Tarte is a products sold by Sephora, which has a whole line of “naturally gorgeous” brands:
Naturally gorgeous could mean two things, I suppose:
1. You are gorgeous without make-up.
LOL… moving on:
2. Our make-up is natural.
This is what Sephora means. But if you use their “naturally gorgeous” products, will your gorgeous be natural? Not necessarily. As Audrey at Triple Pundit points out, the USDA does not regulate cosmetics, and neither does any other governmental agency. They can apply the word “natural” to any product because no entity ensures that the word actually means anything.
Audrey continues:
According to their website, their natural products are “formulated with high concentrations of plant-based and naturally-derived ingredients, and fewer to no parabens, sodium lauryl sulfate, phthalates, petrochemicals, and synthetic fragrances or dyes.” And the products in their organic section contain over 70% organic ingredients.
So Sephora says they’re natural. The Environmental Working Group however, an organization with a wholly different agenda, says that products that Sephora labels natural–such as Tarte, Caudalie, Decleor, and Korres Natural Products–present a moderate to high toxin hazard.
I think this is a really nice example of how difficult it can be to figure out what’s true. First, language is tricky and it’s used to trick us. Second, we can’t trust corporations (we just can’t). They say that they have our best interests in mind, but they do not. Third, other entities also have agendas. The Environmental Working Group is a non-profit organization, but it too has an agenda. Audrey points out that if there is a make-up that doesn’t get labeled as toxic by the Environmental Working Group, she has yet to figure out what it is.
So how do we know? More problematically, how do we know when there is a question like this to be asked of every single product and service we could buy? Because even if we had time to do the real research to figure out the answer to the cosmetics question, no one has time to do the research to figure out the answers to all the questions. And while there are website designed to tell you the answers (like the Environmental Working Group or this one on eco-labels), we still have to look more closely at them in order to know whether their answers are good. So the work in finding the truth isn’t alleviated, it’s just one step removed.
See also this post on the framing of genetically-modified food by activists and this post on what “organic” looks like.
(Image via.)
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Comments 15
Lu — September 7, 2009
http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/product/256691/Afterglow_Cosmetics_Organic_Mineral_Foundation_-_Bisque/
This is the makeup I use. Hey, low toxin hazard! Although it'll probably still give me cancer. Oh well.
P — September 7, 2009
[blockquote]So Sephora says [they're] natural. The Environmental Working Group however, an organization with a wholly different agenda, says that products that Sephora labels natural–such as Tarte, Caudalie, Decleor, and Korres Natural Products–present a moderate to high toxin hazard.[/blockquote]
This is framed as a contradiction, but it doesn't have to be. Anthrax is natural. Botulism is natural. All sorts of nasty venoms are 100% natural but extremely toxic. Poison ivy is natural, but you probably wouldn't want to put it on your face.
It is a sign of how insulated our lives are from nature that we fetishize the "natural," equating the label with goodness and wholesomeness.
Reanimated Horse — September 7, 2009
Lu, I've been using that cometicsdatabase.com resource for a while, too. It's one of the best places out there for research on ingredients. There's also a popular pact out there that companies can sign at safecosmetics.org. Unfortunately I've found lots of those Mom-and-Pop companies who've signed (and are using the logo) are still using ingredients that they explicitly said they wouldn't. So, yeah - there's no real way to know. Real information is still essentially unavailable. And if you think about it, many natural ingredients themselves are under-researched, and not ready to be called "safe." So how am I to know what's a better choice, even if I can find out?
My feeling is that most of us who are looking for natural cosmetics are getting dry hair or blotchy skin, and we start out by just looking for a solution. But then beneath the surface, we start to feel that these items are also safe for us - no carcinogens, etc. That, to me, is the danger in this advertising. We really just want makeup that won't make us break out - so we buy it. But on some level we're not addressing, we're also feeling it's safe.
Idril — September 7, 2009
On a less intellectual note, I couldn't help but snigger reading about the brand "Tarte". In french, it means "pie", but is also widely used as "cheesy".
I hope they'll think twice before marketing it as Tarte here. Or maybe not, I could afford a good laugh.
Mona — September 7, 2009
I love this blog, but could you please correct the grammar typo up there ("their" instead of "they're")?
Julie — September 7, 2009
idril: I laughed at the name too...not only does it refer to a slightly stupid woman in French, it's also remeniscent of "tart" in English, which is associated do an over-makeuped whorish woman. Neither of which are good for selling makeup to women.
I might just start a line of cosmetics called "Thick" ;)
Kate — September 8, 2009
"LOL… moving on:"
laughed out loud f'reals.
Kansai_Gal — September 8, 2009
Beautypedia is not a free database, but the information I'd like to point out is found on a free landing page for a brand: http://www.beautypedia.com/Brand/Bare-Escentuals/65.aspx
More specifically "Regarding bismuth oxychloride, it is interesting to note that bismuth (a metallic element) seldom occurs in nature. Instead, it is a by-product of copper and lead refining, or is manufactured synthetically. Chemically, it's similar to arsenic, a fact you won't see in any advertising for bareMinerals. However, just as cosmetic-grade mineral oil is not identical to the petroleum from which it originated, neither is bismuth oxychloride identical to bismuth. The bismuth oxychloride used in cosmetics is non-toxic, but this background offers a good example of how skewed a company's definition of 'natural' can be."
For that and other reasons, 'natural' has always been one of my least favorite product gimmicks.
crshark — September 8, 2009
The FDA attempted to come up with a regulatory definition of "natural" for products in the 1970's, but gave up the effort because there apparently was no scientific consensus. So there's no federal regulations at all on the use of the word "natural" (as opposed to "organic").
Bagelsan — September 9, 2009
I was in the mall the other day and saw a sign advertising makeup that said something like "found in nature, tested in a lab" and I was like "yes THANK you!" Chemicals that you apply to your body need to be tested, yanno? Even if you got them off a tree or by rubbing a tiny brightly colored frog against your skin or whatever "natural" thing you did... :p (That has to be my favorite makeup ad ever. As a scientisty type it's so nice to have science appreciated! Hurray for "lab" not being a bad word!)