Lab Tests Find Hidden Chemicals In Most ‘Natural’ Beauty And Cleaning Products

‘Natural’ and ‘Non-Toxic’ Labels Can Miss Hidden Chemicals, Study Finds

Millions of Americans reach for products labeled “natural,” “fragrance-free,” or “non-toxic” daily, trusting the label tells the whole story. A study published in the journal Environment & Health tested 113 personal care and cleaning products and found that nearly all of them, 98%, contained at least one unlabeled chemical, and 85% contained at least one with known or suspected health hazards. Some products even contained chemicals that flatly contradicted what the label promised, though researchers noted such mismatches can result from supply chain contamination rather than intentional mislabeling.

Researchers used an advanced chemical screening method that scans for thousands of substances at once, rather than checking a known list of suspects, to look past ingredient labels and find what was actually in shampoos, lotions, and household cleaners. Products averaged more than three times as many chemicals as their labels disclosed: 16 listed ingredients on average, but 51 detectable chemical signals per product.

Over half of the products, 57.5%, received a failing score under the researchers’ hazard-based contamination system because of undisclosed chemicals, including many marketed to health-conscious consumers. The study looked at chemical hazard, not actual harm to any specific person. Finding a hazardous chemical in a bottle isn’t the same as proving it made someone sick.

Testing Revealed Hidden Chemicals Beyond the Ingredient List

Researchers from the Million Marker Research Institute and Southwest Research Institute selected 113 products across 12 categories from brands of varying sizes. Products were purchased in 2021 and 2022 from major retailers including Target, Amazon, and Walmart, chosen to represent a range of product types and label-based safety ratings.

Each product went through a highly sensitive process: an advanced form of gas chromatography combined with mass spectrometry, essentially a machine that separates and identifies chemical building blocks, paired with machine-learning software that flagged chemicals of concern. This method, called nontargeted analysis, doesn’t just look for chemicals researchers already suspect are there. It casts a much wider net, though it’s still best at catching lighter, more volatile compounds, the kind common in personal care products. In total, 3,141 chemical signals turned up, and 303 were identified with varying confidence, ranging from confirmed to probable to tentative.

Products were then scored pass or fail depending on whether they contained unlabeled chemicals posing known or suspected health risks, including cancer-linked substances and hormone-disrupting chemicals. Chemicals that might naturally occur in plant-based ingredients, like compounds found in lavender or citrus, were excluded to avoid penalizing brands for unavoidable botanical byproducts.

‘Natural’ and ‘Non-Toxic’ Products Failed at High Rates

Among the 27 products initially rated as the safest choices based on labels, 59% still failed testing once researchers looked closer. Chemicals flagged in these supposedly clean products included fragrance-related compounds, plasticizers known as phthalates, and silicone-based industrial compounds.

Body oils, intimate products, sensitive area care, essential oils, hair styling products, and household cleaners had the highest failure rates. Oral care was the one bright spot, with all toothpaste and mouthwash products passing. Researchers suggested this may be because fluoride-based toothpastes are regulated as over-the-counter drugs, which may bring stricter oversight than standard cosmetics rules, though they noted the sample was small.

Perhaps the most notable finding was how often labels did not match what was actually inside the bottle. Out of 113 products, 29, about 26%, contained chemicals that contradicted their label disclosures. Products labeled “100% Natural” contained synthetic chemicals. Products claiming to be “fragrance-free” contained fragrance compounds.

These discrepancies do not necessarily mean brands intentionally mislabeled their products. Contamination can enter at many points in the supply chain, from raw materials to manufacturing machinery to packaging. The products were purchased during a period of global supply chain disruption linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, and at least one brand confirmed supplier changes occurred during that time. Researchers said contamination could arise from shared raw materials, manufacturing, or packaging, though they could not always pin down the cause of a specific mismatch.

Small Brands Weren’t Any Cleaner

One counterintuitive finding: smaller brands, often reputed to be cleaner, weren’t significantly better at avoiding contamination than large national brands. Between 50 and 60% of products in every company size category failed testing. Smaller companies had better ingredient labels overall, but the contamination problem was widespread across the board.

Hidden Chemicals Exposed Gaps in U.S. Rules

U.S. cosmetics regulation has historically been criticized as less stringent than in other countries. Researchers noted that while the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 expanded federal oversight, requiring facilities to register and report adverse events, it still doesn’t mandate finished-product chemical testing like the kind used here. California’s Safe Cosmetics Program relies on voluntary reporting rather than mandatory testing. By contrast, the authors point to the European Union’s Cosmetics Regulation and REACH system, which impose premarket safety requirements and restrict numerous chemicals in personal care products, oversight not currently mirrored in the U.S.

Researchers argued that nontargeted testing should become standard practice, noting that when they contacted manufacturers about specific products, most did not respond.

For Americans who read labels carefully and choose accordingly, this study raises an uncomfortable question: if independent testing is the only way to know what’s really in a bottle, who’s actually doing that testing?

---

Disclaimer: This article summarizes findings from a peer-reviewed study and is intended for general informational purposes. It is not a safety recall, a regulatory finding, or medical advice, and does not identify specific product brands. Readers with health concerns about a particular product should consult a healthcare provider or contact the manufacturer directly.

---

---