Formulating, Packaging, and Marketing of Natural Cosmetic Products E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 882

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

Balanced coverage of natural cosmetics, and what it really means to be "green" The use of natural ingredients and functional botanical compounds in cosmetic products is on the rise. According to industry estimates, sales of natural personal care products have exceeded $7 billion in recent years. Nonetheless, many misconceptions about natural products--for instance, what "green" and "organic" really mean--continue to exist within the industry. Formulating, Packaging, and Marketing of Natural Cosmetic Products addresses this confusion head-on, exploring and detailing the sources, processing, safety, efficacy, stability, and formulation aspects of natural compounds in cosmetic and personal care products. Designed to provide industry professionals and natural product development experts with the essential perspective and market information needed to develop truly "green" cosmetics, the book covers timely issues like biodegradable packaging and the potential microbial risks they present, the use of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) to identify biomarkers, and chromatographic methods of analyzing natural products. A must-read for industry insiders, Formulating, Packaging, and Marketing of Natural Cosmetic Products provides the reader with basic tools and concepts to develop naturally derived formulas.

Leseprobe

Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright

Preface

Contributors

Part I: Market and Trends

Chapter 1: The Natural Personal Care Market

1.1 History's “Natural” Progression

1.2 The Nature of Natural

1.3 The Organic Panic

1.4 Labeling and Certifications

1.5 The Industry

1.6 The Natural and Organic Consumer

1.7 A Look Ahead

References

Chapter 2: Consumer and Formulator of Natural Cosmetics: Understanding and Integrating Each Other's Needs

2.1 Natural Market Trends

2.2 The Consumer

2.3 The State of Regulation

2.4 The Formulator

References

Chapter 3: The Mechanics of Developing a Natural/Organic Nongovernmental Cosmetic Standard

3.1 The Rise of Nongovernmental Standards

3.2 Nongovernmental Standards for Natural/Organic Cosmetics

3.3 How to Build and Effectively Market Products Under Nongovernmental Standards

3.4 Conclusions Around Implementing Nongovernmental Standards

References

Part II: Regulatory Aspects

Chapter 4: Regulatory Perspective of Natural and Organic Cosmetic Products

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Regulatory Attempts to Define “Natural” and Other Related Claims in the United States

4.3 Regulatory Treatment of “Organic” Claims

4.4 Regulation of “Natural” in Other Countries

4.5 Other Certification and Seals

4.6 Conclusion

Chapter 5: The U.S. Legal Perspective on Making Organic and Natural Claims for Cosmetic Products

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Federal Regulation of Cosmetic Claims

5.3 “Organic” Claims on Cosmetic Products

5.4 “Natural” Claims for Cosmetic Products

5.5 The Influence of Consumer Advocacy on “Organic” and “Natural” Cosmetic Claims

5.6 “Green” Claims for Cosmetic Products

5.7 Conclusion

Chapter 6: Regulatory and Safety Aspects of Natural Fragrance Ingredients

6.1 Introduction: Role of Natural Ingredients in Perfumery

6.2 Characterization of Natural Fragrance Ingredients

6.3 Evaluation of Natural Fragrance Ingredients

6.4 Regulation of Natural Fragrance Ingredients in the Framework of the IFRA Standards

References

Chapter 7: Advertising Self-Regulation: A Review of Cosmetic Claims and Natural/Organic Claims

7.1 Introduction

7.2 The NAD Process

7.3 NAD's Cosmetic Cases

7.4 Cosmeceuticals

7.5 Dietary Supplements

7.6 Current Trends

Part III: Safety Aspects

Chapter 8: The Safety Assessment of Plant-Derived Ingredients in Cosmetics

8.1 Introduction

8.2 Definitions and Safety-Related Issues

8.3 Regulatory Aspects

8.4 Characterization

8.5 The Comparative Approach

8.6 Chemical Grouping

8.7 The Threshold of Toxicological Concern

8.8 Conclusions

References

Chapter 9: Approach to Assessing Consumer Safety of Botanical Ingredients with Emphasis to Type I Allergy

9.1 Introduction

9.2 Type I Allergy Assessment

9.3 Tiered Toxicological/Safety Approach to Assessing Botanicals

9.4 Summary

References

Chapter 10: Preserving Cosmetics with Natural Preservatives and Preserving Natural Cosmetics

