Can We Trust Cosmetic Claims?

Many cosmetic products boldly display claims such as “natural,” “cruelty-free,” or “hypoallergenic.” These appealing claims often prompt us to pay a premium for these products.

In the U. S., companies are regularly penalized for the unjustified use of claims on their products¹. The result? Consumers are becoming more and more skeptical! A recent study found that 86% of American women believe some brands overhype their promises². Even within these companies employees recognize these exaggerations. In fact, 72% of U.S. employees admit their company overstates its sustainability efforts and engages in greenwashing³.

So how can you navigate this? What’s really behind the most common product claims in the U.S., and which ones can you actually trust?

“Mineral Sunscreen”

There are two types of sunscreens:

• Those that contain mineral UV filters (zinc oxide and titanium dioxide), which are derived from natural minerals.
• Those made with chemical UV filters created in a laboratory.

For brands using mineral filters, it is common to see the label “mineral sunscreen” on the packaging. This can easily lead to the assumption that the entire formulation is natural.

However, this claim only guarantees that the UV filters used in the product are mineral-based; it does not mean that the rest of the ingredients are natural. In fact, it is common to find chemical ingredients in these products, such as phenoxyethanol or butyloctyl salicylate, which are notably associated with potential effects on fertility and the endocrine system^4,5.

In conclusion, even with this label, the product may still contain chemical substances.

“Cruelty Free” / “Not Tested on Animals”

There is no legal definition for the terms “cruelty-free” or “not tested on animals” in the United States. When these claims are used alone, without being accompanied by a label or certification, they carry no specific meaning. In most cases, this simply indicates that the finished product has not been tested on animals. However, the FDA notes that companies can test individual ingredients on animals while still using this claim⁶. In 2024, 78% of the world’s largest cosmetic brands were still funding animal testing⁷.

To ensure that no testing has been conducted at any stage of the product’s manufacturing, it is recommended to look for the following labels: the PETA Cruelty-Free Bunny ears symbol and the Leaping Bunny certification. These certifications guarantee that neither the ingredients nor the finished products have been tested on animals.

Conclusion: The claims “cruelty-free” or “not tested on animals” alone do not guarantee the absence of animal testing. Instead, opt for products with one of the three reliable certifications noted above.

“Vegan”

The term “vegan” indicates that the product contains no ingredients of animal origin, such as honey, beeswax, or lanolin¹⁰. However, be aware that this does not mean the product has not been tested on animals! The “vegan” label focuses solely on the composition, not on testing.

Conclusion: The “vegan” label ensures the absence of animal ingredients and is therefore complementary to the “PETA Cruelty-Free” and “Leaping Bunny” labels, which ensure that no animal testing has been conducted which does not guarantee that a product is vegan.

“Hypoallergenic” / “For Sensitive Skin”

These claims give the impression that the products are designed to minimize irritation and the risk of allergies. However, no federal standard has been established by the FDA to regulate these assertions. In practice, this allows brands to use them freely, without strict constraints¹¹. The problem? Many products displaying these claims actually contain irritating or potentially allergenic ingredients, such as phenoxyethanol (harmful to the eyes¹²), certain fragrances (like geraniol and linalool¹³), as well as some foaming agents and preservatives that are very irritating to the skin (notably sodium lauryl sulfate¹⁴, quaternary ammoniums¹⁵, or methylisothiazolinone¹⁶). It’s important to note that even at very low concentrations, some allergenic substances can trigger reactions in sensitive individuals.

Conclusion: Do not blindly trust these claims. For sensitive skin, the only way to avoid allergenic products or irritant ingredients is to check the compositions carefully.

“Dermatologist-Tested” / “Dermatologist Approved”

These terms are commonly used on cosmetic products in the United States, but they are not governed by strict regulations. Brands can therefore use them freely, with few restrictions. The only requirement is that a dermatologist has conducted at least one test on the product. Often, this is a skin tolerance test, a requirement already mandated for all cosmetics sold under U.S. standards. The tests performed may also focus on other aspects, such as hydration, wrinkle reduction, or eye irritation.

Furthermore, there are no specific standards regarding the testing protocol or the number of participants required. In the absence of clear guidelines, brands can choose to conduct minimal tests or use very small sample sizes, thereby compromising the credibility of the claims made on the packaging.

