Glossier’s Lash Slick is marketed as a ‘clean’ mascara. Their website is a minimalist dream of green promises.
The dirty secret? ‘Clean’ is an unregulated marketing term — and Glossier uses it while still including synthetic polymers and film-formers. It’s greenwashing, just prettier.
A $18 tubing mascara that promises a ‘clean’, feathery look. The claim that hooked me? “Washes off with warm water.” No makeup remover needed.
Fibre-Free
Uses tubing technology to wrap lashes, not coat them in fibers.
Smudge-Proof
Dries down to a flexible film that resists raccoon eyes.
Buildable
Goes from a tint to a more defined lash in 2-3 coats.
Photo: Nora Topicals / Unsplash
The hero ingredient is Acrylates Copolymer — a synthetic polymer that creates the tubing effect. It’s not ‘dirty,’ but it’s not some earthy extract either. The ‘clean’ claim leans on what’s NOT in it (parabens, sulfates).
- Acrylates Copolymer: The synthetic tubing agent
- Beeswax: Adds a bit of natural conditioning
- Propylene Glycol: A common humectant (not scary, just not ‘green’)
- Panthenol (Pro-Vitamin B5): A legit lash conditioner
Photo: Andriyko Podilnyk / Unsplash
The formula is thin — almost watery. The brush is a skinny, precise spike. You feel the cool wetness, then it dries down completely weightless. No crunch.
By week two, the tube started drying out faster than my other mascaras. The ‘clean’ preservative system might be the culprit — a trade-off they don’t advertise.
Photo: Nick Noel / Unsplash
It delivers a perfect, separated, your-lashes-but-better look. Zero smudging on my oily lids. But volume? Forget it. It’s a lengthener and definer only.
Photo: Lidye / Unsplash
A great tubing mascara trapped in a misleading ‘clean’ narrative. Buy it for the performance, not the planet-saving promise.