Cleaning Up Organic Personal Care:
Solutions, Concerns and Opinions Across the Spectrum
from Leaders in the Organic Industry
Currently, the organic personal care industry is a bit of a mess, providing fodder for some of the most heated debates since the National Organic Program (NOP) was created. Most everyone would agree that today’s organic personal care marketplace is ripe for consumer (and industry) confusion due to many factors ranging from the increasing number of organic and natural certifications popping up, to the wide range of products making misleading claims (often without any third-party verification), as well as the not-so-positive media coverage that has resulted from all this.
Within the personal care debate, there are many passionate voices, each with their own ideas on how organic personal care should progress—from those who believe organic personal care should be regulated according to the NOP food standards, to others who feel that it should remain privatized, and many voices in between.
To help sort things out, Organic Processing has brought together industry leaders to provide an overview of organic personal care, followed by several different viewpoints and proposed solutions.
A Brief History of Organic Personal Care
By Tom Hutcheson, Regulatory and Policy Manager, Organic Trade Association (OTA)
When the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990 was written to establish national standards and certification for organically produced food, its authors didn’t design it to cover non-food items per se. However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published a rule on Aug. 23, 2005, which stated that products, including personal care, may be labeled “organic” and carry the USDA seal, as long as they meet the NOP standards for food.
Meanwhile, all personal care products are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), not USDA. While USDA signed a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms regarding the use of the term “organic” on alcoholic beverages, FDA has not signed a similar memorandum regarding personal care products. Thus, USDA does not currently require personal care products making organic claims to be certified, and the labeling of U.S. personal care products in regard to organic agricultural content remains unregulated at the federal level. As a result, numerous “organic” claims have flooded the marketplace.
Taking Steps to Sort It Out
Several personal care product manufacturers joined together around 2000 to work toward an organic personal care product standard and the OTA stepped in to foster this effort. By 2004, NSF International had initiated an ANSI-compliant process to create standards for organic products in the personal care sector and in February 2009, NSF International announced that NSF/ANSI 305: Personal Care Products Containing Organic Ingredients had been adopted as an American National Standard. The voluntary private standard allows claims for products with organic content of 70 percent or more that comply with all other requirements of the NOP standard to carry a “contains organic ingredients” label.
As the NSF was developing its standard, several personal care companies formed a trade association, Organic and Sustainable Industry Standard (OASIS), to create an organic standard that was not based on OFPA but rather on the specific needs of personal care production and processing and the use of NOP-certified raw ingredients. Many of its founding members were participants in the NSF process and felt that the NOP should not be deferred to as the standard-setting body for personal care.
On May 6, 2009, the National Organic Standards Board’s (NOSB’s) Certification, Accreditation and Compliance Committee (CACC) announced plans to provide a recommendation for personal care standards by NOSB’s next meeting in November, and provided a discussion document which can be downloaded from the internet at: www.ahpa.org/portals/0/pdfs/09_0323_CACC_Discussion_Draft_Organic_Personal_Care.pdf. This document, and the decision to produce a recommendation on organic personal care product standards, has pushed this emerging sector into vigorous debate.
It is important to recognize that the issue of standards for organic personal care products is not just of interest to the personal care segment. Instead, each sector of the organic industry has a stake in the outcome of standards-setting work, as the emerging sector will compete for ingredients, influence international trade, increase the visibility of the organic claim, and either help or hinder consumer confidence in the overall market.
Sam Welsch
President and founder of One Cert, an international USDA accredited certification agency
Position Summary: All products making an “organic” claim, including personal care, should
be regulated by the NOP
My perspective is that of an organic consumer first and an organic certifier second. I began my professional work in organic certification in 2001 and founded OneCert in 2003. I remember clearly the confusion of organic standards before the NOP was implemented. The consistency that the NOP brought to the organic industry laid the foundation for the incredible growth we have seen since it was implemented. I am concerned that the proliferation of uncertified “organic” personal care products and various private “organic” standards is not only harming consumer confidence in the organic personal care sector, but that it will also have a negative effect on consumer confidence in other certified organic products.
In my view, the ideal—and simplest —solution to the current confusion would be to limit organic labeling in personal care to those products and ingredients that comply with the NOP. Consumers are familiar with these categories and have confidence in the integrity of the USDA-regulated program. When products comply with the NOP, it is easy to answer the consumer question, “How do I know it’s really organic?” because we can point to the federal law and regulations. It is hard enough to explain the four categories of labeling under the NOP. When other standards use the same or similar categories—but with different criteria—we are not able to give a simple, direct answer.
