Talk:Certified Organic Sunscreen

Feedback

Hey They / Them! Let me know if you have any feedback or suggestions! Appreciate it, thank you! DemocratGreen (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit 9 August

@DemocratGreen would you mind explain this revert? Zinc oxide is an inorganic compound which is also present in nature as mineral, but to obtain the grade needed for a cosmetic product an industrial process is needed, so labelling it as natural is only marketing. Besides, the term inorganic compound when referring to ZnO or TiO2 is not outdated, it is the correct one. The paragraph "Major standards" in your version contains no real information about the standards themselves, while I tried to explain what these guidelines are regulating. And none of the present link indicates why COSMSO "was heavily adapted off of existing organic agricultural standards"; I adapted the sentence from a previous version according to this paper. LostMyAccount (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@LostMyAccount, I appreciate your insights and dedication to factual accuracy. Let me address the concerns around the labeling of zinc oxide as "natural" within a cosmetic context:

1. Natural Origin of Zinc Oxide: Fundamentally, zinc oxide is derived from nature. It exists as a mineral, and its very essence is of natural origin. It's essential to differentiate between source and process. Just because an ingredient undergoes an industrial process for purification doesn't necessarily strip it of its "natural" status.
2. Purity and Heavy Metal Contamination: Certified organic sunscreens and many cosmetics undergo strict regulations, especially concerning heavy metal contamination. The process of refining zinc oxide for cosmetics ensures it meets these high purity standards. This refined, purified zinc oxide is what many certification bodies recognize as 'natural' precisely because it is free from synthetic additives and contaminants.
3. Shift in Consumer Understanding: Over the years, the consumer's understanding of "natural" has evolved. Today, it's more about ensuring the ingredient is free from harmful synthetic additives rather than its process of extraction or refinement. When consumers see "natural" zinc oxide, they understand it to mean the ingredient is safe, pure, and derived from a natural source, even if it underwent processes to ensure its purity.

Also to address Cosmos and EcoCert:

1. ECOCERT's Beginnings:
   • Agricultural Origins: ECOCERT was founded in France in 1991 and initially focused on the certification of organic farming practices. They have been pivotal in setting and promoting organic agricultural standards in Europe and worldwide.
   • Expansion into Cosmetics: Recognizing the growing demand for organic and natural cosmetics and the need for standardized guidelines in this sector, ECOCERT began developing standards specifically for these products in the early 2000s.
   • Link to Agriculture: Much of the criteria in ECOCERT's cosmetic certification process relates to the sourcing of ingredients. Ingredients derived from plants, for instance, should originate from organic farming practices. Thus, their background in agricultural standards deeply influences their cosmetic certification criteria.
2. COSMOS's Origins:
   • Collaborative Foundation: COSMOS, or "Cosmetic Organic and Natural Standard", was established in 2010 as a collaboration between five European certification bodies: ECOCERT, Soil Association (UK), BDIH (Germany), ICEA (Italy), and COSMEBIO (France). The goal was to harmonize various organic and natural cosmetic standards that were proliferating in Europe at that time.
   • Ties to Agriculture: Much like ECOCERT, the standards set by COSMOS have roots in organic agricultural principles. For an ingredient to be deemed "organic" under COSMOS standards, it must adhere to guidelines that are reminiscent of organic farming criteria.
   • Holistic Approach: COSMOS goes beyond just the ingredients. The standard also considers environmental aspects, such as biodegradability and packaging, drawing parallels with sustainable farming practices and their holistic approach to the environment.
3. Loosely Based on Agricultural Standards:
   • While the cosmetic standards set by ECOCERT and COSMOS have clear influences from organic agricultural standards, they are not direct replicas. Cosmetics have unique challenges and considerations, such as product preservation, texture, and skin compatibility. As a result, while the standards for organic ingredients derive from agricultural practices, the overall cosmetic standards have been adapted to the specific needs and challenges of the cosmetic industry.
4. The Rationale:
   • The adaptation of agricultural standards for cosmetics makes logical sense. Many ingredients in organic and natural cosmetics are directly sourced from plants or minerals. Ensuring that these ingredients are grown, harvested, and processed sustainably and without harmful chemicals extends the philosophy of organic agriculture into the realm of cosmetics.

The same is true for USDA organic which originally started out in organic farming and moved to regulating organic personal care products. DemocratGreen (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to say this, but I see a lot of marketing talk here with no scientific base. First of all, natural doesn't necessarily mean safe and synthetic doesn't necessarily mean harmful, despite some companies and organizations try to pass this message. TiO2 produces ROS when exposed to UV light and ZnO is toxic to aquatic environment, that's why these compounds are coated when used in cosmetic products (is coating natural?). You write "Fundamentally, zinc oxide is derived from nature. It exists as a mineral, and its very essence is of natural origin"; I could write the same when referring to mineral oils, right? ZnO is naturally occurring as zincite, but still in the cosmetic industry is mainly synthetically produced.

Regarding ECOCERT and COSMOS, do you have a reference to say that "the standard was heavily adapted off of existing organic agricultural standards"? If not, all you wrote is just your own conclusions which can't be placed in an encyclopedia. If COSMOS regards TiO2 and ZnO as non-renewable this should be reported, not hidden behind your sentence on agricultural standards. You still haven't explained why you reverted my edits on the NSF/ANSI 305 and ISO 16128 sections by the way.

