Right now we are living in the peptide boom era. Quick upgrades, fast fixes, results that show up almost overnight for minimal effort.

My partner is a personal trainer. He’s 46, solid built at 6’3”, weighing in at around 100kg, sitting around 12 % body fat and genuinely strong, but by todays standards those stats are restrained. On a recent trip to Bali he trained at a popular gym in Uluwatu and said, comparatively, he felt like George Costanza dropped into a room full of “pepped up” 25 to 35 year olds.

What nobody in this quick-fix protocol wants to talk about is the long-term impact. It’s like fitting a Ferrari engine into a Datsun body and expecting optimal performance. The chassis was never built for that kind of output, no matter how good the engine looks on paper. Essentially, we’ve been bred for laziness and impatience. We want results, and we want them yesterday, even as the GLP-1 fallout starts making headlines. The implications still haven’t landed for most people.

The same pattern plays out in skincare and cosmetics. We expect immediate transformation, and if we don’t get it, we feel disappointed, frustrated, ripped off. What’s the tradeoff when choosing personal care and makeup products? Most people still don’t read labels, working on the assumption that if a product is legally for sale, it must have been adequately tested and deemed safe. Meanwhile, plenty of so-called “clean” brands are just running fear-based marketing to move product, which helps nobody make an informed decision either way.

Underneath the noise, there are genuinely insidious ingredients that have quietly worked their way into a broad cross-section of products, especially makeup, specifically to give it staying power. This group of chemicals is known as PFAS, or polyfluoroalkyl substances, and their staying power is so extreme they’ve earned their own category: forever chemicals. They do not break down. They do not go away. With all the attention currently on microplastics shedding from our clothing, it’s worth sitting with the fact that these chemicals will remain on planet Earth long after we, and every generation after us, have gone.

So let’s follow the fluorine

PFAS are hiding on your ingredient list but they’re baked into the most mainstream products in makeup bags worldwide. In 2021, researchers at the University of Notre Dame tested 231 popular cosmetics purchased across North America, the kind of drugstore and prestige brands that sit in bathroom cabinets everywhere, including here in Australia, since many of these same global brands line our shelves too. More than half tested positive for high fluorine levels, a reliable marker for PFAS: 56% of foundations and eye products, 48% of lip products, and 47% of mascaras. In the “long-wear” category specifically, the stuff marketed as sweatproof, waterproof, transfer-resistant, and the numbers get worse. Roughly 82% of waterproof mascaras and 62% of liquid lipsticks contained fluorine levels consistent with PFAS.

Not surprisingly, most of the products with high fluorine, including the ones independently confirmed to contain PFAS, didn’t list a single fluorinated ingredient on the label. Not “may contain”. Simply absent.

Why is it there at all? Because PFAS are extraordinary at one specific job: repelling water and oil while forming a smooth, slick, long-lasting film. That’s precisely what a waterproof mascara or a matte, transfer-proof lip stain needs to deliver on its promise. The chemistry that makes your eyeliner survive a swim and a jog, is the same chemistry that makes it functionally immortal, on your face, in your bloodstream, in the water table, forever.

“Bioaccessible” is a polite word for “it’s getting in”

The industry line for years was that PFAS in cosmetics sit on the surface, inert, harmless, gone with your cleanser. The emerging research doesn’t support that comfort blanket. A 2024 in-vitro study using lab-grown 3D human skin models found that skin doesn’t act as the barrier it’s assumed to be. For eight of the PFAS compounds tested, more than 5% of the applied dose fully permeated through to what would be the bloodstream. The same research noted something I have suggested for years that even though permeation was slow, these are compounds encountered through daily, repeated contact, and slow absorption compounded over years is still absorption. A separate human case study went further, dosing a volunteer with labelled PFOA in a sunscreen formulation and tracking it in blood for months. Peak concentration in the bloodstream didn’t even occur until roughly three weeks after a single application. That’s not a chemical sitting inertly on your stratum corneum. That’s a chemical moving in and taking permanent residency.

Beyond the skin barrier itself, the wider health associations tracked across the peer-reviewed literature include increased risk of certain cancers, altered liver enzyme levels, lower infant birth weight, and disruption to thyroid hormone regulation. Thyroid function governs the metabolic and repair processes your skin relies on to actually function, so a chemical class capable of interfering with it isn’t just a “long-term, somewhere-down-the-line” concern. It’s a skin-health concern, right now.

Regulation is finally catching up, unevenly, as always

If you’ve read my earlier posts on IFRA’s self-regulatory fragrance framework, you’ll recognise the pattern here: change comes from legislators, not from industry policing itself, and different regions are moving at wildly different speeds. France passed sweeping legislation in February 2025 banning PFAS from cosmetics, clothing and footwear outright. Taiwan followed with its own cosmetics ban from January 2025, and New Zealand has confirmed a ban on PFAS in cosmetics due to take effect in 2026 to 2027. Several US states, including California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington, introduced their own cosmetics-specific bans from January 2025.

Australia’s position sits well behind this curve. From July 2025, Australia banned the manufacture, import and use of three specific PFAS chemicals, PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS, under the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management Standard. That’s a genuine step forward, but it’s an industrial chemicals framework, not a cosmetics-specific one, and there is currently no broad, dedicated ban on PFAS in cosmetics or personal care products sold in Australia. Whether your mascara can legally contain forever chemicals still depends on where it’s made.

Back to the Ferrari engine

The peptide boom, the GLP-1 gold rush, the waterproof-everything cosmetics aisle. It’s all the same impulse. We want the result now, and we’ve been trained not to ask what the shortcut costs ten years out. A forever chemical is, definitionally, the shortcut that never stops costing. It doesn’t wash off with your makeup remover. It doesn’t leave your bloodstream. Your endocrine system accumulates them.

A simple and proactive step is to examine exactly what’s in your bathroom cabinet, and makeup bag. Look beyond “long-wear” and “waterproof” as neutral performance claims, and understand that they’re often a proxy for a specific class of chemistry.

If this is the kind of ingredient literacy you want in your corner every time you shop, Truth in Beauty was written to be exactly that: a navigation guide for reading past the marketing straight to the formula. Grab a copy while it’s still in print and I’ll see you in the next post.

Mukti x

References

1. Whitehead, H.D., et al. (2021). Fluorinated Compounds in North American Cosmetics. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 8(6), 538–544.

2. Ehlers, A., Harrad, S., et al. (2024). PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ can be absorbed through human skin. The Conversation, summarising dermal permeation research using 3D human skin models.

3. Franko, J., Meade, B.J., et al. (2012). Dermal Penetration Potential of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) in Human and Mouse Skin. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 75(1), 50–62.

4. Coperchini, F., et al. (2020). Thyroid Disrupting Effects of Old and New Generation PFAS. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 11, 612320.

5. Green Science Policy Institute, University of Notre Dame, University of Toronto, Indiana University, ETH Zurich (2021). PFAS in Cosmetics research summary.

6. Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (AICIS), Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management Standard (IChEMS), PFOS/PFOA/PFHxS prohibition, effective 1 July 2025.

7. Safe Food Advocacy Europe (2025). France bans PFAS in cosmetics and consumer textiles.

8. The Guardian (2025). New Zealand to ban PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ in cosmetics.

A note on sourcing: the regulatory summaries (state and national bans) are drawn from legal, compliance and news sources rather than peer-reviewed papers, and I’ve flagged them as such. The skin absorption and health-effects claims trace back to peer-reviewed journals or the primary researchers themselves.

By July 2026, every cosmetic brand selling into the EU has to comply with Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/1545. This is the biggest shake-up to fragrance labelling since 2003. The number of fragrance allergens that must be individually named on a label is jumping from 24 to 80. Fifty-six new substances, all at once, and all mandatory once they cross a tiny threshold: 0.001% in leave-on products, 0.01% in rinse-off.

On paper, that sounds like an unambiguous win for transparency. More allergens disclosed, more informed consumers, fewer nasty surprises for the 1:50 consumers who are sensitised to fragrance. My concern is what happens next on the retail shelf, consumer-facing. I predict confusion, and underneath it, ongoing, an uneven playing field that nobody seems to be highlighting.

The new ruling in plain terms

Twenty-four fragrance allergens have required individual labelling since 2003. The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) reviewed the science in 2012, and identified 56 more substances with clear evidence of causing allergic reactions, and recommended they be added too. It took until 2023 for the regulation to actually arrive, and it finally gets rolled out in July 2026.

Some of the new entries are single substances. Others are “grouped” into several related compounds (isomers) folded under one label name. Citral, geranial and neral, for instance, all get declared simply as Citral. This is sensible in theory but in practice, it means the name on your label doesn’t always tell you which exact molecule is present, only which family it belongs to.

And here’s the bit that gets lost in most of the coverage and initially confused me too. This obligation isn’t limited to fragrance or perfume compositions. It applies to the entire formula. If any one of the 80 listed allergens is present above threshold, anywhere in the product, it has to be individually declared, regardless of which ingredient brought it into the bottle. A preservative can contain one. An emollient can contain one. A plant extract added purely for its skin benefits, with no fragrance function at all, can contain one. The law doesn’t care what job the ingredient was doing. It cares whether the allergen is present.

That’s an important correction to a misconception I want to head off early, this is not “the essential oils regulation.” It’s a whole-formula regulation. Every ingredient in a product, however it got there, is now in scope.

Where it lands hardest, though, is on naturally derived ingredients, because they tend to be allergen-dense by their very nature. The regulation now also explicitly captures essential oils, flower oils, and leaf oils as ingredients requiring their own allergen breakdown, not just synthetic fragrance compounds. A rose oil, a lavender oil, a citrus peel oil - each one contains constituents of individually declarable allergens, because that’s its chemical composition. A single rose oil can legitimately contain half a dozen of the 80 listed substances. A single synthetic emollient, by contrast, is far less likely to. So while the law applies to everyone equally on paper, naturally derived formulations are the ones that will visibly change the most, simply because of what they’re made from.

Here’s where it gets convoluted

The regulation gives brands a choice about where these allergens sit in the ingredient list. You can integrate them at their true position in descending order of concentration, the way ingredients have always been listed. Or you can list your other ingredients as normal and then tack all the newly-required allergens onto the end of the list, regardless of how much or how little of each is actually in the formula.

Both are legal. Both are “compliant.” Both produce wildly different impressions of the same product.

A brand that chooses the second option can keep its main ingredient list looking exactly as it did previously, then append a string of allergen names at the bottom declared, technically transparent, but visually disconnected from the formula itself. A brand that chooses the first option, integrating allergens honestly into descending order, ends up with a label that looks like the product has been radically reformulated overnight, even if a single ingredient hasn’t changed. In some cases appearing as if you are applying a new formula which at top line consists mainly of allergens.

Here’s an example of the updates to one of our products. I’ve bolded the allergens in both.

ROSE BLOSSOM HYDRATING MIST

Current INCI:

Rosa Damascena Flower Water, Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice, Rosa Damascena Flower Oil, Anigozanthos Flavidus Flower/Leaf Extract, Tasmannia Lanceolata Fruit Extract, Terminalia Ferdinandiana Fruit Extract, Lavandula Angustifolia (Lavender) Oil, Citrus Aurantium Amara (Bitter Orange) Leaf/Twig Oil, Citrus Aurantium Dulcis (Orange) Peel Oil, Pelargonium Graveolens Oil, Aqua, Caprylyl/Capryl Glucoside, Glycerin, Polyglyceryl-6 Oleate, Sodium Cocoyl Glutamate, Sodium Surfactin, Citric Acid, Sodium Citrate, Benzyl Alcohol, Dehydroacetic Acid, Glyceryl Caprylate, Potassium Sorbate, Sodium Benzoate, Citronellol, Eugenol, Geraniol, Limonene, Linalool.

Revised INCI (2023/1545-compliant list, allergens integrated by concentration):

Rose Flower Oil/Extract, Rosa Damascena Flower Water, Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice, Beta-Caryophyllene, Citral, Citrus Aurantium Peel Oil, Geranyl Acetate, Lavandula Oil/Extract, Linalyl Acetate, Pelargonium Graveolens Flower Oil, Pinene, Terpineol, Anigozanthos Flavidus Flower/Leaf Extract, Tasmannia Lanceolata Fruit Extract, Terminalia Ferdinandiana Fruit Extract, Citrus Aurantium Amara (Bitter Orange) Leaf/Twig Oil, Pelargonium Graveolens Oil, Aqua, Caprylyl/Capryl Glucoside, Glycerin, Polyglyceryl-6 Oleate, Sodium Cocoyl Glutamate, Sodium Surfactin, Citric Acid, Sodium Citrate, Benzyl Alcohol, Dehydroacetic Acid, Glyceryl Caprylate, Potassium Sorbate, Sodium Benzoate, Citronellol, Eugenol, Geraniol, Limonene, Linalool.

Nothing in the formula has changed. Not one drop, not one percentage point. However, this reads like a completely different product.

What has changed is that the rose oil and lavender oil, which were always there as part of the hydrosol component, are now required to declare their own internal allergen content right up near the top of the list, because that’s where their true concentration places them. So now, a customer who knows and trusts this product and has used it for years purchases a replacement bottle and sees Beta-Caryophyllene and Pinene sitting near position four. Without context, that reads as upheaval. It isn’t. It’s an updated legal requirement that makes this product look like its going to potentially give the consumer an allergic reaction.

Why this lands harder on natural and organic brands

Now on to the part of the story that really peeves me.

A synthetic fragrance compound can still be declared as “Parfum.” One word, an umbrella term with no further obligation to reveal the dozens of constituent molecules inside it, treated as a trade secret. The brand using a synthetic musk-and-aldehyde fragrance blend can keep its label looking exactly as clean and short as it always has, with no allergens declared, and with the bulk of the composition still hidden behind that single French word.

A brand built on essential oils doesn’t get that shelter, even though the rule applies to both equally on paper. Rose oil isn’t “Parfum.” It’s an INCI named botanical that now has to surface its own internal chemistry with isomers including; limonene, linalool, geraniol, citral - directly into the visible ingredient list, often near the top, because that’s genuinely where it sits by concentration.

A synthetic fragrance compound carries allergens too, plenty of them, but it can keep most of that chemistry folded inside the word “Parfum” unless an individual constituent breaches threshold. So, the more natural the formulation, the more transparent the label becomes by default. The more synthetic the formulation, the more it can still hide behind a single umbrella term.

I want to be fair to the other side of this argument, because dismissing it outright would make me no better than the marketing I criticise. The case for keeping “Parfum” as a protected term is genuine: fragrance formulas are some of the most fiercely guarded intellectual property in the industry, built over years and worth protecting from being copied wholesale. I understand the commercial logic. But I don’t think it should come at the cost of consumers being told less about synthetic blends and their isomers than they’re told about a bottle of rose water.

