Dr Barbara Olioso's Blog

My presentation in Munich on the challenges of developing Natural and Organic Cosmetics

The Challenges of Developing Natural & Organic Cosmetics

View more presentations from Barbara Olioso.

Cosmos: is it crystal clear and trasparent?

I have just attended a conference on Cosmos organized by ICEA in Bologna, Italy (Cosmos is the harmonised private standard for organic and natural beauty products in Europe). They were sharing the final principles and guidelines for raw materials and how to apply for the products. I do not really want to go into the details of that and I would like to focus on the fact that the standard will allow some "imperfections", ie unnatural choices, which are:

-maximum 2% petrochemicals in the total formulation (this will only be allowed for a few years to give time to some companies to update their formulations without these petrochemicals)

-radiation of clay (this is because heat would not be suitable to reduce its microbial count)

-hydrogenated ingredients (they can contain Nickel residues and also their chemical structure differ from the non hydrogenated version)

As a cosmetic chemist I understand the reasons behind this strategy, however when I pointed out how the consumer would know that an organic/natural certified beauty product may contain 2% petrochemicals the answer I was given was: it is up to the consumer to find out.

How can they? when

1- they do not expect petrochemicals in organic/natural products

2- they have no technical background to spot the synthetic chemicals in disguise.

3- radiation is not even declared on the label

I think Cosmos could be more open with consumers about its technical choices, explaining the reasons in a simple way, so that people with the purity priority can decide and choose a petrochemical free beauty product (after all they ask raw materials manufacturers great transparency, why not giving the same trsansparency to consumers?). If I were a consumer with no technical background I would expect transparency and simplicity from the certification systems I rely on, because organic and natural is not not only about purity of physical content, but also of ethical content, therefore transparent and clear communication....

 

 

 

ID of the most controversial ingredient in natural and organic beauty products

Read below about the equivalent of plastic grass in cosmetics...

Trade name (brand name): Zemea

INCI name (on cosmetics label): Propanediol

Chemical name: 1,3 Propanediol

Profession: elegant humectant and preservative booster

Year of launch: 2008

Made from: GMO corn using biotechnology

Ecocert and NPA status: approved

Soil Association and ICEA status: not approved because of GMO origin

Cosmos status: we shall see...

Let's have a look at its twin ID, ie Propylene Glycol

Trade name: Propylene Glycol

INCI name: Propylene Glycol

Chemical name: 1,2 propanediol

Year invented: 1907

Profession: elegant humectant and preservative booster

Made from: petroleum

Organic and natural status: not approved by any organic certification body

By comparing the 2 IDs you can see how many controveries Propanediol can generate:

Controversy 1- because Propanediol is from corn it is claimed to be natural. Chemically speaking this molecule is not natural and human technology manipulated bacteria and genetically modified corn to make a synthetic structure. To me this is like plastic grass, it looks natural but its essence is not.

2- because propanediol is from a renewable source it is claimed to be sustainable. How can an ingredient made from genetically modified corn be sustainable? The concept behind sustainability is to work with nature without depleting and respecting it. GMO is a dangerous game and in my opinion it does not respect nature because it can cause a lot of environmental damage. It is a time bomb.

3-because Ecocert and NPA approve propanediol you can find natural and organic products on the market with a "natural" propylene glycol without consumers realising they are actually applying a Proplylene Glycol on their skin

Implications:

1- consumers are confused. (And I am confused myself on top of feeling shocked).

2- Can consumers simply rely on organic certifications for their peace of mind?

3- What is natural?

4- how did Zemea INCI name come about? Was it intended to mislead the consumers?

Personally I am not against Propanediol or Zemea as such, what I m worried about is its misleading name and contradictive claims. Besides it has the potential to promote and boost the GMO industry. My passion is for natural, safe and effective beauty products respecting the environment and working with it authentically, by putting my ethos into action (and in fact Forest Secrets Skincare is the embodiment of my passion). GMO is scary and it will present a huge environmental bill, I personally do not want to support or feed that... I am a chemist and I know propanediol is from GMO and so on therefore I can avoid it. But what about the most of the people who want to use truly natural beauty products and who care about the planet? Do they know propanediol is  propylene glycol and do they know it is GMO? Do they have a real choice?

 

 

Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate: natural and biodegradable versus skin mildness

This is a surfactant that is becoming very popular in organic certified shampoos and general hygiene products (I was in France last week and sit was in nearly every shampoo I looked at). Why? It is approved by Cosmos and Ecocert because it has good biodegradability data, it is a natural dertivative, it performs well (nice foam and thickens up easily with salt) and it is also cheap. The downside? It strips off the skin natural lipid mantle... This does not mean that all products containing this ingredient are going to be harsh on the skin as it depends on whatelse is in the product, however this dilemma higlights to me that natural and biodegradable is not enough, it does not mean it is safe or mild for the skin. To me the future is very much about SUSTAINABLE (natural, biodegradable and environmentally conscious) and SAFE (mild to the skin). In the meantime prefer products that are dermatologically tested...

Preservative free cosmetics: are we talking about the daisy flower or my dear friend Daisy?

