Your Clean Beauty Questions. Answered by a Cosmetic Chemist.

Clean beauty refers to products formulated without ingredients considered potentially harmful to human health or the environment, based on current scientific evidence. Unlike "natural" or "organic," clean has no legal definition in any major regulatory jurisdiction — it is a marketing term interpreted differently by every brand and every retailer that uses it.

Sephora's Clean at Sephora programme, for instance, bans over 50 ingredients. Credo Beauty bans over 2,700. The same product could be "clean" at one retailer and not at another. This definitional chaos is one of my biggest criticisms of the movement — without regulatory standardisation, "clean" functions as a brand identity signal, not a verifiable safety claim.

Chloé's take: I use "clean beauty" to mean formulations that are transparent about ingredients, avoid compounds with meaningful safety signals at real-world exposure levels, and don't engage in greenwashing. It's about honest formulation, not just marketing.

Definitively not. The natural/synthetic binary is the most persistent misconception in skincare. Poison ivy is natural. So is arsenic. Ricin is one of the most toxic substances on earth and it is derived from castor beans — entirely natural origin.

Conversely, synthetic niacinamide has decades of peer-reviewed data on barrier repair, hyperpigmentation reduction, and pore appearance. Synthetic retinol has more clinical evidence behind it than virtually any natural skincare ingredient. The origin of a molecule — laboratory vs botanical extraction — says nothing definitive about its safety or efficacy profile.

What matters is: the molecule itself, the concentration, the route of exposure, and individual skin response. A naturally-derived essential oil can cause contact sensitisation requiring steroid treatment. A synthetically-produced ceramide identical to your skin's own ceramides causes essentially zero adverse reactions.

Chloé's take: Evaluate ingredients by their evidence profile, not their origin. The naturalistic fallacy costs money and sometimes skin health.

The paraben panic traces back to a 2004 study by Philippa Darbre that detected parabens in breast tumour tissue. The leap from "detected in tumour tissue" to "causes cancer" was made by media and advocacy groups, not by the scientists who conducted the study.

Current status: Methylparaben and ethylparaben are fully approved in the EU at up to 0.4% individually. Propylparaben and butylparaben are restricted to 0.14% in leave-on products following SCCS Opinion 1514/13, due to evidence of weak androgenic activity in rodent models — not human clinical evidence. All four remain approved by the US FDA and Health Canada.

Parabens are among the best-studied preservative systems in cosmetic science with over 70 years of real-world use. They are particularly well-tolerated by sensitive skin — many "paraben-free" alternatives like methylisothiazolinone (MI) have far higher sensitisation rates.

Chloé's take: The blanket avoidance of all parabens is not evidence-based. Avoiding propylparaben and butylparaben in high-concentration leave-on formulas is reasonable precaution. Avoiding all parabens universally has, paradoxically, driven adoption of more problematic preservative alternatives.

Fragrance — listed as "parfum" in EU INCI nomenclature — is the single largest source of contact sensitisation in cosmetic products globally. The EU requires separate declaration of 26 known sensitising fragrance allergens when present above threshold concentrations (0.001% in rinse-off, 0.01% in leave-on). Many "clean" brands disclose fragrance as a single ingredient without allergen breakdown.

The complication for clean beauty is that natural essential oils carry the same sensitisation risk as synthetic aromatic compounds — sometimes higher. Limonene and linalool (common in citrus and lavender oils) are among the most prevalent contact allergens measured in patch test clinics. Brands that promote "100% natural fragrance" as safer are often misleading consumers.

The clean beauty industry has been slow to address this. Several brands simultaneously ban synthetic preservatives on safety grounds while using heavy essential oil blends with documented sensitisation histories. This inconsistency reveals that "clean" decisions are often driven by consumer perception rather than toxicology data.

Chloé's take: For reactive, rosacea-prone, or eczema-affected skin, fragrance-free means genuinely fragrance-free — no parfum, no essential oils, no aromatic plant extracts. Inspect the full INCI list, not just the front label claim.

In the context of cosmetic marketing, "non-toxic" means nothing legally. There is no regulatory body in Europe, the US, or the UK that defines or polices the "non-toxic" claim for personal care products. Brands can and do apply it freely to any product, regardless of formulation.