10.1 Introduction

10.2 Unique Microbiological Issues to Going Green

10.3 Natural Cosmetics

10.4 Effectiveness of Natural Preservatives

10.5 “Free from” Dilemma

10.6 Summation

References

Chapter 11: Microbial Risks and Eco-Friendly Packaging

11.1 Introduction

11.2 Major Microbial Risk Factors

11.3 Package Characteristics that Influence Risk Assessment

11.4 Refillable Packaging Concepts

11.5 Reusable/Refillable Packaging Risks

11.6 Bulk Product Considerations

11.7 Bulk Product and Refill Dispensers

11.8 Cosmetic Applicators and Mode of Application

11.9 Closures and Delivery Systems

11.10 Rating Packaging Microbial Risk

11.11 Summary

References

Part IV: Use of Natural Ingredients

Chapter 12: Formulating Cosmetics with Natural Oils, Fats, Butters, and Waxes

12.1 Introduction

12.2 Natural Versus Naturally Derived

12.3 Natural Lipids

12.4 Summary

Acknowledgments

References

Chapter 13: Natural Antioxidants and Their Effects on the Skin

13.1 Introduction

13.2 Oxidants and Antioxidants

13.3 Natural Antioxidants (Phytoantioxidants)

13.4 Measuring Antioxidant Capacity

13.5 Clinical Studies of Nutritional and Topical Antioxidants

13.6 From the Plate to the Jar to the Stratum Corneum

13.7 Multiple Phytoantioxidants in Cosmetics: a Case Study

13.8 Conclusions and Perspectives

References

Chapter 14: The Use of Quercetin and Curcumin in Skin Care Consumer Products

14.1 Introduction

14.2 Curcumin

14.3 Quercetin

14.4 Summary

References

Chapter 15: Ayruvedic Ingredients in Cosmetics

15.1 Introduction

15.2 Origin of Ayurveda and its Evolution

15.3 Ayurvedic Basis for Classification of Skin Types and the Tridosha Concept

15.4 Skin Ailments and Ayurvedic Treatments

15.5 Examples of Common Ayurvedic Herbs for Cosmetic Use

15.6 Ayurvedic Herbs and Modern Skin Care

15.7 Formulation Challenges with Using Ayurvedic Herbs

15.8 Conclusions

References

Chapter 16: Formulating with Traditional Chinese Medicine Herbs

16.1 Introduction

16.2 History of Traditional Chinese Medicine

16.3 Theory of Chinese Medicine

16.4 Theory of Herbal Medicine

16.5 Applications

16.6 Challenges in Utilizing TCM Herbs

16.7 Summary

References

Chapter 17: The Inside-Out Concept as Complement to the Use of Topical Sunscreen: The Case for Endogenous Skin Photoprotection from Sunlight by Natural Dietary Actives such as Tomato Carotenoids

17.1 Introduction

17.2 Endogenous (Dietary) Photoprotection

17.3 Ultraviolet Sun Radiation

17.4 Carotenoids and UV Protection

17.5 Endogenous Sun Protection by Dietary Ingredients Other than Carotenoids

17.6 Mechanisms for the Photoprotection by Phytonutrients

17.7 Conclusions: The Power of Synergistic Combinations

References

Part V: Analysis of Naturals

Chapter 18: Chromatographic Techniques for the Analysis of Natural Products in Cosmetics

18.1 Introduction

18.2 Sample Preparation Basics

18.3 Thin-Layer Chromatography and High-Performance Thin-Layer Chromatography

18.4 Gas Chromatography

18.5 High-Performance Liquid Chromatography

18.6 Conclusions

References

Chapter 19: The Use of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy for the Identification of Biomarkers for Quality Control of Plant Extracts

19.1 Introduction

19.2 Triterpene Glycoside from Black Cohosh

19.3 NMR Profile of Black Cohosh Extract for Species Identification and Quality Control

19.4 Proton NMR of Aloe Product

19.5 Identification of Iridoids in Seeds of F. excelsior

19.6 Identification of Adulterated Compounds in G. biloba Extract

19.7 Proton NMR Detecting Flavanonols in Sarsaparilla

19.8 Isolation of (2S,3R,4S) 4-Hydroxyisoleucine from Fenugreek Extract Using 1H NMR as Monitor

19.9 Identification of Hibiscus Acid in Hibiscus Extract

19.10 Conclusions

References

Part VI: Biodegradation

Chapter 20: Biodegradability Evaluation for Cosmetic Ingredients and Finished Products

20.1 Introduction

20.2 Biodegradability Evaluation and Its Use

20.3 Empirical Determination of Biodegradability

20.4 Predictive Modeling of Biodegradability

20.5 Obtaining and Applying Biodegradability Data for Cosmetic Ingredients

References

Chapter 21: Overview of Biodegradable Packaging, Methods, and Current Trends

21.1 Introduction

21.2 Composting Process

21.3 Standard Methods

21.4 Compostable Packaging and Its Applications and Challenges

21.5 Summary

References

Color Plates

Index

Copyright © 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

Published simultaneously in Canada No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA01923, [phone], fax [phone], or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, [phone], fax [phone], or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer ofWarranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at [phone], outside the United States at [phone] or fax [phone].

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

Formulating, packaging, and marketing of natural cosmetic products / edited by Nava Dayan, Lambros Kromidas C.

p. cm.

ISBN 978-0-470-48408-1 (cloth)

