Coming Clean on Clean Beauty
The clean beauty movement gets a lot of stick. Companies that promote natural “non toxic” products are often criticised for being unscientific, the bearers of misinformation and scaremongering.
I am going to try and come from a different angle. I am going to try and muddle through the definitions of the clean movement and make a case for it, or at least highlight that there is a reason why the clean beauty movement has gained such traction in the cosmetics industry; namely that as a construct it arose out of distrust for governments, big business, and science, and that this distrust is not wholly unfounded.
What is the ‘Clean’ Movement?
Like with many movements in life, ‘clean’ has no codified definition. In terms of cosmetics it tends to refer to cosmetic products that are natural, free from ‘toxins’, good for the environment and generally healthy for your body. They normally list the ingredients they consider to be bad for your health; such things as phenoxyethanol, parabens, hydrogenated vegetable oils, formaldehyde releasing agents (some preservatives), and even CI colours. They often state that ‘60% of what you put on your body is absorbed through the skin’ and presumably enters the bloodstream, and on the main, dichotomise that which is ‘clean’ as good and that which is synthetic, as ‘bad.’
In terms of the food industry, they claim that clean food is unprocessed, fresh food; as opposed to processed food laden with added fats and sugars. Some say that the only clean diet is a vegan diet, others state that raw, organic vegetables and free range meats are the best for our bodies. Clean, seems to mean different things to different people, but on the whole processed foods are ‘bad’ and fresh foods are ‘good'.’
There is a reason why the clean movement came about. Initially I think it came along as a way to push back against the unethical practices of big business. The cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries have been interlinked for a very long time. Chemical companies often make a wide variety of ingredients that serve many different industries. Often a large multinational that makes cosmetic ingredients will also make pharmaceuticals, food additives, construction materials and even fabrics. Johnson and Johnson and GlaxoSmithKline, to name a few, make cosmetic products as well as pharmaceuticals; big pharma and as an extension, the cosmetic industry, are often criticised for valuing profits over consumer health.
Let’s look at some examples.
The Food Industry
No one can argue that eating fresh ingredients is better for your health than eating highly processed foods. As humans, we are part of nature and we are a part of our own ecosystems, whether we like it or not; and we do benefit from eating what comes directly from the soil. The foods humans know are safe to eat have come from a millennia of experimentation; we know precisely what is good for us because of the knowledge gained by our ancestors.
Processed foods are often seen as bad for our health, mainly because we don’t know if the manner in which they are processed or the additives used are bad for us.
It is also true that large food companies spend a lot of time, money and research creating processed foods designed to be ‘addictive’.
A growing body of evidence suggests that humans are predisposed to be unable to resist fat and sugar or a combination of the two, and the food industry knows this. They hire PhD chemists to create products that consumers will want to eat again and again; returning customers maximise profits. They spend billions of dollars marketing products as healthy, such as low fat foods. The catch is, these low fat foods are rich in high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), now suspected to be a major health risk. Studies suggest that as a result the rates of obesity and type II diabetes mellitus has risen sharply in recent decades, with detrimental effects.
The industry produces and aggressively markets foods laden with sugar, salt, saturated fat, and calories. It obfuscates nutritional information to confuse consumers, targeting young people and minorities in particular. It purchases influence at every level of government and fights commonsense regulations by funding “shadow” advocacy groups and sympathetic scientists. Big Food is relentless in litigating against any law that is likely to be effective in curbing unhealthy eating. (Lawrence Gostin, 2016)
An unhealthy population also feeds into other areas, namely the pharmaceutical and medical industries; if you are unwell, you will need to go to hospital regularly, or buy drugs. Countries, such as the U.S charge high amounts for health care and over inflate the price of drugs, again to maximise profits. In short, an unhealthy nation is a source of tremendous amounts of revenue. Pharmaceutical companies lobby government and give large donations to political parties to influence legislation that works in their favour.
The Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Industries
Big pharma is probably the most distrusted of all industries, baring the Tobacco industry. There have been some notable scandals in the pharmaceutical industry.
In 2009 pharmaceutical giant Pfizer paid out $2.3 billion for illegally promoting four of it’s drugs in what was at the time, the largest settlement in the history of the United States Department of Justice. Pfizer were fined for allegedly promoting four of their medicines off label and for conditions and age groups not approved for by the FDA as well as making false representations about the safety and efficacy of one of their products, Zyvox, and antibiotic only approved to treat certain drug resistant infections.
In December 2011, Merck pleaded guilty to violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) for introducing a misbranded drug, Vioxx, into interstate commerce. Merck's guilty plea was part of a global resolution involving it’s illegal promotional activity. The painkiller was withdrawn when evidence linked the drug to significant health risks. The FDA later found that this drug increased the risk of heart attack and strokes. Merck had failed to test this drug for cardiovascular risks, which led to 27,000 deaths in the U.S. As a result Merck paid criminal damages in the sum of $950 million and paid a total of 4.5 billion in damages to the victims and their families. This is not an isolated case and it is not surprising when pharmaceutical companies spend more of their budget on marketing than they do on research and development.
