Why natural products are not always better than synthetics

At her organic wildflower plantation south of Edinburgh, Scotland, Sally Gouldstone harvests native botanicals such as nettle, millet and wild carrot to make her Seilich-branded “seed-to-skin” personal care products.

Gouldstone has a PhD in nature conservation and knows that he needs to leave most of his produce in the field so that bees and other pollinators can also make use of it. The portion she harvests is transferred to a traditional copper still, to produce essential oils with cold processing methods.

But Gouldstone wasn’t satisfied with just telling her customers that everything she produced was “natural” and “sustainable.” These words seem to be everywhere – and with no evidence to back them up, she felt they could be misused.

Seilich is the first UK company certified by the Wildlife Friendly Enterprise Network, which means the brand meets species-specific conservation objectives.

Each company’s certified objective is slightly different, depending on the main species in your region. In the case of Seilich, its certification requires the brand to protect native species of wildflowers for bumblebees, solitary bees, honeybees, flower flies, butterflies, moths and beetles.

The Wildlife Friendly Enterprise Network helps conserve more than 13 million hectares (130,000 km2) of habitat around the world, according to Christine Lippai, executive director of the nonprofit organization. She says certification is the best way to eliminate greenwashing in the natural skin care industry by avoiding harvesting ingredients in ways that could deplete the wild.

“Nature is often used to sell products in the skin care and wellness industry, but sometimes companies are simply exploiting nature for their commercial benefit,” says Gouldstone.

“In the case of naturally grown ingredients, these systems can provide positive ecosystem services like protecting biodiversity, sequestering carbon, filtering water, etc. – but when it comes time to harvest those benefits are completely lost. , for example, is released when the ground is turned over and wildlife habitat is destroyed before the creatures that depend on it have a chance to complete their life cycle.”

“But with a few tweaks, these systems can provide long-term benefits,” she says.

The natural versus the synthetic

In supermarkets and major online retail channels, far beyond the flowery areas of Seilich, there is an alarming number of ambiguous messages and conflicting claims that add to consumer confusion.

If you want to do your bit for biodiversity and the climate, is it better to buy natural products – with credentials that may or may not be questionable – or factory-made synthetics? The answer to this question is not as simple as it may seem.

Chemicals that harm human health or the environment can be found in everyday household products, ranging from cleaning sprays and food packaging to furniture and kitchen appliances. Some of these substances end up inside our bodies or remain in the soil, water and air around us for decades – sometimes even longer.

Some ingredients found in nature can have powerful effects on our bodies. Botanical products like tea tree oil, eucalyptus and rosemary can create allergic reactions or skin irritation and people can have varying degrees of sensitivity. Therefore, natural products are not necessarily free of harmful substances and synthetics are not always the worst for us.

Sometimes it can be difficult to know which products are natural and which are synthetic. A single product may contain a mixture of synthetic and natural components, while some substances are processed to mimic naturally occurring ones.

The way a product is extracted and processed defines how natural it is. Ingredients can be extracted from plants, minerals, marine or animal resources, or synthetically derived from fossil fuels. And then there is a whole spectrum of transformation processes.

Our instinct can make us think that ingredients of natural origin must be better for the environment than synthetic, manufactured in the laboratory. But is it really true?

The issue is also ethical.

Organic or regenerative farming practices used to grow natural ingredients can protect biodiversity and improve soil health, but depending on how, when and where something is harvested, they could also increase emissions of some greenhouse gases.

Manufacturers of synthetic laboratory products often argue that their methods do not deplete the planet’s resources and that they are capable of producing substances on a larger and more commercially viable scale, without the limitations of scarce natural ingredients.

In some cases, extracting natural ingredients is not feasible or ethical. One example is the use of horseshoe crabs as a source of Limulus amoebocyte lysate (an important compound used for blood tests), which has been criticized by activists – and a chemically identical alternative, but synthetic in origin, is being developed.

Squalane – a natural oil found in the liver of sharks – is used to make cosmetics and personal care products such as deodorants, sunscreens and skin care products. Another shark oil, called squalene, is used as an adjuvant to increase the effectiveness of some vaccines.

The extraction of these two ingredients threatens the shark population. Alternatives have been extracted from olive oil, but the availability and price of the raw material fluctuates according to harvests, which depend on weather conditions.

But now there is another solution. Scientists at a biotechnology company called Amyris in California, USA, have developed synthetic pharmaceutical-grade equivalents made from ethically sourced sugar cane, certified by the BonSucro organization.

