Not long ago, I was discussing Hux + Mū with a PR consultant when she mentioned that her sister loved natural skincare and was particularly devoted to a very well-known beauty brand.
Her sister had always assumed the brand was natural.
I pointed out that, as far as I was aware, the company had never actually described itself as a natural skincare brand. Even so, I understood why she had formed that impression.
Its amber bottles, botanical names, apothecary-style shops and references to herbs and plant extracts all create a strong visual language. Naturalness may not be stated directly, but it is suggested throughout the brand experience.
There is nothing inherently unsafe, poorly made or ineffective about the products, nor is the brand necessarily making a false claim. The difficulty is that visual language can easily be understood as a promise about the formulation itself.
The PR consultant then suggested an editorial idea: the ingredients I would choose not to formulate with as a natural cosmetic formulator.
It was a compelling starting point because it raised a broader question. What do we really mean when we describe skincare as natural, and how much can we tell from the branding alone?
Most of us do not decide whether a product is natural by examining every line of its ingredient list. We respond first to the bottle, the language, the imagery and the story surrounding the formula.
Naturalness can be communicated without the word itself ever appearing prominently.
What does natural skincare actually mean?
The word “natural” offers less clarity than many customers realise. There is no single legally prescribed definition of natural cosmetics in Great Britain, although cosmetic claims must still be truthful, supportable and must not imply that a product possesses characteristics it does not have. More broadly, UK consumer guidance requires environmental claims to be clear, accurate and not misleading.
Some brands choose to work with voluntary standards and certification schemes such as COSMOS. These can provide useful third-party scrutiny, with requirements covering ingredients, processing and manufacturing, as well as audits and ongoing oversight.
Certification is not, however, a perfect dividing line between responsible and irresponsible products.
Applying for certification involves technical assessment, audits, licence fees and continuing administration. These controls provide evidence that a particular standard has been met, but they can also create a financial and administrative threshold that is easier for an established company to absorb than a very small grower, maker or emerging brand.
A certification mark therefore tells us something valuable, but it does not tell us everything. A small uncertified business may still be making careful, responsible choices that it cannot afford to have formally endorsed. Equally, the presence of a badge should not replace curiosity about how a company sources, formulates and operates.
For me, certification can offer evidence, but it should not be mistaken for the whole story.
Without a recognised standard or a clear explanation from the brand, natural may mean very different things from one product to another.
One formula might use naturally derived materials throughout, including its emollients, cleansing agents, emulsifiers and preservation strategy. Another might use a largely conventional cosmetic base, with selected plant oils or extracts added to support the product story.
Neither approach automatically makes a product unsafe or ineffective. The question is whether the person buying it understands the difference.
That conversation with my friend made me consider the ingredients people might be surprised to find in skincare they regard as natural, and the ingredients I personally choose not to use when formulating Hux + Mū.
My choices are not based on the belief that something is harmful simply because it is synthetic, nor that everything derived from a plant is automatically gentle. They arise from a more exacting question:
When I describe my skincare as natural, what do I want that word to mean throughout the whole formulation?
Natural-looking is not the same as naturally formulated
Botanical ingredients are familiar and appealing to talk about. Rose, chamomile, lavender and calendula connect a formula to plants, gardens, traditional remedies and the natural world.
The ingredients that determine how a product cleanses, emulsifies, thickens, preserves and feels on the skin are often less visible in the brand story.
A moisturiser might be promoted around a beautiful herbal extract while much of its structure is provided by conventional emulsifiers, synthetic polymers, silicones or petroleum-derived emollients.
This does not make the featured botanical meaningless. It simply means that it tells us relatively little about the construction of the formula as a whole.
For me, natural formulation is not about adding a handful of recognisable plant ingredients to an otherwise conventional base. It means considering the origin, processing, skin compatibility and purpose of the less glamorous ingredients too.
These are the materials that hold the formula together, determine its texture and keep it safe. They deserve as much thought as the oils and extracts named on the front of the bottle.
Before reading the label, understand INCI
Cosmetic ingredient lists use INCI names, the internationally recognised system for naming cosmetic ingredients.