GlaxoSmithKline have been penalised many times over, and had to pay out billions as a result of fraud, bribery and corruption. In 2012 they were fined $3 billion for healthcare fraud.
GSK did not disclose the dangerous side-effects (such as increased risk of congestive heart failure) of their diabetes drug Avandia. This crucial data was withheld from the US Food and Drug Administration between 2001 and 2007. Since then it has been estimated that it could have caused up to 100,000 heart attacks in the US. (Facing Finance)
Furthermore, they bribed doctors to promote and prescribe the antidepressant drug, Paxil for underage patients despite it not being approved for patients under 18 years old. This drug was found to have the side effect of increased suicidal thoughts in this age group.
They paid medical professionals to promote the anti-depressant drug, Wellbutrin ‘off-label’ as a treatment for weight loss, drug addiction, sexual dysfunction and ADHD despite it never having undergone testing for these conditions.
In 2014 the Chinese government fined GSK $390 million for bribing doctors and hospitals and channeling illegal kickbacks through travel agencies of up to US$480 million to choose their products as opposed to competitors. They were also accused of tax evasion and manipulating drug prices.
Dupont and French company Saint-Gobain (both of which serve the cosmetic industry) have recently come under fire for polluting ground water with Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance, causing health problems for the people living near their plants. In particular, the French company Saint-Gobain - who provide ingredients to various industries, including the cosmetic sector - are being investigated for contaminating groundwater. It is alleged this has contributed to high levels of cancer, cardiovascular issues, and rare cancers in children living close by.
(PFAS) are man-made chemicals that have been used in industry and consumer products worldwide since the 1950s. They have been used in non-stick cookware, water-repellent clothing, stain resistant fabrics and carpets, some cosmetics, some firefighting foams, and products that resist water, and oil. They are known as ‘forever chemicals’ because they do not break down in the environment (persist for thousands of years) and have been found in people, food and waterways. As such here is concern about the safety of these chemicals, especially when they accumulate in the body.
Balancing the Argument
It is important to note that the examples I have given put these industries in a bad light. I did so deliberately to illustrate where the distrust of these multinational companies comes from. They are all valid reasons for people to be wary of the products we are often manipulated to buy.
This doesn’t mean that the pharmaceutical, food and cosmetic industries have not done anything good. We owe much to modern science and scientists to the progress that has been made in modern medicine - many lives have been saved due to the massive strides in scientific knowledge over the last 100 years. Like any field of work, there are always the good and the bad.
I think there is a lot of confusion, people are told that certain ingredients are safe, often vehemently so, and then some decades later (when more evidence is gathered) are told that those same ingredients are health risks. This is normal, as scientific knowledge is gained over time and is ever evolving, however it does lead to confusion and distrust, rightly or wrongly.
I disagree with many assertions made by ‘clean’ beauty companies, in terms of the toxicity of certain ingredients, but I also have empathy for them. Yes, some use it as a way to sell more products, and we know fear is often a big driver for sales. This applies to all marketing regardless of whether it comes from the non-natural or the natural sector. But often, it is the case that some small-scale entrepreneurs, who often work alone, do genuinely hold these views and for good reason. Fears and worries over ingredients in our cosmetic products should not be dismissed or belittled because those fears often come from a very real place. I have given only a few examples of shady practices, there are many, many more.
How to Deal with Misinformation?
I often see some scientists try and name and shame companies for using the terms ‘clean beauty’ or ‘non-toxic’ beauty. Humiliating people for their beliefs simply isn’t productive, and will often make you look worse than them.
The same people that take the moral high ground and ‘out’ companies for using ‘toxic’ scare tactics to sell products, have absolutely no problem publicly humiliating them for doing so. The only difference is they do it for shits and giggles, and maybe a few more likes on Instagram. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the frustration, I just wonder how productive this strategy is.
When people in the scientific community try and shame lay people for choosing ‘clean’ beauty, I think they are also doing themselves a disservice and often throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When they are busy ‘debunking’ they are not really looking deeper into the ‘why’. They are also not acknowledging the great, and often, rational fears people have about how certain industries have behaved in the past. They are not balancing the argument.
A better use of time would be spent coming from a position of caring, empathy and education, rather than trying your hardest to embarrass them, the latter approach would probably only succeed in alienation.
I also think it would be better if some in the scientific community displayed less hubris and more humility when dealing with public perceptions in general; they may find that people will listen and that they themselves will learn something.
The Clean Beauty Movement
There is no doubt that the pharmaceutical companies, dominant cosmetic and chemical companies, have had some warranted bad press. It is also true that some in the clean beauty industry are using the often unjustified vilification of ‘chemicals’ as an opportunity to increase their sales. In this sense their marketing could be seen as a coercive attempt at manipulating buyers to choose their products over many others.
Equally, behind a brand there is a person - that person drives the ethics and values of the company, and I would prefer to think that the ‘clean’ beauty movement, on the whole, is filling a gap; they are offering something they feel is safe and effective, good for you and good for the environment. Often these companies spend a great deal of time researching their ingredients, particularly where they come from, and the impact on ecosystems and local communities. I like to think they are trying their best to be socially and ethically mindful. Surely this should be applauded?