Third degree burns, facial paralysis – the dangers lurking in your make-up bag & why TikTok is making it worse than ever
WHILE we'd all be quick to throw out a condiment that's been lurking in the fridge for years, or throw out a veggie that's started wrinkling, we rarely look at our makeup kits in the same way.
But it's time you started, as we reveal the dangers lurking inside your make-up bag - that could lead to allergic reactions, burns and even paralysis.
11
The Real Deal?
You can buy pretty much anything on TikTok Shop, from freeze-dried candy, Birkenstock dupes and even makeup products.
In fact, over 800 million people have made purchases through the app, including me.
While I've rarely had an issue with the products bought, one buy has put me off ever buying skincare or makeup from it again.
I saw a pack of four lip stain dupes for just £5 on the site (the pricier version was £20 for one) and quickly snapped them up.
After applying the stain and letting it sit for five minutes (the brand recommends 20 minutes) I headed out for the night with my partner and friends, and when I woke up in the morning, I was left horrified.
I was instantly hit with searing pain as I opened my eyes, and quickly rushed to the bathroom to see what was going on.
My lips had tripled in size, giving me a trout pout that felt like it was about to burst open.
Even after a few antihistamines, the swelling and pain was still there.
Fortunately, the swelling had completely gone by the next day, but it did leave me concerned for others who might buy goods that aren't in line with safety regulations in the UK just because it was a few pounds cheaper.
11
Woman issues warning against £3 Home Bargains beauty buy as her lips are left 'ripped and bleeding' after using it
While TikTok prohibits 'the advertising and sale' of all counterfeit products, I was able to find plenty on the app - from 'whitening' skin creams containing the illegal ingredient, hydroquinone, prescription-only skincare and those pesky lip stains.
Many of the products sold via TikTok Shop are made in China and shipped to the UK (like the product I bought), according to TikTok's listings data, with details about their origin and manufacturing processes unknown.
This makes it even harder to ask questions if you do get a reaction, as it's almost impossible to contact the manufacturer.
The shop was one name, the brand was another, and then another brand name appeared on the product image making it impossible to track down.
And as TikTok surges in popularity, it is a growing problem.
Since its launch, TikTok Shop's gross merchandise value (GMV) has skyrocketed from roughly $1 billion in 2021 to an astonishing $33 billion in 2024.
Tests of seized counterfeit cosmetics by the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit have previously found that many contain 'toxic levels' of arsenic, mercury and lead reports The Guardian.
The issue is that more and more of us are influenced to buy counterfeits and product 'dupes' by our favourite influencers.
In fact, a 2021 report for the Intellectual Property Office found that the role of influencers was key to affecting consumer purchases of counterfeit products. Of 1,000 women aged 16 to 60 who were surveyed, 13% said they had been prompted by social media endorsements to buy counterfeit products.
Not all dupes are the same though, while retailers like Aldi and Lidl are praised for their offerings, they also adhere to the safety standards in the UK, while buying online can make it trickier to know if your purchase is safe.
A TikTok spokesperson told Fabulous: 'As per our policies, sellers who wish to list beauty products on TikTok Shop must ensure that their products are safe for customers and are compliant with applicable laws and regulations and we have removed listings which breach these rules.
"The safety of our customers is our priority, and we have strict measures in place to ensure that our sellers comply with regulations and safety standards.
"TikTok Shop takes strict action against sellers infringing IPR and we have removed listings for violating our policies in this area.
"TikTok has policies and processes to protect customers and promote a trustworthy shopping experience. This includes policies on what can and can't be sold, seller registration and verification requirements, and features like product reviews, reporting tools, and easy returns."
They add that TikTok has invested nearly $1 billion in tools, technologies, and people, to protect customers, sellers, brands, and our marketplace from counterfeit activities, fraudulent behavior, and other instances of abuse.
"TikTok Shop maintains a range of policies that apply to buyers, sellers, and creators, as well as their products, to keep our community safe.
