Is Clean Truly Clean? Allergenic Compounds in Clean Beauty Products

Abstract

Background: The clean beauty market is projected to reach 39 billion USD by 2033, reflecting the growing demand from consumers who are increasingly conscious of the ingredients in their personal care products. As this trend continues, it has become more crucial to examine the composition of clean beauty products to better assess their safety, efficacy, and impact on consumer health and behavior. However, the lack of a universal consensus on the definition of “clean” has led to varied interpretations within the cosmeceutical and skincare industry. In some cases, the clean beauty movement’s vilification of certain ingredients, such as preservatives, has led to their replacement with potentially more allergenic alternatives, like isothiazolinones. These unintended consequences and the ambiguity surrounding the term “clean” warrant further investigation. Objectives: The objective of this study is to determine the prevalence of allergenic ingredients in clean-labeled skincare products. Methods: The ingredient lists of 313 moisturizers, cleansers, and sunscreens in the “clean skincare” category of the leading online beauty store worldwide (sephora.com) were carefully assessed for the presence of potentially allergenic compounds, selected based on the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allergen listings. Results: Tocopherol, an antioxidant and preservative, was the most common allergen found in the moisturizer and sunscreen categories, present in 73.8% and 63.8% of these products, respectively. Alkyl glucosides were the most common allergens in cleansers, found in 46.7% of products. Preservatives such as phenoxyethanol and benzoate derivatives were consistently present across all three product categories. Conclusions: This study shows that clean-labeled skincare products often contain allergenic ingredients, underscoring the complexity and potential misinterpretation of the safety of these products.

Full text

J Skin Stem Cell. 2024 September; 11(3): e151883 https://doi.org/10.5812/jssc-151883
Published Online: 2024 September 30
Research Article
Cop
y
right © 2024, Journal of Skin and Stem Cell. This open-access article is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC
4.0) International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/b
y
-nc/4.0/), which allows for the cop
y
ing and redistribution of the material onl
y
for
noncommercial purposes, provided that the original work is properl
y
cited.
Uncorrected Proof
Is Clean Trul
y
Clean? Allergenic Compounds in Clean Beaut
y
Products
Sarah Choe 1 , Abhinav Birda 1 , Dana Hutchison 1 , Jesse Salas 1 , Kimia Hashemi 1 , Rania Benromdhane 1
, Chang Shu 1 , An Mae
y
ama 1 , R
y
an Dagher 1 , Natasha Mesinkovska 1 , *
1 Universit
y
of California, Irvine, California
*
Corres
p
onding Author:
Universit
y
of California, Irvine, California. Email: natashadermatolog
y
@gmail.com
Received:
15 August, 2024;
Revised:
19 October, 2024;
Accepted:
12 September, 2024
Abstract
Background:
The clean beaut
y
market is projected to reach 39 billion USD b
y
2033, reflecting the growing demand from
consumers who are increasingl
y
conscious of the ingredients in their personal care products. As this trend continues, it has
become more crucial to e
x
amine the composition of clean beaut
y
products to better assess their safet
y
, efficac
y
, and impact on
consumer health and behavior. However, the lack of a universal consensus on the definition of “clean” has led to varied
interpretations within the cosmeceutical and skincare industr
y
. In some cases, the clean beaut
y
movement’s vilification of
certain ingredients, such as preservatives, has led to their replacement with potentiall
y
more allergenic alternatives, like
isothiazolinones. These unintended consequences and the ambiguit
y
surrounding the term “clean” warrant further
investigation.
Objectives:
The objective of this stud
y
is to determine the prevalence of allergenic ingredients in clean-labeled skincare
products.
Methods:
The ingredient lists of 313 moisturizers, cleansers, and sunscreens in the “clean skincare” categor
y
of the leading
online beaut
y
store worldwide (sephora.com) were carefull
y
assessed for the presence of potentiall
y
allergenic compounds,
selected based on the American Contact Dermatitis Societ
y
(ACDS) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allergen
listings.