By following the NOP regulation, the organic personal care industry would have a known standard and could turn its attention toward developing products that comply with that standard. It seems like a great waste of energy to develop competing private standards that create confusion and inconsistency in the meaning of “organic personal care.” Some have advocated for a pre-NOP type of unregulated environment for organic personal care. Do we really need an environment in which “my standard is better than their standard” is how products are presented to consumers?
In addition, some want to be able to include synthetic preservatives and make organic claims when raw organic ingredients are chemically transformed to synthetic substances that are typically found in conventional personal care products. I feel that such substances may be petitioned to be added to the lists of allowed substances in the NOP; however, the NOSB is the official body that must approve the addition of such substances.
I view the NOP as the solution because it has a labeling category for every type of product and has an open, public process of making changes to the regulations. Any proponent of changes may petition the NOSB to adopt those changes. The alternative is chaos and confusion that will harm the whole organic industry. Because the USDA Organic seal is the most recognized indicator of organic, if it’s used on personal care products then it should be the only standard for organic personal care products.
The biggest criticism of using the NOP for certification of personal care products is that personal care products require synthetic ingredients that are not allowed in food. However, other people see that restriction as the biggest argument in favor of using the NOP—because they don’t think such synthetics belong in organic products. It appears that private standards are being proposed by those who want the benefit of making organic claims without being required to make significant changes to their product formulas.
Some people criticize NOP regulation of personal care because they say it’s a just food standard and that it’s not applicable to personal care products. However, I see the NOP as an organic standard that reflects the qualities that consumers expect to find in any product that makes an organic claim.
Only one simple step needs to be taken immediately. Change one word in the current NOP policy on organic personal care products from “such products may be certified under the NOP,” to “such products must be certified under the NOP.”
The NOP policy also has a long-term plan: “If additional rulemaking is required for such products to address additional labeling issues or the use of synthetics in such products, the NOP will pursue such rulemaking as expeditiously as possible.”
David Bronner
CEO of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, manufacturer of NOP-certified personal care products; member of NSF committee
Position Summary: Personal care products claiming to be “organic” should be regulated under the current NOP standards, however, it’s acceptable to create a separate section within the NOP MWO regulations for additional allowances restricted to personal care.
Dr. Bronner’s is in entire agreement with the recent recommendation set forth in the NOSB discussion document “Solving the Problem of Mislabeled Organic Cosmetics & Personal Care Products,” submitted at the NOSB 2009 Spring Meeting. This recommendation suggests making the NOP standards mandatory, not simply voluntary, for cosmetic/personal care products that make organic claims.
Organic integrity in body care means that a product that claims to be “organic” is composed of organic ingredients produced with minimal processing in compliance with USDA NOP regulations, without unapproved synthetics. Dr. Bronner’s has certified our entire line of high-quality personal care, including lotions, hair care, lip balms as well as our soaps, under the NOP. Our product quality and sales volume prove it can be done successfully. Many others have done this as well, including AVEDA founder Horst Rechelbacher’s new USDA NOP brand, Intelligent Nutrients. More and more cosmetic products are being developed within the rigorous constraints of the NOP to perform as well as modern synthetic variants.
Real organic personal care is “organic food for the skin” and doesn’t utilize synthetic preservatives that can irritate the skin. Natural, unrefined oils and waxes are used as emollients and moisturizers, instead of hydrogenated oils and synthetic silicones. Traditional, natural, simple soaps are used in hand and body washes instead of modern synthetic surfactants that are usually made in part with petrochemicals.
Over the past five years, Dr. Bronner’s has participated in good faith efforts to establish additional allowances appropriate and specific to personal care through an NSF/ANSI standards development process. The NSF process involved a diverse stakeholder group including representatives from OTA, Organic Consumers Association(OCA) and Whole Foods, as well as certifiers and a number of companies including Aveda/Estee Lauder, Avalon, Jason, Aubrey, Dr. Bronner’s and others. This forum allowed consumers, regulators and certifiers to participate meaningfully alongside industry interests to set standards.
The NSF group voted that personal care products should be allowed to be labeled as “organic” only if they meet the existing USDA Organic standards, and that the NSF/ANSI standard, which would allow additional processing and preservatives for personal care, should be confined to the “made with organic” (MWO) level. Dr. Bronner’s does approximately 90 percent of its business in the current NOP MWO space with products that do not utilize synthetic preservatives or hydrogenated or sulfated ingredients, yet we are willing to see the NOP MWO space expand to include allowances such as these that were worked out through the NSF process. This standard represents a responsible compromise between mainstream cosmetic industry interests and organic consumers.
