Organic in the Personal Care Aisle

Posted - January 12, 2009

A Pretty Controversy

By Adrian Larose

A new European “organic” cosmetics standard has reignited debate over what it should take to be labeled organic in the personal care aisle, and who should be involved in making those decisions. The Cosmos (Cosmetic Organic) Standard is being developed by seven major European organizations, including EcoCert, BDIH and the Soil Association.

Certifiers, manufacturers, and industry organizations have all come under fire regarding how similar or different from organic food regulations organic personal care (including cosmetics and hygiene) products should be. Some argue what consumers put on their skin and give their children should be as healthy and natural as anything they eat, while others argue the non-organic – for now – necessity of certain large-scale chemical processes and ingredients.

Consumers already face a formidable array of various certified organic, made with organic, and natural claims as they purchase healthier ways to care for themselves. Between big names like the Soil Association and EcoCert, industry alliances such as Cosmos (in Europe) and Oasis (in North America), and various “natural” standards, there is no one acknowledged central player.

The USDA’s NOP food standard could be applied to personal care, perhaps with minor changes, many in the industry have suggested. “My company, Organic Essence, only makes USDA 95% to 100%- certified organic,” said Ellery West, president of Organic Essence. “Many large, established concerns claim that most body care products cannot be made to USDA made with standards, not to mention certified organic standards. They are wrong.”

“They have a tremendous investment in their current business models, and their branding strategies are well set,” West argues. “It is much more cost-effective to make your brand look natural, and advertise it as such, then to actually make a genuine organic product.” Her firm has just created biodegradable packaging for its lip balm and shea butters, green products in many senses of the word.

Not all standards are created equal. The Organic Consumers Association, a US consumer advocates group, gave the US NOP food standard 5 stars (when applied to bodycare), the Oasis US industry-led standard 0.5 stars, the Soil Association 3, US NSF standard 3.5, “natural” standard Natrue 0.5, and EcoCert zero.

“Consumers automatically assume that the entire product is organic and that the product itself is certified organic,” Michelle Thomas, owner of US wholesale distributor KISO Organics, said of organic labelling in personal care. “This is very rarely the case.” While a USDA NOP product (whether food or personal care) must have 95% organic ingredients and meet other requirements to feature an organic label, and at least 70% organic ingredients to have a made with organic label, standards such as Cosmos could allow firms to apply “organic” labels with organic content of as low as 20%.

Labels that use large-print, simple “organic” wording without being clear about the percentages are one hot-button issue. Being the big name star, EcoCert is pointed at as not being clear with consumers about what the word “organic” means on its diverse labels; just to look at the list of approved raw materials on its website requires a password given only to organizations that register with EcoCert.

“Personally, I will only use products that are certified organic to food grade standards,” said Thomas. Others argue such standards eliminate too many reasonable options.

Supply-chain issues do exist, West said. For instance, David Bronner of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, generally very supportive of stringent, food-safe standards, highlighted a complex manufacturing process that turns oils into key cosmetic ingredients. “The operations that do this are very capital-intensive, huge-volume operations, and impossible to get a small dedicated batch run with certified organic oil exclusively within any reasonable cost-efficiency structure,” he said, his firm having researched the topic. Organic operations do not yet consume enough of the end ingredient, he suggested, to finance an organic run-through in such a processing plant.

Still, allowing these difficult ingredients to “sunset” by permitting use for several years until the organic supply chain improves is not frank with consumers, West said. “Though well meaning, these new standards will not give health conscious consumers what they want other than confusion as to what ‘organic’ really means.”

Even water is a problem. Standards approach it differently. The USDA NOP considers it neutral – neither organic nor non-organic. If a product is, say, 70% water (as plenty of personal care items are), only the remaining 30% is considered. “Organic consumers know that the non-organic content cannot be more than 5% by non-water product weight,” Bronner said of certified organic NOP personal care.

The Cosmos standard requires 20% organic content. It counts water as non-organic, seemingly justifying this low percentage. Yet, Bonner said, “there is no implicit and accurate disclosure of non-organic non-water content” – which might constitute up to 80% of the product.

Large organizations are already taking sides. Cosmos members account for more than 1,000 certified companies and 11,000 products in about 40 countries. Firms like Clorox, a large US conventional firm, are buying up “natural” consumer-oriented companies such as Burt’s Bees, a purchase Clorox made in 2008.

Some small entrepreneurs see their own position as an advantage, though. “Small, nimble firms can innovate circles around the established behemoths. Size and scale can get in the way of innovation,” West said. Little firms have the flexibility to create genuinely organic product and standards.

And innovation is just what is needed to help gradually develop a uniform, accepted standard as to what “organic” will mean when a consumer wanders out of the produce section and into the personal care aisle.