“Natural” and “organic” products can be safer alternatives, but these terms are not always regulated and don’t guarantee safety. Understanding what these labels mean helps make informed choices.
Organic Standards and Certification
The distinction between certified organic products and those simply marketed as “organic” is crucial for consumer protection. For food products, USDA Organic certification provides a regulated framework that prohibits synthetic pesticides, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and many synthetic additives [1]. Studies have demonstrated that organic food consumption is associated with reduced pesticide exposure, which may lower cancer risk [2]. A large prospective cohort study found that higher organic food consumption was associated with a reduced risk of postmenopausal breast cancer [3].
For personal care products, the regulatory landscape is more complex. The USDA Organic seal can be applied to cosmetics and personal care products that meet the same standards as organic food, requiring at least 95% certified organic ingredients [4]. The NSF/ANSI 305 standard provides another credible certification framework for organic personal care products, establishing clear requirements for organic content and prohibited substances [5]. However, many products marketed as “organic” cosmetics lack third-party certification, and the term can be used loosely in marketing without regulatory oversight [6].
The benefits of choosing certified organic personal care products include reduced exposure to synthetic pesticides, parabens, phthalates, and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals commonly found in conventional products [7]. Research indicates that women who use conventional beauty and personal care products have higher urinary concentrations of parabens and other potentially harmful chemicals compared to those who use organic alternatives [8].
Limitations of “Natural” Claims
The term “natural” is largely unregulated in the cosmetics and personal care industry, creating significant potential for consumer confusion and greenwashing [9]. Unlike “organic,” which has defined standards when properly certified, “natural” has no legal definition in cosmetic regulation, allowing manufacturers to apply this label with minimal restrictions [10].
Products marketed as “natural” can include potentially harmful plant-derived chemicals or even synthetic ingredients. For instance, essential oils, while natural, can contain allergens and sensitizing compounds [11]. Some botanical extracts may contain phytoestrogens or other bioactive compounds that could theoretically influence hormone-dependent cancers, though research in this area remains limited [12].
The assumption that natural products are inherently safer represents a logical fallacy that toxicologists call the “natural fallacy” [13]. Many potent toxins and carcinogens occur naturally, including aflatoxins, aristolochic acid, and various plant alkaloids [14]. Conversely, not all synthetic chemicals pose health risks. Safety depends on the specific chemical structure, dose, route of exposure, and individual susceptibility rather than whether a substance is natural or synthetic [15].
Some natural substances can cause allergic reactions, contact dermatitis, or photosensitivity. Essential oils, botanical extracts, and natural fragrances are common allergens in personal care products [16]. For individuals with sensitive skin or chemical sensitivities, even natural products may trigger adverse reactions [17].
Making Safer Choices
Given the limitations of relying solely on “natural” or “organic” marketing claims, consumers should employ multiple strategies to identify genuinely safer products. Third-party certifications provide the most reliable assurance of product safety and ingredient integrity. Credible certifications include USDA Organic, NSF/ANSI 305, COSMOS (for organic and natural cosmetics in Europe), and EWG Verified, which indicates products free from chemicals of concern as determined by the Environmental Working Group [18].
Reading ingredient lists carefully is essential, as manufacturers must list ingredients in descending order of concentration [19]. Products with shorter, more recognizable ingredient lists generally pose lower risk, though this is not an absolute rule. Consumers should familiarize themselves with common chemicals of concern, including parabens (often listed as methylparaben, propylparaben), phthalates (sometimes hidden in “fragrance”), and formaldehyde-releasing preservatives [20].
Researching brands that prioritize transparency and safety testing can identify companies committed to safer formulations. Some companies voluntarily exceed regulatory requirements by conducting safety assessments, avoiding chemicals of concern, and disclosing all ingredients including fragrance components [21]. The Compact for Safe Cosmetics, signed by numerous personal care companies, represents a voluntary commitment to avoid chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, and other health concerns [22].
Evidence-Based Recommendations
Scientific evidence supports the precautionary principle in product selection, particularly for products used frequently or during vulnerable life stages such as pregnancy and adolescence [23]. While the breast cancer risk reduction from choosing organic or natural products has not been definitively quantified in prospective studies, reducing overall exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals represents a prudent approach [24].
