2.94% Unnatural?

[madurobob]

I've been a bit congested lately, so in my shower this morning I lingered in the steam a little while and passed the time by reading labels of stuff in the shower. I generally use Dr. Bronner's almond soap because its both mild and very effective. The label is great reading, too.

But, thats not what this is about! Since I already knew the Dr Bronner's label, I glanced at another one on the shelf: Burt's Bees body wash (http://www.burtsbees.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?categoryId=10005&subCategoryId=-33&productId=10001&catalogId=10051&storeId=10001&langId=-1). Staring me in the face was this claim:
97.06% Natural
What the heck? I'm pretty sure that the FDA has no definition of "natural" for non-food products. Curious, I checked the product website and found this:
we label every product we make with what we call a "natural bar." This bar discloses exactly how natural that specific product is. Our products average 99% natural, with half being 100% natural. We will continue to strive for 100% natural on all our products, investigating all ingredients and the latest technologies to create the best products for your greatest well-being
Still no definition of "natural".

So, why would a company label a product "97.06% natural" without a definition of natural.. and without telling what the unnatural bit is?

[Professor Yaffle]

I found this (but have no idea if this is the definition they are using...):


A ´natural cosmetic product´ means any product which, subject to Paragraphs 6 and 7 consists of natural substances as defined under Paragraphs 2 and 5 and is produced (obtained and processed) as defined under Paragraph 4.

Within the meaning of these paragraphs, ´natural substances´ include any substances of botanical, animal or mineral origin as well as their mixtures.

In the choice of basic materials of botanical, mineral and animal origin for cosmetic products in these paragraphs particular attention is paid to making sure no contaminants which cause damage to human health are included. The manufacturer of natural cosmetic products shall especially take into consideration the possible allergenic effects of natural substances in the assessment of the safety for human health.

Natural ingredients shall only be obtained and processed by means of physical methods (e.g. extrusion, centrifugation, filtration, distillation, extraction, percolation, adsortive techniques, freezing, drying), microbiological or enzymatic methods.
Microorganisms and enzymes shall exclusively be used in enzymatic and microbiological methods. Extraction may be carried out with water, ethyl alcohol and other appropriate natural derived solvents.

Only those natural fragrances whose names and definitions comply with the International ISO 9235 Standard as well as any substances listed in this Standard which have been isolated by physical methods may be used in natural cosmetic products. Synthetically-reconstituted essential oils, nature-identical perfumes and chemically modified natural raw materials shall not be used in perfume compositions which are labelled as being natural.

The following preservatives (nature-identical substances) listed in Annex VI Part 1 of the Council Directive 76/768/ECC may be used on condition that the provision for their use as laid down there are satisfied:

Benzoic acid and its salts
Propionic acid and its salts
Salicylic acid and its salts
4- Hydroxybenzoic acid, its salts and esters
Formic acid
2-Phenoxyethanol
Benzyl alcohol
Sorbic acid

Natural cosmetic products containing any of these preservatives must clearly bear the information ´preserved with´ and the name of the preservative near the indication ´natural cosmetic product´.

Emulsifiers obtained from the following natural substances by means of hydrolisis, esterification or reesterification may be used to produce natural cosmetic products:

Fats and oils
Waxes
Lecithins
Lanolin
Mono-, olgo-, and polysaccharides
Proteins
Lipoproteins


http://www.beauty-on-line.com/regulation/ebn-images/issue131/natcos-coe.pdf

[madurobob]

Thanks Prof!
That looks like its not a reg but rather a "term of art" in the cosmetic industry. I e-mailed BurtsBees to ask what definition they use. I'm curious to know what they use in the soap that doesn't meet the criteria.

[Space_Ed]

lol

[phaed]

So, why would a company label a product "97.06% natural" without a definition of natural.. and without telling what the unnatural bit is?

Why else? Because it's an excellent marketing ploy. And you're right, "natural" can mean different things in different contexts, and to different companies. Most likely "natural" means what the other poster unearthed: that it doesn't contain any synthetic substances, only substances found in nature.

[Denver]

Maybe the 2.94% is not unnatural, but supernatural!

[arthwollipot]

Isn't "natural" in this case being used in the same way as "hypoallergenic"?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Contains exactly 2.94% narrativium!

[grunion]

Well, in my extensive Internet research on the topic, the opposite of "natural" would be "silicone-enhanced, or otherwise modified through the use of cosmetic surgery."

[The_Animus]

Yes. This is the whole natural vs artificial thing. Artificial is basically lab produced and natural is as Professor Yaffle said earlier botanical, animal or mineral origin.

Natural usually costs more compared to artificial because people believe it is automatically more healthy than artificial. This is not always the case though. Sometimes the natural component can be toxic whereas an artificial product isn't. Though I cannot recall the example I read.

