Beauty Industry Targets Children Despite Health Warnings
The cosmetics industry faces mounting criticism as companies increasingly market beauty products to children as young as three, despite clear warnings from dermatologists about potential health risks.
This concerning trend has gained momentum with the recent launch of Rini, a beauty company backed by Canadian actress Shay Mitchell, offering hydrating face masks with child-friendly names like Puppy, Panda, and Unicorn. Similarly, US-based brand Evereden markets face mists, toners, and moisturizers specifically for pre-teens.
The commercial success is undeniable. Fifteen-year-old American YouTuber Salish Matter's brand launch in October drew tens of thousands of attendees to a New Jersey mall, requiring police reinforcements to manage crowds.
Medical Experts Sound Alarm
"Children's skin does not need cosmetics, apart from daily hygiene products such as toothpaste and shower gel and sun cream when exposed," stated Laurence Coiffard, a researcher at the University of Nantes who co-runs the Cosmetics Watch website.
This represents a classic case of market forces overriding medical advice. Research indicates that child users of adult cosmetics face higher risks of developing skin allergies, plus exposure to endocrine disruptors and phytoestrogens that can interfere with healthy hormone development.
The 'Sephora Kids' Phenomenon
Many girls in Generation Alpha, born between 2010 and 2024, now adopt skincare and makeup routines typically associated with older teenagers or adults. These so-called 'Sephora Kids' emulate TikTok and YouTube influencers, some as young as seven years old.
American dermatologist Molly Hales of Northwestern University conducted revealing research by posing as a 13-year-old on TikTok. Her findings were alarming: children using an average of six products per routine, with some applying 14 different products before developing burning rashes. One video showed a girl waking at 4:30 AM to complete her beauty routine before school.
The most popular videos featured products containing an average of 11 potentially irritating active ingredients, with some reaching 21 different compounds unsuitable for pediatric skin.
Market Response and Economic Reality
New brands like Rini, Evereden, and Saint Crewe position themselves as safer alternatives, capitalizing on parental concerns while maintaining market access. "Kids are naturally curious, and instead of ignoring that, we can embrace it with safe, gentle products parents can trust," Mitchell told her 35 million Instagram followers.
However, this represents a classic example of creating solutions to problems that shouldn't exist. The cosmetics industry has successfully manufactured demand among children for products they fundamentally don't need, then offers to solve the resulting health concerns with supposedly safer alternatives.
Psychological and Economic Costs
Pierre Vabres of the French Society of Dermatology warns of psychological consequences, noting risks of giving children "a false image of themselves as an 'adult in miniature' who feels the need to focus on appearance to feel good."
These routines impose unnecessary time and financial burdens on families while perpetuating unrealistic beauty standards. The economic model relies on creating insecurity and dependency from an early age, a practice that should concern any parent valuing their child's natural development and family budget.
The solution isn't better children's cosmetics but rather protecting children from unnecessary commercial pressures that serve corporate profits over child welfare. Parents and policymakers must recognize this trend for what it is: an attempt to expand market reach by targeting increasingly younger consumers, regardless of medical advice or developmental appropriateness.