Results:
Tocopherol, an antio
x
idant and preservative, was the most common allergen found in the moisturizer and sunscreen
categories, present in 73.8% and 63.8% of these products, respectivel
y
. Alk
y
l glucosides were the most common allergens in
cleansers, found in 46.7% of products. Preservatives such as pheno
xy
ethanol and benzoate derivatives were consistentl
y
present
across all three product categories.
Conclusions:
This stud
y
shows that clean-labeled skincare products often contain allergenic ingredients, underscoring the
comple
x
it
y
and potential misinterpretation of the safet
y
of these products.
Keywords:
Cosmetics, Skin Care, Beaut
y
Culture, Fragrance, Allergic Contact Dermatitis, Allerg
y
1. Background
Clean beaut
y
is reshaping the cosmeceutical and
skincare landscape. In a recent international surve
y
of
over 4,500 individuals from Asia, Europe, and the United
States (US), 72% of respondents, across all age groups,
reported that purchasing health
y
or clean personal care
and beaut
y
products was important to them (1). The rise
of conscious consumerism, along with a shift among
shoppers towards products that prioritize health and
safet
y
, has fueled demand for “clean” skincare products,
with the clean beaut
y
market projected to reach 39
billion USD b
y
2033 (2, 3). However, the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) has not defined “clean,” and
there is no scientific evidence validating the term (4). As
“clean beaut
y
” continues to trend, it has become
increasingl
y
important to gain insight into this
booming
y
et ambiguous market (5-7).
The lack of a universal consensus on the definition of
“clean” has led to open interpretation within the
skincare industr
y
, resulting in man
y
previousl
y
accepted ingredients now being labeled as “dirt
y
” or
unsuitable for use (8). One major food retailer, Whole
Foods, has a list of over 240 ingredients avoided in its

Choe S et al. Brieflands
2J Skin Stem Cell. 2024; 11(3): e151883
clean beaut
y
products, which can be found on its
website. Similarl
y
, the Environmental Working Group’s
(EWG) “Unacceptable List” includes over 600 pages of
compounds the
y
consider problematic (9, 10).
The issues arising from the demonization of certain
ingredients b
y
the clean beaut
y
movement and the lack
of standardized, scientificall
y
grounded definitions are
twofold. First, more consumers are opting for products
labeled as “natural,” assuming these are less likel
y
to
cause adverse reactions or contain harmful ingredients,
due to the industr
y
’s interchangeable use of the terms
“clean” and “natural” (11). Although perceived as more
benign than their s
y
nthetic counterparts, studies have
shown that man
y
products advertised as “natural” often
contain botanical e
x
tracts that can trigger adverse skin
reactions (12, 13). Between 1996 and 2016, there was a 2.7-
fold increase in allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) related
to personal care products, raising further concerns
about the impact of the rising popularit
y
of clean or
natural products and the implications for ph
y
sicians
treating these conditions (14, 15).
The unwarranted removal of safe compounds is
another issue fueled b
y
the clean beaut
y
movement.
Although e
x
tensive research supports the safet
y
and
efficac
y
of parabens, and the FDA strictl
y
regulates their
concentrations in products, “paraben-free” labeling is
increasingl
y
common in clean beaut
y
(16). This ma
y
stem from the clean beaut
y
industr
y
’s over-
interpretation of animal studies, where conclusions
drawn from paraben concentrations much higher than
those encountered b
y
consumers have led to fears about
potential endocrine-disrupting effects (17). The
movement’s rejection of certain ingredients has led to
their replacement with more allergenic compounds, as
seen in the global increase of isothiazolinone contact
allerg
y
following its substitution for formaldeh
y
de
preservatives (18). Be
y
ond replacing effective
preservation s
y
stems, the complete removal of
ingredients that control harmful microbe growth,
simpl
y
to align with “clean” trends, presents an
additional health risk (19, 20). The ambiguit
y
surrounding what trul
y
constitutes clean products
warrants further investigation to determine whether
these trends are resulting in products that are
ultimatel
y
safer and better tolerated b
y
consumers.
