Cosmetic claims: What is allowed?

Target group

What you should never forget when formulating claims 
is the target group. Who is the product for, who should buy it, what is the target group? When formulating claims, one should always include the consumer’s point of view. The European ‘average consumer’ is reasonably well informed, observant, and critical, always taking into account linguistic, cultural, and social factors. What effect claims, but also illustrations or the colour design of the product have on the consumer is therefore not the same in every country and must be re-evaluated depending on the region or country.

A further aid and tool in the fight against false claims is the technical document on cosmetic claims from the European Commission. It is not legally binding and serves as an aid by listing examples of claims. When creating claims, a case-by-case decision should always be made for each new cosmetic product that comes onto the market, as claims can never be generalised.

Annex II of the technical document again explains substantiation. Here, the best practice for the scientific substantiation of claims is explained. A claim is demonstrable if there is sufficient verifiable evidence that is consistent with the claim. It must therefore be proven, for example, that the claimed ingredient X is also present in an effective concentration and that this concentration is also effective in the cosmetic formulation. Then, that ingredient X is generally effective does not automatically mean that it is also effective in the formulation. A statement by a raw material supplier is not sufficiently verifiable proof of efficacy.

Evidence

Of course, everyone is aware that such proof cannot always be demonstrated with the scientific gold standard of studies, the double-blind study. Nevertheless, it is necessary to prove promised effects. It does not matter how this proof is provided. 

Such evidence must also be listed in the product information file. According to Article 11 (2) (d), the product information file must contain evidence of the effect claimed for the cosmetic product if this is justified by the nature of the cosmetic product or its effect. 

As we already know, according to Article 20 (1) of Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, cosmetic products may not use texts, designations, trademarks, illustrations, and other pictorial or non-pictorial signs that suggest characteristics or functions that the products in question do not possess. Such claims are then capable of misleading the consumer and influencing their purchase decision.

If the responsible authority, the Food Control Authority, determines that the consumer has been misled in this way, action must be taken in accordance with Article 20 (1) of Regulation (EC) 1223/2009. If the consumer is misled, this is then referred to as a criminal offense. And all this because advertised claims were not properly proven.

No entrepreneur wants to take such a risk and therefore should never refrain from carefully checking their claims before use. 

Currently popular claims

A frequently used claim that is seen again and again and that is also popular with customers and well received is advertising with so-called ‘Clean Beauty’. But what does ‘clean’ actually mean? ‘Clean Beauty’ is often explained as follows: ‘Clean Beauty’ stands for products that are mostly free of animal testing and do not contain certain controversial ingredients. For example, this refers to: Microplastics and water-soluble, purely synthetic polymers, mineral oils, silicones, benzophenone-3, fragrances, flavourings and essential oils, parabens, formaldehyde releasers, PEG, BHA (buthylhydroxyanisole) and BHT (buthylhydroxytoluene), and animal ingredients.

The problem here is that the term ‘clean’ always gives consumers the impression that the ingredients deliberately dispensed with here are not clean, but ‘dirty’. The consumer can quickly misinterpret this and regard substances that have been tested as safe for use in cosmetic products and are permitted as questionable. Harmless substances are thus more often avoided by consumers and used less frequently.

Better to avoid

Claims such as ‘We love animals’ or ‘Free from animal testing’ or a picture of a bunny rabbit are also very popular, yet animal testing has been banned in the EU since 2013 under Article 18 of Regulation (EC) 1223/2009. It is also prohibited to market cosmetics that have been tested on animals outside the EU. Such an advertising claim is therefore only allowed if the specific product has never been tested on animals, not even in preliminary stages anywhere in the world, or by anyone for any purpose. Providing this proof is difficult, which is why the use of the claim ‘animal-free’ is generally discouraged.

Statements such as ‘We love animals’ or ‘Cruelty free’ do not violate Article 18, but here too it must always be proven what the statements refer to. The consumer must also be able to recognise this transparently.

Another claim that has enjoyed great popularity in recent years, also among consumers, is the ‘free from’ claim. Similar to ‘Clean Beauty’, it is also important here to avoid ‘controversially discussed’ ingredients. Be it parabens, perfume, or preservatives. Even though ‘free from’ claims are merely statements that refer to the content of the cosmetic product, the consumer is still given the impression that doing without these substances is ‘better’.

Tips and tricks

Refrain from denigrating certain substances and substance groups and making them look bad. As long as a substance is approved according to the EU Cosmetics Regulation, it can be used safely and must not be portrayed as harmful. Only a statement that the substance is not used in their product can be made.

Put on your ‘consumer glasses’ and consider how certain claims may be received and evaluated by the consumer. Might you even be misleading? Then you should formulate the claim differently.

Claims like 0% or 100% should be avoided. They are easy to attack and difficult to prove. Analytical tests would have to prove the claim here. Words such as ‘mostly’ or ‘big part of’ are less risky. It makes more sense to claim what the product contains rather than what it does not contain. Such claims can also trigger a purchase decision in the consumer.

For sunscreen or deodorant protection, the effect must be scientifically proven through efficacy studies. For softer claims, an application study can be helpful.

In summary, it can be said that anyone who chooses truthful claims that can also be substantiated with studies cannot go far wrong. It is also helpful to look at the claims from a consumer’s point of view to avoid misunderstandings.