If transparency is the goal which the regulation explicitly stipulates that it is, then transparency shouldn’t be calibrated to how a fragrance was made. An allergen is an allergen whether it arrived in the bottle on the back of a rose petal or it’s synthesised in a lab. The law treats them differently and natural brands are the ones absorbing unfairness and the inconsistency.

Who actually decided “Parfum” gets to hide

Here’s the question worth sitting with: who decided that a synthetic fragrance blend gets to shelter behind one word, while a rose oil has to show its working?

The answer is the fragrance industry. Itself. I’ve written about this before and will continue to highlight this fact as it means essentially that the consumer is not informed or protected.

The International Fragrance Association (IFRA), is the body that sets the global standards for what’s permitted inside a fragrance compound and how much of it can be used. Founded in 1973 by the fragrance industry, for the fragrance industry, on the explicit principle that since the association existed to manage the industry’s own risk, the industry itself would fund it. And it still does. Its “Regular Members” are the multinational fragrance houses, making direct financial contributions to the body that sets the rules they then operate under.

IFRA is not a government authority. It says so itself: it’s not a regulatory authority and imposes no legal obligations. It is, by its own description, a voluntary, self-regulatory system. The safety data underpinning its standards comes from the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM), a body with its own long-standing ties to the same industry it’s assessing.

Set against the regulation we’ve just walked through, this is another glaring industry loophole - a blatant contradiction the unsuspecting consumer never thinks to question, while the multi-billion dollar fragrance industry remains protected!

The EU’s 80-allergen list is independently legislated, externally enforced, and backed by the SCCC, a body with no commercial stake in the outcome. Conversely, the “Parfum” umbrella that synthetic fragrance still shelters behind is governed, in practice, by a standards body the fragrance industry built, funds, and sits on the board of. The gatekeeper deciding what synthetic fragrance has to disclose is the same industry profiting from disclosing as little as possible. A natural brand’s rose oil answers to an EU regulation with no commercial stake in the matter. A synthetic fragrance compound, answers to itself.

What this actually means for you, reading a label in 2026

A few pointers to wrap up:

1. The presence of a new allergen name on a label you’ve trusted for years is not evidence the product changed.

2. A short ingredient list is not automatically a “cleaner” one. It might just mean the allergens are hiding behind the word “Parfum” instead of being named.

3. If you’re sensitised to fragrance, this regulation might be good news for you. Eighty named allergens means you may be able to identify the exact molecule that’s going to set off your skin.

4. If a brand’s ingredient list suddenly looks unrecognisable over the coming months, ask before you assume. Ask what changed, and ask whether anything actually did. The honest answer, for most reformulation panic in the next year, is going to be: nothing changed except what was required to be listed and the order that it appears on the label.

That’s the whole argument I’ve made for nearly three decades, long before this regulation existed, and it’s the argument behind every page of Truth in Beauty. That the natural and organic side of this industry is held to a standard the conventional side has never had to meet. Eighty allergens, externally legislated and independently enforced, against one word, self-regulated by the very industry it protects. Transparency isn’t a marketing angle. It’s the baseline.

Mukti x

Anyone who knows me or has been following along, knows that I love a bit of controversy. So, I’m just going to come out with it. I’m not afraid of the sun. I respect it. I pay attention to it. After all, the sun is the engine of almost every biological process on Earth. It’s the foundation of photosynthesis, the driver of seasonal rhythms, and the source of the Vitamin D our bodies depend on. Life as we know it does not exist without it.

As for exposure to the majestic golden orb, our closest star, the source of all energy and life on this planet, I do so respectfully. I make sure I time my exposure to its beneficial rays, and I don’t burn period. I don’t believe that every beam of sunlight is an assault on my skin requiring a chemical shield. I believe we’ve been fed an industry narrative that has convinced an entire generation to fear daylight while reaching for bottles of endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

So, let’s have the conversation nobody in mainstream beauty wants to start.

Tanning Is Back

The cultural tide on sun exposure is shifting. Tan lines are trending. The white strap mark has become a Gen Z aesthetic badge. Deliberately styled, sometimes accentuated with pretty, little temporary tattoos and worn as proof of a love of the outdoors and a healthy summer glow.

A recent survey by the American Academy of Dermatology found that 67% of Americans reported getting a tan or darker skin in 2024, up from 54% in 2020. People are going back to the sun. Whether that’s aesthetic, instinctive, or a reaction to years of fear-based messaging, it deserves a deeper dive than simply labelling it alarming.

Alongside this trend, a new generation of UV index apps has exploded. Tools tracking real-time UV intensity by location, sending alerts when levels peak, and assisting users plan outdoor exposure windows. The idea behind them is actually sound. Understand the conditions, time your exposure, avoid the burn. However, reports show some users are deliberately tanning when the UV index is 9 or higher which isn’t monitored exposure, rather, its chasing sun damage.

The answer isn’t to terrify people into never going outside without factor 50. It’s education.

The Sun Is Not the Enemy

Here’s what we know from the science, and what tends to get quietly buried under the SPF marketing avalanche.

More than 90% of our Vitamin D comes from sunlight exposure.

Vitamin D is produced in the skin when UVB rays interact with cholesterol. It’s imperative for health. It regulates calcium metabolism, supports the immune system, influences insulin secretion, and plays a documented role in bone health, mood, and cardiovascular function.

The evidence linking low Vitamin D to serious disease outcomes is substantial and consistent across the literature. Multiple large-scale analyses have found associations between Vitamin D deficiency and increased mortality from cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other causes. A 20-year Swedish cohort study of nearly 30,000 women concluded that sun avoidance carries a mortality risk comparable in magnitude to smoking.

Sun avoidance strategies also carry real, unwanted health risks. UV exposure is the primary method of boosting serum Vitamin D levels. Higher levels of Vitamin D are associated with protection against cancer development, including melanoma itself. Higher Vitamin D from sun exposure may actually protect against the very cancer we’re told the sun causes. The picture is more complicated than “stay out of the sun” fear mongering.

Recently, the United Nations Environmental Effects Assessment panel and Australian dermatological bodies have produced position statements recognising that sunlight has beneficial effects that must be considered when formulating public health policy on sun exposure. Even the most conservative health authorities are walking back the absolutist position.

Plus, there’s a mental health dimension too. A 2024 study found that spending more than one hour in daylight during winter protected against depression symptoms, with other research showing that people with seasonal affective disorder (SAD) who walked outdoors for one hour each morning for a week reported an improvement in their symptoms.

Sunlight reaches parts of our brains and health that a supplement doesn’t replicate. Vitamin D deficiency is associated with increased depression risk, and multiple studies link regular daylight exposure to improved mood outcomes. The human body doesn’t just tolerate sunlight; it’s built to use it. A dedicated molecule sits in the skin, waiting for UVB rays to trigger the conversion process that ultimately produces Vitamin D, without which hundreds of biological functions cannot operate properly.

So Why Are We Still Afraid?

The sun-fear narrative has been enormously profitable for the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries. SPF has been added to moisturisers, foundations, serums, primers and all sorts of other products that were never designed to deliver meaningful, stable UV protection, but carry the SPF number as a selling point. The active ingredients doing the filtering and heavy lifting in most of these products deserves thorough scrutiny rather than a single pointed focus on SPF.

We’re not even referring to years of cumulative exposure. The FDA’s own research found that just one application of sunscreens containing oxybenzone, homosalate, octisalate, octocrylene, avobenzone, and octinoxate, is enough to push them into the bloodstream at levels the FDA considers a safety concern.

A 2023 review of 254 studies found mounting evidence that oxybenzone has endocrine-disrupting properties when sunscreen is applied as directed. The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety concluded that both homosalate and oxybenzone are not safe at the concentrations used in conventional sunscreens, prompting the EU to lower permitted amounts.

Research examining oxybenzone and octinoxate specifically has identified endocrine-disrupting potential encompassing estrogenic and anti-androgenic activity, interference with steroidogenic enzymes, modulation of thyroid hormone, induction of oxidative stress, and epigenetic reprogramming.

These are not cosmetically inert molecules. They enter the bloodstream. They interact with the hormonal system. Yet, they are being applied liberally, repeatedly, to children’s skin by parents who have been indoctrinated to believe that this is responsible parenting.

I’ve written extensively about the parfum loophole and the regulatory blind spots that allow synthetic chemical cocktails into our products without disclosure. The conventional sunscreen industry has its own version of that problem. We’ve been using oxybenzone for so long that questioning it feels radical. It isn’t. It’s overdue. Until the regulatory authorities phase it out or eventually ban it, I would avoid this ingredient entirely.

The Sunglasses Question

Here’s another one that’s been making the rounds on social media and, unusually, has some real physiology underneath it.

The claim: wearing sunglasses may interfere with your body’s natural melanin response, potentially leaving skin more vulnerable to burning.

The mechanism proposed involves the hypothalamus-pituitary-melanocyte (HPM) axis. Specialised UV-sensitive cells in the eye detect sunlight and send signals to the hypothalamus, which prompts the pituitary gland to release alpha-melanocyte-stimulating hormone. That hormone travels to the skin and instructs melanocytes to produce melanin. This is our body’s inbuilt UV protection and the biological basis of a tan.

The theory: sunglasses, by blocking UV from reaching the eyes, may dampen that hormonal signal and reduce the skin’s preparatory melanin response before exposure.

As someone who has spent decades thinking about the skin’s biological intelligence, I find this genuinely interesting. The HPM axis is real. The hormonal pathway exists. Whether it’s the dominant mechanism for melanin production is where the science gets more complicated.

We know the skin itself senses UV radiation and activates its own protective response independently. UV rays stimulate skin cells to produce melanin directly, and the eyes are not required for that process. Melanin is produced locally by melanocytes in direct response to UV exposure on the skin. Sunglasses may reduce melanin production around the eyes specifically, but they would not prevent the body from producing melanin more broadly.

The mainstream consensus is that sunglasses don't meaningfully increase sunburn risk. I won't contradict the science. Anecdotally, years of inadvertent time in the sun, both with and without sunglasses, suggested to me that wearing them reduced the amount of time I was able to spend outdoors without burning consistently enough to notice.

Here’s another interesting fact worth pondering. Mass-market sunglasses became widely adopted from the 1960s onwards. Research tracking melanoma rates in Sweden found that the risk of developing multiple melanomas increased tenfold from the 1960s to the 2000s. This led researchers attributing this to the package holiday boom and increased deliberate sunbathing as primary drivers.

In the US, the rate of new melanoma cases has tripled since the 1970s. The conventional explanation is more sun exposure equates to more burning. That’s probably right. But is it the complete picture? Or are there other variables? Widespread adoption of UV-blocking eyewear, dramatic changes in dietary fat composition, the proliferation of chemical sunscreen filters that block UVB (required for Vitamin D synthesis) while allowing UVA penetration etc. that we haven’t fully accounted for?

I’m not drawing a straight causal line. But I do think the question deserves more rigorous investigation than it’s currently getting.

The scientific consensus is that leaving the eyes unprotected increases the risk of UV damage including ocular melanoma and cataracts. So yes, wear your sunglasses if that feels right for you and you don’t enjoy squinting. That’s not the debate. What I am contemplating is that the body has remarkable intelligence about sun exposure. The HPM axis, the skin microbiome’s response to UV, and its own adaptive melanin systems all confirm this. The more we uncover, the more apparent it becomes that our relationship with sunlight is far more sophisticated than the industry’s simple “block or burn” narrative.

What Are We Eating? The Seed Oil Question

This is where the conversation heats up even more and where wellness advocates may overstate the case in ways that allows mainstream to dismiss it entirely.

A question being asked by a growing number of researchers is, could the dramatic rise in dietary omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (from seed oils like sunflower, canola, soybean, corn and rapeseed), be contributing to increased UV-induced skin damage and skin cancer rates?

And it doesn’t stop there. Industrially farmed chicken and eggs, raised on grain-based diets of corn and soy, carry the same omega-6 imbalance directly onto our plates. It isn’t just what we cook with or what’s found in processed foods. It runs through the entire industrial food system, and most people have no idea they’re consuming an inordinate amount.

The proposed mechanism is not implausible. When polyunsaturated fatty acids are oxidised, which occurs readily under UV exposure, they produce toxic byproducts which can trigger inflammation, damage DNA and proteins, compromise the skin barrier, and increase redness and sensitivity, making skin more vulnerable to further UV exposure.

High linoleic acid intake elevates linoleate content in cell membranes and lipoproteins, increasing the substrates available for oxidation into reactive compounds. Populations adhering to traditional diets low in seed oils have historically exhibited lower incidences of certain cancers compared to those in industrialised regions with elevated seed oil consumption.

That correlation is striking. Although not proof of causation. Isolating the impact of linoleic acid on cancer risk from historical data is profoundly challenging due to multiple confounding variables, including shifts in smoking prevalence, exposure to environmental toxins (including skincare), and advancements in diagnostic capabilities over the 20th century. A major 2025 meta-analysis covering 150 cohorts and 4.1 million participants found no excess risk of cancer mortality across different linoleic acid intake levels.

The World Cancer Research Fund and Cancer Council Australia have stated there is no scientific evidence that consuming seed oils increases cancer risk. However, our dietary intake of omega-6 fatty acids has increased dramatically over the past century, from a historically balanced omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of roughly 4:1 to an estimated 15:1 or higher in many Western diets, which is excessive.

The inflammatory consequences of that imbalance, not necessarily from linoleic acid itself but from the ratio disruption and the prevalence of oxidised, ultra-processed seed oils in our food supply are an active and legitimate area of research.

The skin is not separate from the body. What we eat becomes our cell membranes, our sebum composition, our inflammatory baseline. The idea that dietary fat composition might influence how skin responds to UV radiation is not fringe biology. It’s a question worth asking.

Even though the cancer link isn’t proven, the case for reducing ultra-processed seed oils is compelling across multiple markers of health. More omega-3s - olive oil, avocado oil, grass fed butter and oily fish. Less refined sunflower, canola and soybean oil hiding in processed food. If it also produces skin benefits in relation to sun exposure as a consequence, I’ll take that too.

The Case for Monitored, Sensible Tanning

Just to super clear. I am not arguing for burning. Burning is damage – period!

A history of sunburn, particularly in childhood, genuinely increases melanoma risk. That science is solid. I’ve had a BCC removed and I have many friends who have suffered with melanomas, I am not minimising or ignoring that.

But there’s a significant middle ground between “burn freely” and “never let UV touch your skin.”

A golden, gradual tan built slowly over time through moderate exposure, timed to avoid peak UV intensity, with attention to your skin type and the index on any given day, isn’t the same thing as damage. In many cases, it’s the body doing exactly what it was designed to do. Responding to sunlight by producing melanin, building a natural baseline protection, and synthesising Vitamin D.