1. Cosmetics–Composition. 2. Cosmetics containers. 3. Organic compounds.

I. Dayan, Nava. II. Kromidas, Lambros.

TP983.F595 2011

668′.55–dc22

2010054045

oBook ISBN: 9781118056806

ePDF ISBN: 9781118056783

ePub ISBN: 9781118056790

Preface

From an early age, we learn to discern what is natural and what is not. A child knows that a deer is part of nature and a car is not. He may not be able to explain exactly why, but he has, even at this early age, an innate understanding of natural things. The deer is not manmade and cannot be controlled or designed, while the car can be designed by man to assume many shapes and functions. The same can be said about cosmetic chemist, manufacturers, marketers, and consumers of natural cosmetics. The issue with natural cosmetics is that unlike trees, deer, fish, flowers, and so on they are not found in or made by nature. They are manufactured like a car, chair, fork, and a multitude of other items. So how can a manufactured cosmetic product claim to be natural? Some may claim that cosmetics made of all natural products are natural. That sounds reasonable. Does that mean then that a fork made of unprocessed wood is natural? A child may not think so because even though the wood is natural, the finished product does not look natural and involved extensive human intervention. Likewise, many do not think cosmetics are natural even if they are made of natural components. If there is a natural cosmetic, it will be one of the many fruits or berries found in nature that may be used to color ones skin by using their substance. If used in such a manner and for the purpose of coloring the skin, one can argue that berry is a natural cosmetic. For many of us, it may be the packaging and manufacturing parts that make it difficult to accept the concept that a cosmetic on the drug store shelf could be natural. Be that as it may, one cannot argue with something made of all natural components even if manufactured by big noisy steel machines and packaged in an artificial container (i.e., a container not made of natural components). But for argument's sake, let us accept the paradigm that such a product is a natural product. Can a cosmetic then be made of all natural components? Some hardcore “natural” cosmetic chemists may think so, but for the majority the lack of a variety of natural functional ingredients is a rate-limiting step in the development. What percentage of natural components included in the formula will qualify it to claim that it is natural? Furthermore, how would one classify natural ingredients? For some, it matters how they were gathered and processed before use. Regardless, even the hardcore “natural” cosmetic chemist will have to admit that the palate, aesthetics, and stability of cosmetics made of all natural products will be severely limited and compromised. However, the trends of the past two decades clearly indicate that a large part of the population is striving to “get back to nature,” as they say. As such, natural has become a created homeostasis outside God's or evolution's responsibility. While it is the nature of life in many poor third world countries, in the Western developed world, the “getting back to nature” trend is mostly driven by the wealthier population that can afford shopping for organic and unprocessed food, vitamins and supplements, and alternative medicinal practices.

When it comes to cosmetics and personal care, this sense of “natural” confusion and created homeostasis has penetrated almost every aspect of product development: from the sourcing and definitions of raw materials used, to the design of the formulations, and to the testing requirements, regulations, and their enforcement. Many of us in the cosmetic industry did not and do not know how to digest this new paradigm of “natural cosmetics,” and how to translate it to practicality. This book is an attempt to mitigate the confusion over “natural cosmetics” and is designed to provide the reader with the basic tools and ideas to develop naturally derived formulations. This book is neither developed by hardcore natural cosmetic scientists, manufacturers, or marketers who want to push their own unique agenda. Nor is it designed to champion any special interest group's agenda. It is tailored by conventional cosmetic scientists whose agenda is to merely make sense of this business opportunity. We specifically chose contributors associated with our industry but from varied walks of life, backgrounds, and specialties to give a fresh outlook on the subject matter. Our contributors had no preconceived interests in “natural cosmetics” but were eager to advise, enlighten, and guide the reader whose interest is to take the primary steps toward formulating, packaging, and marketing of natural cosmetic products.

Working with these contributors was a wonderful learning experience and we thank them sincerely.

Lambros Kromidas Nava Dayan

Contributors

Eric Antignac, L'oreal R&D, Worldwide Safety Evaluation, Asnieres, France

Anne Marie Api, Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ

MaryJoy Ballantyne, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC

Sonali Bose, Department of Pharmaceutics, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, New Jersey Center for Biomaterials, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ

Yi Hsin Chang, Global Ingredient Solutions, North Tustin, CA

Robin Choi, New York College of Health Professions, Syosset, NY

Nava Dayan, Lipo Chemicals Inc., Paterson, NJ

Darrin C. Duber-Smith, Green Marketing, Inc., Nederland, CO

James Flanagan, Microbiologist, Coty Inc., New York, NY

Stefan Gafner, Tom's of Maine, Kennebunk, ME

Mark Garrison, Avon Products, Suffern, NY

Miriam J. Guggenheim, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC

Kan He, Naturex, Inc., South Hackensack, NJ

Gaurav Kale, Chiquita Brands International, Franklin Park, IL

Diksha Kaushik, Department of Pharmaceutics, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, New Jersey Center for Biomaterials, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ

Brian E. Kilfoyle, Department of Pharmaceutics, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, New Jersey Center for Biomaterials, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ

Joseph Levy, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel; Soroka Medical Center of Kupat Holim, Beer-Sheva, Israel

Lijuan Li, The Procter & Gamble Company, Mason Business Center, Mason, OH

Sharon E. Mancuso, Bio-Control Consultants, Inc., Westfield, NY

Donna Mcmillan, The Procter & Gamble Company, Mason Business Center, Mason, OH

Bozena B. Michniak-Kohn, Department of Pharmaceutics, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, New Jersey Center for Biomaterials, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ

Alice Neequaye, EDEL Therapeutics SA, Lausanne, Switzerland

Amy B. Olson, Washingtonville, NY

Ada Polla, Alchimie Forever LLC, Washington, DC

Barbara Polla, Alchimie Forever Sàrl, Geneva, Switzerland

Luigi L. Polla, Alchimie Forever Sàrl, Geneva, Switzerland

Anne Pouillot, Alchimie Forever Sàrl, Geneva, Switzerland

Mangathayaru Putrevu, Celgene Cellular Therapeutics, Avenel, NJ

Marc Roller, Naturex SA, Avignon, France

Azalea P. Rosholt, Customs and International Trade, Ernst & Young LLP, Washington, DC

Katherine Sarlo, The Procter & Gamble Company, Miami Valley Innovation Center, Cincinnati, OH

