Ep 45: Should beauty brands formulate for their customers?

Welcome to Green Beauty Conversations, the podcast that challenges you to think about how you buy, use, make and sell your natural beauty formulations. We tackle topics that will make you think and encourage debate around green beauty with your friends, followers or customers. I'm your host, Lorraine Dallmeyer. I'm a biologist, environmental scientist and the director of award winning online organic cosmetic formulation school Formula Botanica. We have thousands of students in over 150 countries worldwide who study with us to become organic beauty formulators and entrepreneurs. Visit our website@formulabotanica.com to try our free formulation training. In today's episode, we're looking at conscious consumerism and how it applies or doesn't apply to green beauty. What does it mean to be a modern consumer of beauty products? A conscious consumer is someone who wants to encourage positive impact through their buying choices and I'm sure you can think of many examples where this might apply to your beauty products. It's a no brainer that we should be aiming to encourage cosmetics companies to use sustainable packaging, ensure that their ingredients are sourced in an ecologically and socially responsible way, and to lower their carbon footprint. But should we also be challenging beauty brands on the way they make their formulations? Most people would say yes. Although there has been raging controversy throughout the beauty industry on this topic for years, anyone who spends any time in the natural beauty sector will know that there is a polarized debate around the way ingredients are chosen and used. On one side you have a hardcore group of naturalistas who reject synthetic ingredients, and on the other side you have a group of frustrated chemists who are upset about their ingredients being vilified without science. So does conscious consumerism extend to people rejecting certain synthetic ingredients because they view them as being bad for them? Or is the green beauty industry being led by populism where people are rejecting the cosmetics multinationals who they view as the shadowy elite in order to buy green beauty based on belief instead of fact. It comes down to that age old question, is the customer always right? My first guest on today's podcast is Sam Farmer, founder of Sam Farmer Co, a unisex personal care range aimed at adolescent skin and hair. Sam couldn't find any products for his teens that rejected gender stereotypes, so he decided to make them himself. I think it's also fair to say that Sam has very strong views on today's topic, which is why I wanted to invite him onto this podcast. Sam, welcome to the podcast.

Thank you so much for having me.

So let's dive straight in. Okay. You mentioned in a previous interview that the industry is killing itself by formulating for consumers and that the people that are keeping us alive are being demonized. Do you still stand by those statements?

I don't remember saying those things, but I remember I sort of understand what I was inferring. I think that the industry at the moment is tearing itself apart from the inside. I think that we used to talk about efficacy and we used to talk about sort of fun phrases and lifestyle and things like that, and now we're talking about the individual ingredients far more. And independent brands generally have started this movement based around fear and about the knowledge gap that a consumer has in technical area of formulating products. And they're sort of seizing upon it and using words like toxic and dangerous and carcinogen and all these words that very emotive. And of course, as a consumer, it's going to make you very worried. And brands that sort of say, we're not like that, we don't have any nasties or whatever that means. I think that's what I mean. I mean that brands have found, the marketing departments have found this area that is very profitable and they're going all in.

So do you think it's only indie brands doing it or are you seeing it from other brands as well, the bigger ones?

I think indie brands started it and there are many reasons why. I think that it's a really good move that the industry has allowed individuals to come into the industry and challenge the bigger brands. But unfortunately, with that, these sort of restraints of science and formulation have been let go and people have decided to sort of say whatever they want to say to sell their products to compete with these big conglomerates. So it's great that more independents are coming into the industry, but the way they're trying to challenge the industry is not great. And bigger, they're a bit like oil tankers. These massive companies, they take a very long time to slow down and change direction, but they are now jumping on this bandwagon because they can see how profitable it is, can be.

So do you think that consumers should have a say in the ingredients that are included in their formulations? Which goes to the heart of our podcast today, really?