My approach, developed over years and informed by formulation science and as skin therapist:

Before 10am or after 3pm in peak summer. UV intensity is lower at these times, particularly UVB. Build exposure gradually. Start with 15 to 20 minutes on unexposed skin and work up over days, not hours.

Know your skin type. Fitzpatrick I and II (very fair, burns easily) requires far more caution and shorter windows than deeper skin tones. There is no universal prescription.

Watch the index, as well as the clock. Below UV index 3: minimal risk for most skin types. Between 3 and 6: moderate, cover up for extended stays. Above 8: seek shade. UV index 9-plus is not tanning time.

If you use sunscreen for longer exposure, use mineral. Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide sit on the skin rather than penetrating it, provide broad-spectrum protection, and do not carry the endocrine-disruption profile of chemical filters. Non-nano, fragrance-free. That’s the non-negotiable for me.

The Honest Counterargument

The dermatological consensus on cumulative UV exposure and skin cancer risk is not fabricated by industry. UV damage at the cellular level is real and cumulative. The damage UV invokes at the cellular level doesn’t fade the way a tan does, and with each exposure, the risk builds. For anyone with a family history of melanoma, very fair skin, or compromised immunity, caution is appropriate and regular skin checks are essential.

I hold both things simultaneously. The sun is beneficial. The sun can also cause harm when approached without awareness. Neither extreme fear-driven avoidance or careless overexposure serves anyone.

Where I Land

The sun has been weaponised by an industry that profits from fear. Vitamin D deficiency is a genuine public health crisis. The chemicals many of us are using as our primary sun defence carry risks the industry has been slow, at best, to acknowledge. Our diets have shifted in ways that may be affecting how our skin handles UV at a cellular level. And the body’s own sun-adaptive intelligence from melanin signalling to the HPM axis is more sophisticated than we’ve been given credit for.

Burn? No. Hide from daylight entirely while slathering on oxybenzone and fragrance ladened sunscreen to every exposed surface and eating seed-oil-saturated processed food? Also no.

Find your middle ground. Know your skin. Watch the index. Eat well. And perhaps consider that a life spent in the sun carefully and intentionally is not a life of damage. It’s just a life lived outside.

Mukti

My book Truth in Beauty covers the full landscape of ingredient safety and the gaps in cosmetic regulation including the sunscreen chemicals that the industry would rather you didn’t examine too closely.

References

A note on sources: where studies present conflicting findings particularly on seed oils and skin cancer both sides are referenced. The science in several of these areas is genuinely unsettled and I’ve tried to reflect that honestly in the text.

1. Lindqvist PG, Epstein E, Landin-Olsson M, et al. Avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for all-cause mortality: results from the Melanoma in Southern Sweden cohort. Journal of Internal Medicine. 2014;276(1):77–86. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24697969/

2. Lindqvist PG, Epstein E, Nielsen K, et al. Avoidance of sun exposure as a risk factor for major causes of death: a competing risk analysis of the Melanoma in Southern Sweden cohort. Journal of Internal Medicine. 2016;280(4):375–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12496

3. Lindqvist PG, Epstein E, Landin-Olsson M. Sun Exposure — Hazards and Benefits. Anticancer Research. 2022;42(4):1671–1677. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.15644

4. Matta MK, Zusterzeel R, Pilli NR, et al. Effect of Sunscreen Application Under Maximal Use Conditions on Plasma Concentration of Sunscreen Active Ingredients. JAMA. 2019;321(21):2082–2091. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.5586

5. Matta MK, Florian J, Zusterzeel R, et al. Effect of Sunscreen Application on Plasma Concentration of Sunscreen Active Ingredients: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2020;323(3):256–267. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.20747

6. Mustieles V, Rodríguez-Carrillo A, Vela-Soria F, et al. Human biomonitoring and human relevant evidence for safety issues of benzophenone-3 (oxybenzone): an integrative review of 254 studies. Environment International. 2023. (HBM4EU Initiative.) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412023000600

7. European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). Final Opinion on Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3). SCCS/1625/20. Adopted 2021. https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-07/sccs_o_250_0.pdf

8. European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). Scientific Advice on the Safety of Homosalate. SCCS/1638/21. Adopted 2021. https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-08/sccs_o_260.pdf

9. Helgadottir H, et al. Multiple Primary Melanoma Incidence Trends Over Five Decades: A Nationwide Population-Based Study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2021. Karolinska Institutet / Lund University. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7936055/

10. World Health Organization. Radiation: Ultraviolet (UV) radiation and skin cancer. Between the 1960s and 1980s, prevalence of non-melanoma skin cancers increased by a factor of more than two in Australia, Canada and the United States. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/radiation-ultraviolet-(uv)-radiation-and-skin-cancer

11. Skin Cancer Foundation. Skin Cancer Facts and Statistics. 2026. In the decade 2016–2026, new invasive melanoma cases diagnosed annually in the US increased by 46.6%. https://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts/

12. Fayed B, et al. Historical rise of cancer and dietary linoleic acid: Mechanisms and therapeutic strategies. World Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2025;16:110686. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12476591/

13. [Authors]. Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and Skin Cancer: Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study. Annals of Dermatology. December 2025. https://doi.org/10.5021/ad.25.095

I’ve spent over 25 years formulating natural and organic skincare and the most common pushback I’ve heard is some version of: “Surely the amounts are too small to matter. Surely it’s fine.”

But a new study published in April 2026 in the journal Environment International just answered that question definitively! And the answer is: no, it’s not fine.

What They Actually Did

Researchers recruited 103 women aged 18–30 in Grenoble, France. For two days, the women used their normal everyday personal care products. Their usual shampoo, moisturiser, deodorant, makeup, the lot. Then for five days, they switched. They were asked to stop using their regular products and use only a set of clean alternatives provided by the research team. A simple soap, shampoo, deodorant, toothpaste, sunscreen, lip balm, jojoba oil and hand gel. All free from the chemicals being studied.

Before and after, the researchers measured the women’s urine for 29 different chemical compounds including bisphenol A (BPA), parabens, phthalates, and glycol ethers everyday chemicals that are commonly found in personal care products that are deemed to be “safe” yet are known or suspected endocrine disruptors that interfere with your hormonal system.

Five days. That’s all!

The Numbers That Stopped Me

After just five days of switching products, here’s what happened to chemical levels in the women’s bodies:

• Phenoxyacetic acid (a metabolite of phenoxyethanol, one of the most common preservatives used across the board in just about every conventional skincare product) dropped by 64%.

• Bisphenol A dropped by 39%.

• Methylparaben dropped by 30%.

• Propylparaben became undetectable in many participants.

• Monoethyl phthalate (a metabolite of diethyl phthalate, used in fragrance) dropped by 22%.

These aren’t marginal shifts. These are dramatic reductions in measurable toxic load achieved simply by changing the products these women put on their bodies.

Why Bisphenol A in Skincare Is Particularly Alarming

Bisphenol A has been banned as an ingredient in EU cosmetics since 2009. And yet it’s still showing up in women’s bodies, and the intervention of switching products still reduced it significantly.

The researchers theorise it’s getting in through manufacturing equipment, packaging contamination, or products purchased online from outside EU regulations. It’s also been detected in products sold in the US and China.

This matters because BPA is one of the most studied endocrine disruptors we know of. The researchers went a step further and modelled what would happen if this intervention were applied to all pregnant women in France. Their findings:

• 4% of childhood asthma cases could be prevented

• 4.4% of childhood wheezing could be prevented

• An average IQ loss of nearly half a point in children could be avoided

• The estimated annual economic cost of BPA-attributable asthma alone? €9.7 million per year. The cost of IQ loss? €7.8 billion annually.

These are not hypothetical numbers. These are modelled outcomes from a real reduction achieved in five days.

The “It’s Only a Small Amount” Myth, Dismantled

This is something I’ve been banging on about for years and now the evidence is irrefutable. The argument that trace chemical amounts in cosmetics are harmless relies on the ridiculous notion that we’re exposed to one product (or ingredient) at a time. But we all know that’s not how we use skincare and personal care products.

The women in this study were using an average of 12 personal care products per day before the intervention. That means 12 simultaneous sources of potential chemical exposure to a concoction of multiple ingredients every single day, applied directly to the skin — our most absorbent organ not to mention incidental particles being inhaled and ingested.

The researchers also noted something important: women use roughly twice as many personal care products daily as men. We are disproportionately exposed, so we are disproportionately affected.

The chemical cocktail effect where individually “safe” doses combine into something far more significant is the missing piece that conventional safety assessments consistently fail to account for.

What the Chemicals Are Actually Doing

Let me break down the key contributors, because understanding them changes how you read a label:

Parabens (methylparaben, propylparaben, ethylparaben) - synthetic preservatives used to extend shelf life. They mimic oestrogen in the body. Found in moisturisers, conditioners, serums, body lotions.

Phthalates - used as fixatives in fragrance, helping scent last longer on skin. The word “parfum” on a label legally conceals them. Found in just about every personal care product - perfumes, hair products, body wash. Those stupid trees that hang off your rear vision mirror, candles, household cleaning products, your stinky laundry detergent that you wash your kids clothes in.

Bisphenol A - a known reprotoxin, (binds to oestrogen receptors in the body and triggers hormonal responses where none should be occurring. This is particularly harmful during pregnancy and early childhood, when hormonal signals are directing critical developmental processes. Banned as an ingredient in EU cosmetics but still widely contaminating products through packaging and manufacturing.

Phenoxyethanol - one of the most widely used preservatives in “natural” and conventional products alike. Its metabolite, phenoxyacetic acid, showed the largest and most significant reduction of any chemical measured in this study a decrease of 64% and has been linked to impaired neurodevelopment in children at similar exposure levels to those found in this research.

This last one is worth sitting with. Phenoxyethanol has long been positioned as the “safe” paraben alternative. This study complicates that narrative significantly.

Individual Choice vs. Systemic Change

The researchers are honest about the limits of individual action. Their conclusion is unambiguous: “Individual changes in PCPs use can decrease exposure to these chemicals, but regulatory actions would probably be more efficient and fairer.”

I agree with this completely. Placing the burden of chemical safety entirely on the consumer is unjust. But here’s where I also hold two things at once: systemic change is necessary and your choices matter right now, while we wait for regulation to catch up.

This is precisely why I started formulating skincare with the intention of creating to a COSMOS certified organic standard since our early days. Yes, it’s more expensive and incredibly time consuming with red tape and it’s also why I’ve never formulated with questionable ingredients like parabens, phthalates, or synthetic phenols - not because it’s a marketing position, but because the science has always pointed here. I simply never believed the “small amounts are fine” argument, and finally decades later, the peer-reviewed evidence is backing that position more definitively than ever.

What You Can Do Starting Today

You don’t need to overhaul everything at once. The women in this study saw dramatic results in five days by making simple substitutions. So start here:

Buy a magnifying glass and learn to read your INCI (ingredient list) found in fine print on all cosmetic products.

Check your preservatives. These should be found around in the final third of the list. If any of your personal care or makeup products - your moisturiser, serum or body lotion etc contains phenoxyethanol, methylparaben, propylparaben, ethylparaben or butylparaben then that’s a straightforward swap.

Read “parfum” or “fragrance” critically. This single ingredient can legally contain dozens of undisclosed phthalates. Synthetic fragrance is one of the easiest things to eliminate. Just stop using perfume and anything with a fake smell.

Rethink phenoxyethanol. Particularly if you’re pregnant, trying to conceive, or buying products for children.

Look for COSMOS or third party certified organic products. These certifications prohibit synthetic preservatives, synthetic fragrance, and petrochemical ingredients not because they’re trendy, but because the standards were built on exactly this kind of science.

Prioritise the products you leave on your skin longest - perfumes that adhere to the skin, serums, moisturisers, body lotions, eye creams. Rinse-off products like shampoo and body wash matter too but leave-on products have more time to absorb.

The Bigger Picture

This study is the most rigorous evidence we’ve had yet that personal care products are a modifiable source of harmful chemical exposure. This means your daily choices have changeable and measurable physiological consequences for better and for worse.

When I started Mukti Organics in 2000, “clean beauty” was a fringe conversation. Today it’s backed by a growing body of peer-reviewed science. Studies like this one don’t just validate the mission, they make it more urgent.

Your body is keeping score. The question is what are you putting on it?

If you found this useful, share it with someone who still believes their 12-step conventional routine is harmless. The science says otherwise.

Want more information and to take a deeper dive. My book Truth in Beauty explores this subject in depth. It’s an everyday guide to making safer choices when it comes to your beauty and skincare routine.

Mukti x

Sources: Jovanovic et al., “Levers to decrease exposure to harmful chemicals: the case of Personal Care Products and cosmetics,” Environment International, April 2026.

I’ve been writing and talking about this for a while now. The ten-year-olds in Sephora. The TikTok haul videos. The retinol gifted to primary school children. The idea that a child with perfectly healthy, luminous skin has peer reviewed and decided she has “problem skin” that needs fixing.

Recently, it stopped being a trend piece and became a legal matter.

Italy’s competition authority, the AGCM, has formally opened investigations into Sephora and Benefit Cosmetics (both owned by LVMH) for alleged unfair commercial practices linked to the marketing of adult skincare to children as young as ten. On 26 March, officers from the Guardia di Finanza, Italy’s financial police, walked into the offices of Sephora Italia and LVMH Italia to inspect records. This is the first investigation of its kind by any European regulator.

The AGCM has two central concerns. First, that products not intended for or tested on minors were being sold without adequate warnings, both in-store and online. Second, and this is the part that should make you squirm, that the brands deployed what the regulator called a “particularly insidious” marketing strategy: using very young micro-influencers (children aged 8 to 12) to drive compulsive purchasing among their peers. This isn’t influencer marketing. This is using children to sell to children.

LVMH, for its part, said it would cooperate with authorities and reaffirmed its “strict compliance with applicable Italian regulations.” Which is something companies say when they have nothing else to say.

We have a word for it now

The AGCM has linked these practices to what medical literature now calls “cosmeticorexia” an obsessive, compulsive fixation on skincare among minors, driven by social media and amplified by the culture Sephora has helped build. You might have already be familiar with the “Sephora Kids” phenomenon: the viral videos, the haul content, the “Get Ready with Me” posts from girls who should be doing homework, not ten-step routines.

The “Haul from Sephora for Kids” tag on TikTok alone features hundreds of videos of children, some as young as five, reviewing and purchasing adult skincare products. Five. Years. Old (insert vomit emoji).

This isn’t fringe behaviour. Research published in 2025 found that one in four British girls aged 9 to 12 had already used retinol. This is an ingredient dermatologists and skin therapists typically recommend introducing in your late twenties and early thirties, when skin is fully mature and can handle it. Nearly half of the same group had already experienced redness, itching or irritation. These aren’t teenagers experimenting. These are children whose skin barriers haven’t finished developing, reacting to ingredients designed for adult skin.