However, we are adamantly opposed to private industry standards that seek to permit such processing and synthetic allowances for products labeled outright as “organic.” This space should be preserved for organic consumers who seek organic personal care that complies with basic organic consumer criteria; that organic products are free of hydrogenated, sulfated and synthetically preserved ingredients.
We believe that the NOP could adopt the NSF/ANSI processing and preservative allowances specific to MWO personal care in the same way it made the synthetic sulfite allowance for MWO wine. Proper annotation will ensure the USDA NOP is not otherwise affected by allowances restricted to MWO personal care.
Some feel that there should be no expansion of NOP for additional process and preservative allowances for personal care, even if confined to MWO. They suggest that the very fabric of the USDA NOP will unravel. Certainly I agree that if the outright “organic” claim space was involved that would be the case, but this is silly for the MWO space. A shampoo based on permitted non-organic surfactants whose label says “Shampoo Made with Organic Lavender Floral Water,” is making a straightforward claim that does not imply the shampoo itself is organic. If, however, the shampoo label said “Organic Shampoo” per a private standard, then that would be outrageous abuse of the “organic” claim and is exactly the problem we are trying to solve. But this not the issue with an MWO claim.
On the other side are private industry interests who argue that no additional allowances can be made in the NOP for personal care even if restricted to the MWO space, yet those same interests advocate for private industry standards that permit these processes and synthetics in the outright “organic” claim space. Organic is organic, whether under NOP or a private standard, and it’s hypocritical and inconsistent to argue against inclusion of processes and synthetics restricted to NOP MWO space, but then say they’re fine in the “organic” space under some other standard. As for the next steps to take, the NOSB should immediately move to regulate the outright “organic” personal care claim space under existing USDA NOP 95-percent organic regulations. In the longer term, NOSB should work to adopt allowances worked out in the NSF/ANSI process to apply to and comprehensively regulate products in the MWO space.
Sheila Linderman
Organic product and certification consultant specializing in international markets for food and personal care.
Position Summary: NOP is adequate for a limited number of domestic products, but the private standards are better geared to a broader spectrum of products that can be
marketed globally.
It is my job to help my clients obtain organic certification. Until recently, all of my clients were food processors. It has been, therefore, my task to help them get certified to the NOP, or whatever organic standard prevails in the country of manufacture or countries to which my client plans to export. This has been fairly clear-cut. In the past year, however, most of my new clients have been manufacturers of personal care products. For those making and marketing their products in the U.S. and Canada, NOP certification has been fine. However, those clients wishing to market organic personal care products in the EU, or other areas where the NOP is not recognized, have requested help with certification to a private standard.
For this reason, along with several others that I will lay out, I believe personal care products should not be regulated solely by the NOP. And, while I have absolutely no problem with the fact that some personal care products can be certified to the NOP as it is right now, I am adamantly opposed to the modification of the NOP if it includes addition of verbiage that refers to personal care products or the incorporation of provisions set forth in standards such as the NSF MWO standard, as has been proposed to the NOSB. Here’s why:
First, the NOP is a regulation based on a congressional act called the Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (OFPA). Adding personal care wording or standards would be a violation of this law, in my opinion, because the act does not provide for expansion beyond food. The USDA saying that personal care products processed in compliance with the NOP may be certified to the NOP is already an exception, but adapting the standards to fit the needs of the personal care industry would be too far removed from OFPA’s original intent.
Secondly, the NOP is fine for a simple range of personal care products: massage oils, certain fragrances and bar soaps. However, it’s impossible to talk about more complex products without also talking about synthetics. Such synthetics (e.g., saponified oils) are specific to the personal care and not included on the National List(NL). Revising the NL to include a list of personal care-specific synthetics is objectionable for a number of reasons, not the least important of which is that the already-existing list of synthetics on the NL was meant to shrink, not grow.
Another reason why personal care should not be strictly under the NOP is because OFPA requires accredited certifying agents (ACAs) to demonstrate a certain level of expertise in the areas where they certify. The ACAs are already burdened enough, and could conceivably face a new dilemma: become proficient in the ins-and-outs of personal care, or turn away business. Likewise, USDA itself would be out of its realm with personal care. If there were ever to be a regulated standard for personal care, it should be under the FDA. If the USDA claims sole jurisdiction over all that is organic, then the FDA should at least be consulted on the creation and implementation of any regulations.