"These policies and our actions reflect our values and commitment to ensuring that we remain a trusted destination for online consumers. From July to December 2024, we rejected 50 million listings, removed more than 90K restricted or prohibited products after listing, declined 1.6 million seller account registrations, removed e-commerce features from more than 700,000 creators.
They also add that they uphold Intellectual Property Rights and have prevented 7 million products from going live for infringing on this and removed more than 650k livestreams and videos for IPR infringements.
Of course, TikTok is not the only company to face this issue.
A schoolgirl suffered third-degree burns after using nail glue bought on Temu.
Chloe Norris, 11, needed skin grafts after her entire hands started burning and blistering after attempting to glue on fake nails.
Chloe was sitting with her now-traumatised mother when she decided to stick on the falsies with an adhesive called BVB Bond, which she had ordered from the discount site.
Moments later, she was "screaming out in pain" as the glue "burnt through every layer of skin" in front of her eyes.
Temu has since said it's "deeply saddened" by what happened to Chloe and has offered £1,500 in credit as a goodwill gesture.
11
11
How to spot them
Consultant Dermatologist, Dr Sophie Momen, at the Cadogan Clinic said using prescription products and skincare without buying from a reputable source can damage your skin for good.
She says: 'These products may contain illegal, banned or undisclosed ingredients such as corticosteroids, hydroquinone or mercury, which can lead to thinning skin, hormonal disruption, pigmentation disorders and permanent damage.
'Without professional guidance, misuse of potent actives like tretinoin or steroids can result in severe irritation, chemical burns or rebound effects.'
The skincare expert also revealed you should always double-check your makeup and ensure you aren't buying counterfeits.
She explains to Fabulous: 'Key warning signs include suspiciously low prices, unfamiliar retailers, misspelt labels, and missing batch codes or expiry details.
"Authentic products from reputable brands undergo dermatological testing and comply with safety regulations, whereas fakes may contain high levels of heavy metals, unapproved dyes or microbial contamination.
"Using counterfeit products can cause severe allergic reactions, burns, or long-term damage to the skin barrier. Always buy from trusted stockists, and if the product smells off, feels different, or causes irritation, stop using it immediately.'
Dirty Work
Counterfeit products may seem like the biggest concern, but dirty makeup brushes can also pose serious dangers.
11
Consultant Dermatologist, Dr Sophie Momen, at the Cadogan Clinic revealed that it won't just cause acne, but can also cause staph or fungal infections.
One mum was left paralysed after simply using her friends makeup brush to cover a spot.
Jo Gilchrist, 36, didn't know her friend had a boil at the time that was infected.
About a month later, the single mum from Queensland, Australia, started enduring agonising pain, which she put down to back ache.
She was airlifted to the hospital as she was left paralysed from the shoulders down.
The tests revealed Jo actually had a deadly MRSA staph infection, which had invaded her body through a small opening in her skin.
Jo was warned she could die but managed to make a recovery and has regained mobility, but it serves as a stark warning to clean your brushes and to never share them.
Aventus Clinic conducted a study on how dirty makeup brushes are when not cleaned regularly.
Testing 12 brushes from different areas of the face, 11 were found to be filthier than a toilet seat, with eyeshadow and blusher tools being the worst offenders.
Overall, 4364 colonies of yeast and bacteria were found across all items tested.
To ensure your make-up brushes don't harbour bacteria - and even mould, make sure you give them a wash at least once a week.
11
Out with the Old
We've all rummaged in our makeup bag only to find a well-loved and long-lost lippy at the bottom.
11
And while you might be eager to slap it on, it's best put in the bin.
One TikToker, BeastEater went viral last year after showing the severe reaction she got from using expired skincare.
After being in so much pain I finally agreed to go to the hospital four days after.
BeastEater
She slathered her face in the acne treatment which had gone off, and was left with severe burns and swelling.
In the viral video that was viewed 34.6 million views she said: "After being in so much pain I finally agreed to go to the hospital four days after.