Jennifer K. Saxe, EcoSafety Sciences, Natick, MA

Ina Schlenoff, Estee Lauder Companies, Syosset, NY

Yoav Sharoni, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel; Soroka Medical Center of Kupat Holim, Beer-Sheva, Israel

Rajarajeswari Sivalenka, Celgene Cellular Therapeutics, Avenel, NJ

Viny Srinivasan, L'Oreal USA, Inc., New York, NY

Philippe Tacchini, EDEL Therapeutics SA, Lausanne, Switzerland

Jenna L. Terebetski, Department of Pharmaceutics, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, New Jersey Center for Biomaterials, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ

Esperanza Troyano, The Procter & Gamble Company, Sharon Woods Innovation Center, Cincinnati, OH

Annie M. Ugurlayan, National Advertising Division, New York, NY

Matthias Vey, International Fragrance Association, Brussels, Belgium

Jacquelyn R. Villinski, Tom's of Maine, Kennebunk, ME

Rohan Wimalasena, The Procter & Gamble Company, Mason Business Center, Mason, OH

John I. Yablonski, Bio-Control Consultants, Inc., Westfield, NJ

Part I

Market and Trends

Chapter 1

The Natural Personal Care Market

Darrin C. Duber-Smith1,2

1Green Marketing, Inc., Denver, CO

2Metropolitan State College of Denver, Denver, CO

1.1 History's “Natural” Progression

“Natural” and “certified organic.” For many years, the very words were enough to make a cynical cosmetic chemist scoff and furrow a marketer's brow. Are natural cosmetics a passing fad or an established long-term trend? Can natural cosmetic ingredients ever be as effective as their synthetic counterparts? Will governments ever define the term natural? Will “mainstream” companies ever properly address this opportunity? Well, the jury is in. After two decades, the natural and organic personal care industry continues to grow at double-digit rates, barring the recessionary dip in 2008 and 2009 where rates dropped into the high single digits, and larger cosmetic companies have finally figured out that high growth rates and return on investment for shareholders go hand in hand. Thus, formulating with natural and organic ingredients has moved from a novelty to an imperative for many cosmetic companies.

The origin of the natural and organic products industry, with its roots in healthy foods and beverages, can be traced as far back as the beginning of the last century in recognition of the efforts of the famous health enthusiast Will Kellogg and a handful of early pioneering companies such as lozenge maker Thayer's and vitamin provider KAL. These early visionaries can at least be partially credited with the initial commercialization of natural products on a large scale. However, decades of “better living through chemistry” resulted in the development of tens of thousands of effective, synthetic ingredients that could be easily standardized and manufactured on a large scale. Food and personal care companies were the major beneficiaries of such technological advancements, and consumers appreciated the proliferation of effective product options. Natural products were to take a back seat, at least temporarily.

A peppering of small food and nutritional supplement companies dominated the niche's natural products landscape, as few people were willing to compromise on effectiveness, taste, price, convenience, and other variables, very much preferring the widely available synthetic offerings. The zeitgeist of the 1960s illustrated by books such as Rachel Carson's environmental bombshell, Silent Spring, along with the civil rights movement, helped fuel an increasing consumer demand for effective products that were healthier for people and better for the environment. At that time, natural personal care represented only a small handful of these businesses and the concept of organic agriculture was in its infancy.

A result of this “hippie”-inspired movement was the proliferation of the natural channel, a loose network of independent “health food” stores found in every region of the country, and an important step in getting natural products into the hands of the consumers who needed them. Poorly capitalized entrepreneurs struggled to make effective products for this growing consumer segment, but at least now they had a place to sell them. Most of these stores sold bulk grains and whatever brands they could get their hands on. Personal care items were limited to a variety of salves and balms, but nothing close to the range of sophisticated product offerings we see as of this printing.

The 1970s and 1980s saw huge increases at every stage of the value chain. Since demand for all products and services is ultimately derived from the end user, retailers required more and increasingly effective branded products and manufacturers required the ingredients to produce them. The loose network of suppliers, manufacturers, and intermediaries was transforming into a sophisticated supply chain. More importantly, people were starting to prosper, and early entrepreneurs cashed out their investments to start second-generation firms. Personal care became a bona fide section of the store with the emergence of “supernatural” retailers such as Wild Oats Markets, Whole Foods Markets, Fresh Fields, Bread and Circus, Boney's, Trader Joe's, and dozens of others. Recognized brands such as Aveda and the Body Shop, companies that have traditionally used some natural ingredients, were what passed for natural products in the mainstream channels during that time.

The year 1990 ushered in a new decade of double-digit growth in the food, beverage, functional food, and nutritional supplement segments and saw the beginning of industry consolidation as entrepreneurs implemented their exit strategies and large portfolios of brands were compiled by companies such as the Hain Celestial Group. By the late 1990s, several conferences produced by Natural Business Communications were dedicated to the financial side of the business (as private and public equity players scoped out the opportunity), in addition to a huge proliferation of events all over the world. At that time, the personal care segment, although still dominated by a dozen or so companies generating several million in sales each as well as thousands of crude products made in kitchens and bathtubs, began a sustained growth spurt that continues to this day.

