This article is authored by Zoe Rom, a journalist and podcast host, in partnership with Osmia Skincare.

The term “clean beauty” is often perplexing and poorly regulated, making it difficult for consumers to identify truly safe skincare products.

If you inquire with ten different beauty brands about their interpretation of “clean,” you will receive ten distinct definitions. Sephora maintains its own curated list. Credo Beauty takes a stricter approach, prohibiting over 2,700 ingredients. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) employs its own rating system, which does not always align with those of the other brands. The product you currently have may follow whatever guidelines its marketing team devised this month. These lists lack consensus and are not federally mandated. In the United States, the term “clean” has no legal standing in the cosmetics industry.

Sarah Villafranco, founder of Osmia Skincare, has been contemplating this issue for years. Before starting Osmia, she served for a decade as a board-certified emergency medicine physician, a profession that emphasizes the importance of evidence-based decision-making. For over fifteen years, she has observed an industry that utilizes “clean” as a marketing strategy while the underlying scientific understanding continues to become more ambiguous. “I honestly think it sucks to be a consumer right now,” she stated, “because it’s just so hard—without dedicating years of your life to study—to know which ingredients should feel safe and which should not.”

This statement is not merely a disclaimer; it is the foundation upon which Osmia was established. Villafranco’s insights make her a valuable resource in a market that excels at disguising anxiety as safety.

Is There Any Regulation for Clean Beauty Products?

The term “clean” lacks a legal definition in the cosmetics industry in the United States. As a result, brands, retailers, and rating systems create their own criteria, which often conflict with one another. This inconsistency creates a perplexing environment for consumers, where “clean” typically reflects a brand’s philosophy rather than a uniform safety standard.

What Is the Appeal to Nature Fallacy in Skincare Products?

A recognized cognitive bias known as the “appeal to nature fallacy” underpins much of this confusion. This fallacy leads people to equate “natural” with safe and “synthetic” with harmful. Studies have shown that labeling products as “natural” significantly increases purchase intent, regardless of the actual differences in the products. Surprisingly, research indicates that consumers perceive “natural”-branded cigarettes as significantly safer than their regular counterparts, despite being chemically identical. The marketing label carries the weight, rendering the ingredient list almost irrelevant.

This heuristic is not entirely inaccurate, which contributes to its persistence. Simpler formulations are often gentler on sensitive skin. when this shortcut is applied indiscriminately, it shifts from being a helpful guideline to a mere marketing tactic. Arsenic is a natural substance. Poison ivy is natural. Botulinum toxin, the active component in Botox, is one of the most toxic substances known yet is entirely natural. Conversely, a complex molecule with a lengthy INCI name could be derived from oats. The origin of an ingredient offers little insight into its behavior within a formulation. Understanding its effects requires knowledge of toxicology, dosage, and context—not just marketing narratives.

Is Natural Skincare Safer Than Synthetic Alternatives?

Villafranco’s perspective on the term “natural” is thought-provoking:

“It’s not really that gray to me, because I’ve taken such a deep dive on these ingredients… the derivation process can be pretty long. At some point, you’re like, this is pretty far from coconut oil.”

The production of essential oils involves distillation, steam extraction, and considerable processing; it is not merely a sprig of lavender pressed against your skin. The distinction between naturally-derived and synthesized ingredients is often obscured, and brands frequently take advantage of this ambiguity.

This is why brands like Osmia, which prioritize radical transparency and a scientific approach in their formulations, stand out. When the term “natural” loses its meaning, the specific ingredients used in products become even more crucial. 

Villafranco highlights a particularly concerning ingredient category that many consumers may not be aware of: ethoxylates. These ingredients are treated with ethylene oxide, a known human carcinogen, and are likely to be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane, which is also a probable carcinogen and poses risks to groundwater. Here’s the troubling part: many brands that market themselves as clean frequently use ethoxylated ingredients without realizing it. A common example is phenoxyethanol, a preservative found in numerous products marketed as natural alternatives to parabens.

“It can be naturally derived in that you can derive it from petroleum, or you can derive it from plant material, but it’s still treated with ethylene oxide, and it still has the potential to release 1,4-dioxane,” explains Villafranco.

This is the gap that the clean beauty checklist often overlooks. The critical question is not merely whether an ingredient appears to be plant-based but what it transforms into during formulation, at what concentration, and in what context. Osmia’s own avoided ingredients list, which includes parabens, phthalates, sulfates, petrochemicals, ethoxylates, synthetic colors, and synthetic fragrances, was developed through years of reviewing primary literature rather than following trends.

The Dichotomy Between Clean Beauty Marketing and Ingredient Transparency

This is not to suggest that the safety of cosmetic ingredients does not require genuine scrutiny. The FDA’s fragrance loophole, which permits brands to list numerous undisclosed chemicals simply as “fragrance,” presents a significant transparency issue. PFAS chemicals raise documented concerns regarding bioaccumulation. These distinctions are important and deserve attention.

The challenge is that the term “clean beauty” collapses these important distinctions into a single aesthetic. Ingredients with strong safety records are grouped with those that raise legitimate concerns. Nuance is lost, replaced by a superficial feeling of having made the right choice, adopting the guise of safety. Formulation transparency offers a different narrative: it provides insight into what’s in a product, the rationale behind each ingredient, and the supporting evidence.

According to Villafranco, “I will always try to choose the fewest and best quality ingredients I can. What can I include that my skin genuinely needs, and what can I exclude that it doesn’t?” This approach shifts the focus from merely removing ingredients from the label to a more thoughtful decision-making process.

How to Assess Skincare Ingredients Using Evidence-Based Approaches

The essential distinction lies between evidence-based caution and anxiety-driven consumption. Evidence-based caution begins with a specific concern, examines actual evidence, and leads to an informed decision. In contrast, anxiety-driven consumption starts with a sense of threat, seeks out an exclusion list that confirms this fear, and mistakenly equates that with safety. The wellness industry has thrived on the latter approach. Villafranco has dedicated over a decade to building a foundation rooted in the former.

“We’re a skin health company. Our goal is to help people feel comfortable and healthy in their skin. My belief is that if you feel healthy in your skin, you’re going to look incredible,” Villafranco asserts.

Not younger. Not “cleaner.” Healthy. This distinction may seem subtle, but it represents a significant difference between a company that exploits insecurities to sell creams and serums and a brand that genuinely cares about creating products that cater to the needs of real individuals (while also helping them smell fantastic).

Frequently Asked Questions About Clean Beauty and Ingredient Safety

What does the term “clean beauty” really mean?

There is no standardized or regulated definition of “clean beauty” in the United States. The meaning varies widely among different brands and retailers.

Is natural skincare safer than its synthetic counterparts?

Not necessarily. Some natural ingredients can be irritating or toxic, while many synthetic ingredients possess strong safety profiles. Safety is determined by formulation, dosage, and context.

What are the concerns surrounding “fragrance” in skincare products?

The term “fragrance” can represent numerous undisclosed chemicals, some of which may cause allergic reactions or disrupt hormonal systems.

What should I prioritize instead of “clean” labels?

Look for transparency, thoughtful formulation, and clear explanations of ingredient choices—not just lists of what has been excluded.

About the Author
Zoe Rom is a journalist, podcast host, and writer focused on science, endurance, and the wellness industry. She co-hosts the Your Diet Sucks podcast and explores the intersection of health, culture, and evidence-based decision-making.