Why top beauty products may only work in a lab
CLAIMS about the beneficial effects of beauty products may not apply in ‘real life’ as they are often based on test tube results, an investigation suggests.
Cosmetic chemist Dr Colin Sanders, who has worked for some of the UK’s biggest firms, said it is ‘quite common’ for products to work in a lab but not on the skin.
A face cream by Estee Lauder, which costs £44 for a 50ml pot, is advertised as defending against ‘the appearance of premature ageing’ – yet this claim is based on ‘in vitro testing’.
Promotional material for the Advanced MultiProtection Anti- Oxidant Creme claims the moisturiser ‘reduces the look of first signs of ageing’. Estee Lauder’s website makes the nature of the testing clear, but Dr Sanders told Channel 4’s Supershoppers: ‘It’s quite common for something to work in vitro and not in real life … if you use an in vitro claim on a pack it is jumping the gun a bit. I don’t think it should be something you can use to promote a product.’
An Estee Lauder spokesman said the firm ‘fully stands behind all of its product performance claims’ based on ‘testing that includes clinical and consumer testing on real women’ as well as in vitro testing. The firm declined to share any further details of the testing. Tomorrow night’s episode of the consumer series, which is broadcast at 8.30pm, also analyses the scientific phrases used on packaging.
The programme revealed ‘dermatologically tested’ means anyone could have done the test, whereas ‘dermatologist tested’ means the test was supervised by a qualified skin doctor.
A spokesman for Neal’s Yard, whose £18 Rose Facial Polish featured on the show, said its products are ‘tested to the highest standards either by a dermatologist, or under the strict supervision of a dermatologist … we could label our products “dermatologist tested”.
‘However, we choose “dermatologically tested” as we believe it’s more consumer-friendly.’