If you don’t understand how the cosmetics industry works—the good, the bad, and the
ugly—you will be a victim of its advertising manipulations, exaggerations, and deceptions,
and that isn’t good for your skin or your budget.
I had an interesting discussion with a producer of an infomercial as I was finishing up the
last chapter for this book before it went to press. Because of confidentiality I can’t tell you
which one, but it really doesn’t matter because they are all the same and they all mislead or
deceive or lie through their teeth in the same way. This producer knew that the script she
was going to be videotaping was mostly misleading or untrue. Don’t get me wrong: She
was very nice and she appreciated my research and critique of the topic, but of course there
was nothing she could do about it. And nothing I could do either.
What most women don’t realize is how everyone in the cosmetics industry knows that
the marketing and advertising for cosmetics is either meaningless, hypocritical, or dishon-
est. That fashion magazines are hamstrung by their advertisers and can’t report “beauty”
information objectively. They can’t disagree with their advertisers. The reporters, producers,
and editors all know it. They all talk about it and then shrug their shoulders and say, well,
it’s a living. Or they laugh about it. Ultimately, they all know women are being suckered
into products that can’t possibly perform as the claims on the label assert.
Why Cosmetics Companies Can Mislead Legally
Reporters all over the world constantly ask me why cosmetics companies mislead and
often out and out lie to women, and how they manage to get away with it. The simple
answer is that women like to be lied to. We want to believe that the products we buy can
get us what we want. We prefer the promise of eternal youth (or some approximation) and
clear, flawless skin to reality. No matter how many thousands of products there are, often
dozens of them from the same companies, and all guaranteeing some degree of a miracle,
it still happens—we just don’t seem to have a learning curve. We want the next one we
buy to be the answer. Using either scientific mumbo jumbo or concoctions said to come
straight from the earth, or a mix of both, they tell us exactly what we want to hear. Most
cosmetics companies need to lie just to gain a consumer’s attention because the truth is
never as enticing as the deception.
While women want to find hope in a jar, regulatory agencies do what they can to pro-
tect us. However the official limitations provide no real protection from truly misleading
information or lies. One of the most beguiling aspects of the cosmetics industry in the
U.S. and Canada is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Canada (HC),
and most regulatory boards around the world—with the exception of the European Union
(EU) member countries—don’t require cosmetics companies to prove their claims. “Neithercosmetic products nor cosmetic ingredients are reviewed or approved by FDA before they
are sold to the public.” (Sources: Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, www.
cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-206.html, March 3, 2005; and FDA Authority Over Cosmetics
and Health Canada, www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/prod/cosmet-eng.php). That means
cosmetics companies, whether they call their products cosmeceutical or otherwise, get to
say just about anything they want about their products without any substantiation or proof
whatsoever.
Pharmaceutical and over-the-counter drug regulations are infinitely stricter than those
dealing with cosmetics. If a drug company makes a claim about what an antihistamine
can do to prevent sneezing, the product must contain particular ingredients in specified
amounts to win approval from the FDA. The same is true for aspirin and other analgesics,
antacids, decongestants, anti-inflammatories, and all drugs across the board in the world
of pharmaceuticals. The same is not true for cosmetics.
The only fundamental FDA restriction on cosmetics companies’ claims is the legal pro-
hibition of phrases that directly state or promise a permanent change in the skin or hair.
Of course, there are a million ways to make something sound like a permanent change to
consumers without sounding permanent to the FDA.
What about federal regulations concerning truth in advertising? That issue generally
falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Com-
munications Commission (FCC), but it doesn’t take much to get around these guys either.
For example, I can describe at great length how miraculously my product works as long
as I throw in phrases such as “appears to,” “seems to,” “feels as if,” “looks like,” “you may
experience,” and lots more variations on these themes. All of these phrases invalidate any
promise about a product’s performance. A company is not considered to be lying to the
consumer when these kinds of terms are used because the purported results are subjective,
not actual. It may “seem” like your cellulite has disappeared, or you may “appear” to look
younger, or you can “experience” a clear complexion, but nothing has happened except that
you may be convinced something has taken place.
Better Than Botox? That question mark poses a question, not a statement, so the FDA
is happy, and meanwhile what the consumer hears is that the product is better than Botox.
It doesn’t take fancy terminology to keep within regulatory guidelines while still misleading
the consumer because reading caveats doesn’t get our attention. That’s how most cosmetics
advertising gets around truth-in-advertising restrictions every time.
Another game in the industry happens when companies step way over the line in their
advertising campaigns, either on televison or in fashion magazines, and mislead or lie to
consumers. They do this because they know that by the time the FDA or HC can take
action the advertisement has run its course and made an impression on consumers. Mis-
sion accomplished; the company is on to its next product launch. Also, many cosmetics
companies know that the FDC and HC are just so overloaded with work and underfunded
that their deceptive ads can easily slip under the radar of these agencies and continue on,
safe and sound, without any fear of repercussions.And beyond the lack of regulation, the language and images are manipulated to create a
veneer of scientific authority in advertisements that promise everything from younger skin
to smoother thighs. The problem here has to do with the studies the cosmetics companies
claim are backed by actual research that proves their assertions to be true. This is the wide-
open world of claim substantiation, a whole industry of its own that has given the word
deception an entirely new meaning.
The Business of Claim Substantiation
—Our Study Shows
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 consum-
ers 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% in-
crease 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 theseclaim-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 applica-
tion 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 independentresearchers. 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 compa-
nies 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 stud-
ies? 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.
A Perfect Example of How “Studies” Can Mislead
Boots No7 Restore & Renew Beauty Serum ($21.99 for 1 ounce) is one of my favorite
examples of how this game of claim substantiation works and can easily fool the media.
Here are the facts:
A television documentary that aired in the United Kingdom in March 2007 featured the
results of a blind test that compared the efficacy of this Boots serum to tretinoin. Tretinoin
is the active ingredient in Retin-A and Renova and is also available as a generic. The research
was carried out by scientists at the University of Manchester, with the conclusion that this
Boots serum was just as effective at stimulating collagen production as tretinoin, yet cost
considerably less. That sounds great until you learn that Boots paid for the research. That
means the University was making money on the study and so everyone had a vested interest
in making sure the study made the product look great.The study was done blind instead of double-blind, which means the researchers knew
who was getting what product. This type of study isn’t as reliable as double-blind studies
because, especially when money is at stake, there is a natural bias toward making sure the
product in question comes out in the best possible light. Moreover, comparing tretinoin to
a “serum” and saying they do the same thing doesn’t tell you if myriad other products would
have fared just as well. Maybe using someone else’s serum, say from Neutrogena or Olay,
could produce the same results. But because Neutrogena or Olay weren’t the ones paying
for the study no one bothered to see if that would be the case. What is distressing is that
sunscreen was left out of the equation, which means women might mistakenly believe that
all it takes is the Boots serum and your skin will be fine. And finally, if the Boots product is
so spectacular, you have to wonder why does Boots continue to sell dozens of other products
with different formulas that claim the exact same benefits?
Similar pseudo-science abounds in the cosmetics industry, and I expose it repeatedly
when I review products. Believing the claims a cosmetics company makes based on their
studies is a risk you don’t want to take because more often than not, the study is nothing
more than a marketing ploy and not indicative of anything meaningful.