At the end of the first decade in this new century, many of the pioneering brands have been purchased by larger players, as Colgate now owns Tom's of Maine and Clorox owns industry leader Burt's Bees. Organic regulations that were written for food, now for the most part, apply to personal care, although there are still some points of contention. There are no regulations per se regarding use of the word natural in marketing, so there is much liberal use of the term. The practice of “dusting” products with inadequate amounts of active botanicals, for example, is well known. Consumers obviously expect that a product marketed as “natural” contains at least a majority of natural ingredients, but this is often not the case. The question of how to define a natural ingredient is now compounded by how to define and label a natural product, which is supposed to contain some amount of natural ingredients. The industry has come a long way in the decade prior to this writing, and third-party certifications abound causing much confusion in the marketplace.

The remainder of this chapter will be dedicated to providing the reader with an understanding of the current business environment as well as what to expect for the near future in natural cosmetics.

1.2 The Nature of Natural

That the current situation around defining what constitutes a natural cosmetic product is unclear is a gross understatement. Any effort to define what natural really means must begin at the root problem. In the case of a natural personal care product, one must first decide what constitutes a “natural” ingredient. Once that has been accomplished, one can set standards as to what percentage of natural ingredients must be present in a product as well as what types of ingredients must never be included in a natural product for it to be called “natural.”

Would it be helpful if there were such an accepted standard? Unfortunately this is fantasy, as there exist few government regulations in the area of natural ingredients (except for fragrances and a very loose definition of natural in the United States) and therefore a lack of standards for finished products themselves. As we know, in the absence of government regulations, organizations are “supervised” by a patchwork of stakeholder groups including competitors, supply chain members, the media, nongovernment organizations (nonprofit organizations, etc.), customers, shareholders, and others. This is generally a model that leads to corporate improvisation and consumer confusion in the marketplace since terminology is not commonly understood and there are numerous opportunities to engage in ethically questionable behavior with regard to product claims.

In the case of natural personal care, it is my opinion that it should be generally understood that a natural ingredient should be neither synthetically derived nor synthetically processed. This means that a natural ingredient must be “found in nature” and be free of synthetic additives in processing as well as “overprocessing.” Most definitions of natural mention the idea of “minimal processing,” but this is vague. Abuses are numerous in this area as well because of the highly interpretive nature of processing. Add this to the traditional unwillingness by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other government bodies to address this growing issue and the result is a proverbial “elephant in the living room.” Nevertheless, there are a growing number of third-party organizations and industry associations that have developed and marketed various models, certifications, and labeling requirements for natural products. Some of these models are more stringent than others, and this is indeed better than nothing at all, but unfortunately none of these programs is consistent with each other and none has emerged as a standard with a high degree of awareness by industry or consumers. With regard to the “natural” distinction, the most promising as of this writing appear to be the Natural Products Association standard in the United States and the much older BDIH European standard for natural, which among others are listed below.

The following general guidelines may be of preference regardless of the labeling certification used. Any certification should involve the following:

1. A stringent definition of what constitutes a natural ingredient.

2. A list of synthetically and naturally derived ingredients that may not be included in a natural product under any circumstance (examples include many of those identified by various government and third-party organizations, such as the European Union and the California Green Chemistry Initiative, as potentially harmful or actually toxic).

3. A labeling standard that recognizes four different levels of a natural product. Water cannot and therefore does not count as ingredient when calculating percentage of the whole numbers since the result would be skewed in favor of a more “natural” product.

a. A “100% natural” product claim would include no synthetic or banned ingredients whatsoever, and only 100% natural ingredients are allowed.

b. A “natural” product would include 95% or higher natural ingredients and none of the banned ingredients. The remaining 5% could be synthetically derived and/or processed but not any as discussed in item 2 above.

c. A “made with natural ingredients” product would contain between 70% and 95% natural ingredients and no banned ingredients.

d. A product that has fewer than 70% natural ingredients would be allowed to emphasize such ingredients denoting them as natural on the label but would not be allowed to make any other natural claim on the primary display panel (unlike the previous three scenarios), and would allow even banned ingredients.

4. A standard that has government oversight (both United States and European Union for a start) as well as enforcement.

It seems logical that any future natural regulation would mirror the existing U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Certified Organic regulations as far as percentage content and what claims can be made are concerned. Therefore, a product with 100% natural ingredients could be marketed as “100% natural.” A product with 95% or higher natural ingredients could denote “natural.” A product with 70% or higher natural ingredients could claim “made with natural ingredients.” And the product that has less than 70% natural ingredients could only denote an ingredient as natural in the ingredient panel. These are the rules for USDA Certified Organic and could be used as a framework for natural marketing guidelines.

1.3 The Organic Panic

It is crucial to understand the difference between “natural” and “certified organic,” the latter of which is largely defined and regulated within the United States. When the regulations for “certified organic” were created for foods in the mid-1990s and the USDA tasked with oversight of the third-party certification process, the framers of this groundbreaking legislation did not address personal care. The regulations were intended only for ingestible and not topical ingredients. Personal care was not addressed until a few years later when larger players began to penetrate the natural space and realized that they had great flexibility with regard to formulation and product claims in the area of organic as well. Companies that had traditionally operated within the organic channel scrambled to address the issue.

