Double cleansing benefits the beauty industry, not consumers | Letters

Readers of the recent piece on double cleansing responded with personal anecdotes that underscore the practice’s limited relevance to everyday hygiene. Judith Russenberger of London explained that she showers only once a week, supplementing with a daily routine of soap, flannel and a bowl of water, a method she says conserves fresh water amid growing global scarcity. She cites UK forecasts predicting a shortfall of five billion litres per day for public supplies by 2055, with an additional one‑billion‑litre deficit for the broader economy, and notes that her skin remains healthy without the need for multiple cleansing steps.

Alan Craw, an 89‑year‑old man from Chesterfield, Derbyshire, offered a similar perspective from a male viewpoint, noting that he has gone a decade without using body wash or shampoo. He limits his showers to two or three minutes to avoid wasting hot water, arguing that cleanser runoff harms the environment. While he acknowledges the occasional use of a proprietary shaving cream for daily wet shaves, he maintains that his skin retains its natural oils and stays healthy without the extra cleansing ritual.

Dr. Lynda Morgan, writing from London, summed up the collective sentiment by stating that double cleansing offers no tangible benefit to consumers while generating additional revenue for beauty product manufacturers. The letters collectively highlight concerns about water conservation, environmental impact of cleanser chemicals, and the commercial motives driving the promotion of double cleansing, suggesting that the trend may serve industry interests more than genuine consumer needs.

⚡ Effects Interpreter