Member Login
User Name:
Member Login
User Name:

Why has BE continued the 'NO NASTIES' standard

instead of an “organics” certification?

The vision for the BE range was formed over 10 years ago, when there simply weren’t any comprehensive end to end certifications that achieved the essence of the BE vision. BE was the originator of the 'NO NASTIES' standard.

The vision was simple. Create an ethical range of skin care sourced from the purest of natural ingredients, leverage their performance with the latest that science had proven, formulate them to deliver their efficacy at the prescribed dosage, publish their guarantee without deception and ensure 'NO NASTIES' are added along the way, even when so many are commonly used by the industry in general to achieve a commercial outcome.

We applaud the underlying intention of “organics”, to produce raw ingredients without herbicides and pesticides that deliver a more wholesome finished product. It was a fundamental part to our vision that we source and utilise many such ethical, proven supply partners along the way. We know that the consumer wants protection, and our 'NO NASTIES' standard has been continually upgraded over the last 10 years to respond to this consumer expectation.

So, how do you set a non deceptive standard? Well, it's not hard, it's actually just basic ethics.

Imagine if you will, you are going to make a cake for your family or loved ones and there are 2 lists of ingredients that you can use to make the same cake. One has all the commonly available, more cheaply produced (usually because they are leftovers from other industrial activities) set of ingredients, which all have heaps of studies and scientific articles written describing real health dangers.

The second list of ingredients make the same cake, they cost more, but they don't have those health dangers. Which list of ingredients do you chose for your family? Do we even need to ask the question? So when you decide there should be 'NO' of a type of ingredient, surely it means 'NO'.

In our books, it can't mean "NO, except under the following %'s or circumstances, but we'll hide these possibilities of inclusion by using a PR promoted, euphemistic logo". Every product produced by BE clearly spells out the extent of the 'NO's' on it's individual packaging.

We would endorse an over all international standard in “organic” certification to which sufficient resources have been deployed to deliver an absolute standard based on science with black and white compliance....... but there isn’t one. Instead there is a plethora of “certifications” driven by their own commercial outcomes and almost without exception owned by private commercial and vested interest groups, whose specifications and guarantees for certification have considerable differences between themselves, with enormous compromises from a 'NO' standard. The vision of their individual agendas, are targeted at different outcomes to the consumer protection they seek to imply.

Even the few government created standards in the world, such as in the US, are under constant review and influence by extremely powerful business lobby groups to relax or modify the existing definitions so their interests can achieve a more "commercial" outcome. (Read, reduced standard of protection) See www.theorganictruth.org/

Current issues for "organic" certification like major players such as “OASIS” and “Ecocert” (in Europe) having continuing court actions lodged against them for the alleged convenience, commercialisation and public deception in the use of their “organic” certifications, can only add to the genuine concerns of the public over the commercial nature and uncertainty of all “organic” certifications.

Excerpt from Truth and Lies in Organic Personal Care

"SAN FRANCISCO, CA –…………….. filed its Second Amended Complaint today in San Francisco Superior Court against numerous personal care companies that use non-organic pesticide-intensive agricultural and/or petrochemical material to make the main cleansing and moisturizing ingredients of their misbranded “Organic” products. Defendants include, among others: Hain-Celestial (Jason “Pure, Natural & Organic; Avalon “Organics”); Levlad (Nature’s Gate “Organics”); Kiss My Face “Organic”; YSL Beaute Inc (Stella McCartney’s “100% Organic Active Ingredients”), Country Life (Desert Essence “Organics”); Giovanni “Organic Cosmetics”; and the certifiers Ecocert and OASIS.

Former defendant Estee Lauder was dropped from the suit because it has not in fact entered the market under its AVEDA brand with OASIS certified products as it had earlier threatened to do. Former defendant Ikove agreed to change its labeling practices of relevant products. However, the remaining defendants continue to refuse to abide by basic organic consumer criteria.

The defendants’ “Organic” or “Organics” products are composed mostly of cleansing and moisturizing ingredients that are not organic, but that are instead made from conventional agricultural and/or petrochemical material, with organic water extracts or aloe vera for an organic green-wash. “Organic consumers expect that the main cleansing and moisturizing ingredients in “Organic” or “Organics” products are in fact made from organic material, and are not simply conventional formulations with some organic tea on top. If defendants cannot live up to their organic claims, they need to drop those claims. The misleading organic noise created by culprit companies' labeling practices, confuses, misleads and deceives organic consumers who want to buy authentic organic personal care products, the main ingredients of which are in fact made with certified organic, not conventional or petrochemical, material, and are free of synthetic preservatives. ” said David Bronner."

Here are just 10 of the 50 or so questions that BE believes that the public assumes 'NO' answers to, for “organic” certification in their skin care products.

Unfortunately, the answers we got from investigation of just some of the now 20 plus commercial and vested interest “organic” certifications, simply adds to the increasing cloud of deception that BE feels just doesn’t deliver the BE vision, an ethical product range without deception and 'NO NASTIES'.

The question: When you buy a product with an “organic” certification, would you expect to get :

1. An “organic” certification that hides the inclusion of Nasties like parabens, sulphates, ureas, because of their low %’s?

Sorry, the answer is “Yes”

2. A processor/manufacturer “organic” certification is claimed where there is a blanket acceptance of other country locally issued "organic" certificates, issued for instance by the producers own local chamber of commerce?

Sorry, the answer is “Yes”

3. Certified “organic” ingredients from poorer producing nations like India, Thailand, China, where organic farming does not exclude using a water source contaminated with human waste, which has historically lead to hepatitis, dysentery infections in countries exported to and has high e-coli, hormone and antibiotic residues?

Sorry, the answer is “Yes”

4. Exceptions to the “organic” certifications that aren’t label declared when the producers locality is affected by droughts, bush fires, floods and other natural disasters, which allow the producers to continue their certification without compliance for reason of their economic hardship?

Sorry, the answer is “Yes”

5. A product certified “organic”where up to 98% of it’s weight can be tap water and/or 1% can be the worst imaginable synthetic preservative or has as little as 40% of it’s ingredients certified ”organic” after you take out all the water and salts.?

Sorry, the answer is “Yes”

6. A product certified “organic”where solvents have been used in the extraction process of the Essential Oils, or they have a non pure “Keyed” manufactured consistency to maintain a commercial standard. A very typical process promoted as 'natural' in countries like France, who supply so much of the world's Essential Oils?

Sorry, the answer is “Yes”

7. A product certified “organic”that has GMA material in it, such as any soy protein, or can even have by-products from a genetically cloned animal if it was raised on an “organic” certified farm?

Sorry, the answer is “Yes”

8. Ingredients that could come from any part of an animal that has been certified “organic”, including ingredients like some hyaluronates, and lanolins from animals with “organic” certifications that allow and endorse the use of bio feed, (the mechanical scavenging from carcasses of other species of animal, waste products for feed pellets and the very thing that caused mad cow’s disease in humans)?

Sorry, the answer is “Yes”

9. A product certified “organic”that includes 'natural' fragrances (active components extracted from a balanced natural ingredient, and usually the cheaper left over part) which sensitises the skin?

Sorry, the answer is “Yes”

10. A product certified “organic”where an 'natural' fragrance allows the product to declare itself “preservative free” because of a deceptive registration and declaration of the true nature of the ingredient to avoid it’s primary function as a synthesized preservative.

Sorry, the answer is “Yes”

And just while we're talking about preservative claims in "organic" certification, think about it. If it hasn't got a preservative and it's made with any water, its like fresh food, a breeding ground full of nutrients for spores, moulds and microbes. If you don't keep it in the fridge it should be 'turfed' within 7 days of manufacture? Right? I mean how long do you keep your fresh food before you think twice about eating it? So don't let people tell you their product hasn't got a preservative. There is no “organic” preservative that's any more effective for skin care than for fresh food. And don't be conned by claims of 'natural' Teatree or Rosemary Essential Oils, they're solvent extracted, they have solvent residues and they have very limited spectrums of preservative protection which are extremely heat sensitive to the environment of their storage, so back to the fridge, hey!

There are so many more questions to which …Sorry, the answer is “Yes”, but by now you must be questioning the ethics and value of "organic" certifications you may have believed were protecting you from these issues.

And the really vexing issue is, not all the answers apply to all the “certifications”, so how do you guess which one is the least deceptive? When definitions extend into reams of fine print, mostly not even published on the web for public scrutiny, there’s only one reason, ........ exceptions and compromises.

If you can sum it up in black and white in one paragraph, then anyone can have confidence as to what what is being claimed. 'NO' means 'NO' The BE vision today, is still clearly defined by the 'NO NASTIES' standard. In our opinion, there is too much deception in any certification that can’t put it’s entire claim plainly, in black and white, into a single paragraph that is printed on every product, but instead tries to promote a feeling of comfort with a euphemistic logo.

The 'NO NASTIES' standard is printed on every BE product, it is listed in every brochure and is specified in the same detail and why the ingredients on the non inclusion list were selected @ www.botanicalextracts.com.au/NO NASTIES and has not been compromised by adoption of any of the current commercial “organic” certifications we have reviewed for the sake of increased sales from the current wave of populus perception.

If a certification becomes available that is globally uniform with universal compliance at a higher specification that includes all the 'NO NASTIES' standard, then BE will be the first to comply, but…until BE finds a standard that lifts the bar, BE isn’t going to reduce its existing 'NO NASTIES' standard for the sake of that populus movement or become deceptive for all its long term users.

PS. Want to investigate yourself, here's a start. This is just 10 minutes of credible reading selected at random from the web, of a potential easy month's reading on the deceptions in “organic“ certifications.


Product exposed, by a major marketer in the skin care world called “Organics" tm Shampoo.


The organic ‘fad’ started with food, but is reported here to have no science or sustainability in it’s projections for the human race. It is a fad for elitist numbers, not the world's population.


The fad is being exploited with pricing rip offs. There is no doubt that serious commercial interests have developed behind the overwhelming fee systems that the many private "certification" bodies have established to provide their euphemistic "organic" logo.


The basis of the government legislation to protect consumers by establishing a standard is nebulous, unclear and was opposed by the very body to whom it’s vigilance in enforcement was eventually was given.


And it gets even more scary with cloned animals being government approved to be raised and sold under a Government “organic” certification


USFDA can now 95% certify “organics” items that contain farmed animal intestine or mercury in fish oils

And so the truth unravels with very little investigation.... we have stopped counting at 100 credibly articles.

We know this comment won't be popular among many who have invested in this deception but it will be even more disappointing for those of us who simply want to have genuinely safer, more ethical products.