A CBS News analysis of 240 skincare posts from teenage influencers on TikTok found that only 6% had been properly tagged as promotional content. So, children are being sold to without comprehending they’re being sold to!

Why young skin is different

This is what gets lost in the aesthetics conversation: tween skin isn’t just smaller adult skin. It’s biologically different. Under-12s lack the bacteria that helps produce the skin’s own protective oil layer. Their skin barriers are underdeveloped. This matters enormously when you introduce ingredients like retinoids or AHAs, which work by stripping back and accelerating cell turnover. On most adult skin, used correctly, these can be transformative. On a ten-year-old’s skin, they can cause genuine damage to a barrier that simply isn’t equipped to cope.

Dr Emma Wedgeworth, consultant dermatologist and British Skin Foundation spokeswoman, told The Sunday Times she has treated young girls who developed contact irritant dermatitis after using acids and retinoids. As she put it, these are pharmacologically active formulas being promoted alongside toys and games. She is now calling for a UK investigation. I think she’s right to do so.

Stephanie Mallet, president of the French Society for Paediatric Dermatology, was more direct still: a child’s skin doesn’t need anything. It’s not too dry, too oily, or too wrinkled. There is no problem to solve. We are creating problems that didn’t exist.

Teenage skin even in the early years already produces its own collagen, elastin and hyaluronic acid in abundance. Those plumping, smoothing, anti-ageing actives being pushed on social media? Are not only unnecessary they’re potentially harmful.

Tweens and teens need gentle education and guidance not a ten-step routine.

This is not just an Italian problem

Sephora has nearly 23 million Instagram followers and over two million on TikTok. Its reach is global. The marketing doesn’t stop at the Italian border, and neither does the harm. The “Sephora Kids” phenomenon is just as visible in the UK, the US, and across Europe. The Italian investigation is the first formal regulatory response and hopefully not the last.

In Sweden, several beauty companies have already introduced age restrictions for advanced skincare products containing active ingredients such as AHAs and BHAs. That’s a start. But voluntary measures and corporate goodwill aren’t enough when the financial incentive to keep selling is this large. LVMH’s beauty division reported €8.5 billion in revenue in 2024. Sephora is one of its strategic growth engines.

Meanwhile, research shows that 55% of tweens never check product labels, 58% receive skincare as gifts from family and friends, and 41% are following influencer recommendations when choosing what to buy. The machinery is working exactly as designed.

So, what do we actually do about it?

I’ve been asking myself this. Will fines be enough? Probably not, if they’re absorbed as a cost of doing business against that kind of revenue. A social media ban for under-16s addresses some of the pipeline but it doesn’t stop products being sold in stores, gifted by relatives, or recommended by slightly older siblings.

What I keep coming back to is this: the industry has known. The ingredients are on the labels. The dermatology community has been raising the alarm for years. What’s been missing is consequence.

Italy has just provided some. Hopefully the rest of the world is watching.

But regulation takes time, and meanwhile there are children with irritated, compromised skin right now. Practically speaking the best counter to a ten-step TikTok routine isn’t telling a tween she can’t have anything (anyone with a tween or teen will tell you that strategy won’t work) rather, it’s giving them something better to hold onto.

What tweens and teens actually need (and what to leave on the shelf)

The best philosophy I keep coming back to when thinking about skin is this: every ingredient should earn its place. Not because it photographs well or trends well, but because it genuinely serves the skin it’s going onto. That’s a standard the adult beauty industry struggles to meet at the best of times. For tween and teen skin, it’s non-negotiable.

First, the ingredients to avoid

Before we even get to routines, it helps to understand what’s on those labels and why certain things don’t belong on young skin. These are the ones I’d steer well clear of:

Retinoids (retinol, retinal) — Powerful vitamin A derivatives developed to address signs of ageing in mature skin. They work by accelerating cell turnover and, even on adult skin, require a slow and careful introduction. On developing skin, they can cause real irritation, barrier disruption and lasting sensitivity. Dermatologists are consistent on this: these are not for under-18s, and arguably not until your mid-to-late twenties when the skin barrier is truly robust.

AHAs and BHAs (glycolic acid, salicylic acid) — Exfoliating acids that increase cell turnover and can weaken the skin barrier with repeated use. For tweens under 12: avoid entirely. For older teens dealing with hormonal breakouts, a low concentration of a gentle exfoliating acid used sparingly every second to third day and built up gradually can help but this is treatment, not routine. It should not be sitting in a daily cleanser being used twice a day on a 14-year-old’s face.

Synthetic fragrances — One of the most common triggers for skin reaction, particularly in younger, more reactive skin. The word “parfum” on a label can legally conceal a cocktail of undisclosed ingredients including phthalates and endocrine disrupting chemicals, which means you often don’t know what you’re actually applying. Fragrance-free is always the smarter call for young skin.

Harsh sulfates (sodium lauryl sulfate) — Found in many foaming cleansers and wash-off products, these strip the skin’s natural oils and disrupt its pH balance. The result is exactly what you don’t want: imbalance, irritation, a compromised barrier and skin crying out for homeostasis. A gentle, sulfate-free cleanser does the job without the collateral damage.

If a product contains any of the above and is being marketed to or used by a child, it is an adult formula. Full stop. The packaging is irrelevant.

Warning signs that a routine is already causing harm

If any of these are showing up, the products being used are likely too harsh for the skin they’re going onto: Persistent redness or irritation that doesn’t settle. Dry or flaky patches, particularly around any breakouts. Skin that feels tight or uncomfortable after cleansing. Breakouts that are worsening rather than improving. Increased sensitivity to temperature or touch.

The instinct is almost always to reach for more products. The answer is almost always fewer, gentler ones.

The routine: simple, by age

Tweens (under 12): protection, not correction

Tween skin doesn’t need a routine. It needs protecting from one. The goal at this age isn’t to treat anything it’s to keep the skin’s own natural balance intact and leave its remarkable self-regulating capacity alone.

If anything at all:

A gentle, fragrance-free cleanser when genuinely needed not twice daily by default, and certainly not a foaming acid wash. A light, unscented moisturiser if the skin feels dry. An SPF if playing sports or being outside for extended periods. The vast majority of visible skin ageing accumulates from sun exposure in childhood and adolescence. A mineral SPF that won’t block pores or irritate young skin is the single product that genuinely earns its place.

That’s it! No serums. No actives. No eye cream. No multi-step routine. Simplicity is key.

Teens (13–17): simple, consistent, and actually effective

Hormonal changes during these years bring real shifts with an increase in oil production, occasional breakouts, changes in skin texture. These are entirely normal. They don’t require a ten-product response.

Morning: Gentle cleanser → light moisturiser → SPF.

Evening: Gentle cleanser → moisturiser. If dealing with active breakouts, a low-concentration spot treatment used on affected areas only not all over the face, not twice daily, not indefinitely.

One thing worth clearly stating is that skin takes four to six weeks to respond to any meaningful change. That’s the real timeline. Not 48 hours, not one week. Anyone selling overnight transformation is selling something else entirely, and your teenager deserves to know that.

From 18: actives can be introduced, slowly and thoughtfully

Once the skin barrier has had time to fully develop, gentle exfoliating acids and other actives can begin to be introduced one at a time, with real attention to how the skin responds. This is also the point at which understanding ingredient quality and integrity starts to matter deeply. Look for products where everything on the label is there for a reason, not for marketing.

After 25: the serious stuff, if and when you need it

Vitamin C, retinoids, intensive treatment serums belong here, not in a primary school bathroom cabinet. On mature skin they can genuinely deliver. On young skin, they solve problems that don’t exist while creating ones that do.

Always patch test — at any age

Before using any new product on the face, apply a small amount to the inner arm or neck for two to three consecutive days. Any redness, itching or reaction is the skin communicating that it’s not compatible with what you’ve put on it. That response deserves to be taken seriously, not overridden with a different product on top.

A note on what does belong

Young skin responds beautifully to ingredients that support its natural functions rather than override them. Aloe vera for genuine soothing and hydration. Niacinamide (vitamin B3) for calming redness and gently balancing oil without stripping anything away, one of the very few actives I’d consider genuinely appropriate for teen skin when there’s a real need. Plant-based ingredients that work in harmony with the skin’s own biology rather than against it. Hydration that replenishes rather than intervenes.

The principle is simple, and it doesn’t require a ten-step routine to execute: support what’s already there. Young skin, when treated with that kind of intelligence and restraint, is genuinely remarkable. It doesn’t need fixing. It needs leaving alone and occasionally, gently, looking after.

Will fining companies be enough?

I want to end where I started, because I don’t think we’ve resolved this yet. The Italian investigation is a significant genuinely historic as regulatory moment. But an investigation is not yet a verdict, and a fine, even a large one, is not necessarily a deterrent when the revenues are this vast and the audience this deeply engaged.

The deeper question is whether we as consumers, as parents, and as an industry are willing to keep demanding more. More transparency on labelling. More accountability for influencer marketing directed at children. More honest conversations in stores about what products are actually appropriate for the person buying them.

This is an industry-wide issue. Sephora and Benefit are in the spotlight today. But the ingredients that don’t belong on young skin are not exclusive to those shelves, and the marketing tactics that put them there are not unique to those brands.

If you're not sure where to start, my book Truth in Beauty was written exactly with you in mind — a practical, honest guide to navigating skincare for the whole family, from ingredients to routines and everything in between. Consider it your beauty bible.

Mukti x

If you’re a parent of a tween — how are you navigating this? I’d love to hear from you in the comments.

Sources: The Sunday Times, 28 March 2026; Financial Times, 27 March 2026; AGCM press release PS13110; Reuters, 27 March 2026; CNBC, 27 March 2026; British Skin Foundation clinical research, 2025.

One of my favourite subjects when I was studying for my Bachelor of Health Science was aromatherapy. I’ve always been fascinated by the powerful medicinal properties of plant medicine. I’ve been formulating with essential oils for well over 25 years. Frankincense and sandalwood in facial oils and serums. Geranium and chamomile in calming moisturisers. Rose and neroli in light, skin-loving mists. Not recklessly, not at high concentration, always considering their therapeutic qualities and potent attributes and never without understanding exactly what I was working with. So when I find myself pulling back from essential oils in formulations - not because my own conviction has changed but because of the weight of regulatory complexity bearing down and bad press from dermatologists and the like, I think it’s worth asking the question honestly: is the current demonisation of essential oils actually fair? And is it consistent?

Because I’m not sure it is. And as someone who cares deeply about formulating well, I think it’s time we had a more balanced conversation.

WHAT CHANGED — AND WHY YOUR LABELS ARE STARTING TO LOOK VERY DIFFERENT

In June 2023, the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) published its 51st Amendment to the IFRA Standards, the voluntary global framework that governs the safe use of fragrance materials in consumer products. This amendment was significant. It introduced 59 new rules, added 48 newly restricted materials to the framework, and brought the total number of IFRA standards to 263. The final compliance deadline for existing products was October 2025, meaning the industry has very recently been through the process of reviewing, reformulating, and adjusting to these new parameters.

Then, just weeks later in July 2023, the European Commission published Regulation (EU) 2023/1545 an amendment to the EU Cosmetics Regulation that changed allergen labelling requirements in a way that will affect every brand selling into Europe. Before this regulation, 26 fragrance allergens had to be individually named on a product’s INCI list when they were present above threshold concentrations (0.001% in leave-on products, 0.01% in rinse-off products). After the amendment? That number jumped to more than 80. The regulation identified 82 substances classified as established contact allergens in humans (54 individual chemicals and 28 natural extracts) and requires them all to be individually declared. New products must comply by July 2026, existing products by July 2028.

That’s a seismic change. And a lot of those newly declared allergens? They’re natural constituents of essential oils. Furthermore they’ll start appearing in the first third on your ingredient label (INCI).

Linalool - found in lavender. Limonene - in citrus oils, tea tree, many others. Linalyl acetate - in lavender and clary sage. Citral - in lemon myrtle and lemongrass. Geraniol - in rose and geranium and the list goes on. These aren’t contaminants or synthetic additives. They’re the essential oil. They’re the reason those botanical extracts smell the way they do and, in many cases, the reason they have an affect on skin. And now, when you formulate with them at any meaningful concentration, those individual constituents must be named separately on your label in addition to the essential oil itself.

So a product that contains lavender essential oil might now need to list: Lavandula Angustifolia Flower Oil, Linalool, Linalyl Acetate, Limonene, Geraniol all as separate entries.

To someone who doesn’t know what they’re looking at, that list starts to look alarming. And that’s the core of the problem.

THE INCI PARADOX — TRANSPARENCY FOR SOME, NOT FOR ALL

Here is what I find so difficult to swallow about all of this. Greater transparency in labelling is not a bad thing. I genuinely support the principle behind it. If someone has a known allergy to linalool, they deserve to be able to find that on the label and make an informed choice. That is reasonable and right.

But transparency is only meaningful when it is applied consistently. And when it comes to fragrance in skincare, it’s not.

Because right now, a product formulated with lavender essential oil has to declare its individual constituent allergens in full. Meanwhile, a product listing parfum on its ingredient label - a single catch-all term - could legally be concealing a blend of potentially thousands of synthetic compounds, and is required to individually declare none of them beyond whatever allergens happen to be on the regulated list. The Environmental Working Group has reported that over 3,163 individual ingredients have been documented as hiding behind the word “fragrance” in cosmetic products globally.

Read that again. Over three thousand ingredients. One word on the label!

There’s something profoundly backwards about a regulatory framework that makes the natural formulation look more complex and potentially more frightening, while leaving the synthetic one wearing a single-word disguise.

I want to be clear: the new EU allergen rules do require individual declaration of regulated allergens whether they are naturally derived or synthetic. So if a synthetic fragrance contains linalool, it must be declared too. That is progress. But the broader structural issue remains that parfum, as a catch-all term, allows an enormous amount of formulation detail to remain hidden from the consumer. And that opacity is where some of the most concerning ingredients in modern skincare quietly reside.

THE ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR IN THE ROOM

Let’s talk about something that doesn’t get nearly enough attention in mainstream skincare media.

Phthalates are a class of synthetic chemicals used as solvents and fixatives in fragrance. They are what help a synthetic scent last on your skin, project into the air, and cling to fabric. Diethyl phthalate (DEP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) are found in conventional fragrance formulations and, critically, in the plastic bottles that contain many personal care products, from which they can leach into the product over time.

Phthalates are classified as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). That means they can interfere with the body’s hormone system - mimicking, blocking, or altering hormonal signals. Research published in peer-reviewed journals has linked phthalate exposure to reproductive issues, disrupted pubertal timing, impaired thyroid function, altered insulin sensitivity, and a range of developmental effects in offspring when exposure occurs during pregnancy. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences has specifically identified phthalate exposure as associated with decreased gestational age and increased risk of preterm birth. These are not fringe findings. This is mainstream scientific literature.

