I love nature. That will surprise no one who knows me or knows Shea.Delight. I am fascinated by plant oils, butters, botanical infusions, clays and the many ways natural materials can contribute to a thoughtfully formulated skincare product. Nature is part of the reason I became a formulator, and it remains at the heart of the work I do.
But loving natural ingredients does not require me to pretend that everything natural is automatically gentle, harmless or suitable for every person.
In fact, I believe that one of the responsibilities of a natural skincare formulator is to say this clearly.
The word natural has become one of the most powerful words in the beauty industry. It can suggest purity, simplicity and closeness to the earth. For many consumers, including many of my own customers, it also reflects deeply held choices about the products they want to use and the businesses they want to support.
I understand that. Shea.Delight itself was built around my love of natural ingredients and thoughtful, small-batch making.
But I think we need a more mature conversation about what natural skincare actually means.
Because natural does not automatically mean gentle, and synthetic does not automatically mean harmful.
That sentence does not weaken my belief in natural skincare. I believe it makes that belief more informed.
What do we actually mean when we say “natural”?
This is a surprisingly difficult question.
There are technical frameworks for classifying natural and natural-origin cosmetic ingredients. For example, ISO 16128 provides guidelines for defining and calculating natural and organic ingredient content. But importantly, ISO itself states that the standard does not address human safety, environmental safety, product claims or labelling communication. In other words, defining an ingredient as natural is not the same as declaring it safe for every person or every use.
This distinction matters.
A substance can have a natural origin and still require careful handling. It may be perfectly appropriate at one concentration and irritating at another. It may be suitable in a rinse-off product but inappropriate at the same concentration in a leave-on facial product. It may be well tolerated by thousands of people and cause an allergic reaction in someone who has become sensitised to it.
The origin of an ingredient tells us where it came from.
It does not, by itself, tell us everything about how it should be used.
The problem with dividing ingredients into “good” and “bad”
I sometimes think the modern beauty industry has encouraged us to think about ingredients as characters in a story.
Natural ingredients are presented as the heroes.
Synthetic ingredients become the villains.
The reality is much less dramatic and much more interesting.
Every substance is made of chemicals. Water is a chemical substance. So is vitamin C. So are the aromatic molecules that give lavender its familiar fragrance. A plant extract can contain dozens or hundreds of chemical constituents.
The useful questions are not simply:
Is it natural?
or:
Is it synthetic?
Better questions are:
What is the ingredient? Why is it in the formulation? At what concentration is it used? What is the route and frequency of exposure? What evidence exists about its safety? Is the finished product appropriately assessed?
Those questions are less exciting than a fear-based social media video, but they are far more useful.
Myth: if I can eat it, it must be safe for my skin
This is one of the most persistent ideas in home skincare.
I have seen recipes suggesting lemon juice for pigmentation, undiluted essential oils for spots, cinnamon masks, bicarbonate of soda scrubs and all sorts of mixtures created from the kitchen cupboard.
The thinking is understandable: If this ingredient is safe enough to eat, surely it is safe enough to put on my face.
But eating something and applying it repeatedly to the skin are not equivalent forms of exposure.
The skin has its own biology. Irritant contact dermatitis can occur when a substance directly damages or disrupts the skin, while allergic contact dermatitis involves an immune response after sensitisation. Even ingredients with long histories of use can cause problems in susceptible individuals.
This does not mean that botanical skincare is dangerous. It means that formulation matters.
A cup of herbal tea and a preserved water-based botanical serum are not the same product. A herb infused into oil under controlled conditions is not the same as placing fresh plant material into a cosmetic jar and hoping for the best.
Nature provides the raw material.
Formulation provides the discipline.
The essential oil question
I use essential oils in some Shea.Delight formulations, and I value them. I enjoy their complexity and the sensory experience they can bring to a product.
But I do not believe that respect for essential oils means pretending they are incapable of causing adverse reactions.
A 2021 review on essential oils and contact allergy reported that around 80 essential oils had been associated with contact allergy. The review also discusses fragrance constituents and oxidation products associated with sensitisation, including compounds related to limonene and linalool.
A detailed 2016 review by de Groot and Schmidt similarly reported contact allergy associated with numerous essential oils and noted that many reactions were linked to undiluted oils or products containing high concentrations.
