Natural Does Not Mean Safe—The Dirt on Clean Beauty Products

Abstract

Clean beauty, also known as natural skin care, is having a moment. From 2017 to 2018, the natural skin care market grew by 23% to 1.6 billion dollars, accounting for over 25% of the 5.6 billion dollars of annual skin care sales in 2018. 1 Staunch warnings from influencers such as Gwyneth Paltrow, whose blog Goop warns readers "Do you want antifreeze (propylene glycol) in your moisturizer? We're going to guess no," 2 have ignited fear in consumers who are now hungry for skincare that is safe and nontoxic. However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has failed to define clean and natural, leaving these labels open to interpretation by nondermatologist retailers, bloggers, and celebrities who have set out to define clean beauty for themselves. While the clean beauty movement has demonized hundreds of compounds, in this Viewpoint, we argue that an arbitrary designation of clean or natural does not necessarily make products safer for consumers. Many of the ingredients that have been denounced by clean beauty evangelists seem to be selected haphazardly as companies attempt to "greenwash" their products to make them more attractive to conscientious shoppers. In July 2018, for example, Whole Foods released its updated list of unacceptable ingredients, which lists over 400 compounds they feel are unfit for their line of premium body care. 3 Their list of banned ingredients includes petrolatum, which dermatologists have consistently recommended to patients with skin barrier disruption owing to its nonallergenicity, superior qualities as a humectant, and economical cost that makes it accessible to patients of all backgrounds. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics advocates for consumers to avoid a multitude of ingredients including parabens, 4 which the American Contact Dermatitis Society named 2019 nonallergen of the year. 5 Parabens are some of the least allergenic preservatives available, with rates of contact sensitization between 0.5% to 1.4%-rates that have been stable since the 1990s. 6 The Environmental Working Group's (EWG) safe skin database warns consumers against exposure to chemical sunscreen ingredients, 7 though a recent editorial in JAMA 8 explains that although there is evidence of systemic absorption of sunscreen ingredients, we do not yet have data to link this systemic absorption with toxic or adverse effects, and that sunscreens remain critical in our defense against keratinocytic skin cancers. Additionally, many so-called natural products contain high concentrations of botanical extracts that are a leading cause of both irritant and allergic contact dermatitis and photosensitization. 9 In a study done by the University of

Skin-Lightening Products: Consumer Preferences and Costs

“…Finally, it is interesting that consumers prioritized "natural" ingredients. However, the term "natural" has not been defined by the FDA, making it more of a marketing term than a true indication of a product's components [25].…”

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

“…In reality, parabens, as preservatives, help prevent microbial infections and are among the preservatives with the lowest rates of allergic reactions [40] and no studies have shown any direct link between parabens and any health problems [41]. These preservatives have also helped prevent potential severe health issues such as the Pseudomonasinduced corneal ulcers reported in the 1970s due to an inadequately preserved mascara [12]. Increasing frequency of internet searches for "health" and "natural" compared to "effective".…”

“…Its success is undeterred by the safety issues that plagued prominent natural products such as Jessica Alba's baby wipes and baby powder, which were recalled in 2018 because of mold and contamination by microorganisms [11]. The success of "natural" and "clean" cosmetics is also unaffected by the fact that these claims are not regulated [11] and from the evidence that cosmetic ingredients described as natural are not necessarily safer [12,13].…”

Commentary on JAMA Dermatology Editorial: “Natural Does Not Mean Safe—The Dirt on Clean Beauty Products”

“…Without rewriting this very short Editorial, I would like to echo the sentiments of Drs Rubin and Brod. 1 If, in fact, the US Food and Drug Administration does not have definitions for “clean” and “natural,” the terms “clean beauty” and “natural skin care” are open to very broad interpretation (and misinterpretation). And this has consequences.…”