Yes. It's a very difficult question because people take years. They do degrees, A levels, PhDs, years of work experience formulating in laboratories. And to expect a consumer to be able to just understand cosmetic formulation from nothing to decades of experience is just not realistic. So if a consumer says to me, I don't want to have preservatives, or I worry about certain Surfactants. My question to them is always, what do you understand by that ingredient? And do you know what that is and how that works? And 10 times out of 10, they don't. Of course they don't, because they don't have the qualifications to do that. So I can understand us wanting to steer clear of certain things if we have sensitization issues or if there's a reason for doing it, or a sustainability question. But again, that's a whole different area of raw material suppliers. Then, yes, fine, you know, you can do what you like, we can buy what we like, but it's not based on education, it's not based on knowledge, it's based on fear and ignorance created by these other brands.

So what would you do if one of your customers then questions your choice of ingredients? Because I know, for instance, you make deodorants quite a contentious subject with certain consumers. So how do you approach that?

I formulate for teenagers and formulate a deodorant and antiperspirant, actually, that has aluminum chlorohydrate in it. Now, if at the moment that is the most effective ingredient that we have to combat body odor and as an adolescent weight, what you don't want to do is have BO at school. And the reason why they use deodorants, antiperspirants is to not have that. So if I don't formulate with the correct ingredients to combat that, they're never going to buy it again. And there's nothing wrong with aluminium chlorohydrate. It's massively tested. It's past the CIR panels. You know, we're not allowed to use ingredients that are not safe and tested. And then you can go into a completely different area where we can use aluminium chlorohydrate up to 20%.

But.

But I use it in 50% solution, which actually in formulation means I'm using 10%. So I'm using half the safest amount of maximum limit of 20%. So I'm using half of that again. Yet it is still effective. And also, people think of aluminium, they think it's metal. You're putting metal on your skin, it's going to go into your body. Well, you're drinking aluminium in your tap water because we use it to filtrate water, to attach to the heavy metals, to clean our tap water.

So.

So it's in our water, it's in our food. We're ingesting small traces of aluminium all the time. Our bodies are used to it, we metabolize it and excrete it. So putting it on your skin, which is the best barrier that we have, just, you know, we can go on and on and on with the scientific evidence, but it just doesn't make any sense to be fearful of certain skincare ingredients.

So what are your views then on consciousness consumerism? Because that's obviously what this podcast is all about. The beauty industry, are we really suffering the effects of populism, for instance, where people are rejecting cosmetics multinationals, who they view as the shadowy elite, where they say this is the people versus the big guys, where they take beliefs over facts? Is that what's happening?

This is a brilliant question because it's massive. I believe in conscious consumerism because I am a conscious consumer, but that's more my going into a supermarket, say, and seeing loose vegetables and loose fruit and not wanting to buy the 46 pack in plastic and wrapping and being able to change my behavior and picking up individual items, putting them in paper bags and things like, we can make conscious decisions like that. Looking at electric cars, looking at, you know, always trying to do our best, buying clothing, those sorts of things. But in our industry, we don't sell individual, you know, we're not selling potatoes and cabbages, we're selling complex chemical formulations. And yes, we need to be looking at where these individual ingredients come from. But we are restricted by the global raw material suppliers. And I think they are now becoming conscious of where they source their ingredients from, but on a much bigger scale, on the sort of global scale. Global cosmetics companies need huge amounts of chemical raw materials. And the sort of. The reality of our industry doesn't equate to what the consumer thinks they're getting. And there are some great raw material suppliers coming up, but they still face the same problems that everyone else is facing. You know, shea butter. We don't have the shea nut in the uk, we don't have it in Europe, so we're going to have to transport that over from Africa. Generally. Same with mangoes, the same with almonds, the same with. So, you know, they sound lovely and great, but we're still shipping them over in huge barrels and containers. So I think there's a duplicitous message there between consumers throwing their arms up, saying that, you know, the global suppliers are terrible, etc. Etc. I'm just going to, you know, squeeze a raw material from my back garden that's not realistic. And in reality, they're the same people that will nip into booze and see three for two and buy it and don't really care where it's from because it's on such a good deal. So I think there's. We have to face up to the realities of the industry and be more realistic with ourselves and be more truthful and honest with our behavior. And I think the conscious consumer exists, definitely, and I think we are moving in the right direction. But I think our industry is unfairly demonized in this area.

Okay, so what would you say to people who view natural as being better then tying in with what you've just said?

