Skincare with Friends Episode 61: The “Free from” Clean Beauty controversy- Who can we trust?

This week’s podcast is about Free from claims and dubious clean beauty selling tactics. In the European Union and the UK, cosmetic products and ingredients are tightly regulated to ensure they are completely safe. But brands muddy the waters by claiming to be clean and FREE FROM NASTIES (spew!). The problem we have with free from claims is that it infers that other brands contain ingredients that are not safe, which isn’t fair. So how do we know who to believe? Natalie and myself go through the dodgy marketing to look out for, recent controversies and how to navigate all the information we’re given. If you enjoy our podcast you can support us by leaving a nice review and subscribing, cheers babes.

Skincare is not immune to the murkiness involved in marketing, I think we’ve all been fed some giant lines of crap in the form of free from claims. Claims that products don’t contain stuff are generally pretty misleading. I don’t mind knowing a bit about my skincare before I buy but more often than not, free from doesn’t tell you much.

It’s like saying that a sausage is free from arsenic, bees, icing sugar, thumb tacks and ancient literature. Sausages don’t normally contain these things and some of them aren’t bad anyway.  Saying that a product contains no parabens is like saying “Our sausages are free from nasties, like cheese” the sausages can and should contain cheese. We are being indoctrinated on a daily basis for the purposes of marketing. Goddammit.

I want to know if a skincare product is free from fragrance and essential oils, because that is relevant as fragrance is generally irritating, cruelty free is similarly useful for vegans. But even those claims can be manipulated. Fragrance free products can still have essential oils, cruelty free can have many interpretations.

Times When Brands Got in Trouble

Ok, so Rovectin hasn’t got in trouble, but this is the sort of crap that wouldn’t fly in the EU or the UK. This is a “free from” panel of claims from Rovectin on the Korean site Yestyle and it shows exactly what you should be looking out for. Rovectin is a brand who’s products I like and I have no problem with in general, I just thought their claims were a perfect example of what we’re talking about. Their Activating Treatment Lotion (which I have and really like) is free from-

• oil,
• alcohol,
• parabens,
• carcinogens,
• animal derived ingredients,
• cruelty,
• artificial flavours,
• mineral oil,
• steroids and
• artificial pigments.

Cosmetic skincare products don’t contain steroids. Oils or mineral oil isn’t bad for the skin. Skincare products are regulated so they don’t contain carcinogens. “No carcinogens” shouldn’t be a boast, it’s the standard.

Drunk Elephant focuses their marketing on excluding the “Suspicious 6™ (essential oils, drying alcohols, silicones, chemical sunscreens, fragrances/dyes, SLS)”. This is what they have to say- “We believe that these six ubiquitous ingredients are at the root of almost every skin issue, and when they’re removed entirely from your routine—that is, when you take a Drunk Break™—skin can reset and return to its healthiest, most balanced state.”

They’re basically claiming that using their product line monogamously will cure all skin issues- acne, eczema, melasma- you name it. It’s absolute bullshit, there’s no evidence for that idea. I bet the brand does good skincare but they’ve spoiled it by treating their customers like idiots.

Not a free from claim, I know, but still misrepresentation in order create sales. Sunday Riley were subject to a FTC ruling According to the agency’s October 2019 complaint, between November 2015 and August 2017, Sunday Riley Skincare managers, including Sunday Riley herself, posted reviews of their branded products on the Sephora site using fake accounts created to hide their identities, and requested that other Sunday Riley Skincare employees do the same thing.

After Sunday Riley got in trouble initially, they continued to post the fake positive reviews but they used a VPN (a virtual private network), which hides the user’s digital identity. Very sly indeed.

What the Authorities are Doing About Free From Claims

There is all this stuff going on behind the scenes. Organisations like the CTPA, the European Commission, the FTC, FDA… have cosmetic ingredients and cosmetic advertising under tight control. The standards of control vary from country to country. The UK and the EU have similar standards, and free from claims are somewhat not cool- any claim has to be relevant and substantiated.

In Europe, cosmetic claims are covered by Article 20 of the Cosmetic Products Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 (CPR) and Regulation (EU) No. 655/2013 – Common Criteria for Justification of Claims. If you want to read the actual guidance and their information the CTPA puts out for the public, check out this document, it’s very informative- Cosmetic Claims – Focus on ‘Free From’ Claims.

The EU Cosmetic Product Regulation stipulates that all ingredients used in cosmetic products must be safe. Safety of specific ingredients is reviewed regularly by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), an independent scientific group advises the EU Commission. If an ingredient was found to be unsafe, as it is used in a cosmetic product, it would be banned.

Many ‘free from’ claims perpetuate myths on safe and legally allowed ingredients, fostering a negative perception around the safety and uses of cosmetic ingredients, which in turn has led to safe and effective ingredients no longer being used. The damage to the trust and reputation such action has on the industry should not be underestimated.

EU CPR

All cosmetic ingredients and cosmetic products are regulated and safe as long as you are buying from a reputable shop or website.

According to Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 claims on cosmetic products should conform to the following common criteria:

• Legal compliance- shouldn’t boast that they comply with regulations because all brands have to comply 
• Truthfulness- no invented claims eg 48 hr hydration when the hydration is actually shorter than this
• Evidential support- should have good scientific evidence behind any claims eg coral bleaching, there isn’t any good evidence behind sunscreens damaging coral (see lab muffins recent post)
• Honesty- scientific claims should not be overblown. No manipulated before and after pics
• Fairness- shouldn’t denigrate competitors 
• Informed decision-making- should be clear and understandable, no science washing 

American advertisers are governed by truth in advertising laws 

“When the Federal Trade Commission finds a case of fraud perpetrated on consumers, the agency files actions in federal district court for immediate and permanent orders to stop scams; prevent fraudsters from perpetrating scams in the future; freeze their assets; and get compensation for victims.When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence”

We hope you enjoyed the podcast, we love making it. Don’t forget that you can chat to us at our Facebook group.