That final point is important.
Dose matters. Dilution matters. Product type matters. Exposure matters.
The sensible conclusion is not that essential oils are inherently bad.
It is that they are potent, chemically complex ingredients that should be formulated with knowledge rather than treated casually because they come from plants.
When a beautiful fragrance becomes an allergen
Lavender, citrus peel, geranium, peppermint and other aromatic plants contain naturally occurring fragrance compounds. These compounds contribute to the scents we enjoy, but some can also be relevant to fragrance allergy.
A major 2024 review of fragrance contact allergy describes allergic contact dermatitis as a key clinical manifestation and notes that reactions may be localised to the area of product application or more widespread after broader exposure.
Research examining natural extracts and essential oils has also highlighted their chemical complexity and the presence of recognised allergenic compounds in some materials.
Again, context matters.
The existence of allergens does not mean that everyone will react. Most people do not develop allergic contact dermatitis from every fragranced cosmetic they use. But a product cannot honestly be described as incapable of causing an individual reaction simply because its fragrance came from a flower rather than a laboratory.
This is one reason I dislike absolute language in skincare.
“Natural, therefore completely safe.”
“Synthetic, therefore toxic.”
Neither statement represents good cosmetic science.
A natural ingredient can be wonderful and still be unsuitable for you
This is perhaps one of the hardest ideas for consumers to accept.
We understandably want clear answers. We want someone to tell us that a particular oil is perfect for dry skin, another is perfect for acne and another will work for everyone with sensitive skin.
Human skin rarely cooperates with such neat categories.
A 2013 review of allergic contact dermatitis associated with plant extracts used in cosmetics identified botanicals including members of the Compositae family and products or ingredients involving tea tree, peppermint and lavender among those implicated in reported reactions.
This should not lead us to fear plants.
Instead, it should encourage us to stop using the word natural as though it means universally suitable.
Shea butter can be a beautiful emollient.
Calendula can be a valuable botanical ingredient.
Plant oils can contribute different fatty-acid profiles and sensory characteristics to formulations.
Essential oils can create distinctive aromatic experiences.
And an individual person may still find that a particular product does not suit their skin.
Both things can be true.
From my formulation table: I don’t formulate from an ingredient wish list
This is where the subject becomes personal for me.
When I formulate a product, I do not begin by asking: How many attractive natural ingredients can I fit into this?
More is not always better.
I ask what I want the finished product to be.
Is it an oil for the face or the body? Is it a rinse-off cleanser or a leave-on product? What texture am I trying to create? How quickly should it absorb? What is the purpose of each ingredient? Are there ingredients performing the same function unnecessarily? How will the formulation remain stable? If it contains water, how will it be adequately preserved?
And crucially: who is the product for?
This is why formulation is different from mixing together a collection of individually appealing ingredients.
Imagine ten talented musicians all playing different songs at the same time. Each may be excellent individually, but the combination is not necessarily music.
A formulation must work as a whole.
Preservatives: perhaps the most misunderstood part of “natural” skincare
Few cosmetic ingredients have been treated with as much suspicion online as preservatives.
I understand why the word can sound unattractive. Preservative-free feels pure. It sounds reassuring.
But this is an area where marketing language can become dangerous if it encourages people to misunderstand microbiology.
Water-containing cosmetics can provide conditions in which bacteria, yeasts and moulds may grow. A preservation strategy is therefore not an embarrassing compromise that a formulator makes because she has failed to be natural enough. It is a fundamental part of responsible formulation.
In Great Britain, cosmetics placed on the market must comply with safety requirements, and government guidance covers obligations including safety assessment, documentation and notification. Trading Standards guidance also states that cosmetic products must meet safety requirements and that technical documentation and safety assessments are required.
This is why I find blanket statements such as “preservatives are toxic” unhelpful.
The correct conversation is much more specific: which preservative system, in which formulation, at what permitted concentration, across which pH range, and with what supporting safety and efficacy considerations?
That is the formulator’s conversation.
Natural formulation is not about rejecting science
For me, this is one of the most important parts of the discussion.
I do not see nature and science as enemies.
How could I?
