Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Hoax of Clean Beauty and Associated Allergens

  • REVIEW
  • Published:
Current Dermatology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

‘Clean beauty’ has experienced a notable surge in popularity among consumers. This movement is characterized by the replacement of ‘unsafe’ components with ‘natural’ or clean alternatives in personal care products and cosmetics. This review aims to examine the evidence and expert recommendations surrounding commonly implicated compounds by the clean beauty movement.

Recent Findings

Clean beauty products often contain potential allergens, and despite recent policy changes, there is still no standard definition of clean beauty. Recent studies demonstrated most products marketed as clean contain potential allergens, including fragrances, preservatives, and surfactants.

Summary

Clean beauty advocates often raise concerns about certain cosmetic ingredients, despite no conclusive evidence of harm. Removal of these ingredients by cosmetic manufacturers may inadvertently lead to increased use of other, more allergenic ingredients and play an important role in the prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis, especially to isothiazolinones and alkyl glucosides.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ACD:

Allergic Contact Dermatitis

CIR:

Cosmetic Ingredient Review

FDA:

US Food and Drug Administration

EWG:

Environmental Working Group

NACDG:

North American Contact Dermatitis Group

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. The Evolving Skincare Consumer - The NPD Group. https://www.npd.com/news/infographics/2021/the-evolving-skincare-consumer/. Accessed May 18, 2023.

  2. The Toxic Twelve Chemicals and Contaminants in Cosmetics | Environmental Working Group. https://www.ewg.org/the-toxic-twelve-chemicals-and-contaminants-in-cosmetics. Accessed May 18, 2023.

  3. Clean beauty products: What it means and why brands ban certain ingredients - CNET. https://www.cnet.com/health/personal-care/clean-beauty-products-what-it-means-and-why-brands-ban-certain-ingredients/. Accessed May 18, 2023.

  4. What Is Clean Beauty? And Why It’s so Important | Goop. https://goop.com/beauty/personal-care/clean-beauty-and-why-its-important/. Accessed May 18, 2023.

  5. Campaign for Safe Cosmetics - Making Cosmetics Safer for All. https://www.safecosmetics.org/. Accessed May 18, 2023.

  6. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) | FDA. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/laws-enforced-fda/federal-food-drug-and-cosmetic-act-fdc-act. Accessed May 18, 2023.

  7. EWG Skin Deep® Cosmetics Database. https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/. Accessed May 18, 2023.

  8. Rubin CB, Brod B. Natural Does Not Mean Safe-The Dirt on Clean Beauty Products. JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(12):1344–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMADERMATOL.2019.2724.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) - Cosmetics Info. https://www.cosmeticsinfo.org/safety-basics/cosmetic-ingredient-review-cir/. Accessed May 18, 2023.

  10. Robinson VC, Bergfeld WF, Belsito DV, et al. Final report of the amended safety assessment of sodium laureth sulfate and related salts of sulfated ethoxylated alcohols. Int J Toxicol. 2010;29(4 Suppl). https://doi.org/10.1177/1091581810373151

  11. Code of Federal Regulations - Title 21 - Food and Drugs | FDA. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-device-databases/code-federal-regulations-title-21-food-and-drugs. Accessed May 21, 2023.

  12. eCFR :: 21 CFR Part 710 -- Voluntary Registration of Cosmetic Product Establishments. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-710. Accessed May 21, 2023.

  13. eCFR :: 16 CFR Part 502 -- Regulations Under Section 5(C) of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-502?toc=1. Accessed May 21, 2023.

  14. Color Additives History | FDA. https://www.fda.gov/industry/color-additives/color-additives-history. Accessed May 21, 2023.

  15. Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 | FDA. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/modernization-cosmetics-regulation-act-2022. Accessed May 18, 2023.

  16. •• Tran JM, Comstock JR, Reeder MJ. Natural Is Not Always Better: The Prevalence of Allergenic Ingredients in “Clean” Beauty Products. Dermatitis. 2022;33(3):215–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000863. This study identified the most prevalent allergenic ingredients in 1470 clean beauty products from 2 major retailer websites. Notably, most clean products contained potential allergens, with the most prevalent classes being from fragrances, botanicals, surfactants, and preservatives.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. •• Young PA, Gui H, Bae GH. Prevalence of Contact Allergens in Natural Skin Care Products From US Commercial Retailers. JAMA Dermatol. 2022;158(11):1323–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMADERMATOL.2022.3180. This study characterized the prevalence of contact allergens, defined as ingredients present in the CAMP database, among 1651 natural personal care products. They report nearly all studied products contained at least one potential allergen, with fragrance and preservatives as the most common reported sources.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Scheman A, Patel KR, Roszko K, et al. Relative Prevalence of Contact Allergens in North America in 2018. Dermatitis. 2020;31(2):112–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000521.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. • Sukakul T, Pruksaeakanan C, Bunyavaree M, Boonchai W. Contact allergens in natural cosmetics-A market survey. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022;21(6):2671–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/JOCD.14411. This markey survey of 5251 cosmetic products labeled as natural or organic in Thailand found most products contained a potential allergen from a list of 197 unspecified patch test allergens.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Xu S, Kwa M, Lohman ME, Evers-Meltzer R, Silverberg JI. Consumer Preferences, Product Characteristics, and Potentially Allergenic Ingredients in Best-selling Moisturizers. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153(11):1099–105. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMADERMATOL.2017.3046.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Sharmeen JB, Mahomoodally FM, Zengin G, Maggi F. Essential Oils as Natural Sources of Fragrance Compounds for Cosmetics and Cosmeceuticals. Molecules. 2021;26(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/MOLECULES26030666

  22. Fragrances in Cosmetics | FDA. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/fragrances-cosmetics. Accessed May 18, 2023.

  23. • Atwater AR, Ward JM, Liu B, et al. Fragrance- and Botanical-Related Allergy and Associated Concomitant Reactions: A Retrospective Analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data 2007–2016. Dermatitis. 2021;32(1):42–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000661. Large database retrospective analysis of 24,246 patients that evaluated the frequency of concomitant reactions to fragrances and botanical allergens. This study found multiple concomitant concomitant reactions greater than 10%, which suggests cross-reactivity between fragrance and botanical allergens. Notable botanical allergens included Balsam of Peru, propolis, Compositae mix.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ali B, Al-Wabel NA, Shams S, Ahamad A, Khan SA, Anwar F. Essential oils used in aromatherapy: A systemic review. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 2015;5(8):601–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apjtb.2015.05.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. • Geier J, Schubert S, Reich K, et al. Contact sensitization to essential oils: IVDK data of the years 2010–2019. Contact Dermatitis. 2022;87(1):71–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/COD.14126. Large database retrospective characterizing the frequency of sensitization to essential oils in Europe. The most common positive patch test reactions were to ylang ylang oil, lemongrass oil, and jasmine absolute. This study found that while sensitization to essential oils is generally rare, it is an important cause of contact dermatitis especially with occupational exposure in masseurs and cosmeticians.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. De Groot AC, Schmidt E. Essential Oils, Part III: Chemical Composition. Dermatitis. 2016;27(4):161–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000193.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Gafner S, Blumenthal M, Foster S, Cardellina JH, Khan IA, Upton R. Botanical Ingredient Forensics: Detection of Attempts to Deceive Commonly Used Analytical Methods for Authenticating Herbal Dietary and Food Ingredients and Supplements. J Nat Prod. 2023;86(2):460–72. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.JNATPROD.2C00929.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. •• DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2019–2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34(2). https://doi.org/10.1089/DERM.2022.29017.JDK. This large database study derived from 13 centers in North America publishes the NACDG patch test data from 2019–2020 and illustrates current trends in contact allergen sensitivity. This study illustrates the changing patterns of positive patch test reactions over recent years, including increased sensitivity to isothiazolinones, alkyl glucosides, propolis, fragrance mix, and hydroperoxides of limonene. Additionally, this study characterizes the most common contact sensitizers for the given period with their clinical relevance.

  29. •• Atwater AR, Petty AJ, Liu B, et al. Contact dermatitis associated with preservatives: Retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1994 through 2016. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84(4):965–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAAD.2020.07.059. This is the first large database study characterizing trends in sensitivity to preservatives listed as contact allergens on the NACDG standard series. Preservatives are an important source of potential allergens in clean beauty products. This study found that between 1994 and 2016, there was a significant increase in PPTR for methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone. The most common sensitizers were methylisothiazolinone and formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers. Parabens, benzyl alcohol, and phenoxyethanol had the lowest PPTR of reported preservatives.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Warshaw EM, Ruggiero JL, DeKoven JG, et al. Patch Testing With Tocopherol and Tocopherol Acetate: The North American Contact Dermatitis Group Experience, 2001 to 2016. Dermatitis. 2021;32(5):308–18. https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sasseville D. Alkyl Glucosides: 2017 “Allergen of the Year.” Dermatitis. 2017;28(4):296. https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Weinhammer AP, Scheman A, Reeder MJ. Prevalence of Surfactant in the Contact Allergen Management Program. Dermatitis. 2019;30(6):358–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000511.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. • Warshaw EM, Xiong M, Atwater AR, et al. Patch testing with glucosides: The North American Contact Dermatitis Group experience, 2009–2018. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87(5):1033–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAAD.2022.04.058. This was the first large database study characterizing the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to decyl glucoside and lauryl glucoside, which are often used as anionic surfactants in cosmetics. They report majority of glucoside reactions were currently relevant with the most common exposure being from personal care products. Additionally, there was >43% concomitant reactivity between decyl and lauryl glucoside.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fransway AF, Fransway PJ, Belsito DV, et al. Parabens Dermatitis. 2019;30(1):3–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000429.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. • Liszewski W, Zaidi AJ, Fournier E, Scheman A. Review of aluminum, paraben, and sulfate product disclaimers on personal care products. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87(5):1081–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAAD.2021.06.840. Review of the evidence surrounding aluminums, parabens, and sulfates as used in personal health products. They report no conclusive evidence that these compounds are harmful to human health. They note the avoidance of parabens has coincided with the increased frequency of sensitivity to other preservatives including isothiazolinones.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Fransway AF, Fransway PJ, Belsito DV, Yiannias JA. Paraben Toxicology. Dermatitis. 2019;30(1):32–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000428.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Nowak K, Ratajczak-Wrona W, Górska M, Jabłońska E. Parabens and their effects on the endocrine system. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2018;474:238–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MCE.2018.03.014.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Matwiejczuk N, Galicka A, Brzóska MM. Review of the safety of application of cosmetic products containing parabens. J Appl Toxicol. 2020;40(1):176–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAT.3917.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Cherian P, Zhu J, Bergfeld WF, et al. Amended Safety Assessment of Parabens as Used in Cosmetics. Int J Toxicol. 2020;39(1_suppl):5S-97S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091581820925001

  40. Reeder M, Atwater AR. Parabens: the 2019 nonallergen of the year. Cutis. 2019;103(4):192–193. https://europepmc.org/article/med/31116813. Accessed May 18, 2023.

  41. Boyer IJ, Heldreth B, Bergfeld WF, et al. Amended safety assessment of formaldehyde and methylene glycol as used in cosmetics. Int J Toxicol. 2013;32(6 Suppl):5S-32S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091581813511831.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, et al. Advice on formaldehyde and glycol ethers. Lancet Oncol. 2004;5(9):528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(04)01562-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Formaldehyde and Cancer Risk - NCI. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/formaldehyde/formaldehyde-fact-sheet. Accessed May 18, 2023.

  44. Hair Smoothing Products That Release Formaldehyde When Heated | FDA. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products/hair-smoothing-products-release-formaldehyde-when-heated. Accessed May 20, 2023.

  45. Rethinking our ingredients | Dove. https://www.dove.com/us/en/stories/about-dove/rethinking-our-ingredients.html. Accessed May 18, 2023.

  46. About DMDM Hydantoin in Hair Products | Suave®. https://www.suave.com/us/en/dmdm-hydantoin-products-information.html. Accessed May 18, 2023.

  47. The ‘No More Tears’ Shampoo, Now With No Formaldehyde - The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/18/business/johnson-johnson-takes-first-step-in-removal-of-questionable-chemicals-from-products.html. Accessed May 18, 2023.

  48. C R-N. I have heard that sodium lauryl sulfate, which is added to many shampoos, may cause cancer. Is this true? Why would a company be allowed to add a harmful substance to such a commonly used product? Harv Womens Health Watch. 1998;6(4):8–8. https://europepmc.org/article/med/9846148. Accessed May 18, 2023.

  49. Geier J, Uter W, Pirker C, Frosch PJ. Patch testing with the irritant sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is useful in interpreting weak reactions to contact allergens as allergic or irritant. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48(2):99–107. https://doi.org/10.1034/J.1600-0536.2003.480209.X.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Phthalates in Cosmetics | FDA. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/phthalates-cosmetics. Accessed May 18, 2023.