I don't know what that means. I don't know natural better than what, in what areas? You know, we, a lot of us take vitamin C supplements. That's all synthetic. If we didn't use certain synthetic ingredients, our natural resources would be depleted. If we didn't use synthetic sandalwood, sandalwood would no longer exist. It'd be extinct. It saves things from extinction. And when it comes to, specifically in our industry, things like fragrance, there are far more sensitizers in essential oils than there are in synthetic fragrances. So I wouldn't say one is better than the other. I'm just. And also in our industry, what do you understand by natural? Is that plant based? Well, if it's plant based, then call it plant based because. Okay, so Squalane, this. I always use this as an example. You can get it from sharks, slippers. That's natural. Or would you rather get it from olive oil? But if you're getting it from olives, it has to be deodorized. It has to be hydrogenated under huge pressure. So at what point does that then become synthetic? You can't possibly call Squalane from olive oil natural because it's gone through dozens of synthetic processes. So I don't know. I think there's a conversation to be had about that. And also snake venom, heroin, ricino, these are all natural. These will occur in nature. Methane, formaldehyde, it's all there. It's all in front of us. It's all out there and there. It's all natural. So how could that possibly make sense?

I'm laughing because I once had someone ask me how to formulate the snake venom. So the question has been put to me before. I told them not to, clearly. So do you think that naturals and science can operate hand in hand? Because there's often this argument between naturals and synthetics. And people go, you know, I want all natural. Don't want any chemicals or any toxic chemicals or any synthetic chemicals in my body or near me. But Is there a way where we can meet in the middle and work together, do you think?

Yeah, well, you having your science background would know that a lot of those sentences don't make any sense at all. We could go through each of those words and give the definition, but I don't see any point. I think we need to move away from using the word toxic. Toxic is the dose makes the poison. So water is toxic if you drink enough of it. Lots of people drown every year, so water is very toxic. Formaldehyde is in pears and apple and fruits and vegetables, but it doesn't do us any harm. In fact, our body makes formaldehyde in tiny doses every day. So I think we need to move away from the battle that's going on because it doesn't make any sense. You know, nature is science, Science is nature. Science is the study of all these things. And science doesn't have an opinion on synthetic or a natural or anything like that. Science just looks at the evidence and the data and comes up with either a hypothesis or the proof or not of that hypothesis. So I think this battle. And you're so good at this, Lorraine, you sort of bring these two far left and right areas together and we need to have a conversation where we educate rather than everyone shouting at each other. I do that. I mean, I do get very irritated by the marketing, especially the latest thing of clean beauty thing. I think it's exploitative. I think it sort of ridicules and humiliates the consumer for profit. And the consumer, of course, has this knowledge gap which we talked about earlier. And marketing has been brilliant in identifying that and exploiting it and creating this. They don't know what they're talking about look at. And the industry hasn't helped itself. You know, the big five conglomerates have just carried on their business for decades. And I think people, rightly, in some respects, are very annoyed at them and hold them responsible for certain things. But they are also at the forefront of new discoveries. So the massive companies like Unilever and Procter and Gamble and l' Oreal and Estee Lauder, for all the things that you may not like about them, their laboratories are creating incredible testing methods, moving away from helping some countries that still test on animals. We don't. It's been banned for decades. But some countries do still test on animals for all sorts of things. They are creating these areas where that will hopefully convince them that they don't have to do that. They are creating all these new ingredients. So we need to work together.

Yes. So well, finally then, what would you like the industry to do moving forward? Obviously you talked about working together. Is there anything else that you think the beauty industry, indies, multinationals, everyone, maybe even the consumer needs to be doing moving forward?

Yes, I think we should stop tearing ourselves apart in the pursuit of profit at the expense of the consumer.

Really.

I mean, I know this, that, you know, people can read into that how they want, but we need to stop exploiting the knowledge gap by using words like nasties. And, you know, that's sort of a, an infantilizing term. Nasties is treating consumers like their children, saying, you know, there's a monster under the bed, you know, it doesn't mean anything. And let's get back to efficacy studies. Let's get back to why we use ingredients. And a lot of brand owners now, if you challenge them on certain ingredients, they're like rabbits in the headline. They don't know they've just started a brand and they don't have the education to know about individual ingredients. Now, I think it's useful to have a cosmetic education, but you know, you don't have to have one to start a brand, but you're going to, in this day and age, you're going to be challenged on what you're using and why you're using it or what you're not using and why you're not using something. And I think you owe it to the consumer to be able to answer that question openly and honestly without using asinine words like nasties and toxins. Toxins and those sorts of things.