2. Objectives
The objective of this stud
y
is to determine the
prevalence of allergenic ingredients in clean-labeled
skincare products.
3. Methods
3.1. Search Protocol and Inclusion Criteria
The “clean skincare” categor
y
of [Sephora], the
leading online store in the global e-commerce beaut
y
market (21), was queried on Februar
y
21, 2024, for the
following three product categories: “moisturizers,”
“cleansers,” and “sunscreens.” This search
y
ielded a total
of 419 products, comprising 197 moisturizers, 131
cleansers, and 91 sunscreens. Duplicate products, non-
individual products, items without an ingredient list,
and non-cosmetic/non-skincare items were e
x
cluded.
3.2. Data Extraction
The ingredient list of each product was manuall
y
e
x
tracted from its product website and assessed for the
presence of the following potentiall
y
allergenic
compounds: Pheno
xy
ethanol, tocopherol, benzoic
acid/benzoates, prop
y
lene gl
y
col (PG), alk
y
l glucosides,
eth
y
lhe
xy
lgl
y
cerin, cet
y
l alcohol, and a range of
documented allergenic fragrance/botanical compounds
(including am
y
l cinnamal, am
y
lcinnam
y
l alcohol, anis
y
l
alcohol, benz
y
l alcohol, benz
y
l cinnamate, benz
y
l
salic
y
late, cinnam
y
l alcohol, cinnamaldeh
y
de, citral,
citronellol, coumarin, eugenol, farnesol, geraniol, he
xy
l
cinnamaldeh
y
de, h
y
dro
xy
citronellal, h
y
dro
xy
isohe
xy
l 3-
c
y
clohe
x
ene carbo
x
aldeh
y
de (HICC, also known as
L
y
ral), isoeugenol, lilial, limonene, linalool, meth
y
l 2-
oct
y
noate,
γ
-meth
y
lionone, oak moss e
x
tract, and tree
moss e
x
tract). Compounds were selected based on the
FDA and American Contact Dermatitis Societ
y
(ACDS)
potential allergen listings. Additionall
y
, we evaluated
the top five best-selling products in the moisturizer,
cleanser, and sunscreen categories.
3.3. Data Analysis
Data anal
y
sis was performed using statistical tools in
the P
y
thon programming language to produce
descriptive statistics and linear regression. Figure 1
presents the proportion of each product categor
y
containing at least one allergen from the listed
compounds in a stacked bar graph, illustrating relative
quantities.

Choe S et al. Brieflands
J Skin Stem Cell. 2024; 11(3): e151883 3
Figure 1.
This figure illustrates the breakdown of product quantit
y
and proportion of allergen quantit
y
b
y
product categor
y
.
4. Results
A total of 313 “clean” skincare products were included
in the final anal
y
sis, comprising 126 moisturizers, 107
cleansers, and 80 sunscreens (Figure 1).
3.1. Moisturizers
Onl
y
three (2.4%) of the anal
y
zed moisturizers were
free of an
y
of the listed allergenic compounds (Table 1).
The most common allergen found in moisturizers was
tocopherol, a class of vitamin E compounds used to
e
x
tend the shelf life of oil-containing products, present
in 93 out of 126 products (73.8%). The preservatives
pheno
xy
ethanol and benzoate derivatives were found in
62 (49.2%) and 51 (40.5%) moisturizers, respectivel
y
.
Eth
y
lhe
xy
lgl
y
cerin, another preservative and skin
conditioner, was detected in 53 (42.1%) of the samples. At
least one allergenic fragrance/botanical compound was
identified in 38 (30.2%) of the products. Alk
y
l glucosides,
commonl
y
used for their surfactant and emulsif
y
ing
properties, were found in 29 (23%) of the moisturizers.
