Good Articles

SINGAPORE: The market for natural and organic cosmetics has grown in leaps and bounds in recent years, helped by the swelling ranks of "green" consumers who are ready to pay a premium for environmentally friendly goods.

Or, at least, goods that they perceive to be environmentally friendly: growth in this niche market has been driven by consumer concerns "over the perceived harmful effects of man-made chemicals rather than a desire to support the organic farming industry," said Eleni Grammenou, an analyst who follows over-the-counter health care at Euromonitor International, a global research firm.

With "green living" becoming an increasingly hot issue, makers of products are pushing natural and ethical claims as a way to differentiate their goods, said Nica Lewis, head of cosmetic research at Mintel, which tracks product releases on a global database. Mintel says that the number of organic claims made on new products grew 273 percent from 2005 to 2007, while claims to be "all natural" grew 71 percent.

Large retailers, like Wal-Mart Stores in the United States, or Tesco in Britain, have all started their own lines branded as natural and organic, competing with established cosmetic brands like Estée Lauder and Kiehl's. Consumers can buy almost any toiletry in an organic form, from body scrub and face cleanser to lip balm and shampoo.
According to the British consulting firm Organic Monitor, the natural cosmetics market grew by $1 billion last year, to about $7 billion worldwide. It forecasts that market revenues will pass $10 billion before 2010. While this is a tiny fraction of the total cosmetics market, natural cosmetics could reach a market share of near 10 percent in some countries, including Germany and the United States, it said.

Yet the labeling of "organic and natural" cosmetics is virtually unregulated by governments, leaving consumers to rely on industry self-regulation. Some companies have adopted private certification rules developed by groups like the French organic certifier Ecocert, the Soil Association in Britain and the recently established Oasis, or Organic and Sustainable Industry Standards, in the United States.

Oasis, a U.S. trade association formed in March by a group of large beauty-product manufacturers, including Estée Lauder and L'Oréal, has set a permissive standard for its members that allows "organic" labeling on products containing a minimum of 85 percent of organic ingredients - a percentage that will be raised to 95 percent in four years.
One brand, Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap, has already adopted that tighter definition for its nonsoap body care products, modeling itself on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's norm for organic agricultural products, which requires 95 percent of ingredients to be organic for a food product to be labeled as such.

What constitutes "organic," however, is a contentious issue. Several U.S. lawsuits are testing the green credentials of various beauty and personal care products, highlighting the lack of stringent across-the-board certification in one of the fastest-growing segments of the cosmetics industry.

All One God Faith, the Californian company that does business as Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, filed suit in April in the San Francisco Superior Court, with the U.S. Organic Consumers Association as a party, against various competitors for making what it said were misleading organic labeling claims. The suit alleged that products labeled as organic were actually made with ingredients derived from conventional agriculture or petrochemicals. The defendants included, among others, Nature's Gate, Kiss My Face, Avalon Organics and Care by Stella McCartney, as well as the certification bodies Ecocert and Oasis.

David Bronner, president of the soap company, said in an e-mail message last month that one defendant, Florestas - maker of Ikove brand products based on Brazilian rainforest plants - had settled and agreed to change its labels and formulas as of Jan. 31 next year.

The suit by Bronner's company has raised questions about the percentage of organic ingredients required for "organic" labeling of beauty products, and the permissibility of petrochemical and synthetic preservative ingredients.
"Our lawsuit has a few dimensions," Bronner said. The core bar and liquid soap business falls within the USDA "made with organic" category, while his company has introduced a lot of new lotions, balms, shaving gels and such within the USDA "organic" realm, he said.

"'Made with organic' means no hydrogenation, sulfation or synthetic preservation of ingredients are allowed, nor are any petrochemicals allowed, and 70 percent organic content is required," he said. "'Organic' means the same except 95 percent organic content is required and products may display the USDA seal."
Hydrogenation is an industrial chemical process used to solidify some organic liquids, while sulfation is used to convert them into soaps or cleansing products.

While some synthetic preservatives and industrial processing might be permissible under "made with organic" labeling, "the outright 'organic' space is the gold standard, where fundamental organic consumer expectations have to be respected - meaning no synthetic preservatives, or processes like hydrogenation or sulfation of ingredients," Bronner said.

The issue of correct labeling is also at the heart of a lawsuit filed in late May by the Attorney General's Office in California against five companies, including Whole Foods Market, for allegedly selling natural body care and household cleaning products that contained high levels of 1,4-dioxane - a chemical known to cause cancer in animals - while failing to warn consumers.

"We believe the USDA Organic Standards, which is a government regulated standard for organics, should be applied to cosmetics," said Craig Minowa, an environmental scientist at the Organic Consumers Association. "Organic is organic, no matter whether you are talking about food, cosmetics, cleaners etc. There should not be separate standards for different types of products. Either it's organic, or it's not."
According to Bronner, there is a growing concern that inadequate regulation of the personal care industry "is going to destroy consumer confidence in the integrity of the organic program, which is essentially a 'truth in advertising' labeling program."

That concern is taking on added urgency as manufacturers increasingly blur the boundaries between beauty products and foods. Collagen-filled marshmallows, skin-rejuvenating jelly bears, skin-purifying tea and anti-aging melon and mango jam, are just a few of the beauty products that have migrated into the food and drink aisles of supermarkets and health food stores.

"Nutricosmetics" - ingestible products formulated as pills, liquids or foods and marketed specifically for beauty purposes - are the latest segment of the "nutraceuticals" market. First promoted in the 1990s, nutraceuticals claim to offer foods and beverages with medicinal or health benefits, like spreads that lower cholesterol or yogurts enriched with calcium.

The importance of nutrition to health and appearance has become increasingly appreciated by consumers, noted a recent report by Alexander Kirillov, head of global cosmetics and toiletries research for Euromonitor International.

Carrie Mellage, director of consumer products at Kline, a market research firm based in Little Falls, New Jersey, estimates that the nutricosmetics market was worth an estimated $1.5 billion last year. With annual growth of 11 percent to 12 percent, it could reach $2.5 billion by 2012, Mellage said.

Yet there is scant evidence that nutricosmetics are truly healthier, more effective, or more environmentally friendly than other beauty products; and despite an initially receptive market, there are signs of consumer skepticism.
When Eiwa, a Japanese confectioner, introduced collagen-filled marshmallows to British consumers in 2006, the candies, said to fight aging and cholesterol, failed to sell.