Exit, “genific” technologies (Lancôme) or inspired by “mother cells” (L’Oréal). What nerdy science! In 2024, place for very promising neurocosmetics, the ultimate in attracting consumers, according to Mintel. Every year, this London-based research company reviews what’s new in the beauty industry. Its conclusions are awaited and regularly reported in specialist magazines.
At the top of the last of these almanacs for professional apollos and aphrodites is a host of products, creams, lotions, and other serums, which promise nothing less than to “relax the mind” while firming the skin. How does the miracle work? Mystery. Certain ingredients go so far as to improve “the release of dopamine”, it is simply written. Mintel, like the brands, remains extremely discreet about the recipes for their fabulous elixirs.
Although it does not provide any proof of effectiveness – that is not its role – the report nevertheless confirms the brands’ affection for the scientific imagination. To sell, many of them highlight extraordinary properties, “born from science” and drawn, depending on the fashion, from the “power” of space biology, bioluminescence or the study of stem cells – renamed “mothers” by L’Oréal. An eternal “revolution”.
The “power of science”
A slightly tainted legend: at the beginning of the year, Guerlain, one of the French leaders in luxury, allowed itself to assert that one of its treatments was based on “quantum” technology. No luck: the term only applies to the infinitely small. Beyond damaging the reputation of the brand, which had to erase the unfortunate qualifier in the face of the controversy, the affair has cast doubt on the industry’s other assertions. “It’s scientific, perhaps, but better, not really,” jokes, not fooled, a saleswoman from the Sephora brand, when asked which jar to trust.
What are all these treatments that claim to “regenerate”, “reveal new cells”, “reactivate genes” or “rejuvenate” the epidermis – to rejuvenate it, in good French? What is the seriousness behind this “science”, brandished here and there? Would “cosmetic” products have a curative action, and would they go so far as to modify metabolism, as is suggested? “Almost all brands have used pseudoscientific discourse for a long time. Just the name anti-aging doesn’t really have any scientific reality,” warns Laurence Coiffard, a cosmetologist who is a member of the scientific council of the National Beauty Agency. safety of the drug.
Since the quantum controversy, this specialist from the University of Nantes has been overwhelmed by questions from journalists. Usually, cosmetic news is relegated to waiting room magazines. So when the media suddenly came to woo him, Laurence Coiffard was amused. If only they had read his blog! There, in addition to the latest innovations, land all kinds of roses: “waterproof” products that can be removed with water, “biodegradable” products stuffed with polymers and a host of so-called scientific concepts that no one scientist worthy of the name knows.
“We periphrase, playing on the subtleties of vocabulary”
The problem is so recurring that in November 2023, the Directorate General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Prevention issued a press release. Titled “Not everything is permitted”, it points out the great nonsense of cosmetic allusions, and more particularly those on their effectiveness, very often poorly or not demonstrated at all. In 2020, the latest report, more than a third of the products tested did not comply with their commercial claims.
Too often, effects are stated without proof. A shame for anyone who wants to be a scientist. “Brands, in addition to ensuring the complete safety of their products, an absolute priority, must also justify their claims, under European Regulation 655/2013,” recalls Me Caroline Arrighi-Savoie (Bird & Bird) . However, they are free to choose by what means. For example, they have no obligation to appear in scientific journals where meticulous teams of proofreaders work. “All it takes is a little ingenuity to find, neither seen nor known, a way of asserting what we want,” continues Laurence Coiffard.
No “plumping” effect? Let’s talk about a “rebound”. The product is not active for long? Go for the “effective from the first hours” formula. “We periphrase, playing on the subtleties of vocabulary,” summarizes a former employee in the Research and Innovation department of a large group. Playing with words is less expensive than repeating the wording. This is how the most important science in cosmetics works: marketing. “It is this service which says the last word, and very often, it has no idea of the scientific framework, and of the different levels of proof,” continues the person concerned.
Self-assessment and questionnaires
The brands contacted by L’Express did not respond to our requests. However, some sometimes carry out studies approaching the requirements of medical devices, adds the former marketing director of one of the market leaders. They even publish their advances in scientific journals, especially to describe the chemical properties of new ingredients. “But the standard is self-assessment, much cheaper and faster,” continues this expert. Simple questionnaires distributed to around fifty consumers: this is the basis on which it is claimed, for example, that “the complexion is more uniform”, the “size of spots is reduced” or “the skin feels lifted”. Hence the importance of reading the asterisks. It is there, in a smaller size, that the test methods appear.
It’s not all fabrication. Companies in the sector carry out very in-depth research, sometimes with renowned universities. The Caudalie company, for example, is a partner of Harvard. It uses, under license, the work of David Sinclair, one of the heroes of cellular biology. L’Oréal, with its numerous laboratories and its beach simulation room, filed some 475 patents in 2022. More than all the CNRS. Enough to strut on the packaging and prevent the competition from copying. But in no way proof of anything, in the scientific sense.
Because to demonstrate an effect on the functioning of the skin, it would actually be necessary that brands carry out clinical trials, recruit a few thousand volunteers, distribute them a placebo, and ensure that neither the testers nor the staff know who received what. Then, all of this data and proof of concepts should be made available to everyone and validated by other scientists in the industry. A financial pit. “A cosmetic, by definition, does not act on the functioning of organs, including the skin, otherwise it would be a medicine,” recalls Barbara A. Gilchrest, professor of dermatology at Harvard University.
A rule that also applies to collagen, so trendy that some people swallow it. No results demonstrated. The specialist may rack her brains: “Only retinol, closely linked to trans retinoic acid (Atra), has, to my knowledge, a scientific basis. Reviewed and published studies have demonstrated that Atra has anti-aging effects. visible clinically and under a microscope. To throw away, the rest? If the effect of a cosmetic remains… cosmetic, it can still, at the moment, improve the appearance – as makeup does very well, for example. “There are many products that temporarily hydrate and are pleasant,” summarizes the scientist.
Behind the names “ift”, “ctin” or “ist” and other “acids” and “complexes” are in reality products developed in less than a year on average* and with less fantastic effects than advertised: a anti-wrinkle products sold at a few tens of thousands of euros per liter are more of a coating than a makeover. It covers the hollows of the skin. It is visible, of course, but only under a microscope. A treatment, no matter how good it may be, only greases and keeps water on the face, without blocking the pores too much. And for shine, or complexion, the essential mechanism lies in the mirror effect of the components, such as gold or mica. All these actions require intense development, so that nothing drips, irritates or stains. But they are only superficial.
*Arnela Kasum. Regulatory environment and quality of cosmetic clinical trials in France. Thesis Pharmaceutical sciences, 2015, Dumas.
.