not spn— one of my MANY peeves is the cosmetics industry in the US centering on "clean beauty."
That term is used like asinine by people in the beauty/make-up/skincare sectors online and in real life. Special focus on the online part since, well, hello. It's essentially a huge marketing scam that is fear mongering the average consumer. another part that is endlessly irritating to me is the misinformation it spreads that is directly anti science and anti actual clinical research. emphasis on science and research, since these "clean" brands lead people into believe that their government is brazenly disregarding public health. Mainly by telling people that their "dermatologist recommended" sunscreen is giving them a higher risk of cancer. This is completely false and DANGEROUSLY untrue. proper sunscreen application daily, is one of the most important forms of protection against skin cancer. Sunscreen has been thoroughly researched by scientists and doctors for years, it is proven to be effective and more importantly, is safe. It is safe to use and it is, despite these clean companies claims, "reef safe." For those unfamiliar, no the chemicals in sunscreen are NOT responsible for bleaching the coral reefs in the ocean and it is not killing them. There is no research data to back up this claim and there are far more substantial forms of waste that get into the ocean and cause those effects. These clean beauty brands however have created a narrative: you don't need this product because it isn't natural, it's contains chemicals! They throw around the word "chemicals" and will have consumers shaking in their boots since it sounds so drastically harmful and bad.
Probably because nobody paid attention in chemistry and can't remember that water is in fact, a chemical. a compound of hydrogen and oxygen (H2O) = water! so sure, all companies are within their morally grey rights to making money, but forming doubt and distrust of actual science is gross and misleading. These ingredients are safe. They are well researched and wouldn't be AS commonly used if they had as drastic of an effect as they claim. Is there some truth to their claims? sure, partially. Last year some spray bottled sunscreen was found to include potential carcinogens (cancer causing ingredients to simplify) and were immediately removed from shelves. Another example is their targets on these items, that are usually referred to on the back of a "leaping bunny certified" product, it is cruelty free and approved. This is the usual listing: "formulated without Phthalates, Propyl-paraben & Butyl-paraben, Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES) and more." While these ingredients can be done away with and replaced with better alternatives, these brands simply tell the consumer that if you can't pronounce it, it shouldn't be there. Very broad oversimplification.
Personally I don't really like the 4 listed and wouldn't use them, there are of course many other things that are listed by these brands. Some of those ingredients are BANNED in Europe and other places outside of the US which is probably a good enough reason to avoid them. My issue is with companies telling people that chemicals themselves are bad. Obviously there is a significant difference between WATER and ARSENIC. If you aren't buying anything off a shady person in an alleyway you should be able to avoid that. The marketing that the brand has invented or has come up with something "better" is purely marketing. By taking out common preservatives they've concluded are "unnatural" they're shortening shelf life and can actually cause bacteria to form on/in the product due to lack of/not effect preservation. Shortening shelf life and usability also makes you have to buy the product more frequently and causes excess waste if it goes bad before you can finish it or before it sells. Focusing in on my mortal enemy: natural deodorant. It's not giving what it needed to give, it actually took from me. My friend actually mentioned this to me the other day about finding a better natural deodorant because FIVE of the ones she'd tried made her sweat more and smell worse. She's 21 and so she's a bit older than me, but she had the same regurgitated argument of "there's chemicals in the deodorant that actually works but chemicals are bad :(" and I was like???? didn't you do AP chem in high school? Anyway NO natural deodorants are not inherently better than the typical deodorant that includes aluminum. Yes, aluminum can cause hyperpigmentation and discoloration on your armpits because the ingredient itself clogs pores to prevent perspiration and sweat. Natural deodorants are formulated instead with essential oils and fragrance in order to mask the odor rather than cover it which is why you smell worse at the end of the end. Also the concept of "purging" your armpits for a few weeks by not using anything when going to natural deodorant is painful to be around and dumb. Dermatologists have actually said that the essential oils that make up these natural deodorants cause more irritation on the sensitive skin of the armpits and can WORSEN hyperpigmentation and discoloration. The best recommendation is a benzoyl peroxide mask under the arms for a few minutes in the shower and a typical aluminum antiperspirant. Yes benzoyl peroxide is a chemical including product. Anyway this is way too long and scientific for an spn blog but whatever.