Cet
y
l alcohols and PG were present in 18 (14.3%) and 8
(6.3%) of the products, respectivel
y
. The respective
counts of potential allergens in the top five best-selling
moisturizers, in descending order of product sales, are
shown in Figure 2.
3.2. Cleansers
Alk
y
l glucosides, used for their emulsif
y
ing
properties in cleansers, were the most prevalent
allergen, detected in 50 out of 107 (46.7%) cleanser
products. Pheno
xy
ethanol followed closel
y
, found in 43
(40.2%) products. Tocopherol was present in 41 (38.3%)
products, showing a significant decrease from its
prevalence in the moisturizer categor
y
. Benzoate
derivatives were found in 30 (28%) of the anal
y
zed
products. Eth
y
lhe
xy
lgl
y
cerin was detected in 23 (21.5%)
cleansers, a decrease from its occurrence in
moisturizers. Fragrances or botanical compounds were
present in 23 (21.5%) products. Cet
y
l alcohol and PG were
found in significantl
y
fewer products, present in 6 (5.6%)
and 5 (4.7%) of the cleansers, respectivel
y
. Onl
y
14 out of
the 107 cleansers anal
y
zed, or 13.1% of the sample, were
free from an
y
of the tested allergenic compounds (Table
2). The potential allergens present in each product,
arranged according to their sales rankings, are shown in
Figure 2.
3.3. Sunscreens
A total of 80 sunscreen products were evaluated for
the presence of allergenic compounds. Tocopherol was
the most prevalent compound, detected in 51 (63.8%) of

Choe S et al. Brieflands
4J Skin Stem Cell. 2024; 11(3): e151883
Table 1.
Prevalence of Allergenic Compounds in Moisturizers
Allergenic Compound Number of Products Containing Allergen (N = 126) Percentage of Products with Compound (
%
)
Fragrance

a
38 30.1
Phenoxyethanol
62 49.2
Tocopherol
93 73.8
Benzoic acid/benzoates
51 40.4
Ethylhexylglycerin
53 42.1
Alkyl glucosides
29 23.0
PG
8 0.6
Cetyl alcohol
18 14.3
Abbreviation: PG, prop
y
lene gl
y
col.
a Includes fragrances listed as allergenic per FDA guidelines: Am
y
l cinnamal, am
y
lcinnam
y
l alcohol, anis
y
l alcohol, benz
y
l alcohol, benz
y
l cinnamate, benz
y
l salic
y
late, cinnam
y
l
alcohol, cinnamaldeh
y
de, citral, citronellol, coumarin, eugeno, farnesol, geraniol, he
xy
l cinnamaldeh
y
de, h
y
dro
xy
citronellal, h
y
dro
xy
isohe
xy
l 3-c
y
clohe
x
ene carbo
x
aldeh
y
de
(HICC, also known as L
y
ral), isoeugenol, lilial, Limonene, linalool, meth
y
l 2-oct
y
noate, g-Meth
y
lionone, oak moss e
x
tract, tree moss e
x
tract.
Figure 2.
Number of allergens in the top 5 best-selling products in moisturizer, cleanser, and sunscreen categories
the sunscreen products. Eth
y
lhe
xy
lgl
y
cerin and
pheno
xy
ethanol were present in similar quantities, at 27
(33.8%) and 26 (32.5%) products, respectivel
y
. Cet
y
l
alcohol was found in 17 (21.3%) of the products,
indicating a significantl
y
higher presence in sunscreens
compared to the moisturizer and cleanser categories.
Both benzoate derivatives and PG were identified in 12
(15.0%) of the sunscreens, showing a notable but lesser
presence. The presence of allergenic fragrances in
sunscreens was significantl
y
lower than in moisturizers
and cleansers, found in onl
y
11 (13.75%) of the products.
Alk
y
l glucosides were the least prevalent, detected in
onl
y
3 (3.8%) of the 80 products anal
y
zed. The sunscreen
categor
y
also had the highest number of products free
from an
y
allergenic compounds, with 15 (18.8%) such
products, compared to the moisturizer and cleanser
categories (Table 3). The results for the total potential
allergen count in the five best-selling sunscreens, in

Choe S et al. Brieflands
J Skin Stem Cell. 2024; 11(3): e151883 5
Table 2.
