When we choose a shampoo or cream, we often rely on the label where we can find “natural”, “phthalate-free”, “hypoallergenic”. They are reassuring words, which make us feel more serene in making choices for ourselves and our children. But how much do they really reflect the actual composition of the product? A new study, published in the journal Environment & Healthpublished by the American Chemical Society, tries to answer this question, and what emerges deserves attention.
The research was signed by the Million Marker Research Institute in the United States, with a working group led by Jenna Hua. The title of the study, “Hidden Hazards“, is already eloquent in itself: “hidden dangers”. The scientists sifted through 113 everyday products, including shampoos, sunscreens, lotions, baby products, intimate cleansers, body oils, toothpastes and household cleaning products, purchased in the United States between 2021 and 2022 in chains such as Target, Amazon, Walmart and Dollar Tree.
Curious to find out what they found inside?
What was found inside the products
Instead of simply comparing the declared ingredients with those actually present, the researchers used a non-targeted chemical analysis technique, capable of identifying substances even when you don’t know in advance what to look for. The result is impressive: 3,141 chemical signals were detected, of which 303 compounds were identified with a good level of certainty. On average, each product declared 16 ingredients on the label, but laboratory analyzes found 51.
Not all of these substances are necessarily dangerous, and not all of them have been added on purpose, some derive from raw materials, others arise from chemical reactions between different ingredients, still others come from packaging or production processes. But the basic fact remains: 98% of the products contained at least one undeclared substance, and in 85% of cases it was a substance linked to known or suspected health risks.
Among the most frequent compounds we find citronellol, detected in 70 products, myrcene in 46 and phenethyl alcohol in 20. There is no shortage of synthetic contaminants such as cyclohexyloxane, present in 22 samples with concentrations that in some cases reached 2,200 ppm, equal to 0.22% by weight, more than double the limit of 0.1% that the European Union has set for this substance due to its persistent and bioaccumulate in the environment.
What about natural and organic products?
It wasn’t just conventional products that came under the scrutiny. Among the 27 items that, looking only at the label, were classified as the most reliable, almost six out of ten did not pass laboratory tests. Many presented themselves as natural or organic, yet contained undeclared fragrance components, phthalates, parabens, UV filters and silicones. On average, each product in this group hid four potentially problematic substances that were never mentioned on the label.
The study therefore shows us that a word like “natural” on the packaging is not a guarantee. This is also confirmed by another data from the study, perhaps the most worrying: out of 113 products, 29 (about one in four) contained substances in open contradiction to what was declared by the company, from phthalates in products that claimed to be phthalate-free, to parabens in those defined as “paraben-free”, up to allergens in cosmetics sold as hypoallergenic.
Overall, 57.5% of the products analyzed failed the criteria set by the researchers due to these undeclared contaminants. The only category that fared well was oral hygiene, although the authors urge caution given that the sample tested was small.
However, the researchers are keen to clarify an important point: finding a substance is not equivalent to demonstrating that the product is harmful. To talk about real risk, we must also consider the concentration, dose, frequency of use and methods of exposure. And there is a substantial difference between contaminants, which can end up in a product in a completely accidental way, and possible adulterants, i.e. substances perhaps added voluntarily but not declared. However, distinguishing one from the other is not always possible.
Does this also apply to Italy?
The sample analyzed is American, and was purchased between 2021 and 2022, and is therefore not representative of either the American market as a whole or the European one. We cannot therefore say that the majority of cosmetics sold in our country hide undeclared substances, this would be a conclusion that the data does not allow us to draw.
It should also be remembered that the European Union has a different and more rigid regulatory framework than the United States: the European cosmetics regulation provides safety requirements to be respected before marketing and prohibits or limits numerous substances, while the REACH system regulates the use of chemical substances more broadly. However, this does not mean that the problem does not concern us.
The central point, rather than alarming, is to invite a more critical look. The list of ingredients on the label remains a fundamental tool, but it only photographs what the company claims to have included in the formulation, not necessarily everything that the chemical analysis of the finished product is able to detect. The authors of the study themselves suggest that traditional checks should be accompanied, when possible, by more in-depth analyzes on already packaged products, precisely to identify what escapes the declarations.
For those who buy, the message is not to stop trusting shampoos, creams or detergents, but to learn to look with more caution at the words used in marketing. “Natural”, “free from”, “hypoallergenic” remain useful indications, but they may not be the exact picture of what really ends up on our skin.