So thank you very much for joining us today. Sam, if people want to learn more about you and your brand, where can they find you?

The best place to find me is where I'm most shoutiest, which is on Twitter. And that is samfarmerco. And you know, I'm there. And all the links to everything else all stem from that.

Brilliant. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Lorraine.

Thank you to Sam for joining us to discuss conscious consumerism. So is the beauty industry, and specifically the indie beauty industry, using marketing to create a monster under the bed, as Sam says? And should we go back to easier times when the beauty industry was focused more on efficacy studies and using the right ingredients rather than focusing on what consumers are asking for? My next guest is a person who champions naturals in cosmetics. I'm joined by Dr. Mark Smith, Director General at NATRU, the International Natural and Organic Cosmetics Association. NATRU is a Brussels based international nonprofit association committed to promoting and protecting natural and organic cosmetics worldwide. Mark is A chemist and has a long career in research science and regulatory policy. Prior to joining Natru, Marc worked as a biochemical research fellow and postdoctoral researcher at the Universities of Leeds and Montreal. And I'm also thrilled to say that both Mark and I were voted into the recent top 25 personalities of the 2019 natural beauty industry. Who's who? Mark, welcome to the podcast.

Thank you very much for having me.

Right, let's dive straight in then. Why do you think that consumers choose naturals in their beauty products?

Well, I don't think there's any one reason that you can necessarily pin it down to. I mean, there are a number of drivers. I guess the one that people are most familiar with from the outset is probably hazard avoidance. They're trying to, like, avoid certain ingredients they perceive as contentious or, you know, as harmful to, like, their health or the welfare of the environment or what have you. Then there's also external factors that they simply buy these products because they want to be more environmentally conscious or they have a particular interest in a certain area, like animal welfare, and they see these products as basically fulfilling that particular interest. Important criterion for them. I mean, there are other ones that I think the most fundamental one, and it may be overlaps with those sort of two areas, is that it's just part of that person's lifestyle. It's just something that, you know, there's no rhyme or reason about it. It's just how they're brought up, the type of people they interact with, the type of, like, philosophy let's say, that they have, that's what drives them to these products. So it's not like any one reason. It's a multitude of factors. And even within an individual, it may be like multifactorial. So to kind of say that people just go to these products for one reason, I think is fairly dismissive. It's a case by case interest. But there is this overarching framework. Mostly it's about good for me, good for the environment. That's the kind of, like, tagline that people look at.

Okay, so a few years ago, Natru conducted a survey of about 900 women, I believe, who are interested in natural and organic cosmetics across the eu. And from what I've seen, your survey found that women feel that they, as you say, are avoiding harmful ingredients when they buy cosmetics, that they're doing the right thing by buying natural formulations, that it fits in with their lifestyle in terms of avoiding harmful ingredients and doing the right thing. Is this actually the case, though? Are those really valid scientific concerns?