As a result, the USDA disallowed the use of the USDA Certified Organic seal on cosmetics for a brief period, reinstated it, and is as of this writing still in the process of finalizing the requirements for such products. The outcome would have great industry impact since a generally accepted standard in the United States is likely to have very large global impact. In Europe, the Cosmetics Organic and Natural Standard (COSMOS) program was instituted in 2008 to harmonize some of the various certifications. These standards, however harmonized, enjoy very little awareness in the United States, and it will be interesting to follow future actions as to which certifications will win the hearts and minds of the U.S. market. It may be that the USDA backing combined with the strength and size of the U.S. market for personal care products gives USDA Certified Organic a competitive advantage.

A certified organic product by definition must be natural, but also much, much more. For USDA Organic certification, the ingredients (which must also be certified in order for the finished product to display the seal) must adhere to the requirements outlined in the USDA's National Organic Program, which include agricultural restrictions such as water usage, crop rotation, use of pesticides and herbicides, and so on. These requirements can be found on the organization's web site, and approved third-party certifiers such as Quality Assurance International provide the actual certification services. The USDA acts as overseer. It is all very neat in theory, and the pending clarification by the USDA and others should rocket this area into the stratosphere as it has for USDA Certified Organic foods.

1.4 Labeling and Certifications

There are dozens of certifications related to eco-friendly and wholesome products and services. However, the “eco-labels” we are most concerned with specifically address natural and/or organic offerings. Below is a listing and description of the major natural and/or organic certifications as of this writing:

United States (nonharmonized standards from four different entities)

1. USDA Organic

2. OASIS (Organic and Sustainability Industry Standards)

3. National Sanitation Foundation (NSF)'s Made with Organic Personal Care Standard

4. Natural Products Association (NPA)

These standards are very different from one another. For example, USDA Organic is for organic products only while the Natural Products Association standards are intended for natural cosmetics, and not organic ones.

Europe

COSMOS (formed of the below listed separate organizations for the purpose of developing one harmonized European standard)

1. ECOCERT (France)

2. Soil Association (UK)

3. Bundesverband Deutscher Industrie- und Handelsunternehmen (BDIH) (Germany)

4. L'Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica (AIAB) and Istituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (ICEA) (Italy)

5. BioForum (Belgium)

6. Cosmebio (France)

Although it is impressive that six different organizations were both willing and able to harmonize their standards, it would appear that greater adoption of one or more of these standards could be accomplished through merging the six under one European Union moniker. The likelihood of this happening is improbable or it would already have been done when the standards were identified in the first place, so some of the confusion that such harmonization is intended to alleviate remains present. Other European certifications include Organic Farmers and Growers (UK), The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, IBD (Instituto Biodinâmico) Certified Organic (Latin America), and IBD Natural Ingredients. It is interesting to note that IDB has separate certifications for natural and organic, and this could be a good model for certifying organizations to follow, as it is easier to gain awareness of one brand name as opposed to more than one.

If the reader is confused, it is because of the current state of affairs in marketing natural/organic cosmetics. As of this writing, other than the COSMOS effort for a single European organic standard (albeit under six different certifying names), there has not been much in the way of advancing the harmonization of natural/organic cosmetics. The USDA organic standards for food, which may be applied to cosmetics and will experience several future adjustments, continue to be the predominant organic standard in the United States. ECOCERT is perhaps the most recognized standard for both natural and organic in Europe. It is likely that a major marketing effort funded by cosmetic companies would dramatically increase awareness, and perhaps demand, among the general population for any certification the organizations choose. Such a program could be facilitated by government and the certifiers themselves.

1.5 The Industry

For many years, numerous marketing research companies have produced reports based on limited understanding of the natural and organic products industry. Such is the case with most of the larger, global organizations that analyze multiple industries such as Packaged Facts and Datamonitor. Two research companies that specialize only in natural products and have both produced numerous reports since the late 1990s are therefore chosen for discussion. The consumer market for natural products will be described later with special recognition given to the Natural Marketing Institute (NMI) of Harleysville, PA. The purpose of this section, however, is to describe the supply chain and provide some very revealing industry data provided by Nutrition Business Journal, a publication of New Hope Natural Media, the largest and perhaps the most important organization in the natural products industry due to its dominance in print, in person, and online media and communication in the natural and organic space.

The natural and organic personal care industry is served by a wide variety of generalized and highly specialized suppliers and service companies. These organizations are responsible for the ingredients and components of the products consumers buy and range from large global chemical companies that offer a few natural and/or certified organic ingredients to very small regional players that may offer only one or two niche ingredients. Service companies range from insurance and legal to strategic planning consultants and associations. Natural ingredients are usually found in good supply, but certified organic ingredients are less available. Traditionally, demand for many of these ingredients tends to be greater than the supply, which can be a major barrier to adoption on a large scale.

Branded product manufacturers, the most visible of all supply chain members, are now dominated by a small number of larger companies. Many branded product manufacturers have been acquired by either large personal care companies or smaller investment interests and have grown exponentially since the infusion of capital and expansion of distribution have allowed them to do so. A huge number of smaller organizations are still able to compete adequately, enjoying relatively large profit margins, healthy growth rates, and all of the entrepreneurial perks (and headaches) that come with private ownership. The highly publicized acquisition of industry leader Burt's Bees by Clorox and the Colgate-Palmolive's purchase of strongly branded Tom's of Maine in the latter part of the last decade epitomize the recognition by all stakeholders that the health and wellness trend is not merely a fad and will continue to affect the ways by which business operates.