Synthetic musks another common component of conventional fragrance have raised concerns about bioaccumulation in the body and potential hormonal activity. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by fragranced products have been linked to respiratory effects and neurological concerns. A 2025 narrative review in Frontiers in Toxicology synthesised evidence across fertility, cancer risk, endocrine disruption, and neurological outcomes linked to synthetic chemicals in cosmetics and fragrance. The findings were not ambiguous about the direction of the evidence.

And yet. If you search “should I avoid essential oils in skincare,” you’ll find page after page of dermatologist-backed content warning you away from them. If you search “should I avoid parfum in skincare,” the results are considerably quieter.

I’m not suggesting dermatologists are wrong to flag allergen risks from essential oil constituents. They’re not. But the asymmetry here is striking. The ingredient category that is fully declared, plant-derived, and subject to increasingly rigorous international standards gets the headlines. The one hiding behind a single word on the label behind which phthalates, synthetic musks, and a host of other concerning compounds can shelter gets a relatively easy ride in consumer-facing advice.

That is not a balanced conversation. And when you’re the formulator trying to make genuinely thoughtful choices, that imbalance is genuinely frustrating.

IS THE CONCERN ABOUT ESSENTIAL OILS VALID AT ALL?

Yes. Honestly, yes and I want to be clear-eyed about that, because this isn’t a piece designed to be pro-essential oils at all costs. It’s designed to be honest.

Contact allergy to fragrance materials is real. Dermatologists see it in clinic regularly. Fragrance both natural and synthetic is consistently among the top causes of allergic contact dermatitis. The SCCS (the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety, which advises the European Commission) has spent years building the evidence base that led to the expanded allergen list, and that work is grounded in genuine clinical data. An estimated 1–9% of the EU population may be sensitised to fragrance allergens. For those individuals, being able to read a label and identify linalool or citral is genuinely protective.

There are also specific essential oil constituents that carry more serious regulatory concern than simple allergen potential. Methyl eugenol found in some variants of clove, cinnamon leaf, and basil oils carries a carcinogenic classification and is heavily restricted under IFRA 51. Estragole, found in anise and basil oils, is also under restriction for similar reasons. Furocoumarins in cold-pressed citrus oils cause phototoxicity real, measurable UV-mediated skin damage. These are legitimate concerns, and responsible formulators take them seriously.

The variability of essential oils is also a genuine consideration. Unlike a synthetic ingredient, which is consistent batch to batch, an essential oil’s chemical composition shifts depending on plant variety, growing conditions, geography, harvest time, and extraction method. That variability makes safety calculations more complex and requires careful attention from anyone formulating with them professionally.

So this is not a case of “essential oils = safe, synthetic fragrance = dangerous.” It is considerably more nuanced than that.

THE DOSE, THE CONTEXT, AND THE MISSING CONVERSATION

What the mainstream conversation consistently fails to address is dose. The dose makes the poison a principle as old as toxicology itself, and one that applies equally to plant-derived and synthetic ingredients. A constituent that causes sensitisation at high concentrations, in undiluted form, or through repeated daily exposure might pose essentially no risk when present at trace levels in a well-formulated product used once or twice daily.

The regulatory frameworks, both IFRA and the EU Cosmetics Regulation do actually operate on this principle. Threshold concentrations exist for a reason. Concentration limits exist for a reason. Restriction standards rather than outright bans exist for a reason. The science does not say “any linalool is dangerous.” It says “linalool at high concentrations in leave-on products presents a risk for sensitised individuals.” That’s a very different statement, and the consumer media rarely makes that distinction.

What I’d love to see and what I think the industry genuinely needs is the same principle applied evenly across all fragrance categories. If we’re going to label natural fragrance allergens at 0.001% threshold in leave-on products, let’s have full transparency about what else is in synthetic fragrance formulations at the same level of scrutiny. If we’re going to train consumers to fear linalool on a label, let’s make sure they’re equally equipped to ask what parfum actually contains.

WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE ME AS A FORMULATOR?

Honestly? In a complicated place.

I haven’t abandoned essential oils entirely, but I am more cautious now than I was. I’m even removing them from some formulations. Partly that’s about regulatory burden - the labelling complexity, the need for allergen calculations, the updated IFRA compliance work. For a small independent formulator and manufacturer, that overhead is significant. It’s easier, in some respects, to just leave them out.

But that ease is not what drives my choices or at least, I don’t want it to be. And I think when we collectively take the easy option of removing essential oils to avoid regulatory scrutiny, while leaving parfum in place because it’s less complicated to declare, we’re not actually making products safer. We may just be making them less transparent.

I also think about the enormous body of evidence for the biological activity of essential oil constituents anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, antioxidant properties that have been studied extensively. Bisabolol from chamomile. The well-documented wound-healing and cicatrisant properties of frankincense. When we strip all of that out in the name of perceived safety, we may be leaving significant functional benefit on the table.

SO, DO ESSENTIAL OILS HAVE A PLACE IN SKINCARE?

Yes. But with eyes open.

They have a place when used thoughtfully, at appropriate concentrations, by formulators who understand the regulatory framework and the science behind the ingredients they’re choosing. They don’t have a place in high concentrations on compromised or reactive skin, in formulations for infants without specific expertise, or chosen simply because “natural” sounds better without the knowledge to back it up.

What they don’t deserve is to be treated as uniquely dangerous in a market that still routinely accepts synthetic parfum without so much as a raised eyebrow. That double standard is not science. It is not consumer protection. It is, at best, an incomplete conversation and at worst, it’s allowing us to be distracted from questions we should be asking about what’s hiding behind that single word on the back of the bottle.

I’m going to keep asking those questions. I’d encourage you to do the same.

Mukti x

For more of a deep dive into the world of beauty you can check out my book Truth in Beauty here.

---

A NOTE ON SOURCES

The regulatory information in this post draws on:

- IFRA 51st Amendment, notified 30 June 2023, ifrafragrance.org

- Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/1545 of 26 July 2023, EUR-Lex

- SCCS Opinion SCCS/1459/11 on fragrance allergens

- Published research on endocrine disruption in synthetic fragrance, including peer-reviewed literature cited in Frontiers in Toxicology (2025) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)

This post reflects my personal perspective as an independent formulator and is not intended as medical advice. If you have a known fragrance allergy or skin condition, please consult a dermatologist.

Over the past few years, I’ve had more and more customers tell me they’re using apps like Yuka and Think Dirty before purchasing beauty products.

Part of me genuinely applauds that.

Anything that encourages people to pause, turn over a label, read and endeavour to decipher it and ask questions is a step forward. For over 25 years, transparency and ingredient literacy have been at the heart of my work. When I started formulating certified organic skincare, it was because I wanted people to understand what they were putting on their skin — and why.

But I also have concerns.

The Rise Of The Red Dot

Yuka now has tens of millions of users globally and is one of the most downloaded health and fitness apps in the United States. The premise is simple: scan a product and receive a score out of 100. Green is good. Yellow is low risk. Orange is moderate. Red is hazardous.

On the surface, that feels empowering.

In reality, it’s far more complicated.

The issue - these apps assess ingredients largely in isolation. They assign penalty points based on internal algorithms, drawing from watch lists and hazard classifications. But toxicology doesn’t work in isolation. It works contextually.

The fundamental principle of toxicology that most scientists adhere to is: the dose makes the poison.

We can argue that water can be toxic in excess. Essential oils can be irritating at high concentrations. Vitamin A can be damaging if misused. Yet all of these can be beneficial — even transformative — when correctly formulated at safe, regulated percentages.

An app cannot see concentration levels.
It cannot see delivery systems.
It cannot see stability testing.
It cannot see the safety assessments required for compliance.

It sees a word and assigns a colour.

And that’s where nuance disappears.

When Regulation Is Misread

One of the more troubling issues I’ve observed is how EU allergen disclosure is interpreted.

If you formulate with essential oils and comply with EU regulations, you must list individual fragrance allergens — even when present in microscopic trace amounts naturally occurring in the plant extract.

The irony? A fully compliant product can score lower than a non compliant product simply because it is more transparent.

That isn’t better science. It’s misapplied data.

Another industry irony is that labelling parfum or fragrance in formulations means you don’t have to declare allergens due to the trade secrets act. Oh and did I mention that IFRA - the International Fragrance Association is self regulated…but I digress…

Hazard Versus Risk

There is a significant difference between hazard and risk.

Hazard asks: can this substance cause harm under any circumstance?
Risk asks: will it cause harm at this concentration, in this formulation, under normal use?

Most consumer scanning apps operate from a hazard based perspective. Regulatory bodies such as the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety assess risk.

Those are not the same thing.

When phenoxyethanol, salicylic acid or titanium dioxide are flagged without context, a sophisticated sunscreen or well balanced formulation can score lower than a basic oil blend — regardless of performance, efficacy or real world safety.

The app doesn’t evaluate whether the product works.
It doesn’t evaluate clinical data.
It doesn’t evaluate long term stability or preservative systems.

It evaluates presence.

The Psychology Of Fear

There is another dynamic at play.

Fear travels faster than reassurance.
Red dots attract attention.
“Hazardous” is more clickable than “permitted within safe limits.”

Some brands benefit from this. “Free from” marketing can thrive when consumers are primed to fear certain ingredients. But replacing a well studied preservative with a less researched alternative does not automatically make a formula safer.

Sometimes it does the opposite.

So Should You Use These Apps?

If you have a specific allergy or intolerance, scanning tools may help you quickly identify ingredients you personally need to avoid.

But they shouldn’t replace:

– Understanding formulation science
– Looking at regulatory compliance
– Speaking to brands directly
– Assessing whether a product actually performs for your skin

Skincare is not binary. It is not red, green or yellow. It’s complex chemistry balanced with biology.

What I Believe The Industry Should Do

We can’t dismiss the popularity of these apps. They signal something important — that people want transparency. They want clarity. They want to feel safe.

Instead of fighting that, the industry needs to communicate better science in accessible language.

Regulatory bodies publish extensive safety reviews. Toxicologists assess margins of safety. Stability and microbial challenge tests exist for a reason. But that information rarely reaches consumers in a digestible format.

We need more science communicators, more clarity around how safety is assessed, more honesty around trade offs and fewer scare tactics.

My Personal Position

I have always believed in mindful formulation.

Not fear based formulation.
Not trend based formulation.
Not marketing driven “villains.”

Mindful.

That means understanding ingredient sourcing, concentration, synergy, regulatory compliance and long term skin health.

An app score cannot capture that depth.

Use these tools if they help you ask better questions. But don’t outsource your critical thinking to a coloured dot.

True safety and true efficacy live in the nuance.

Thanks for reading and if you’re new here for subscribing. For more of an in depth dive into product safety and understanding formulations please check out my book Truth in Beauty.

Mukti

Lip products sit in a category of their own.

Unlike skincare, they are applied directly to the mouth, reapplied frequently, and inevitably ingested.

Yet they are regulated as cosmetics, not ingestibles.

Which allows for an alarming range of ingredients to quietly enter lipsticks, lip balms and lip serums marketed as glossy, juicy and fun, often aimed squarely at teenagers.

How Much Product Do We Actually Ingest?

Studies estimate that the average lip product user ingests between 24–87 mg per day, depending on reapplication habits. Heavy users can ingest up to 2 kg over a lifetime.

That means lip products are not just sitting on the skin.
They are entering the body repeatedly, day after day.

So the question is not is this allowed, but is this appropriate.

The Most Common Concerning Ingredients Found in Lip Products

1. Synthetic Polymers and Plasticisers

Ingredients such as polybutene and acrylate polymers are commonly used to create shine, slip and long wear.

These are petroleum derived plastic like substances.

They do not nourish the lips.
They create a coating.

Concerns include:
• Bioaccumulation over time
• Environmental persistence
• Microplastic ingestion
• Lip barrier disruption with repeated use

They are particularly problematic in products designed for constant reapplication.

2. Chemical UV Filters in Lip Products

Many modern lip glosses and serums now contain chemical sunscreen filters, often without consumers realising they are applying and ingesting them multiple times a day.

Common examples include:
• Ethylhexyl salicylate
• Butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane
• Ethylhexyl triazone
• Bis ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine
• Methoxycrylene stabilisers

These filters are designed for topical sun protection on the body, not repeated oral exposure.

Emerging concerns include:
• Endocrine disruption
• Bioaccumulation
• Hormonal interference in adolescents
• Increased systemic exposure due to ingestion

Teenagers in particular are more vulnerable due to developing endocrine systems.

3. Phthalates and Fragrance Compounds

The word flavour or fragrance on an ingredient list can legally mask dozens of undisclosed compounds.

Many lip products tested globally have been found to contain:
• Phthalates
• Synthetic musks
• Solvent carriers

Phthalates are known plasticisers linked to:
• Hormonal disruption
• Fertility concerns
• Developmental effects

When used daily on lips, exposure becomes cumulative.

4. PFAS and Forever Chemicals

Independent testing has revealed PFAS compounds in a wide range of long wear and waterproof lip products.

These chemicals are used to improve:
• Longevity
• Water resistance
• Slip and adhesion

PFAS do not break down in the body or the environment.

They are associated with:
• Immune disruption
• Hormonal imbalance
• Liver stress
• Long term bioaccumulation

Once ingested, they remain.

5. Artificial Sweeteners and Flavours

Some lip products include sucralose or synthetic sweeteners to enhance taste.

While considered safe for ingestion in food at controlled doses, their inclusion in lip products encourages overuse and unconscious ingestion, particularly in young users.

This raises questions around cumulative exposure and behavioural reinforcement.

A Real World Example

This week a newly launched lip glaze spits out the marketing slogan “The Responsible Way to Gloss Your Lips” and includes a line up of the following (not so clean) ingredients:

Polybutene, Octyldodecanol, Ethylhexyl salicylate, Butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane, Butyloctyl salicylate, Ethylhexyl methoxycrylene, Ethylhexyl triazone, Bis ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine, Flavour, Silica silylate, Poly C10-30 alkyl acrylate, Tetrahexyldecyl ascorbate, Jojoba seed oil, Sucralose, Kakadu plum extract.

This formulation relies heavily on:
• Synthetic polymers
• Multiple chemical UV filters
• Flavour masking
• Plastic derived textures

While legally compliant, it raises important questions when marketed as a daily lip product, especially to younger consumers. As a brand is this really responsible?Rather, this trend mirrors the high gloss, synthetic lip aesthetic popularised by Rhode Beauty, where shine and sensation often outweigh nourishment and safety.

Why This Matters More Than Ever

The lips have:
• No sebaceous glands
• A thinner barrier
• Higher permeability

They are not designed to tolerate repeated exposure to plastic films and chemical actives.