Prevalence of Allergenic Compounds in Cleansers
Allergenic Compound Number of Products Containing Allergen (N = 107) Percentage of Products with Compound (
%
)
Fragrance

a
23 21.5
Phenoxyethanol
43 40.2
Tocopherol
41 38.3
Benzoic acid/benzoates
30 28.0
Ethylhexylglycerin
23 21.5
Alkyl glucosides
50 46.7
PG
5 4.7
Cetyl alcohol
6 5.6
Abbreviation: PG, prop
y
lene gl
y
col.
a Includes fragrances listed as allergenic per FDA guidelines: Am
y
l cinnamal, am
y
lcinnam
y
l alcohol, anis
y
l alcohol, benz
y
l alcohol, benz
y
l cinnamate, benz
y
l salic
y
late, cinnam
y
l
alcohol, cinnamaldeh
y
de, citral, citronellol, coumarin, eugeno, farnesol, geraniol, he
xy
l cinnamaldeh
y
de, h
y
dro
xy
citronellal, h
y
dro
xy
isohe
xy
l 3-c
y
clohe
x
ene carbo
x
aldeh
y
de
(HICC, also known as L
y
ral), isoeugenol, lilial, Limonene, linalool, meth
y
l 2-oct
y
noate, g-Meth
y
lionone, oak moss e
x
tract, tree moss e
x
tract.
Table 3.
Prevalence of Allergenic Compounds in Sunscreens
Allergenic Compound Number of Products Containing Allergen (N = 80) Percentage of Products with Compound (
%
)
Fragrance

a
11 13.8
Phenoxyethanol
26 32.5
Tocopherol
51 63.8
Benzoic acid/benzoates
12 15.0
Ethylhexylglycerin
27 33.8
Alkyl glucosides
3 3.8
PG
12 15.0
Cetyl alcohol
17 21.3
Abbreviation: PG, prop
y
lene gl
y
col.
a Includes fragrances listed as allergenic per FDA guidelines: Am
y
l cinnamal, am
y
lcinnam
y
l alcohol, anis
y
l alcohol, benz
y
l alcohol, benz
y
l cinnamate, benz
y
l salic
y
late, cinnam
y
l
alcohol, cinnamaldeh
y
de, citral, citronellol, coumarin, eugeno, farnesol, geraniol, he
xy
l cinnamaldeh
y
de, h
y
dro
xy
citronellal, h
y
dro
xy
isohe
xy
l 3-c
y
clohe
x
ene carbo
x
aldeh
y
de
(HICC, also known as L
y
ral), isoeugenol, lilial, Limonene, linalool, meth
y
l 2-oct
y
noate, g-Meth
y
lionone, oak moss e
x
tract, tree moss e
x
tract.
descending order of product sales, are shown in Figure
2.
5. Discussion
Tocopherol, an antio
x
idant and preservative, was the
most common allergen found in the moisturizer and
sunscreen categories. Preservatives pheno
xy
ethanol and
benzoate derivatives were also consistentl
y
present
across all three product categories. These findings align
with other studies that also identified tocopherol,
pheno
xy
ethanol, and benzoate derivatives as the most
common allergens in personal care products (8, 15).
Despite their allergenic potential, the ubiquit
y
of these
compounds underscores their importance as
preservatives to maintain formulation integrit
y
and
prevent microbial growth.
Alk
y
l glucosides, a t
y
pe of nonionic surfactant, were
the most prevalent allergen in the cleanser categor
y
.
Reports of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) related to
alk
y
l glucosides have been rising, and in 2017, it was
named "Allergen of the Year" b
y
the ACDS (22). Although
studies have shown that sodium laur
y
l sulfate (SLS),
another t
y
pe of surfactant, is safe for use on the skin,
there has been a trend among clean beaut
y
companies
to ban SLS from their products, raising concerns about
its safet
y
. The increase in ACD related to alk
y
l glucosides
ma
y
, therefore, be secondar
y
to the replacement of SLS
(23, 24).
