Why FREE FROM claims are not always accurate?

What do you all think when one should apply free from claims in Cosmetic products, pharmaceutical products?

Generally, I have noticed people using “Free from” claims to cosmetic products and formulas that normally wouldn’t contain the ingredients. It’s just a marketing strategy that turns into exaggerated rumors.

Irrelevance: We’ll see products like facial oils, serum, Beard softeners, say “Free from sodium lauryl sulfate”, when sodium lauryl sulfate is not a common or necessary ingredient in a facial oil formulation.

Too Broad: We’ll find claims like “Free from fragrance” claims on products where ingredients, like plant extracts, impart a scent.

Inaccuracy: “Free from formaldehyde” claims are often attached to products that contain ingredients that release formaldehyde at safe levels to preserve the formula.

Undefined: “Cruelty-free” is not a defined term. There are various cosmetic brands where they don’t test their finished products on animals. But there may be a chance of Raw material they are using has been animal tested. Because it’s not a standard, it’s up to the brand to define it. Some organizations have created logos and definitions that brands use, but customers must verify the standards used and its claims.

“Free from” claims have grown up in the market quickly and potential customers and users.

“Free from alcohol” would be useful for a parent buying a mouthwash for their child.

“Free from animal-derived ingredients” would be useful for someone vegetarian or vegan.

Like almost any product messaging, “free form” statements have mostly turned into more real estate for advertising and marketing.

Often by implying a product is “free-from” it implies it is superior and in today’s market “cleaner” than its competitors.

Ultimately this trend may end up being worse for the beauty and skincare community as they’re left anxious and confused.