For skincare and makeup lovers alike, clean beauty has become omnipresent in our lives, with new clean innovations and brands becoming prolific as ever; many of them leveraging the clean label and as a way to differentiate themselves and capture a share of this increasingly profitable market. The ‘formulated without’ or ‘free from’ ideology has created a nearly $2 billion dollar industry in the United States, which makes up over 25% of the $5.6 billion dollars generated by annual skin care sales in 2018.[1] And with the burgeoning presence of clean-only beauty retailers such as The Detox Market, Credo, and Follain – each showcasing their own varying lists of no-no ingredients – consumers have embraced this new beauty experience despite having little understanding behind claims that propel this industry forward.
What is Clean Beauty?
What originated as green beauty, clean beauty is broadly defined as products that do good by people and the planet; with a focus on transparency and sustainability, but above all, avoiding “toxic” materials perceived to be potential endocrine disruptors, potential carcinogens, or irritants/allergens to ensure safety for consumers. While green beauty is tied to the provenance of ingredients and consumer health concerns, clean beauty evolved from the trust in natural and organic, as well as a lack of industry governance, to emphasize efficacy and safety.[2] Many of the clean beauty claims you will see today include vegan, cruelty-free, toxic-free, chemical-free, paraben-free, and even hyper clean, promising formulations that exclude everything from parabens to PEGs (polyethylene glycol), phenoxyethanol, petrolatum, sulfates, mineral oil, dimethicone, chemical sunscreens, and much, much more.
Take petrolatum, for example, commonly known as Vaseline. This non-allergenic salve derived (and refined) from crude oil has been recommended by doctors for decades for its superior occlusive properties, as a skin protectant, and to help speed up the skin’s natural healing process. It’s a miracle worker in preventing trans-epidermal-water loss (TEWL) and to help fortify our skin barrier. So, how can something that is recommended by medical professionals such as dermatologists be denigrated as unsafe by clean beauty players?
Is Clean Beauty Based on Regulation and or Science?
The glaring issue with clean beauty is that the foundation of its promise is not rooted in science or regulation. These are both inextricably linked in this instance. The word clean, places things in a false dichotomy, implying that everything that is not clean, is in fact, toxic or unsafe. There is a safe level for most chemicals. And taking ingredients out of the context of formulations and demonizing them is highly misleading.
There is no agreed upon definition of clean beauty in the industry and there is no regulatory definition. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not defined clean or natural and is not required to test or preapprove cosmetics and their ingredients, with the exception of color additives.[3] As a result, business, retailers, bloggers, influencers, and celebrities have defined it for themselves, creating confusion, fear, and misinformation in the marketplace.
Along with the lack of governance within the cosmetics sector in the US, clean beauty advocates often highlight that the FDA has only banned 11 substances from cosmetics, while the European Union has banned over 1300 ingredients. This ongoing comparison continues to cultivate mistrust and confusion here in the US, but if you take a closer look at the EU list of prohibited ingredients, many of the substances indicated are not used in cosmetic products.
The dialogue around clean beauty also involves an online searchable database and non-profit organization called The EWG, which features a skin deep guide to cosmetics with over 70,000 products rated for safety. It’s one of the most influential resources online when it comes to clean beauty, but it’s appears that their risk assessment of ingredients is not necessarily driven by data.[4] You will find that many of the ingredients eschewed by clean beauty brands, have none or limited scientific evidence disproving their safety for consumer use on The EWG. Not to mention the platform advertises products from Amazon.com via links on many of their product pages, and when customers click and purchase those products, they earn referral fees.
The Bright Side of Clean
Innovation
Clean beauty brands work with tighter product development briefs as a result of their list of no-no ingredients, therefore many clean products push the boundaries of innovation. Within this segment, you’ll find unique formulations along the lines of products suitable for all skin types, hybrid products that offer both skincare + makeup benefits, waterless formulations, and new product textures.
Transparency
Ingredient purity and how brands source their ingredients is a key focus for clean beauty brands. They also may highlight whether their ingredients are derived from nature or are synthetic, or a combination of both.
Ethics
You will not find clean beauty brands that condone animal testing or ingredients that may be linked to unfair labor conditions or wages.
Beautiful, Sustainable, and Luxurious packaging
Cleans beauty brands have set new standards for product packaging, sustainability goals, and overall user experience. Products are designed for Instagram, they are luxurious in look and feel, and also environmentally friendly. You may encounter tubes made of biodegradable sugar cane, and glass packaging has become the gold standard.
Written by Maya
Reviewed by Drs. Smith & Fardin
[1] Courtney Blair Rubin, MD, MBE; Bruce Brod, MD. JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(12):1344-1345. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.2724 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/2751513
[2] “The Evolution of Beauty from Green to Clean to Conscious” Euromonitor International. Nov. 2019.
[3] https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/resources-industry-cosmetics/small-businesses-homemade-cosmetics-fact-sheet#1
[4] Courtney Blair Rubin, MD, MBE; Bruce Brod, MD. JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(12):1344-1345. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.2724 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/2751513