Is ‘natural’ better than ‘artificial’? Skincare products underscore why that view is wrongheaded

e edba
Image: July Prokopiv/Shutterstock
We love nature and hope that it loves us back. But too often, the world of consumer marketing becomes fixated on the idea that “natural” is superior to those things created by researchers and scientists.

As Josh Bloom, an organic chemist and head of the American Council on Science and Health, has written:

The divide between “natural” and “artificial” chemicals is meaningless – something many Americans do not know. The origin of a chemical is irrelevant. Your body cannot tell what is natural or synthetic – only the properties of the chemical matter.

Much of the debate over natural/artificial has played over food, fertilizers, pesticides and related subjects. But we can also look to skincare for an example demonstrating that what’s claimed to be “natural” is not necessarily better than the alternatives. In fact, “natural” ingredients are often less tested than their synthetic or “chemically-sounding” counterparts and can cause more problems for consumer safety and their skin health.

moisturizerHere is a case in point. Most cosmetic products require a good preservative system to keep them free of microbial contamination. Some of the most effective and non-irritating preservatives belong to the family of parabens (which, by the way, naturally occur in berries and other plants).

Unfortunately, after reading misleading media reports about a study (conducted in 2004) that found parabens in breast cancer tissue, consumers deemed this family of preservatives undesirable. This was a classical case of “correlation does not mean causation”. Since then, multiple studies were done assessing parabens’ safety leading the EU’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety in 2011 to establish “the use of butylparaben and propylparaben as preservatives in finished cosmetic products as safe to the consumer, as long as the sum of their individual concentrations does not exceed 0.19%” (a typical concentration in a cosmetic product is 0.01%).

The news about the multiple studies confirming the safety of parabens as preservatives in skincare, unfortunately, did not make the headlines, so many consumers remained fearful of seeing them in their products. The fear was even reinforced by the companies that decided to get a competitive advantage out of it and advertise their products as paraben-free, switching their formulas to alternative, less tested and often more allergenic preservatives. As the result, consumers, in part reacting to the increasing number of dermatitis cased caused by these substitute preservatives, became wary of preservatives as such.

In this environment, many brands, by choice or by pressure from their market research insights, decided to to formulate with “natural” preservatives. The challenge for responsible cosmetic formulators it presents has been quite significant: after all, even the nature uses parabens to preserve the goodness of berries. Luckily, a new “all-natural” ingredient called radish ferment filtrate (aka kimchi filtrate) appeared on the market offering a great solution to the challenge. The ingredient has remarkable anti-bacterial properties and works as a decent preservative. Amazing – a vegetable goodness and product preservation in one! The ingredient has been widely adopted: according to the What’s In My Jar’s database, about 5% of leave-in skincare products sold in Sephora, Ulta and Amazon (US) today use it.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Scientists became excited to figure out what exactly was making the radish ferment work so well against microbes. To their disappointment, they discovered that the antimicrobial properties of the ferment were not due to the presence of some previously unknown plant peptide, but rather of salicylic acid and ammonium salts. What’s remarkable is that these compounds are not produced naturally by radish & cabbage, nor are they are products of fermentation. The scientists concluded that these compounds were over 20 000 year old, originated from petroleum-based precursors (that is, the “parent” chemicals of crude oil) and got into the plant roots through soil.

This peculiar origin of the preservation properties of the fermented radish filtrate does not make it less natural (crude oil is 100% of natural origin). It does make it more dangerous, though. Ammonia salts can irritate the skin and cause an allergic reaction. What’s even more dangerous is that, because of the plant origin of the preservative substance, it is difficult to know the exact amount of the ammonia salts and salicylic acid contained in each batch of it. In other words, if your product contains the Radish ferment filtrate, even the product manufacturer is unlikely to know exactly how much ammonia salts will be getting onto your skin.

One of the most disappointing parts of the whole story is that the study detailing the ammonia salt content in the ingredient has been published 4 years ago, in 2015. Skincare brands did not stop using the substance. To our knowledge, no safety assessment studies for the radish ferment filtrate followed the discovery, so, for now, it might be a good idea to avoid this preservative in your skincare.

The bottom line: while the plant-based ingredients today have an irrational appeal to many consumers, synthetic and “chemical-sounding” preservatives in cosmetics are safer than the alternatives that are marketed as “natural”.

Maria Semykoz is co-founder of What’s In My Jar. Follow her on Twitter @MariaSemykoz

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
DtAieAIkCZy-uchn-oqg
Viewpoint: In the science misinformed grifter game plan, the organic-food-is-healthier myth might be the worst.
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-15-2026-01_04_14-PM
Viewpoint: How politicized science became a political religion 
eu-farming-policy
EU bureaucrats are finally catching up to the gene editing revolution in food and agriculture
Picture1
The Lackland flu outbreak is fading but Hegseth’s military anti-vaccine fiasco is not
Screenshot-2026-07-06-at-11.30.08-AM
AI is making even its founders uneasy: ‘We find evidence of introspection, joy, satisfaction, fear, grief and unease.’
Food+as+Medicine
Viewpoint: Treat food as medicine
chjpdmf zs sci pbwfnzxmvd vic l zs ymdiylta l zsmtu nty otkwmtetaw hz uta a dzjyy euanbn
Technical milestone or designer baby obsession: Latest gene-editing advance reignites a familiar ethical debate
Screenshot-2026-07-02-at-10.03.56-AM
‘Trust, access, and equity’: After billions of doses worldwide, yet another review of COVID vaccine confirms its safety and effectiveness
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-25-2026-12_23_17-PM
No, Bill Gates did not secretly engineer ticks to promote veganism
Screenshot-2026-07-02-at-11.22.28-AM
Is Ebola a hoax created by fake humanitarians to steal African land and resources? Disinformation sweeps through the Congo. 
full
Misnamed ‘medical freedom’ movement stalls in Florida as Republicans fail to advance legislation ending school vaccine mandates
Screenshot-2026-06-15-at-1.50.43-PM
Viewpoint—Gutting the CDC: Survey of current and past CDC workforce accuses RFK, Jr. and Trump of destroying the agency and endangering public health
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-2-2026-11_46_46-AM
Viewpoint: Weaponizing misinformation
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.