Understanding an oil’s fatty-acid composition is science.
Understanding oxidation is science.
Understanding emulsification is science.
Understanding why oil and water separate, why microbial contamination matters, why pH matters and why an essential oil has a dermal limit is science.
Good natural formulation should use science to help us work with natural ingredients more intelligently.
I find it strange when skincare marketing suggests that nature becomes less valuable the moment we study it carefully. For me, the opposite is true. The more I learn about the complexity of natural materials, the more respect I have for them.
Respect means understanding that powerful materials deserve knowledgeable use.
What about “chemical-free” skincare?
I would never describe Shea.Delight products as chemical-free.
Not because I do not care about ingredient selection, but because the phrase does not make scientific sense.
All matter is made of chemicals. The natural oils I love are mixtures of chemical compounds. Shea butter contains triglycerides and a complex unsaponifiable fraction. Essential oils consist of volatile chemical constituents. Water is H₂O.
In recent discussions of cosmetic claims, UK regulatory experts and dermatologists have continued to criticise terms such as “chemical-free” and “non-toxic” because of the misleading impression they can create.
I would rather tell a customer what is actually in a product, why it is there and what the product is designed to do.
Transparency is more useful than fear.
Does this mean synthetic ingredients are always better?
No.
Replacing one simplistic belief with its opposite does not improve the conversation.
Some people prefer skincare formulated predominantly with natural and naturally derived ingredients. That preference can be connected with sensory experience, personal philosophy, sourcing considerations or the kind of businesses they wish to support.
Those preferences are valid.
The question is whether we can appreciate natural ingredients without making inaccurate claims about other ingredients.
I believe we can.
I can love unrefined shea butter without pretending that every synthetic emollient is dangerous.
I can appreciate a botanical infusion without claiming that every laboratory-produced ingredient is inferior.
I can formulate with essential oils while recognising the importance of dermal limits and allergen declarations.
A thoughtful position does not have to live at either extreme.
Natural skincare and sensitive skin are not synonyms
This deserves its own discussion because the two terms are frequently placed together.
A person with sensitive or reactive skin may tolerate some botanical formulations beautifully and react badly to others. Fragrance, whether from a natural or synthetic source, can be problematic for some fragrance-allergic individuals. A 2025 review of contact allergy from cosmetics examines the continuing burden of cosmetic allergens and the importance of recognising relevant sensitising substances.
That is why I believe fragrance-free choices matter.
Not because fragranced skincare is universally bad, but because people deserve options.
At Shea.Delight, I value scent. Fragrance is part of the experience of many of our products. But I also value fragrance-free formulations. These are not contradictory positions.
Choice is important.
Honest labelling is important.
Knowing your own skin is important.
Myth: handmade means that regulation is optional
This is a particularly important point for the artisan sector.
Handmade is a description of how something is produced. It is not an exemption from safety responsibilities.
A cosmetic made by a small independent maker and a cosmetic produced by a large multinational company are both cosmetics. In Great Britain, products supplied to consumers are subject to cosmetic safety requirements. Official guidance covers obligations including a Responsible Person, Product Information File, safety assessment and notification before products are placed on the market.
I think this is worth discussing openly because the beauty of the handmade movement is its creativity, closeness to customers and capacity for innovation.
Professionalism does not diminish that beauty.
Documentation does not make a product less artisan.
Batch records do not remove creativity.
Safety assessment does not make a natural product less natural.
They are part of taking responsibility for the person who eventually opens the jar and puts the product on their skin.
Why oxidation matters in natural skincare
There is another issue that receives less attention than it deserves: freshness and oxidation.
Natural oils are not identical. Their fatty-acid compositions differ, and so does their susceptibility to oxidative deterioration. Light, oxygen, heat, packaging and storage conditions can all influence product quality.
This is why a formulator considers more than the headline benefits of an oil.
How stable is it?
What is the supplier’s specification?
How should it be stored?
What antioxidant strategy is appropriate?
What packaging protects the formulation?
What is the realistic shelf life of the finished product?
An ingredient being natural does not mean it exists outside chemistry.
In fact, understanding the chemistry helps us treat natural ingredients with the care they deserve.
The difference between irritation and allergy
These terms are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same.
