Welcome to the Society Botanica blog. Here, we take time with the questions that shape personal care, offering thoughtful perspectives where the conversation is often oversimplified. Our goal is to bring clarity without fear or exaggeration, and to share information that feels both calm and trustworthy. If you ever have a question, or see something that could be improved, we’d love to hear from you.
The world of cosmetics and personal care can feel overwhelming. Information moves quickly, myths repeat themselves until they sound like facts, and even well-intentioned voices can sometimes add to the confusion. For anyone trying to make thoughtful choices, it can feel like walking through a hall of mirrors.
Because this is my craft, I spend much of my time reading, cross-checking, and trying to make sense of it all. Over the years I’ve learned where the trustworthy answers live, and I want to share a simplified version of that map. My hope is that it brings you a little peace of mind too.
The INCI System: A Common Language
I once came across a reputable maker that declared that the INCI system—the naming convention for cosmetic ingredients—was designed to confuse consumers. It’s an understandable suspicion; chemistry can feel intimidating. But INCI was created for the opposite reason: to make things clearer.
Before the 1970s, labels weren’t required at all. A jar of Pond’s cream or a bottle of powder gave you little sense of what was inside. Scientists used long, technical IUPAC names that were nearly impossible to fit on a label. INCI (International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients) gave us one concise name for each material, recognized worldwide.
Take caprylic/capric triglyceride, a gentle emollient found in countless lotions. Without INCI, it would appear as Decanoic acid, ester with 1,2,3-propanetriol octanoate. INCI isn’t perfect, but it offers us a shared language that makes ingredient panels possible, readable, and accountable.
Toxicity: Looking Beyond the Headlines
Safety is rarely black and white, but it’s easy to see how it gets portrayed that way. Two common points of confusion are worth clarifying:
1. Toxicity depends on dose.
Even water is toxic at a high enough level. Many ingredients on so-called “dirty lists” are already heavily restricted or banned by law. Their presence on lists doesn’t necessarily add new protection—it just reframes existing regulations. For perfume-specific limits, see IFRA’s published Standards via IFRA (based on RIFM research).
2. Oral toxicity isn’t the same as topical safety.
You may see references to LD50 values—the amount of a substance that, when swallowed neat, is lethal to half of test animals. This is ingestion data, not topical use. A substance that is hazardous when eaten may be completely safe in the minuscule, diluted amounts used on skin.
It’s natural to want clear rules: safe vs. unsafe, good vs. bad. But cosmetic safety is better understood as a spectrum that takes context and concentration into account. For a deeper dive on dose and labeling nuance in fragrance, you can also read our essay on Non‑Toxic Labels and the Complexity of Perfume Safety.
Finding Trustworthy Sources
When looking for clarity, it helps to return to sources that are science-based, panel-reviewed, and focused specifically on cosmetics. Ideally, these are non-profit or governmental, with no commercial incentive.
Everyday reference: CosmeticsInfo.org (PCPC, U.S.) – Accessible ingredient summaries rooted in Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) data.
For deeper research:
• EU SCCS opinions / COSING database – Ingredient restrictions and opinions.
• FDA Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) – Authoritative expert panel reports.
• ECHA REACH – Persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity, and biodegradability (OECD 301/302).
For fragrance specifically: IFRA Standards / RIFM assessments.
These resources may not always be quick reads, but they are steady ground in a sea of noise.
Ingredient Decoders: Helpful, with Limits
Online ingredient decoders are popular tools. They can be useful for getting a general sense of what an ingredient does or for spotting patterns across products. But they’re less reliable for judging safety.
- Comedogenic ratings often come from rabbit ear studies in the 1980s, which don’t translate neatly to human skin.
- Love/hate user scores reflect subjective experience, not scientific consensus.
- Cherry-picked studies sometimes rely on ingestion data or isolated animal trials that don’t reflect real cosmetic use.
Seen in this light, these tools can be stepping stones for curiosity—but not final verdicts.
Certifications and Fear
Certifications can feel reassuring, especially when ingredient names look intimidating. But when a certification system is profit-driven, or its criteria are hidden, it’s wise to approach with gentle skepticism. Fear has, unfortunately, become its own economy in beauty.
The good news is: real safety isn’t hidden. It’s available through open regulatory frameworks and decades of peer-reviewed science.
A Kinder Way Forward
Cosmetics is an intricate world—part science, part artistry, part care. At its best, it offers us small luxuries that also protect and nurture our skin. At its worst, it can feel like a maze of contradictory claims.
The way through is not by rejecting complexity, but by leaning on the systems designed to interpret it. They aren’t perfect, but they are transparent, collaborative, and evolving. If you want a balanced comparison of cleansing systems, see our overview of Traditional Soap vs. Modern Cleansers.
And perhaps most importantly: you don’t need to hold every detail in your head. Simply knowing where the trustworthy answers live can bring calm in a noisy landscape.
✨ Clarity itself is a form of care.
Related Reading & Products
Continue Learning
- Clarity in Cosmetics: Making Sense of Ingredients and Misinformation
- Non‑Toxic Labels and the Complexity of Perfume Safety
- Traditional Soap vs. Modern Cleansers
- Palm Oil and the Complexities of Personal Care
Explore Our Formulas
