Dishing the Dirt On Clean Beauty

More consumers are trading in their synthetic ingredient-based cosmetics in favor of plant-based alternatives. At the same time, they are said to crave a deeper understanding of product formulas and how they work. It’s a thriving sector, one that experts think could change the beauty industry for good. According to Statista Research, the global natural and organic beauty market has been growing rapidly during the past few years and is expected to reach $22 billion by 2024.

In this column, I will briefly review the emergence of “clean beauty.” Lately, the coverage of “clean” cosmetics is everywhere. But with a corresponding rise in misleading labeling and scientific claims, beauty products marketed as green, clean and eco-friendly have a believability issue; as green beauty grows, misinformation abounds. It is helpful to know the following eco-beauty seals, which could serve as a guide and authenticity of the product:

• EWG: The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has investigated ingredient safety for nearly three decades. Its “unacceptable list” red-flags ingredients based on research as well as restrictions set by other authoritative agencies around the world. The banned list includes known carcinogens, endocrine disruptors and potential allergens.
• Cosmos: The Cosmos organic seal indicates that at least 95% of a product’s ingredients are organic. Products with a lower percentage are still eligible for the Cosmos natural seal, but in both cases, they must pass rigorous on-site tests for manufacturing practices and a host of environmental criteria, including preservation of biodiversity.
• USDA Organic: The US Department of Agriculture’s Natural Organic Program is the gold standard for growing practices in the US. While the seal typically applies to food, a beauty or personal care product may qualify if it is made from agricultural ingredients that meet the USDA’s production, handling, processing and labelling standards, including soil fertility and crop rotation.

Clean is the latest beauty movement, but there is some confusion among consumers. The term “clean” and “natural” are often used interchangeably. Both are marketing terms that do not necessarily mean safer or more effective. But because the terminology is not regulated by FDA, they are all essentially meaningless words when they appear on personal care product labels. For many marketing departments, natural tends to mean the formula contains plant-based ingredients.

Clean products are notable for the ingredients they are free of: parabens, phathalates and sulfates. While there is no official definition, “clean” products are devoid of these most demonizedof  cosmetic chemicals.

Even media companies are getting in on the act. Any products that bear Allure’s “Clean Best of Beauty” seal is a Best of Beauty winner that meets the “Allure Clean Standard;” meaning, it’s free of following ingredient classes: chemical sunscreens (such as oxybenzone, avobenzone and octinoxate), parabens, phthalates, sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium laureth sulfate, silicones, polyethylene and polypropylene microbeads, metallic aluminum, hydroquinone, PEGs, triclosan, talc, mineral oils, petrolatum, formaldehyde and toluene.

Ingredients to Watch
Parabens are the most commonly-avoided components for clean beauty devotees, despite the fact that parabens are some of the least allergenic preservatives available. In fact, parabens were named The 2019 Nonallergen of the Year by the American Contact Dermatitis Society.1 In contrast, methylchloroisothiazolinone, fragrances and formaldehyde are known causes of contact dermatitis. All three have been named “allergens of the year” by the American Contact Dermatitis Society due to their prevalence in commonly-used products.²

Endocrine disruptors are in the news, too. Implicated ingredients include triclosan, toluene, resorcinol, petroleum distillate, butylated hydroxy anisole, boric acid, sodium borate, phthalates, placenta extract, parabens and phenoxyethanol. The jury is still out on these ingredients. Animal studies show a direct relationship between these compounds and hormonal imbalance, but at higher doses than what consumers are exposed to through the use of cosmetics or personal care products. Some human studies have related an increase in urinary or blood levels of these chemicals to endocrine disruption. However, it is difficult to interpret if or how individual measurements of these chemicals in bodily fluids relate to exposure from cosmetics or personal care products.

Some common ingredients have been labeled carcinogens. Implicated ingredients include 1,4 -dioxane, formaldehyde, coal tar ingredients, petroleum distillates and placenta extract. Formaldehyde has been linked to cancer formation in animals and humans at high doses. It is also a common contact allergen. Coal tar products have been linked to cancer; however, coal tar products have been used in dermatology topically, to treat psoriasis and eczema, for years without any increased rate of skin cancer or internal cancers. Petroleum distillates that are highly refined, like those in personal care products or cosmetics, do not appear to cause cancer. Dermatologists have consistently recommended petrolatum to patients with skin barrier disruption owing to its non-allergenic profile, its superior qualities as a humectant and its economic cost. 1,4 dioxane has been linked to cancer in animals, while studies about placenta extract are lacking in both animals and humans.

