Lorraine D. Darmeyer argues the term "cleanical" is misleading because it suggests clean or plant-based beauty lacks scientific backing. She says clean and clinical beauty don't have to be opposites, and that conflating "scientific" with synthetic skincare misses how herbal ingredients have real evidence behind them.
Chapters
Have you ever heard of the word clinical? Quite a few of the beauty industry's publications started talking about this term a couple of years ago, and you know what? I'll happily admit that I rolled my eyes as soon as I saw it because it was yet another term to get to grips with on top of the onslaught of clean, green, organic, natural, sustainable, safe, non toxic, etc. Etc. Etc. So in case you're wondering, the word word clean ical is effectively a mashup of clean and clinical. But you know what? I'm pretty sure you could probably guess that for yourself too. So why has this term clinical been invented? Well, the beauty industry invents new terminology all the time, let's face it, and sometimes I think they just do it to gain headlines. But I also think there's something bigger at play here, and I really want to explore that on the podcast today. After all, just because a formulation is termed clean doesn't mean it automatically doesn't embrace science. Although I can see why some of its critics might make that assumption. So last week here on the podcast, Anna and I looked at why some people think clean beauty is disappearing, and this narrative also seems to be tied together with the rise of the interest in the science behind our cosmetics. The truth, of course, is that clean beauty isn't disappearing, although it may be evolving. And I do encourage you to listen back to that episode with Anna Green, Formula Botanica's Education Manager, to see what you think. Clinical beauty, on the other hand, is a completely different ballgame. So I invite you to join me for my opinion piece today here on the podcast in which I set forward why I think the term clinical should be abolished from our vocabulary. Hi, it's Lorraine Darmeyer, chartered environmentalist, biologist and CEO of award winning online organic cosmetic formulation school Formula Botanica. I host the Green Beauty Conversations podcast and these are my Green Beauty opinions in which I share my takeaways from the podcast interview that we released last week and set you a challenge to make the green beauty sector a better place. If you want to be the first to hear all of my latest episodes, make sure you subscribe to this podcast. So clinical. What a ridiculous term. Let's just break this down for a minute. So the word clinical comes from clean beauty and clinical beauty clean icle, which on the surface might sound quite logical, but I actually think it's a bit of a contradiction in terms because the clean beauty movement, as we heard on the podcast last week, was really founded on this idea of well being. By removing synthetic ingredients from beauty products. And many people who are proponents of the clean beauty movement find certain synthetic cosmetic ingredients objectionable, and they sometimes refer to them as being dirty. I'm sure you've seen this online too. Now, if you're a regular listener of this podcast, you'll know that we don't subscribe to this philosophy. Instead, if we have an issue with an ingredient at Formula Botanica, it's a specific issue to do with that ingredient, and we have evidence to back up any claims we make. That's also why this is the Green Beauty Conversations podcast and not the Clean Beauty Conversations podcast. The clinical beauty movement, which doesn't attract nearly the same level of notoriety, is instead about the intersection between science and skincare. It's about using advanced research and technology to create formulations that are not only effective, but also safe for us all to use. It's about creating formulations that are clinically proven. And on the face of it, this would seem compatible with the clean beauty movement. But instead, I would argue that there is the potential for a clash here. And after all, let's not forget that clean beauty tends to come with a very long list of ingredients that people avoid, while clinical beauty will happily embrace whatever ingredients are needed to support the efficacy and safety of the formulation. So if you are fundamentally opposed to many, if not all synthetic ingredients, then you may well struggle with this term clinical. But I have a bigger issue with the word clinical, which is that it automatically assumes that clean beauty formulations don't come with a scientific component and aren't efficacious, and that the two concepts need to be married. Clean beauty, much like any beauty, should embrace science, right? Because any good formulation is based on good science. Knowing how ingredients blend and work together, knowing how that formulation will work on the skin or the hair. It doesn't matter if you used plant based ingredients or not. When you make a formulation, that formulation should work. Period. End off now. Similarly, we recorded a whole podcast on a similar issue that arose during COVID actually, when the beauty industry suddenly heralded the arrival of safe beauty. And we ridiculed that one loudly in episode 53 of this podcast. Because of course, all beauty should be safe. What a ridiculous term. Similarly, all beauty should do what it's supposed to do and be efficacious. Just because you embrace plant based ingredients doesn't mean that you automatically shun science and that your formulation doesn't work. But that isn't necessarily a concept that everyone's familiar with. I recently met a well known celebrity who I won't name and she and I were having tea together and I explained what I do and she said oh, I don't use natural skincare, I only use scientific skincare. And none of that makes any sense. Just because something is natural doesn't mean we automatically avoid using any scientific know how in order to create it. Much of our scientific knowledge has come from the natural world, which is also what I recently covered in episode 174 of this podcast, of course, when I looked at three well known cosmetic herbs and followed their journey from folklore to clinical trial and scientific evidence. We know that plant based oils, butters, waxes can be amazing occlusives. We know that many different botanical ingredients can have moisturizing, hydrating, soothing or tightening actions. We know that certain plant extracts have powerful potent antioxidant properties. Just because many of the plants used in cosmetics have been known in folklore for millennia doesn't automatically discount them. It doesn't mean they don't work. The science just hasn't always caught up with them yet to prove something that we've known for a long time. So do we need the term clinical? In my opinion, absolutely not. It's yet another one of those marketing terms that really shouldn't have been allowed to gain traction. The industry really doesn't need yet another definition for clinically proven plant based formulations that are good for the skin and good for our environment. Those cosmetics do already exist, they have plenty of other labels and we don't need yet another word to describe them. So my challenge to you for this week is to join me in rejecting the word clinical. Let's not bring more marketing nonsense into the world, let's not confuse shoppers even more, and let's stop making it sound like natural formulations can't be clinically proven, because that's just plain wrong. Thank you for listening to my Green Beauty opinions. Remember to visit the Formula botanica website@formulabotanica.com to try our free online formulation course. And if you haven't subscribed yet to the Green Beauty Conversations podcast, please make sure you do so now in your favorite podcast app. Leave me a five star review if you enjoy the conversations. I host and I'll be back soon with my next episode.
