Walk down the self-care aisle of any Target or CVS and you’re bound to notice hundreds of bottles plastered with labels like “paraben and sulfate-free” or “100 percent organic.” These labels sound promising — who doesn’t want a more “natural,” “healthier” lifestyle?

However, these selling points mislead consumers by fostering fear of complicated ingredients in our shampoo, rather than understanding their actual function.

​The “clean beauty” movement, an industry worth over $10 billion, is built on the idea that certain ingredients are considered “clean,” while everything else is deemed “dirty.” Apps like Yuka provide consumers with an objective analysis of products containing endocrine disrupters, carcinogens, allergens or irritants using simplified green, yellow and red indicators as levels of potential risk.

​Let’s be honest — the average person has no clue what an endocrine disrupter is. But in the world of clean beauty, as long as the product is marketed efficiently, consumers’ knowledge of these science-y terms isn’t necessary. For instance, users on social media use scientific studies to convey alarming findings about “dirty” ingredients, even if they aren’t the most qualified to do so. Consequently, the public will want to replace the “dirty” products without any doubt.

​The issue with not being skeptical is that apps like Yuka often prioritize fear over context. They take an ingredient and isolate it, stripping away the scientific reality of how products actually work.

​In toxicology, a Toxicological Risk Assessment analyzes hazard — an ingredient’s potential health effects, potency level, exposure, and duration and amount the body is exposed to the ingredient — to assess the risk level. For the more mathematically inclined readers: risk equals hazard times exposure. In other words, a hazard is only a risk if there is excessive exposure.

​To use an analogy, consider water. Water is beneficial for hydration, so it would be considered a low hazard. However, if you drank three liters of water within a few minutes, you’d have high exposure. As a result, your risk of water poisoning is very high.

When you apply this framework to the cosmetic products we use, we find that companies aren’t incorporating “dirty” chemicals into their products to poison you. Still, what’s the point? Isn’t it still a safe call to buy “clean” products just in case? ​If only it were that simple, someone could sell or use any product they desire. Regrettably, it’s not.

​To take a closer look, we can use parabens as an example. The FDA notes that parabens are put into products to “prevent the growth of harmful bacteria and mold.” Since parabens were introduced to the scientific world over 100 years ago, they’ve become industry standards. The data on them is extensive, proving that researchers are confident they don’t harm humans at the cosmetic level. So, where did this negative view of parabens come from?

When a 2004 study published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology determined that parabens were present in breast tumors, newspapers ran with it and it made frightening headlines everywhere. Toxicologists almost immediately critiqued the study and scientists argued that the researchers manipulated their results by using a small sample size and poor scientific framing of the hypothesis. This led to the research findings being taken out of context, most likely for virality. Even though there was pushback, this exaggerated study ignited the clean beauty movement that we know today.

​As public opinion on parabens shifted, brands were forced to rely on “cleaner” ingredients, removing parabens and replacing them with newer preservatives. The problem is that these substitutes lack the in-depth research and studies that parabens do.

​With less effective preservatives, you can have a “clean” product that’s more prone to mold, yeast and bacteria. Compared to parabens, you have to increase the amount of the alternatives in a product, which can be irritating and allergenic to people. Ironically, a “clean beauty” movement meant for sensitive skin is actually causing consumers to use less-tested chemicals that can cause more reactions than “dirty” chemicals.

​Grouping products into “clean” and “dirty” categories is not only harmful but also scientifically flawed. Everything’s a chemical! Phytoestrogens, for instance, are a chemical and are listed as an endocrine disruptor on apps like Yuka. However, they’re commonly found in soy products and we eat foods like tofu without a second thought.

Not only that, but the profit the clean beauty industry makes is immense, even though clean products may not actually be better than conventional ones. Companies shouldn’t fearmonger with a loosely defined baseline to coerce consumers into buying pricier products with no purpose other than to generate revenue — it’s exploitative.

We must discuss this aspect of the clean beauty industry and fight back against the misinformation. In the technological era, where it’s much easier to listen to someone on TikTok rave about a specific product with buzzwords for 30 seconds than to a qualified scientist thoroughly explaining complex concepts in 30 minutes, it is even more vital to dig deeper and express the actual science.

Now, I’m not saying to dump every one of your clean beauty products in the trash. If the product works for you, it works. There’s not much harm in using them as long as you’re aware of the risks, like a higher possibility of mold. The harm lies in the fearmongering companies engage in rather than being transparent.

We shouldn’t feel like we have to pick the “least poisonous goblet” every time we want to wash our hair. We have the FDA and decades of peer-reviewed data for a good reason. It’s time to trust the data compiled by qualified scientists rather than rely on deceitful, multibillion-dollar marketing tactics to dictate our choices.

Because, at the end of the day, a product isn’t “clean” if it’s built on dirty science.

Joe Zeng is an undeclared freshman. [ITALICIZE]

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. [ITALICIZE]