Pure 100% Organic and Natural Beauty Products

100% PURE is a Californian skincare, haircare and make-up company founded by Susie Wang, James Wang and Ric Kostick. Of all the brands in my directory, this is one where the name itself makes an unusually bold promise. The company has built its identity around avoiding synthetic ingredients and creating cosmetics from plant, mineral and marine-derived materials, with fruit, vegetables, tea, coffee and cocoa famously used as sources of colour in its Fruit Pigmented make-up.

The story behind that make-up is genuinely unusual. Co-founder Susie Wang developed and patented a method of using fruit pigments in cosmetics after noticing how berries stained the skin. The idea eventually became one of 100% PURE’s defining innovations. Instead of relying entirely on the conventional colourants found in make-up, the company developed products coloured using pigments derived from plants. That made the brand particularly distinctive in a category where finding genuinely natural colour cosmetics has always been much harder than finding natural skincare.

The company also takes a deliberately strict view of what it considers natural. Its definition allows ingredients from plants, minerals and marine vegetation and processing through biological or relatively simple processes such as fermentation, distillation and cold processing. It has historically rejected many of the synthetic ingredients commonplace in mainstream cosmetics.

There is a personal element to the company’s development too. CEO and co-founder Ric Kostick has spoken publicly about losing three family members to cancer and how this intensified his interest in the ingredients used in personal-care products. That history helps explain why 100% PURE has traditionally taken such a strong position on ingredient avoidance rather than simply presenting itself as another botanical beauty company.

However, this is also a brand currently going through significant change. Some long-standing products have been reformulated, including make-up products for which fruit pigmentation was once a particularly important selling point. In 2026 the company itself announced that it was redefining its approach to fruit pigments and what it calls its “New Standard of Clean”. That evolution needs attention because a substantial number of long-term customers originally chose 100% PURE precisely because its formulations were so different from conventional cosmetics.

100% PURE has developed into a large beauty brand covering make-up, facial skincare, body care, haircare, nail products and hand care.

Its make-up remains the most distinctive part of the range. There are foundations, concealers, blushers, bronzers, highlighters, mascaras, eyeshadows, eyeliners, lipsticks, lip colours and palettes. Historically, the Fruit Pigmented range used ingredients such as berries, peaches, plums, tomatoes, carrots, tea, coffee and cocoa to contribute colour rather than depending solely on conventional synthetic dyes.

Skincare is equally substantial. The range includes cleansers, toners, facial scrubs and masks, moisturisers, eye creams, facial oils, serums and SPF products. Formulations frequently combine botanical ingredients with nutrients familiar from nutritional science, including vitamin C, niacinamide, coenzyme Q10 and antioxidants. The Multi-Vitamin + Antioxidants Potent PM Serum, for example, combines stabilised vitamin C with niacinamide and other antioxidant ingredients.

Haircare includes shampoos, conditioners and treatments, while the body range covers washes, scrubs, creams and bath products. There are also hand creams and nail polishes.

The original thinking behind 100% PURE is exactly the sort of innovation I want to see in the beauty industry. Instead of asking how to make a conventional cosmetic sound more natural, its founders asked whether some of the conventional ingredients could be replaced altogether.

Fruit pigmentation is a perfect example. Colour cosmetics present a particular challenge because colour has to come from somewhere. 100% PURE developed a patented approach that allowed plant pigments to become part of functioning make-up formulations. Whatever changes the range is undergoing now, that was a genuinely distinctive contribution to natural beauty.

I also appreciate the company’s willingness to publish complete ingredient lists. A name such as 100% PURE could easily encourage consumers to stop reading the back of the package altogether, but the formulations are available to inspect product by product. That’s particularly important now because the range is changing and older assumptions about a favourite product may no longer apply to its current formulation.

There is a good range of plant ingredients throughout the skincare products, including aloe, green tea, rosehip, avocado, açai, pomegranate, calendula, chamomile and numerous other botanical extracts and oils. Some formulations combine those traditional plant ingredients with vitamins and other compounds used in modern skincare. I don’t see any contradiction in that. A botanical formulation doesn’t become less interesting to me simply because it also uses niacinamide or a stable form of vitamin C.