It's perception more than anything else. I like to take sort of like a simple example. I mean, if let's say I've got a natural product and everything is natural in it, except, let's say the ethanol, you know, alcohol is very common substance, but you can make that from sort of cracked petroleum and it would be synthetic in origin, or you can make it from microbial fermentation. And, you know, one quality, obviously like the quality from the microbial source, as long as it's non GM and fulfills some of the criteria that's associated particularly with private standards like our own, would be acceptable for products. But in terms of its safety profile, in terms of its toxicology, the two substances are completely identical. Their origin has no reference upon, like its toxicology. And I mean, of course there are some substances which are like synthetic, which have like a basically an extremely low toxicological profile and also a very low, what they call ecotox profile, which means environmental toxicology. So, for example, they can be just as biodegradable, just as like sort of with no harm, let's say, to the environment, or, you know, just as little harm as you might assume that a natural substance could be. But then, of course, you can have like some poisons from nature. You won't find them in cosmetics, but you'll find those like poisons in nature. And they are obviously, like, have a very high toxicity. So when you look at these things, I think you have to always look at this basis of hazard. This is how cosmetics are assessed. They're assessed on risk. So you look at risk is basically the hazard of the substance. So, like, how inherently toxic it is as a sort of chemical substance in its own right, on its own properties, on its merits versus the exposure. You know, it's even water. I mean, water is fairly innocuous. But of course, like, it can be risky in a situation where you are not exposed enough to fresh water, so you dehydrate or you're overly exposed to it as well. This can all upset that sort of like the natural balance and the homeostasis in your body. So it's kind of keeping it very simple. So I think in that case where you say that a synthetic is automatically bad is a perception. It is a driver, undoubtedly for naturals. But just from that standpoint, the dividing line is more about claims and what is acceptable when it comes to what should be in a natural cosmetic. Of course, private standards like our own have a refined sort of palette which kind of emulates much more what a consumer is likely to perceive an acceptable representation of a natural cosmetic should be. So you won't find certain what are in the public perception, consensus ingredients within there. So there is some kind of assurance, let's say, that you can, the consumer can have. But to say by default that, you know, a natural product is, you know, more healthy, more safe when everything has to be safely assessed by law, you know, is a really hard play to put down because it's rather a subjective argument and it's also dismissive of like all other products on the market. It would also be a rather strange business model for like any industry to put harmful ingredients in its product and affect the health and safety of its consumers. Because if your intention is to put, let's say, an ingredient that might severely harm or kill its consumers, it's not really a repeat business model. So there's a kind of logic there that I think you kind of, you just have to break down and not really take everything at face value and really look at what does that mean to me when I'm looking at a natural cosmetic. You know, it's distance between perception and that kind of more, you know, scientific regulatory approach and just assuring that you really divide. What is the difference between hazard avoidance, which is more about, let's say, perception because safety is already guaranteed by law. And actually what would more trying to do, particularly here as natural as an association, is we work on ensuring that the claims natural and organic are consistent with the expectation of the consumer.

Okay, so let's talk about the issue of trust for a minute then. So certification bodies sometimes claim to offer trust to people who buy products that are labeled with their seal. On your Facebook page for Naturu, for instance, it says true natural cosmetics are recognized by this seal. But why would consumers need their products to be certified in order to trust their formulations when arguably the regulations protect us from unsafe ingredients Already, as you.

Just mentioned, it's true in terms of ingredients, there is obviously like, it's a very well balanced and strict piece of legislation that we have in Europe, fortunately, to protect the consumer. The predominant articles in legislation are there to ensure that consumer safety. And that's all done through stakeholders at the commission. We're part of that discussion as well at the commission as an association, in terms of like the private standards. The trust is more, at least from my perspective, is more about the interpretation of what is acceptable for natural or organic cosmetics. So this is not that, you know, we're saying that true natural organic cosmetic is, let's say, safer or what have you. This is Much more about just the representation of what should go into like a natural organic cosmetic to substantiate that claim in terms of legislation. I mean, you have regulation to define what you should do to have a not misleading claim. But unfortunately within that context you don't have anything which prescribes particular criteria that's also harmonized at European level in order to say for a natural claim, this is when it would be considered appropriate and this is when it would be considered misleading or like an organic claim or what have you. So that's where the kind of greenwash aspect comes in. But that really has to be separated from this more sort of hazard avoidance and sort of the question over the people might have over ingredients from like what is actually how you describe a product claim. Because I mean, for example, you could have a natural cosmetic that could follow, let's say the natural guidelines not certified. They might use a synthetic fragrance or they might use a preservative which is not on our positive list because we recognize preservatives as long as they are, you know, quote unquote, nature identical. So they basically exist somewhere in nature, although they are reproduced in the lab more often not. So, you know, ours is a refined representation which is as close to the ethics and values and if you like a bit of philosophical approach that our founding members have for the representation of a product, but in an atmosphere where you don't have an official definition, you know, it's kind of a bit of a personal argument, I guess, to say that this version of a natural cosmetic is like for example, a Cosmos certified product versus a naturally certified product. We can say yes, our standard is stronger on this bit, but at the end of the day they're kind of both representations when you don't have one in legislation. So there are clear points of greenwash, but again, green wash should be like totally separated in the argument and not put in the same pot as Hatteras avoidance. Because otherwise you start mixing everything up and I'm sure it starts to confuse the consumer and they really don't know. At the end of the day they may be gravitating towards products that, you know, for example, just because it doesn't contain a paraben, they say, okay, that's acceptable for me. But actually the formula aside from that preservative is greenwashed, you know, so there's these kind of like gravitation towards like certain things which are assumed to be good and assumed to be greener and assumed to be cleaner. But I think the trust comes from more the third party validation systems that we currently have to give that extra level of confidence in the product that it's been checked. And really when a company makes that claim, it's being validated, it's being verified by a third party to an independent standard and they can just have more confidence that it's not just the company making a self declaration. It also demands the company to actually be more transparent in its supply chain to basically say, this is the product I had, this is how it's made, this is its origin, so that, you know, again, the characteristics like let's take non GM or something like that can actually be preserved in order to ensure that the product is consistent with what the consumer, you know, wants, basically.