Most importantly, as stated above, is that the NOP is not recognized in the EU, which represents a huge market for manufacturers. Similarly, although there is equivalency between the Japan Agricultural Standards and the NOP, the NOP is not recognized in Japan for personal care products. Companies wishing to market personal care products in Japan and other areas of the world must get certified to a private standard. I find it quite interesting that while the USDA has said that personal care products may be certified to the NOP, the EU Commission has said that the same products cannot be certified to EU 834/2007. I believe that this is because the EU Commission has recognized that personal care products are beyond the scope of that standard.
So, who should certify personal care products? My opinion is that they should be certified under private standards, such as EcoCert/Cosmebio, Natrue, COSMOS and OASIS, to name just a few that are out there. These standards are not perfect, in that they allow for synthetics and processes that the consumer does not necessarily equate with the term “organic.” However, the synthetics and processes that they allow are necessary for the production of extensive lines of personal care products that function and are safe (e.g., the standards allow for a narrow list of preservatives). These standards were created by scientists, manufacturers and certifiers—all of whom understand that there are vast differences between food and personal care products and that this makes it impossible to effectively certify both types of products under one standard.
On the question of the proliferation of private standards, we seem to be revisiting the not-so-good old days when there wasn’t a NOP or EU standard for food. I do not think this is a good thing, especially when it comes to clarity and confidence on the part of the organic consumer. It may be a necessary step, however, toward creating some sort of harmonized personal care standard. Whether that standard will, ultimately, be regulated or private remains to be seen.
Gay Timmons
President of Oh, Oh Organic, Inc, a cosmetic distribution company dedicated to validated organic and sustainable ingredients; OASIS board member
Position Summary: The organic personal care industry is not ready to be regulated by the NOP yet, but retailers should require products labeled “organic” to be certified to some established standard.
Similar to how the food standards were developed, I believe personal care standards should take an evolutionary approach: start with private standards, move to reciprocity between standards. After a time, we’ll see the infrastructure and raw materials supply build up, the marketplace become more robust, and a trained group of professionals who understand the technical and chemistry issues involved in certification and product creation. When we get to this point, then we go to regulation. We are not there yet.
The personal care market would look like the organic food market did between 1992 and 2000—with private, voluntary standards used and competition pushing the development of the industry and increasing the learning curve of the participants. Comparing the histories of organic personal care and food products provides a recognizable and credible idea of where things can go. We don’t need to replicate the lessons learned, we just need to apply them to a different production paradigm: personal care production instead of food production. Keep the organic food standards strong while this industry grows.
Those companies already certified to the NOP have an obvious wish to protect their philosophical and financial commitment to the USDA seal. They want this to be the only standard that allows an organic claim. Currently, they are certified to and benefit from the NOP seal. The big pitfall of pushing all personal care into a food standard is that the inclusion of the necessary synthesis chemistry for use in cosmetics, in my opinion, hurts the food standard. The organic food community never envisioned the certification of non-food chemicals, such as soaps and esters (two categories of synthesized materials currently being certified to the NOP). I believe that consumers are smart enough to distinguish between the USDA seal and other “cosmetic” organic seals.
There is wonderful potential to push personal care manufacturing toward significant use of organic practices if they are allowed to count the organic content they use. The very act of “counting” how many percentage points of “organic” they can claim is a great stimulus to marketers and to the market. Communication to the consumer about the use of the necessary synthetic materials (surfactants, emulsifiers and preservatives) would be far clearer under a different standard than one designed for food. I started with organic food and I believe that the NOP standard, seal and message needs to be maintained and protected. I don’t want to see the certification of non-food synthetic materials standardized in the NOP regulation.
My biggest concern is that the industry will go to regulation too soon. “Organic” has been understood by the consumer to mean a lack of “synthetic” materials. Cosmetics are based on synthesis chemistry; soap, glycerin, esters and other ingredients are manufactured or “synthesized,” as none of them exist in commercial form in nature. There simply aren’t any glycerin trees or mines. Also, while NOP certifiers and the USDA are good at dealing with food and crops, they simply do not know what they are looking at in a hydrogenation plant or in an esterification process certification. They are not trained to assess and make informed decisions about synthesis chemistry.
We have had neither the time nor the opportunity to create the supply chain, the infrastructure or the discovery of what “organic cosmetics” are. We can only do this the same way we did it for food during the 12 years of private certification prior to the implementation of the NOP regulation. The rate of change for the NOSB and the NOP is over years. They simply cannot respond fast enough for what could happen in product development for personal care.