These names can appear intimidating because even plant oils and extracts are not necessarily written in familiar language.
Sunflower seed oil, for example, appears as Helianthus Annuus Seed Oil. Marshmallow root extract appears as Althaea Officinalis Root Extract. A long Latin or scientific-looking name is therefore not evidence that an ingredient is synthetic.
Equally, the presence of a botanical INCI name does not prove that the entire product is natural.
Ingredients are generally listed in descending order by weight. Once ingredients are present at concentrations of one per cent or less, they may be listed in any order. This means that the first part of the list usually tells you most about the underlying structure of the product.
It does not mean that ingredients below one per cent are unimportant. Preservatives, antioxidants and some active ingredients may be effective or necessary at quite low levels. It does mean that an ingredient highlighted prominently in the marketing may form only a modest part of the formula.
The purpose of reading INCI is not to sort every ingredient into good or bad. It is to understand what is doing the main work in a product, and whether that reflects what you believed you were buying.
1. Polysorbates
What you may see on the label
Polysorbate 20
Polysorbate 60
Polysorbate 80
Polysorbates are widely used as solubilisers, surfactants and emulsifiers. They help oils, fragrance materials and other oil-soluble ingredients disperse through water-based products.
They are useful, effective ingredients and have been assessed as safe in established cosmetic uses when products are formulated appropriately.
What may be less obvious is how they are made.
Polysorbates often begin with materials that can include sorbitol and plant-derived fatty acids, but they are also ethoxylated during manufacture. The finished ingredient may therefore have partly plant-derived origins while undergoing a significant chemical processing step.
This is why they can appear in botanical or natural-looking products even though some natural formulation standards do not accept them.
I do not avoid polysorbates because I believe they are inherently dangerous. I choose not to use them because ethoxylated ingredients do not fit the formulation principles I have set for Hux + Mū.
Where suitable alternatives exist, I prefer solubilisers, emulsifiers and cleansing systems that align more closely with my interpretation of naturally formulated skincare.
2. PEGs and other ethoxylated ingredients
What you may see on the label
PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil
PEG-100 Stearate
PEG-7 Glyceryl Cocoate
Ceteareth-20
Laureth-4
Steareth-21
Oleth-10
Ethoxylation is a manufacturing process used to alter the properties of an ingredient. It may help an oily material mix with water, improve cleansing, support emulsification or create a lighter, more elegant texture.
These ingredients are used because they are versatile and reliable. They can make a formula easier to stabilise, manufacture and reproduce at scale.
Some begin with plant-derived fatty materials. Others may be derived from petrochemical feedstocks, or from a combination of sources. A plant-derived starting material does not necessarily mean that the finished substance would meet every natural formulation standard.
Ethoxylated ingredients are sometimes discussed in relation to 1,4-dioxane, which can form as an unintended trace by-product of manufacturing. It is not deliberately added to cosmetics, and purification and manufacturing controls are used to minimise it. The European Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety has concluded that trace levels at or below 10 parts per million in finished cosmetic products are considered safe.
My decision not to use ethoxylated materials is therefore not a claim that a properly manufactured product containing them is unsafe.
It is a decision about processing and consistency. I want the term natural to extend beyond the botanical oils and extracts into the emulsifiers, solubilisers and surfactants that form the backbone of the product.
Where I can create something safe, stable and effective without using ethoxylated ingredients, I prefer to do so.
3. Silicones
What you may see on the label
Dimethicone
Cyclopentasiloxane
Cyclohexasiloxane
Amodimethicone
Dimethicone Crosspolymer
Phenyl Trimethicone
Silicone ingredients often, although not invariably, end in “-cone”, “-conol” or “-siloxane”.
Silicones are used to improve glide, reduce tackiness and create an immediately smooth finish on the skin or hair. They can also form a light protective film and help reduce moisture loss.
There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting skincare to feel beautiful. Texture affects whether someone enjoys a product and uses it consistently.
However, the silky finish created by silicones can sometimes be mistaken for nourishment.