Okay, so let's come back to the core question we're asking in this podcast today, which is should the industry then formulate with the consumer in mind, even if that means potentially rejecting ingredients that have a proven safety record? Because conscious consumerism for a lot of people means I'm doing the right thing by the planet, I'm avoiding ingredients that I don't like the sound of.

I mean, I think the problem is if you were to think about formulating to just what the consumer perceived as acceptable, you might find that today's safe is tomorrow's hazard. And you might find that palette of acceptable raw materials starts to like really decrease. And then you have to think, well, okay, would I be able to ensure, objectively if I just took exactly what the consumer wanted at every turn, would I be able to ensure that I could make the a diverse range, sort of a diverse portfolio of different product categories that are natural cosmetics for the consumer? I mean, if I take like titanium dioxide as an example, I mean, this is like now seen as like quite contentious, you know, that could float around and people could arguably say, okay, I'm done with this, I just want to remove it. But for natural cosmetics, it's used as a UV filter. We only have two approved UV filters according to legislation. And titanium dioxide has a lot of qualities that can be superior to the other UV filters, zinc oxide in that regard. It's also like as a colorant. It's used in decorative cosmetics and such like. So you've just got to imagine that if you start to just dismiss an ingredient just because someone doesn't like it when it's safe. The problem is, what's the downstream impact then on when there is no safety question? Obviously if there is, I totally understand it. But if there is no safety question, what's the downstream impact on the Consumer then having access to all these, you know, lovely products. I mean particularly in let's say sun care, if you've only got two UV filters and people are gravitating towards like let's say mineral based UV filters because they want, you know, for any number of reasons, they may have read that there's a study that says it affects coral. They may have like read a study to say that, you know, it's healthier or safety or safe or whatever. I mean any of those perceptions can drive them towards that. But if then those products are not available in natural quality, what are they going to do? Not use sun creams or they have to go to a sun cream that perhaps doesn't fit with their values. So these kind of knee jerk reactions, I understand where they come from but you have to be really, really careful about, you know, following that trend. I think it's much better to think about informing and engaging with and if you like educating, although sometimes that can sound very elitist, you know, because feels like if someone's talking down to you. But I think to be like empowered and to actually come to like people like ourselves at Natru because we're always open to ask questions about and get an objective answer on something that is the way forward, like empower your own decision making. You have the right to know and the right to choose. But I don't think companies should just be, you know, dismissing ingredients automatically. They may look on the market to say okay, this ingredient is, you know, unfavorable. But you have that like for example, even in the conventional industry you have like people who won't make the parabens claim. And that has nothing to do with being a natural product. It's just because there are some claims that are there to differentiate yourself from square one on the shelf. And there are other claims after a period of time, maybe even the same claim that to ensure your place on the shelf you need to make that claim. But the cosmetics industry wants to protect like parabens, you know, fine, but they still make those no parabens but claims, no silicon claims on their products.