Animal welfare has also been embedded in the brand from the beginning. 100% PURE states that it doesn’t test its ingredients or finished products on animals and has held cruelty-free certification through both PETA and Leaping Bunny. Its make-up brushes use synthetic fibres rather than animal hair.

Most of the range is vegan, although it would be inaccurate to call every historical 100% PURE product vegan. The company has previously used ingredients including beeswax, honey and milk enzymes in some products and has stated that it is transitioning towards becoming fully vegan. I prefer that transparency to pretending cruelty-free and vegan mean the same thing.

The company has also historically made considerable efforts around manufacturing and packaging. It has reported using solar power at its headquarters, manufacturing and distribution centre and using post-consumer recycled materials including glass, plastic, tin and paper in packaging.

There is a great deal here that originally made 100% PURE worthy of its reputation among people looking for alternatives to mainstream cosmetics. But this is also one of those brands where looking at its history isn’t enough. The current formulations are important, and this is where my view becomes considerably more complicated.

Not all products are organic, and some formulations can still include ingredients that won’t suit everyone. Being a US brand, availability and shipping can sometimes be more complex for UK customers. Also they run out of stock very frequently which has been quite frustrating for me. Whenever I found a product and made it my favourite, it was impossible to buy it again. It’s more annoying that they kept sending promotional emails of the products I really did want o buy, only to find out that they were out of stock. Why promote something you don’t even have?

My biggest concern isn’t that 100% PURE has changed. Brands reformulate products all the time. Ingredients become unavailable, manufacturing changes, regulations evolve and formulations sometimes need improving. The problem is that the very thing 100% PURE became famous for appears to be changing while the Fruit Pigmented identity remains central to the brand.

During my research, I found repeated reports from long-standing customers who had bought replacement products and discovered that the ingredient lists were substantially different from the versions they had used previously. These aren’t isolated comments about someone disliking a new shampoo fragrance. There is a recurring discussion among customers specifically about reformulated make-up and the introduction of pigments such as iron oxides and, in some products, lake dyes.

Iron oxides themselves aren’t automatically something I object to. They’re mineral pigments widely used in cosmetics and can perform extremely well. The issue here is one of expectation and transparency. Someone deliberately buying 100% PURE because they want make-up coloured using fruit and plant pigments is making a different purchasing decision from someone choosing conventional mineral pigmentation.

The company has acknowledged that its approach is changing. In March 2026, 100% PURE published an explanation of what it calls a new definition of Fruit Pigmented and a “New Standard of Clean”, describing the change as an evolution towards combining its fruit-pigment heritage with modern cosmetic science. Customers are entitled to decide whether they welcome that evolution. Some clearly don’t. Just on the basis of principles, I also don’t like this. There are many many other brands to choose from. 100% Pure was unique because of its original concept. Now it’s one of many other brands doing the similar things.

This is one of the strongest negative patterns I’ve encountered while researching the brands in this directory. Independent customer discussions contain long-term users expressing disappointment that products they had relied on for years no longer have the same formulations. Some specifically say that they originally used 100% PURE because they were trying to avoid the pigments now appearing in reformulated products.

The independent customer-service picture isn’t particularly reassuring either. At the time I researched the company, its Trustpilot profile had only 43 reviews, so the sample is far too small to represent the experience of the brand’s entire customer base. Nevertheless, the rating was just 1.7 out of 5, with 70% of those reviewers giving one star. Recent complaints mention products being repeatedly out of stock, formulation changes, orders taking a long time to arrive and difficulties getting responses from customer service.

Stock availability appears repeatedly outside Trustpilot too. Customers who otherwise speak very highly of 100% PURE have complained for years about favourite products or shades being unavailable. For make-up, where someone may depend on a particular foundation shade, that becomes more significant than an ordinary temporary stock shortage.