"I won't bring any attention to the brand because this was 1000% my fault and I still absolutely adore the brand.
"I just want to be a voice and let everyone know to routinely check all make-up and skincare product expiration dates."
The same can be said for make-up, especially those in liquid or cream form.
Dr Momen said: "Over time, makeup products degrade and lose their integrity, allowing microbial growth, especially in moist products like mascara or cream foundation."
She added that this can lead to acne, irritations, eye infections and fungal infections as well.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
16 minutes ago
- The Sun
Six members of Russian spy ring to have ‘too lenient' jail sentences reviewed
SIX members of a Russian spy ring are to have their jail sentences reviewed for being too lenient, we can reveal. The Bulgarians — who lived and worked in the UK — plotted sex stings, and targeted Russian dissidents and journalists critical of President Vladimir Putin 's war effort against Ukraine. 7 7 The ring included lab worker Katrin Ivanova, 33, and beauty shop owner Vanya Gaberova, 30 — dubbed 'killer sexy brunettes' by cell leaders. Ivanova got nine years and eight months and Gaberova eight years. They were both found guilty in March of breaching the Official Secrets Act by conspiring to provide information useful to an enemy between August 2020 and February 2023. Ivanova also got a concurrent sentence of 15 months for forged ID documents. All six got a total of more than 50 years last month. The Attorney General's Office has been asked to consider the sentences under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme. The ULS scheme allows anyone to ask for a Crown Court sentence to be assessed by the Attorney General's office if they think it is too lenient. Law officers have 28 days from sentencing to make a decision. 7 7 7 7 7
BBC News
29 minutes ago
- BBC News
Sheku Bayoh: Hearing to decide whether chair should resign begins
A former judge who is chairing a £50m public inquiry into the death of a man in police custody will hear arguments on Thursday on whether he should step down or see the job Scottish Police Federation has accused Lord Bracadale of holding "secret" meetings with the family of Sheku Bayoh, who died after being restrained by police in Kirkcaldy in organisation which represents rank and file officers believes the five meetings could lead to "perceived bias" and has called for him to "recuse" Bracadale has been leading the inquiry since 2020 and ordered the hearing to allow core participants to make submissions on his conduct. If Lord Bracadale decides to stay in post, the federation has said it will seek a judicial departure and the search for a last minute replacement after five years of work would delay the inquiry's findings by many has already cost the public purse £24.8m, with an additional £24.3m spent by Police Scotland, including £17.3m of legal stage is now set for a robust exchange of legal arguments between senior lawyers. Roddy Dunlop KC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, will represent the police federation and two of the officers involved in the incident which ended with Mr Bayoh's police federation has said that none of the other core participants were made aware that Lord Bracadale was meeting the family and the details of what was said have not been federation's general secretary David Kennedy has said it has lost confidence in the inquiry because not all core participants were being treated Bayoh family's solicitor Aamer Anwar has described the federation's actions as "a pathetic and desperate attempt to sabotage the inquiry" at the 11th claimed the hearing could cost taxpayers "in excess of a million pounds" in fees for "police lawyers." Competing arguments One of England's top barristers, Jason Beer KC, has been brought in as senior counsel for the inquiry is expected to argue that Lord Bracadale's actions were procedurally appropriate because of the importance of maintaining the family's prosecution service, the Crown Office, will state its position, along with Police Scotland, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner and the Commission for Racial Equality and representing other police officers involved in the case will also have the opportunity to have their hearing is scheduled to last two days, with Lord Bracadale issuing his decision at a later inquiry has been examining what happened before and during the death of Sheku Bayou, who died in police custody. It has been looking at how the police dealt with the aftermath, the investigation into Mr Bayoh's death and whether race was a of the public called the police after Mr Bayoh was spotted carrying a knife and behaving erratically in the streets of Kirkcaldy on May 3, wasn't carrying the knife when officers arrived at the scene but a violent confrontation followed, with up to six officers restraining the 31-year-old on the father-of-two lost consciousness and later died in hospital.
