In the Beauty Disruptors series, BeautyMatter speaks to those breaking the mold of the traditional beauty industry, from shining a light on controversial issues to paving an alternative discourse of its themes.

Jen Novakovich is looking to lead consumers and the industry out of widespread confusion through the unwavering power of scientific facts—with a side of critical thinking and expert literacy, that is. A science communicator and cosmetic scientist, she founded The Eco Well in 2016 in order to break down the complex chemistry of beauty formulations for her 90K and counting Instagram followers. Recent conversations include how skinfluencers can navigate brand marketing misinformation, discussion of a Sunscreen E-Summit, and the impact of the EU Green Deal on the cosmetics industry.

From regularly hosting digital panels with fellow industry experts to simultaneously running a blog, YouTube channel, and podcast, Novakovich’s scicomm business never sleeps as beauty industry news and controversies continue to unfold. Her past resume includes serving as the Executive Director for The Eco Market Canada and mentoring start-up businesses in her local Toronto area. She also is brand consultant, specializing in sustainability-related substantiation and science communication strategies for the likes of DIY brand Make This Universe, and offers other exclusive content on a community-funded Patreon. Novakovich currently sits on the Society of Cosmetic Chemists’s Next Gen Advisory Committee, as well as the Independent Beauty Association’s Supply Chain and Sustainability Resource Committee.

Amidst all her engagements, BeautyMatter spoke to her about biggest myths circulating both amongst the industry and consumers, how professional conferences need to be more economically- and geographically-inclusive, and why we now find ourselves amidst an infodemic.

What is your first memory of beauty?

Like many kids, I had acne growing up, plus some health issues that resulted in very puffy eyes. My mom was always on the lookout for products that might work for me. I tried so many products, most with minimal results before I finally started regularly visiting a dermatologist. Because of both issues, finding good coverage makeup was important to me very early on.

What inspired your segue into the beauty industry and what informed your decision to take your findings and education to social media?

I was involved in science communication since I was in uni, when one of my professors suggested I start a science blog as a resume-building tool. Transitioning onto social media was just a natural progression. My passion is science communication, and in order to effectively reach the largest audiences, being on social media is crucial, in my opinion.

What are the most prevailing consumer myths and misconceptions around beauty products?

That cosmetic products from the big guys are unsafe when these are the companies who invest the most into safety. That "natural" will mean safer or more sustainable, when in fact safety substantiation is more challenging for "natural" materials, and there are some very large challenges when it comes from natural sourcing. That glass packaging will be inherently more eco-friendly when ultimately there's a) no perfect solution for sustainable packaging, b) it's a case-by-case basis on what will be less impactful depending on the formula, region of consumers, etc., c) that often plastic packaging will be the less impactful option. That the inclusion or exclusion of an ingredient will render a product better or worse, meanwhile how an ingredient acts in a product hinges on the formulation. That "clean" = safer, that preservatives = unsafe, that SLS = harsh, that cosmetics aren't regulated. The myths and misconceptions are never-ending.

How do you define the terms “safe” and “clean” in cosmetics?

A safe product is one that has gone through the proper steps for formulation development and safety substantiation, including stability, preservative, package compatibility, skin irritancy, etc. Essentially, products coming from companies who have done their due diligence. Note, a blanket statement of "safe" is challenging as someone somewhere may have an issue with the product—therefore most regulatory bodies do not want to see these kinds of generalized claims on pack/marketing, as they can be considered deceptive.

"Clean" is a marketing term. Generally, the implication is that these products are "safer" and more "sustainable," but alas, usually those ideas are not quite aligned with reality. As an example, often the processes and materials are actually more environmentally impactful. The "clean" movement has been driven by misinformation and pseudoscience. In my opinion, it is creating distractions, pulling resources away from true progress (for both safety and sustainability). From a regulatory vantage, "clean" is another one of those generalized claims that regulatory bodies would view as deceptive.

What would your counterpoint be to those who claim that “safe” and “clean” are fear-mongering and painting the rest of the industry in a bad light?

I have no counterpoint, this is the reality of the situation. The movement is thoroughly misinforming consumers, who drive the market, for better or worse.

What can the beauty industry do to improve transparency and reduce consumer confusion?

I have a few thoughts on this. First, I think it's really important for the industry at large to invest in good science communication. Both in-house at companies—including in education for the marketing department, and externally—e.g., with the collaboration and support of the growing group of beauty science communicators on social media. Second, I think democratizing accurate information for the industry is also very important. For example, most of the good-quality conferences with information that is accurate are very expensive or geographically exclusive, and many of the less expensive conferences are filled with misinformation/speakers that are not effectively curated (note, this is also an issue for more expensive conferences). Finding accurate, good-quality information as an industry member is challenging, and I think this is to the detriment of the whole industry. This is a big motivation behind my own free e-conferences that I host on The Eco Well platform.

How is the online beauty community developing overall?

There are a lot of science communicators checking online, which is amazing to see. Something I'm slightly concerned about is the rise of celebrity derms who have been increasingly posting undisclosed sponsorships and information far outside of their wheelhouse, and sometimes getting things wrong (e.g., about formulation chemistry or regulations). I think this may be adding to the consumer confusion, albeit there are a lot of really great accounts who are on top of posting corrections—such as @labmuffinbeautyscience—Michelle does a phenomenal job at this.

What are the pros and cons of consumer information in the online space?

A pro would be that consumers may be able to better hold companies accountable for the information/marketing they share. The con—there is so much information online, most of which is published without any kind of expert intermediation. For example, just on Facebook, over 3 million posts are published every minute. For the average consumer, it is increasingly difficult to separate fact from fiction. Note, this is the case across the internet. For this reason, we now have a word for the information overload we are now experiencing, the "infodemic." The World Economic Forum has cited online misinformation, which is partly attributed to this phenomenon, as well as human biases and some nefarious actors, as a core technological and geopolitical risk. This is a challenge in and beyond the cosmetics sector.