Toxicology principle: the dose makes the poison. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is toxic in overdose. Water causes hyponatraemia if consumed in extreme quantities. Every regulated ingredient in a cosmetic product has passed safety assessments at the concentrations at which it is used. "Non-toxic" as applied to skincare implies a comparison that doesn't hold up scientifically.

Chloé's take: When I see "non-toxic" on a product, I treat it as a marketing signal, not a safety claim. Look for actual certification bodies (COSMOS, EWG Verified) and published safety assessments instead.

INCI stands for International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients. Ingredients are listed in descending order of concentration, with one critical exception: any ingredient present at or below 1% may be listed in any order after the sub-1% threshold is crossed.

Practical reading tips: The first five ingredients typically account for 80–95% of the formula by weight. Active ingredients you're paying for (retinol, hyaluronic acid, niacinamide) should appear in the first third of the list to be at meaningful concentrations. Botanical extracts that appear at the very bottom are almost certainly present at token amounts — under 0.1%, often under 0.01%.

Watch for aqua (water) position — it's almost always first. Watch for glycerin and butylene glycol in the top five (humectants at 2–5%). Watch for the preservative — it signals where the sub-1% region begins. Everything below the preservative is present in trace amounts.

Chloé's take: The INCI list is the single most honest document a cosmetic brand is required to produce. Learn to read it and you'll never be fooled by "made with 25 botanical extracts" marketing again.

No — and here's why this belief persists: it was originally tied to old-generation alkaline soap-based cleansers that disrupted the skin's acid mantle (pH 4.5–5.5). Soap bars have a pH of around 9–10, which does temporarily raise skin surface pH and disrupt barrier function. A pH-correcting toner afterwards made genuine sense in that context.

Modern synthetic detergent (syndet) cleansers and most gel or cream cleansers are formulated at pH 5–6, meaning they cleanse without meaningfully disrupting the acid mantle. Research by Schmid-Wendtner et al. demonstrated that healthy skin restores its own pH within 30–90 minutes of cleansing even after significant disruption — no toner required.

Chloé's take: If you use a modern low-pH syndet cleanser, a pH toner adds no meaningful benefit. If you use an alkaline soap, swap the cleanser — don't add a toner to compensate. That said, toners with actives (BHA, niacinamide, hyaluronic acid) serve other functions entirely and may be worth keeping.

The preservative landscape has shifted dramatically since the paraben exodus. Here's my ranking of commonly used alternatives by evidence profile:

Chloé's take: Every water-containing product requires a preservative. "Preservative-free" products either use an undisclosed system, have an extremely short shelf life, or are anhydrous (no water). There is no safe middle ground.

This is one of the most nuanced debates in clean beauty. Mineral filters (zinc oxide, titanium dioxide) sit on the skin's surface and physically scatter UV radiation. Chemical filters (avobenzone, oxybenzone, octinoxate) absorb UV and convert it to heat energy. Both protect effectively when properly formulated at adequate SPF.

The concern driving mineral preference is primarily around oxybenzone, which the FDA identified in 2019 as requiring further safety data after it was detected in bloodstream absorption studies at concentrations above 0.5 ng/mL. This doesn't mean it causes harm — it means the systemic absorption at high use frequencies warranted more data. The EU has already restricted oxybenzone in rinse-off products.

Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are considered the two fully GRASE (Generally Recognised as Safe and Effective) filters by FDA. However, the practical trade-off is significant: mineral-only filters are harder to formulate to high SPF values without a white cast, and many mineral sunscreens feel heavy or leave a noticeable residue that reduces compliance — meaning people use less, defeating the purpose.

Chloé's take: A consistently-applied chemical SPF 50 outperforms an avoided mineral SPF 50 every time. Compliance trumps filter preference. If a mineral formula you love works for you, use it. If the texture prevents consistent application, choose a formula you'll actually use daily.

Sensitive skin has a compromised barrier that allows irritants in more readily and loses water more easily than normal skin. The priority is barrier restoration and irritant avoidance — not necessarily "natural" ingredients.

Non-negotiable choices for sensitive skin: (1) Fragrance-free — both synthetic and essential oil fragrance. (2) Short ingredient lists — fewer ingredients means fewer potential triggers. (3) Tested gentle preservatives — benzyl alcohol/DHA or phenoxyethanol rather than isothiazolinones. (4) Ceramide and fatty acid-rich formulas to support barrier function. (5) Avoid high-potency actives (high-concentration AHAs, vitamin C, benzoyl peroxide) until barrier is stable.

