Natural Doesn’t Mean Anything Goes: Why I Welcome Better Rules in Skincare

There has been an awful lot of chatter recently in the skincare and soapmaking world about regulations.

And, to be fair, there is quite a lot going on.

In the EU, rules around fragrance-allergen labelling have been expanded, meaning consumers will increasingly see more individual fragrance ingredients identified on cosmetic labels. New European rules tackling vague or misleading environmental claims have also just begun to apply.

Here in the UK, the Competition and Markets Authority has issued further guidance this year about green claims and the responsibility businesses have for being able to substantiate what they say.

Not every EU rule applies in exactly the same way to a small business here in Great Britain, particularly post-Brexit.

But I think the direction of travel is really interesting.

More transparency. Better evidence. Clearer claims.

And my reaction isn’t:

OMG. More regulations.

Mine is actually much closer to:

Good.

Perhaps that’s because of my background. I’ve spent a lot of my working life around regulations of one sort or another, nearly 40 years, so I’m probably less frightened of them than some people are.

But when you strip away all the paperwork and technical language, there’s a very simple principle underneath much of it:

If you’re going to tell somebody that a product does something, you should be able to back that up.

That’s actually already a fundamental part of cosmetic regulation in Great Britain. Cosmetic claims are expected to be truthful, honest, fair and supported by appropriate evidence.

And when people are putting those products onto their skin, I don’t think that’s an unreasonable expectation at all.

Natural doesn’t automatically mean safe

Obviously, I make natural skincare.

I love beautiful plant oils, butters, essential oils and all the wonderful ingredients we can work with.

But I’ve never subscribed to the idea that because something is natural it must automatically be good for you.

For goodness’ sake, mercury is natural.

I certainly wouldn’t suggest rubbing that on your face. 😂

And equally, something being made in a laboratory doesn’t automatically make it sinister or dangerous.

It’s much more nuanced than that.

What matters is what an ingredient is, how much of it you’re using, how it’s being used, how it behaves within a formulation and what we actually know about it.

It isn’t quite as catchy as some of the marketing we see, but it is considerably more sensible.

And I think we need a little more sensible

The beauty industry has always been very good at selling dreams.

Youth.

Radiance.

Transformation.

Turning back time.

Apparently we’re all supposed to be desperately trying to look 25 forever.

For fuck’s sake. I’m 64. I don’t want to be 25 again.

I quite liked 25 at the time, but I’ve learnt an awful lot since then. 😂

My skin has changed.

Of course it has.

So has the rest of me.

And there are things about getting older that I genuinely wouldn’t swap: the confidence, the experience, knowing myself better and caring considerably less about things that really aren’t important.

That’s why I’ve become increasingly uncomfortable with some of the language traditionally used around ageing and skincare.

I don’t particularly want to tell another woman that her face needs fixing.

Because it doesn’t.

What I can do is make products designed to help skin feel comfortable, moisturised, nourished and cared for as it changes.

That feels very different to me.

So yes, you might notice some changes on my website

Not necessarily changes to the products themselves.

More likely changes to the way I describe them.

I’m constantly learning, reading and keeping up with what is happening within the industry.

And that includes looking again at some of my own language.

Could I substantiate that claim?

Is that description genuinely helpful?

Am I describing what the finished product can reasonably do, rather than borrowing an impressive-sounding property from one ingredient?

Is a word like sustainable actually specific enough to mean anything?

Those are good questions for any business to ask.

And if better evidence comes along or standards change, then I think businesses should be prepared to change too.

That isn’t something I find embarrassing.

Quite the opposite.

I’d be far more concerned if I were still saying exactly the same things I was saying ten or twenty years ago despite everything we’ve learnt since.

Science moves on.

Our understanding moves on.

And good businesses should move on too.

The same goes for environmental claims

This is another area I’m pleased to see receiving more scrutiny.

Words like green, eco-friendly, sustainable and planet-friendly get used everywhere now.

