Commentary on JAMA Dermatology Editorial: “Natural Does Not Mean Safe—The Dirt on Clean Beauty Products”

Without rewriting this very short Editorial, I would like to echo the sentiments of Drs Rubin and Brod. ¹ If, in fact, the US Food and Drug Administration does not have definitions for “clean” and “natural,” the terms “clean beauty” and “natural skin care” are open to very broad interpretation (and misinterpretation). And this has consequences. Among the consequences are the increased use of natural products (eg, botanical extracts) in consumer products, particularly those applied to the skin, which has led to increased rates of contact allergy. The Editorial also comments on the reliability of various sources from which consumers and some scientists access information about the safety of cosmetic ingredients, particularly preservatives in these products. Without going into detail about the information sources that were indicated to be potentially problematic in Rubin and Brod’s Editorial, I would like to point out that the authors called out the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel “which consists of experts in a number of disciplines including dermatology and toxicology” in a very positive manner. The JAMA Dermatology Editorial authors continue to say “Claims made by the CIR are backed by scientific evidence that is visible to readers.” They also point out that some chemicals in beauty products that have been “demonized by the clean beauty movement” such as propylene glycol, parabens, and sulfates were determined by CIR Expert Panel to be nontoxic and noncarcinogenic. To be perfectly clear, Expert Panel determinations are always qualified with the stipulation under conditions of cosmetic use, as the Panel does not weigh in on the safety of other uses of the compounds that they evaluate. Finally, and coincidentally, the CIR Executive Director, Dr Bart Heldreth, informed me that the Expert Panel recently issued a final amended report with the conclusion that 20 parabens are safe in the present practices of use and concentration described in the safety assessment. Look for this safety assessment in an upcoming supplemental issue of International Journal of Toxicology.

I provide this commentary to bring positive attention to the work of the CIR Expert Panel, as well as to the long-standing and strong relationship between the American College of Toxicology, the Journal of the American College of Toxicology, the predecessor of our International Journal of Toxicology, and the CIR Expert Panel.