Table 1.1 shows a 2008 list of branded product natural personal care manufacturers, their estimated sizes, and estimated share of certified organic sales.

Table 1.1 Largest Natural and Organic Personal Care Companies [1].

Brand/companySize (millions of dollars)Certified organic sales (%)Burt's Bees (Clorox)250–3500Aveda (Estee Lauder)250–3500Aveeno (Johnson & Johnson)150–2000The Body Shop (L'Oreal)150–20020Nu Skin150–2000Hain Celestial Group150–2005N.V. Dr. Perricone, MD Cosm150–2000Bare Escentuals100–1505Jurlique100–1500Tom's of Maine (Colgate-Palmolive)50–1000Dr. Hauschka30–5020Dr. Bronner's30–5040Yes to Carrots30–5015Nature's Gate (Levlad)30–5020Avon30–500Weleda30–5020Giovanni30–5060Aubrey Organics30–50100

It is obvious that a smaller revenue base is most certainly correlated with the likelihood of offering certified organic products as part of a brand's natural offerings, and the reasons for this are unclear. It should also be noted that the list in Table 1.1 does not include the many hundreds of smaller players offering products through a variety of distribution channels. So, the question remains, as we make our way downstream through the supply chain, how do branded product manufacturers deliver their products to the growing base of natural and organic cosmetics consumers.

Natural and organic products are still offered in the original “natural channel” consisting of literally 10,000 plus independent health food stores, pill shops, and small chains. These stores, which source products directly from manufacturers and from small wholesalers, are present in most communities in the United States and areas of Europe, and tend to be the primary channel for the smaller branded product manufacturers who cannot handle large distribution and who serve the core natural products user. This channel is still very strong, and the criticism with the natural products industry that smaller stores would lose out as stronger distribution channels enter the marketplace has been dramatically overstated.

Whole Foods Markets remains the leader in the “supernatural channel” consisting of larger supermarket-style “gourmet crossover” format stores that buy products from larger manufacturers and serve a more mainstream and higher income natural products consumer. Other examples include Trader Joe's and Larry's Markets on the west coast.

Larger manufacturers now offer products through big discount retailers such as Target and Wal-Mart and mainstream grocery stores, and smaller ones through spas, salons, gift shops, and other specialty stores. Examples of direct channels include television, radio, Internet, and even the controversial multilevel/network marketing channel that popularized companies such as Avon, Mary Kay, and Amway. A myriad of opportunities await the well-funded brand!

Table 1.2 shows a breakdown of the 2008 U.S. natural and organic personal care market by sales channel in 2008. The six categories described in Table 1.2 are very broad but provide the reader with an idea as to how and where these products are sold. Of particular note is the continued dominance of the natural channel and the surprising share the multilevel/network marketing category enjoys in the United States.

Table 1.2 Natural and Organic Personal Care Channel Breakdown [2].

Sales channel2008 sales (%)Natural/specialty retail30Network marketing21Mass market/beauty20Other direct (TV, Internet)11Dept store/salon/spa10Specialty personal care8

The growth rates shown in Table 1.3 suggest growing revenue and penetration rates for natural and organic products into the conventional area. Also notable are the high natural penetration rates in skincare, bath items, soap, hair care, and baby care suggesting that a growing number of consumers prefer natural/organic options to conventional offerings. Clearly, there remain myriad opportunities for growth in this not yet mature market.

Table 1.3 Natural and Organic Personal Care Channel Breakdown [2].

1.6 The Natural and Organic Consumer

As there are many marketing research companies that study the industry trends, many as has been said from the outside looking in, there are a number of companies that specialize in tracking the trends of consumer demographics (describing consumers in terms of size and structure), geographic location, and psychographics (behaviors and attitudes). The most prolific such study, the LOHAS segmentation (as described below), is one that is developed and fielded by the NMI and now has over 10 years of history in identifying and tracking consumer preferences and characteristics through market segmentation studies.

The first such study was conducted by Natural Business Communications, a producer of industry news and conferences, in 1999 and spawned an annual convention, quarterly, publication, web site, and the important study mentioned above. The pioneering work (yours truly was on the development team) was institutionalized by NMI, while the former parent of Natural Business Communications now operates the event, publication, and web site. It is important that research continues year after year so that outlying data and fads can be separated from the statistically important information, so this study is the one the author has chosen.

LOHAS stands for lifestyles of health and sustainability, and the study is commissioned primarily to identify appropriate target markets for natural, organic, and environment-friendly products and services. Natural personal care represents one of the fastest growing segments of this marketplace. Natural Marketing Institute considers a natural personal care user to be one who has purchased at least one product during the previous 6 months. In 2007, according to NMI 38% of general population consumers have classified themselves this way.

The LOHAS segment breaks down the U.S. population into five market segment categories based on demographic, geographic, and psychographic characteristics reflecting attitudes and behaviors with regard to natural products.

The primary target for most natural products is the aptly named LOHAS segment, consisting of 19% of the general population. Consumers in this segment tend to live a healthy lifestyle and will go out of their way to purchase natural and organic products. They are early adopters, opinion leaders, and avid users of green products. They aren't necessarily high-income group and tend to be higher educated. While concentrated more heavily on the coasts, they are actually located throughout the United States.

