The Cosmetic Claims landscape is dynamic, with fierce competition driving brands to use compelling, benefit-oriented language. However, strict regulations, particularly in the EU, demand that popular marketing claims must be rigorously substantiated. This challenge requires manufacturers to back up aspirational marketing with robust science.
Understanding the Key Claim Categories and Regulatory Scrutiny
The claims found on labels, in advertising, and on digital platforms broadly fall into categories that promise a specific aesthetic or functional result. Each category is subject to the EU’s six common criteria (Legal Compliance, Truthfulness, Evidential Support, Honesty, Fairness, and Informed Decision-Making) from Regulation (EU) No 655/2013.
1. Anti-Aging Claims
This is one of the most highly scrutinized categories of Cosmetic Claims. Consumers seek products to visibly reduce the signs of aging (fine lines, wrinkles, loss of elasticity).
- The Challenge: The primary regulatory distinction is between a cosmetic effect (improving the appearance of signs of aging, such as smoothing or plumping through hydration) and a medicinal or “drug” claim (implying a change to the body’s structure or function, such as generating new collagen or “removing” a wrinkle). Cosmetics are generally limited to improving appearance.
- Substantiation: Claims like “Reduces the appearance of wrinkles” or “Youth-enhancing” require objective testing (e.g., instrumental measurements of skin topography/depth of wrinkles) and/or consumer perception studies, showing a statistically significant, temporary improvement in the visual aspect of aging.
2. Moisturizing Cosmetics Claims
The claim of “Moisturizing” is fundamental to many cosmetic categories, from face creams to body lotions.
- The Challenge: While this claim is generally considered a core cosmetic function, the level of the claim must be substantiated. Exaggerated terms, such as implying a lasting physiological change beyond temporary skin surface hydration, can be misleading.
- Substantiation: Efficacy is typically proven using instrumental tests. Common methods include:
- Corneometry: Measuring the skin’s hydration level.
- Transepidermal Water Loss (TEWL): Measuring the product’s ability to reduce water loss from the skin, which is key to barrier function claims. The data must clearly show the extent, speed, and duration of the moisturizing effect.
3. Brightening Cream Claims
“Brightening” or “Illuminating” products are marketed to address dull skin, uneven tone, and the visible signs of hyperpigmentation (dark spots).
- The Challenge: Similar to anti-aging, these claims must not overstep into medicinal territory by suggesting they treat or cure skin conditions like melasma. The claimed effect is limited to improving the skin’s visual radiance and reducing the appearance of dark spots.
- Substantiation: The supporting evidence usually involves:
- Chromametry/Colorimetry: Objective measurements of skin color and radiance.
- Clinical Grading: Dermatologists or trained experts assess changes in hyperpigmentation and overall luminosity.
- Consumer Perception: Surveys to confirm visible improvement in brightness as perceived by users.
4. Waterproof Claims
Waterproof is a claim frequently used for mascaras, eyeliners, and sunscreens, promising resistance to water, sweat, and humidity.
- The Challenge: Regulators and consumers expect a high standard for “waterproof.” If a product is merely “water-resistant” (i.e., less resistant than the implied “waterproof” standard), the claim may be deemed dishonest or untruthful.
- Substantiation: Specific testing protocols exist to measure a product’s resistance to water immersion or simulated sweating, often involving applying the product to a substrate or human volunteers and exposing it to controlled amounts of water/sweat before re-measuring its integrity or efficacy (especially for sunscreens). The test results must justify the absolute “waterproof” label.
The Role of Evidential Support
For all these popular claims, the principle of Evidential Support remains the highest hurdle. According to the EU’s requirements, the Responsible Person must ensure that the supporting evidence is:
- Relevant: The test must measure the claimed benefit (e.g., a moisturizing test for a hydration claim).
- Reliable: The test methods must be scientifically sound, reproducible, and follow validated protocols.
- Robust: The evidence should withstand regulatory scrutiny, often requiring a weight-of-evidence approach combining instrumental, clinical, and consumer data.
The regulatory environment forces brands to be precise. General claims unsupported by data are rapidly being eliminated in favour of clear, specific, and tested benefits that truly inform the consumer.