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
High Court hears company linked to Baroness Michelle Mone must pay back £121m for ‘faulty' PPE
A company linked to Tory peer Michelle Mone should pay back more than £121 million for breaching a Government contract for 25 million surgical gowns during the coronavirus pandemic, the High Court has heard. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is suing PPE Medpro for allegedly breaching a deal for the gowns, with lawyers for the Government telling the court they were 'faulty' because they were not sterile. The company, a consortium led by Baroness Mone's husband, businessman Doug Barrowman, was awarded Government contracts by the former Conservative administration to supply PPE during the pandemic, after she recommended it to ministers. Both have denied wrongdoing. The Government is seeking to recover the costs of the contract, as well as the costs of transporting and storing the items, which amount to an additional £8,648,691. PPE Medpro said it 'categorically denies' breaching the contract, and its lawyers claimed the company has been 'singled out for unfair treatment'. Opening the trial on Wednesday, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said: 'This case is simply about whether 25 million surgical gowns provided by PPE Medpro were faulty. 'It is, in short, a technical case about detailed legal and industry standards that apply to sterile gowns.' Mr Stanley said in written submissions the 'initial contact with Medpro came through Baroness Mone', with discussions about the contract then going through one of the company's directors, Anthony Page. Baroness Mone remained 'active throughout' the negotiations, Mr Stanley said, with the peer stating Mr Barrowman had 'years of experience in manufacturing, procurement and management of supply chains'. But he told the court Baroness Mone's communications were 'not part of this case', which was 'simply about compliance'. He said: 'The department does not allege anything improper happened, and we are not concerned with any profits made by anybody.' In court documents from May this year, the DHSC said the gowns were delivered to the UK in 72 lots between August and October 2020, with £121,999,219.20 paid to PPE Medpro between July and August that year. The department rejected the gowns in December 2020 and told the company it would have to repay the money, but this has not happened and the gowns remain in storage, unable to be used. In written submissions for trial, Mr Stanley said 99.9999% of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract, equating to one in a million being unusable. The DHSC claims the contract also specified PPE Medpro had to sterilise the gowns using a 'validated process', attested by CE marking, which indicates a product has met certain medical standards. He said 'none of those things happened', with no validated sterilisation process being followed, and the gowns supplied with invalid CE marking. He continued that 140 gowns were later tested for sterility, with 103 failing. He said: 'Whatever was done to sterilise the gowns had not achieved its purpose, because more than one in a million of them was contaminated when delivered. 'On that basis, DHSC was entitled to reject the gowns, or is entitled to damages, which amount to the full price and storage costs.' In his written submissions, Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said the 'only plausible reason' for the gowns becoming contaminated was due to 'the transport and storage conditions or events to which the gowns were subject', after they had been delivered to the DHSC. He added the testing did not happen until several months after the gowns were rejected, and the samples selected were not 'representative of the whole population', meaning 'no proper conclusions may be drawn'. He said the DHSC's claim was 'contrived and opportunistic' and PPE Medpro had been 'made the 'fall guy' for a catalogue of failures and errors' by the department. He said: 'It has perhaps been singled out because of the high profiles of those said to be associated with PPE Medpro, and/or because it is perceived to be a supplier with financial resources behind it. 'In reality, an archetypal case of 'buyer's remorse', where DHSC simply seeks to get out of a bargain it wished it never entered into, left, as it is, with over £8 billion of purchased and unused PPE as a result of an untrammelled and uncontrolled buying spree with taxpayers' money.' He also said there was a 'delicious irony' that Baroness Mone was mentioned in the DHSC's written submissions, when she had 'zero relevance to the contractual issues in this case'. Neither Baroness Mone nor Mr Barrowman is due to give evidence in the trial, and Baroness Mone did not attend the first day of the hearing on Wednesday. A PPE Medpro spokesperson said the company 'categorically denies breaching its obligations' and will 'robustly defend' the claim. The trial before Mrs Justice Cockerill is due to last five weeks, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.
