THE DIRTY TRUTH ABOUT CLEAN BEAUTY

Clean beauty is everywhere - and with global sales hitting $7.22 billion in 2022 and expected to double by 2028, it’s easy to figure out why. But there’s a problem.  Clean - like anti-aging - isn’t a regulated term. It’s a marketing strategy with no legal standing that's fast becoming one of the beauty industry's most profitable marketing device.

On one hand, clean beauty taps into consumer demand for transparency, sustainability and simplicity. On the other, it’s a goldmine for brands chasing profit. While it sounds like a good idea to consumers, the real beneficiaries of the clean beauty movement are the brands.

 

Clean beauty is everywhere - and with global sales hitting $7.22 billion in 2022 and expected to double by 2028, it’s easy to figure out why.  But there’s a problem.  Clean - like anti-aging - isn’t a regulated term. It’s a marketing strategy with no legal standing that's fast becoming one of the beauty industry's most profitable marketing device.

 

On one hand, it’s fueled by a growing consumer appetite for transparency, clarity, and credible information about ingredients, sustainability, and evidence-based beauty. On the other hand, it’s powered by massive profits and the clean beauty marketing claims that rely on unregulated terminology and inconsistent standards. Without legislation, the term ‘clean’ remains an empty, ambiguous label shaped by brands, retailers and vendors, leaving consumers to navigate ingredient transparency issues, cosmetic industry misinformation, and a lack of clear cosmetic regulations.

 

Without legal oversight, “clean” means whatever a brand decides it means. That built-in ambiguity creates the ideal environment for fear-based marketing and widespread ingredient misinformation. Clean beauty began by targeting ingredients that were scientifically proven safe but sounded suspicious, most likely because demonizing competitors’ formulas is faster, cheaper and easier than improving their own. That vague surface-level logic opened the door for brands and influencers to villainize entire ingredient categories - no credible science, regulatory framework or evidence-based beauty standard required.

 

It’s time to pull back the curtain. Clean beauty is a buzzword, not a benchmark.  It generates profit but offers no verifiable criteria, no regulatory footing and no guarantee of ingredient accuracy.

 

FEAR-BASED MARKETING 

 

Clean beauty thrives on fear-based marketing that stokes consumer anxiety under the guise of wellness. By exaggerating potential risks, often with support from fear-based advocacy groups and opportunistic retailers, clean brands cast doubt on safe and effective ingredients that have been used in beauty formulations for decades.

 

Clean beauty marketing is rooted in its constant warning that countless ingredients might pose a threat to your health. Forget science, proven facts or the truth - the bar for clean beauty is extremely low. Ingredients don’t need to be proven dangerous. Even minor scientific ambiguity is enough for clean beauty to vilify an ingredient and promote a so-called safer alternative. And decades of scientific and regulatory evidence are pushed aside. In reality, most of the ingredients they target are globally recognized as safe and effective, but fear is profitable. And clean beauty has mastered how to sell it.

 

The message is clear: anything “unclean” might possibly harm you. And in clean beauty, that’s more than enough. Ingredients don’t need to be proven dangerous. Even limited or inconclusive research is enough to frame them as threats and justify a “clean” replacement. This is how fear-based marketing thrives in beauty and wellness, turning minor scientific ambiguity into sweeping ingredient misinformation. Never mind decades of regulatory approval and global safety assessments - fear is more persuasive. And profitable.

 

Maybe they’ll go after water next. It is a chemical after all, and yes, toxicity exists. Rare, but fatal. In a world where fear sells faster than facts, it might qualify as the ideal candidate for the next “toxic-free” crusade.

 

"FREE FROM" CLAIMS: BECAUSE FACTS ARE OFF-BRAND

 

The beauty industry is heavily regulated, which makes it even more revealing that clean beauty has no regulatory framework. Globally, no health authority recognizes or defines the term. Regulators in regions like the UK and EU focus instead on safe beauty, supported by scientific assessment and enforceable standards.

 

Clean beauty, by contrast, is a free-for-all. The term “clean” is entirely subjective, open to interpretation by brands, retailers and consumers alike. With no agreement on which ingredients to avoid or include, the label becomes a marketing device presented as a safety standard. And without oversight, it replaces evidence with opinion and leaves consumers with claims that sound authoritative but have no basis in scientific truth.