Among the three product categories, sunscreens had
the lowest presence of allergens. This pattern ma
y
be
e
x
plained b
y
the stricter FDA regulations of sunscreen
products as nonprescription drugs (25). In contrast, the
higher allergen presence in moisturizers and cleansers
could reflect the broader range of functional and

Choe S et al. Brieflands
6J Skin Stem Cell. 2024; 11(3): e151883
aesthetic ingredients used in these categories,
complicating efforts to eliminate potential allergenic
substances ((Figure I).
We quantified the total number of potential
allergens in the top five best-selling products in each
categor
y
: Moisturizers, cleansers, and sunscreens. The
results did not reveal an
y
clear trend in allergen count,
suggesting that consumer preference for best-selling
clean beaut
y
products does not consistentl
y
correlate
with lower allergen content. This lack of correlation ma
y
stem from the ambiguous nature of the term “clean,”
which allows companies to formulate products based
on their own interpretations, leading to variabilit
y
in
allergen content. Additionall
y
, consumer preferences
are influenced b
y
various factors, such as product
te
x
ture, shelf life, and fragrance, which further
contributes to the absence of a specific pattern in
allergen counts. The widespread presence of known
allergens such as tocopherol, pheno
xy
ethanol, and
benzoate derivatives—even in products marketed as
clean or h
y
poallergenic—suggests that the movement’s
objectives are not
y
et full
y
realized within the industr
y
or b
y
consumers.
There is a comple
x
relationship between marketing
narratives and individual health concerns. The allure of
clean beaut
y
, with its claims of greater safet
y
and more
natural composition, often overlooks the potential
presence of allergenic ingredients. The influence of
digital platforms has significantl
y
shaped public
opinion and increased demand for clean beaut
y
products, fostering a heightened awareness of
ingredient safet
y
among consumers. However, this
awareness does not alwa
y
s translate into a deeper
understanding of dermatological science, as the
abundance of information and marketing claims can
lead to misinterpretation of data. The gap between
public perceptions and the scientific evidence
surrounding clean beaut
y
underscores the need for
educational efforts to e
x
pand consumer knowledge,
using dermatological research presented in a manner
that is both accurate and accessible.
5.3. Limitations and Future Considerations
This stud
y
highlights the potential shortcomings of
clean beaut
y
’s promise to deliver safer, less allergenic
products, as well as the capacit
y
for consumer
e
x
ploitation due to a lack of regulations. While this
stud
y
provides insights into the prevalence of allergenic
ingredients in clean-labeled skincare products, certain
limitations merit consideration. The e
x
clusive reliance
on a single e-commerce platform for data ma
y
not full
y
capture the diversit
y
of the clean beaut
y
market,
limiting the generalizabilit
y
of findings to other
retailers and geographic regions and potentiall
y
overlooking variations in product formulations and
ingredient prevalence. Additionall
y
, the categorization
of products as "clean" based on the website’s proprietar
y
criteria ma
y
not align with other definitions or
standards within the industr
y
, introducing a la
y
er of
subjectivit
y
to the anal
y
sis. Finall
y
, while the
predetermined list of potential allergens was compiled
b
y
referencing FDA and ACDS guidelines, it ma
y
not
encompass the full range of allergenic compounds. The
compounds included in this investigation have var
y
ing
degrees of allergenicit
y
among individuals, meaning
that the allergic reactivit
y
of these products ma
y
not
appl
y
to the general population.
Footnotes
Authors' Contribution:
Conceptualization: S. C.;
research design: S. C., and A. B.; methodolog
y
: S. C., and
A. B.; data collection: K. H., R. B., C. S., A. M., and R. D.;
formal data anal
y
sis: A. B.; writing: S. C., A. B., J. S.;
editing: S. C., D. H., and N. M. All authors have read and
approved the final version of the manuscript.
