Chemophobia or Toxic Cosmetics? Why Caution is Not Fear
In the world of natural cosmetics, terms like “non-toxic,” “chemical-free,” or “natural” often generate controversy. Brands promoting this approach are frequently accused of fueling chemophobia, which is the irrational fear of chemicals. At Banbu, we want to clarify that our position does not stem from fear, but from scientific evidence, the precautionary principle, and ethical formulation.
We aim to explain, in a technical and documented manner, why we choose to exclude certain ingredients from our formulas—even if they are legally permitted—and how we avoid making alarming or misleading claims.
Everything is chemistry, but not all chemistry is equal
First and foremost, we do not promote chemophobia. We know that everything around us, natural or synthetic, is composed of chemical substances. Water is a chemical substance (H₂O), as are vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and formaldehyde. Therefore, we do not consider “chemical” to be synonymous with “bad.” What we analyze is the toxicological profile, the context of use, cumulative exposure, and the susceptibility of certain population groups.
Why we remove certain ingredients: scientific evidence, not fear
In our formulation philosophy, we apply the precautionary principle, especially regarding substances that present scientific controversies, ongoing regulatory evaluations, or potential risks to human health or the environment. Some examples:
1. Endocrine Disruptors
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) are compounds capable of interfering with the hormonal system, even at very low doses. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) published a key report describing exposure to EDCs as an emerging global threat to public health【1】.
Studies like that by Vandenberg et al. (2012) show that many EDCs do not follow a traditional dose-response curve, meaning that “safe” levels according to classical toxicology may not be safe at all【2】. The EU has identified at least 28 substances suspected of being EDCs in cosmetics, and although their use is not yet banned, they are under evaluation by the SCCS and the European Commission【3】.
2. CMR substances (Carcinogenic, Mutagenic, or Toxic for Reproduction)
Some ingredients used in conventional cosmetics are classified as CMR substances under REACH regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006). Although the European Cosmetics Regulation 1223/2009 restricts the use of CMR substances, there are exceptions and delays in updating the lists. At Banbu, we choose not to include any substance suspected of chronic toxicity.
3. Controversial preservatives
Substances such as triclosan, formaldehyde releasers (DMDM Hydantoin, Imidazolidinyl Urea), or certain parabens have been progressively banned or restricted by European health authorities. However, others are still permitted. Our policy is to exclude all those with a history of allergic effects, long-term toxicity, or environmental bioaccumulation, even if they are not legally prohibited【4】【5】.
The cocktail effect: a regulatory loophole
One of the main problems with the current regulatory approach is that it evaluates ingredients individually, without considering combined exposure to multiple substances (the cocktail effect). The EFSA and ECHA have repeatedly acknowledged this limitation【6】.
Furthermore, toxicity studies are generally conducted on healthy adults, without considering the vulnerability of pregnant women, children, people with hormonal disorders, or chronic diseases. For many people, trust in a cosmetic is not based solely on its efficacy, but on the absence of ingredients that may pose a risk in their personal health context.
Responsible information ≠ fear marketing
At Banbu, we believe that consumers have the right to know not only what is in a product, but also what we have chosen not to include and why. This is not fear, but transparency.
We do not claim that conventional cosmetics are inherently toxic. We recognize the regulatory advancements, quality controls, and toxicological studies that support their safety. But we also recognize that current standards are neither infallible nor static, and that there are margins of scientific uncertainty that deserve honest communication, without dramatism, but without euphemisms.
Our alternative is based on:
-
Formulation according to stricter standards than legal ones (COSMOS, EWG Verified).
-
Ingredient selection based on their toxicological profile, not just their origin.
-
Inclusion of scientific literature in our formulation decisions.
-
Use of matrices free of known allergens and suitable for sensitive skin.
Conclusion: educate, not scare
Safe cosmetics are not just those that pass regulatory filters. They are also those that take into account the latest scientific findings, respect the diversity of users and their specific needs, and opt for simple, clean, and ethical formulas.
At Banbu, we do not foster chemophobia, but neither do we accept a complacent view that ignores the current limitations of the regulatory system. We prefer to talk about science, evidence, and responsibility.
Because true consumer freedom begins when they have all the information to decide.
References
-
WHO/UNEP (2013). State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012. World Health Organization.
-
Vandenberg, L. N., et al. (2012). "Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses." Endocrine Reviews, 33(3), 378–455.
-
European Commission. Priority List of Substances for Evaluation Regarding Endocrine Disruption.
-
Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products.
-
ECHA & EFSA (2020). Guidance on harmonised assessment of risk from combined exposure to multiple chemicals.