Over time this can lead to:
• Lip dependency and dryness cycles
• Barrier impairment
• Increased absorption of unwanted compounds

What Should Be in a Truly Safe Lip Product?

A lip product should function more like a protective food grade balm than a cosmetic coating.

Ideally it should contain:
• Cold pressed plant oils and butters
• Beeswax or plant waxes
• Antioxidant rich botanicals
• No synthetic polymers
• No chemical UV filters
• No artificial flavours or sweeteners

The adage, if you would not feel comfortable eating it, it should not live on your lips should be at the forefront of product selection especially when it comes to ingesting beauty. Just because an ingredient is allowed does not mean it belongs in a product applied to the mouth multiple times a day for decades.

What feels glossy today may be compromising your health. Your lips and wellbeing are not an experiment.

For more Truth in Beauty.

Mukti x

References

Ingestion & Exposure

1. Loretz et al., 2005 – Exposure Data for Cosmetic Products: Lipstick Ingestion
   Food and Chemical Toxicology
   Estimated daily ingestion of lip products ranges from 24–87 mg per day, with lifetime exposure approaching kilograms for frequent users.

2. US FDA – Cosmetics and Your Health
   Confirms lip products are regulated as cosmetics despite predictable ingestion.

Chemical UV Filters & Endocrine Disruption

3. Matta et al., 2019 – Systemic Absorption of Sunscreen Ingredients
   JAMA
   Demonstrated measurable plasma levels of chemical UV filters after topical application.

4. Krause et al., 2012 – Sunscreens: Are They Beneficial for Health?
   International Journal of Andrology
   Links certain chemical UV filters with endocrine activity.

5. European Commission SCCS Opinions – Various UV filters
   Notes bioaccumulation concerns and systemic exposure risks.

Phthalates & Plasticisers

6. CDC National Biomonitoring Program
   Detects widespread phthalate metabolites in human urine linked to cosmetic exposure.

7. Swan et al., 2005 – Decrease in Anogenital Distance Among Male Infants
   Environmental Health Perspectives
   Links prenatal phthalate exposure to developmental effects.

PFAS in Lip Products

8. Whitehead et al., 2021 – Fluorinated Compounds in Cosmetic Products
   Environmental Science & Technology Letters
   Found PFAS in long wear lipsticks and glosses, including products not marketed as waterproof.

9. EPA PFAS Overview
   Documents bio persistence, immune and hormonal disruption risks.

Synthetic Polymers & Microplastics

10. Rochman et al., 2015 – Microplastics in the Marine Environment
    Science
    Establishes ingestion and bioaccumulation pathways relevant to polymer exposure.

11. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) – Intentionally Added Microplastics
    Regulatory scrutiny increasing on acrylates and synthetic polymers in cosmetics.

Artificial Sweeteners

12. Magnuson et al., 2017 – Sucralose Safety Review
    Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
    Notes acceptable daily intake but highlights cumulative exposure considerations.

The way we eat, rest, think, and move continually informs how our cells behave. Every lifestyle choice either supports repair or accelerates decline. Modern longevity science confirms what ancient wisdom has long known: the body is a self-regulating ecosystem, and the skin reflects its internal harmony.

To care for the skin is to care for the system it belongs to.

1. Rhythm — Honour the Body’s Clock

Every cell follows a circadian rhythm; a biological cadence that governs metabolism, repair, and renewal. When we disrupt that rhythm through late nights, blue light exposure, or irregular routines, cellular coherence falters.

Longevity in practice:

• Keep consistent sleep and wake times.

• Eat with daylight - digestion and repair are time-sensitive.

• Avoid overexposure to artificial light at night; darkness signals regeneration.

• Use blue blockers and incandescent globes, candles or dim lighting.

Rhythm is the hidden nutrient your skin can’t live without.

2. Nourishment — Feed Your Cells, Not Just Your Appetite

Nutrition is information. The skin reads every molecule you consume as data. Diets rich in phytonutrients, essential fatty acids, and antioxidants help buffer oxidative stress and sustain collagen integrity.

Longevity in practice:

• Prioritise deeply coloured fruits and vegetables — they deliver polyphenols that protect DNA and mitochondria.

• Include omega-3s and monounsaturated fats for barrier integrity.

• Moderate sugar as glycation stiffens collagen and accelerates ageing.

• Hydrate consciously; water is a transporter, not a replacement for nutrients.

• Filtered hydrogen rich water is optimal.

Your skin’s resilience depends on what’s circulating beneath it.

3. Movement — Activate Cellular Energy

Movement isn’t just for muscle tone or looks; it enhances oxygenation, lymphatic flow, and mitochondrial function. Exercise increases the expression of longevity genes and antioxidant enzymes. It can reset your mood and stimulate happy hormones.

Longevity in practice:

• Combine strength and gentle cardio; both stimulate repair mechanisms.

• Prioritise natural movement — walking, stretching, time outdoors — to reduce systemic inflammation.

A moving body teaches cells to adapt and renew - not stagnate.

4. Restoration — The Power of Rest and Sleep

Repair doesn’t happen when we’re in constant motion. Deep rest activates parasympathetic dominance the state where cells regenerate, hormones balance, and inflammation calms.

Longevity in practice:

• Establish a pre-sleep ritual that disengages the nervous system.

• Prioritise full-spectrum daylight exposure in the morning; it anchors circadian rhythm.

• Recognise rest as a biological requirement, not a luxury.

Regeneration is impossible in the absence of stillness.

5. Emotional Ecology — The Skin Reflects the Mind

Emotions change biochemistry. Chronic stress increases cortisol and inflammatory cytokines, both of which accelerate every hallmark of ageing. Calm is felt at a cellular level.

Longevity in practice:

• Form a twice daily habit of meditation this creates a stable anchor.

• Ground daily through breath or time in nature walk barefoot it’s cheap and usually accessible.

• Reduce sensory overload: overstimulation taxes the nervous system.

• Surround yourself with relationships and environments that replenish energy.

Every emotion leaves a molecular footprint. Choose peace deliberately.

6. Connection — Microbiome, Community, and Coherence

Just as the skin thrives in microbial balance, humans thrive in relational balance. Isolation increases inflammation and stress hormones. Connection, laughter, and shared purpose lower them.

Longevity in practice:

• Seek connection through community, creativity, and contribution.

• Support your internal and external microbiome with variety across the board in food, people, and experience.

Connection is regenerative.

7. Purpose — The Deepest Nutrient

A sense of meaning stabilises physiology. Studies show that purpose correlates with lower inflammation and longer telomeres. On a cellular level, direction gives coherence it tells the system what it’s living for.

Longevity in practice:

• Align daily actions with values that nourish, not drain.

• Approach ageing as a journey toward wisdom, not loss.

• Beauty, like vitality, follows coherence.

Longevity is not found in any single ingredient, ritual, or supplement. It is the continuum between biology and behaviour, the daily dance between how we live and how our cells respond.

To live in rhythm with your biology is to remember that you are nature; cyclical, adaptive, and designed for renewal.

When life is lived consciously, the skin becomes what it truly is: an outward reflection of inner equilibrium.

By Mukti – Founder of Mukti Organics

Find out more about Truth in Beauty

In 2026, more people are taking a forward-thinking approach to skincare with a shift away from quick fixes to long-term strategies that support true skin longevity. This equates to maintaining the skin’s integrity, cellular vitality, and natural ability to regenerate over time.

The Data Behind the Shift

As seen in recent market analysis, this transition is fuelled by surging interest in
-Age Management (+142.7%)
-Skin Microbiome (+120.1%)
-Cellular Senescence (+25.3%)
-Positive Aging (+18.4%)
-Skin Barrier (+7.1%)

Data Source: Spate — The Comprehensive Guide to Longevity Across Beauty & Wellness

Every day, our skin orchestrates a symphony of renewal. Cells divide, collagen is woven, energy flows, and microscopic networks communicate in perfect rhythm. When we’re young, this biological orchestra plays effortlessly. With time, the tempo slows. The notes distort. Harmony fades into static.

Science now gives language to that change. You may have recently come across the term the hallmarks of ageing which refers to the biological signatures that define how and why our cells lose vitality. Once thought to be nine, researchers now recognise fourteen interlinked hallmarks that map out how ageing unfolds at every level of the body, from DNA to the visible surface of the skin.

By understanding them, we can move beyond the fear of ageing into a deeper appreciation of what longevity truly means: the preservation of balance, coherence, and vitality across time and what we can focus on to counteract the effects.

THE PRIMARY HALLMARKS — ROOT CAUSES OF AGEING

These are the foundational biological processes that set ageing in motion. They begin quietly, deep within our cells, long before any visible change occurs.

1. Genomic Instability — The Fraying Blueprint

Every cell carries a copy of our genetic code; a delicate instruction manual for repair and renewal. Over time, UV exposure, pollutants, and oxidative stress damage this DNA. When repair mechanisms falter, mutations accumulate, and the integrity of the blueprint weakens.

Longevity focus: Antioxidant nutrients, DNA-protective phytonutrients, and consistent UV protection to preserve genomic stability and prevent premature cellular decline.

2. Telomere Shortening — The Biological Clock

At the ends of each DNA strand lie telomeres that act as protective caps that shorten with every cell division. I liken them to bookends in a library. When they become critically short, cells lose their ability to replicate and repair, leading to visible thinning and loss of elasticity.

Longevity focus: Antioxidant-rich nutrition, stress reduction, and consistent sleep rhythms slow telomere attrition and extend cellular lifespan.

3. Epigenetic Alterations — When the Language Changes

Genes are not static; their expression shifts according to environment, nutrition, and emotion. Over time, this “epigenetic drift” silences regenerative pathways and amplifies those that drive inflammation and breakdown.

Longevity focus: B vitamins, niacinamide, and plant polyphenols help maintain balanced gene signalling encouraging cells to express vitality rather than decline.

4. Loss of Proteostasis — The Collapse of Structure

Proteostasis refers to the balance between protein creation and degradation. The primary proteins found in the skin - collagen, elastin, and keratin all depend on this equilibrium. When it falters damaged proteins accumulate and structural integrity erodes.

Longevity focus: Peptides, amino acids, and co-factors (internal and external) that support protein synthesis and folding help sustain elasticity and resilience.

5. Disabled Macroautophagy — When the Cleanup Stops

Autophagy derived from the Greek “to self-eat”, is the cell’s recycling system. It removes damaged organelles and recycles components for renewal. As this process slows, cellular debris accumulates, and ageing accelerates.

Longevity focus: Fasting-mimetic nutrients, polyphenols, and rhythmic sleep–wake cycles enhance autophagic efficiency and cellular renewal.

THE ANTAGONISTIC HALLMARKS — ADAPTIVE RESPONSES THAT BACKFIRE

Initially protective, these responses arise to counter early damage but, when chronic, become self-destructive. They are the biological “overcorrections” that turn defence into dysfunction.

6. Deregulated Nutrient Sensing — Metabolic Confusion

Cells constantly interpret nutrient and energy cues through pathways like insulin and Adenosine Monophosphate-Activated Protein Kinase AMPK (often described as the body’s metabolic master switch). With age and metabolic stress, this sensing system becomes dysregulated disrupting repair, barrier function, and energy balance.

Longevity focus: Balanced blood-sugar regulation, nutrient-dense whole foods, and compounds like resveratrol and coenzyme Q10 support efficient energy metabolism.

7. Mitochondrial Dysfunction — The Energy Decline

Mitochondria are the power plants of the cell, generating ATP, the energy required for renewal. Over time, oxidative stress damages mitochondrial DNA, slowing repair and causing dullness, fatigue, and uneven tone.

Longevity focus: Antioxidants, vitamin C, B-complex nutrients, and mitochondrial co-factors protect energy flow and support cellular vitality.

8. Cellular Senescence — The Cells That Refuse to Retire

Senescent cells are those that have stopped dividing but linger, releasing inflammatory molecules that damage their surroundings the cellular equivalent of static interference.

Longevity focus: Retinoids, gentle exfoliation, and anti-inflammatory actives encourage renewal while clearing senescent build-up.

THE INTEGRATIVE HALLMARKS — SYSTEMIC MANIFESTATIONS

These hallmarks represent the cumulative outcomes of damage such as visible expressions of ageing at the tissue and organ level. They reflect not just time, but the skin’s long-term dialogue with its environment.

9. Stem Cell Exhaustion — The Depleted Reservoir

Stem cells are the skin’s internal pool of potential the source of regeneration. Over time, their numbers and vitality decline, slowing turnover and healing.

Longevity focus: Nutrient-dense botanicals, peptides, and growth-factor-mimicking compounds help protect stem cell environments and maintain renewal capacity.

10. Altered Intercellular Communication — When Signals Get Crossed

Healthy skin relies on constant communication between keratinocytes, fibroblasts, immune cells, and the microbiome. With age, signalling becomes distorted, leading to chronic inflammation and weakened defence.

Longevity focus: Barrier-strengthening lipids, omegas, and antioxidants help maintain clear communication pathways and structural cohesion.

11. Chronic Inflammation — The Silent Accelerator

Low-grade, persistent inflammation (inflammaging) is the unifying thread of biological ageing. It disrupts repair, accelerates collagen loss, and weakens the barrier’s immune intelligence.

Longevity focus: Omega-3 fatty acids, adaptogenic herbs, and soothing antioxidants calm the immune response and protect long-term balance.

12. Microbiome Dysbiosis — The Lost Harmony of Skin Ecology

The skin’s microbiome is a thriving ecosystem of bacteria, fungi, and viruses that supports immunity, hydration, and repair. When diversity is lost, imbalance leads to irritation and sensitivity.

Longevity focus: Prebiotics, postbiotics, and gentle, low-foaming surfactants protect microbial equilibrium and fortify resilience.

13. Extracellular Matrix Decline — The Collapse of the Scaffolding

Collagen, elastin, and hyaluronic acid form the matrix that gives the skin its structure. As enzymatic breakdown outpaces synthesis, this scaffolding weakens, resulting in wrinkles, sagging, and loss of volume.

Longevity focus: Vitamin C, multi-weight hyaluronic acid, and peptides protect and rebuild the extracellular matrix.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL & BEHAVIOURAL HALLMARK — MODERN AGEING’S CATALYST

14. Circadian and Psychosocial Disruption — When Rhythm Is Lost

Emerging research recognises circadian misalignment, chronic stress, and emotional exhaustion as accelerators of every biological hallmark. The skin has its own internal clock, dictating repair by night and defence by day. When this rhythm is disturbed, recovery falters and inflammation rises.

Longevity focus: Consistent sleep, mindful routines, exposure to natural light, and nervous system regulation restore rhythm and coherence, the foundation of all regeneration.

