“Clean” is a beautiful word that conveys the feeling of simplicity. The saying, “as clean as a whistle,” indicates being devoid of spots or stains. As in the Old English word clæne, clean implies pure. Clean also evokes an ancient Greek word, kline (κλινη), the bed, hence klinikòs (κλινικος), the doctor who assists a sick person in bed. And as much as medical care demands fighting impurities, the sound cleeeeen associates the ancient Greek meaning of medical intervention and the Old English meaning of purity. Etymology provides some insight into the success of the clean beauty concept in the personal care industry.

Unsurprisingly, the longing for clean beauty surfaced after decades of efforts to eliminate animal-derived raw materials and of, potentially harmful synthetic ingredients, to limit the use of petrochemicals and to replace ingredients whenever there is suspicion that they may be harmful. This endeavor achieved remarkable results, albeit in the midst of obscure scientific arguments and confusing commercial communication. It was accompanied by a frenzy of “free from” claims, where words lost their legitimate meaning. For example, “sulfate-free” originally meant “free from sodium dodecyl sulfate.” Today, sulfate-free means that the product does not contain any sulfate salt, a far broader meaning. Some “free from” claims sometimes lead to grotesque statements such as “chemical-free” as if the product itself is made of interstellar vacuum.

In keeping with the quest for safety, the next-in-line criteria to select cosmetic ingredients are protection of the environment and the fight against global warming; the tenants of clean beauty walk firmly this path. They also seem to demand stricter rules for a raw material to be allowed as cosmetic ingredient as well as transparency on the properties of the ingredients themselves.

Clean beauty seems to be more of a philosophy than a simple marketing strategy. Can it be put successfully to practice?

Clinique’s Kind of Clean

When The Estée Lauder Companies created Clinique in 1968, the line was advertised as “allergy tested, fragrance free.” More than 50 years later, Clinique is still promoted like that.

When I served as the scientific spokesperson for Clinique, Estée Lauder’s newly-appointed senior vice president of R&D asked me, “Why should I buy a Clinique product?”  I replied, “because it is allergy tested and fragrance free.”

His retort, “You do not sell things because they are allergy tested and fragrance free” was indicative of his peculiar understanding of the market.

And, perhaps in an attempt to justify his salary by introducing what in his mind could have been a visible, yet harmless change, he tried to change the claim and replace the spokesperson. He was bitterly disappointed when marketing insisted on maintaining the “allergy tested, fragrance free” claim. I was reinstated to my position and, to his acerb frustration, his alternative concepts, such as “high-definition cosmetics” and “translucent skin,” were miserable flops.

For the “allergy tested, fragrance free” claim to be really true, two criteria must be satisfied. One is the determination of the brand to reformulate products that happen to provoke even one single erythema in a HRPIT (Human Repeated Insult Patch Test) on 600 volunteers. The other one is the organization of a database entirely composed of non-odoriferous ingredients, so that no fragrance will be needed to mask adventitious scents.

A Clean Strategy

Can such logistic be put to work to fit the needs of products advertised as “clean” in a “clean beauty” strategy? The commitment of the brand to market only “clean” formulas is, of course, a must; but one might ask, what does it mean that a formula is “clean?” How can a brand organize a database of “clean” ingredients? What are the criteria?

Let us assume that, in time, legislators and scientists reach a consensus about the safety, the environmental friendliness and the climatic inertness of a set of raw materials. Brands inspired by the “clean beauty” philosophy will assemble formulas containing only ingredients from that set. Of course, scientific knowledge and legislative guidelines are not carved in stone, their very nature is to evolve, change and improve. One might wonder what a brand owner will do with a very successful formula, upon learning that one of its ingredients has changed status because a new experimentation casts a doubt on its being “clean?” Will the brand owner argue that the experimental data cannot be extrapolated to the human in vivo situation? If so, we will prolong the situation of lack of transparency that has contributed to the success of the “clean beauty” philosophy; a situation where sunscreens are accused of being endocrine disruptors and toxic to coral reefs, and preservatives are suspected of being carcinogenic. With limited data to support the charges and a lot of arguing, the consumer becomes distressed.

‘Clean’ Criteria

The real question concerns the composition of the ingredient set agreed to be “clean.” First, keep in mind that an ingredient that is “safe” in a given situation can be harmful under other conditions. For example, an essential oil can be safe when topically applied as a single ingredient. But the essential oil is no longer safe if the formula includes a surfactant that dissolves the lipid structure of the stratum corneum and allows the essential oil to penetrate.

Second, the ingredients must be prepared in an environmentally-friendly, climatically inert way. They are extracted from botanicals with specific solvents or specific procedures. Is extraction with critical CO2 considered climatically inert? Is such an extract be considered “clean?” Are products that require heat during production considered “clean?” After all, heating requires electricity and electricity is produced by burning fuel, thus contributing to the greenhouse effect.

Last, but not least, there is the possibility of finding ourselves in something analogous to the Russell-Zermelo paradox, which points out that something can be rigorously defined, yet cannot exist. Inert molecules such as silicones are not considered “clean” because they will accumulate in the environment and are therefore not environment-friendly. Biodegradable materials are not considered “clean” either because, being biodegradable, they are chemically reactive and potentially harmful. As a result, the set of “clean” ingredients, the set composed by safe and environmentally friendly ingredients, is totally empty, leaving no room for a formula to be “clean.”

CleaR Advantages?

Despite contradictions, the “clean beauty” philosophy has earned its stripes in the global beauty market battlefield and there is a great opportunity to capitalize on its tremendous selling power. It’s no surprise, then, that The Carlyle Group paid $1 billion for a majority stake in Beautycounter.

The first and foremost advantage of clean beauty is to offer a chance to educate the consumers. Science creates knowledge and confirms previous theories. Consumers are a permanently renewed crowd, in need of permanent education.

The mechanisms of aging, the effects of ultraviolet radiation, the importance of hygiene, the basics of hydration and the role of exfoliation are the foundation of cosmetic science that are not yet within everyone’s grasp. The skin microbiome, epigenetics and surface biochemistry are fields of development for new skin care concepts and technologies. But they must be explained so that they are not considered new snake oil cocktails. Intervention in these fields can be achieved with safe ingredients. Ingredients proven—and I mean proven, not gossiped about—to be harmful must be avoided. A second, equally important, yet insufficiently discussed topic, is the difference between hazard and risk. No one is offended if we state that soap represents a hazard because it contains harmful ingredients, although there is little risk that someone might be poisoned by eating these very soap ingredients.

The same reasoning should be extended to the hazards of other ingredients in the skin care panoply; otherwise, to avoid the risk, to avoid all hazards, we might end up compelled to formulate with thin air.

---

Paolo Giacomoni, PhD
Insight Analysis Consulting
[email protected]
516-769-6904
 
Paolo Giacomoni acts as an independent consultant to the skin care industry. He served as executive director of research at Estée Lauder and was head of the department of biology with L’Oréal. He has built a record of achievements through research on DNA damage and metabolic impairment induced by UV radiation as well as on the positive effects of vitamins and antioxidants. He has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed publications and has more than 20 patents.