A new analysis of 150 hair products labeled as "clean" at a major retailer found that the majority still contain chemicals linked to health concerns, suggesting that "clean" labels are often just marketing rather than a guarantee of safety. Researchers from UC Santa Barbara and Columbia University discovered significant gaps between what the "clean" label promises and what consumers actually get, raising questions about whether voluntary retailer standards can truly protect shoppers from harmful ingredients.

What Does "Clean" Really Mean for Hair Products?

The term "clean beauty" has become ubiquitous in retail, but it lacks any standardized federal definition. Researchers analyzed ingredient lists from 150 hair products marketed as "Target Clean" at a South Los Angeles store, using the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) Skin Deep database, which rates personal care products for safety. The findings revealed a troubling reality: even products explicitly labeled as clean often contain ingredients associated with endocrine disruption, which means they can interfere with your body's hormone systems.

"As we looked at general products, there was a large range from safe to extremely hazardous. We were hoping that the 'clean' products would lean toward the safer side, but we were surprised to see that the majority were still moderate hazards," said Joaquín Madrid Larrañaga, lead author and researcher at UC Santa Barbara.

Joaquín Madrid Larrañaga, Researcher at UC Santa Barbara

Of the products analyzed, only 41% were even listed in the EWG database. Among those that were, more than 90% received a "moderate" hazard rating, scoring between 3 and 6 on the safety scale, rather than a "low" risk classification. This suggests that the "clean" aisle at retailers may offer little advantage over conventional products when it comes to chemical safety.

Which Hidden Ingredients Should You Watch For?

One of the most concerning findings involves fragrance labeling. Seventy percent of the products analyzed listed "fragrance" or "parfum" as an ingredient, yet these umbrella terms can legally hide a mixture of undisclosed chemicals. Due to trade secret protections, manufacturers don't have to reveal what's actually in their fragrance blends, even if those chemicals are linked to allergic reactions or hormone disruption.

Beyond fragrance, the study identified several other problematic ingredients commonly found in hair products. Researchers recommend consumers be aware of and try to avoid the following substances:

• Fragrance and Parfum: Umbrella terms that can hide dozens of undisclosed chemicals, some linked to endocrine disruption and allergic reactions.
• Sulfates: Harsh cleansing agents that can strip natural oils from hair; 14.6% of "clean" products still contained them despite "sulfate-free" marketing claims.
• Parabens: Preservatives that mimic hormones and can accumulate in body tissues over time with repeated exposure.
• Phthalates: Chemicals used to make fragrances last longer, linked to reproductive and developmental concerns in scientific literature.

The inconsistency in labeling practices adds another layer of confusion. While 14.6% of products actually contained sulfates, only roughly half of those products carried the retailer's "Formulated without Sulfates" badge, leaving over one-third of sulfate-containing products inconsistently labeled.

Why This Matters Most for Women of Color

The research specifically focused on textured hair products, curly, coily, and wavy formulations, because they are disproportionately used by women of color who already face higher cumulative exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals through multiple consumer products. Researchers describe this pattern as the "environmental injustice of beauty," where systemic inequalities lead to unequal chemical exposures.

"It's a no-win situation for women of color, particularly Black women. In their desire to avoid using chemical relaxers, they might seek out 'clean' branded natural hair products that still expose them to toxic chemicals," explained Lariah Edwards, researcher at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.

Lariah Edwards, Researcher at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health

This creates an impossible choice: women seeking to protect their health by switching from chemical relaxers to "clean" alternatives may unknowingly expose themselves to different but equally concerning chemicals. The burden falls entirely on consumers to decode complex ingredient lists and marketing claims without reliable federal standards to guide them.

How to Navigate Hair Product Labels More Safely

• Check the EWG Database: Visit the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep database online and search for specific products before purchasing to see their hazard ratings and ingredient breakdowns.
• Scrutinize Fragrance Claims: If a product lists "fragrance" or "parfum," contact the manufacturer to ask what specific chemicals are included, since trade secret protections don't require disclosure on labels.
• Cross-Reference "Free-From" Labels: Don't assume a product is truly sulfate-free, paraben-free, or phthalate-free just because the label says so; verify by reading the full ingredient list or checking third-party databases.
• Look for Transparency: Prioritize brands that publicly disclose their full fragrance ingredients and provide detailed safety information rather than relying on marketing terms like "clean" or "natural."
• Request Ingredient Transparency: When in doubt, reach out to manufacturers directly and ask for a complete list of ingredients, including those hidden under the "fragrance" umbrella.

What Needs to Change?

The study, which will appear in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, is not an indictment of any single retailer. Instead, researchers emphasize that the problem is systemic and requires federal action. While retailers like Target have invested millions in green chemistry and created internal standards to restrict certain chemicals, voluntary efforts cannot substitute for enforceable federal regulation.

"The burden of proof to show a chemical is harmful usually comes when someone gets sick, and that is the reverse incentive that we should have. This isn't necessarily a retailer issue; it's a manufacturing and regulatory problem," stated Bhavna Shamasunder, professor of environmental studies at UC Santa Barbara.

Bhavna Shamasunder, Professor of Environmental Studies at UC Santa Barbara

Community advocates echo this call for policy change. Janette Robinson-Flint, executive director of Black Women for Wellness, emphasized that consumers should not bear the burden of decoding misleading labels. "We need policy change that meaningfully regulates cosmetics and personal care products with enforceable standards," she noted.

Until federal standards are established, consumers face a complex marketplace where marketing claims often outpace actual safety. The research underscores the need for transparent ingredient disclosure, standardized definitions of "clean," and regulatory oversight that protects all consumers, particularly those most vulnerable to cumulative chemical exposure.