A Medical Journal Calls Out "Clean and Natural" Beauty Products

A recent editorial in the journal Dermatology has raised flags of caution about the clean and natural products that retailers, bloggers, and celebrities are promoting. The journal, published by the American Medical Association, names Gwyneth Paltrow and Whole Foods as being among the “clean-beauty evangelists” who promote such products.

One reason for concern about beauty-care products labeled as “clean and natural” is that the FDA has failed to define what "clean and natural" means. Anyone could make a batch of makeup or skin-care lotion in their bathroom sink or toilet and sell it as being “clean and natural.” As the journal states, “An arbitrary designation of 'clean or natural' does not necessarily make products safer for consumers.” Yet arbitrary designations have become the lifeblood of clean-beauty evangelists.

Contact Dermatitis, Photosensitivity, and Skin Irritation

Another problem is that “many so-called natural products contain high concentrations of botanical extracts that are a leading cause of contact dermatitis and photosensitization.”

Also, "clean and natural" advocates are quick to dismiss the safety and necessity of preservatives that are commonly used in beauty products. Rejecting the use of these preservatives has led to the inclusion of other preservatives that are not nearly as safe and can cause skin irritation.

Natural Sex Lubes

The same kind of “clean and natural” reasoning is true for sex lubes. Sex bloggers and sex toy retailers are constantly trumpeting new lubes that are supposedly “natural,” yet I’ve not seen where the ingredients have been tested inside of women’s vaginas. Nor have I seen concern for the Ph or osmolality (the concentration of dissolved particles) of these products, which can negatively impact the delicate vaginal biome that’s essential for a woman’s health. But as long as lube says “natural” or claims to contain CBD, then, for many, all is good.

Healthy Skepticism or Unfounded Mistrust?

What is particularly interesting from a psychological perspective is how general mistrust of institutions is not just limited to politics and government. Consider how many highly intelligent people mindlessly embrace the questionable claims of clean-beauty evangelists, who they view as enlightened experts even if they have little or no scientific or medical expertise.

While I am the first to endorse healthy skepticism, I also know there’s a big difference between that and rejecting what’s tried and true simply because something new promises to be better—or in the case of beauty products, because the tried and true products don't miraculously change how we look or feel, or they don't undo the impact that time and aging have on our skin, hair, or the rest of our bodies.