Conflict of Interests Statement:
The authors have no
conflict of interest to declare.
Data Availability:
The dataset presented in the stud
y
is available on request from the corresponding author
during submission or after publication.
Funding/Support:
The authors declared this article
has no funding source.
References
1. Masor
y
A.
Naturally beautiful: Millennials and preferences in beauty and
personal care products
. 2019. Available from:
www.ali
x
partners.com/media/12673/ap_millennial_preferences_bea
ut
y
_personal_care_ma
y
_2019.pdf.
2. Ghazali E, Soon PC, Mutum DS, Ngu
y
en B. Health and cosmetics:
Investigating consumers’ values for bu
y
ing organic personal care
products.
J Retailing Consumer Services
. 2017;
39
:154-63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.08.002.
3. Marketresearch.
Clean Beauty Market Projected to Grow at 16.65% CAGR
by 2033, North America to Be the Dominant Region
. 2024. Available from:

Choe S et al. Brieflands
J Skin Stem Cell. 2024; 11(3): e151883 7
https://marketresearch.biz/report/clean-beaut
y
-
market/#:~:te
x
t=Clean%20Beaut
y
%20Market%20Size%2C%20Share%2C
%20Trends%20Anal
y
sis,-
The%20clean%20beaut
y
&te
x
t=It%20is%20e
x
pected%20to%20reach,for
%20the%20clean%20beaut
y
%20market..
4. Rubin CB, Brod B. Natural Does Not Mean Safe-The Dirt on Clean
Beaut
y
Products.
JAMA Dermatol
. 2019;
155
(12):1344-5. [PubMed ID:
31553406]. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.2724.
5. Nathan N, Wanner M. Clean cosmetics: Does science back up this new
trend?
Int J Women's Dermatol
. 2019;
5
(4):278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijwd.2019.06.011.
6. Shim J, Woo J, Yeo H, Kang S, Kwon B, Jung Lee E, et al. The Clean
Beaut
y
Trend Among Millennial and Generation Z Consumers:
Assessing the Safet
y
, Ethicalit
y
, and Sustainabilit
y
Attributes of
Cosmetic Products.
Sage Open
. 2024;
14
(2).
https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241255430.
7. Lee J, Kwon KH. Sustainable changes in beaut
y
market trends focused
on the perspective of safet
y
in the post-coronavirus disease-19
period.
J Cosmet Dermatol
. 2022;
21
(7):2700-7. [PubMed ID: 35397181].
[PubMed Central ID: PMC9115195]. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.14493.
8. Tran JM, Comstock JR, Reeder MJ. Natural Is Not Alwa
y
s Better: The
Prevalence of Allergenic Ingredients in "Clean" Beaut
y
Products.
Dermatitis
. 2022;
33
(3):215-9. [PubMed ID: 35256558].
https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000863.
9. Whole Foods Market.
Our Standard: Beyond Clean Beauty
. 2024.
Available from: www.wholefoodsmarket.com/qualit
y
-
standards/beaut
y
-bod
y
-care-standards.
10. Environmental Working Group.
EWG Verified Unacceptable List
. 2024.
Available from:
https://static.ewg.org/ewgverified/docs/EWGV_Cosmetics_Program_
_Active_Unacceptable_List_C02.pdf.
11. Lee J, Kwon KH. Good ingredients from foods to vegan cosmetics
after COVID-19 pandemic.
J Cosmet Dermatol
. 2022;
21
(8):3190-9.
[PubMed ID: 35486443]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9115085].
https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.15028.
12. Corazza M, Borghi A, Lauriola MM, Virgili A. Use of topical herbal
remedies and cosmetics: a questionnaire-based investigation in
dermatolog
y
out-patients.
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol
.
2009;
23
(11):1298-303. [PubMed ID: 19486228].
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2009.03314.
x
.
13. Kiken DA, Cohen DE. Contact dermatitis to botanical e
x
tracts.
