« Back to Home Page

Whole Foods to Personal Care Product Suppliers: Prove Your Organic Claims

Leon Kaye | Tuesday July 13th, 2010 | 6 Comments

Whatever opinion you may have about Whole Foods, you cannot deny that the company has had an enormous influence on consumer awareness about the sourcing of food.  Now consumers are expressing more interest in the ingredients that are not only on their dinner tables, but comprise their personal care products.  More large companies are capitalizing on this trend:  if you were to believe the claims behind some leading brands’ marketing campaigns, you would think those bottles of shampoos and body lotions were full of fruits and vegetables.

Of course, reading the labels of many products at your local drugstore or supermarket closely reveals words that a master’s student in chemistry needs to decipher.  By-products like sodium laurel sulfate are only the beginning—quite often that panacea in the bottle, whether it is avocado oil or something from the Amazonian rain forest, is such a small part of the ingredient mix—often having a smaller proportion of the mix than the ubiquitous “fragrance.”  The labeling of such terms as “natural” and “organic” has moved from the plastic food wrapper to the plastic body wash bottle, so Whole Foods is trying to nip this potential issue in the bud.

Whole Foods is now informing its personal care product suppliers that they have less a year to verify their “organic” claims.  Everything from eye cream to ear care on Whole Food aisles has got to meet the US Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program, or “NOP” standards.

So if the product is “organic,” it has got to meet NOP’s standards of having 95% organic ingredients in the mix.  If it’s merely “made with organic” ingredients, or having a base that is 70% organic, the company had better follow NOP procedures.   Curiously, products only “containing” organic material need to defer to the NSF / ANSI 305 Organic Personal Care standard, which many would feel is a more reliable benchmark:  the Ann Arbor-based NGO consults a variety of stakeholders in the organic products community.  Only have a smattering of organic ingredients?  Better clear it with the USDA.

Are you acronym’d out by now?  Or perhaps the question you may have is:  why was it that Whole Foods and other retailers had not been doing this all along?

Perhaps the answer in part is that we are due for a broader discussion on the effects that all those toiletries on which we depend (or indulge) will be the next battle in the sustainability wars.  Whole Foods and farmers’ markets have long become mainstream shopping experiences.  But it has been a generation since the outcry over animal testing that made the Body Shop famous (and its founder wealthy) while shaming many department store brands; parabens and other additives that end up in our lotions and night creams will surely grab more attention soon as more incriminating scientific evidence comes out (many would say it already exists).  Whether the company’s reasons are based on altruism or proactive marketing, Whole Foods, in my view, is making a smart move.  Better to prevent a firestorm than having to put one out.


▼▼▼      6 Comments     ▼▼▼

Categorized: Eco Products|

Newsletter Signup
  • Corey

    Go to EWG's skin deep cosmetic database and plug in everything that you are applying to your skin (and your children's skin) on a daily basis, it is the cumulative effect of so many harsh chemicals that is alarming. People assume that if it is purchased at Whole Foods it has no toxins, I'm hoping that this issue will be “the next battle in the sustainability war”
    Corey

  • Raul

    Does “organic” really mean anything in this context? There are plenty of things you can grow organically, and plenty of organic chemicals and treatments that are probably not healthy, especially as accumulated over time. Maybe women should wake up a little to the useless vanity of most cosmetics!

  • Mwg

    Raul's comment is really interesting. If I am reading this correctly -you can use an organically produced chemical that is harmful to humans or the environment. It's like the way you could make a sustainably produced cigarette and a nonsustainably produced solar panel ( i.e dumping of chemicals used in manufacture). Perhaps another criteria to add is that it's not on a list of harmful chemicals – like the Green Chemistry Initiative in California.

  • http://greengopost.com Leon Kaye

    Oy! Why is it assumed that only women use cosmetics? And let's just face it, you can't let men off the hook even if you're male and don't moisturize . . .

  • Pingback: Organic - Whole bean coffee very oily? - Coffee

  • Aurelia

    As a regular buyer of organic and Fair Trade products I think this is great news. The onus really should be on the suppliers to prove that they can support their claims.

  • Lisarussell

    The industry is ready and needs to embrace a more robust life cycle view of products in general. Sustainability is not about a singular issue. Until we as a consumer collective demand this of product manufacturers- we will continue to receive a less than comprehensive view of a product or material's environmental impacts.

  • Pingback: Don’t Cry Over Spilled Silk Soy Milk | Triple Pundit: People, Planet, Profit

  • Pingback: Whole Foods Launches Standards for Household Cleaning Products

  • Pingback: Whole Foods Launches Standards for Household Cleaning Products | Health And Beauty Review

  • Pingback: Why Whole Foods Doesn't Ask Hershey's to Raise the Bar on Child Labor