Sandy says… I think your site is run by politically big Corporation lawyers and advertisers. You did a good job of trying to scare people off of real natural goodies! How many times do we have to be falsely informed about products from those BIG companies?
The Mid Brain responds:
Trust me Sandy, none of us are Big Corporation Lawyers. If we were, we’d be rich enough that I wouldn’t have to beg the Left Brain for enough money to buy a new Mac Book!
But seriously if you read enough of the Beauty Brains blog you’ll find that we try to balance both sides of the equation. We’ll speak out against stupid products where ever we find them – whether they be natural or synthetic. And when we find legitimate science that says natural products work well, we’ll blog about that too. For example, here’s a recent article from Science Daily that explains why natural ingredients might work better than synthetics.
Is a natural cream better than synthetic?
The basic premise of the article is that the complex chemical nature of certain natural ingredients could explain why they work better than their synthetic counterparts. It has to do with the principles of synergy and polyvalence. Of course, before you rush out to stock up on Burts Bees and Aubrey Organics remember that this is just a theory and it doesn’t necessarily apply to all naturals ingredients. Still I think it’s important that we present a balanced picture and share new information on naturals both positive and negative. Even if it pisses off the Left Brain.
Loading ...
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
*snorts* Someone needs to get Sandy a tinfoil hat, STAT!
It’s the so called “natural” and “organic” things I question because they’re not regulated strongly enough. Now if they set up something for them akin to Jewish kosher laws….
Someone needs to tell Sandy and the natural-only ilk that Burt’s Bees is owned by Clorox, Tom’s of Maine is owned by Colgate, & The Body Shop’s parent company is L’Oreal. Yeah, all these Big Bad Corporations that fill their products with lead to trick us into getting vaccines that give us autism own these “natural” brands.
Honestly, I used to think the way they do until I learned about how brands like Freeman lie on their labels about not testing on animals. Well, that and claims that they work better *because* they’re natural. They prey on people’s ignorance of science to make a profit and hop on the green bandwagon.
Synthetic, natural, use whichever works and just remember, they’re *all* chemicals.
…Yes, those reliable natural companies(except for The Body Shop, they still put some crap in their products
) are owned by giant corporations. However- These companies actually started small and were eventually bought by large corporations who realized they had potential to make them some money. So, don’t be so quick to dismiss people who use organic or natural products because “they claim they work better”, we all have our preferences. Using organic stuff doesn’t mean we automatically disapprove of vaccines and proper antibiotics.
Stereotypes are silly and make you look equally so.
There’s a difference between having a preference and making a claim based on a false premise–i.e. natural chemicals are better than synthesized chemicals, therefore natural products are better than synthesized. I use some natural brands, such as the Burt’s Bees lip balm but I don’t have any illusions that the fact that it’s natural makes it better.
The whole marketing of some natural products is distasteful and insulting to my intelligence. How can any honest company claim that a product is better because it has a natural ingredient when oftentimes the ingredient is so low on the list of ingredients as to have no effect whatsoever? That, and the fact that they consistently lie about their animal-testing status.
I guess this depends on your definition of what works. I like the SkepDoc’s definition–you can use something like Airborne once, get rid of a cold, and conclude that it works, or you can use something whose effects are clinically tested.
And really, I was being hyperbolic with the vaccine thing. Could anything I say really make me look sillier than the person accusing the bloggers of being “politically big Corporation lawyers and advertisers?” Wtf, does that even mean? And don’t corporations have better ways of manipulating public opinion?
Mmm.. BB lip balm, I love all of them.
No, I totally agree. Alot of companies greenwash their products to get non savvy consumers to buy them, it’s dishonest and pretty annoying(especially when people buy me an “organic” body/bath product as a gift and it’s just barely organic).
However- I think genuinely all natural products work better, kinda of like how your body can break down and digest real sugar as opposed to HFCS. Your body doesn’t always know what to do with some manmade ingredients.
