This was a three day conference, with an excellent and varied programme of lectures, fast-paced and very intensive. The conference opened unofficially on the Sunday evening, with an informal series of talks presented “cabaret-style”, while delegates could obtain refreshments and even meals from the bar. But this was “extra” – the main conference started on the Monday morning and for the next two days we were treated to a comprehensive programme – there were even unscheduled extra talks during the lunch break! A table-top exhibition outside the auditorium and dinner in the evening made for a packed three days. Here are some highlights/comments:

Dr. Karl Lintner, discussing various definitions of the word “natural”, pointed out that consumers have this perception that the opposite of natural, contains “chemicals”, and chemicals are seen as being “man-made” when in fact everything in nature is a mixture of chemicals too!

Dene Godfrey, while talking about the history surrounding the more recent developments in the media /awareness of the alleged effects of using parabens:

“A brown substance makes contact with air dispersion apparatus worldwide!”

With reference to this talk on parabens, the Chairman commented the following:
In 2000BC, the world population was approx 50 million people.
In the year 1900, this had expanded to approx 1 billion people.
In the year 2000, this had become approx 6 billion people.

Therefore, it can be argued that an ingredient invented 100 years ago has had as much testing/exposure as the ancient natural ingredients (which are generally regarded as being “more safe” because they have been used for millennia).

The President of the SCS, Chris Nichols, during his pre-dinner speech, tried to define what it was we were doing, by giving us the following dictionary definitions:
Conference – a gathering to discuss a common or particular topic;
Symposium – derived from a Greek word, it means “drinking party”!
Congress – a sexual act
He said well we have had the Conference, we are now going to have the Symposium, but we are to avoid having a Congress!

While some of the presentations were relating to cosmetic raw materials, they were still of interest, even if not related directly to us. However, Michael Harmsworth made some particularly relevant comments during his presentation: The Consumer’s Expectation of Natural.

How do we communicate to the consumers that ONE product is MORE natural than another? Confusion creates an opportunity for LESS natural products – they can make claims without substantiation.

Michael also pointed out that a natural fragrance is likely to contain some of the 26 allergens, whereas a synthetic fragrance can be made allergen-free (however, the editor would like to point out that is only free of those 26 – whereas there are of course other potential allergens on our shelves that it could contain, that just are not on the list!)

Dr. Paul Wilkes gave an excellent presentation on the Legal Aspects of using Natural Ingredients. He says there has been a change in how the INCI name will be defined on labels. A natural extract must now include the plant part from where it has been extracted (e.g. leaf, bark, flower, seed etc), and a word defining the type of preparation (e.g. extract, oil, powder etc.)

There followed a disturbing talk from Dr. Cuross Bakhtiar, as it seems there is another piece of legislation that our customers (as manufacturers of end products) need to comply with. This is the E.C. Directive on Herbal/Medicinal Preparations. Tony Dweck asked the question, but we still could not seem to get to the bottom of this debate – surely this does not apply to a cosmetic, which merely may contain an extract, say for instance, Arnica extract or even Lavender oil, as long as the cosmetic is not making any medicinal claims. But Dr. Bakhtiar seemed to imply that the legislation DOES apply, and the extracts have to be “registered” according to their intended use. Apparently even herbal teas are included! However, the legislation does require an agency to investigate products suspected of non-compliance – and that has to be brought to the agency’s attention. The legislation seems to have arisen out of different European countries having different definitions for the same ingredient – take Gingko biloba, it can be classed as a food, a drug, or a health food in three different countries.

Tony Dweck gave an interesting presentation on natural preservatives, but what was really interesting was the use of perfumery oils as preservatives, for their anti-microbial properties – including myrrh (contains benzyl alcohol and benzoic acid), grapefruit, tea tree oils, and ingredients derived from aniseed, thyme and cassia, the preservative activity coming from anisic acid (4-methoxy benzoic acid), thymol and cinnamaldehyde. These have the advantage that they can be listed as “parfum”. The following components of cajuput, for example, have been found to be active against E.coli: alpha, beta and gamma terpinene, terpineol and cineole (eucalyptol).

A number of presentations on ingredients that may help to reduce fat/cellulite was followed by Dr. Karl Lintner’s second talk which consisted of lipofilling ingredients. I had the ironic thought that some products are targeted to reduce fat from some areas whereas others are intended (and research shows they do) to increase volume of fatty cells in other areas of the body, in the quest for the perfect shape! These ingredients work by increasing fat storage in adipocytes, cells in the skin that can absorb up to 60 times their original size in oil, and does not involve hormonal activity. The same technology can be used to plump up wrinkles.

I attended this conference believing the message would be totally pro-100% natural cosmetics – this, after all, was the name of the conference. While a great number of no doubt effective ingredients and novel ideas were presented, the overall message was in fact one of caution – we, as producers and manufacturers, must question WHY we want to market a 100% natural product, and if we must do so, we must beware of compromising quality and performance, the products must still meet consumers’ expectations, and we must bear in mind that we could be reducing our creativity to invent new products and reducing our palette of available raw materials. We must be careful we do not back ourselves into a corner in years to come, and regret the 100% natural approach. The limitations of 100% natural were discussed, use of organic ingredients and creation of organic products and labelling were touched upon, the various organic standards were explained, and I heard so many (different) definitions of what is natural and what is not! All in all, an excellent conference and an informative three days.

This event was organised by The Society of Cosmetics Scientists.

Julie Towle

Return to BSP Online News

This report is the writer's interpretation of the event. It is not intended as a verbatim account and should not be read as such.