Imagining A US Where ‘Clean At Sephora’ Is De Facto Law

NGO-backed legislation at US federal, state and local levels to ban cosmetic ingredients and contain contaminant levels would be largely gratuitous if all cosmetics brands were compelled to be “Clean at Sephora.” For now, companies’ adherence to Sephora’s and peers’ green/clean chemistry principles remains voluntary, but retailers’ role as surrogate regulators seems only to be gaining in strength. 

Beauty brands with a Sephora presence don’t have to meet the retailer’s “Clean” standard, as long as they’re content ceding the spotlight – and enviable real estate in-store and online – to competitors.

They can go on preserving their products with parabens, formaldehyde releasers and other traditional preservatives, assuming the eye-catching “Clean at Sephora” icon is not something they want associated with their offerings.

They can sell nail-care products with toluene, deodorants with aluminum salts (the only active ingredients that FDA permits in OTC antiperspirant products), and use colorants that necessarily harbor trace amounts of lead, provided that young, ingredient-conscious consumers are a demographic they can afford to lose.

At least for now they can. Sephora’s goal is to cut in half the number of products it carries, over the next three years, that contain any of 50 high-priority chemicals listed in its public chemicals policy.

To that end, the retailer “is working to continually bring in brands with a more sustainable stance on chemicals,” it says.

Those that qualify as clean are featured prominently in Sephora stores and on the retailer’s e-commerce platform, alongside the green, impossible-to-miss Clean in Sephora seal.

The cosmetics industry has been fighting hard of late to protect its ingredient palette, manufacturing processes and innovation capabilities from legislative and regulatory incursions that it says are not grounded in good science.

A prime example is the effort mounted by industry advocates to halt draft legislation in California earlier this year, the Toxic Free Cosmetics Act, which would deal a heavy blow to cosmetic formulators’ toolkits for concerns that industry maintains are unjustified. (Also see "California’s Proposed Toxic Free Cosmetics Act Put On Ice After Industry Lobbying Blitz" - HBW Insight, 10 Apr, 2019.)

All but one of the ingredients and contaminants targeted by that bill, AB 495 – which would have banned the sale of products containing them in California – appear on Sephora’s blacklist for clean beauty, including dibutyl phthalate and diethylhexyl phthalate, triclosan and carbon black, in addition to commonly used parabens and formaldehyde donors.

The situation raises questions as to how influential Sephora’s standard will be among companies that continue to rely on time-tested (if unpopular) ingredients and balk at government proposals that would deny them of the freedom to do so.

Will they convert to Clean at Sephora and similar labels emerging from competing retailers? Can they afford not to?

Target Corp. is working to advance its own chemical policy goals by awarding “Clean” status to qualifying products under a program announced in mid-July. (Also see "Top Retailers Driving Chemical Policy Adherence With ‘Clean Beauty’ Seals" - HBW Insight, 6 Aug, 2019.)

[Wal-Mart Stores Inc.] similarly is pushing suppliers to embrace its sustainable chemistry ideals, previously issuing a list of high-priority chemicals or chemical groups it would like to see eliminated from cosmetic products on its shelves. (Also see "Walmart’s “Big Deal” Sustainable Chemistry Policy Raises Questions" - HBW Insight, 7 Apr, 2014.)

CVS Health Corp. has shown signs of moving in a similar direction. (Also see "CVS Joins Retailers Phasing Out Demonized (But Effective) Preservatives" - HBW Insight, 20 Apr, 2017.)

Hypothetically…

Were all brands in the US with Sephora ties or aspirations to become Clean at Sephora, making the specialty retailer’s criteria de facto law, lawmakers would have less incentive to ban sunscreen active ingredients on industry-contested environmental grounds – i.e., alleged coral-killing effects – given that oxybenzone, the foremost target of such bills, is a Clean at Sephora no-no. (Also see "Key West Bans Purported Coral-Killing Sunscreens, With Florida-Wide Proposal Now On The Table" - HBW Insight, 6 Feb, 2019.)

Industry-wide adherence to Sephora’s clean principles would save Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., the trouble of pushing her proposed Children’s Product Warning Label Act in the US House, as Clean at Sephora brands must demonstrate via testing that their talc-containing cosmetics are free of asbestos. (Also see "Kids’ Cosmetics With Talc Would Require Asbestos-Free Verification Or Warnings Under Dingell Bill" - HBW Insight, 20 Mar, 2019.)

Sephora also imposes caps on 1,4-dioxane content in Clean beauty products, something New York is on the brink of doing for all cosmetics sold in the Empire State. (Also see "Industry Presses NY Governor Not To Sign 1,4-Dioxane Bill, Warns Of Far-Reaching Consequences" - HBW Insight, 10 Aug, 2019.)

Incidentally, at least four of the five substances positioned for priority review by the US Food and Drug Administration under the proposed Personal Care Products Safety Act in the US Senate, S. 726, are prohibited in Clean at Sephora products. (Also see "FDA Appears To Be Prepping For Cosmetics Regulatory Changes, Ingredient Review" - HBW Insight, 23 Aug, 2018.)

The fifth review target in the federal reform bill is methylene glycol/methanediol/formaldehyde, which may or may not be covered by the Sephora list’s “formaldehyde” entry.

The cosmetics industry no doubt will go on opposing legislative movement to ban or restrict ingredients and contaminant levels that scientific experts say are safe.

But it will be interesting to see how influential Clean at Sephora and similar retailer programs are – particularly those that incentivize conformity to their chemical standards through preferential treatment – in terms of driving changes in formulation and manufacturing practices.

NGOs such as the Environmental Working Group surely would celebrate industry’s movement en masse to the precautionary green/clean chemistry increasingly championed by retailers, but consumer choice could take a hit as innovation and product diversity declined, and broad-based abandonment of conventional preservative systems could lead to increased microbial safety issues.

Such considerations notwithstanding, retailers could grow more demanding about brands meeting their clean/green standards, though it seems safe to assume that LVMH-owned Sephora will not go so far as to mandate compliance, which could negatively impact Guerlain, Benefit Cosmetics and other LVMH brands that currently lack the clean designation.

Whatever the future holds, it can’t exactly be comfortable for brands to be left off big-name retailers’ clean/green rosters and relegated in consumers’ minds to whatever space the outliers occupy.