Credible science or false claims: Calls for more regulation of beauty products
Jennifer Aniston first told us, “Here comes the science bit… concentrate” when he was selling shampoo in the late 1990s. But now that everything from medical-grade serums to gut-boosting yogurts are filling our shelves, the “science part” has really taken over.
However, experts warn that more regulation is needed in the beauty and wellness industry to ensure consumers are aware of truly innovative products compared to those selling false claims.
Analysts at Kantar attribute the growing popularity of evidence-based beauty and wellness products to people having more access to information through social media. This has resulted in greater awareness of the benefits of specific ingredients, they say.
Dionne Officer, a research analyst at Mintel, said 67% of British adults wanted beauty brands to offer more scientific validation. Furthermore, 36% of all products claiming to be science-based in the past five years were launched in the past 12 months, Mintel data shows.
The value of the gut health industry alone is expected to rise from £41 billion to £70 billion by 2030. The Zoe nutrition plan, co-founded by epidemiologist and gut health expert Dr Tim Spector, has had more than 130,000 sign-ups since its launch. in 2022.
Skincare brand Lyma, which has its products tested by doctors, had a waiting list of thousands when it launched last year. This week the company, co-founded by a certified plastic surgeon, is launching a £4,995 medical-grade home laser.
Jonathan Jarry, science communicator for McGill University, said consumers are “quick to believe something is good for us if it is brand new and cutting edge.” He said: “Consumers may have tried a product with yesterday’s molecule and been disappointed with the results, but like diets, there is always something new to try with the promise that it will work this time.”
Lyma founder Lucy Goff, whose company prides itself on its products being based on science-based breakthroughs, says there has been a long-standing fascination with longevity since Greek mythology and recent technological innovations may help change the way it works. body works to improve.
She added: “The problem is that so many companies and brands have jumped on the good-tech bandwagon when it’s a marketing ploy, and this is where the government needs to act more responsibly to introduce consumer benchmarks so consumers know what they’re buying . in, allowing consumers to be educated on what is credible science and what is marketing hype.”
The UK government department responsible for cosmetics laws is the Office for Product Safety and Standards. These laws are enforced by trading standards. However, there is no standard around certain claims or rules around what can be scientifically proven to work.
Goff gives the example of the sunscreen market, saying there is a ‘consumer benchmark’ on the back of the bottle to ‘show how well a product will work’, but this does not exist for other creams and supplements. “The benchmark should not be what the company tells you, but what the peer-reviewed science is that supports that… consumers are not educated in this area and brands are manipulating that, and that is what needs to stop.”
Timothy Caulfield, a research chair in health law and policy at the University of Alberta, coined the term “scienceploitation” to describe how brands borrow language from emerging fields of science to market unproven products.
He uses the example of a recent increase in interest in ‘gut health’. While microbiome and gut health is an exciting emerging field, he says, it takes years of research to discover what works and what doesn’t.
Dr. James Kinross, senior lecturer in colorectal surgery and consultant surgeon at Imperial College London, says that “most supplements that claim to target the microbiome do not.” He added: “That said, there is a lot of good evidence for pro-, pre- and synbiotics. The problem is access to this information to make useful decisions.”
Kinross said the “real problem is that most of these products don’t do what we really need, which is to optimize the microbiome for health to prevent disease.” He advises that eating 30 grams more fiber per day could be the best and easiest way to help your gut microbiome.
He added: “Consumers are often asked to spend a lot of money on these products; sometimes as part of a subscription model or sometimes as part of a platform that charges you for the pleasure of transferring all your data to Silicon Valley. Be very careful with these products.”
Kinross invests “in products with reproducible science, that are cost-effective and have an ethical data policy.”
Caulfield said consumers should be skeptical of brands, even if they are led by scientists or professors, because “a lot of academics are under pressure to hype up their work.” He gives examples of stem cell genomics and microbiomes. “These are exciting areas of science, but think of how few clinical applications we have,” he said.
Caulfield said it was becoming increasingly difficult for customers to distinguish between good and bad products because there was “so much noise” and you could find something on the internet that “legitimizes” false claims.
His advice is to look for claims that are not clearly explained, to avoid products that don’t deliver as much as they promise. While times may have changed, the old L’Oréal adage remains, and as Aniston would say, it’s “because you’re worth it.”