Just about every cosmetics company has a study or studies they tout as being proof that their product(s) work. From this perspective there isn’t a product—from any line—that doesn’t work miracles. But of course you never see their studies of the products that failed (something must have failed, right?). Yet since we aren’t getting rid of our wrinkles (somehow plastic surgeons and dermatologists are not going out of business because of new skin-care products), while hundreds of new, seemingly miracle-making products are launched every year, it appears that most of these so-called studies must be little more than shams. It turns out that’s exactly what most of them are.
When the EU created their Cosmetics Industry Directive, the entire 27- member nation group was obliged to follow it. One of the new regulations unique to the EU was that cosmetics companies must have on file studies that support their claims (Source: Consolidated Version of Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC, http://ec. europa. eu/enterprise/ cosmetics/html/consolidated_dir. htm). Almost instantly, the industry of claim substantiation was created. In other words, the EU tried to make a difference but failed miserably; they just created a loophole that cosmetics companies could easily get through.
In the world of skin care today, there is an entire business known as claim substantiation, but its studies definitely do not equate with those done under legitimate scientific research standards. Laboratories, including those at some respected universities and colleges, are expert at setting up a study so that the results support whatever the label or advertisements say that a product can do. One important question about this research that many consumers and physicians aren’t aware of—and this includes lots of physicians who are involved in these dubious and often completely bogus studies—is this: “Under what conditions were the studies performed?” In the industry, in place of a plausible answer, what happens goes by many names, such as creative claim substantiation, or substantiation strategies (Source: Society of Cosmetic Chemists, www. scconline. org/website/referrals/consultants. shtml).
These research labs exist solely to provide pseudoscientific material for the cosmetics industry. That way, if the marketing copy claims that a moisturizer provides an 82% increase in moisturization or a 90% increase in the skin’s water content, the company may very well be able to point to a study that says this is true. Whether the study is the least bit valid is another question altogether. Quoting these inconclusive, vague studies in a news story or ad can make them sound significant and meaningful, but in truth they are more often than not just more hype and exaggeration generated to sell products. One of these claim-substantiation companies actually advertises its ability to deliver “creative claim generation/substantiation.”
For example, in a skin-care study to establish whether or not a product gets rid of wrinkles, the subjects participating often begin by washing their face and then stripping it clear with alcohol. The company then takes the “before” photos and measurements (such as wrinkle depth, skin tone, and water loss, among other parameters). With that starting point, it’s hardly surprising that the “before” situation is much worse than the “after” results. What would the results have been if the woman had started by using a gentle cleanser, a good moisturizer, and a sunscreen (for example, effective ones different from those being tested)? Or, what would the effects of any other products have been if compared to those of the product being tested? Perhaps dozens of other products could have performed as well or better.
(Sources for the above: Cosmetic Claims Substantiation, Cosmetic Science and Technology Series, vol. 18, ed. Louise Aust, New York: Marcel Dekker, 1998; and the Cosmetics and Toiletries article: “The European Group on Efficacy Measurement of Cosmetics and Other Topical Products is considering new cosmetic legislation to regulate claims of efficacy,” by G. E. Pierard, Ph. D, Allured Publishing Corp., Boca Raton, FL, 2000.)
During the more than 25 years I’ve been researching and reviewing the cosmetics industry I have asked every cosmetics company whose product or products we’ve reviewed to show us their “studies” and in all those 25 years, I have received only five of these studies (and none, and I mean NONE, of those five studies proved the claims the companies were making). There are lots of ways to use pseudo-science to create proof for a claim that, in reality, has very little to do with science and everything to do with marketing
According to an article in Cosmetics & Toiletries magazine (December 1999, pages 52-53), “Skin moisturization studies using bioengineering methods are commonplace today. If data generated for a new test product demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the test product and untreated skin in favor of increased hydration, then claims indicating
this to the consumer would be substantiated_____ For example, [the claim] ‘moisturizes your
skin for up to 8 hours’ would be substantiated by a study where a statistical difference was observed between the test product and untreated skin for up to 8 hours following application of the test product.” In essence, in examples like this, what the words “our studies show” are telling you is that, when compared with plain, unmoisturized, washed skin, the moisturizer made skin moist! That isn’t exactly shocking. The use of any moisturizer would show the same results.
I’ve seen this process at work firsthand, and it is disturbing. Whoever is paying the bill hires the research lab. The lab is handed the products and told what to look for and what kind of results are needed—for example, proof of moisturization, exfoliation, smoothness, or some other measurable parameter. Then the lab goes about setting up a study to prove that position. Rarely are these studies done double blind, nor do they use a large group of women, or show long-term results, and rarely (actually never) are the results negative. More to the point, these studies are never published. Unpublished research is nothing more than sheer fantasy and illusion. It’s completely unscientific and considered invalid by independent researchers. Yet consumers are led to believe this unverified information is fact when they read about it in editorials in fashion magazines and other media. And the cosmetic companies are quick to point out how many studies they’ve done, but few are ever published and even fewer are ever substantiated.
This same sleight of hand is used quite effectively in brochures and ads. Many cosmetics counters hand out impressively designed, scientific-looking brochures showing how well a product works on the skin. You might see, for example, a microscopic close-up of a patch of skin paired with an explanation of why it looks bad. Beside it is another close-up of the same patch of skin after the product is applied. See how wonderfully the product worked? The deception here is that you are not given enough “before” information. For example, if the woman had acne, what was she doing before to take care of her skin? Was she using products that clogged pores or aggravated breakouts? Had she never used any effective skin-care products for acne? In that case, any basic skin-care routine for acne could make a difference. And was this person the sole best result of the lot? Were there perhaps others who still had breakouts despite treatment or did their skin get worse? Just because information looks scientific doesn’t mean it is.
Next time you see stories about test results showing younger-looking skin, new cell growth, or any other claim that sounds too good to be true, regardless of who is making the claim, stop and think. Ask yourself how many times you have heard this “perfect skin in a bottle” message before. Is this “story” about only a single study, or are there any corroborating studies? Does it sound too good to be true? Where is the entire study? What did it really test? You may also want to ask yourself how many more times you are going to swallow another exaggerated claim about a skin-care product, or spend money believing that you’ve finally found the “best” product available. (Do you really believe that gorgeous, childlike model in the picture looks like that because of the products being advertised?) Think about how many times you’ve been sucked in by a cosmetics ad, claim, or fashion magazine story, only to be disappointed again and again, until the next advertising campaign for a new product catches your attention. There are many wonderful things that you can do to take care of your skin! But there are also a ton of things that are an embarrassing waste of money.