 

THE UNREGULATED RISE OF CLEAN BEAUTY

 

Free from” claims began as a gesture toward transparency, a post-paraben marketing tactic aimed at health-conscious consumers. Over time, they’ve shifted into a vehicle for misinformation. Clean beauty now relies on false and misleading advertising to cast doubt on legally approved, science-backed ingredients, presenting omission as a virtue and treating established regulation as optional.

 

In many regions, “free from” has become pervasive — stamped on packaging, embedded in product filters, echoed in marketing copy and embraced by major retailers both online and in-store. The real issue of ingredient safety has been sidelined, replaced by the constant repetition of “free from” messaging from brands and consumers alike. It isn’t about safe beauty. It’s about using omission to imply risk where none exists and supporting a marketing strategy built on misrepresentation and selective truth, not evidence or regulatory standards.

 

We can thank lax regulatory agencies in North America for this steady stream of misinformation. The EU and the UK take a very different approach. Their cosmetic regulations address “free from” claims directly and discourage or ban them when they imply that a product is safer because it does not contain a legally permitted ingredient; they denigrate ingredients that are approved for safe use and they mislead consumers about the safety of compliant products.                                                                                                                 

 

Clean beauty brands would face serious pushback in these regions, where claims like “free from parabens” or “free from sulfates” are considered misleading and particularly when they suggest that legally approved, scientifically vetted ingredients are unsafe. If they do, they may face:

1. PRODUCT BANS OR RECALLS - Products can be removed from shelves and retailers may be forced to stop sales until labels and claims are corrected.

 

2. FINES AND FINANCIAL PENALTIES - Fines can range from thousands to tens of thousands of euros or pounds and in some EU countries (such as Italy and Germany) they can exceed €25,000 for repeated or serious violations.

 

3. INJUNCTIONS OR COURT ORDERS - Regulatory authorities can obtain legal orders to stop the sale or advertising of non-compliant products.

 

4. REPUTATIONAL DAMAGE - Being publicly flagged by authorities for false or misleading claims can damage brand credibility, especially in the EU where authorities often publish violation reports.

 

5. CRIMINAL CHARGES (rare but possible) - If harm occurs or deception is judged intentional or fraudulent, criminal proceedings can be launched under consumer protection laws.

While major fines are rare, regulators actively address misinformation and may require brands to withdraw ads, revise labels or remove products that violate “free from” rules.

 

CLEAN BEAUTY’S FAVORITE INGREDIENT: MISINFORMATION

 

The clean beauty playbook starts with a familiar tactic: create panic, then sell the solution. Fear-based marketing, often amplified by fear-based advocacy groups fluent in worst-case hypotheticals, reframes safe and regulated ingredients as toxic threats. The result is a narrative built on disinformation rather than science and reinforced through selective claims and misleading advertising. Decades of global research and regulatory evaluation are ignored. If an ingredient sounds suspicious, that’s enough to blacklist it. It’s marketing by omission, alarmism by design, and it lowers the bar for accuracy. Many clean beauty assertions collapse under scientific evidence showing that the ingredients they target are both safe and effective.

 

SCIENCE-ISH

 

Clean beauty brands have a casual relationship with science. Many of their ingredient claims rely on preliminary or low-quality studies with small sample sizes and inconclusive outcomes. Instead of waiting for credible evidence, they capitalize on uncertainty and turn partial data into broad marketing claims. And when it comes to vilifying safe and well-studied ingredients, including decades of research on the safety of parabens, they ignore the science entirely. It isn’t about research. It’s about what sells. Learn more about the safety of parabens in this section.

 

INGREDIENT ‘SAFETY’ - CLEAN BEAUTY EDITION

 

Ingredient safety is complex and depends on many factors, including concentration, frequency of use, and individual sensitivities. However, clean beauty marketing tends to ignore these nuances and exaggerate the risks, leading to a distorted understanding of ingredient safety. But clean beauty marketing rarely acknowledges that nuance. Instead, it exaggerates risks and oversimplifies science, leading to a distorted view of what’s actually safe. Brands routinely demonize specific ingredients, labeling them as toxic or harmful without credible scientific evidence to support those claims.

 

THE SCIENCE IS IN — CLEAN BEAUTY ISN’T LISTENING

 

Clean beauty brands routinely ignore authoritative scientific evidence to demonize safe and well-regulated ingredients. The goal isn’t consumer safety. It’s a marketing advantage built on false and misleading claims. Parabens, petrolatum, mineral oil, sodium laureth sulfate and PEG compounds are just a few of the ingredients consistently targeted despite being globally recognized as safe and effective by regulators and scientific bodies such as:

 

• Health Canada  
• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
• The EU Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS)
• The UK Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS)
•  The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)
• The World Health Organization’s International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS)
•  Independent toxicology groups and peer-reviewed safety assessments used for international  

 

These agencies routinely review toxicology data, exposure levels, long-term studies and cumulative safety assessments. Their conclusions are consistent: these ingredients are safe when used as permitted in cosmetic formulations.