Conclusion: Without clear information from the brands on how the tests were conducted, these claims are misleading and give the impression of thorough evaluations when they often involve only basic tests already required by law.

“Clean” / “Natural”

“Clean” or “natural” products are experiencing significant popularity, with consumers often perceiving them as safer for health¹⁷. In the United States, the use of these terms in cosmetics is not regulated, allowing companies to use them freely without adhering to specific standards. Although regulations are under discussion, no concrete measures have yet been taken¹⁸.

Moreover, it is important to understand that “natural” does not mean “risk-free.” For example, methyl eugenol is a natural component found in rose and magnolia, yet it is classified as a probable carcinogen (Category 2A) by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer).

Conclusion: These claims hold no real value and do not guarantee the absence of problematic ingredients.

“Organic”

In the U.S., more and more products are highlighting their organic ingredients. This trend is driven by the growing demand from consumers for eco-friendly options. There are two main scenarios:

• Products labeled as “Organic” without the USDA logo

Some products claim to be “made with organic ingredients” without showing the USDA logo. In this case, be cautious! This means only part of the ingredients are organic. Sometimes, it’s just a single ingredient out of the whole list. Plus, there’s no minimum threshold required to mention an “organic” ingredient on the packaging.

• Products with the “USDA Organic”

While the “USDA Organic” logo helps reduce exposure to pesticides, it doesn’t necessarily guarantee the absence of ingredients that could be problematic for your health²³. For example, some organic essential oils, like Ylang-Ylang oil, are known for their potential to cause allergic reactions (check out our article on skin allergies). Plus, up to 5% of the product’s ingredients can still be chemical additives. These might include concerning preservatives, like BHT, which can harm organs, or even ingredients suspected of disrupting the endocrine system, such as certain parabens²⁴ and silicones²⁵.

That percentage of chemical ingredients can be much higher in products without the official logo.

In conclusion: While the USDA Organic logo does help minimize exposure to chemical pesticides, it does not guarantee the absence of ingredients that could pose health risks.

“Ocean-Safe” / “Reef-Friendly” / etc.

The labels “Ocean Safe” and “Reef Friendly” are commonly found on sunscreens to suggest that they do not contain ingredients harmful to marine ecosystems. However, there are no standards regulating the use of these labels in the United States. Typically, this simply means that the products do not contain oxybenzone or octinoxate, two ingredients banned in Hawaii²⁶ and Key West²⁷ due to their harmful effects on coral reefs²⁸.

However, these products often contain other substances that are equally harmful to corals and aquatic life, such as octocrylene, homosalate, or butyloctyl salicylate.

Conclusion: Be cautious of these labels! They do not guarantee that the products are safe for aquatic life.

“Green” / “Eco-Friendly” / etc.

More and more brands are using terms like “green” or “eco-friendly” to give the impression that their products are sustainable. However, there is no official definition for these claims in the United States. Often, it is unclear which environmental criteria they refer to: carbon emissions, energy consumption, environmental pollution, water and resource use… all of this remains vague.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) even states that these claims are too broad and difficult to substantiate, to the point that they suggest not displaying them on packaging at all²⁹.

Conclusion: Without precise and verifiable data from brands, these “eco-friendly” promises are of little value.

“Fair Trade Certified” / “Fair Trade Life” / “Fair Trade International”

Certifications like Fair Trade Certified³⁰, Fair for Life³¹, and Fair Trade International³² aren’t just pretty logos—they’re trusted seals that guarantee more ethical, transparent, and sustainable trade practices. These three labels, for example, require production methods that avoid deforestation and minimize impact on waterways.

When these logos are on products, it means independent organizations have carried out inspections to ensure compliance with a strict set of criteria. However, while these standards cover ethical and environmental aspects, they don’t guarantee that the product is free from toxic ingredients.

Additionally, when products only display the mention of “fair trade,” it means no independent body was involved in verifying those claims. Without official certification, it’s hard to know if responsible practices were actually followed.

In conclusion: Only recognized certifications offer real assurances about ethical and environmental practices. However, they don’t guarantee the absence of health-harming ingredients.