Soapbox #6

Why “non-toxic” is not my adjective of choice.

The word “non-toxic” appears precisely zero times on the Start with Soap website (other than this Soapbox). 

That’s no accident.  I intentionally avoid the term for a few reasons.

First, for me, it feels like fear-based marketing.  By referring to the absence of something “bad” (i.e. toxic substances), you’re making that “bad” thing the focus.  (I’m not saying that all “non-toxic” marketing is intentionally exploiting people’s fears, but the term is ripe for abuse.)

Second, the term “non-toxic” is not clearly defined.  As a result, the term is so overused and misused that it has been rendered completely meaningless.

The consequence of the first and second points above is that we’re inundated with marketing warning us to avoid a “bad” thing that is seemingly everywhere, but the “bad” thing is so amorphous that you don’t know what, exactly, you’re avoiding.  Not great for our mental health.

So if I don’t say “non-toxic,” what do I say?  First, I focus on the good—simple ingredients.  Because if you can read and understand what’s in a product, then you don’t need to worry about what’s not in it.  Second, if I’m going to talk about the absence of other ingredients, I’m specific—synthetic detergents, fragrance, added preservatives, and other harsh chemicals.

It’s a bit wordy.  It’s somewhat technical.  It’s not conducive to social media marketing.  (Like founder, like company?)

Start with Soap’s priorities have always been information first, retail second—this is one small example of that.

Peace,
Jen