I am wondering if avoiding synthetic chemicals would be better for the environment. For some people that would be a compelling reason to use natural products.
Does the manufacturing process of synthetic ingredients put chemicals into the environment that may be harmful? What about the manufacturing process of natural ingredients?
Is there a harmful effect on the environment from synthetic ingredients in beauty products that get washed off our skin and end up in the groundwater? Is there any harmful effect from natural ingredients?
I have heard that scientists believe that a coral reef may have been damaged by chemical sunscreens washed off of swimmers.
Also, a thought I have about natural, plant-derived ingredients: their production would be agricultural, possibly with the destruction of native forest, or the use of pesticides, fertilizer, and water resources.
For now, I personally use the most effective and affordable option in beauty products, although with all other things being equal, I would choose a natural product.
I don’t mind natural chemicals or anything else that works. I’m not sure the same can be said for your purchase of the new Mac Book, especially if it’s nicer than mine!
There are only 2 types of things in this world. Things that work and things that don’t. Whether it is natural or synthetic is irrelevant.
I’m an absolute fan of natural skin care and I do think it works just as well as commercial products.
But I’m talking about DIY homemade skin care treatments and not the manufactured “all natural, organic, holistic” products.
Cosmetic and skin care companies have used roses as an emollient and for their natural antioxidant properties for a very long time. (Roses are also a rich source of vitamin C which is great for the skin).
Natural nut oils, coconut milk, shea butter and fruit acids from citrus fruits are all great natural skin care ingredients that can be used in homemade recipes.
By DIY, you know that you are making a treatment at the peak of freshness without any articial additives.
It’s another option to either integrate into your regular skin care regimen or to just whip up a lovely facial mask or peel once a week.
It helps keeps the skin healthy and vibrant!
No one has mentioned anything about a DIY homemade approach to natural skin care yet.
There are so many natural ingredients that work just as well as those that you can purchase and it is quick and easy to whip up an occasional facial mask, peel, toner or scrub!
I can’t really say I agree with you that many natural ingredients work just as well as cosmetic products. (Although I suppose it depends on the specific product).
Cosmetic chemists would be happy to use natural ingredients if they performed as well or better than synthetic ones. What are some examples that you think work better?
As far as natural ingredients and the environment, we recently did a story (or tweet) on how the palm oil market is destroying the rain forest. Natural is certainly not always better for the environment.
I agree that the use of the terms “natural” and “organic” need to be regulated. But for now, the best defense of this is to be a vigilant label reader, knowledgable consumer, and smart shopper. I believe it is important to use products with ingredients that you can pronounce and identify. This can make a huge differenc in how you look and feel. And Aubrey and Burt’s Bees are my favorite compnaies!
For me, the main issue is environmental depletion. Look what palm oil use is doing to the rain forest. I remember cringing when Oprah started endorsing hoodia for weight-loss because hoodia is a protected species and not something that can be grown outside of its environment.
I just can’t agree with the idea that something is better because it’s natural. I’d rather use synthesized heart medication than digitalis because it’s easier to standardize the dose and because you don’t have to worry about fungi, mold, and bacteria freeloading off of the natural product. That would be my main caveat regarding DIY beauty care–use what you make right away because you probably can’t preserve it as well as a company. Also, there is the problem of contamination of natural products.
Remember, that at any given time in the past that belladonna (i.e. deadly nightshade) was used to make women’s eyes glossy and dilate the pupils, lead was used in facial powder, and horse urine was used to bleach hair blond. I will take synthetics over the naturals of those products any day.