I have recently attended a lecture by Professor Michael Cork entitled "Killer Cosmetics - from bacterial contamination to skin barrier breakdown", kindly organized by the Society of Cosmetic Scientists in the UK.

Professor Cork is head of the academic unit of dermatology research at the Sheffield university and has worked on severe cases of infants skin rashes caused by microbiologically contaminated skin products. He also explained in a visual and clear way the key mechanism behind the skin barrier.

However I feel I ought to comment on one of the major messages of his lecture: preservative free cosmetics are dangerous whereas products preserved with parabens are very safe.

I approached Michael after his talk to inform him that there are several products on the market which are microbiologically safe and yet preservative free, and his answer was very much based on the chemical function of preservative (the daisy flower) rather than the marketing definition of preservative free (Daisy my friend). They are called the same thing but actually they are different. Let me explain to you.

The chemical function of a preservative is essentially to kill bugs, so if you mean that (daisy the flower) and you say preservative free cosmetics you actually mean a product with no antimicrobial protection whatsoever.  There are 2 types of products that fall into this category: oil based ones (no water) and water based ones with really no antimicrobial agent (it is very rare to come across this worst case scenario. Professor Michael was mentioning contaminated products from Libia and Iran).

Then there is my dear friend Daisy: the legal definition of a cosmetic preservative which comes from what is listed on Annex VI. If a cosmetic ingredient is listed on this annex it is called officially a preservative. This means that you can have a cosmetic ingredient which is not listed on this Annex and still act as a preservative (daisy the flower). And if you use this ingredient to protect your cosmetic from the bugs attack you can claim it to be preservative free and still provide to the public a safe product (providing it has passed the relevant tests required by law).

This is a great example of the gap between some scientific definitions and legal definitions, where you can use the same label or name meaning two different things depending on the point of view. And this gap can be used in a misleading way to reinforce a message or it can cause confusion in people not aware of it. Professor Michael was also stressing the need for education, on which I agree totally, however how it can be done is still a mystery to me (if you have suggestions please tell me).

In my opinion the essence is to ensure that the preservative free cosmetics you buy have been manufactured by a reputable company that complies with the law and makes sure that it is microbiologically safe.

Petrochemicals, what are they these days?

I was speaking to a client of mine who was telling me about her intention of avoiding petrochemicals in cosmetic products. I know that there are ingredients from petrochemical sources that are also natural in their molecular structure, so what is a petrochemical these days?

If the molecular structure is found in nature but it is man made and petroleum sources are used, can you still call it natural or you are going to call it petrochemical or both? This is very confusing and I have to say I do not have an answer for this modern hybrid. Perhaps pseudonatural could do.. Any suggestions?

An example of these type of compounds is Sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate (approved in organic standards)

And you also have cosmetic ingredients that are partially natural and partially synthetic. How to call them? Seminatural or semipetrochemical?

If you feel creative drop us a line...

The Cosmos standard finally out

At the end of last month the organic harmonised standard came out. Six European organic certification bodies got together to create a double standard, one for organic and one for natural cosmetics, that hopefully is going to make clearer to define what organic and natural is in the beauty industry. The standard is available Here My opinion is that the most positive aspects are a more cosmetic approach to the standard, an easier way to calculate the organic percentage of a finished product and a clearer idea of natural derived ingredients accepted by the standard. I believe the main challenges of the standard are the use of hydrogenated ingredients, the lack of pesticides analysis, an ingredients positive list and a clear position on palm oil derivatives. What is your opinion about it?

Date Check

You might have noticed a new symbol that has appeared on cosmetic products recently: a jar with a number and the letter M. This symbol is a legal requirement for products with a shelf life over 36 months, indicating the  number of months to use the product by once you  open it (PAO: period after opening).
If a product has a shelf life that is less than 36 months it will have to display its best before, but no PAO.
Natural products tend to have a shorter shelf life and therefore they will not have a PAO but a best before

Organic Certification, time for analysis

The American Organic Consumers Association has recently published the report on the chemical investigation performed on 100 organic products certified by the USDA. The results showed 47 out of 100 products were positive for 1,4 dioxane, despite the organic certification.
This shows how organic rules and standards need to be implemented with chemical analysis to ensure the absence of synthetic chemicals, such as pesticides and fertilisers residues.
To know more about the report click here or you can listen to the interview with the Organic Consumers directors on here

Is natural safe?

Even if a product is natural, safety and quality can still be an issue. In a way a natural ingredient is more “alive” than synthetic materials and more prone to microbial contamination and oxidation.

Micro organisms growing naturally in decomposition processes are natural but can be harmful to humans, some essential oils can cause skin rashes, natural heavy metals are poisonous and there is circumstantial evidence linking Aluminium to Alzheimer’s disease.

Therefore even if dealing with a natural product the microbial content has still to be within safe limits, the state of oxidation of vegetable oils and essential oils have to be checked, and the amount used of essential oils has to be within safety margins. This leads us to the point that despite we associate nature with trust, we need still to be aware that nature can still make harmful substances and that extra care has to be taken when manufacturing and handling natural materials. 

When buy a natural cosmetic check how long its shelf life is and how old it is.