Because the cosmetics industry at large knows the organic movement isn’t a passing fad, there is a consortium of natural product-based companies attempting to standardize the definition and labeling of United States-sold cosmetics as organic. They are doing this not only out of frustration at seeing so many products mislabeled as “organic,” but also no doubt because of what has occurred with regard to organic cosmetics in Europe in recent years.
According to the Web site www. cosmeticsdesign-europe. com, the Organic Farmers and Growers, a leading UK certification body, developed a cosmetics and body-care standard for companies that wanted to lure consumers with an organic label. Products that meet this group’s standards (which are rigorous, but still respectful of current European cosmetics regulations, including the issue of animal testing) are allowed to sport the group’s logo on their products, indicating to consumers that they meet organic standards. According to a July 2007 report in Organic Monitor, “With the absence of any major regulations and private standards for natural & organic cosmetics in the USA and Canada, North American companies are increasingly making products according to European standards.” For more information on this group, visit www. organicfarmers. org. uk.
In late 2008, after six years of deliberation, leading European certification groups proposed a harmonized set of organic standards to the cosmetics industry. Known as the Cosmetics and Natural Standard (COSMOS), the groups behind this harmonization already account for over 1,000 certified cosmetic companies selling over 11,000 certified products in over 38 countries. Previously certified products will only need to go through the certification process again if they desire the COSMOS seal. Otherwise, the existing standard for which these products were originally certified will remain valid. Products that haven’t been certified by COSMOS are expected to begin the process in spring 2009. For more information on this topic, visit www. cosmos-standard. org.
In order for a European-sold and-manufactured product to qualify as natural, it must contain no more than 5% synthetic content. Companies selling such products won’t be required to disclose the percentage of natural ingredients that are organic. European-sold and – manufactured products wishing to gain organic approval must contain at least 95% organic content. Further, if an organic source is available for any natural ingredient in the product, it must be used rather than the non-organic source. All organic ingredients must also be processed via “green” manufacturing to ensure a minimum of synthetic chemical involvement.
Although those standards are a positive step for harmonization, keep in mind that this addresses only the issue of plant origin and ingredient processing, not good skin care. Again, we aren’t talking about diet. You can’t put broccoli or lettuce on your face and have it be lunch for your skin.
On the flip side, another group of U. S.-based cosmetics companies (including Estee Lauder brands, Jason Natural, and L’Oreal), not widely known for being champions of organic products, created the Organic and Sustainable Industry Standards (OASIS), whose guidelines are said to best those of organic certification groups such as Ecocert and the organic seal program run by the United States Department of Agriculture. Under OASIS guidelines, a cosmetic product the manufacturer wants to be labeled organic must contain at least 85% organic content. Plans are in place to tighten this requirement to 95% by 2012, bringing the goal of an almost entirely organic cosmetic product closer to the homes of consumers everywhere. OASIS also has certification systems in place for 100% organic products and allows the statement of “Made with Organic” if a product has no less than 70% organic content.
Sounds good, right? Well, another organic-minded group doesn’t think so. The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is taking the group to task for allowing synthetic ingredients to be present in products labeled organic, as well as not having a monitoring system in place to alert people to the presence of chemical by-products when certain ingredients, such as surfactants, undergo a process known as ethoxylation.
The OCA based its organic standards on those of the National Organic Program, which is chiefly concerned with organic food. Members of OASIS have pointed out that the standards of the National Organic Program do not apply to cosmetics because the ingredients and manufacturing necessary to make cosmetic products (organic or not) are outside the simplistic scope of what it takes to grow and certify food as organic. And that is an understatement—a pomegranate doesn’t have to sit in your bathroom for a few months before you are done using it!
Nevertheless, the Organic Consumers Association didn’t want to back down. They sent cease and desist letters to OASIS companies selling products labeled as organic but containing nonorganic cleansing agents or synthetic antioxidants. OASIS is arguing that their standard permits use of such nonorganic ingredients in cosmetic products because there are currently no suitable organic alternatives. OCA is arguing that in addition to allowing synthetic ingredients in products labeled organic, OASIS consists of “conventional industry members” who have the goal of diluting organic standards to their advantage.
For OCA to assert that their own “standards” don’t serve them over and above the consumer is sheer aggrandizement. It’s the pot calling the kettle black and nothing more. Traditional cosmetics companies are not doing a disservice to consumers. OASIS is trying to define organic cosmetic standards for the entire industry, something that is currently lacking. What difference does it make if L’Oreal or Burt’s Bees spearhead development and integration of organic standards?
As usual, this all comes down to the smaller natural-product companies not wanting larger corporations to use their financial clout and resources to make changes before they can do so (or without their approval), or to act first to get the advantage of their marketing manipulation.
I realize some small business owners’ egos may be bruised if OASIS succeeds with their standardization efforts but it is important to keep in mind that large companies with extensive research and development facilities and staff can work more effectively on finding organic solutions to the need for synthetic ingredients (if they are needed). Smaller companies behind the OCA, such as Dr. Bronner’s, can only dream of achieving such a feat. One thing is certain: Paying closer attention to organic standards, regardless of affiliation, will pave the way for more accountability and regulation for a term that has been undefined and misused for far too long.
What needs to be at the forefront of organic standards is thinking about what the consumer needs, not marketing claims. It always comes down to creating formulations that are the best for skin. If it serves skin without risk, any ingredient, synthetic or organic, ought to be included in your product. To stick with the claim that only natural ingredients are good will cheat skin of some incredibly important benefits (Sources: The Rose Sheet, March 10, 2008, page 3; March 24, 2008, page 3; and March 31, 2008, pages 3-4).
It is worth mentioning that there are smaller cosmetics companies (such as Juice Beauty) that are also members of OASIS; the group is not just for large, internationally distributed cosmetics companies.