Given your edit history, I don't understand if you work for a zinc oxide-producing company or if you are a customer worried about environmental impacts of cosmetic products. In the latter case, it's good to be worried, but please remember to base your edits on science, not on marketing LostMyAccount (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Natural vs. Safe: I understand and acknowledge the broader point you make about synthetics. Many certifiers and consumers lean towards natural ingredients primarily because of concerns related to environmental harm and potential adverse effects from synthetic alternatives. Certification bodies often function based on consumer demands and preferences, and they're not regulatory entities per se. Their role is to create standards that cater to an audience seeking natural and organic products. Both TiO2 and Zinc Oxide are widely acknowledged as safe and effective in the world of cosmetics. Their environmental impact, particularly in the case of petrochemical derivatives, differs considerably. As you may be aware the oxidised nature of zinc oxide enhancing its stability is notable. Furthermore, the presence of zinc in natural water bodies like seas underscores its natural affinity with aquatic ecosystems. Regarding coated zinc oxide, I concur; the reference in the article was to the regular, uncoated type.

Zinc Oxide & Mineral Oils: The distinction you've drawn between regular, uncoated zinc oxide and its coated counterpart is crucial. The former fits well within most natural standards due to its intrinsic nature, while the latter's silicone coating might challenge its 'natural' label. When discussing mineral oils, it's essential to emphasise purity standards that determine the naturalness of an ingredient. Regular uncoated zinc oxide, with its high purity levels, would certainly meet these criteria.

ECOCERT and COSMOS Standards: I have included a reference to a French paper, which provides historical context and foundational knowledge about ECOCERT and COSMOS, as both are rooted in France.

Renewability of Ingredients: The term's interpretation varies depending on the certifying standard and its definition context. While agricultural products lean towards carbon-based renewability, it's understandable why petrochemical actives don't align with such criteria. If one consults the section on renewability in the Cosmos version 4 (2023) documentation, it offers insights into how certain materials can be deemed renewable. It's crucial to understand that minerals, in general, might not always fit the specific renewable category, because of the evolution of agricultural standards in to cosmetics.

Bias and Transparency: Firstly, for full transparency, I'd like to share that I'm a part-time sunscreen and environmental hobbyist, with a keen interest in zinc oxide. My intent here is to bring forward factual information backed by evidence, not to promote any product or entity. Wikipedia thrives on neutrality and factual accuracy. While you raised concerns about Zinc Oxide's toxicity to marine life, I'd like to highlight that zinc acts as a cofactor in coral growth, signalling its importance in aquatic ecosystems. If any vested interests guide our edits, we should openly communicate them to maintain the platform's trustworthiness. I encourage the same transparency from you and all contributors. DemocratGreen (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I will give you a more detailed answer at a later stage due to lack of time, but I just want to point out that zinc oxide is classified as harmful to aquatic life ([1]). Regarding renewability, if COSMOS regards ZnO and TiO2 as non-renewable, then Wikipedia must report this fact, not find a reason behind the classification given by COSMOS LostMyAccount (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to my above answer with regards to renewable. Additionally zinc oxide and titanium are the only uv filters recognised as safe and effective by the FDA. Additionally, zinc oxide is within reason safe for aquatic life, zinc is a essential element in the oceans, coral and is an crucial enzyme cofactor in most life forms. DemocratGreen (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Zinc oxide is classified as dangerous for aquatic life, have you ever tried to read its safety data sheet? Anyway, this is not relevant at the moment, what is relevant is that you are reverting my edits without reason. The section "major standards" should describe the standards, not the bodies that created those standards. So it should not contain information about what the ISO is (information already present here), but about ISO 16128. In this version I don't read anything that explains what the guideline does. Same for the other subsections. Regarding non renewability of ZnO, "my" version is based on this paper which says "COSMOS position regarding minerals is that, although necessary in cosmetics, they are not a renewable source", "your" version is still missing a reference that support the sentence "as the standard was heavily adapted off of existing organic agricultural standards" --LostMyAccount (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Original research and other problems

I believe that this page is affected by several problems and needs to be reviewed and, probably, shortened. Due to the lack of specific legislations, organic claims in cosmetics are not regulated and this page is often built using the websites of different self-assigned certifying bodies as references. This over usage of primary sources is IMHO borderline with an original research. Sentences such as "Certified Organic refers to the processing and production of a personal care product without the use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides, petrochemicals, aromatic hydrocarbons and other contaminants or practices" needs secondary sources, also because the two present at the moment [2] [3] don't seem to support it.

Besides, I have the impression that references are put quite randomly just to pretend that the page is solid. As examples, the first reference in the page doesn't even talk about sunscreens or cosmetics, while ref11 (used for the sentence "Organisations that manage standards and certifiers generally provide allowances for natural ingredients, such as water, as well as minerals such zinc oxide and titanium dioxide towards their organic calculation") refers to organic crop and livestock production.

Other sentences are confusing ("Petrochemical suppliers may promote their ingredients as organic compounds; however, it is essential not to confuse this with the term "organic" or "certified organic". In this context, "organic compounds" simply means that the substances are derived from petroleum sources"; as everyone that took a class in chemistry in high school knows, organic compound and petroleum-derived are not synonyms) or have little to do with the page (such as the second part of the "Certified organic production practices" section LostMyAccount (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)