‘I don’t care if this sounds like judgement because it is’: Angela Mollard on make-up for babies
Sitting next to a toddler wearing perfume on a plane reminded Angela Mollard of the dangers of ‘essential’ skincare and make-up products for babies and preschoolers.
She was a few months off turning three and chatting with that enthusiasm toddlers
exhibit when their vocabulary is expanding to meet their limitless curiosity.
But as she and her mum took their seats next to me on a flight, I was suddenly hit with a
strong whiff of vanilla and coconut.
“I’m sorry,” said the mother, “she’s obsessed with perfume at the moment. Loves trying
them on.”
I laughed, pointing out that that fortunately she had a solid decade before she might be
hit up to buy the stuff for her daughter.
“Oh, she’s got a couple of bottles of her own at home,” said the mum. “She wants
whatever I’ve got.”
I stopped myself from enquiring whether this not yet three-year-old had a preference for
Chanel or one of the cult scents from Le Labo or Maison Margiela because I knew it
would come out sounding judgey.
Weeks on I don’t care if this sounds like judgement because it is. I am seething that
young girls are being inculcated into the beauty industry before they can even read, with
actor and brand founder Shay Mitchell recently releasing skincare products for kids as
young as three.
The brand, Rini, spruiks products for kids including sheet masks in
animal shapes which were modelled and revealed to the Pretty Little Liars star’s 35
million Instagram followers by her six-year-old daughter Atlas.
This hobbyfication of skincare and make-up is no longer a “bit of fun” and “not that
deep” as many are saying. It’s not the same as playing dress ups.
Rather it’s physically, emotionally and financially harming children by peddling the
insidious messages to (mainly) girls that they are not good enough as they are, that
they can be “improved” and that it’s perfectly normal to spend considerable money on
“skincare routines” which experts say are completely unnecessary.
Earlier this year dermatologists in the UK spoke out as a study found that parents were
putting nail polish, lip gloss and bronzer on babies as young as six months potentially
risking harmful skin reactions.
The study of children and their parents in paediatric clinics at a hospital in Dundee
revealed that hair dye and perfume was being used on toddlers younger than two with a
one-year-old girl exposed to products including fake tan, gel nails, hair bleach, hair
removal, lipstick and perfume. While the children’s appointments at the clinics were for
other medical reasons, a third of those surveyed had reactions to the products used on
their skin. The study, which was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists’
annual meeting, revealed that perfume, blusher or bronzer, and nail polish were the top
three atypical products used on children. Comparing the study to that done a decade
ago, researchers found that the mascara and eyeliner previously used on girls from the
age of 13 was now used by girls as young as six.
The trouble with positioning children’s skin care lines such as Mitchell’s as no different
to previous generations playing with makeup, as Glamour magazine did this week, is
that it ignores the cynical commodification of kids under the guise that it’s “play”.
As Mitchell writes: “Our mission is simple: to nurture healthy habits, spark confidence
and make thoughtfully crafted daily care essentials and play products accessible to
every family.”
What nonsense. Kids’ skin doesn’t need “nurturing” with “healthy habits”, childhood
confidence should be gained from using your body and mind to do fun things not obsess
over your face, and nothing about these irritatingly-sized stocking fillers is “essential”.
Samara Searle, an Australian registered nurse and founder of Beauty Boost, says she’s
increasingly seeing young girls coming into her clinic for consultations for treatments
and products that are far too mature for their skin. “That’s where this becomes
concerning,” she told me. “Creating skincare targeted at children risks heightening their
awareness of how they look at an age when they simply shouldn’t be thinking about
that.”
With teens pouring into stores such as Mecca and Sephora to get their beauty fixes, not
only are we seeing a generation precociously preoccupied with how they look but we’re
normalising the sort of excessive spending that will penalise their financial agency in
later life.
As Searle says: “Kids should be allowed to be kids. If parents want to involve them in a
fun self-care moment, there’s nothing wrong with a warm compress and some
cucumber slices on the eyes at home. Not everything needs to be purchased and
certainly not while profiting from children’s insecurities.”
UK dermatologist Amy Perkins concurs, saying brands targeting children were “eerily
dystopian” and blatant evidence of the beauty industry expanding its reach from teens
to toddlers.
“This isn’t about skincare or ‘safe ingredients’,” she wrote on Instagram. “It’s about
teaching children that their perfect skin already needs improving. It’s implying that self-
care means buying and overpriced product with no evidence basis. Kids don’t need
beauty routines. They need play, imagination, dirt under their nails and sunscreen when
they’re outside.”
She’s right. Likewise, if they can lay off the perfumes and stick with their naturally
gorgeous toddler smell, all the better.
Originally published as ‘I don’t care if this sounds like judgement because it is’: Angela Mollard on make-up for babies
