One thing is for sure; in the beauty world, ‘natural’ is the new black. I’ve lost count of the times a Press officer has handed me a product with the words: ‘It’s 97 per cent natural.’ At this stage, I usually scan through the ingredients listed on the back...

‘Glyceryl Stearate, Emulsifying Wax, Cetyl Alcohol, Stearic Acid, Glycerin, Isopropyl Palmitate. Those are the top six ingredients after water. Are those all natural, then?’ I ask.
Usually the publicist looks nonplussed, often replying: ‘I think they’re all naturally derived.’

Technically, these ingredients are ‘natural’, even if they don’t sound it, simply because they haven’t actually been made in a laboratory - another neat demonstration of how convoluted the whole issue of ‘natural’ vs ‘ chemical’ has become.

The term ‘natural’ is very wide, making it hard to know precisely what it means. It’s an important, and political, hot potato, too, as shown when two U.S. law-makers introduced a Safe Cosmetics Act which, if passed, will enable the U.S. FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to investigate whether ingredients in personal care products might have harmful effects.

Today’s beauty consumers want ‘ natural’ products and are increasingly against any they perceive to be full of ‘chemicals’, particularly those that they judge to be ‘toxic’.

When I think of natural skincare, I think of companies such as Weleda, Dr Hauschka or Neals Yard Remedies. Their ingredient lists contain items you understand: extracts of flowers and herbs, clays, minerals, oils and waxes.

But the fact that a long list of chemically adapted ingredients is still classed as natural in some products is pretty confusing.

The market for natural products has been expanding fast. According to the Organic Market Report, the trade in organic health and beauty products in Britain grew by a third to £36 million last year.

But along with this increased popularity has grown up a quasi- religious belief that ‘natural’ means ‘good’ and ‘chemical’ equals ‘bad’. That view so exasperates the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) that it has offered £1 million to anyone who can show it a chemical-free product.

‘The word "chemical” has been misappropriated and maligned as synonymous with "poison,” ‘ says a RSC spokesman. ‘Everything we eat, drink, drive, play with and live in is made of chemicals. Natural and synthetic chemicals are essential for life as we know it.’

So far, the RSC’s money remains safe, but that’s not going to change the prevailing mood. When you push people to say what exactly they mean by wanting ‘chemical-free’ skincare, they become a bit more specific.

What they want to avoid are ‘harsh’ or ‘toxic’ chemicals that might be bad for their skin.

Fair enough, though industry regulators will tell you that any ingredient that goes into any skin product has been tested to the nth degree for safety.

You won’t find the modern equivalent of lead in today’s skincare products. One thing people don’t want on ingredient lists is sodium lauryl (or laureth) sulphate (SLS or SLES), the foaming agent in everything from shampoo to toothpaste.

It’s a known irritant, though it tends not to be a problem because it’s used in wash-off products.

Another is parabens, a family of preservatives in cosmetics with great success for the past 50 years, but which have become the bogeymen of the cosmetics industry.
Femail

Ends