Why Lab-Created Cosmetic Ingredients Are Not Microplastics
Demystifying Cosmetic Chemistry
A video crossed my feed recently where a creator argued that cosmetic ingredients cease to be organic the moment you alter them, concluding that because all derivatives are synthetic, they automatically contain microplastics. As an actual cosmetic chemist who handles these raw materials every single day, hearing that second leap was genuinely infuriating.
Her first premise was actually completely correct. If you pull a plant out of the soil and rub it straight onto your face, you are using something in its native, unadulterated state.
The exact second you pick that botanical up and change it, its status changes. Whether you heat it, distill it, hydrolyze it, or react it into a derivative, you have altered its baseline state.
By literal chemical definition, that altered material has become synthetic. In my line of work, we classify these materials as naturally derived synthetics.
Take a very simple, everyday example from the laboratory bench. Consider whole, untreated rice and plain, clean water.
Both of those raw ingredients start out entirely pure and organic in the everyday sense. When you combine them inside a clean vessel and let them sit, things begin to happen.
Ambient, beneficial microbes and inherent enzymes immediately start working on the natural grain starches. They digest the large carbohydrate structures and break them down into simple saccharides, amino acids, and gentle lactic acid.
In cosmetic formulation, we call that resulting liquid rice ferment filtrate. It is one of the most celebrated, skin-soothing, barrier-supporting ingredients in skincare.
That filtrate is technically synthetic. Human hands arranged the exact conditions to force that biochemical transformation to occur.
You changed the original components into a completely different substance that the unsoaked, raw grain could never deliver on its own. You synthesized a derivative.
The fatal breakdown in logic happens when people take that reality and assert that synthetic automatically means microplastic. That is where an accurate observation mutates into complete fiction.
Get Danielle Ellery’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Microplastics are not some magical, airborne ghost that materializes out of thin air just because a molecule experienced a chemical shift. They have an extremely specific physical and chemical definition.
Microplastics are microscopic, insoluble particles of man-made petrochemical polymers. We are talking about materials like polyethylene, polypropylene, nylon, and crosslinked synthetic acrylates.
Those chains are engineered through heavy petrochemical refining where fossil fuel monomers are linked together into persistent, solid plastic backbones. They do not appear unless someone deliberately introduces petrochemical plastic precursors into the equation.
When you ferment rice, you are dealing strictly with natural carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen bonds from living plant matter. You are rearranging existing plant molecules.
There was no plastic monomer inside the vessel when you started. There was no polyethylene or polypropylene introduced to the mixture during the fermentation.
Matter cannot spontaneously rewrite its elemental origins out of nowhere. A starch bond breaking down in water does not magically birth a petrochemical polymer chain.
Believing that any human-altered substance spontaneously sprouts plastic is absurd. It is the molecular equivalent of believing that boiling a fresh apple in a pot will somehow turn your applesauce into polyester fabric.
Yet this exact brand of scientific illiteracy spreads unchecked across social media every single day. The average consumer has been thoroughly conditioned to view the word organic as synonymous with moral purity and the word synthetic as synonymous with poison.
Influencers sit in front of ring lights and build entire platforms off of that unearned fear. They throw around high-level scientific terms with total confidence, convincing frightened shoppers that every single derivative is an industrial toxin out to ruin their health.
When someone without a single hour of laboratory training gets elevated as a trusted educator, this is what happens. Nuanced molecular reality gets replaced by sensational, fearful soundbites that pull in high engagement.
These creators do not perform raw material analysis. They do not run high-performance liquid chromatography, they do not test for stability, and they do not evaluate toxicological thresholds.
Instead, they rely on manufactured panic to sound knowledgeable, often paving the way to pitch their own over-hyped, unpreserved balms. They teach everyday people to mistrust the exact ingredients that make their daily products safe, consistent, and effective.
True cosmetic chemistry is about the practical skill of making ingredients usable and stable for human skin. We deliberately alter and synthesize raw materials to remove volatile natural allergens, extract potent compounds, and prevent harmful bacterial growth on your bathroom counter.
It is time to wrench the language of our trade away from online creators who exploit chemophobia for clicks. The conversation needs to return to the actual chemists who understand the molecules, and consumers deserve the truth over hollow fearmongering.
