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 words toxic and chemical have fused into a kind of cultural shorthand for danger. In personal care and perfumery, this has given rise to “non-toxic” branding—a phrase that sounds reassuring but obscures a more complicated landscape. It suggests that fragrance materials fall into a simple binary of safe vs. unsafe, when in reality safety depends on dose, context, and use.
This binary framing also feeds chemophobia. We dislike that word—an irrational fear of chemicals—because it dismisses legitimate consumer concerns. History has given us plenty of reason to be wary: from asbestos to leaded gasoline to the early use of coal tar dyes, industries have often paraded dangerous substances as safe. That legacy means caution is wise. But fear alone, without nuance, becomes a trap—fueling misleading claims rather than fostering trust. More on this in our Clarity in Cosmetics article.
What “Non-Toxic” Obscures
In cosmetics and perfumery, “non-toxic” claims are especially fraught. Most perfume ingredients are not disclosed on labels, making it impossible for customers to evaluate them directly. Instead, brands rely on vague assurances. But to call a perfume “non-toxic” implies that toxicity is a simple yes/no, when in fact:
- Toxicity is dose-dependent. Even water can be harmful at the wrong dose; conversely, some materials with known hazards can be used safely at controlled levels.
- Natural ≠ safe. Essential oils like parsley leaf and basil contain compounds flagged for potential carcinogenicity or reproductive toxicity. Conversely, some synthetics have cleaner safety and environmental profiles than their natural counterparts.
- Marketing language blurs science. Non-toxic claims rarely cite the actual frameworks or limits being applied—they rely on fear while offering no explanation.
How Ingredients Are Classified
To assess risk, regulators and scientific bodies evaluate fragrance and cosmetic ingredients for both human health and environmental impact:
- IFRA / RIFM – Establishes use limits for fragrance materials across product categories (e.g., perfume vs. lotion).
- EU SCCS / COSING – Maintains Annex II (banned) and Annex III (restricted) cosmetic ingredient lists.
- FDA Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) – Reviews safety of cosmetic ingredients in the U.S. context.
- ECHA REACH – Collects data on persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity, and biodegradability, often using OECD 301/302 standards.
These frameworks are essential, but they are not perfect.
The Limits of “Non-Toxic” Gatekeepers
Regulatory systems provide guardrails, but they are not infallible:
- Hazard vs. exposure. Many classifications are based on oral toxicity data, even when an ingredient is only ever used topically or in rinse-off products. This can exaggerate or obscure the real-world risk.
- Data gaps. Many aroma molecules are relatively new (developed in the last 75 years, some within the last decade). Long-term studies on human health or environmental persistence are often incomplete. Until those data exist, safety is assumed rather than demonstrated.
- Industry lobbying. Exceptions can and do occur. When a material is economically important, trade groups may argue for restricted use rather than a ban. In these cases, “safe within limits” reflects commercial compromise as much as science.
- Slow systems. Reviews take years. By the time an ingredient is officially banned, it may already have been widely used.
This is why blanket “non-toxic” claims are misleading. If a brand declares its perfumes or cosmetics “non-toxic” but does not explain how that conclusion was reached—which standards were applied, which materials are excluded, and why—the claim rests on fear, not transparency. It keeps the cycle of chemophobia alive without actually building trust.
At Society Botanica, Our Standard Goes Further
At Society Botanica, we take a different approach. Our formulas:
- Adhere to IFRA and SCCS standards as a baseline.
- Avoid CMR-listed materials and persistent, bioaccumulative, or toxic (PBT) substances entirely.
- Exclude novel, under-studied synthetics until robust data exist.
- Favor eco-minded synthetics when natural options carry higher environmental strain or less stable formula outcomes. See our post on Palm Oil for more on how agriculture and sustainability intersect.
- Disclose our fragrance philosophy openly, so our reasoning—not vague labels—guides customer trust.
Toxicity in Nature
It’s worth noting that some beloved botanical ingredients come with real safety concerns—and are strictly regulated. The IFRA standards (grounded in RIFM research) list several natural essential oils that are either prohibited outright or severely restricted, not for synthetic impurity, but for their inherent toxicity or sensitization risk.
- Safrole (found in sassafras oil, nutmeg, star anise, and basil varieties). Prohibited in fragrances (Annex II, EU/IFRA) due to carcinogenicity in animal studies.
- Estragole (Methyl chavicol) (occurs in basil, tarragon, fennel). Restricted by IFRA because of genotoxic and carcinogenic potential. Strict limits in leave-on applications.
- Methyleugenol (found in basil, rose, and other oils). Restricted to extremely low levels (near-trace in leave-ons) due to carcinogenicity concerns.
- Coumarin (occurs in tonka bean, cinnamon, lavender, etc.). Restricted as a skin sensitizer, with max use levels across categories.
- Furocoumarins (e.g., bergapten) (naturally present in citrus peel oils, fig leaf, angelica root). Severely restricted due to phototoxicity. Example: expressed bergamot oil must be bergapten-free or used only at ultra-low levels in leave-on products.
- Thujone (found in sage, wormwood, thuja, tansy). Restricted due to neurotoxicity; use levels are capped tightly.
- Camphor (natural) (from camphor tree oil, also in rosemary). Restricted because of neurotoxicity risks at higher exposures.
Why this matters:
The molecules on this list aren’t obscure lab creations—they’re naturally occurring isolates found in plants people know well, from citrus to herbs and flowers. Many of them contribute to the character we cherish in those botanicals.
Regulators don’t weigh their origin when setting restrictions; they weigh the toxicological evidence. The fact that citral, methyleugenol, or bergapten must be carefully controlled shows why “natural” can’t be a simple proxy for safety. What matters is dose, context, and evidence—not just the source.
Why Our Standard Goes Beyond “Non-Toxic”
At Society Botanica, we choose wariness, not fear. We acknowledge the history that justifies consumer concern, but we refuse to weaponize that concern through empty marketing claims. Instead, we apply the most stringent global standards, scrutinize emerging research, and consciously avoid poorly studied or environmentally harmful ingredients.
Our goal is not to chase a “non-toxic” label—it is to create perfumes that are gentle on skin, respectful of the environment, and grounded in both science and botanical tradition. This philosophy lives in our Cedar & Mandarin Body Wash and Cedar & Mandarin Body Lotion.
Related Reading & Products
Continue Learning
- Clarity in Cosmetics: Making Sense of Ingredients and Misinformation
- Palm Oil and the Complexities of Personal Care
- Natural vs. Synthetic in Perfumery
Explore Our Formulas