 

SPF - THE DANGERS OF CLEAN BEAUTY

 

The dirtiest truth about clean beauty is its silence on one of the biggest misconceptions in cosmetics: the belief that SPF in makeup or hybrid skincare offers real, clinical sun protection. Self-righteous clean beauty brands don’t hesitate to demonize safe and regulated ingredients, but their hypocritical silence on the ineffectiveness of SPF in their own formulas sits just to the left of criminal.

 

It’s also the most compelling and deadly example of clean beauty’s selective silence. After all the noise about so-called harmful ingredients, here’s one that may actually contribute to illness: SPF in beauty products. Cancer organizations have long warned that cosmetic SPF is no substitute for proper sunscreen, and the American Academy of Dermatology has spent decades telling women not to rely on it for meaningful protection. Dedicated sunscreens are tightly regulated and rigorously tested under established sunscreen regulations. SPF beauty products are not — and damningly, clean beauty has nothing to say about it.

 

The crucial difference is that sunscreens provide broad spectrum UVA-UVB protection. UVB rays are dangerous because they can cause sunburn and directly damage DNA in skin cells. SPF beauty products do not provide broad spectrum protection. They offer only limited UVA coverage at best, which is why a 30 SPF beauty product delivers only a fraction of the protection of a broad-spectrum SPF 30 sunscreen.

 

Why criminal? Because SPF suggests protection and gives consumers a false sense of security against the very real and very deadly effects of UV exposure. Yet not one clean beauty label or package warns that these products are not a substitute for sunscreen, and that cosmetic SPF offers minimal, short-lived protection that falls far below established sunscreen regulations. It’s a textbook example of clean beauty misinformation: implying sun protection where none exists and leaving consumers vulnerable to the documented risks of inadequate UV defence.

 

Then there’s the issue of application. The Skin Cancer Foundation recommends applying at least ½ teaspoon to your face and more if you use your fingers to blend it in, and it should be reapplied every 2 hours. That level of application simply doesn’t happen with skincare or makeup.

 

Clean beauty brands sidestep legal repercussions by avoiding the word “sunscreen,” but the implication remains: SPF equals protection. That clean beauty brands deliberately choose not to inform consumers these products are not a substitute for sunscreen is outrageous. And here’s the conundrum: they’re not legally required to. Unlike sunscreen, SPF beauty products aren’t classified as federally regulated over-the-counter drugs, so no warning labels are necessary. But morally? The evidence is overwhelming. Inadequate sun protection directly increases the risk of skin cancer. And clean beauty brands say nothing - deliberately allowing consumers to believe these products offer real protection when they don’t.

 

Irony abounds. There’s no evidence that parabens are fatal, but there’s overwhelming proof that skipping effective sun protection can be. According to the American Academy of Dermatology, skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States, and women face a higher lifetime risk than men. Melanoma, the deadliest form, is more than a statistic. It’s a preventable threat linked directly to inadequate UV protection — the very gap clean beauty refuses to acknowledge. Only clean beauty could turn sun protection into a promise that evaporates in daylight.

 

NATURE DOESN’T COME WITH A SAFETY GUARANTEE

 

Clean beauty brands rely heavily on plant-based ingredients, promoting the idea that they’re inherently safer or healthier. But like “clean,” the term “natural” isn’t regulated by the FDA, Health Canada or even within EU and UK cosmetic regulations. That means clean beauty brands can use it freely, even when a product contains synthetic components or ingredients with their own safety concerns. And despite the wholesome image, natural ingredients can trigger allergic reactions, irritate skin or become toxic at higher concentrations. Natural does not mean harmless. Some of the deadliest known poisons are natural — arsenic, cyanide, botulinum toxin, ricin. In truth, nature has never promised safety; only clean beauty had the nerve to pretend it did.

