Does Beauty Have a Snowballing Misinformation Problem?

By Sophia Freyre and Bella Wagner • Mentees, The Eco Well SciComm cohort

Editor’s Note: This article was written as an extension of The Eco Well’s science communication mentorship initiative, with the support of the Independent Beauty Association and Happi.

At the Independent Beauty Association’s IBAStudio Activation during NYSCC Suppliers’ Day 2026, a series of workshops brought together cross-disciplinary scientists to help audience members cut through the noise in a very noisy space. 

The discussions explored how ingredient claims, consumer perception, and scientific substantiation intersect in today’s personal care landscape. These intersections can create confusion, misinformation, and unintended consequences for both consumers and companies.

Perspectives and key insights were offered by behavioral scientist Michelle Niedziella, PhD; sunscreen researcher, PhD candidate and Founder of Sula Labs AJ Addae, and cosmetic chemist, PhD Candidate and 2025 recipient of the SCC Madam C.J. Walker Scholarship Lanesa Mahon. Also included in the discussions was Jen Novakovich, science communicator and founder of The Eco Well.

Habit Loops and Misinformation

Beauty has a misinformation problem. Since the first free-from claims in the 1990s, this problem has compounded. In Niedziella’s workshop, the behavioral science phenomenon of habit loops was introduced to offer an explanation as to why misinformation tends to snowball and what can be done about it.

A habit loop has three components: a cue, a routine and a reward. 

This phenomenon can be clearly depicted in the context of free-from claims in beauty. 

First, the consumer:

Cue: Sees a product labeled “Free From Preservative X.”

Routine: Purchases said product.

Reward: Feels reassured they are making a safer choice. 

Repeat

For brands:

Cue: See competitors labeling products “Free From Preservative X.”

Routine: Adopt similar marketing.

Reward: Attract positive attention from consumers.

Repeat

As brands respond to consumers, and vice versa, both parties feel validated, leading to more free-from claims in the market, which are increasingly sought out by consumers. Warranted or not, “Free From” becomes synonymous with “good” or “safe,” with significant implications for industry as formulators’ preservative options dwindle. While habit loops offer one side of the story for beauty’s misinformation problem, they reinforce the effects of other mechanisms that influence how cosmetic science is communicated. Like with any other science, cosmetic science is complicated, and another important factor lies in how scientific findings are translated into consumer-facing language.

What Can Feed Misinformation:
Marketing Spin vs. Rigourous Science

Let’s get down to brass tacks: the goal of most businesses is to sell. While there’s no shame in this, when hype trumps science, it may not be without consequences. This was fleshed out in Mahon’s and Addae’s IBAStudio workshops—from the nitty-gritty of what good science looks like to accessibility limitations that stifle its application in real-world contexts. 

The business dynamics of ingredient supply often impact how ingredient data is presented and interpreted. Abbreviated studies are common—attention-grabbing but light on details. The downside is that these fine-print details are what help formulators assess study quality. Was the methodology sound, the sample size meaningful, or the results reproducible? That context can get lost in the marketing polish. In addition, studies in the broader scientific literature are sometimes taken out of context to serve a marketing agenda, but in reality are poor fits for the claims they are intended to support. 

For both suppliers and brands, the integrity of a claim depends not just on the quality of the supporting study, but on who was included in it. Research design, such as narrow testing populations, can quietly exclude large portions of the consumer base before a product ever reaches shelves. If testing panels don’t reflect the diversity of people who will actually use a product, the data generated may be insufficient regardless of how rigorous the methodology is otherwise. There can be downstream consequences that limit a product’s intended effects to a particular skin tone range, hair texture, climate, or level of physical ability. 

There is also the question of whether relevant research is accessible. There are structural barriers in academic publishing—from paywalls to sheer complexity—that can put peer-reviewed research out of reach for many who are trying to exercise due diligence. Further complicating matters is that some of the highest quality research in cosmetic science is kept behind closed doors within larger corporations. The end result? Meaningful, quality information can stay siloed, unavailable to the broader cosmetics community.

What Can Better Look Like?

Identifying the mechanisms behind the spread of misinformation can help inform efforts to recognize and address it. Many of the challenges discussed at the IBAStudio workshops point to opportunities for greater scientific rigor, transparency, and more effective communication. 

First and foremost, we need to recognize how difficult it is for everyone to find good information. Even if you’re a PhD scientist, if you don’t have the specific expertise on the topic you’re presented with, you’ll be hard-pressed to critically appraise it, and put it into context. Whether within science, to help foster better interdisciplinary research and understanding, or to the public, this is where good science communication can help information seekers understand the topics they care about. For example, they want safe products and are fearful of preservatives; there is an opportunity to explain the importance of preservatives to keep them safe.

Correcting misinformation is less about being right and more about being effective in how we communicate, and those two things sometimes require very different approaches. For example, calling people wrong generally doesn’t work. If anything, it tends to entrench the belief further, triggering defensiveness rather than openness. A more productive entry point is curiosity; understanding why a claim resonates, what need it meets, what fear or desire it speaks to. This isn’t the same thing as endorsing a false belief. Rather, it’s the groundwork for a conversation that might actually bring clarity to misinformation. A consumer drawn to “free from” claims isn’t irrational; they’re responding to a message that tapped into a genuine and reasonable concern about what goes on and into their body. The way to meet that is not with contradiction but with transparency and dialogue.

While habit loops have contributed to beauty’s snowballing misinformation problem, they can also help us collectively course correct. We have the power to reframe the reward, replace fear with education and transparency, and create new positive cues. For example, highlighting how formulations work and what that means for their overall safety and performance. An under-preserved product is an unsafe one, preservatives are added to keep you safe. That preservative you’re concerned with? It’s actually the best for the job, and this is why. Thoughtful explanations that meet people where they’re at can help steer them to new habits, which can snowball in positive ways—for everyone!

As a scientific community, we can all do better in vetting what’s presented to us, and in how we communicate our science. Inclusivity in science is a barrier with far-reaching consequences. On all of these fronts, there is a lot of work that needs to be done, but for that, we need to be aware that these are even issues in-need of addressing. This was the intention behind the IBAStudio workshops at NYSCC Suppliers’ Day—to help bridge the gaps to start to find solutions.

SciComm Mentorship Cohort

In Novakovich’s SciComm Mentorship cohort program, participants gain hands-on experience in science communication by translating insights from workshops and industry summits into clear and engaging summaries. (It is through this mentorship program that the authors were presented with the opportunity to write this article.)