A formula may feel exceptionally smooth without necessarily supplying the skin with the fatty acids, sterols or barrier-supportive lipids associated with a thoughtfully constructed botanical formula.
I prefer to create slip and softness using materials such as squalane, seed oils, plant-derived emollients, ceramides and phytosterols. These contribute to the sensory experience while also serving the wider purpose of a product designed for dry, sensitive and changing skin.
Silicones can create an impressive surface finish. I simply prefer to build that experience through ingredients that earn their place in more than one way.
4. Petroleum-derived emollients and waxes
What you may see on the label
Mineral Oil
Paraffinum Liquidum
Petrolatum
Paraffin
Cera Microcristallina
Microcrystalline Wax
Ozokerite
Mineral oil, petrolatum and paraffin materials are commonly used because they are stable, relatively inert and effective at reducing water loss.
Petrolatum, in particular, has an important place in dermatology and barrier care. It can be extremely useful for protecting severely dry, damaged or compromised skin.
I would not dismiss its usefulness.
My decision not to formulate with petroleum-derived emollients is principally about origin, renewability and what I want the lipid phase of a daily facial product to contribute.
I prefer ingredients such as squalane, seed oils, plant waxes, ceramides and phytosterols. Depending on the material, these may provide different profiles of fatty acids, sterols, tocopherols and other naturally occurring plant compounds.
This does not mean that a plant oil is automatically a better choice. Plant oils can oxidise, vary in composition or be unsuitable for some skin. In certain circumstances, petrolatum may be the more intelligent and reliable material.
Natural formulation should not require denying that.
It is simply not the material I choose when creating everyday facial skincare.
5. Acrylates and synthetic film-formers
What you may see on the label
Carbomer
Acrylates Copolymer
Acrylates/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate Crosspolymer
Polyacrylate-13
Sodium Polyacrylate
VP/VA Copolymer
Synthetic polymers and acrylates can thicken formulas, stabilise emulsions, suspend particles and form smooth films over the skin.
Relatively small quantities can transform the appearance and texture of a product. They can help create weightless gels, light emulsions and the immediate blurring or tightening effects that customers often associate with sophisticated skincare.
This means that a transparent aloe or herbal gel may appear very simple and botanical while its finished texture is largely created by a synthetic polymer.
The plant ingredients may still be genuine and useful. The customer may simply not realise what is producing the experience of the product.
Where technically appropriate, I prefer to construct texture using natural gums, waxes, lipid structures, starches and naturally derived emulsifiers or rheology modifiers.
These alternatives bring their own challenges. Natural gums may feel sticky, waxes can become heavy, and botanical materials can vary between batches.
I do not believe natural skincare should feel rough, worthy or unsophisticated. It should still be stable, effective and pleasurable to use.
I am simply willing to accept a little of the natural character of a material rather than rely on a synthetic polymer to erase it completely.
6. Preservatives that fall outside my formulation standard
What you may see on the label
Common conventional preservatives
Phenoxyethanol
Chlorphenesin
Methylparaben
Propylparaben
Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives
DMDM Hydantoin
Imidazolidinyl Urea
Diazolidinyl Urea
Preservation is an essential part of responsible cosmetic formulation. Any product containing water must be protected against the growth of bacteria, yeast and mould, and a poorly preserved natural product is far more concerning than a properly assessed formula containing a conventional preservative.
The preservative landscape has shifted considerably over the past decade. Consumer demand, retailer policies, certification standards and regulatory scrutiny have encouraged many brands to reformulate. Parabens and formaldehyde-releasing preservatives are now less common in contemporary facial skincare, while phenoxyethanol and chlorphenesin remain widely used in conventional and dermatological formulas.
This change does not mean that every ingredient removed from a formula was unsafe, nor that its replacement is automatically gentler.
Phenoxyethanol, chlorphenesin and permitted parabens sit outside the natural formulation standard I have chosen for Hux + Mū. Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives raise a different consideration because they release very small amounts of formaldehyde over time, and I do not consider them appropriate for the facial products I create for dry, sensitive and changing skin.
