumer to step up and make their voice heard in what we want, and hope that the industry is regulated, and not just for the synthetic part of it.

Until then, it's again up to the consumer, to read the label, do their research and promote natural products that in my opinion, if all of the above is satisfied, ie. it's safe and good for your skin, it's better for you! When they say 'safe and efficient', what exactly do they mean? Safe for whom? for consumer, or company producing the product not to get sued since this ingredient is approved by FDA? But it may not really be safe for the consumer and actually can be a suspected carcinogen - like SLS? Efficacy - another great word - how can that be so broadly used - if one and the same product can have such a wide area of effect of different people - for some it may do nothing, for some it may do everything etc. You see where I am going with this.

It's just a bunch of 'politically correct' words they've been paid to say to protect the synthetic industry.

By producing so many synthetics that are unable to disintegrate properly, aren't we hurting ecology too? it's just that we've been doing it for so long, that it's become the norm, accepted. But when we are trying to change something, of course there are going to be mistakes - but they are quickly corrected, e.g. the Palm oil - I buy that for my soap, and you know what I buy it from sustainable harvest, so you do have a choice.
We have a choice.

free skin care · Wed May 27, 2009 9:58 am

zverenok, your posted comments are very good, and I agree with much of what you say. I certainly agree that the Big Cosmetic Houses do formulate based on "maximum profit" rather than the true goal that consumers want which is true function and efficacy, along with safety. That is the way I formulate. Here is a new article from the same source that is very relevant to what you are speaking about in your post:

Health groups push Johnson & Johnson on 'toxic' chemicals

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CSC) and 40 other charitable organizations have delivered a letter to Johnson & Johnson (J&J) calling for the removal of ‘toxic’ ingredients from its products.

Signed by groups such as the American Nurses Association and Physicians for Social Responsibility, the letter urges J&J to remove formaldehyde and 1, 4-dioxane from its personal care products by the end of 2009.

Letter singles out J&J

In March the CSC raised the alarm about these ingredients, linking them to cancer and skin allergies, and pointed the finger at several leading personal care manufacturers, including J&J.

Now the campaigners have singled out J&J. Lisa Archer, national coordinator of the CSC, said: “There is no excuse for a baby shampoo marketed as ‘the number one choice of hospitals’ to contain chemicals that are suspected of causing cancer.

“As a manufacturer of trusted brands, Johnson & Johnson has a responsibility to remove carcinogens and other hazardous chemicals from its products.”

CSC said other companies are making similar products without potentially hazardous ingredients, and, in Japan, where formaldehyde is banned from cosmetics J&J is already making formaldehyde-free products.

The campaigners therefore argue that J&J should be able to reformulate its products easily to remove any potentially suspect ingredients.

Reaction from J&J

In an interview with Associated Press, J&J spokesperson Bill Price said the company takes the concerns about its products “very seriously” but has no immediate plans to remove the ingredients highlighted by the CSC. He said many regulatory agencies around the world consider the trace levels of these ingredients in its products to be safe.

The CSC report on baby care products has had a significant political impact.

Three lawsuits have been filed against J&J and other companies named in the CSC report. And earlier this month, US senator Kristen Gillibrand introduced “The Safe Baby Products Act” calling for tighter controls and regulations on the ingredients that go into baby care products.

http://www.cosmeticsdesign.com/Products-Markets/Health-groups-push-Johnson-Johnson-on-toxic-chemicals/?c=AZRKmMghFomeB7zgMek5ow%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

John

Thu May 28, 2009 2:10 am

hi zeverenok, I 2nd everything you write in your post above! Well spoken.
There are so many examples of ingredients of 'normal' cosmetics that are known as being harmful, non-effective filling stuff or at least dubious, that are absorbed by the body or even deposited in the body. Only think about dark hair dyes...yeah, right, very safe...
Of course people may develop allergies against ingreds of natural cosmetic, but what about formaldehyde, for example, which is very often used in conventional cosmetics and which is known to be an aggressive allergen?
As said above, it is much cheaper and enables the big players to make more profit to use mineral oil derivatives, chemicals etc. instead of high quality oils, of course the industry is nervous if more and more people realize what they are smearing on their skins.
Concerning the 'green' part: Did the companies ever think about all the silicones and other non-biodegradable stuff that are washed down the drain off peoples skin? Or the byproducts and waste during production?
The whole approach smells of fear of losing customers, money and credibility after decades of never having been questioned IMHO.
I hope I am not offending anybody, but this really sets me off every time Wink

free skin care · Sun May 31, 2009 8:56 am

Oh, I didn't want to defend the cosmetics industry for their use of damaging or environmentally harmful ingredients. I just agreed to the point of the potential consequences of the intensified processing of natural ingredients. If such consequences can be avoided, I'm totally fine with organic/natural cosmetics. If I read the article more careful (being German, it's not so easy sometimes Wink

), zeverenok, you've got a point in what you said: the article seems to be a whitewash for the furthermore use of synthetics, necessary or not Sad

.

free skin care · Sun May 31, 2009 1:36 pm

NOTCH,

Given the fact that you are knowledgeable and aware of what's going on, I am interested in knowing what you use on your skin.
Thanks!

free skin care · Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:28 am

Please do not take this as an "advertisement" or "pitch" for the products that I make. I am simply stating the facts as I know them after more than a decade working in the cosmetic industry world wide. To be 100% honest, I only use the products that I develop on my skin, because I know exactly what is in them, I know exactly how the raw materials function, and I know that they work from both clinical trials and years of personally using them.

So, without naming any products, let me simply state the raw materials that you should look for in any product.

Jojoba Oil: Fantastic moisturizer and the ONLY source of botanical wax esters for your skin.

Macadamia Oil: An extremely stable botanical oil that duplicates as closely as possible the fatty acid content of your skins own moisturizing oils.

Squalene: This material makes up a large percentage of your skin's own natural moisturizer and is essential to keeping the skin soft and supple.

Peptide technology: Today's peptide technology is extremely advanced and well tested. I like Matrixyl for collagen production and overall skin health. I like Sympeptide 226 for eyelash growth, which helps you steer clear of pharmaceutical drugs which come with side effects for the eyelash growth concept.

Others: Sunflower Oil (high oleic is more stable), Olive Oil, Jojoba Esters which are the very best cosmetic raw materials for trapping moisture at the skin surface (even better than the industry standard of petrolatum), Red Algae Extract (Carrageenan) for moisturization, the combination of glycerin with hydrolyzed jojoba esters for clinically proven 24 hour moisturization, jojoba derivatives that are excellent for the health of skin especially on the lips.

Those are my favorites, and by all means this is not an all inclusive list. But, these are the ones I have studied extensively over the years, and they have proven efficacy that cannot be denied.

Hope this helps.

John

free skin care · Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:43 am

Thank you, John! Those are valuable knowledge. I also checked your website. Very interesting products.

free skin care · Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:48 am

To me, natural or organic may not give immediate effect, however I feel comfortable when I use such skin care products. I like the natural essential oils and carrier oils which I believe in the effect. If you feel good, then the product is "right" for you, haha ~

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.