Montserrat Pedro

Cosmetic myths under debate (VII): is it the end of toxic free?

Science media manager for cosmetics companies
23 of February of 2024
Save

A few days ago, a pioneering toxic free brand published a video on social networks. In it they defended this claim and claimed to have banned 9000 toxic substances in their cosmetic products (not one more, not one less...).

What happened? Well, it seems that this message did not resonate with the majority of users. They decided to give their opinion. A beautiful chant, almost in unison, that said that the only thing toxic there was the video itself.

And what conclusions do I draw from this? Well, that things are changing and that the history of this type of claim is a (TOXIC) chronicle of a death foretold.

I will never tire of saying that lies have very short legs, and that it is very important to ALWAYS communicate truthfully, contextualise information and encourage critical thinking. And not only that, it must be emphasised that science advances and the EU with it. That it is not a watertight process, that there are things that we would like to go faster? Who wouldn't? (I want to be a millionaire NOW!).

So, remember, all of us in the cosmetics industry must strive to convey the right information to consumers. EVERYONE, not just the brands. This is a chain! And look, to start with, I propose these 5 arguments to disMOUNT toxic free, but I'm sure we can think of more. Tell me, will you stay until the end and add the sixth? Come on!

  1. Cosmetics are non-toxic. That is why we have regulation 1223/2009, which is ensuring consumer safety and which, whenever necessary, is updated. Can anyone deny this after such a busy 2023 of regulatory changes? I insist, science is moving forward and the EU with it.
  2. If I'm being picky, every substance has toxicity, and if it has toxicity, then at that concentration it is toxic. Even water, so it seems to me that they can't manufacture with anything. And that shows you how easy it is to extrapolate information. If I just say that water has toxicity, you might panic. But if I put it in context and tell you that you would have to ingest litres and litres (and more litres) of it to kill you, it doesn't seem so toxic, does it?
  3. Continuing with contextualising, I think it is important to understand that a cosmetic is a set of ingredients and that this is how it should be evaluated. The concentration of the ingredients, their use, the frequency of application, etc., are factors to be taken into account. Because I INSIST: it is not just about one ingredient! With toxic free, they insist on making people believe that regulated and safe ingredients are BAD, and the reasons are always varied and out of context. Why, if they claim that parabens cause cancer, do they not say the same about tea tree oil and rose oil (for example)? These oils contain naturally occurring methyl eugenol, a DECLARED carcinogen. And for that reason, it is not right to change the bar of measurement according to what is of interest. Again, have you seen how easily information can be manipulated? Inciso, neither parabens are bad (the allowed ones), nor essential oils are a demon that smells good.
  4. We read studies that point to cosmetic products as the bad guys in the film and the culprits of the fact that in our organism, we have almost everything, except what we should have. A whole article could be written about this, but I think the most important thing to emphasise is: the route of exposure also MATTERS, because ingesting or breathing is not the same as skin contact. To point the finger of accusation unequivocally at cosmetics, without demonstrating the real origin of these substances, when, I INSIST, the route of exposure matters a lot, is unethical. When something is suspected, it is studied, and if it is proven that there is a risk, it is restricted or prohibited. Because science moves forward.
  5. Finally, although I could go on, I will say it out loud. I don't give a MONKEY of cucumbers, this claim is prohibited by regulations 1223/2009 and 655/2013!

Well, I've said it! In short, the only way to put an end to this is to COMMUNICATE WELL. And as you know, it is in your hands (and mine) to do so, and to put an end to dishonest marketing.

Let's say goodbye to chemiphobia, infoxication and let's relegate all these malpractices to oblivion. So, revolutionise the truth and join MONesto marketing!

Now tell me, can you think of a sixth argument against toxic free? Answer me, I'd love to read it.

About the author
Montserrat Pedro

Montserrat Pedro Ràfols

Science media manager for cosmetics companies

Science media manager for cosmetics companies, which are committed to differentiating, effective and above all truthful communication.  My objective? To revolutionise marketing in the cosmetics sector with my own formula: MONesto Marketing. A unique recipe that combines enthusiasm, sincerity and the simplicity of complex things, with all the scientific-technical knowledge acquired in my professional career as head of R&D and chemistry. Find out more about her on her website: moncm.es  
See all author's articles