And sometimes I find myself thinking:

But what does that actually mean?

The UK Green Claims Code already says environmental claims should be truthful, clear, meaningful and capable of being substantiated. The CMA added further guidance for businesses this year, and Europe is moving further in the same direction by restricting some vague environmental claims.

I think that’s a good thing.

Because sustainability isn’t simple.

Glass might look beautifully sustainable, but it’s heavier to transport.

A lovely natural ingredient can still have an environmental footprint.

Packaging has to be manufactured somewhere.

Something being recyclable doesn’t necessarily mean that it will actually be recycled.

There are always trade-offs.

So I’d rather tell you what I’m actually doing, why I’ve made a particular choice and perhaps even where I know I could do better.

That feels much more honest than putting a green leaf on something and declaring the job done.

And then we come to midlife…

This is where I think things become particularly interesting.

Because midlife women have become a very big market.

Skincare.

Supplements.

Powders.

Drinks.

Gummies.

Creams.

Hormone-support products.

Sleep products.

Products for energy, hair, skin, brain fog, joints, weight, mood…

Bloody hell, if there is a part of a menopausal woman that can apparently be improved, somebody somewhere seems to have put it in a packet. 😂

And some of those products may be genuinely useful.

I’m certainly not against taking something that helps you or using something simply because it makes you feel lovely.

Actually, I think feeling lovely is a perfectly good reason to buy something.

A beautiful candle doesn’t need to cure anything.

A lovely face oil doesn’t need to turn back time.

Sometimes pleasure, ritual and feeling good in your own skin are enough.

But that’s different from making a claim.

Once we’re being told that something is going to improve our health or relieve symptoms, I think we’re entitled to ask a few questions.

What’s actually in it?

Is there any decent evidence?

Is there enough of the ingredient in the product to realistically do anything?

And perhaps most importantly…

Am I paying for something useful, or am I paying extra because somebody has written “menopause” on the front of the box?

That’s something I want to explore much more.

Because women going through perimenopause and menopause can be tired, uncomfortable, confused and sometimes desperate for something that will make them feel better.

That makes us a wonderful market.

It also means I think businesses have a responsibility not to take advantage of that.

Evidence doesn’t have to take the joy out of things

And I think this is the bit that sometimes gets lost.

Being evidence-based doesn’t mean everything has to become terribly serious.

It doesn’t mean we can’t love beautiful fragrances, gorgeous textures, pretty packaging or the little rituals that make us feel good.

I certainly do.

It simply means being clear about the difference between:

“I love this. It makes my skin feel wonderful.”

and

“This has been scientifically proven to change your skin.”

Those are two completely different statements.

And I’m quite happy with the first one.

So where does that leave Ita’s Natural Essentials?

Probably not somewhere dramatically different.

I’ll still be making soap.

I’ll still get ridiculously excited when a new fragrance combination works.

I’ll still spend far too long thinking about oils, butters, packaging and formulations.

And, judging by recent events, there will apparently now be rather a lot of candles too. 😂

But I will continue looking carefully at the products I make and at the words I use to describe them.

If I make a claim, I want to be comfortable that I can support it.

I won’t use natural as though it automatically means safe.

I won’t pretend sustainability is simple.

And I’m certainly not going to tell women that getting older is some terrible condition that needs fixing.

If better evidence comes along tomorrow and shows me that something I believed today isn’t quite right?

Then I’ll change my mind.

Surely that’s the whole point of learning.

And perhaps that’s why I don’t see this greater scrutiny of ingredients, labels and claims as particularly negative.

At its best, good regulation makes businesses think a little harder, communicate a little more honestly and give consumers better information.

And that gives us something far more useful than another miracle cream.

Choice.

The ability to look at a product, understand what it can realistically do and decide whether it’s worth spending our money on.

Because ageing is inevitable.

Spending a fortune trying to fight it isn’t.

And personally, I’d much rather embrace the woman I’ve become — while still using a gorgeous face oil, obviously. ❤️