So yeah, it's an interesting one because of course paraben free is now one of the most popular claims. It's one of the claims that people most look for. And yet parabens of course are deemed to be safe and the regulations protect them. And they also protect them from brands claiming that their products are paraben free. But yet as you say, you know, it's the difference between getting on the shelf and staying on the Shelf. I suppose I'll be interested to see where the industry goes with this one.

Yeah.

So moving on from the negative connotation of certain cosmetic ingredients, let's have a look at the positives. What would you say to people who view the use of naturals in cosmetics as being a marketing ploy with no scientific remit?

I would say it's incredibly dismissive to all of the people that work in R and D and development of like, products. I mean, marketing is one thing, but don't say to someone, okay, just because you work in naturals, you must not be scientific. I mean, I can speak for our companies when we're involved in like, for example, a public consultation or we're engaging with like the regulators here in Brussels. We couldn't be any kind of authority or any voice for the natural sector if we didn't speak the language that's necessary in order to advocate for like, let's say, the continual use of a particular ingredient that might be in products that use, for example, the natural label or our members use in their products. So I think it's just a really, like, throwaway argument. It doesn't mean anything. I mean, if, you know, some of the people who are working within like the R and D departments of like, even our founder members along the R and D departments are the people that work for third party manufacturers or whatever. I mean, these are people like, who had experience in conventional companies. They just wanted like perhaps new challenges and wanted to work for more a natural company. It might be fitting with more of their values. But, you know, they've got doctorates, they're highly educated people, they've got like years of experience. I don't support something like that because it is making a presumption of almost ignorance simply because the fact that you don't like perhaps how someone is marketing their product. And even within companies, you have to think a regulatory department might not always see eye to eye with the marketing department. So, you know, kind of think a little bit deeper on that. I mean, it does make me quite frustrated if I hear something like that because I know these people and they're not in any way ignorant or in any way like stupid or ill educated. They're actually like really spot on. But they've just got a passion for the sector and that's why they want to be part of it.

Absolutely. That's why we're both here as well. So we've noticed a massive rift in the beauty industry. It's sort of an us against them approach where you've got people who love naturals on one side and people who sort of feel very angry about their synthetic ingredients being vilified on the other. And viewpoints that are floating around the Internet seem to be polarizing people even further. How do you think we can heal from this rift? How can we meet in the middle?

I think it's just. Honestly, it's a really good question because it's a really, like, hard one to see how you join it. I mean, I go to meetings that are both in the conventional industry and also, like, in the natural sector. And you see it's a kind of never the twain shall meet. They don't really understand where they're coming from. You know, it's that thing of like the big bad conventional on one side and then like all these hippies or whatever. Like on the other side, they kind of don't really see, like, the connection. I think mainly the driver will probably be that it's genuinely a interesting and rewarding area to be in. There are new areas of innovation and science. There are better contributions that you can make towards the planet and like, renewable sources of raw materials as opposed to being dependent on fossil fuels. So I would see it as more an opportunity and something which you can really, if I was a conventional company, to drive towards. It may not be applicable to, like, every ingredient I've got and it may not be part of my brand portfolio for like, every, you know, brand I've got if I'm a company with multiple brands. But again, dismissing it, I don't think you can dismiss it. It's not just something at the side now. It's the growth of the natural sector outstrips the growth of the industry, like, by and large. So you just can't sit on your laurels and ignore it. That area of, like, better understanding is probably more a question of, again, it's almost like the last question, marketing. The marketing is different. And in an area where you don't have an official definition, natural or organic can mean all things to anyone. So maybe a way of overcoming it is to actually have some better regulation for natural and organic cosmetics in order to kind of level the playing field. It would make it perhaps much easier for like a manufacturer. It would protect, let's say the manufacturer who operating at the area. They're in the natural sector already. But it would demand perhaps more in order to place a product on the market, in order to call it organic from like or natural, from a company who perhaps at the minute isn't. You know, there is a place I'm sure for those bio inspired products and I can't see that they necessarily go away, but it's whether they can carry that tagline natural or organic. And you know, in a growing market, it's understandable. Everyone kind of wants a slice of that pie and the people who are in the market and have been in the market for a while also want to preserve their place in it. So it's a bit of a kind of, you know, letting the dust settle and seeing how this is actually going to develop for the future. But I think the key is the consumer wants more of these products that's like really start, you know, innovating and generating more and more choice of like more and more efficacious products, innovative products and such like. And that's really, I think the thing that should bring people together is more the science and the consumer benefit and lead the marketing. It will always happen in different directions anyway and that's not what's controlled by legislation.

