What do claims such as 'dermatologically tested' really mean?

Main Category: Public Health
Article Date: 05 Jun 2004 - 20:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

Claims such as 'dermatologically tested' or 'dermatologist approved' - found on many cosmetics, toiletries and some washing powders - are confusing and potentially misleading according to a Health Which? investigation.

(WHICH? Is the UK's Consumer's Association)

These 'derma' claims imply that a product has reached a certain level of safety or effectiveness. But there are no standard industry-wide definitions setting out how a product must be tested, and the results it needs to achieve, before a company can make such a claim. What's more, the absence of agreed definitions means that tests designed by companies to substantiate these claims may not necessarily replicate how a product is actually used.

Health Which? surveyed over 1,000 people about label claims on cosmetics and toiletries. Asked what they thought the term 'dermatologically tested' means, over a quarter said they believe the product had been tested on human skin. While this is correct in a very literal sense, the term doesn't tell you what the tests were designed to show, or whether the product passed the tests.

The survey showed that:

-- Nearly three-quarters of respondents thought that 'dermatologically tested' could -- also mean something else, or didn't know what it means.

-- 13 per cent of people said it means the product is kind to skin

-- 22 per cent thought the product would not cause allergies

-- 10 per cent thought the product is unlikely to cause skin allergies.

To find out what these claims really mean Health Which? wrote to ten leading cosmetics companies asking for evidence to support their claims. Eight replied but, despite repeated requests, neither Clarins nor Revlon responded. Health Which? asked two independent experts to assess the companies' responses.

The eight companies that did respond provided only general information about the tests they carry out. Without specific details on the methods used, or the results achieved, the experts were unable to assess fully whether the products live up to their claims. This lack of openess means that consumers are unable to judge the extent and quality of the tests, which support such claims.

Sue Freeman, Acting Editor, Health Which? said:

"The Health Which? research shows that a 'dermatologically tested' claim on one product may mean something completely different to the same claim on another product. This is confusing and potentially misleading. Without standard definitions, and with companies refusing to supply details of their tests and results, these claims are meaningless, and consumers are left guessing about the benefits implied by such claims. We want to see more openess from companies, and standard definitions for derma claims."

Ends

Notes to editors

-- Health Which? conducted a face-to-face omnibus survey of adults aged 15+ in September 2003. The sample size achieved was 1,051 interviews. Results are weighted to be representative of the GB population, giving a weighted base of 1,026.

-- Companies contacted: Accantia, Beiersdorf, The Body Shop, Boots, Clarins, Johnson & Johnson, Lever Fabergé, L'Oréal, Procter & Gamble, Revlon

-- Our experts: a professor of dermatology and a consultant dermatologist with expertise in contact dermatitis.

-- The figures quoted in the bullet points are proportions of all those surveyed. In the magazine report, these figures are quoted incorrectly as being proportions of 'nearly three quarters of our respondents'.

WHICH?