POP culture and the fashion industry have always informed the choices of consumers and throughout the decades, the influence of celebrity upon trends cannot be understated. Ever since there have been influential people, there have been those who will take their advice, whether passively or through actively seeking to emulate them.

Brands capitalise on this association, and leverage the goodwill built up by a celebrity in order to soak up some of their success in sales. In days gone by this might mean established celebrities becoming the face of a brand, however due to the rise in relatable self-made influencers, brands are no longer entirely in control of the way their products come across.

Influencers are paid to promote or review products online, and many are sent them for free. They are legally obligated to disclose their financial incentive, however they cannot be compelled to tell the truth about their experiences.

Recently, mascara-gate rocked the beauty community, when a popular influencer was spotted allegedly adding false eyelashes to enhance the effects of a mascara she was reviewing.

READ MORE: Lennie Pennie: Don't stigmatise folk who take antidepressants

A more cynical mind might deduce that the controversy is the point, publicity comes in many forms, and often the more controversial a product appears, the more people will buy out of sheer curiosity. Regardless of intention, the video has proven to be an incredibly lucrative marketing campaign: 58 million potential customers have viewed the initial review, a number which increases by the day.

The people with a vested financial interest in ensuring trends are as transient and rapidly changing as possible are manufacturers, brands, and the people they enlist to help market their products.

Why sell you one item which can last for years, when they can subtly adjust the trend and create another gap in your life ready to be filled?

These microtrends are incredibly detrimental to both the environment and the mental health of consumers as they create a constant need for purchasing, constantly shifting the goalposts of what everyone must have in order to be beautiful, successful, worthy.

This is capitalism in its most extravagant, ostentatious form.

It is consumption for the sake of aesthetic, an appearance-based industry which exploits the people upon which it relies, from manufacturer to consumer. Products constructed through the exploited labour of workers are sent around the world to supplement the self-esteem of those who believe they are worth less if they do not constantly consume.

The Herald: Detoxing can be a money spinnerDetoxing can be a money spinner (Image: free)

The de-influencing trend started as a critique of this very phenomenon, a way for people to use products they already own to fulfil multiple needs in place of buying more, but once brands realised they could capitalise on this, it quickly became nothing more than the newest way to recommend a product: ‘Don't buy that, buy our product instead’.

Within minutes of being on social media, you can find yourself bombarded with adverts for lotions, potions, surgeries and products to make us look and feel beautiful, young, cool.

My eyes need sculpted, my skin needs dermaplaned and microbladed, my lips need filled and my eyelashes need tinted, lifted and extended. The buccal fat needs to be taken from the sides of my face, but my glutes need a Brazilian Butt Lift (so I’m still trying to work out if cheeks are in or not).

I'm supposed to detox my body, something my kidneys have been doing of their own accord thus far. Heaven forbid I've got hair on my pits or bits, or a monobrow or a moustache, but not to worry, there’s always a product to help, something I can spend money on to address a problem I didn't even know existed until I was gleefully informed of its highly purchasable solution.

This is not a new phenomenon, as long as there has been media there have been insecurities to sell. The difference now is the sheer volume, scale and unrelenting atmosphere of inferiority permeating every inch of the internet.

Gwyneth Paltrow was recently asked what she eats in a day and her answer was both shocking, and depressing. She skips breakfast, opting instead for a black coffee around noon, after which she eats a cup of bone broth for lunch (which constitutes a meagre average of 40 calories a bowl), exercises for an hour then eats a paleo meal (a diet based on cavemen which heavily restricts the cooking processes and ingredients permitted in meal prep).

READ MORE: Lennie Pennie: A 'woke' Lego figure? Now that's something to celebrate

To supplement the vitamin deficit incurred by such an unbalanced diet, she hooks herself up to an IV drip. This optional use of medical equipment relied upon by some to survive in order to achieve an aesthetic or lifestyle is echoed in the Dream Body System, a service offered by a holistic spa which provides clients with a feeding tube in order for them to rapidly lose weight.

Imagine someone young, vulnerable or otherwise impressionable, already bombarded with marketing designed to reduce them to profitable problems, and consider the impact of celebrities who have branded themselves health influencers promoting what is essentially stylish starvation.

Celebrities have a responsibility to their fans, followers and customers not to spread harmful and inaccurate information and yet, so many neglect this responsibility in favour of making a quick and easy buck. Celebrities don’t even need to tell their audience to act, buy or look like them – they know that the implication hangs heavy like a bag full of bone broth: do as they do, to be as they are.

While the consumer cannot wash their hands entirely of responsibility when it comes to fair and sustainable choices, and where possible should vote with their wallets, blaming the consumers only works to a certain extent.

At a time when the labour of so many workers is being exploited to such a gross extent, the cheapest option is often the only option. The Sam Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness, popularised by Sir Terry Prachett uses the metaphor of differently priced boots to illustrate the manner in which cheaply-made garments which lack the requisite quality to ensure longevity often force people to spend more money in long run, or put more simply: buy cheap, buy twice.

Capitalism represents an ouroboros of consumption, the likes of which threatens to destroy the environment and the people who inhabit it. It seems the best way forward is to consume with intention, as ethically as possible, and to put pressure on those in brands and those with influence over consumers to behave more ethically.

Do what you want with your life and body; question what is being marketed towards you, and by whom, and whether those highlighting these apparent problems are doing so in order to sell you a solution.