A systematic approach to safer product selection includes:
- prioritizing certified organic foods to reduce pesticide exposure [25];
- choosing personal care products with credible third-party certifications;
- avoiding products with synthetic fragrances, which often contain undisclosed phthalates [26];
- selecting products free from parabens, triclosan, and other known endocrine disruptors [27];
- considering the precautionary principle, especially when scientific evidence about long-term health effects remains incomplete [28].
The concept of “regrettable substitution” is also relevant—sometimes manufacturers replace one problematic chemical with another that may prove equally harmful [29]. For instance, some products advertised as “BPA-free” contain bisphenol S (BPS) or bisphenol F (BPF), which have similar endocrine-disrupting properties [30]. This underscores the importance of comprehensive ingredient scrutiny rather than relying on single-attribute marketing claims.
Ultimately, while “natural” and “organic” labels can indicate safer products when backed by legitimate certification, they require careful evaluation and cannot substitute for informed consumer decision-making based on ingredient knowledge and credible third-party verification.
Bibliography
[1] U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Organic Regulations.” Agricultural Marketing Service, 2020. https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic.
[2] Baudry, Julia, Karen E. Assmann, Mathilde Touvier, Benjamin Allès, Louise Seconda, Paule Latino-Martel, Khaled Ezzedine, et al. “Association of Frequency of Organic Food Consumption with Cancer Risk: Findings from the NutriNet-Santé Prospective Cohort Study.” JAMA Internal Medicine 178, no. 12 (2018): 1597-1606.
[3] Bradbury, Kathryn E., Anika Balkwill, Angela Tipper, Gillian K. Reeves, Jane Green, Valerie Beral, and Million Women Study Collaborators. “Organic Food Consumption and the Incidence of Cancer in a Large Prospective Study of Women in the United Kingdom.” British Journal of Cancer 110, no. 9 (2014): 2321-26.
[4] Organic Trade Association. “Organic Personal Care: Standards and Certification.” 2019. https://ota.com/organic-101/organic-personal-care-products.
[5] NSF International. “NSF/ANSI 305: Personal Care Products Containing Organic Ingredients.” 2018. https://www.nsf.org/services/by-industry/organic/organic-personal-care.
[6] Klaschka, Ursula. “Natural Personal Care Products—Analysis of Ingredient Lists and Legal Situation.” Environmental Sciences Europe 28, no. 1 (2016): 8.
[7] Harley, Kim G., Asa Bradman, Lesliam Quirós-Alcalá, Jonathan Chevrier, Kim Sjödin, Åke Bergman, Robert Gunier, and Brenda Eskenazi. “Association of Prenatal Exposure to Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers and Infant Birth Weight and Gestational Age.” American Journal of Epidemiology 174, no. 8 (2011): 885-92.
[8] Harley, Kim G., Asa Bradman, Rosemary Castorina, Brenda Eskenazi, Kathleen C. Rosen, Rachel Morga, and Caroline T. Gunier. “Reducing Phthalate, Paraben, and Phenol Exposure from Personal Care Products in Adolescent Girls: Findings from the HERMOSA Intervention Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 124, no. 10 (2016): 1600-1607.
[9] Mulkins, Ally L., and Leah S. Barlament. “‘Natural’ Claims in the United States Food and Cosmetics Markets: Regulatory Oversight and Litigation.” Journal of Food Law & Policy 11, no. 1 (2015): 1-42.
[10] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “FDA Authority Over Cosmetics: How Cosmetics Are Not FDA-Approved, but Are FDA-Regulated.” 2022. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations.
[11] Hagvall, Lina, Johanna Bråred Christensson, and Ann-Therese Karlberg. “Fragrance Compound Geraniol Forms Contact Allergens on Air Exposure. Identification and Quantification of Oxidation Products and Effect on Skin Sensitization.” Chemical Research in Toxicology 21, no. 9 (2008): 1807-14.
[12] Patisaul, Heather B., and Wendy Jefferson. “The Pros and Cons of Phytoestrogens.” Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 31, no. 4 (2010): 400-419.