The Interconnected Web

These fourteen mechanisms are not separate threads rather, they are woven together in constant dialogue. Damage to DNA triggers inflammation; inflammation disrupts mitochondria; mitochondrial decline slows collagen synthesis. Longevity lies in supporting communication among these processes rather than isolating them.

Ageing well is about harmonising biology.

From Anti-Ageing to Longevity Thinking

The future of skincare is not resistance but it’s resonance.
Where “anti-ageing” once sought to defy nature, longevity seeks to work with it.

True skin longevity means:

• Preserving structure through balanced collagen metabolism

• Protecting information through DNA and mitochondrial repair

• Promoting communication among cells, lipids, and the microbiome

• Preventing inflammation before it manifests as visible change

It’s not about turning back time, but sustaining the vitality that animates it.

Ageing gracefully is not a marketing promise it’s a biological reality when we nurture the body’s innate intelligence.

When we protect our cellular blueprint, nourish with integrity, honour rest, and align with natural rhythm, the skin doesn’t merely appear younger it behaves that way.

Longevity is the quiet conversation between nature and time, a dialogue of resilience, and renewal, unfolding cell by cell.

Mukti founder of Mukti Organics

Find out more about Truth in Beauty

Here’s a snapshot of what they actually do, and whether they live up to the hype.

1. Retinol / Retinal / Retinoids

   The buzz: “Retinol is the holy grail for anti-ageing.”
   What it does: Vitamin A derivatives accelerate cell turnover, stimulate collagen, and refine texture. Retinal (the next step before retinoic acid) delivers faster results with less irritation.
   Hype check: Deserved when used correctly. The problem lies in misuse and over-layering with other actives. Choose stable forms like retinal and buffer with a hydrating serum or ceramide-rich moisturiser to support the barrier.

   Bakuchiol: the “natural retinol” is a great alternative for sensitive skin.

2. Niacinamide

   The buzz: “It fixes everything!”
   What it does: A multitasking form of Vitamin B3 that improves barrier function, reduces redness, balances sebum, and boosts elasticity.
   Hype check: True. It’s well-researched and safe for all skin types, but the overuse of high-percentage serums (10–20 %) can cause irritation and flushing. Concentrations around 5 % are optimal.
   

3. Peptides

   The buzz: “Botox in a bottle.” I first started incorporating specific peptides into our Age Defiance Serum range back in 2012.
   What they do: Short chains of amino acids that signal skin to produce collagen and elastin. Different peptides perform different tasks some firm, some hydrate, some soothe.
   Hype check: Worth the excitement, especially when combined with ceramides, vitamins and antioxidants for synergistic results. They’re foundational for age-defying formulations rather than a quick fix.
   

4. Hyaluronic Acid (HA)

   The buzz: “Hydration hero.”
   What it does: A humectant that draws and holds water in the skin, plumping and softening its appearance.
   Hype check: Effective when used in balanced formulas with multiple molecular weights. Over-layering HA on dry skin without sealing it in can actually dehydrate. Always follow with a moisturiser or face oil.
   

5. Ceramides

   The buzz: “Barrier repair essential.”
   What they do: Lipids naturally found in the skin that lock in moisture and protect against environmental aggressors.
   Hype check: Essential, not trendy. They’re the backbone of a strong barrier and should feature in every age-defying or sensitive-skin routine.
   

6. Growth Factors

   What they are: Proteins naturally produced by the body that signal cells to repair and regenerate. In skincare, they’re often derived from plants, yeast, or human/animal stem cells.
   What they claim to do: Stimulate collagen and elastin synthesis, improve wound healing, and accelerate skin renewal.
   Do they live up to the hype? The science is promising, particularly for post-procedure recovery. But ethical sourcing and molecular stability are key concerns. Most topical formulations contain large molecules that can’t penetrate deeply enough to trigger change in living tissue. Think of them as supportive rather than transformative.
   

7. Exosomes

   What they are: Nano-sized vesicles secreted by stem cells that carry growth factors, peptides, and genetic material to communicate with other cells.
   What they claim to do: Repair damage at a cellular level, enhance collagen synthesis, and rejuvenate dull or aged skin.
   Do they live up to the hype? Early data is compelling, but most studies are on medical-grade exosomes used in conjunction with procedures like microneedling or lasers — not over-the-counter creams. There’s little regulatory clarity on their safety or source, particularly if derived from human or animal tissue. It’s an exciting frontier, but still experimental.
   

8. PDRN (Polydeoxyribonucleotide)

   What it is: DNA fragments extracted from salmon sperm, used in regenerative medicine to stimulate tissue repair and improve elasticity.
   What it claims to do: Hydrate, heal, and rejuvenate at a cellular level — often marketed as a “skin booster.”
   Do they live up to the hype? Clinically, injectable PDRN (not topical) has shown wound-healing and anti-inflammatory benefits. Topical use is still largely marketing. It’s not vegan-friendly, and sourcing transparency can be questionable.
   

9. Tallow (Beef or Bison Fat)

   What it is: Rendered animal fat rich in fatty acids, vitamins A, D, E, and K. Once a traditional skincare ingredient, it’s having a revival as part of the “ancestral” or “natural skin barrier” movement.
   What it claims to do: Moisturise deeply and “mimic human sebum.”
   Do they live up to the hype? While nourishing and occlusive, tallow can be comedogenic and ethically polarising. It lacks the sophistication of modern lipid complexes that deliver the same fatty acids with higher stability and purity. More nostalgia than breakthrough.
   

10. Stem-Cell-Derived or “Cell Signalling” Ingredients

    What they are: Extracts or conditioned media from plant or human stem cells.
    What they claim to do: Protect cellular DNA and promote rejuvenation.
    Do they live up to the hype? Plant stem cells can offer antioxidant benefits, but they don’t transform human cells — they act more like protective antioxidants. Human-derived versions raise ethical and regulatory questions and have limited evidence of efficacy in topical applications.

Application Buzzwords Continue

1. Skin Cycling
What it means: Rotating active ingredients (like retinol and exfoliants) with recovery nights to reduce irritation.
Does it live up to the hype? Yes - it’s essentially good skincare practice dressed up with a new name. Skin needs recovery time to maintain barrier function.

2. Glass Skin / Dolphin Skin / Cloud Skin
What it means: Terms describing skin finishes - “glass” = ultra-smooth and luminous, “cloud” = soft-focus and hydrated.
Does it live up to the hype? These are aesthetic ideals, not clinical outcomes. Healthy skin texture and hydration can mimic these looks naturally without overloading on silicones or highlighter products.

3. Skin Flooding
What it means: Layering multiple hydrating products (mist → serum → moisturiser) to “flood” the skin with moisture.
Hype check: Works when done with barrier-supporting ingredients like hyaluronic acid and ceramides. But over-hydrating with poor formulations can backfire, causing transepidermal water loss if not sealed in.

4. Slugging
What it means: Applying a heavy occlusive (like petrolatum) over skincare at night to lock in moisture.
Hype check: Originally a K-beauty hack. Effective for severely dry or compromised skin but not ideal for acne-prone or congested types. Better alternatives? Natural occlusives rich in lipids and ceramides.

5. Skin Barrier Repair / Microbiome Skincare
What it means: Products designed to support the skin’s protective barrier and microbial balance.
Hype check: This isn’t just a trend, it’s the foundation of healthy skin. Formulations with pre- and postbiotics, niacinamide, and ceramides genuinely help.

6. Retinol Sandwiching
What it means: Applying moisturiser before and after retinol to reduce irritation.
Hype check: A good method for sensitive skin, though it can reduce potency slightly. A buffered, lipid-encapsulated retinal or natural retinol alternative may achieve the same effect with fewer steps.

7. Skin Cycling with Exfoliation (“double exfoliation”)
What it means: Combining chemical and physical exfoliants.
Hype check: Often overdone on TikTok. Over-exfoliation weakens the barrier. Stick to one effective method — ideally a well-formulated enzyme or gentle AHA/BHA blend.

At-Home Devices & Ingredient Pairing

What’s happening: LED masks, micro-needling rollers, and plasma pens are being paired with active serums for “boosted absorption.”

Advice: Professional treatments and high-tech equipment have proven efficacy and are overseen by a qualified professional; at-home devices vary wildly in strength and safety. Over-stimulation can trigger inflammation and barrier breakdown. Always prioritise calm consistency over aggressive intervention. Seeing a qualified professional always outweighs winging it based on a Tik Tok trend.

Reality Check

Many trending ingredients originate from medical or lab environments where they’re injected, not applied topically. Once they enter the cosmetic realm, their effectiveness depends on molecular size, stability, delivery systems, and other variable factors often left out of viral videos. The real innovation depends on bioavailability and delivery systems and how these molecules interact and work within the physiology of the skin. I predict the next frontier of skincare will continue to merge biotechnology with nature’s innate intelligence.

Thanks for reading.

Mukti x

Find out more about Truth in Beauty

I’ve thought about reaching out with my concerns, but I suspect I’d be ignored. Perhaps there’s financial endorsement involved. Or maybe, like so many, she simply doesn’t know of the impact of fragrances that are laced with hundreds of dubious compounds.

Perfume has become so normalised that few people question what’s inside the bottle or what happens once we inhale it. There is a physiological impact that is far more sinister than simple spritz of something that smells nice and is suppose to make you feel good. Many fragrance chemicals are endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) that can interfere with hormone signalling, our mood, metabolism, fertility and thyroid function. The Endocrine Society continues to call for tighter regulation, warning that evidence of hormonal disruption from multiple consumer sources is growing, not shrinking.

How scent gets into your system

Fragrance chemicals are volatile. You breathe them in. They also pass through the delicate skin inside the nose and through the lungs into the bloodstream. For semi-volatile compounds, direct uptake through the skin from air can equal inhalation exposure. This means a single spritz in a confined space can create a measurable internal dose, adding to whatever is already absorbed from skincare, hair products, detergents and air fresheners.

Our sense of smell evolved as a survival mechanism to alert us to hazards that may threaten survival like smoke, toxins or decay. Olfactory receptors sit at the gateway to the brain and are also expressed in other body tissues where they influence cellular processes. When this system is continuously bombarded by artificial scents, the brain becomes desensitised. Instead of steering us away from danger, our olfactory system is now being manipulated by chemicals designed to override our instincts and create emotional attachment.

PCOS and hormonal disruption

The global rise in PCOS is not accidental. Phthalates are a class of chemicals widely used as fragrance carriers and plasticisers that help scent adhere to the skin and last longer are recognised endocrine disruptors. Human studies show concerning links between phthalate exposure and the hormonal and metabolic imbalances central to PCOS. While some reviews show inconsistent associations at diagnostic level, the mechanistic pathways are well established. Lowering cumulative exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals is a sensible preventative step, particularly for women of reproductive age.

What’s actually in a bottle of perfume

If fine fragrances were required to publish a full INCI, it would read something like this:

The above is literally a chemical cocktail at its finest. Under international labelling laws, brands can group hundreds of unlisted compounds under the single word “Parfum”. These may include phthalates, uv filters, synthetic musks, fixatives and solvents derived from petrochemicals. Some of these are persistent and bioaccumulative, meaning they linger in your body and the environment and are now referred to as forever chemicals.

Phthalates, synthetic musks and health

Diethyl phthalate is one of the most common fixatives used in fragrance. Research links phthalate exposure to reduced fertility, altered thyroid function and metabolic effects. Synthetic musks such as galaxolide and tonalide are equally concerning as they accumulate in fat tissue, breast milk and waterways, and are now under review in Europe for reproductive toxicity.

Regulation is shifting, but slowly

In 2022, the EU banned lilial — a popular floral fragrance — after it was classified as a reproductive toxin. In 2023, the EU expanded mandatory labelling to more than eighty fragrance allergens. These are meaningful advances, but they fall short of full ingredient disclosure or addressing the cumulative effects of multi-product exposure.

Why this matters for young adults

Adolescence and early adulthood are critical windows of hormonal development and neuroendocrine sensitivity. Repeated exposure during these periods can have disproportionate effects on future reproductive and metabolic health. For teens and young women, the daily layering of deodorant sprays, hair spray, body lotion and perfume creates a huge chemical burden that is both invisible and avoidable.

Simple steps to protect your hormones

1. Remember that anything you spray you are also inhaling and ingesting.

2. Choose fragrance-free or low-tox personal care where possible.

3. If you wear scent, apply sparingly and in open air rather than enclosed spaces

4. Avoid layering fragranced products across your routine

5. Support brands that list every fragrance ingredient and avoid phthalates

6. Keep your home well ventilated and avoid aerosol, reed sticks or plug-in air fresheners

7. Never apply perfume directly to the skin of babies, children or pregnant women

The takeaway

Our olfactory system was designed to keep us safe. It was never meant to navigate a synthetic fog. What began as nature’s warning signal has become a tool of emotional marketing. Fragrance is not just a scent. It’s chemistry, and our bodies and the environment are paying the price.

Thanks for reading,

Mukti x

References and further reading

Truth in Beauty

• Endocrine Society, Scientific Statement on Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals, 2023

• Weschler and Nazaroff, Dermal Uptake of Organic Vapors from Indoor Air, Environmental Science & Technology

• EU Regulation 2023/1545, Expansion of Allergen Labelling for Fragrance Compounds

• Systematic Review: Phthalate Exposure and PCOS, Reproductive Toxicology, 2024

• Meta-analysis: Phthalates and Metabolic Syndrome Components, Environmental Research, 2024

• ANSES Proposal, 2025 — Galaxolide Classified as Reproductive Toxicant (EU)

Lip balms, you say — surely these are harmless (cheap) gifts? Surely they wouldn’t be allowed to market and sell potentially toxic concoctions for our children to smear and inevitably ingest?

In the same way you can compare an organic salad to a bag of sweets, they’re worlds apart in their nutritional value. My return message to my friend was simple. Her daughter, let’s call her Susie, is an avid tennis player. I told her it’s like fuelling her body with junk food before a competition. She might start strong but she’ll soon run out of steam.

Asking a ten year old to read an INCI list is like asking them to decipher hieroglyphics. If you can’t pronounce an ingredient or it doesn’t sound remotely botanical, it probably belongs in the bin. To my relief and horror after our messaging back and forth, this is where Susie willingly placed them.

With Christmas around the corner, many tweens will be vying for makeup and skincare, and many well meaning parents will oblige, tucking serums, lip glosses and endocrine disrupting perfumes into stockings. What’s more alarming is that ten year olds today are surprisingly savvy. Some can recite ingredients like retinoids, peptides, acids, niacinamide, and vitamin C with confidence, even if they have no idea what they actually do.

The problem is that their skin barrier is still developing. It doesn’t need actives or anything that can strip or disrupt it. Unless hormones have kicked in early and acne has begun, these ingredients can cause long term damage, drying the skin out and making it more vulnerable to environmental stress. Their sebaceous glands haven’t yet matured enough to produce the protective oils that adult skin relies on.

