Common cosmetology misconceptions – “100% natural ingredients”

Our clients, informed by articles in the press and on the Internet, occasionally ask whether our products are natural. Even among us practitioners, there is a certain reverence for products labeled as being made from “100% natural ingredients”. Some practitioners even limit themselves to only working with such ingredients. How much is it based on established data, or on clinical logic?

For some reason, some of us seem to think that “natural” is best, it works harmoniously with the skin and is better for the skin than synthetic ingredients. Have we stopped to check the logic of this line of thought, and have we ever demanded proof of whether this is true? For those of us who focus on, or prefer, natural products, or whose clients require them – let us delve a bit deeper into the topic.

Natural versus synthetic

Is natural really as good as we associate it to be? Remember that snake venom is also natural, and that opium is produced from the poppy plant. Petroleum is also totally natural. And one of the strongest toxins in nature ricin (which is 6000 times more poisonous than cyanide) comes from the castor bean plant. And there are many more toxins that come from plants. We’re all familiar with seasonal allergies, which flare up when trees and flowers are in full bloom. Some natural ingredients are hazardous, and some synthetic ingredients are curative, skin renewing, and some are also lifesaving medications. The ingredient’s origin (natural or synthetic) is completely unrelated to whether it’s hazardous, helpful, or capable of causing the change we want in our clients’ skin. The anti-inflammatory property of botanical ingredients is no different, or stronger, or better than synthetic anti-inflammatories. Plants are just another alternative. The fact that the ingredient grew naturally doesn’t mean that it’s good for the skin, and it doesn’t make sense to link the two.

Let us also remember that ingredients that were produced from plants or from nature, can be easily reproduced in a lab. Glycolic acid, which is a common ingredient in our professional products, is synthesized in a lab. It’s true that glycolic acid is also found in sugar cane. However, the one in our products is almost never from sugar cane. Preparing glycolic acid in a lab is a simple and inexpensive process. This imitation product synthesized in a lab is identical to the natural ingredient in cane sugar, causes the same effect in the skin, and has the exact same molecular structure. Even lab equipment cannot differentiate between natural and synthetic glycolic acid.

Ingredients the skin knows

Some of us also feel that the skin ‘recognizes’ natural ingredients more readily than synthetic ones. But why would that be? Is the skin inherently familiar with lavender? And if we think one step further, is our treatment goal to “arrange a meeting between the skin and old acquaintances” or to lighten hyperpigmentation / renew the skin / treat acne? Where is the missing link that ties “known to the skin” and achieving the treatment goal we aimed for?

Be aware that there are ways to create an impression of “100% natural” without really meeting this requirement. Manufacturers of cosmetic products can claim that their products are natural, and use “tricks” associated with the wording on the products. For example, using ALS (Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate), a common detergent, and writing it as Avenda, which comes from coconut oil, in the list of ingredients. It sounds completely natural, but what’s written doesn’t explain what coconut oil has to undergo to become ALS. ALS is the salt of sulfuric acid, which is neutralized with an ingredient like triethanolamine. None of these make this ingredient harmful to the skin, and there’s no need to avoid ALS. However, this is the accurate name of this ingredient, which is very unnatural. This is just one example of standard methods used among manufacturers of products made from “natural ingredients”, which enable synthetic ingredients to be well camouflaged in a product.

What’s considered natural?

Let’s ask ourselves another question: What do we define as “natural”? Does a substance that comes from nature meet this definition? If it does, then everything around us, including synthetic products made in a lab, are natural. Everything around us – the air we breathe, the desk we work at, the paper we write on, the food we eat, and even we – are made of the most basic building blocks of nature – atoms. These same building blocks, which we learned about in the Periodic Table of Elements, are the units forming our bodies and everything else around us. They exist in nature. We cannot create an atom. Atoms bind to each other to create molecules, and molecules are what join to form cells and living creatures, all living and non-living things around us. If we look at any matter – whether synthesized in a lab or isolated from a plant – it is made up of atoms, which are completely natural. The difference is who joined the atoms to create a molecule weather it is a chemist in a lab, or nature. Does joining natural ingredients create something harmful? Is the bond the chemist creates between natural things (atoms) not as good as a bond that nature creates? When we make vegetable soup, each of the vegetables is natural, even though the finished product – the soup – was not created by nature. Does it make the soup “synthetic”, harmful, because it wasn’t created by nature? Nature “concocts” the good ingredients for itself, for the living creature or the plant in which the compound was created. The chemist concocts compounds for us, the users, according to our needs.

Challenges in manufacturing natural products

Additional points to think about for those who prefer completely natural products: First, the process of distilling and producing the natural ingredient, which prepares it for use in a cosmetic product, often renders it “not natural”. The process may also damage the ingredient’s effectiveness. There are also problems such as damaged crops and potential contamination from herbicides, which we will never know about, aside from the fact that they exist in some of the natural products we buy. Take into account that it is difficult to maintain consistency in concentrations of the active ingredients and their chemical form when we use such misleading substances like extracts produced from plants. Furthermore – the harvest season, the region of the world the plant grows in, and additional factors – affect the composition of the active ingredients. When we see names of plants on the list of ingredients, we must remember that this does not give the entire story: What part of the plant was used? The root? The leaves? What active ingredient from among all the potential compounds in the plant did we use here? From numerous plants, we produce several active ingredients (from the same plant) whose actions differ completely. Do we know what they are, and whether using this plant met our expectations?

Something else to think about: Natural preservatives are less effective than synthetic preservatives. Their ability to protect the product from bacterial contamination, from going stale, or from some other form of spoilage that may damage the skin – is poor. Do we prefer a natural preservative (whose advantage is unclear), or healthy skin that is protected from contaminants?

Making fact-based decisions

Many of us have been accustomed to thinking about natural products as a group of products that have something positive and beneficial in common: Products that naturally blend with the skin. Products that are good for the skin. As we saw, it doesn’t stand the test of reality or the test of logic. Natural products can be compatible or incompatible with a goal. What determines the compatibility with a treatment goal is the active ingredient, the molecule, regardless of where it comes from: nature or a lab. Natural products can be harmful or beneficial. They can meet requirements or not. Choosing to use only natural products is akin to choosing only to use products that start with the letter C. With both choices, we adhered to an artificial group that includes products that do not have a logical common denominator, and in doing so we significantly limited our ability to achieve the treatment goal. As skincare practitioners, we must strive to adopt critical thinking and insist on understanding the reasons for the widespread beliefs in our profession. Impressive words may bewitch our clients who feed off the media. It’s easy for clients to follow trends, especially when they’re accompanied by feel-good terms like “natural”, “organic”, “green”, “environmentally-friendly”, and “harmonious”.. As professionals, we should examine the logic and the scientific basis behind the impressive words and be able to explain it to clients (and to ourselves) in order to maintain a proper level of professionalism and a true ability to properly treat and achieve results.