Irritant contact dermatitis occurs through direct injury or disruption to the skin from an irritant exposure. Allergic contact dermatitis is an immune-mediated reaction that occurs after sensitisation to an allergen.
This distinction helps explain why someone may use a product repeatedly before apparently “suddenly” reacting to it. Sensitisation and subsequent elicitation of an allergic response are different stages of the process.
It also explains why another person may use the same product without difficulty.
Skin responses are personal.
This is why neither customer testimonials nor influencer enthusiasm can establish that a product is suitable for everyone.
“My skin loves this” is a genuine experience.
“Therefore everybody’s skin will love this” is not a scientific conclusion.
So, what should a thoughtful consumer actually look for?
I think consumers deserve better advice than simply being told to avoid long ingredient names.
A long INCI name is not evidence of danger, just as a familiar plant name is not evidence of universal safety.
Instead, look at the whole product.
What is it designed to do? Does that purpose fit your needs? Are the claims realistic? Is the brand transparent about ingredients? Does it provide appropriate directions and warnings? If you have known allergies, have you checked the ingredient declaration carefully?
For someone with persistently reactive skin, recurrent eczema or suspected contact allergy, repeated experimentation with new products may make the situation more difficult. Medical assessment and, where appropriate, specialist patch testing may be more useful than continuing to buy products labelled natural or sensitive and hoping that the next one will solve the problem.
Why I am still proud to be a natural skincare formulator
After everything I have written here, my position remains very simple.
I love formulating with natural ingredients.
I love the richness of shea butter, the character of different plant oils and the process of botanical infusion. I love the colours that clays and plant materials can bring to artisan soap. I love that two natural materials can have completely different textures, fatty-acid profiles and roles in a formulation.
But my respect for these ingredients is exactly why I refuse to reduce them to marketing slogans.
Nature is complex.
Skin is complex.
Formulation is complex.
I don’t think we should be afraid of that complexity. I think we should become more curious about it.
A final thought from me
Perhaps the real question is not:
“Is natural skincare better?”
Perhaps a better question is:
“Is this product thoughtfully formulated, appropriately assessed, honestly described and right for my skin?”
Those are very different questions.
For me, natural skincare is not about fear of everything created in a laboratory. It is about making deliberate choices: understanding materials, respecting their limits, formulating responsibly and being honest with customers.
I believe deeply in skincare inspired by nature.
But inspiration is only the beginning.
Knowledge, responsibility and thoughtful formulation are what turn beautiful ingredients into a product I am prepared to put my name on.
References
de Groot, A.C. and Schmidt, E. (2016) ‘Essential oils, Part IV: Contact allergy’, Dermatitis, 27(4), pp. 170–175. Available via PubMed.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2016) ISO 16128-1:2016: Guidelines on technical definitions and criteria for natural and organic cosmetic ingredients and products — Part 1: Definitions for ingredients. Geneva: ISO. Available via ISO.
Jack, A.R., Norris, P.L. and Storrs, F.J. (2013) ‘Allergic contact dermatitis to plant extracts in cosmetics’, Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery, 32(3), pp. 140–146. Available via PubMed.
Rubin, C.B. and Brod, B. (2019) ‘Natural does not mean safe—The dirt on clean beauty products’, JAMA Dermatology, 155(12), pp. 1344–1345.
Rubio, L. et al. (2024) ‘Natural extracts and essential oils as ingredients in cosmetic products: analytical characterisation and legislative considerations’, Cosmetics, 11(3), 84.
Sarkic, A. and Stappen, I. (2018) ‘Essential oils and their single compounds in cosmetics—A critical review’, Cosmetics, 5(1), 11.
Sukakul, T. et al. (2024) ‘Fragrance contact allergy – A review focusing on patch testing’, Acta Dermato-Venereologica, 104.
Sukakul, T. et al. (2025) ‘What is new in contact allergy to cosmetics for physicians, cosmetologists, and cosmetic users?’, Current Treatment Options in Allergy.
UK Government (2021, updated subsequently) Making cosmetic products available to consumers in Great Britain. London: Department for Business and Trade. Available via GOV.UK cosmetic products guidance.
UK Government/Trading Standards (n.d.) Cosmetic products: product safety