And this isn’t just anecdotal. Recent studies are raising concerns about the rise of tween skincare culture. A UK survey found that more than one in four children aged 9 to 12 are already using actives like retinol and exfoliating acids — ingredients never intended for pre adolescent skin. Dermatologists are warning that these trends, driven largely by social media, can lead to increased sensitivity, dermatitis, and long term barrier disruption.
(Professional Beauty UK, 2024)

Paediatric dermatologists in the US are echoing similar concerns, advising that children’s naturally resilient skin does not need complex regimens or adult targeted products. They recommend simplicity, gentle cleansing, and daily sunscreen as the only essentials.
(HealthyChildren.org, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2024)

Beyond skin health, there’s also the issue of self image. Beauty marketing directed at tweens often arrives wrapped in language about glow, brightening, and perfection — subtle messages that something about their natural skin needs fixing.
(Skincare Network UK, 2024)

And let’s be honest, what ten year old listens to unsolicited advice from their mother? It might take a trusted voice or someone they admire to make an impression. Many parents have found my book Truth in Beauty a useful tool for starting these conversations — it was written with exactly these scenarios in mind.

At most, as the skin begins to mature and hormones come into play, a simple three step routine is more than enough:
• A gentle gel cleanser
• A lightweight or oil free moisturiser
• A broad spectrum SPF 30

As they grow, adding a twice weekly exfoliant and a weekly mask can help balance and calm the skin, but that’s where it should stop.

Beauty should be about care, not complexity. Let’s teach the next generation to nurture their skin, not wage war on it.

If you’d like further assistance and support with your tween or teen we offer complimentary skincare consultations and advice by trained skin therapists.

Thanks for reading and sharing.

Mukti x

If you’re a label scrutineer (and you should be) the onus is very personalised in determining your own parameters of what’s acceptable and what’s not. There’s no legislation governing what constitutes a clean product, and certainly no standardised benchmark. One brand’s “clean” can still be another brands “dirty” including questionable preservatives, silicones, or synthetic fragrance; another may genuinely meet rigorous organic certification criteria. The difference lies in integrity. You can’t accept this term on blind faith that a manufacturer has your best interests at heart.

From the outset, I have always been uncomfortable with the term clean beauty. It felt reductive and performative. Truth in Beauty was my attempt to dismantle the illusion and bring transparency back to the conversation and to remind people that beauty isn’t binary. It’s not about natural versus chemical, or safe versus toxic. After all, everything is a chemical. It’s a divisive conversation (like almost everything these days!). What matters is whether those chemicals are necessary, safe, synergistic with the skin’s biology and that the long-term implications and affect on the environment have been considered. At the end of the day it all ends up in our waterways.

We have to think of beauty and its implications on a macro level. This is real sustainability and circularity - not statistics and benchmarks set by external bodies.

• Cultural influence: how beauty standards are shaped by media, marketing, and globalisation.

• Environmental impact: how sourcing, packaging, and consumption affect the planet.

• Health and wellbeing: how ingredients, hormones, and lifestyle intersect.

• Ethics and transparency: who makes the products, under what conditions, and with what intent.

• Psychology and identity: how beauty relates to self-worth, ageing, and authenticity.

The skin physiologically, is a remarkably intelligent barrier. It’s not an open doorway for every ingredient to march straight into your bloodstream, nor is it an impenetrable wall. The problem isn’t the existence of chemicals, rather it’s the lack of disclosure, and the confusion that’s been deliberately cultivated through marketing language that preys on fear and aspiration.

That’s why I prefer the term mindful beauty. It’s a philosophy rather than a label. Mindful beauty means knowing the provenance of your ingredients, questioning what you’re told, and aligning your choices with your values. It’s about using what works, leaving out what doesn’t, and respecting both science and nature in equal measure.

This philosophy has guided every formulation I’ve created. Each ingredient is chosen with intention, backed by evidence, and harmonised with the skin’s innate intelligence. It’s not about being clean for the sake of optics.

The Toxic Ten

In Truth in Beauty, these are the top ten ingredient categories to avoid or scrutinise most closely. The ones that frequently appear in conventional beauty and personal care products, often hidden behind misleading terminology or incomplete disclosure.

Each carries concerns around toxicity, sensitisation, bioaccumulation, endocrine disruption, or environmental persistence.

1. Phthalates – Synthetic plasticisers used to make fragrances last longer and plastics more flexible. Known endocrine disruptors linked to reproductive and developmental toxicity. Commonly hidden under “fragrance” or “parfum.”

2. Parabens – Widely used preservatives (methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl parabens). Mimic oestrogen and have been detected in breast tissue; associated with endocrine disruption.

3. Formaldehyde & Formaldehyde-releasing Agents – Preservatives that slowly release formaldehyde (e.g. DMDM hydantoin, quaternium-15, imidazolidinyl urea). Carcinogenic and sensitising.

4. Synthetic Fragrance – An umbrella term that can conceal hundreds of undisclosed chemicals including phthalates, solvents, and allergens. A leading cause of hormone disruption, contact dermatitis and respiratory irritation.

5. Petrochemicals – Ingredients derived from petroleum (e.g. mineral oil, paraffin, petrolatum). Create an occlusive barrier that can inhibit skin function and are environmentally unsustainable.

6. Sodium Lauryl/Laureth Sulfate (SLS/SLES) – Harsh surfactants used in foaming cleansers and shampoos. Strips the skin and disrupts the lipid barrier, leading to dryness and irritation.

7. PEGs (Polyethylene Glycols) – Used as thickeners, solvents, and penetration enhancers. May be contaminated with ethylene oxide and 1,4-dioxane — both carcinogenic by-products.

8. Silicones – Synthetic polymers (e.g. dimethicone, cyclopentasiloxane) that create a smooth film but can impede skin respiration and are slow to biodegrade.

9. Triclosan & Antibacterial Agents – Antimicrobial chemicals linked to hormone disruption and antibiotic resistance. Banned or restricted in several countries but still found in some products.

10. Chemical Sunscreen Filters – UV filters such as oxybenzone, octinoxate, and avobenzone are photo-unstable, can penetrate the skin, and are implicated in coral bleaching and endocrine disruption.

The Formidable Fifty

Where the Toxic Ten are the major culprits, the Formidable Fifty expands the field. A reference list of additional synthetic compounds and chemical families to be aware of.

Keeping in mind that this isn’t about fear-mongering, but about awareness and transparency. Many of these are common additives, fillers, and stabilisers found in mainstream beauty, body, and haircare formulations.

The Formidable Fifty include:

• Acrylamide

• Alcohol (denatured, SD alcohol)

• Aluminium compounds

• Ammonium compounds

• Artificial colours (FD&C and D&C dyes)

• Benzalkonium chloride

• Benzophenones

• Benzyl alcohol (synthetic)

• BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole)

• BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene)

• Butoxyethanol

• Carbon black

• Coal tar dyes

• DEA/MEA/TEA (ethanolamines)

• Ethoxylated ingredients (PEGs, polysorbates, laureths)

• Fluorinated compounds (PFAS, PTFE, etc.)

• Glycol ethers

• Hydroquinone

• Lanolin (non-organic or pesticide-contaminated)

• Lead and heavy metals

• Methylisothiazolinone / Methylchloroisothiazolinone

• Nano particles (uncoated or untested)

• Nitrosamines (and nitrosating agents)

• Octocrylene

• Oxybenzone

• Para-aminobenzoic acid (PABA)

• Phenoxyethanol

• Phosphates

• Plastic microbeads

• Polyacrylamide

• Polysorbates

• Propylene glycol

• Quaternium compounds

• Quaternium-15

• Resorcinol

• Siloxanes

• Sodium benzoate (when combined with vitamin C)

• Sodium fluoride

• Sodium hydroxymethylglycinate

• Stearalkonium chloride

• Styrene

• Synthetic polymers (e.g. nylon, polyvinylpyrrolidone)

• Talc (non-pharmaceutical grade)

• Toluene

• TPHP (triphenyl phosphate)

• Urea (synthetic, imidazolidinyl, diazolidinyl)

• Vinyl acetate

• Xylene

These have all made the list based on long-term studies and references which took years to amass.

PFAs - Per and Poly Fluoroalkyl Substances

More recently, attention has turned to the presence of PFAS found in both makeup and skincare. Often not listed or marketed under names that sound harmless, these “forever chemicals” are anything but. They’re used to create that silky glide, waterproof finish, or long-wear effect in foundations, mascaras, and lip products. The problem is they don’t readily break down. Not in the body, not in the environment. PFAS accumulate over time, circulating through water systems, soil, wildlife, and ultimately, us. They’ve been linked to hormonal disruption, immune interference, and potential carcinogenic effects. Their persistence makes them the new frontier of cosmetic contamination. Further proof that convenience and performance should never come at the cost of long-term health or the environment.

For a deeper dive you can discover more here. Thanks for reading and sharing.

- Mukti

Admittedly, sunscreens are one of the trickiest categories to formulate. Not only to reach a consistent SPF that meets TGA standards but to nail all the other aspects including stability, texture, feel, and the use of ingredients that are safe for both people and the environment. The filters need to stay active without breaking down under sunlight. The emulsifiers can’t separate or destabilise over time. The ingredients need to be photostable, non-irritating, and not interfere with the skin’s natural barrier. Then there’s the question of what’s safe long-term - what might be absorbed, what could disrupt hormones, and what ends up in the ocean.

Finally peeps are starting to read labels and ask questions. For decades it feels like my concerns have mostly fallen on deaf ears, but I’ve always believed transparency and formulation integrity matter more than marketing claims.

In Australia, we’ve grown up to the anthem of “Slip, Slop, Slap”, so we know the drill. With our harsh, endless summers and high rates of skin cancer, we’re encouraged to use sun protection whenever we’re outside for any length of time. UVB rays are typically what cause burning, while UVA rays penetrate deeper (even through glass and what used to be called clouds) and contribute to premature ageing and skin cancers.

Statistics show that two out of three Australians will be diagnosed with some type of skin cancer in their lifetime. Sunscreen is an important part of reducing that risk, along with seeking shade and wearing protective clothing. But the higher the SPF doesn’t necessarily mean safer or better. SPF only measures UVB — not UVA — and some of the highest-rated sunscreens can still fail in real-world conditions if they’re not properly formulated, tested, or applied.

The sun itself has become somewhat demonised, but it’s also essential to health. Moderate sun exposure is required for the body’s natural synthesis of vitamin D, which plays a role in calcium absorption, immune balance, and mood regulation. Research also shows that UV light triggers the release of nitric oxide in the skin which in turn helps lower blood pressure and improve circulation. Other studies suggest that regular, controlled sun exposure may actually reduce cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Just like plants need sunlight for photosynthesis, we too rely on it for energy and equilibrium. The key, as always, is balance.

When it comes to sunscreen safety, one of the most important things to look at is what’s actually in the formula. Beyond the active UV filters, there’s often a long list of stabilisers, preservatives, and solvents which is where things can get murky. The TGA’s recent safety review of several commonly used chemical filters found that while most are considered low-risk at regulated levels, some raise valid concerns.

Oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) has already been banned in places like Hawaii and Thailand due to its environmental toxicity and potential for hormone disruption. Homosalate, another common filter, has been restricted in Europe because of its low margin of safety with long-term exposure. Octocrylene, which is still approved in Australia, can degrade into benzophenone, a possible carcinogen, particularly when products are stored for long periods or exposed to heat. Other ingredients such as octinoxate and avobenzone can destabilise under sunlight, reducing effectiveness and generating by-products that are best avoided.

If you’re choosing a sunscreen, it’s worth paying attention to:

• The type of filter – zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are considered the safest, most stable mineral options.

• The testing – make sure the product is TGA-listed or has verified ISO 24444 SPF testing.

• The formulation – avoid oxybenzone, octinoxate, octocrylene, and homosalate, particularly if the brand doesn’t publish full ingredient transparency.

• The storage – keep sunscreen away from heat and check expiry dates, as degradation can change both performance and safety.

The question “Is my sunscreen safe?” goes beyond numbers on a label. It’s about trust in how something is made, who makes it, and whether the choices behind the formula prioritise people, the environment, and long-term wellbeing.

Want to learn more..

When I began formulating in 2000, certified organic skincare didn’t exist aside from a handful of heritage European brands. The term “clean beauty” hadn’t yet entered our vocabulary. Equipped with a degree in Health Science and skin therapy, I wondered how hard it could be to create my own formulations, surely its just like cooking? I wanted products grounded in clinical botanicals, free from questionable bases, fragrances, and preservatives - simple stuff in the world of chemistry.

Rewind to pre-internet and AI, when research meant hours spent in local and state libraries poring over books and piecing together traditional recipes that would organically evolve into something more sophisticated. When I initially approached several cosmetic chemists, they not so nicely told me to get lost and dismissed the idea of natural formulations entirely. Admittedly, back then there were very few ingredients to choose from, so developing products from scratch was an arduous, time-consuming process of trial and error with no one to turn to for advice or inspiration.

Looking back I’m grateful the humble beginnings. The boot strapping, the energy and time invested, the sleepless nights. Those early experiments and tenacity became the seed of what would eventually grow into Mukti Organics, a brand built from frustration and curiosity and a desire to understand nature’s innate intelligence.

Today it’s easier than ever to start a skincare brand. Beyond a small amount of start up capital (I had just $2500), a marketing budget and a Shopify site, almost anyone can launch a brand overnight. But the deeper question here is to what means? It appears impulsive, driven by ego or a great made up storyline, with little conscience for environmental impact but rather, a single pointed focus on monetary gain, passive income and a promise of financial freedom.

1. Find contract manufacturer

2. Choose a pre-made formula from a white-label catalogue

3. Add a few “unique tweaks” with what is currently trending

4. Print logo on a cheap, non-recyclable plastic bottle

5. Call it your own

Although I may seem slightly jaded and cynical (I AM!), but what I’ve learned over time is that authenticity can’t be replicated. You can’t copy the entrepreneurial journey - the years of research, trial and error, or the intimate understanding of ingredients and their synergy on the skin.

I didn’t buy into beauty — I built it from the ground up. Long before storytelling became marketing hype, I was living it: formulating, blending, testing, answering calls, packing orders, and selling my creations at local markets. I knocked on so many doors I needed to make a hand cream. All while breastfeeding and navigating single parenthood. There was no plan B. That, to me, is what it truly means to be a pioneer-not as a title, but as a truth earned through experience, endurance, and evolution.

This next chapter is about continuing the conversation and as a creative outlet. After years of formulating, and questioning, I’m ready to share more of what I’ve learned along the way. Truth in Beauty is where those lessons unfold. The firsthand experiences and the heart behind mindful creation and building a brand from a place of integrity. It’s a space for exploration, for lifting the lid and revealing what really goes on beyond the label.

— Mukti