In response to a recent Guardian article exploring the merits of double cleansing, readers have shared their personal hygiene routines and raised concerns about the practice's environmental impact and its benefits to the beauty industry rather than consumers.
Readers Share Their Minimalist Cleansing Routines
Judith Russenberger from London wrote to the Guardian to describe her approach to washing, which involves showering only once a week and using a bowl of water with soap and a flannel for daily washing. She noted that the water used is then flushed down the toilet. Russenberger explained that her motivation is concern over the planet's resources, highlighting that globally, fresh water is being used faster than it can be replenished. She cited a UK prediction that by 2055, there will be a 5bn litre a day shortfall for public water supplies, with a further 1bn litre a day deficit for the wider economy. She stated, "My skin is perfectly healthy and I don't smell anything other than naturally human."
Alan Craw from Chesterfield, Derbyshire, also shared his routine, noting that he has not used body wash or hair shampoo for nearly 10 years. His showers last no more than two or three minutes, as he considers any more to be a waste of hot water. Craw pointed out that the run-off from these "cleansers" is not environmentally friendly. He added, "I do not smell of anything except lightly of myself. My skin at the age of 89 is quite healthy as I do not take out any of its natural oils." However, he mentioned that he does undertake a daily wet shave with a proprietary shaving cream.
Questioning the Benefits of Double Cleansing
The article, titled "Double cleansing: should we really be cleaning ourselves twice in each shower?" published on 15 September, prompted readers to question the necessity of the practice. Dr Lynda Morgan from London offered a succinct critique, stating, "Double cleansing? No benefit to you, but loads more money for the manufacturers of beauty products."
These reader responses reflect a broader debate about the efficacy and environmental footprint of multi-step skincare routines. While the beauty industry promotes double cleansing as a way to thoroughly remove makeup and impurities, these readers argue that simpler methods are both effective and more sustainable.
Environmental and Economic Implications
The letters highlight the tension between consumer habits and environmental sustainability. Russenberger's concerns about water scarcity are supported by projections of significant shortfalls in the UK's public water supply by 2055. The practice of double cleansing, which involves washing the face twice with different cleansers, increases water usage and the consumption of beauty products, which may contribute to environmental degradation through packaging waste and chemical runoff.
The readers' perspectives suggest that individuals are reconsidering their hygiene routines in light of these issues. Their personal testimonies indicate that less frequent washing and the avoidance of certain products do not lead to negative health outcomes, challenging the necessity of elaborate cleansing regimens.
As the debate continues, these letters offer a counterpoint to industry marketing, urging consumers to consider the broader impacts of their choices. The responses underscore a growing awareness of the need for sustainable practices in personal care, balancing hygiene with environmental responsibility.