Chloé's recommended brands for sensitive skin: Pai Skincare (COSMOS certified, allergen-controlled), La Roche-Posay Cicaplast range (clinical evidence, true fragrance-free), and Avène (thermal spring water + minimal ingredient philosophy).

The most sustainable approach — environmentally and financially — is use-up-then-replace. Throwing away a half-used product contributes to waste without proportionate benefit, since you've already purchased and received the exposure you're worried about.

Prioritise replacing products by impact and exposure surface area: leave-on products applied daily to large surface areas (body lotion, facial moisturiser, SPF) matter more than rinse-off products (cleanser, shampoo) because exposure time is much shorter for rinse-offs.

Transition order I recommend: (1) Swap your daily SPF first — the product you apply to the largest area for the longest time. (2) Swap your daily moisturiser. (3) Swap your serums and treatments. (4) Swap your cleanser last — lowest exposure time due to rinse-off.

Chloé's take: Introduce one new product at a time with a minimum two-week gap between introductions. This makes it possible to identify the cause if you have a reaction — impossible if you switch everything at once.

Always consult your obstetrician or midwife. I can share what the formulation science says, but individual medical guidance supersedes general advice.

Generally avoid during pregnancy: Retinoids (all forms — retinol, tretinoin, retinyl palmitate in high concentrations; teratogenicity evidence from high-dose systemic retinoids warrants precaution topically too). High-dose salicylic acid in leave-on products. Hydroquinone. Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives. Oxybenzone in large surface area leave-on applications (precautionary).

Generally considered safe: Bakuchiol (excellent retinol alternative with no teratogenicity data). Niacinamide. Vitamin C (ascorbic acid). Hyaluronic acid. Azelaic acid (often recommended for pregnancy-safe acne treatment). Mineral SPF (zinc oxide and titanium dioxide). Gentle AHA exfoliants at low concentrations in wash-off products.

Chloé's take: Pregnancy is actually an excellent time to build a minimal, evidence-based routine focused on barrier support, SPF, and gentle hydration — the foundation of good skin health regardless of pregnancy status.

The "dirty dozen" is a list popularised by environmental health advocacy organisations — principally David Suzuki Foundation — identifying 12 ingredient categories of concern: parabens, synthetic musk, phthalates, triclosan, sodium laureth sulfate (SLES), BHA/BHT, coal tar dyes, DEA-related ingredients, dibutyl phthalate, formaldehyde-releasing preservatives, PEG compounds, and siloxanes (cyclomethicone, D4, D5).

My assessment of the list: some entries have real evidence bases. The D4/D5 siloxanes are restricted in the EU due to environmental persistence — a legitimate concern. Coal tar dyes have historical carcinogenicity data. Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives warrant careful monitoring.

However, several entries are questionable. SLES at cosmetic concentrations and purity levels does not meaningfully absorb systemically. PEG compounds are among the most extensively safety-tested ingredients in cosmetics. BHT, an antioxidant preservative, has a robust safety file at cosmetic concentrations despite some animal study flags at oral doses far exceeding any cosmetic exposure.

Chloé's take: The dirty dozen is a useful starting-point checklist for consumers learning to evaluate ingredients, but it should be read critically alongside the actual regulatory and toxicology data for each ingredient, not treated as settled science.

Excellent clean beauty is absolutely achievable on a budget. Price does not correlate with formula quality or cleanliness — it correlates with branding and marketing investment. Some of the most evidence-backed, transparent, well-formulated products in skincare cost under €15.

Budget-friendly choices with genuine credentials:

• ✓CeraVe — ceramide-rich barrier formulas, fragrance-free, dermatologist-tested, €8–20
• ✓La Roche-Posay Cicaplast — madecassoside + panthenol barrier repair, under €15
• ✓Weleda Skin Food — NATRUE certified, €8–12, decades of clinical use data
• ✓The Ordinary — unusually transparent about concentrations; not "clean" by many definitions but exceptional ingredient-level transparency for the price

Chloé's take: Spend on the active ingredient, not the packaging or brand story. A €12 niacinamide from a transparent, no-frills brand outperforms a €80 "luxury clean" version with the same concentration every time. Allocate budget to products where concentration and delivery system genuinely matter — retinoids, SPF, prescription actives — and economise everywhere else.