Do Claims about the Naturalness and Dose of Cosmetics Ingredients Affect the Public’s Perception of Their Safety?

Abstract

Media articles have claimed that “synthetic mineral oil saturated hydrocarbons (MOSH)”, which are used in many cosmetics such as lip balms, are unsafe at any dose and should be replaced with natural alternatives. This paper examines whether these claims are correct and whether the perceived safety of these substances is influenced by the language used in the media. To achieve these goals, it first provides an extensive review of the toxicology literature, finding no support that MOSHs are unsafe at current usage levels. It then reviews the psychology literature to examine the effects of labelling a cosmetic ingredient as “natural” rather than “synthetic” and the effects of dose information. A 2 × 2 between-subjects experiments involving adult lip balm users shows that, as hypothesized, the perceived safety of lip balms increases when they are described as containing “naturally sourced mineral oil” rather than “synthetic mineral oil saturated hydrocarbon (MOSH)”, which are both correct descriptions. In addition, the perceived safety increases when the substance is described as being present in a low vs. a high dose, regardless of whether it was described as natural or synthetic. Overall, safety perceptions for common cosmetic substances can be significantly influenced by the language used in media reporting.

Are "Clean" Cosmetic Products Really Clean? A Pilot Study on the Validity of Cosmetic Labeling

“…In recent years, "clean" cosmetics have transformed the cultural and economic landscape of the cosmetic industry as mindful consumerism increases (1). When purchasing beauty products, consumers are often in uenced by perceptions in social media and do not account for contributing safety factors, such as ingredient quantity (2). Utilizing "clean" cosmetics has become a priority for many individuals as these products are applied onto the skin daily for long periods of time.…”

“…The usage of these terms may persuade the consumer to purchase associated products and inadvertently contribute to unknown disease burden (10). For example, a company had developed a conditioner without sulfates in an attempt to promote "natural" and "chemicalfree" products, which ultimately resulted in a product recall in response to complaints of hair loss and itching from approximately 21,000 consumers (2). Alternatively, utilizing words synonymous with "toxic" may instill fear in consumers, given that several well-known products have been recalled in the last decade due to adverse health effects, phenomena closely related to the increasing trend of clean cosmetics (4).…”

“…in uenced by perceptions in social media and do not account for contributing safety factors, such as ingredient quantity (2). Utilizing "clean" cosmetics has become a priority for many individuals as these products are applied onto the skin daily for long periods of time.…”

“…Utilizing "clean" cosmetics has become a priority for many individuals as these products are applied onto the skin daily for long periods of time. According to a survey conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), American women use an average of 12 skincare products and are exposed to almost 168 unique ingredients on a daily basis (2). As a result of increased demand for environmental and health-conscious cosmetics, retailers have increasingly marketed their products using terms such as "clean" or "non-toxic".…”