Yeah, I love that. Meet in the middle by viewing the opportunities available to us. Embrace the science and we'll drag both sides kicking and screaming into the middle eventually, I'm sure.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, thank you very much, Mark. That was very enlightening and very interesting to hear more about. If anyone wants to find out more about natru, where can they find you?

So you can go to our website at www.w.natru.org or you can always drop us an email@infoatru.eu.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

What do you think? Is it right that consumers challenge beauty brands on the ingredients they use? Or do you feel that we should leave the ingredient choices to the cosmetics scientists, even if that means using ingredients that aren't natural and placing our trust in massive multinationals who are accountable to their shareholders? Is Sam right when he says the industry is creating fear for consumers? Or should we view naturals as an opportunity, as Mark concluded, and accept that customers are going to steer clear of ingredients that they don't like and that there is very little we can do to stop this juggernaut? Our philosophy at Formula Botanica is that we want to meet somewhere in the middle. Whilst I agree with Sam that we should be helping to educate consumers on the science of their beauty products, I'm also fully aware of the fact that many of them don't want to or won't always get it. Also, despite having been trained as a scientist myself, I understand that science communication isn't easy, particularly when you're battling against an Internet filled with misinformation and pseudoscience. After all, you can persuade through reason, but you win the argument through emotion. And ultimately, as Mark rightly highlighted, botanical ingredients can have a beneficial effect on the skin. And science has demonstrated that this is the case with many plants. Furthermore, natural beauty products often make people feel better about their choices and this does contribute to their overall well being. I do feel strongly that we should approach natural ingredients from a perspective of positivity. We choose naturals because we want to, because we think they can have a positive effect on our bodies and our lives. I don't feel that we should be choosing them though, because we want to avoid the alternative. For that reason, here at Formula Botanica, we don't fear monger. We don't use the word toxin in relation to cosmetic formulations. In fact, one of the first things you'll learn when you enrol for one of our award winning online courses is that a lot of the so called facts you read on the Internet just aren't true. For instance, we don't absorb 60% of everything we put on our skin. You cannot possibly put a figure on something so complex. But if you had to, then it wouldn't be high and it's very unlikely to be anywhere near 60% otherwise we would turn into giant inflated bags of water every time we had a shower or went swimming. Nonetheless, I feel that conscious consumerism does have a large role to play when it comes to the sustainability of the beauty industry, which I feel is sorely lacking compared to many other industries. Sam is right in saying that we need to urgently look at the sustainability credentials of many of those natural ingredients as well as the industry as a whole. I worked as an environmental scientist for over a decade before I took over Formula Botanica and I can tell you that as an industry we are far behind on where we should be as consumers. We should make sure that the natural botanical ingredients in our formulations are sustainable. We need to be challenging the all beauty brands to demonstrate that they know where their ingredients have come from, how their formulations are made, what their carbon footprints are, what sort of beauty miles are associated with their ingredients, how much water is involved in making their products, whether their manufacturing processes produce air pollution. This is where conscious consumerism can really shine in beauty. So I want to hear what you think. Whatever your view views on this controversial topic, I want you to join the debate and leave us a comment on our social channels. The Formula Botanica team and I love hearing from you, so come and tell us your views. Thank you. For joining me and my guests for this latest episode of Green Beauty Conversations on conscious consumerism and beauty ingredients. I hope you enjoyed it. Make sure you subscribe to our podcast on itunes or Stitcher and stay tuned for the next episode in which I'll be asking where the indie beauty brands are selling out when they're bought by the big multinationals. Follow Formula Botanica Formula Botanica on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube or LinkedIn. We're everywhere. Visit our website@formulabotanica.com and sign up for a free formulation training class today.