I also think the brand name itself creates a responsibility. Calling a company 100% PURE and making purity the central promise inevitably creates extremely high expectations. When formulations evolve towards ingredients that loyal customers specifically came to the brand to avoid, communication needs to be exceptionally clear.

None of this means I suddenly consider iron oxides or every modern cosmetic ingredient undesirable. Nor do I think a company should be frozen permanently in the formulations it developed twenty years ago. My concern is much simpler: if I buy something because its defining characteristic is fruit pigmentation, I want to know immediately if that characteristic has materially changed.

This is therefore a brand where I would now read the current ingredient list every single time I repurchase something, even if I had used the product for years.

100% PURE is a cruelty-free company and has stated that it doesn’t test either individual ingredients or finished products on animals. The brand has held cruelty-free certification through both Leaping Bunny and PETA.

Most products are vegan, but the entire historical range shouldn’t be described as vegan. 100% PURE has acknowledged using animal-derived ingredients such as beeswax, honey and milk enzymes in certain formulations and has been transitioning towards fully vegan alternatives. Individual product labelling is therefore the more reliable way to determine vegan status.

Organic ingredients appear extensively throughout the range and some individual ingredients and formulations have organic credentials, but 100% PURE shouldn’t be described as an entirely certified-organic beauty brand. Natural, organic, vegan and cruelty-free are separate characteristics and they don’t automatically apply equally to every product.

The company’s patented Fruit Pigmented technology is also worth recording, although a patent is an intellectual-property protection rather than an ethical or organic certification.

100% PURE is probably the first brand in this directory where my verdict isn’t as straightforward as either enthusiastic approval or rejection.

There is a lot about this company I genuinely admire. Its founders challenged assumptions about how make-up had to be made and developed a patented way of incorporating fruit pigments into colour cosmetics. It built skincare around plants, vitamins and antioxidants, rejected animal testing, invested in more sustainable manufacturing and gave people who wanted to avoid many conventional cosmetic ingredients an alternative long before clean beauty became the enormous commercial category it is today. For many years, that made 100% PURE genuinely unusual.

But a directory like this becomes pointless if a brand receives permanent approval based on its history while its products change underneath it. I’m aware every business exists to make money and I empathise with a company changing tactics to become more profitable. I find it very disappointing that I feel like they’ve given up too quickly.

The reformulation issue is significant precisely because 100% PURE built such a loyal following around what it didn’t use. People didn’t simply buy its foundation because they liked the coverage. Some sought it out specifically because conventional pigments weren’t being used in the same way. When those formulations change, the relationship between the brand and those customers changes too.

I don’t automatically agree with every angry comment I’ve found online. Iron oxides aren’t inherently evidence that a product has suddenly become toxic, and modern cosmetic science isn’t something I want brands to reject simply for being modern. But the volume and consistency of the frustration from established customers is difficult to ignore, particularly when the company itself has now confirmed an evolution in how it approaches Fruit Pigmented cosmetics.

The terrible Trustpilot rating also needs context because 43 reviews are nowhere near enough to judge a company of this size. What interests me more than the number itself is that several recent complaints overlap with what customers are discussing elsewhere: reformulations, availability and communication.

So I wouldn’t remove 100% PURE from this directory. I would change the way I use it.

I would no longer assume that because I’ve researched the brand, every current 100% PURE product automatically meets the standard associated with its older formulations. I’d look at the actual ingredient list of the product I’m buying today. I’d check whether an old favourite has been reformulated. And if fruit pigmentation is specifically why I’m choosing a make-up product, I’d verify what is actually providing its colour.

There are still products in the range that I find very attractive, and the philosophy that created 100% PURE remains closely aligned with the reason I started looking for cleaner products in the first place. But right now this feels like a brand in transition, and that makes scrutiny more important.

For that reason, my approval comes with a qualification: 100% PURE remains in my directory, but I recommend choosing by current formulation rather than relying on the brand name or on what a particular product contained in the past.