Today I asked people on the high street if they were more inclined to buy beauty products that had the statement 'natural ingredients' on the front of them. The vast majority of them said yes. Reasons provided where "I assume it's better for me", "I don't like the thought of putting anything that's not natural on my skin" and "I think natural is safer". Three ways of saying the same thing - most people believe that natural ingredients are less harmful than synthetic ones.
And who can blame them? The UK beauty industry spends £600 million a year marketing its products as natural, pure and simple. 'Natural' is advertised as something to pay extra for. However, some of the researchers/scientists that I've spoken to say that natural chemicals can be just as harmful as some of the nasty synthetic ones. Not too hard to believe when you think about it I suppose as some of the deadliest chemicals/toxins I can think of are natural - snake venom? Of course, I'm yet to find a beauty product that contains snake venom.
Another issue which has cropped up time and time again in my research into the natural vs synthetic argument is the lack of legislation covering this area. If a cosmetic or toiletry contains just one natural ingredient the manufacturer can still advertise the product as natural. So, even if natural is better for us, how much of it are we actually getting when we fork out for a product with 'natural ingredients'?
Director of Lush Karl Bygrave reckons Lush use more natural ingredients than any other manufacturer of beauty products. He described his favourite Lush product to me and recited a long list of fruits saying "you don't get more natural than that."
However, Lush do use some parabens in their ingredients ... my investigation into beauty safety continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment