No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Commentary on JAMA Dermatology Editorial: “Natural Does Not Mean Safe—The Dirt on Clean Beauty Products”
In this report the use of eye cosmetic products and procedures and how this represents a lifestyle challenge that may exacerbate or promote the development of ocular surface and adnexal disease is discussed. Multiple aspects of eye cosmetics are addressed, including their history and market value, psychological and social impacts, possible problems associated with cosmetic ingredients, products, and procedures, and regulations for eye cosmetic use. In addition, a systematic review that critically appraises randomized controlled trial evidence concerning the ocular effects of eyelash growth products is included. The findings of this systematic review highlight the evidence gaps and indicate future directions for research to focus on ocular surface outcomes associated with eyelash growth products.
Background:
In February 2020, WHO announced the outbreak of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) in a global epidemic, and the COVID-19 vaccine has recently been developed and approved in many countries to release disease radio waves. Immediately distributed and used to control and control infections. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the world closed extensively in beauty and beauty services to control the spread of the virus.
Objectives:
Therefore, this study for the first time that the perspective of safety in sustainable may be applied to the entire alteration of beauty industry market in the post-COVID-19 pandemic for literature review.
Methods:
A Narrative Review is proposed as a new report and commentary on the sustainable change of beauty market trends centered on safety due to the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2020. It was written with reference to keywords such as "Covid Beauty Market," "Covid Sustainable," "Covid clean beauty," and "Safety beauty." This study was performed by searching on PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and ResearchGate. A total of 383 papers were retrieved, of which 36 were successfully included in this study.
Results:
Analysis of customers and markets in the beauty industry since COVID-19 was absolutely required at this time. Harmful and safe edible ingredients of clean beauty perspective should be compared and analyzed. In addition, importance of sustainability value from a clean beauty perspective should be considered.
Conclusion:
There is an era in which the perspective of safety in sustainable may be applied to the entire beauty industry today. In addition, depending on the customer's perception change, beyond the ingredients, raw material procurement of products, manufacturing process, product experiments, etc. are part of clean beauty to minimize carbon emissions, water use, recycle product containers, and reduce waste.
Clean beauty, also known as natural skin care, is having a moment. From 2017 to 2018, the natural skin care market grew by 23% to 1.6 billion dollars, accounting for over 25% of the 5.6 billion dollars of annual skin care sales in 2018.¹ Staunch warnings from influencers such as Gwyneth Paltrow, whose blog Goop warns readers “Do you want antifreeze (propylene glycol) in your moisturizer? We’re going to guess no,”² have ignited fear in consumers who are now hungry for skincare that is safe and nontoxic. However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has failed to define clean and natural, leaving these labels open to interpretation by nondermatologist retailers, bloggers, and celebrities who have set out to define clean beauty for themselves. While the clean beauty movement has demonized hundreds of compounds, in this Viewpoint, we argue that an arbitrary designation of clean or natural does not necessarily make products safer for consumers.