The 0% Standard — and what it actually costs us to hold it

The 0% Standard™ is the rule we wrote for ourselves before PrimalBasics existed as a brand. It is the one formulation commitment we do not bend on, not for cost, not for scent, not for tactile feel, not for a novel scientific claim someone has made about a specific new ingredient.

Most readers see the list and assume it is an ordinary marketing pledge — a tidy back-of-pack claim next to cruelty-free and recyclable. It is not. It is a working document that has cost us, specifically, at least a dozen ingredients we would have otherwise used, and at least two products that would have otherwise shipped.

This essay is a transparent accounting of those decisions.

What we exclude, and why we thought about it

The full list is on our 0% Standard™ page. Here I want to unpack the three decisions that were hardest — the ones where the exclusion cost something material.

No industrial seed oils. This exclusion evolved in our own formulation history. Two of our earlier products — the Face Elixir and the Post-Shave Elixir, both now discontinued — used the oils the clean-beauty category endorsed at the time: grape seed in both, sunflower in the Post-Shave Elixir, and rosehip in the Face Elixir. As our research into oxidative stability and bio-mimetic lipids deepened, the picture changed. These are polyunsaturated oils — high linoleic-acid fractions that give them the worst oxidative profile an oil can have in a skincare application. Rather than reformulate those two older products to meet the evolved standard, we discontinued them and built the Bio-Active range on oxidatively stable fats only — prickly pear, olive squalane, jojoba, meadowfoam, MCT. Prickly pear alone is three times more expensive than rosehip. It cost us. It was right.

No silicones. Silicones — dimethicone, cyclopentasiloxane, phenyl trimethicone — are how most modern skincare achieves the 'slip' feeling customers expect. They sit on the skin beautifully. They are dermatologically safe. They are also environmentally persistent, they biodegrade poorly in water systems, and they do not integrate with the skin's lipid architecture the way a bio-identical alternative does. We could have used a small percentage of dimethicone in Bio Gold and the product would have felt noticeably smoother on application. We chose not to, and it meant re-engineering the squalane and MCT ratios until the feel was there without the silicone. That re-engineering cost four months of iteration.

No synthetic preservation. Phenoxyethanol is the preservative most clean brands use even when they will not admit to it. It is safe. It is effective. It is also a compound most ingredient-literate customers do not want on their skin. We avoided it by going water-free across the Bio-Active range — which meant we could not make a lotion, a cream, or a hydrating essence. Every Bio-Active product is an oil. The water-based vitamin-C serum that would have broadened our product line by 20% was off the table because we could not preserve it without phenoxyethanol. That, too, cost us.

The 0% Standard is not a marketing pledge. It is a formulation commitment that has cost us a dozen ingredients we would have otherwise used, and at least two products that would have otherwise shipped.

What it actually costs, month over month

In cash terms, our gross margin is roughly 8–12 percentage points lower than it would be if we relaxed the standard. Prickly pear costs more than rosehip. Unrefined jojoba costs more than refined. Olive squalane costs more than sugarcane. MSRI's university-grade QC costs more than a generic contract factory. Every one of these additions is worth it to us — but there is no escaping that the 0% Standard™ is not a free optimisation.

In product-portfolio terms, we have fewer SKUs than we would otherwise. A vitamin C serum is the most common missing piece customers ask about. Our answer is: we do not yet know how to make a vitamin C serum that meets the 0% Standard™. If and when we learn, we will make one. Until then, we respect the customer's ability to buy one elsewhere more than we respect our own commercial ambition.

The compound that took us two years to find

My wife had been pushing me to develop a cleansing oil for a long time. The category is everywhere in Asia — Japanese brands invented the modern cleansing-oil ritual, Korean brands refined it, and most of the cleansing oils in our own household routine came from one of those two countries. The problem was that every formulation I could find, commercial or DIY, relied on emulsifiers that did not meet the 0% Standard — usually polysorbates or PEG derivatives — to make the oil rinse cleanly with water.

I researched the category several times over a two-year stretch and walked away every time. An oil that does not rinse cleanly is not a cleansing oil; it is an oil. An oil that rinses cleanly only because of a polysorbate was not something we would sell.

The breakthrough was polyglyceryl-4 oleate — a natural emulsifier built from glycerin and oleic acid. Skin-compatible. Non-synthetic. Once that ingredient was on the table, my wife and I worked through many iterations at home until the feel, the rinse, and the after-feel were all right. The result is Bio Clean — six ingredients, water-free, 0% Standard-compliant. It took two years because we refused the shortcut.

The compound we have not yet figured out

The ingredient we are currently stuck on is a humectant. Most water-based skincare uses glycerin and hyaluronic acid to draw moisture into the skin. Both are legitimate ingredients we are not opposed to in principle. Both are traditionally formulated into water-based products we cannot make. We are actively researching oil-soluble humectant chemistries — specifically polyglyceryl esters — that might allow us to make a hydrating oil without a water phase. The research is not yet where we need it to be. When it is, the product that results will be the first new addition to the Bio-Active system.

Why this is the brand's best asset

A standard that costs something to hold is a standard that cannot easily be copied. Any marketing-led clean brand can claim 'no parabens, no sulfates, no silicones.' Holding that claim across every batch, in the face of formulation trade-offs, when the alternative would meaningfully improve margins — that is the actual work. We intend to keep doing the work for as long as we make products.

— Mike