 

Adding insult to injury, many clean beauty brands have embraced greenwashing, using vague or misleading language to make products appear more environmentally responsible or health-conscious than they are. Terms like “natural,” “organic,” and “non-toxic” are used freely despite having no consistent definitions, no regulatory backing and no scientific evidence to support the implications they carry. And because these claims are largely unregulated in the beauty industry, brands can deploy them as marketing devices rather than indicators of genuine safety, sustainability or ingredient transparency. With no rules to follow, clean beauty discovered it could simply invent its own.

 

NATURAL vs. SYNTHETIC AND CHEMI-PHOBIA

 

Clean beauty routinely fuels chemophobia by portraying chemicals and synthetic ingredients as inherently harmful, ignoring decades of toxicology, dose-dependent safety data and global cosmetic regulations. This narrative frames “toxic” as a marketing term rather than a scientific one, creating the illusion that natural ingredients are safer despite long-established evidence to the contrary.

 

However, chemical and synthetic aren’t interchangeable terms. A chemical is any substance with a defined composition, whether it comes from nature or a lab. Water, vitamin C and caffeine are all chemicals. Synthetic means the ingredient was made or modified by humans, often to replicate or improve something found in nature. So while all synthetic ingredients are chemicals, not all chemicals are synthetic — and many occur naturally. Moreover, synthetic ingredients can be safer than natural ones because they’re highly purified, stable and precisely controlled. Natural ingredients can vary in composition and may contain allergens or naturally occurring toxins, while synthetics are engineered for consistency, safety and performance, supported by rigorous toxicology data and regulatory oversight.

 

Sustainability is one of clean beauty’s favourite talking points, yet its obsession with “natural” ingredients often undermines that claim. Plant-derived ingredients require land, water, agriculture, extraction and global transport - all with measurable environmental costs. Synthetic ingredients, by contrast, are produced in controlled environments with far less resource use, far greater efficiency and no reliance on vulnerable ecosystems. In addition to being safe and highly regulated, synthetics are inherently more sustainable than many natural alternatives because they avoid overharvesting, reduce waste and offer consistent quality without environmental strain.

 

In 2021, the DECIUM Group - owner of the cult skin-care brand The Ordinary - addressed the demonization of chemicals by clean beauty in its campaign “Everything is Chemicals.” Explaining that even the most natural compound is technically a ‘chemical,’ the company called out these brands, by asking what it about the chemical name of a substance that makes it “unclean” when compared to its common name:

 

“What makes vinegar and baking soda cupboard staples, but acetic acid and sodium bicarbonate dangerous substances? Much like some people are afraid of the dark, most fear the unknown.”

 

Synthetic ingredients can be safer than natural ones because they’re highly purified, stable and precisely controlled. Unlike natural ingredients, which can vary in composition and contain allergens or toxins, synthetics are designed for consistency, safety and performance, supported by rigorous testing and regulatory oversight.

 

Like DECIEM, Safe Beauty was founded on principles of transparency and authenticity. The unclear definition of clean beauty directly contradicts these values by letting marketing overrule science. In the end, the only thing clean about clean beauty is the way it wipes its hands of the truth.

 

THE FUTURE OF CLEAN BEAUTY

 

Search “what is clean beauty” and you’ll find lofty claims about avoiding potentially toxic ingredients while promoting sustainability, minimalism and ethical values. But that high-minded definition collapses under scrutiny - especially now that Sephora has reduced clean beauty to a simple promise: “formulated without ingredients you might like to avoid.”

 

This shift isn’t accidental. The EU and UK crackdown on misleading “free from” claims pushed clean beauty toward the softer, more subjective language of “avoid,” a convenient loophole that sidesteps regulatory scrutiny. But the semantics don’t matter when the outcome is identical. Science is sidelined again - replaced by curated fear, chemophobia and consumer-friendly ambiguity packaged as virtue. And all of it is now reinforced by a $500 billion luxury conglomerate shaping the global narrative. When LVMH speaks, the clean beauty industry listens - even if the science has long since left the room.

 

It’s troubling that the strictest cosmetic advertising regulations in the world can be sidestepped with a single word: avoid. In an industry that claims to value transparency, it’s a linguistic loophole that erodes meaningful regulatory progress. Buyer beware has never been more relevant - especially in a marketplace where misinformation is disguised as virtue and where reassuring language is used to mask claims that simply aren’t true.

 

In a perfect world, brands would self-regulate and put people before profits. But clean beauty has built an empire on narratives that are misleading, lucrative and designed to outpace both science and oversight. There’s no evidence that will change. The truth matters, and one day more brands may decide that integrity is worth more than market share. But given the industry’s track record, breathing easy would be premature.