Squalane is “nature’s best humectant,” according to Mike Rytokoski, president of access to technology at Amyris, which already produces more than half of the squalane consumed in beauty products worldwide.

The production of synthetic squalane with a fermentation process guarantees greater purity, longer shelf life and more stable prices, compared to extracting from sharks or olive trees.

“The latest advances in biotechnology allow us to meet the growing demand for clean and sustainable ingredients, without depleting scarce natural resources, but by creating bio-identical ingredients with clean chemistry,” says Rytokoski. He expects green biotechnology to transform the beauty industry over the next decade.

“The most powerful impetus for this transition [para soluções de química mais verde] it’s the consumer,” he says. “Consumers today are looking for products made with ingredients that are safer, more sustainable and ethically sourced, without sacrificing performance.”

Another case in point is Indian sandalwood, whose fragrance is used in beauty products. Each sandalwood tree takes 30 years to reach maturity. Only then can its essential oil be harvested and overexploitation puts this plant at risk of extinction.

Amyris has created a bio-identical and cheaper sandalwood molecule in the laboratory from sugar cane, which is available in huge quantities, using fermentation technology.

Seeking sustainable sources

Most synthetic substances are produced at scale using fossil fuels, using energy-intensive processes and generating toxic emissions and hazardous waste. The chemical industry is the productive sector that consumes the most energy in the world, resulting in huge emissions of greenhouse gases, which amplify the climate crisis.

Petrochemicals are used to make everything from packaging and clothing to detergents and fertilizers. Plastic is also made with petrochemicals and 98% of single-use plastics are made with fossil fuels.

Green chemist Richard Blackburn produces a range of cosmetics, hair and skin care products for his Dr. Craft, with an untapped resource: food scraps. Products are created through a toxin-free, energy-efficient extraction process.

In his laboratory at the University of Leeds in England, Blackburn – who is a professor of sustainable materials – creates hygiene products made from tangerines, using the dried rind of the Chinese’s favorite fruit; body care products made with grape skin extracts; or hair dyes made with cassis husks – waste from the British beverage manufacturer Ribena.

But Blackburn explains that natural is not necessarily better: “Dedicating large tracts of land to growing products for cosmetics is a terrible idea – we should be feeding the world first. But while we produce food, there are great resources. The point is to look for sustainable sources and interesting chemical processes that reliably demonstrate an activity that can be used in a material.”

Blackburn points out that many people can be confused by the chemical terms, but they shouldn’t worry about it. “Nature does chemistry all the time. Instead of being scared of chemistry, people should be scared of life cycle issues as a whole.”

In the case of tangerines, for example, 10 million tons of rinds are incinerated per year. The processes employed by Blackburn make the residual bark biodegradable, and everyone benefits from it.

Every formulation represents a balance between price, effectiveness, aesthetics, performance and ethics. On this scale, the environment usually loses out.

“If your innovative ingredient has a great sustainability record, don’t let the rest of the product be the same rubbish we’ve been using forever,” explains Blackburn, who designs his entire product line with this issue in mind.

Quality control is also a priority in terms of safety. Craft’s team examines all extractions in great detail, using first-rate chemical analysis.

“When we extract an ingredient from the peel of a tangerine, for example, we know how much of it we get in the extract, but we don’t want to inadvertently concentrate another naturally occurring substance that could cause problems at the same time,” says Blackburn.

“That’s why we test to make sure we’re not including anything we don’t want. We’re combining world-class clinical expertise and facilities with sustainability principles in a cosmetics lab,” he explains.

The search for balance and positive impacts

By eliminating waste, finding regenerative solutions and developing sustainable alternatives, pioneers like Gouldstone, Rytokoski and Blackburn are leading the way towards a more circular economy based on chemical ingredients that are good for us and the environment.

Back in Scotland, Gouldstone explains that for decades the consumer narrative has focused on negative human impacts. She insists that we can have positive and regenerative impacts.

“Seilich shows that this is possible,” she says. “As the plants we grow are native, they grow easily. Their cultivation really uses few inputs and can be fully applied at scale.”

Gouldstone adds that the debate between natural and synthetic ingredients ultimately depends on finding the balance between human health and the health of the environment.

“They’re not the same thing. What’s best for us is not always best for the planet. We need to start thinking about the environmental footprints of each ingredient at a deeper level,” he explains.

*Anna Turns is an environmental journalist and author of the book “Get Rid of Toxics: Easy and Sustainable Ways to Reduce Chemical Pollution” (in free translation).

Read the original version of this report (in English) on the BBC Future website.