The Natural vs. Chemical Safety Debate

Published on by

The Natural vs. Chemical Safety Debate

The words 'natural' and 'cosmetics' just go together don't they? As a manufacturer that operates in the Essential and Vegetable Oils market it is not surprising that the vast majority of our customers come to us with very clear ideas about what they want IN their formulations, having read up on the benefits of all manor of lovely things - Argan Oil, Sandalwood Powder, Kakadu Plumb or Virgin Coconut oil. Clients are also very good at knowing what they want OUT of their formula - parabens, SLS/ SLES, Mineral Oil, Silicones, Fragrances and sometimes more. The only problem is that many clients don't fully understand WHY any of these ingredients are on the must avoid list and have little understanding of the full implications of these 'easy-to-say-but-harder-to-achieve' positions. The motivation behind the vast majority of clients is safety which begs the question "What do we mean by 'safe'?"


I want safe cosmetics. It is a simple question to ask about an ingredient but harder to quantify:
 

  • Do we mean safe for the people in the factory to make?
  • Safe for the packers to handle in bulk?
  • Safe to transport?
  • Safe to formulate with?
  • Safe to use on our skin?
  • Safe for our bathroom surfaces?
  • Safe for the soil?
  • For our septic tank?
  • Or the mainstream waterway that it will eventually end up swimming in?

The simplistic way of thinking says that SAFE is Natural, problem solved. However, we have been looking into all of the above and have found on more than one occasion that some synthetics outperform their natural counterparts.

Before we go on and show you the examples we would like to make it quite clear that as a company we sympathise with the natural way, not least because of the sustainability argument - fossil fuel usage isn't good on any level and is used as a feedstock for most if not all 'synthetic' ingredients we looked at - but also emotionally.We enjoy taking our clients onto journeys of discovery and bringing their brand ingredients philosophy to life. It is easy to picture that natural surfactant based on sugar once growing in a field or that our natural preservative was once a rose in bloom. It sounds much more romantic, free and liberating than 'this was once coal or dirty, dirty oil'. But romance isn't helpful when it comes to planetary health and safety and it doesn't seem to make it any safer either.

We took a look at some examples of naturally (plant) derived ingredients and their traditional, more chemical counterparts in order to better evaluate the natural vs synthetic safety argument.We started off by taking some very common ingredients, those that might be used to hold an emulsion together, to solubilise essential oils or to preserve a product and noted their environmental safety rating alongside their human safety scores.It is important to remember at this point that the data in the table below is from material safety data sheets and as such represents the material in its raw form.Ingredients are never used neat on the skin and so many of the human hazards are reduced to a manageable level when in use. However, environmental risk is still highly relevant in the world of safe cosmetics as these ingredients have to be manufactured and shipped across the world and surely an ingredient that is damaging to the environment will eventually come back to bite us!

It is still important to think for a moment about the 'safer for me' claim.People instinctively feel that natural ingredients are inherently safer and better for people with problem skin and formulate using these ingredients.However, very few products, especially by niche, small brands have the budget to test their claims and only a tiny percentage will get their product that apparently cures or relieves eczema, psoriasis or acne TGA approved.The reality is that for most brands on the market they simply don't know if their products are better or not.

A look at some commonly used natural vs synthetic ingredients.

