Your Cart is Empty
Natural and synthetic origin do not determine whether a skincare ingredient is safe or effective. Identity, purity, concentration, exposure and the finished formulation matter. Synthetic ingredients can provide useful moisturizing, preservation and texture functions alongside botanical materials.
While choosing natural ingredients can be a healthful choice, it’s also important to know which synthetic ingredients are safe, and often very beneficial, in skincare products.
“Natural” isn’t a term that’s regulated by the FDA—and as a result, it’s often used (and frequently misused) by skincare brands that are trying to represent themselves as safe to consumers. Some brands even go so far as to claim they sell “chemical-free” beauty products, when in reality even water is a chemical and has a chemical composition!
In short, terms such as these are often meaningless, and it’s only when you closely examine all of the ingredients on the bottle that the truth starts to be revealed.
As a general definition, the term “natural” represents skincare ingredients that are directly derived from nature and not created in a laboratory environment. Many natural ingredients, like natural butters and plant derivatives (cocoa butter, shea butter, coconut oil, clay, ceramides, green tea, walnuts, olive leaf, some tree barks, and rosehip seed oil are just a few examples) can have immense benefits for skin.
On the other hand, simply because an ingredient is derived from nature doesn’t make it automatically safe. There are plenty of “natural” ingredients that you definitely wouldn’t want in your skincare - arsenic, for example, occurs naturally in many minerals, but is also severely toxic and poisonous.
Similarly, peach pits contain cyanide - another extremely dangerous and lethal poison. Poison ivy is natural, but you absolutely wouldn’t want to rub it on your skin!
Naturally occurring substances can be beneficial or hazardous, just as manufactured substances can. A tally of natural carcinogens does not help assess a facial product; exposure-based evidence is the relevant comparison.
Synthetic ingredients are created by humans and not directly derived from nature. While we might instinctively assume that natural ingredients are superior to lab-created synthetic ingredients, that’s not always the case.
Many skincare companies turn to synthetic versions of certain ingredients, which are often identical to natural versions on a molecular level, as a method of maintaining the safety and purity of their products.
Commercial hyaluronic acid can be produced through controlled microbial fermentation as well as other methods. Production route, purity and molecular characteristics matter; “made in a laboratory” does not by itself establish either harm or superiority.
Another important consideration is consistency. When purchasing a skincare product, you want the ingredients to be the same every time, something that can be almost impossible outside of a laboratory setting.
Natural ingredients can be hard to standardize, as differences in plant health, the time of year harvested, and other factors can dramatically change the chemical compositions of the ingredients that are derived.
Pricing might also fluctuate for the ingredient if it is grown in only one season or in only one region of the world, or if the natural source suffers from pests and diseases - which would then affect the customer as the company would have to price an item higher to account for the lack of accessibility to the ingredient.
Controlled manufacturing can improve consistency, but it does not guarantee that every synthetic-containing product is safe, effective or identical. Quality controls and evidence about the finished formula are still needed.
As the natural skincare movement has gained momentum, the demand for natural ingredients has increased dramatically, putting more pressure on farmers to increase growth. While more agricultural production isn’t always a negative, it can be if not done sustainably.
Most big companies want to source ingredients quickly and inexpensively, leaving the door open for increased uses of pesticides, exploitation of workers, and over-harvesting.
Palm-oil sourcing can raise environmental and land-use concerns. Evaluate a supplier’s actual sourcing evidence rather than attach an unverified global acreage figure to every cosmetic ingredient derived from palm.
Indigenous people and small landowners are often driven from their land and subject to human rights violations. Products containing palm oil are often considered natural and organic, but at what cost?
Sustainability depends on the actual source and process, including resources, manufacturing and transport. Neither synthetic origin nor agricultural origin alone proves a lower environmental impact.
Many natural ingredients can be made more safe and effective through scientific adjustments, and vitamin C is an excellent example. Synthetic ingredients help stabilize vitamin C and increase its efficacy, allowing it to be used safely in higher concentrations.
Salicylates, compounds found within willow bark, have been used for centuries to treat fever and inflammation, but it wasn’t until salicylate derivatives were synthesized in a laboratory that they were able to be mass-produced inexpensively, resulting in the drug we now know as aspirin.
Using aspirin allows treatment to be much safer than simply drinking tea from boiled willow bark, as each pill contains the same concentration of active ingredients every time.
A standardized ingredient can help a formulator control a product’s composition. The resulting cosmetic still needs appropriate formulation and safety evaluation; scientific manufacture does not guarantee performance in every user.
Water-containing skincare usually needs an effective preservation system. Some anhydrous products have different microbial-risk profiles, so it is inaccurate to say every skincare product requires the same preservatives.
In fact, failure to include proper preservatives in skincare products can result in growths of mold or bacteria, and can even result in serious skin infections. Even more disturbingly, it isn’t always obvious that a product without preservatives has gone “bad,” which can result in unwitting consumers rubbing dangerous bacteria on their faces.
Preservatives should be assessed at their intended concentration and exposure. Parabens and formaldehyde-releasing preservatives are not automatically unsafe, while an alternative preservative is not automatically non-irritating.
A well-designed product balances microbial protection with tolerability. Avoid fear-based predictions about specific severe infections from every unpreserved product; assess the formulation, packaging and testing rather than infer risk from a label claim alone.
The following historical formula example illustrates how different ingredient types can work together. It is not confirmation that the Mango & Green Tea Eye Mask is currently available or that each ingredient independently produces the finished product’s results.
Here is a breakdown of the ingredient list:
Several ingredients contribute to texture, stability and microbial protection. Shelf life cannot be predicted as “days versus a year” from the ingredient list alone; formulation, packaging, manufacturing and testing determine the relevant period.
An effective preservation system helps reduce microbial risk during intended use. It does not prevent every possible reaction or permit unlimited storage. Follow the product’s directions and avoid adding water or household ingredients to its bottle.
Avoid a substance if you have a diagnosed allergy or a product repeatedly irritates you. Broad exclusions based only on an ingredient being synthetic do not establish a safer routine.
Sulfates: this is a broader term for other synthetic sulfates, like sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and sodium laureth sulfate (SLES). These can be produced from palm oil (which we’ve already mentioned is controversial due to its impact on the environment and human right concerns) or petroleum distillates.
SLS and SLES are surfactants with different properties. Mildness depends on concentration, the surfactant blend, contact time and the finished formula. Read surfactants and cleanser mildness rather than assume that foam proves harm.
Phthalates are a chemical family, not a single interchangeable exposure. FDA’s phthalate guidance distinguishes particular substances and says it does not identify safety concerns with DEP as currently used in cosmetics and fragrances.
Parabens help preserve products. Experimental findings should not be turned into a claim that ordinary paraben-containing cosmetics cause breast cancer or early puberty. Read paraben evidence and preservation for the distinction.
Responsible formulation is demonstrated through appropriate ingredient selection, quality controls, safety substantiation and accurate claims. A brand’s exclusion list is not by itself evidence that products outside that list are unethical or unsafe.
FDA does not define “natural” or “organic” for cosmetics; USDA organic requirements can apply to qualifying agricultural products. A marketing term and a specific certification answer different questions. See clean-beauty label guidance for a U.S.-focused explanation.
When it comes to your health, you are your own best advocate! If you do your research, you’ll know what to look for when examining an ingredient list, and you’ll be able to identify the safe synthetics in natural skincare products.
Content updated October 8, 2026.