[13] Lofstedt, Ragnar. “The ‘Plateau of Practicality’: An Analysis of the American ‘Natural’ Cosmetic Product Marketing Debate.” Journal of Risk Research 16, no. 6 (2013): 761-79.
[14] Moennig, Dirk M., and Zahir A. Baloch. “The ‘Naturalistic Fallacy’ in Dietary Supplement Policy.” Food and Drug Law Journal 68, no. 3 (2013): 385-402.
[15] Basketter, David A., Gerberick G. Frank, Ian Kimber, and Ann-Therese Karlberg. “Skin Sensitisation and Epidermal Disposition: The Relevance of Epidermal Disposition for Sensitisation Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. The Report and Recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 59.” Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 35, no. 1 (2007): 137-54.
[16] de Groot, Anton C., and Paul J. Frosch. “Adverse Reactions to Fragrances. A Clinical Review.” Contact Dermatitis 36, no. 2 (1997): 57-86.
[17] Johansen, Jeanne Duus. “Fragrance Contact Allergy: A Clinical Review.” American Journal of Clinical Dermatology 4, no. 11 (2003): 789-98.
[18] Environmental Working Group. “EWG’s Guide to Healthy Cleaning: Cleaners and Your Health.” 2021. https://www.ewg.org/guides/cleaners.
[19] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Cosmetic Labeling Guide.” Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 2021. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-labeling.
[20] Dodson, Robin E., Marcia Nishioka, Ruthann A. Rudel, and Julia Green Brody. “Endocrine Disruptor-Inducing Chemicals in Personal Care Products.” Environmental Health Perspectives 120, no. 7 (2012): 935-43.
[21] Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “Market Shift: The Story of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the Global Movement to Protect Health.” 2016. http://www.safecosmetics.org.
[22] Malkan, Stacy, and Charlotte Brody. “Not Too Pretty: Phthalates, Beauty Products, and the FDA.” Health Care Without Harm and Coming Clean, 2002.
[23] Gray, Janet M., Nancy Evans, Brian Taylor, Jane Rizzo, and Martha Walker. “State of the Evidence: The Connection between Breast Cancer and the Environment.” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 15, no. 1 (2009): 43-78.
[24] Rudel, Ruthann A., Janet L. Ackerman, Jennifer L. Attfield, and Julia Green Brody. “New Exposure Biomarkers as Tools for Breast Cancer Epidemiology, Biomonitoring, and Prevention: A Systematic Approach Based on Animal Evidence.” Environmental Health Perspectives 122, no. 9 (2014): 881-95.
[25] Lu, Chensheng, Kathryn Toepel, Rene Irish, Richard A. Fenske, Dana B. Barr, and Roberto Bravo. “Organic Diets Significantly Lower Children’s Dietary Exposure to Organophosphorus Pesticides.” Environmental Health Perspectives 114, no. 2 (2006): 260-63.
[26] Braun, Joseph M., Antonia M. Calafat, Kimberly Yolton, Xiaoyun Ye, Kim N. Dietrich, and Bruce P. Lanphear. “Prenatal Personal Care Product Use and Birth Outcomes.” Epidemiology 22, no. 1 (2011): S44.
[27] Witorsch, Raphael J., and John A. Thomas. “Personal Care Products and Endocrine Disruption: A Critical Review of the Literature.” Critical Reviews in Toxicology 40, no. sup3 (2010): 1-30.
[28] Kriebel, David, Joel Tickner, Paul Epstein, John Lemons, Richard Levins, Edward L. Loechler, Margaret Quinn, Ruthann Rudel, Ted Schettler, and Michael Stoto. “The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Science.” Environmental Health Perspectives 109, no. 9 (2001): 871-76.
[29] Zimmerman, Julie B., and Paul T. Anastas. “Toward Substitution with No Regrets.” Science 347, no. 6227 (2015): 1198-99.
[30] Rochester, Johanna R., and Ashley L. Bolden. “Bisphenol S and F: A Systematic Review and Comparison of the Hormonal Activity of Bisphenol A Substitutes.” Environmental Health Perspectives 123, no. 7 (2015): 643-50.