With the web at our fingertips, we’ve infinite access to information. Nevertheless it also means limitless exposure to fake news, misleading claims and cherry-picked facts. With TikTok – a platform that favours attention-grabbing content – gaining prominence, the spread of misinformation has never been more rampant. The indisputable fact that we are able to often see the faces of those speaking, creating the sensation of intimacy and an authentic connection, makes all of it the simpler to consider what we hear.  

In the sweetness community, the spread of myths and dubious health claims, like sunscreen disrupting hormones, make-up containing cancer-causing talc, and moisturisers ruining your skin, is increasingly pervasive. Often allowed to stay unscrutinised, these videos will not be only causing mass confusion and mistrust, but also they are putting consumers at risk too.

Earlier this month, a since-deleted video about sunscreen messing with hormone levels went viral on TikTok, only to be debunked by cosmetic chemist Dr Michelle Wong. Meanwhile, one other since-deleted TikTok told viewers that every one big brand haircare products contain ‘endocrine [hormone] disruptors’, an extension of the myth that synthetic ingredients like sulphates and parabens are damaging to hair and skin.

“The largest myth that I actually have repeatedly seen spread is that sunscreen causes cancer,” says Esther Olu, a cosmetic chemist and licensed esthetician referred to as The Melanin Chemist to her followers, who often uses her platform to debunk false claims circulating online. “It’s causing consumers to not wear sunscreen or use improper formulations which can be resulting in increased cancer rates. It’s beyond dangerous.” Despite experts disproving claims that Supergoop sunscreen causes cancer or that DIY SPFs are better for you, there remain quite a few videos on TikTok explaining how users can make their own at home. 

Social media has all the time fostered conversation, nevertheless it’s TikTok’s format that lends itself particularly well to opinion-sharing – the more divisive, the higher. “Sensationalism gets people to speak at the top of the day, regardless if it’s fallacious or right,” says Olu. People like drama, in other words, and in response to evolutionary psychologist Hank Davis, writer of Caveman Logic: The Persistence Of Primitive Pondering In A Modern World, there’s a excellent reason for this. 

“It was our ancestors who paid good attention to scary stories, about being poisoned or getting skin cancer, who were more successful”, he explains. Unfortunately, we’re stuck with the identical brains today. “Our minds are very, thoroughly adapted, to not 2022, but to 1 / 4 of 1,000,000 years ago”, says Davis. “Does this fashion of considering help us today? The reply is just ‘no’. But that is why misinformation spreads on the web. Because we’re principally working with a stone age mind.” 

It’s this in-built urge to seek out and share information that might save our lives plus the trendy day desire to grow our social media following, that explains the 1000’s of social media users chiming into the sweetness conversation (often with no qualifications in any respect), each sharing increasingly shocking or controversial content to fight for our attention. ‘Science-washing’, where scientific-sounding language and cherry-picked or out-of-context studies – for instance, research into the results of ingredients when ingested somewhat than applied topically – is commonly used to make claims appear more legitimate. And words like “toxic”, “endocrine” and “hormone mimicking” are thrown around to create a way of urgency.

In lots of cases, individuals who spread misleading claims have more to realize than simply attention. Social media users were quick to notice that each of the creators behind the sunscreen and haircare myths were owners of natural beauty firms, who’re using the language of the clean beauty movement to undermine the efficacy of traditional beauty formulas. “It’s so unethical and dishonest”, wrote biomedical scientist and esthetician Alicia Lartley on Twitter. “[It’s] the oldest trick within the book to create consumer panic after which turn out to be the saviour.” Olu agrees: “If someone is attempting to scare you about products you employ, all the time check in the event that they are attempting to sell you something. 90 per cent of the time they’re and meaning you must run. It’s a manipulative scare tactic that customers fall for incessantly.”

Separating the actual from the fake is less complicated said than done, nevertheless, especially when brands and sweetness professionals themselves are spreading myths. It was a plastic surgeon – who uses his page to teach his followers and infrequently debunks myths himself – who was criticised by the sweetness science community after posting a video explaining how moisturisers make your skin “lazy”. While many brands do attempt to sell unnecessary products to consumers, chemists like Chareè (@chareesbeauty) were forced to go deep into the science, explaining exactly how moisturisers are beneficial to the skin. 

These myths aren’t just limited to social media platforms and unqualified content creators. Earlier this yr, TV giant HBO released the documentary Not So Pretty, an “investigation” into the sweetness industry, that claimed that lots of our cosmetics contain ingredients which can be toxic to humans. Cosmetic scientists and experts spoke out against it, en masse, including Dr Wong and Jen Novakovich, pointing to the indisputable fact that the documentary did not bear in mind FDA research, withheld information, and did not seek the advice of relevant experts. One “doctor” interviewed was a naturopath, not an MD – something the viewers weren’t told. “Not So Pretty isn’t a lot a well-researched, balanced documentary because it is a strong piece of propaganda,” Rina Raphael, writer of an upcoming book investigating the false guarantees of the wellness industry stated. 

So, with doctors, brands and journalists alike lying to consumers, how can we ever know what to consider? “One of the simplest ways is actually to know the realm and leaf through the evidence, but nobody has the time… the low-cost way is to work out what individuals who have done the research agree on,” says Dr Wong. Ask yourself “what’s the consensus of relevant experts?” and use that to make an informed judgement. She recommends consulting a big selection of beauty professionals, like cosmetic chemists, dermatologists and estheticians, lots of whom share extensive academic research via their accounts, and go from there.

However the responsibility shouldn’t only lie on individuals and experts. For Olu, step one to tackling misinformation is to have “effective science communicators, a stronger emphasis on science literacy taught within the education system, and a willingness [from consumers] to unlearn cognitive biases [against who we do and don’t believe]”. We also have to support and fund educators like Dr Wong, Olu and Laterly who’re sharing their knowledge online, the bulk totally free, and helping the general public to make informed decisions about what to consider.