Naturally formulated skincare still requires effective preservation. Rather than depending on one ingredient alone, formulators may use what is known as hurdle technology, combining several protective measures such as a carefully controlled pH, hygienic manufacturing, appropriate packaging and a suitable preservative system.
Preservatives accepted within natural formulation standards may still have unfamiliar or scientific-looking INCI names. Natural preservation does not mean preservative-free, nor does it require less chemistry, safety assessment or microbiological testing.
My aim is not to avoid preservation, but to create a complete system that keeps the product safe while remaining consistent with the formulation as a whole.
7. Synthetic fragrance and added aroma materials
What you may see on the label
Parfum
Fragrance
Aroma
You may also see individually declared fragrance allergens such as:
Linalool
Limonene
Citral
Geraniol
Eugenol
Citronellol
These compounds may be present in synthetic fragrance, essential oils or natural aromatic extracts. Their appearance on an ingredient list does not, by itself, reveal their origin.
Fragrance is one of the clearest examples of why natural and gentle are not interchangeable.
Synthetic fragrance can provoke sensitivity in some people, but essential oils and natural aromatic materials can also contain recognised fragrance allergens. A lavender or citrus-scented product may sound gentler than one containing parfum, but it is not automatically more appropriate for reactive skin.
I choose not to add fragrance or essential oils to Hux + Mū facial skincare. The subtle aroma comes from the raw materials themselves.
This means the products are not necessarily without scent. Plant oils, extracts and functional ingredients have their own aromas, and these may vary slightly between batches.
Scent can add pleasure, memory and ritual to skincare. My decision is not a judgement on every fragranced product.
It is a choice about priority.
When formulating for skin that may already feel dry, warm, sensitive or less predictable through midlife, I prefer not to add an ingredient whose main purpose is to change how the product smells.
A note on “forever chemicals”
Another group receiving increasing scrutiny is PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. They are often described as “forever chemicals” because many break down extremely slowly and can persist in the environment.
Certain PFAS may be intentionally added to cosmetics to improve water resistance, durability, texture, slip or smoothness. They have been identified in products including lipsticks, eye shadows, moisturisers, nail products, blushers and cleansers, and may also appear in some long-wear or performance-led make-up formulas.
What you may see on the label
Polytetrafluoroethylene, often written as PTFE
Perfluorononyl Dimethicone
Perfluorohexylethyl Triethoxysilane
Methyl Perfluorobutyl Ether
Methyl Perfluoroisobutyl Ether
Trifluoroacetyl Tripeptide-2
PFAS are a large and varied family, so it would be misleading to suggest that every substance within the group has the same properties or carries the same level of concern.
My principal concern is their persistence and the difficulty of justifying their intentional use in cosmetics when suitable alternatives are available. The UK Government has also identified PFAS reduction and exposure as an area for further regulatory action.
I do not formulate with intentionally added PFAS.
What do I use instead?
An ingredient list should not be judged solely by what has been left out.
The more meaningful question is what has been chosen instead, and what each material contributes to the formula.
I look for ingredients that can perform more than one role.
Squalane can improve spreadability and reduce a heavy or greasy feel while supporting softness and helping to limit moisture loss.
Seed oils can provide emollience alongside different profiles of fatty acids, tocopherols, phytosterols and other naturally occurring plant compounds.
Ceramides and sterol-rich ingredients can be selected for formulas designed around the changing lipid needs of dry and maturing skin.
Sugar-derived humectants and prebiotic ingredients can support hydration and help create a cleansing experience that does not leave the skin feeling stripped or tight.
Naturally derived emulsifiers, gums, waxes and stabilisers can give a product structure while remaining consistent with the principles applied to the rest of the formula.
Not every ingredient needs to be an active treatment. A product also needs materials that maintain stability, prevent oxidation, support preservation and create a texture that people will enjoy using.
My approach is not to use the fewest ingredients at any cost. It is to ask whether each one is necessary, whether it is appropriate for the skin I am formulating for and whether it earns its place.
How can you tell how natural a product really is?
There is no single shortcut hidden within an ingredient list.
A scientific-looking name is not necessarily synthetic, and a botanical name is not proof that the entire product is natural.
