“I am SHOOK right now.”
“We can’t do, use, or buy anything!”
“Just threw away like half my makeup.”
“[This is] scaring the shit out of me right now.”
“I can’t believe these [beauty] companies are trying to slowly kill us.”
These are just several of the terrified responses to the HBO documentary series “Not So Pretty,” now going viral on social media platforms, and especially on TikTok. Many women now worry their compact pressed powder will give them cancer, that manufacturers don’t safety-test a single ingredient, and so on. Eyeshadow palettes, sunscreen, shampoo …. all getting chucked this week.
But is the fear warranted?
No. This docu-series missed many of the fundamental concepts about chemistry and formulation. As one cosmetic chemist told me, the filmmakers didn't seem to understand that ingredients alone are not the same as ingredients in a formula.
It is also quite biased and heavy-handed, if not sensationalized. “Not So Pretty” heavily relies on emotional anecdotes but skimps on relevant conclusive science, instead opting for misinterpreted, cherry-picked, or outdated research. Organizations such as the Personal Care Products Council released statements criticizing the doc for “perpetuating misinformation.”
Here’s the thing: Yes, there could be stricter regulations in certain aspects of this industry and there are legitimate calls for more research. But insinuating the beauty industry is a toxic free-for-all is beyond misrepresentation. The FDA does oversee beauty safety, but unlike drugs, products don’t need pre-approval before hitting the market. Potential issues can and sometimes do slip through. But claiming that nothing is regulated is an exaggeration and simply untrue. It’s illegal to knowingly sell an unsafe product.
Once again, we see a documentary taking advantage of low science literacy and a general mistrust of big industry. Honestly, it’s a little misogynistic. How come men aren’t made terrified of, oh, toxins “lurking” on their video game controllers? Why is it always women targeted with exaggerated claims? (I explain why in my upcoming book.)
I won’t go into all of the doc’s issues (there are too many! I could go line-by-line!) but I will highlight a few:
Where are the scientists and relevant experts? It’s quite telling that Episode 3, which deals with cosmetic safety, lacked cosmetic scientists and toxicologists. But interestingly, the producers did reach out to them. One scientist explained that she had to turn down the opportunity because she wouldn’t go along with the non-evidence-based bias: “They had a specific perspective they wanted to present,” she commented on Instagram.
Scientists want to share facts, not pseudoscience. But I guess nuance doesn’t make good TV, does it?
Instead, the filmmakers interviewed authors, activists, and researchers who are not well versed in toxicology.
And they weren’t even fully transparent: when they interviewed a “doctor” and “fertility expert,” for example, the series failed to mention she was … a naturopath, not an MD.
Exaggerating harm and conflating use: Toxicologists stress, “the dose makes the poison.” It’s about how an ingredient is used and in what quantity. Any ingredient, including water, can be dangerous if taken in too high a quantity. It’s why we don’t equate a cup of water with a 50-foot wave. Or why we don't fear biting into an apple, which has naturally-occurring formaldehyde.
Many of the ingredients the audience is warned about would require inhaling them or guzzling bottles of the stuff. Lab rats, for example, are ingesting huge amounts—far more than a human never would—in some of these rattled-off studies. The trace amounts in personal care products have been tested for safety as used. (You’re not drinking your shampoo, are you?)
As for claims that a certain ingredient is “linked to” or “associated with” harm—those could be correlations, not causation. Oftentimes, that means the research was inconclusive, and therefore, shouldn’t be used to pressure consumers to torch their Kaboodles.
Missing a greater context: Talking heads make big statements like “babies are being born pre-polluted” and raise alarms about declining fertility rates, then point a finger at our bathroom cabinets. Putting aside such claims, why would makeup, of all things, shoulder the burden of this blame? It’s as if all other consumer products, pollution, stress, food, modern lifestyle habits, genetic makeup, social trends (like women waiting longer to have kids), etc. … don’t exist.
In reality, finding the smoking gun is a lot more complicated.
Skincare would actually be quite low on the list of culprits. That’s because the skin is a tough barrier to penetrate, as the cosmetic scientist Dr. Michelle Wong of Lab Muffin Beauty Science explained to me. There’s a reason your doctor doesn’t prescribe creams and instead opts for shots and pills. Only certain sized molecules can get past the skin, thereby invalidating the popular myth that “60 percent of skincare ingredients get absorbed into the bloodstream.” Our personal care products are formulated to stay within the first few layers of the skin. (It’s why none of us get drunk off of hand sanitizers.)
Do you know what does affect us more? Air pollution and drinking water.
Who benefits? The documentary has a nifty solution for those suddenly made terrified of the beauty aisle: abide by apps and “clean beauty” shopping guidelines from organizations such as the EWG. The thing is, the EWG is backed by the organic lobby and makes money off the very products it certifies “safe.” It is not an unbiased organization, so take its findings with a grain of salt.
Not to mention, the EWG’s methodology has been widely criticized. In a survey of nearly one thousand members of the Society of Toxicology, nearly 80 percent believed the EWG overstated the health risks of chemicals.
***
“Not So Pretty” isn’t so much a well-researched, balanced documentary as it is a powerful piece of propaganda. The producers surely understand what many an industry preying on women’s vulnerabilities does: fear sells. Solely targeting beauty products is a simple, quick way to make women feel more in control of their health. But one thing is certain: misinformation doesn’t help. It doesn’t do much of anything save for draining wallets and adding more anxiety.
