In many regions, a cosmetic product can bear a “natural” label even if only one per cent of its ingredients are directly from nature. This highlights a significant gap in regulatory definitions.
The International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients — INCI — provides a standardised list. While useful, it offers no insight into an ingredient’s origin or processing method.
This ambiguity allows for products marketed as plant-led when they contain minimal botanical matter. Ingredients might begin plant-derived but undergo extensive chemical alteration, losing original properties.
Consider glycerides — common emollients. Though sourced from plants, their final form might be far removed from their raw state through industrial processes. The “natural origin” claim becomes stretched.
Extraction methods are critical. A botanical extract from high-heat chemical processes differs significantly from one derived via cold-pressed techniques, which preserve delicate compounds like polysaccharides.
Most brands interpret “natural” broadly, focusing on initial sourcing. Evera, conversely, prioritises a holistic approach — ensuring ingredients retain vitality and structural integrity throughout formulation.
For us, plant-led implies deep respect for the ingredient’s native state. This means sourcing botanicals like Sicilian aloe directly, ensuring optimal pH balance and active compound stability.
A plant’s true power lies not just in its presence, but in its quality and bioavailability. A “natural” label does not guarantee these crucial aspects, nor confirm sustainable practices.
Consumers are right to seek clarity. Genuine commitment to plant-led haircare necessitates transparency regarding every step — from cultivation to the precise method of ingredient inclusion.
Understanding these distinctions allows for a more informed choice, moving beyond superficial claims to genuine efficacy.