[Dogdoctor]

That is interesting. It sounds as if the natural preservatives (nature-identical substances) can be man made. That sort of defeats the natural idea (that natural is supposed to be better.)

[Mongrel]

Isn't "natural" in this case being used in the same way as "hypoallergenic"?

No, just off that list Lanolin is a not uncommon allergen, People can be allergic to the oddest things

[Dogdoctor]

Isn't "natural" in this case being used in the same way as "hypoallergenic"?

No, just off that list Lanolin is a not uncommon allergen, People can be allergic to the oddest things

Actually synthetic chemicals tend to be hypoallergenic since they tend to be smaller molecules. It is only the very large molecules that are allergenic and there is much more natural large molecules than synthetic ones. Polyester is a large synthetic molecule yet it is often touted as being hypoallergenic. Natural generally means it is more likely to allergenic.

[Fnord]

Does anyone else remember the Ivory Soap commercials from the 1960's and 1970's?

"Ninety-Nine and Forty-Four One-Hundredths Percent Pure"

99.44% pure ... what? Pure soap? Pure hype?

"So Pure, It Floats!"

Well, so does pond scum.

[Doc Daneeka]

The obvious explanation is that the other 2.94% isn't very marketable. :D

[arthwollipot]

Isn't "natural" in this case being used in the same way as "hypoallergenic"?

No, just off that list Lanolin is a not uncommon allergen, People can be allergic to the oddest things

Actually synthetic chemicals tend to be hypoallergenic since they tend to be smaller molecules. It is only the very large molecules that are allergenic and there is much more natural large molecules than synthetic ones. Polyester is a large synthetic molecule yet it is often touted as being hypoallergenic. Natural generally means it is more likely to allergenic.

What I was referring to was the "fact" (ie, I read it on teh Intarwebs somewhere) that the word "hypoallergenic" was coined by a marketing firm and actually had no real scientific meaning.

"Natural" is being applied to some substances but not others, and it seems to me to be almost as arbitrary.

[Professor Yaffle]

Actually synthetic chemicals tend to be hypoallergenic since they tend to be smaller molecules. It is only the very large molecules that are allergenic and there is much more natural large molecules than synthetic ones. Polyester is a large synthetic molecule yet it is often touted as being hypoallergenic. Natural generally means it is more likely to allergenic.

Yes, I am allergic to lanolin in its "natural" form, but am fine with lanolin that has most of the free lanolin alcohol removed (eg lansinoh) by a probably "unnatural" process.

[madurobob]

FWIW, I received this today from Burts Bees:
While we know that this term is very often used loosely, we define "natural" as any substance that is harvested from nature and then isolated and purified by a variety of environmentally sound techniques including: filtration, fermentation, distillation, expressing and other like processes.

Sounds a lot like the "Beauty-on-line" definition Prof Yaffle posted.

I seriously doubt they will respond to my follow-up asking what "not found in nature/not isolated and purified by environmentally sound techniques" stuff makes up the 2.94%. I'll post it if they do!

[Professor Yaffle]

FWIW, I received this today from Burts Bees:


Sounds a lot like the "Beauty-on-line" definition Prof Yaffle posted.

I seriously doubt they will respond to my follow-up asking what "not found in nature/not isolated and purified by environmentally sound techniques" stuff makes up the 2.94%. I'll post it if they do!

A bit of research on the ingredients list might help identify them...

[madurobob]

I can list the stuff, but I have no idea what it is!


Ingredients: Decyl & lauryl glucosides (natural coconut, cornstarch & sugar soap blend), water, coco betaine (coconut oil moisturizer), soy protein, sucrose ester (natural sugar ester), coco-glucoside & glyceryl oleate (natural sunflower & coconut oil soap blend), honey, betaine (sugar beet), vegetable glycerin, glucose (sugar), hydroxypropyltrimonium oligosaccharide (sugar moisturizer), ginger root oil, neroli oil, grapefruit oil, lemongrass oil, lavender oil, orange oil, lemon oil, lime oil, hyssop oil, eucalyptus oil, ylang ylang oil, rose oil, boronia oil, rosewood oil, bergamont oil, clove oil, pimento leaf oil, clary sage oil, nutmeg oil, litsea cubeba oil, glucose oxidase & lactoperoxidase (natural preservative).

97.06% Natural

[Giraffe107]

Did you get any response from BurtBees?

[madurobob]

Did you get any response from BurtBees?

I got an initial response, posted above. I have not rec'd a response to my follow-up ("what is in the 2.94% that is not natural?"). I only asked on Friday AM, so I doubt I'll hear anything until late Monday at the earliest.

[digithead]

Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Lisa is on a field trip to a newspaper facility:

Newspaper editor: … And to protect Mother Earth, each copy contains a certain percentage of recycled paper.

Lisa: And what percent is that?

Newspaper editor: Zero. Zero’s a percent!