Am J
Contact Dermat
. 2002;
13
(3):148-52. [PubMed ID: 12165936].
14. Warshaw EM, Schlarbaum JP, Silverberg JI, DeKoven JG, Franswa
y
AF,
Ta
y
lor JS, et al. Contact dermatitis to personal care products is
increasing (but different!) in males and females: North American
Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1996-2016.
J Am Acad Dermatol
.
2021;
85
(6):1446-55. [PubMed ID: 33039486].
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2020.10.003.
15. 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. [PubMed ID: 36103164]. [PubMed Central ID:
PMC9475434]. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.3180.
16. Dodson RE, Boronow KE, Susmann H, Udesk
y
JO, Rodgers KM, Weller
D, et al. Consumer behavior and e
x
posure to parabens, bisphenols,
triclosan, dichlorophenols, and benzophenone-3: Results from a
crowdsourced biomonitoring stud
y
.
Int J Hyg Environ Health
.
2020;
230
:113624. [PubMed ID: 33011057].
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113624.
17. Petric Z, Ruzic J, Zuntar I. The controversies of parabens - an overview
nowada
y
s.
Acta Pharm
. 2021;
71
(1):17-32. [PubMed ID: 32697748].
https://doi.org/10.2478/acph-2021-0001.
18. Aerts O, Baeck M, Constandt L, Dezfoulian B, Jacobs MC, Kerre S, et al.
The dramatic increase in the rate of meth
y
lisothiazolinone contact
allerg
y
in Belgium: a multicentre stud
y
.
Contact Dermatitis
.
2014;
71
(1):41-8. [PubMed ID: 24815516]. https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12249.
19. Halla N, Fernandes IP, Heleno SA, Costa P, Boucherit-Otmani Z,
Boucherit K, et al. Cosmetics Preservation: A Review on Present
Strategies.
Molecules
. 2018;
23
(7). [PubMed ID: 29958439]. [PubMed
Central ID: PMC6099538]. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23071571.
20. Pinto D, Ciardiello T, Franzoni M, Pasini F, Giuliani G, Rinaldi F. Effect
of commonl
y
used cosmetic preservatives on skin resident
microflora d
y
namics.
Sci Rep
. 2021;
11
(1):8695. [PubMed ID: 33888782].
[PubMed Central ID: PMC8062602]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-
021-88072-3.
21. Yltava L.
Top Online Beauty Stores Worldwide by Sales 2022
. 2023.
Available from: https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1424936/top-
online-stores-beaut
y
-worldwide-
ecommercedb#:~:te
x
t=Sephora.com%20is%20the%20leading,billion
%20U.S.%20dollars%20in%202022.
22. Boozalis E, Patel S. Allergen of the Year alk
y
l glucoside is an
ingredient in top-selling sunscreens and facial moisturizers.
J Am
Acad Dermatol
. 2018;
78
(4):809-10. [PubMed ID: 29042229].
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2017.10.013.
23. Burnett CL, Bergfeld WF, Belsito DV, Cohen DE, Klaassen CD, Liebler
DC, et al. Sodium Laur
y
l Sulfoacetate.
Int J Toxicol
.
2023;
42
(3_suppl):100S-1S. [PubMed ID: 37767974].
https://doi.org/10.1177/10915818231204274.
24. Bondi CA, Marks JL, Wroblewski LB, Raatikainen HS, Leno
x
SR,
Gebhardt KE. Human and Environmental To
x
icit
y
of Sodium Laur
y
l
Sulfate (SLS): Evidence for Safe Use in Household Cleaning Products.
Environ Health Insights
. 2015;
9
:27-32. [PubMed ID: 26617461]. [PubMed
Central ID: PMC4651417]. https://doi.org/10.4137/EHI.S31765.
25. Sharfstein JM. A Spotlight on Sunscreen Regulation.
N Engl J Med
.
2015;
373
(2):101-3. [PubMed ID: 26154783].
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1504912.