Function Ingredient Eye Irritation Skin Irritation Biodegradability Acute Aquatic Toxicity Symbol
Solubiliser Decyl Glucoside Causes Serious Eye Irritation (category 2A) Mild Irritant (Category 3) Low persistance and readily biodegradable Harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects(Category 3) (GHSO7) GHS07 NEW Indicates some chemicals formerly classified as HARMFUL or IRRITANT (X) and includes skin
sensitising chemicals as well as high hazard and may cause damage to genetic material, be CMRs(carcinogens,
mutagens and reproductive toxicants) or aspiratory hazards (related to breathing) and may target specific organs.
This symbol also applies to substances that target specific organs
Solubiliser PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil May cause Mild Irritation May cause slight irritation Low persistence level, readily biodegradable no specific hazards, as with all chemicals avoid release into rivers and oceans none
Solubiliser Polysorbate 20 May cause Mild Irritation May cause slight irritation Low persistence level, readily biodegradable no specific hazards, as with all chemicals avoid release into rivers and oceans none
Emulsifier Cetearyl Alcohol vs Cetearyl Glucoside May be irritating may be irritating Low persistence level, readily biodegradable none available but suspected to be similar to cetearyl alcohol none available but suspected to be similar to cetearyl alcohol
Emulsifier Cetearyl Alcohol and Ceteareth-20 Serious Eye Damage (Category 1) Causes Skin Irritation Low persistence level and readily and rapidly biodegradable Toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects (Category 2) Corrosion GHS05; Exclamation mark GHS07; Environmental hazard GHS09
Emulsifier Cetearyl Olivate, Sorbitan Olivate no information no information Low persistence level and readily and rapidly biodegradable no information none
Emulsion Stabiliser Cetearyl Alcohol Causes Serious Eye Irritation (category 2A) Category 2 Low persistance and readily biodegradable Toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects (Category 2) Exclamation mark GHS07; Environmental hazard GHS09
Surfactant Sodium Lauroyl Sarcosinate Irritating to eyes (R36) Category 3 Readily and Rapidly Biodegradable not regulated but avoid pollution to rivers, soils and ocean none
Surfactant Caprylyl-Capryl Glucoside Causes serious eye damage (Category 1) Category 3 Low persistence level and readily and rapidly biodegradable May cause long lasting harmful effects to aquatic life (category 4) Corrosion GHS05; Exclamation mark GHS07
Preservative Glycerin, Aqua, Levulinic Acid, p-Anisic Acid May cause serious eye damage. Category 1 May be irritating Low persistence level and readily and rapidly biodegradable none available Corrosion GHS05; Exclamation mark GHS07
Preservative Phenoxyethanol Ethylhexylglycerin May be irritating may be irritating Low persistance and readily biodegradable none available Exclamation mark GHS07
Preservative Benzyl Alcohol, Salicylic Acid, Glycerine, Sorbic Acid may be irritating may be irritating Low persistance and readily biodegradable none available None
Preservative Naticide causes serious eye irritation (category 2A) causes skin irritation (Category 2) Low persistance and readily biodegradable none available Exclamation mark GHS07
Chelating Agent Sodium Phytate May be irritating may be irritating Low persistance and readily biodegradable none available none
Chelating Agent EDTA irritating to eyes irritating to skin Low persistance and readily biodegradable in alkali soils none available none
Solvent Propylene Glycol May be irritating May be irritating Low persistance and readily biodegradable Avoid pollution to rivers and oceans. LC50 conc none
Solvent Ethanol irritating to eyes (R36). Vapours may irritate the eyes Irritating to skin (R38) Low mobility in the soil Avoid pollution to rivers and oceans. LC50 conc Flamable Liquid
Essential Oil Lavender Australian Oil May be irritating May be irritating Low persistance and readily biodegradable none available Health hazard GHS08; Exclamation mark GHS07
Essential Oil Lemon Severe Irritant irritant, may cause contact dermatitis Low persistance and readily biodegradable Avoid pollution to soil, rivers and oceans. LC 50 fish Flame GHS02; Health hazard GHS08; Exclamation mark GHS07; Environmental hazard GHS09
Fragrance Lemon/ Lime Fragrant Oil May be irritating may be irritating Low persistance and readily biodegradable none available  
  • Decyl Glucoside is a commonly used natural alternative to Polysorbate 20 in terms of spritzer solubiliser. It is much more irritating to the eyes than the latter, synthetic alternative. However, more importantly it has much higher long-term toxicity to aquatic life than Polysorbate 20.This is probably not what people choosing natural cosmetics want to hear - not as safe on EITHER count. The other commonly used synthetic solubiliser is PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor oil and that too trumped Decyl Glucoside as a safer alternative.
     
  • Emulsifier wise it was confusing that the natural alternative to the Cetearyl alcohol, ceteareth-20 seemed to be much safer given the fact that both are predominantly cetearyl alcohol and that is the biggest contributor to irritation potential.As long as the data we have for cetearyl alcohol is correct we feel that both of the above would be on a par in terms of eco and skin safety. Interestingly there was little information available on the olive derived ingredient based on the current MSDS.
     
  • Surfactant wise while both of those are natural the caprylyl-capryl glucoside being a sugar based non-ionic is often touted as the safest choice. This, along with Decyl Glucoside (a solubiliser and surfactant) are clearly not as safe as we expect them to be based on MSDS sheet analysis.
     
  • Natural preservatives seem to be equally troublesome in terms of their potential to irritate or damage eyes although environmentally all that I looked at were comparable in terms of immediate human and short and long-term environmental impact. One of the only things to note here is that ALL of the newer generation preservatives are used at a much higher dose rate than the older offerings and much higher than parabens (which originate in fruit - yes, nature makes parabens which is slightly ironic). Therefore we could say that ALL alternatives to paraben preservatives are more environmentally impactful based on their dose rate alone!
     
  • Chelating agents are where we get a favouring towards natural as the sodium phytate has better skin compatibility than EDTA although environmentally there is little issue (EDTA biodegradation does require an alkaline soil though).The big difference here is the price with EDTA being well under a third of the price per dose of Sodium Phytate.
     
  • Essential Oils are complex as we are sure you can imagine. It just so happens that while Lemon is a great thing to pop onto your grilled fish, Lemon Essential Oil is pretty terrible for the fish swimming in the river.

What the above show us is that we must stop with this over-simplistic mindset of 'natural' is safer as it is clearly more complex than that. It is possible that over time scientists could replace the petroleum feedstock for something else to produce things like Polysorbate 20, Cetereth-20 or Phenoxyethanol making these things completely natural and more sustainable too. However, the bad publicity given to many cosmetic ingredients over the last fifteen to twenty years has left many INCI (International Nomenclature of cosmetic Ingredients) names saddled with fear and loathing.

It may well be time to dig a little deeper, to get back to basics and think about ingredient safety at a much deeper level so that we might finally start to make natural products that really do safeguard our future.

That is our mission and you are welcome to join us.

Amanda Foxon-Hill

24 December 2014


This post has been closed; further comments cannot be added.