Rather than bashing the person that asked the question, why don’t we consider what they have to say? I have also had my reservation about the BBs whether they have an agenda to push or are just naive to certain issues. So I did a who-is search on the beautybrains.com website to find information about the owners/owning company, and it comes up with nothing, as they have paid for an anonymous service (I rarely come across this). This could indicate that there is something to hide, but further investigation would be needed to find the holding person/holding company for which I would need to invest time and money. Also it’s hard not to think things like this when “left brain” seems to be on such a crusade. I like that they are educating people about certain chemicals ( sunscreen, retinoids, AHA/BHA ..) But sometimes it’s just opinion or what seems to be agenda pushing. I must say I do find some of the things said by the BBs odd myself, such as the above:
“Cosmetic chemists would be happy to use natural ingredients if they performed as well or better than synthetic ones” – left brain
Which is clearly dependent on the chemical and most importantly the price of said chemical, for example if it was proven that sandalwood and rosa damascena in large concentrations had some amazing effect, I can’t see them changing, except for the high end products. It’s a market, the companies have shareholders and the shareholders care about return. So, cheaper ingredients are used. The organic/high end products are affected by the same pressures they just play the game differently, they use high quality (if your lucky) ingredients, but have a much higher mark up to make up for the fact they will have a much lower market share. Which model you endorse/choose is up to you but don’t pretend there’s no market.
Sorry I have also to take note of some of the incorrect “natural” bashing going on by MoxieHart
“when oftentimes the ingredient is so low on the list of ingredients as to have no effect whatsoever?” – MoxieHart (2009)
A low concentration does not mean it is will not be affective. Many chemicals, drugs etc are given in extremely low doses, how many times have you taken a large tablet that clearly weighs a fair amount to read it contains 10mg of the active drug. (This applies to topical drugs too; take BPO (2.5%) or ZnO (0.35%) for example).
Also:
“I will take synthetics over the naturals of those products any day.” – MoxieHart(2009)
I personally will take whichever has the most evidence and efficacy behind it with the lowest potential for damage. Being a fervent chemical lover is no better than being a blind natural follower. And by “at any given time in the past” you mean at a fixed point in the past i.e. quite a while ago. The fact is that while belladonna worked (as it is an antimuscarinic) it was found (a long time ago) to cause blindness (in 1867). As we’ve come a long way since 1867 and the fact that many of the natural products have been around longer than their synthetic counterparts you can see how it would be possible for someone to assume that the natural one would most likely be safer (though extensive use in the past and possible testing).
The important thing is too make sure you have key active ingredients that do stuff (chemical or natural) and then ensuring that the ingredients they are carried by are as safe and not antagonistic (and possibly synergetic). And I’m pretty sure the BBs will agree with me here.
@Elana – Good sleuthing work. We are anonymous because we don’t want the companies we work for to crack down on our blogging activities.
It hasn’t been proven that Sandalwood or Rosa Damascena in large concentration have an amazing effect. That’s why no one (even expensive brands) use them at high levels. Other, synthetic, ingredients work better.
I have the advantage of getting samples of any ingredient I want. Chemical companies send them to cosmetic chemists for free in hopes to get them to use them. I would love to create products for myself using these extremely expensive ingredients and I used to make them all the time. But they didn’t work any better.
Like I said, if a natural ingredient is superior, we would find a way to use it. For the most part, they just don’t provide a significant enough benefit to be worth using.
Incidentally, the irony of you complaining about us “bashing” the questioner then launching into your own criticism & insidious innuendo about the Beauty Brains motivation isn’t lost on us.
We have no agenda except to educate people. You can buy whatever product you want. Just don’t fool yourself into thinking “natural” is somehow better. There’s no evidence that it is.
-Left Brain
@Left Brain – Thanks for your reply on the reason of your anonymity.
You personally did not bash the questioner, others did. I don’t believe it’s insidious to follow a question through rather than simply dismissing it.
I know that sandalwood and rose oil have not been proved to have amazing affects, the point was hypothetically if they were, they would not be used due to market forces.
Reiterating my previous post I do not think the arbitrary class of “natural ingredients” are better or worse than the arbitrary class of “synthetic ingredients”. But likewise one should not fool oneself that synthetic is somehow better. Some are, some aren’t.