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.
It is tempting to divide materials into neat categories: natural is good, synthetic is bad. In an era where time and trust feel scarce, these labels offer comfort. But real chemistry resists binaries. Both natural and synthetic ingredients can be safe or harmful, sustainable or destructive, beautiful or problematic. Perfume—perhaps more than any other corner of beauty—demands that we sit with the nuance.
The Trouble with the Binary
Natural and synthetic are tempting categories because they feel definitive: one safe, the other suspect. But the truth is far less tidy. Both camps contain ingredients that can soothe or harm, depending on context. What really matters is how a material behaves in the body and in the environment—and that comes down to toxicology, not marketing categories.
Chemicals are not villains; they are matter itself. What matters is how they behave in a formula and at what concentration. Toxicity is not a fixed quality but dose-dependent. Lavender oil can soothe at 1% in a lotion and irritate at 10%. The same principle applies to synthetic materials like hydroxycitronellal, long cherished for its fresh muguet note but restricted in use because it can sensitize the skin at higher levels.
The context of use matters, too. Toxicology studies often focus on ingestion, but in perfumery and cosmetics, exposure is usually topical. Confusing the two leads to unnecessary fear—or misplaced confidence.
Why Perfume Is Especially Hard to Judge
Cosmetics usually list their ingredients; fragrance, by contrast, often hides behind a single word: parfum. Consumers are asked to judge safety and quality without knowing what’s inside the bottle. It’s no surprise that simple labels—“natural,” “synthetic,” or increasingly, “non-toxic”—become stand-ins for trust. Yet these terms flatten nuance. To imply a fragrance is “non-toxic” suggests toxicity is an all-or-nothing property, rather than something tied to dose and circumstance. The absence of disclosure makes us lean harder on binaries that don’t reflect reality. For more on this, see our post on Non-Toxic Labels and the Complexity of Perfume Safety.
Where to Find Truth in a Sea of Misinformation
The beauty industry is saturated with misinformation—sometimes even from institutions that should know better. To navigate this, I look to independent scientific and regulatory bodies that evaluate materials with rigor:
- IFRA / RIFM (fragrance safety and use standards)
- EU SCCS / COSING (ingredient safety assessments and restrictions)
- EU CMR Classification (materials reviewed for carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reproductive toxicity)
- FDA’s Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR)
- ECHA REACH (environmental data, including persistence and biodegradability)
These frameworks are not perfect, but they provide a shared ground for understanding safety and risk without resorting to fear-driven marketing. At Society Botanica, these same references guide our own material selections, ensuring that each fragrance is both beautiful and responsibly built. You can read more in our Clarity in Cosmetics article.
Origins Matter, But They Don’t Tell the Whole Story
In perfumery, “synthetic” is a deceptively simple word. The reality is far more tangled. Aroma chemicals can be made from petrochemical feedstocks, wood and paper byproducts, agricultural waste, or even fermentation. Some arise from circular chemistry, where materials once considered waste—like orange peel residues, fusel oils from brewing, or rice bran byproducts—become feedstocks for molecules such as limonene, isoamyl acetate, or vanillin. Others, like Hedione—Firmenich’s famous jasmine molecule—were discovered as by-products of entirely unrelated industries.
This complexity means assessing origin and processing is a laborious but necessary task. Petrochemical feedstocks are only one facet of synthetic perfumery; many materials draw from renewable or circular sources that reduce environmental pressure. What matters is not simply whether a molecule is natural or synthetic, but how it is produced, how it performs in a formula, and how it behaves once it enters the environment.
Natural Analogs: Blurring the Line
Some molecules exist in nature but are produced in the lab to reduce environmental strain. We call these natural analogs. They can be created in two ways: through traditional chemistry (for example, citronellol from renewable wood byproducts) or through modern biotechnology such as fermentation (like squalane from sugarcane). In both cases, the result is the same molecule found in nature—often delivered with greater consistency, lower cost, and a lighter environmental footprint.
Consider squalane, once sourced from shark livers and later from olives. Both origins were environmentally intensive. Today, most squalane is produced through sugarcane fermentation, yielding the same molecule with far less ecological impact—and better performance on skin.
Or take citronellol, a rosy molecule found in geranium and rose oils. When produced from renewable wood byproducts, it offers a clean, consistent, and stable profile—without the agricultural intensity of large-scale rose cultivation.
Together, these examples show how natural analogs can ease environmental pressure while offering equal—or better—stability and elegance in formulas.
Toxicity in Nature
Natural does not automatically mean safe. Safrole, found in sassafras and nutmeg, is banned for carcinogenicity. Methyleugenol, naturally present in basil and rose, is restricted to trace levels. Estragole, in fennel and tarragon, carries similar restrictions. Furocoumarins like bergapten, common in citrus and fig leaf absolute, are tightly limited for phototoxicity.
These are familiar plants—herbs, spices, and fruits that many associate with purity. Their regulation underscores a critical truth: regulators don’t ask whether something is natural or synthetic. They ask what the data shows about safety, dose, and exposure.
Society Botanica’s Approach
All Society Botanica fragrances are designed in-house, specifically for their partner formulations. Botanical extracts form the backbone of every formula, accounting for at least 90% of their composition. When synthetics are used, they are chosen carefully: either natural analogs or eco-minded synthetics with proven biodegradability.
This approach reflects three commitments:
-
Wariness, not fear. We acknowledge the history that justifies consumer caution, but we refuse to weaponize that caution through empty “non-toxic” claims.
-
Science over shorthand. Our formulations align with IFRA and SCCS standards, avoid CMR and PBT substances, and exclude poorly studied synthetics until robust data exists.
-
Sustainability in practice. We avoid ecologically intensive naturals (such as Indian sandalwood), preferring renewable alternatives (like Australian sandalwood) or supplementing with eco-minded synthetics when needed.
The result is fragrance that is both botanically rich and environmentally respectful—perfume that honors complexity rather than flattening it into buzzwords.
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
Explore Our Formulas
