Big Beauty Gaslights Health-Conscious Consumers
From scrubbing articles to funding biased research, the industry is working overtime to label safety concerns as "radical."
Above: A screenshot of the original article header from BeautyMatter, which was removed from their platform.
Stoking Chemophobia
Last year, Beauty Matter—a leading beauty publication—scrubbed their own clean beauty article because they claimed it “stoked chemophobia.” In reality, they caved to industry pressure. The article mentioned parabens, the cheap preservatives big beauty brands rely on to keep products stable on shelves for years, could be harmful. These preservatives allow for massive profits for Beauty Matter’s advertisers (beauty brands), but expose consumers to unnecessary health risks.
Parabens have long been linked to endocrine disruption, and this has long been public knowledge. While Beauty Matter admitted long-chain parabens are risky in its retraction letter, they assured readers that long-chain parabens are rarely used. However, a quick Google search reveals thousands of products currently sold containing long-chain parabens. Further, Beauty Matter went on to explain that short-chain parabens are harmless, despite the research linking them to developmental and reproductive toxicity.
By prioritizing profits over public health, publications like this are failing the masses. Worse, by weaponizing inflammatory language like “chemophobia,” they are framing consumers who care about safety as fringe.
The "Dumbing Down" of Sun Safety
As with parabens, the beauty media gaslights consumers who are reasonably cautious about sunscreen ingredients.
“Just buy the sunscreen you will wear! It doesn’t matter what kind, as long as you wear it!”
Really? Are our standards that low? The industry is terrified that nuance will erode their revenue, so they shut down the conversation completely. They treat consumers as if we are too dumb to understand a simple distinction: some sunscreen filters are safer than others.
It is undisputed that chemical UV filters absorb into the bloodstream. This isn't just a niche theory from the wellness corner of the internet; it comes directly from the top: the U.S. FDA. In 2019 and 2020, the FDA published groundbreaking studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) regarding commonly used sunscreen ingredients. The results were damning: chemical UV filters like avobenzone, oxybenzone, and octocrylene absorb into the bloodstream at levels that far exceed the threshold for safety testing. That means these chemical UV filters do not have scientific studies proving they are safe as currently used.
This landed chemical filters squarely in the FDA’s Category III regarding safety—a regulatory purgatory meaning “insufficient data to determine safety.” The FDA cannot call them safe until the industry proves they don't cause cancer or reproductive harm. Since the release of these studies, the FDA has only considered mineral sunscreens (zinc oxide and titanium dioxide) as Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective (GRASE). And not so surprisingly, the industry has yet to prove these chemicals don’t cause cancer or reproductive harm.
If the FDA is too afraid to pause the sale of these chemicals, why not at least tell people the truth? “Yes, there are risky sunscreens. Look for ones that use zinc oxide or titanium dioxide.” (I recommend non-nano zinc oxide only). The withholding of this important message is dangerous.
Biased Safety Research
It gets worse. Beauty brands are often funding the very research that claims their ingredients are safe. If you find an article insisting chemical sunscreens are harmless, check the bottom of the page—you will likely find a conflict of interest.
For example, in 2025 a study was published insisting that a chemical UV filter commonly used in sunscreens, avobenzone, is safe. But if you dig deeper there are major red flags with this study. First, the authors weren't independent scientists and were representatives from Procter & Gamble and the industry’s own lobbying group, the Personal Care Products Council (the PCPC). Ironically, the PCPC is tasked with ensuring product safety but is funded by the beauty brands themselves. In what universe should a biased party be the arbiter of safety?
And did sunscreen companies run the long-term cancer or reproductive studies the FDA requires for chemical filters like avobenzone to be GRASE? No. They used theoretical models to argue that the FDA’s safety thresholds are too strict. This study clearly does not prove avobenzone’s safety, and is a legal defense disguised as scientific safety data. This was a desperate and failed attempt to placate the FDA in order to keep selling profitable chemicals, rather than doing the important research needed to keep us safe.
Marketing vs. Reality
It’s bad enough that beauty brands use ingredients that they know are potentially harmful to health, but they further cross the line by deceiving consumers with unregulated buzzwords. Companies slap labels like "Dermatologist Tested," "Clean," or "Natural" on bottles with endocrine disruptors and allergens. They rely on the fact that the average consumer doesn't have a PhD in chemistry, and they bank on you being too busy to flip the bottle over to try and decipher the tiny print on the back. They even use the “fragrance” loophole to hide chemicals, as they are not legally required to disclose the hundreds of ingredients that make up a scent. Beauty brands actively exploit the knowledge gap to keep their margins high all while risking your health.
Digging in Their Heels
Perhaps the starkest example of Big Beauty’s gaslighting is Johnson & Johnson. After billions of dollars in lawsuits, Johnson & Johnson continues to double down, claiming their talc baby powder even after asbestos (a known carcinogen) was found in it. The industry screams at us again and again: You are overreacting. You are wrong for questioning.
Since when did asking a simple safety question about the substances we apply to our children’s bodies become outrageous?
How We Fight Back Against Big Beauty
So, how do we shut down the gaslighting? We stop taking marketing claims at face value and start asking questions. We take our power back by learning to read the labels ourselves. We make simple swaps like choosing non-nano zinc oxide sunscreens over chemical sunscreens, and we refuse to buy products that hide hundreds of chemicals behind the "fragrance" catchall.
The industry is afraid of informed consumers because we threaten their bottom line. They do everything in their power to gaslight those who ask questions.
Don’t let Big Beauty make you believe asking questions is radical. Download the Switch Natural app to scan your products and find out the truth about what’s really inside of them.