  51. Andersen FA, Heldreth B. Dibutyl, Dimethyl, and Diethyl Phthalate and Butyl Benzyl Phthalate. Int J Toxicol. 2017;36(5_suppl2):44S-45S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091581817716148

  52. Khasin LG, Della Rosa J, Petersen N, Moeller J, Kriegsfeld LJ, Lishko P V. The Impact of Di-2-Ethylhexyl Phthalate on Sperm Fertility. Front cell Dev Biol. 2020;8. https://doi.org/10.3389/FCELL.2020.00426

  53. Hao C, Cheng X, Xia H, Ma X. The endocrine disruptor mono-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate promotes adipocyte differentiation and induces obesity in mice. Biosci Rep. 2012;32(6):619–29. https://doi.org/10.1042/BSR20120042.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Weaver JA, Beverly BEJ, Keshava N, et al. Hazards of diethyl phthalate (DEP) exposure: A systematic review of animal toxicology studies. Environ Int. 2020;145. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVINT.2020.105848

  55. Net S, Sempéré R, Delmont A, Paluselli A, Ouddane B. Occurrence, fate, behavior and ecotoxicological state of phthalates in different environmental matrices. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(7):4019–35. https://doi.org/10.1021/ES505233B.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. • Radke EG, Galizia A, Thayer KA, Cooper GS. Phthalate exposure and metabolic effects: a systematic review of the human epidemiological evidence. Environ Int. 2019;132. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVINT.2019.04.040. This systematic review of epidemiologic literature concerning the metabolic effects of phthalate exposure found moderate but inconsistent evidence for DEHP, DBP, DIBP and insulin resistence. For DEP, the only phthalate currently used in cosmetics, there was only slight evidence for adverse metabolic effects from population studies.

  57. Radke EG, Glenn BS, Braun JM, Cooper GS. Phthalate exposure and female reproductive and developmental outcomes: a systematic review of the human epidemiological evidence. Environ Int. 2019;130. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVINT.2019.02.003

  58. Zhang YJ, Guo JL, Xue J chuan, Bai CL, Guo Y. Phthalate metabolites: Characterization, toxicities, global distribution, and exposure assessment. Environ Pollut. 2021;291. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2021.118106

  59. Shmidt E, Farmer SA, Davis MDP. Patch-testing with plastics and glues series allergens. Dermatitis. 2010;21(5):269–74. https://doi.org/10.2310/6620.2010.10024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Lensen GJ, Jungbauer FHW, Coenraads PJ, Schuttelaar MLA. Contact allergy to di-isodecyl phthalate. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66(4):230–1. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1600-0536.2012.02011.X.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Burrows D, Fregert S, Campbell H, Trulsson L. Contact dermatitis from the epoxy resins tetraglycidyl-4,4’-methylene dianiline and o-diglycidyl phthalate in composite material. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;11(2):80–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1600-0536.1984.TB00931.X.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Walker SL, Smith HR, Rycroft RJG, Broome C. Occupational contact dermatitis from headphones containing diethylhexyl phthalate. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;42(3):164–164.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Heurung AR, Raju SI, Warshaw EM. Benzophenones Dermatitis. 2014;25(1):3–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000025.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Sabzevari N, Qiblawi S, Norton SA, Fivenson D. Sunscreens: UV filters to protect us: Part 1: Changing regulations and choices for optimal sun protection. Int J women’s dermatology. 2021;7(1):28–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJWD.2020.05.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. • Narla S, Lim HW. Sunscreen: FDA regulation, and environmental and health impact. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2020;19(1):66–70. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9PP00366E. This review outlined the current FDA regulations for sunscreens, which are regulated as OTC drugs in the US. While there have been concerns surrounding UV filters including as an endocrine disruptor and environmental hazard in in vitro settings, there has been no conclusive evidence that UV filters cause human or environmental harm and levels currently used in sunscrens. Notably, current levels of UV filters in ocean water are thousand-fold lower than levels found to be harmful to coral in vitro.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. An update on sunscreen requirements: The deemed final order and the proposed order | FDA. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/update-sunscreen-requirements-deemed-final-order-and-proposed-order. Accessed May 20, 2023.

