Here at the Beauty Brains, as well as other enlightened places across the beauty blog-0-sphere, there’s been a lot of discussion lately about the use of the term “chemical free” as it relates to cosmetics.
There’s no such thing as “chemical free”
As our science-savvy readers know there is no such thing as “chemical free.” Everything is a chemical, even water. A chemical free product would be nothing but an empty bottle. Wait a minute, it wouldn’t even have a bottle because bottles are made of chemicals too! None the less, not only do manufacturers insist on using this term but a frighteningly large number of consumers have embraced it as well.
But rather than just continue to whine about how asinine the term is, I’ve decided we should do something about it: we should find a better alternative.
What does “chemical free” mean to you?
Of course before we can identify an alternative phrase we have to understand what is being implied by the companies spreading the message and what is being inferred for the consumers who have embraced it. I don’t know if anyone has already articulated this but it seems obvious that “chemical free” is a short hand way of expressing that the product is safe to use and good for the environment. (Feel free to leave a comment with your own definition.)
Can you think of a better way to describe “chemical free” products?
Assuming that safety is at least part of the concern then what could be a good potential alternative for chemical free? How about something like “certified safe?” (Yeah, I know, then we have to deal with who’s responsible for certification. But it’s just an example.) So that’s my challenge to you, the Beauty Brains community: help us brainstorm another term that could replace “chemical free.”
Image credit: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/
Leave a comment if you can think of a better way to talk about products than “chemical free.”
Popularity: 1% [?]