It’s a real shame because it’s a fascinating topic that could have been examined in a scientific light. And it’s disappointing that none of the mainstream reviews bothered to fact-check some of these claims. Then again, it is not pressed upon reviewers to seek out scientists and medical experts. That is, overall, a huge issue within media—and a perfect example of how pseudoscience gets normalized.
So if you, like many people, say you “trust science,” then listen to the scientists. I recommend listening to a few of my favorite scientists debunking the doc’s claims (such as “the U.S. only bans 11 harmful chemicals”) and laughing at all the many absurdities:
Some good social media follows who regularly debunk chemophobia in this space:
Dr. Michelle Wong / Lab Muffin (also worth reading her piece on the clean beauty movement)
I leave you with leading skinfluencer Charlotte Palermino:
– Rina Raphael, author of the upcoming book The Gospel of Wellness.
News and Trends:
Naomi Osaka partners with mental wellness platform Modern Health: The tennis star will narrate several “personalized meditation tools.” (Modern Health)
Mental health apps have crappy privacy protection, report claims: “They track, share, and capitalize on users’ most intimate personal thoughts and feelings, like moods, mental state, and biometric data.” (The Verge)
Modern Fertility & Bumble release fertility report: The report focuses on dating and fertility, having surveyed men and women on issues such as, “Where do kids stack up on the priorities for choosing a partner?” (Femtech Insider)
Can sex therapy apps bring “personal training” to the bedroom? The Lover app offers personalized “exercises” and expert advice via audio and video training. (Lover)
Meanwhile, sexual wellness is the latest subsector of wellness tourism: Need help with your orgasms? There’s a St. Regis resort for that. (Conde Nast Traveler)
Noom reportedly lays off a quarter of its coaches: I predict the wellness coaching industry—which grew across mental health, nutrition, etc. but often lacked sufficient guardrails—will see more layoffs. (Engadget)
Serena Williams’ fund invests in hormonal wellness brand Wile: Ah yes, yet another naturopathic supplement brand, slated for Whole Foods. This one, however, sells an anger management tincture for women? (Beauty Independent)
Fitness gear gets the minimalist pastel treatment: I, for one, am digging the Nordic redesign of gym staples. Bala is reimagining weights, jump ropes, and yoga mats. (Bala / Instagram)
Will businesses invest in better ventilation? Now that more Americans are going mask-free, a growing coalition of epidemiologists and scientists hope various industries will improve ventilation. (PBS)
Health-tech funding might be on the wane: Last year, digital health saw $29 billion in funding, double the amount of 2020. (Bloomberg)
Fortune debuts wellness publication in partnership with CVS: The business magazine is starting a new vertical “aimed at helping mid-level managers balance their personal and professional lives.” (Digiday)
Another wellness publication targets Gen Z: Called Woo, it attempts “to reach those who usually find wellness tropes 'woo-woo' or cringe.” (Adweek)
Mirror has some competition: Fiture is a $1,495 interactive mirror that looks just like Lululemon’s offering, but with a few more features like a leaderboard, more feedback, gesture controls, etc. (The Verge)
Libraries partake in mental health initiatives: I’ve noticed many libraries offering self-care workshops and even goodie bags. Now the LA public library wants to offer mental health services to Angelenos. (LAist)
Deeper Dives:
Ben Franklin’s Radical Theory of Happiness
For Benjamin Franklin, happiness didn’t translate into fuzzy feel-good feelings. It “meant lifelong learning in the marketplace of ideas … In other words, self-improvement.”
As Arthur C. Brooks explains, “This conception of happiness encompasses the great contradiction in American culture: individualistic in the focus on the self, yet communitarian in the reliance on a cooperative marketplace.” (The Atlantic)
What Americans Keep Getting Wrong About Exercise
We were sold on six-minute workouts and micro-HIIT routines, believing them on par with traditional workouts. Minimal time, maximum results! But a growing body of evidence adds some much-needed skepticism. (Slate)
A Secular Case for Christianity (And a Look at the ‘Meaning Crisis Community’)
This piece argues that there might be a reason to join organized religion even if you’re a non-believer. But what I find even more interesting is the hashtag #meaningcrisis, which is bringing together all kinds of people to discuss how to find meaning, inspiration, and purpose in modern life. (Honestly)
Donating Eggs in Exchange for Freezing
Egg freezing and IVF are wildly expensive. So could women who want to freeze their eggs be persuaded to donate in exchange for no-cost freezing? Is it even a solid deal? As Alison Motluck writes in HeyReprotech, “It's almost like the egg bank is giving her a gift card that she has to pay equal or more in value to redeem.” (HeyReprotech)
Startups Made It Easier to Get ADHD Drugs. Is That A Good Thing?
Digital health startups that provide diagnoses and medications online for ADHD removed many of the obstacles that prevented people from getting adequate care in the past. But “how these companies are managing that demand has been the source of tension among workers trying to keep pace. Current and former employees said they felt Cerebral and Done applied pressure on clinicians to prescribe stimulants, and some of them said the companies’ initial 30-minute video evaluations often weren’t sufficient to diagnose ADHD.” (WSJ)
Tweet of the week:
Crystal vending machines are coming to an airport near you, folks.