According to New York City Dermatologist Macrene Alexiades, whatever is put on the skin is absorbed by the skin. Some small molecule beauty product ingredients may even enter the bloodstream. If skin is damaged, with a condition such as eczema, more material will be absorbed. However, large molecule ingredients do not penetrate below the epidermis. Only the smaller molecules, especially those that are fat soluble, or ingredients that are encapsulated, can reach the bloodstream. Many carcinogenic ingredients on this list have been found in the bloodstream, but they could have gotten there through other exposure methods such ingestion or inhalation. Furthermore, the fact that a chemical shows up in your blood or urine does not mean it is causing any harm: Sola dosis facit venenum or the dose makes the poison. At high levels, some materials may be toxic to a cell in a petri dish, but that does not mean a topically applied product containing a small amount of that chemical is at all toxic. Dermatologists warn that clean skin care products that are free of certain chemicals are not always safer than their traditional counterparts.

‘Clean,’ ‘Clinical’ and ‘Edible’
According to the NPD Group, beauty consumers’ concerns over ingredient safety are forcing clinical brands to blur the lines between clinical and clean products. Clinical brands focus product lines around laboratory-tested benefits and ingredients, and typically have roots in the fields of medicine, chemistry, pharmacy, aesthetics and apothecary. Active ingredient efficacy is at the heart of these brands. Nearly 50% of the US prestige skin care market makes use of clinical ingredients such as retinol, collagen and hyaluronic acid.

The term, “clean-clinical,” used by skin care brand Drunk Elephant, and the widely used description: “The best of Science and Nature” indicates tweaking in the laboratory. Tweaking enables higher concentrations or synergies of active ingredients, often through encapsulation for improved delivery. Some natural brands tweak natural ingredients, too. It seems that “clean” is in competition with big cosmeceutical companies. Big beauty companies are also snapping up successful startups to benefit from their clean credentials.

In 2020, you can have your skin care and eat it too.3 More beauty brands, including Golde, Moon Juice, Four Sigmatic, are rolling out edible masks that you can apply to your face or drink in a smoothie or tonic. So, should you be sipping your cosmetics?

“Healthy skin ultimately comes from a low-sugar diet, that is full of antioxidants and leafy greens,” says Dermatologist Mona Gohara. These products contain safe-for-you ingredients and rely on a blend antioxidants; eating healthy foods can boost skin vibrancy and overall health.

EWG is a force driving the clean beauty dialogue. Scientific evidence appears to support avoiding at least a handful of ingredients that can be found in personal care products. More studies are needed to back up associations between low dose topical exposure to many of these chemicals and human health. 

References:

1. JAMA Dermatology Dec 2019, Vol.155, Number 12. Courtney Rubin MD, Bruce Brod MD.    
2. Clean Cosmetics-Dr. Wanner, Dr. Nathan, Harvard Medical School Publishing 3/12/19.
3. Women’s Health, p. 27, Jan/ Feb 2020

---

Navin M. Geria
Chief Scientific Officer
AyurDerm Technologies, LLC
navin@AyurDerm.com

Navin Geria, former Pfizer Research Fellow is a cosmetic and pharmaceutical product development chemist and the chief scientific officer of AyurDerm Technologies LLC, which provides Ayurvedic, natural and cosmeceutical custom formulation development and consulting services to the spa-wellness-dermatology industries. He has launched dozens of cosmeceutical and ayurvedic anti-aging products. Geria has more than 30 years of experience in the personal care industry and was previously with Clairol, Warner-Lambert, Schick-Energizer, Bristol-Myers and Spa Dermaceuticals. He has nearly 20 US patents and has been published extensively. Geria edited the “Handbook of Skin-Aging Theories for Cosmetic Formulation Development” focus book published in April 2016 by Harry’s Cosmeticology. He is a speaker, moderator and chairman at cosmetic industry events. Most recently, he is author of the soon-to-be-released “Aging Well: Advances & Treatments” published by Chemical Publishing Company.