To reduce confusion and outright misrepresentation in the current marketplace, all retailers should immediately require that brands making an organic claim (or even a non-gmo claim) get certified to any standard that is publicly available within the next 12 to 18 months. We did not wait for 12 years between the passage of OFPA and the implementation of the NOP to require certification. People got certified, created compliant supply chains, trained their certifiers and staff to understand particular business practices, and we created—for lack of a better phrase—an organic food infrastructure. We need the same thing for the personal care industry.
Human nature and competition through required certification will stimulate product development and newer, safer technology, and improve everything for everyone.
Gerald A. Herrmann
Director of Organic Services, an international consultancy specializing in organic products and farming as well as international market development; former president of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM).
Position Summary: Looking to the EU as an example, private standards can work. Looking
beyond this though, we need to find a level international playing field.
The international, organic personal care market is led by private initiative. In Europe, there is no governmental regulatory standard for natural/organic cosmetics. Instead there are two major, private groups who are active in standard setting, certification, labeling and lobbying.
In the EU, certifiers have developed private natural and organic personal care standards. After years of discussions, the core group of them including Soil Association, Ecocert, Ecogarantie, Cosmebio, BDIH and ICEA published a joint private standard in June 2009 named COSMOS. This standard reflects the basic minimum the group could agree to. Each certifier has also still kept its own stricter standards and separate logos, which have been in the market for years and are recognized by many organic consumers.
The other major certifying group is NaTrue, which is soon to become an international nonprofit. NaTrue was formed in 2007 when several of the leading German companies did not feel represented well by BDIH, an interest organization for small and medium enterprises in food supplements and ayurvedic medicine. NaTrue launched three standard levels (signified by one to three stars): natural cosmetics, natural with organic ingredients and organic cosmetic.
Both groups represent different histories, attitudes, strategies and naturally claim to have the better concept. To merge them into one is seen to be impossible at the moment. In fact, these groups recognize the importance of diversity in the marketplace. The consumer wants to choose: why should there be only one certification logo? Europe is diverse. The EU organic regulation for food allows for private standards to be there, and to define stricter standards than the regulatory level. There is no single mandatory organic logo, even for food.
In Europe, there is no dispute about making organic regulatory food standards the standard for organic personal care products. There is also no proposal to make use of the EU organic food regulation, even for simple products that might comply with allowed ingredients, additives or other agents listed. There is unanimity that personal care products need their own standard, which should be certified and labeled as organic even if there is a different list of additives or processing (preserving) agents allowed than for organic food.
On another level, there is a chance to think about international standards that could promote harmonization. One standard can be achieved by democratic open process. IFOAM, the international organic advocacy organization, has successfully used this type of procedure for decades and there is no reason why it could not be used by the personal care sector. Whether such a standard will then be the single certification standard must be questioned. It most probably will be a basic standard that still allows for differentiation.
The playing field has to be equal, at least on an equivalence basis. Therefore, one basic standard supported by all parties involved will establish this equivalence best. I don’t believe it is a solution to let the strictest 5 percent of the sector (e.g. those whose personal care products comply with the NOP food regulation) to define what organic personal care standards are. The NOP was written after taking all the separate private food standards into account. It also used the IFOAM Basic Standard as a guide. My opinion is that a standard needs to fit a majority, not a minority. If the NOP allows only 5 percent of cosmetic products/companies to be certified, it is not now nor will it ever be relevant, as the industry will search for other solutions. And, how can a food standard ever be seen to fit personal care products? The needs, structure and everything is different, so the standard has to be different. Just because NOP was the first U.S. regulation to define the term organic, that doesn’t mean the NOP should take “organic” hostage. Organic can be defined differently for other product groups and still be “organic.”
All groups involved need to be coordinated to speak with one voice to the regulator. Fractioned positions will lead the conventional sector to set the rules for the natural and organic sector. If the private sector is not coordinated, the administration will go ahead with what it is told by the conventional industry and its interests or other lobbying groups or what it thinks is best. For example, if the organic sector had not known what it wanted, the NOP would look very different today and the definition of organic would probably include GMOs, as this was the interest of the conventional industry. We—the sector—need to get our act together and harmonize our ideas about personal care products. Unfortunately (or fortunately for mankind) there is not one single international standard setter; rather, standards and regulations are set at the national level. Therefore, to reach a consensus (for international trade and market access), we need to find a common definition.