Instead, look at the formula as a whole.
Read beyond the plant extracts highlighted on the front of the packaging. Pay particular attention to the first part of the INCI list, because this usually reveals much of the product’s structure.
Consider what is providing the cleansing action, the emulsion, the slip and the texture.
Look for the ingredient families discussed above, but do not assume that their presence makes a product unsafe or poor quality.
Ask how the brand defines natural. Does it follow a recognised standard? Does it state the proportion of natural or naturally derived ingredients? Does it discuss its functional ingredients as openly as it discusses its botanicals? Does it distinguish between natural, naturally derived, botanical and nature-inspired?
You may be entirely comfortable using a product that combines botanical extracts with conventional cosmetic ingredients. Many effective and beautifully made products do exactly that.
You may prefer a stricter natural formulation standard.
There is no need to turn either choice into a moral judgement. What matters is having enough information to make it knowingly.
Natural skincare should be about clarity, not purity
My friend was not disappointed because she discovered that her skincare was unsafe.
She felt disappointed because the product was not quite what she believed she had chosen.
That distinction matters.
Beauty brands communicate through more than the claims printed on a label. Packaging, shop design, botanical imagery, product names and ingredient stories all shape our understanding of what a product is.
When a brand draws heavily on the visual language and associations of natural beauty, customers will understandably form assumptions about the formula.
As a founder and natural cosmetic formulator, I believe those assumptions deserve greater clarity.
For Hux + Mū, natural does not mean that every material is picked directly from a plant, or that every synthetic ingredient is automatically harmful.
It means considering the entire formulation, including the less glamorous ingredients that cleanse, preserve, emulsify and hold it together.
It means looking at origin and processing, but also at safety, stability, skin compatibility and purpose.
It means recognising that a naturally derived material can still be highly processed, and that a conventional ingredient can sometimes be useful, safe and appropriate.
Most of all, it means restraint.
Every ingredient should earn its place, not only in the story told around the product, but in the formula the customer actually receives.
Editorial note
This article reflects my personal formulation philosophy and the ingredient standards I have chosen for Hux + Mū. It is intended to help readers understand cosmetic ingredient lists and the different ways the term “natural” may be interpreted.
The inclusion of an ingredient in this article does not mean that it is inherently unsafe, unsuitable or poorly formulated. Cosmetic safety depends on the finished formulation, the concentration and quality of its ingredients, how the product is manufactured and preserved, and how it is used.
All cosmetic products legally placed on the market in Great Britain must undergo a safety assessment and comply with applicable cosmetic regulations. Individual skin responses vary, so anyone with persistent irritation, a diagnosed skin condition or concerns about a particular ingredient should seek advice from an appropriately qualified healthcare professional.
Further reading and ingredient resources
The following resources offer more detailed information about cosmetic ingredients, labelling, safety and natural formulation standards.
Cosmetic product ingredient labelling, CTPA
A clear introduction to cosmetic ingredient lists and the internationally recognised names used on product labels.
COSMILE Europe cosmetic ingredient database
A searchable consumer database explaining the purpose, properties and possible origins of almost 30,000 cosmetic ingredients.
European Commission CosIng database
The European Commission’s technical database of cosmetic substances and common ingredient names. CosIng is an information resource rather than confirmation that every listed ingredient is approved for unrestricted use.
Natural ingredients and ISO 16128, CTPA
An explanation of natural, derived-natural and organic ingredient definitions used within the voluntary ISO 16128 framework.
About the COSMOS standard
An overview of the principles and criteria used by the voluntary COSMOS natural and organic cosmetic certification system.
Considerations on trace levels of 1,4-dioxane in cosmetics, Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety
The scientific opinion referenced in the discussion of ethoxylated ingredients and unintended trace by-products.
Safety assessment of polysorbates, Cosmetic Ingredient Review
A detailed safety review of polysorbates used in cosmetic formulations.
Making cosmetic products available in Great Britain, GOV.UK
Official guidance covering cosmetic safety, labelling, claims, responsible persons and product notification.
Information and links last reviewed: August 2026.