  67. Schneider SL, Lim HW. Review of environmental effects of oxybenzone and other sunscreen active ingredients. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(1):266–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAAD.2018.06.033.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Suh S, Pham C, Smith J, Mesinkovska NA. The banned sunscreen ingredients and their impact on human health: a systematic review. Int J Dermatol. 2020;59(9):1033–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/IJD.14824.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Janjua NR, Kongshoj B, Petersen JH, Wulf HC. Sunscreens and thyroid function in humans after short-term whole-body topical application: a single-blinded study. Br J Dermatol. 2007;156(5):1080–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1365-2133.2007.07803.X.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Kim S, Kim S, Won S, Choi K. Considering common sources of exposure in association studies - Urinary benzophenone-3 and DEHP metabolites are associated with altered thyroid hormone balance in the NHANES 2007–2008. Environ Int. 2017;107:25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVINT.2017.06.013.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. • Wilbur Johnson Jr., MS; Jinqiu Zhu Ph.D; Wilma F. Bergfeld, M.D. FACP. DVB, M.D.; Curtis D. Klaassen, Ph.D.; Daniel C. Liebler, Ph.D.; James G. Marks, Jr., M.D.; Lisa A. Peterson, Ph.D.; Ronald C. Shank, Ph.D.; Thomas J. Slaga, Ph.D.; and Paul W. Snyder, D.V.M. P. Amended Safety Assessment of Benzophenones as Used in Cosmetics. 2021. This is the most recent CIR safety assessment of benzophenones, which conculded Benzophenone-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -8, -9, -10, -11, and -12 are safe as currently used in cosmetics. This safety assessment considers chemistry, toxicokinetics, and potential toxicity of the compounds.

  72. SB2571. https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2018/bills/SB2571_.htm. Accessed May 18, 2023.

  73. Mitchelmore CL, Burns EE, Conway A, Heyes A, Davies IA. A Critical Review of Organic Ultraviolet Filter Exposure, Hazard, and Risk to Corals. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2021;40(4):967–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/ETC.4948.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. • Warshaw EM, Xiong M, Belsito D V., et al. Patch Testing With Benzophenone-3 and -4: The North American Contact Dermatitis Group Experience, 2013–2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34(2). https://doi.org/10.1089/DERM.2022.29013.EWA. This large database study characterized positive patch test reaction frequencies to BZP -3 and -4. They report most reactions were clinically relevant, and the prevalence of BZP positivity from 2013–2020 was 2.1%. The most common sources of exposure were sunscreens and other personal care products.

  75. Warshaw EM, Wang MZ, Maibach HI, et al. Patch test reactions associated with sunscreen products and the importance of testing to an expanded series: retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2001 to 2010. Dermatitis. 2013;24(4):176–82. https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0B013E3182983845.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Subiabre-Ferrer D, Esteve-Martínez A, Blasco-Encinas R, Sierra-Talamantes C, Pérez-Ferriols A, Zaragoza-Ninet V. European photopatch test baseline series: A 3-year experience. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80(1):5–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/COD.13118.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Kim Y, Patel DC, Greig D, Cheng H. Photopatch Testing in New Zealand: A 12-Year Retrospective Review. Dermatitis. 2021;32(1):53–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000683.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Color Additives History | FDA. https://www.fda.gov/industry/color-additives/color-additives-history. Accessed May 22, 2023.

  79. FDA Begins Posting Adverse Event Report Data for Foods and Cosmetics | FDA. https://www.fda.gov/food/cfsan-constituent-updates/fda-begins-posting-adverse-event-report-data-foods-and-cosmetics. Accessed May 21, 2023.

  80. Draft Guidance for Industry: Cosmetic Good Manufacturing Practices | FDA. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/draft-guidance-industry-cosmetic-good-manufacturing-practices. Accessed May 21, 2023.

  81. Summary of Cosmetics Labeling Requirements | FDA. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-labeling-regulations/summary-cosmetics-labeling-requirements. Accessed May 22, 2023.

  82. CFSAN Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS) | FDA. https://www.fda.gov/food/compliance-enforcement-food/cfsan-adverse-event-reporting-system-caers?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery. Accessed May 21, 2023.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA

    Michael Gui

  2. Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 1 S Park St, 7th Floor, Madison, WI, 53715, USA

    Donglin Zhang, Jennifer M. Tran & Margo J. Reeder

Authors
  1. Michael Gui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Donglin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer M. Tran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Margo J. Reeder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margo J. Reeder.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Michael Gui, Donglin Zhang, and Jennifer Tran declare no conflicts of interest. Margo J Reeder is the American Contact Dermatitis Society Contact Allergy Management Program Director.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gui, M., Zhang, D., Tran, J.M. et al. The Hoax of Clean Beauty and Associated Allergens. Curr Derm Rep 12, 269–278 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13671-023-00399-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13671-023-00399-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation