Why does limiting skincare to this debate do it a disservice?
For a long time, skincare has been divided into two camps. On one side: "natural" cosmetics, characterized by minimalist formulations, plant-based ingredients, and a desire to return to simpler routines.
On the other: "scientific" skincare, built around research, laboratory active ingredients, clinical studies, and performance.
But what if this opposition itself was the real problem?
Natural does not mean better for the skin or the planet.
The beauty industry has long associated the word "natural" with something inherently healthier, gentler, or more skin-friendly. And it's true that some natural ingredients can offer great cosmetic benefits.
But in reality, naturalness alone tells us almost nothing about a formula's efficacy, tolerability, or even environmental impact.
Some natural essential oils, for example, can be extremely irritating or sensitizing to the skin. Conversely, some synthetic ingredients are now among the safest, most stable, and best-documented in cosmetics.
And it's much the same when it comes to the planet: we often assume that a natural active ingredient is automatically more ecological. However, some plant extracts require very energy-intensive extraction processes, large quantities of water, or raw materials to obtain very little final active ingredient.
We worked extensively on these issues when developing our formulas, and were sometimes quite surprised by the environmental impact of certain natural extracts.
Today, biotechnologies sometimes allow for the reproduction of certain compounds or extracts with the same benefits for the skin, but with a potentially lower environmental impact. The bisabolol in Serum N°07 is the result of this work.
Scientific should not automatically mean toxic.
Conversely, many people still associate "scientific" or "chemical" skincare with something necessarily aggressive, artificial, or bad for the skin. But in reality, everything is chemistry: water, air, vitamin C, etc. The problem is therefore not whether an ingredient is "chemical" or not.
The real issue is primarily its safety, concentration, stability, tolerability, and how it is formulated.
Today, some synthetic ingredients are among the most studied, most stable, and best tolerated in cosmetics.
We take the best for the skin and the planet, and that's it!
Again, the goal is not to say that synthetic is "better" than natural, or vice versa.
Rather, it's about moving beyond a very binary view of skincare and knowing how to draw from both worlds depending on the active ingredients, the concern, and the impact on the planet.
And that's exactly the work we've done, and that's why we can provide you with detailed carbon footprints for each serum.
One last point to keep in mind:
It reacts to formulations, not marketing slogans: the skin is unbranded, after all.
Why does limiting skincare to this debate do it a disservice?
For a long time, skincare has been divided into two camps. On one side: "natural" cosmetics, characterized by minimalist formulations, plant-based ingredients, and a desire to return to simpler routines.
On the other: "scientific" skincare, built around research, laboratory active ingredients, clinical studies, and performance.
But what if this opposition itself was the real problem?
Natural does not mean better for the skin or the planet.
The beauty industry has long associated the word "natural" with something inherently healthier, gentler, or more skin-friendly. And it's true that some natural ingredients can offer great cosmetic benefits.
But in reality, naturalness alone tells us almost nothing about a formula's efficacy, tolerability, or even environmental impact.
Some natural essential oils, for example, can be extremely irritating or sensitizing to the skin. Conversely, some synthetic ingredients are now among the safest, most stable, and best-documented in cosmetics.
And it's much the same when it comes to the planet: we often assume that a natural active ingredient is automatically more ecological. However, some plant extracts require very energy-intensive extraction processes, large quantities of water, or raw materials to obtain very little final active ingredient.
We worked extensively on these issues when developing our formulas, and were sometimes quite surprised by the environmental impact of certain natural extracts.
Today, biotechnologies sometimes allow for the reproduction of certain compounds or extracts with the same benefits for the skin, but with a potentially lower environmental impact. The bisabolol in Serum N°07 is the result of this work.
Scientific should not automatically mean toxic.
Conversely, many people still associate "scientific" or "chemical" skincare with something necessarily aggressive, artificial, or bad for the skin. But in reality, everything is chemistry: water, air, vitamin C, etc. The problem is therefore not whether an ingredient is "chemical" or not.
The real issue is primarily its safety, concentration, stability, tolerability, and how it is formulated.
Today, some synthetic ingredients are among the most studied, most stable, and best tolerated in cosmetics.
We take the best for the skin and the planet, and that's it!
Again, the goal is not to say that synthetic is "better" than natural, or vice versa.
Rather, it's about moving beyond a very binary view of skincare and knowing how to draw from both worlds depending on the active ingredients, the concern, and the impact on the planet.
And that's exactly the work we've done, and that's why we can provide you with detailed carbon footprints for each serum.
One last point to keep in mind:
It reacts to formulations, not marketing slogans: the skin is unbranded, after all.