Naturalites, another attractive market segment, representing 19% of the general consumer population, are more interested in health than they are in the environment, and they are primary users of natural and organic personal care. They are higher income group and tend to be better educated than the general population. So far in our discussion, the target market for natural and organic personal care products stands at 38% of U.S. adults, but we have an even larger segment to include in our marketing planning.

DRIFTERS, the largest market segment at 25% of the general population, tend to be much younger and have yet to develop their own values structures and ingrained purchase patterns. They are motivated by the latest trends and shift on commitments to many issues, but it is probable that the majority of these drifters will become LOHAS or Naturalites as they get older.

The other two segments, Conventionals (lower income folks motivated by price and practicality) and Unconcerned (the nomenclature reflects the general attitude), are not primary targets, but the ongoing proliferation of natural/organic cosmetic product availability coupled with the growing health and wellness trend might change this. These segments are ignored in the targeting process for now, but must still be monitored as the growing popularity and availability of natural products will surely bring some of these consumers from these two segments into one of the other three segments. The bottom line is that about 50% of adults are in the primary target for natural and organic personal care products through the LOHAS segmentation model.

Again, this is only one example of many studies dedicated to studying this field, and the author's own personal bias coupled with the consistent findings of the study over a long period of time makes it a very appropriate example for this book [4].

1.7 A Look Ahead

The natural and organic personal care industry itself, together with the behavior of consumers, represents a large part of strategic marketing planning, but marketers must also consider other factors in the external business environment all of which will affect the nature of the product, its pricing, the optimal channels of distribution, and the most effective methods and messaging with regard to promotion.

For instance, the economic environment, a factor completely out of the control of the marketer, affects all aspects of business, from the upstream members of the supply chain down to the consumer at the very end. The question has always been, “To what degree does a recession affect the sales of personal care products?” The so-called lipstick effect is a phenomenon identified decades ago when researchers discovered that sales of personal care products actually ticked up when there was a recession. The reasons for this have been a subject of great debate for many years, ranging from an increase in “pampering” behavior due to economic and personal malaise to a desire to look your best when unemployment is high. In the most recent recession (2007–2009), the results indicate that the conventional category of personal care products took a pretty big hit as sales and revenues dropped off at industry giants such as L'Oreal. The natural personal care industry, on the other hand, dropped from growth rates in the high teens to growth rates around 8–10% annually. This is a true indicator of the power of this market and the necessity to meet demand by formulating appropriate products.

The legal, regulatory, and political environments, also out of the control of the industry, must be monitored by the marketers as they are ever changing and not always favorable to the industry. In the case of natural and organic personal care products, it has been said that few regulations are in place. Rather, industry is a patchwork of association regulations, third-party certifications, and haphazard government attempts at clearing the confusion. Some organizations take advantage of this with misrepresentations, since most consumers cannot differentiate between natural and organic products. Consequently, the organizations that are truly addressing the needs of this market are losing their competitive advantage. Perhaps the most important threat to this industry is the lack of guidelines and oversight.

There is little doubt that the decades long social trend of consumer attitudes and behavior toward health and wellness bodes increasingly well for ethical companies that are producing truly natural products and therefore addressing the basic consumer need for products that are healthier for them and the environment. The target markets will continue to grow, the penetration rates of natural and organic into conventional will increase, the number of players will proliferate, and numerous opportunities for long-term success can be enacted. “Green washers” (those who position products as “green,” but whose commitment to social and environmental responsibility is questioned by stakeholder groups) will be fingered by competitors, activist consumers, supply chain members, the media, and so on, so misrepresentation of products as natural or organic is never an effective long-term strategy.

Government regulation may eventually occur in the natural area, an area that is still much larger than the better defined and regulated organic space. It will take time, but the industry is light years ahead of where it was 10 years ago. In general, any uniform standard for a natural product most likely will require at least 95% natural ingredients for a natural product claim to be made. Obviously, with the notable exception of an all-organic product, a 100% natural product, labeled as such and protected by regulations, will enjoy a competitive advantage over all others.

The challenges inherent in working with these interesting ingredients are indeed surmountable, as many cosmetic chemists have recently chosen to specialize in this area as a way to differentiate themselves from other, less progressive chemists. The question is no longer “why” one should produce natural products, but rather “how.” Your organization will reap myriad benefits through addressing the growing need in the marketplace with ingredients and finished product. Failure to recognize this important shift in the personal care marketplace will result in repercussions that will last a very long time.

References

1.Nutr. Bus. J. 2009; XIV(2): 7.

2.Nutr. Bus. J. 2009; XIV(2): 5.

3.Nutr. Bus. J. 2009; XIV(2): 1.

4.LOHAS J. 2009; (Spring): 17.

Chapter 2

Consumer and Formulator of Natural Cosmetics: Understanding and Integrating Each Other's Needs

Yi Hsin Chang

Global Ingredient Solutions, North Tustin, CA

2.1 Natural Market Trends

2.1.1 Personal Care Market Trends in Europe

Natural and organic cosmetic sales continue to increase at a healthy rate in Europe, according to Organic Monitor, with revenues projected to increase by 13% in 2009. Organic Monitor's 2009 edition of The European Natural Cosmetics Market report [1] finds that natural and organic cosmetic sales have been affected by the financial crisis. However, steady growth is continuing because of increasing distribution and high consumer demand for “chemically clean” cosmetics, and revenues are forecast to approach €2 billion in 2010 [2].