Cosmetics Giants Use Misleading Advertisements By Stephen and Gina Antczak, authors of Cosmetics Unmasked Yet again the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld complaints made against leading cosmetics manufacturers. All of the offending companies ran advertisements in the UK national press, in leaflets and in magazines which made misleading or unsubstantiated claims about their products. In other words, despite making claims that "test show", "latest research" and "tested by an independent laboratory", these manufacturers could not provide the ASA with any reliable evidence that their cosmetics actually do what they claim! On 18th July 2001 the ASA ruled that Chanel could not substantiate the claims they made for their skin care product called "Précision Age Delay". Two weeks later on 1st August 2001 the ASA upheld complaints made against an under-eye lift serum called "Sudden Change" produced by UK Home Shopping Ltd who were trading as Cosmetic Laboratory Sales. A week after that on the 8th August the ASA upheld complaints made against Christian Dior UK Ltd. who could not substantiate the claims they made for their skin care product called "NoAge Essential". In March of 2002, Max Huber Research Labs Inc produced an advertising leaflet for thier Creme de la Mer skin care products which was a tissue of unscientific garbage. All of these companies were ordered not to repeat their advertisements. Chanel - "Précision Age Delay" The advertisement for this product stated, "AGE DELAY. Time to delay time! On the basis of the latest research by the CE.R.I.E.S.*, CHANEL has formulated for PRÉCISION: AGE DELAY, a new high-performance serum to combat the first signs of ageing. AGE DELAY PROTECTS, CORRECTS AND VISIBLY REJUVENATES THE SKIN. How? By stimulating cell vitality. Containing a targeted micro-peptide twice as effective as vitamin C, it re-educates the skin to behave like a young skin. A REAL YOUTH BOOST, TO BE USED AS RECOMMENDED BY YOUR PRÉCISION DIAGNOSIS. *Epiderma and Sensory Research and Investigation Centre." The complaint: A member of the public, challenged whether the advertisers could substantiate the claims that the product: was "a new high-performance serum to combat the first signs of ageing"; "stimulates cell vitality"; and "re-educates the skin to behave like a young skin." The ASA challenged whether the advertisers could substantiate the claims: "Age delay. Time to delay time"; "corrects and visibly rejuvenates the skin"; and "A real youth boost". The Adjudication: The complaint was upheld. The advertisers sent copies of two clinical trials in support of the claims. The ASA took expert advice and understood that the trials did not substantiate the claimed efficacy of the product. It concluded that the advertisement breached the advertising codes. The ASA told the advertisers to consult the Committee of Advertising Practice Copy Advice team before advertising the product again. UK Home Shopping Ltd "Sudden Change" The advertisement for this under-eye lift serum was headlined "BREAKTHROUGH! SUDDEN CHANGE MAKES APPEARANCE OF Dark circles, wrinkles and lines disappear in seconds without surgery or silicone" and showed photographs of a right eye 'BEFORE' the application of the serum and a left eye 'AFTER' the serum had been applied. It stated "Un-retouched photo proves Sudden Change works ... Look Closely; BEFORE: Ugly dark circles, puffiness and wrinkles are all too obvious, AFTER: Young looking skin! The camera doesn't lie! Sudden Change works! These photographs have been checked and verified as being un-retouched, true and accurate by an independent Government body ... In seconds, you will look years younger! And the results last hours. But don't just take our word for it - when Sudden Change was tested by an independent laboratory, it was proven to be effective in reducing and eliminating the appearance of under-eye wrinkles and puffiness and the effects were shown to last for hours". The Complaint: Transform Medical Group and members of the public challenged whether: the before and after photographs were un-retouched and had been verified by an independent government body; and the under-eye lift serum had been tested by an independent laboratory. The Adjudication: Both complaints were upheld. The advertisers sent a copy of a decision made by the National Advertising Directorate of the Better Business Bureau (NAD) in the USA, a test report from a clinic in the USA, nine photographs, an affidavit, a statement clarifying the affidavit and notes from a British court case. 1. The advertisers said NAD had verified the photographs in an adjudication about a commercial for an under-eye skin smoother and claimed that the same photographs had been used in the advertisement. The ASA noted the affidavit stated that the photographs had been taken in the USA in March 1990, that the skin smoother had been applied to one eye only and that the photographs showing the woman wearing the skin smoother on one side of her face and not on the other were un-retouched. The ASA noted that NAD had investigated an under-eye skin smoother, not an under-eye skin serum as advertised. It considered that the advertisers had not proved that NAD had investigated the same product. The ASA also considered that NAD was part of a self-regulation system and was not a government body and that most readers would interpret the claim "verified ... by a Government body" as meaning that a UK government body had assessed and approved the photographs. It concluded that the claim was misleading and told the advertisers not to repeat it. 2. The advertisers said the independent laboratory that conducted the tests was in the USA. The ASA noted that the tests had been conducted using a skin smoothing foam on 10 women in 1990 and had concluded that the product was effective in reducing and eliminating the appearance of under-eye wrinkles and puffiness for up to three hours. It noted that the tests had been conducted on an aerosol-based product and the advertised product was an under-eye lift serum. The ASA considered that the advertisers had not proved that it was the same product. It considered that the claim, combined with the headline "BREAKTHROUGH", implied that the under-eye lift serum had been recently tested by an independent laboratory and that the product was new. The ASA considered that the advertisers had not proved that the advertised product was the same one tested in 1990. It told the advertisers to remove the claim and the headline and to reword the advertisement with help from the Committee of Advertising Practice Copy Advice team. Christian Dior UK Ltd - "NoAge Essential" The advertisement for this product stated, "NoAge. Say No To Ageing. Ensures a perfect defense [sic] of your cells to keep your skin looking younger. A world first in cosmetology, the Ageproof®* Complex and its Optitelomerase optimize the life expectancy of your cells*. Instantly transforms skin, thanks to an exclusive Dior technology: the New Skin System. Skin is visibly 're-pulped', re-textured. Spectacular results**: skin is smoother: 96%, strengthened: 86%, younger-looking: 80%." The Complaint: A member of the public, challenged whether the advertisers could substantiate the claims that the product: "Ensures a perfect defense [sic] of your cells to keep your skin looking younger"; "... Ageproof®* Complex and its Optitelomerase optimize the life expectancy of your cells"; and "Spectacular results: skin is smoother: 96%, strengthened: 86%, younger-looking: 80%". The Authority challenged whether the advertisers could substantiate the claims: "NoAge. Say no to ageing"; and "Instantly transforms skin, thanks to an exclusive Dior technology: the New Skin System. Skin is visibly 're-pulped', re-textured." The Adjudication: The complaint was upheld. The advertisers sent studies and published papers that they believed supported the claims. The ASA took expert advice and concluded that the advertisers' evidence did not substantiate the claimed efficacy of the product and that the advertisement breached the advertising codes. The ASA told the advertisers to consult the Committee of Advertising Practice Copy Advice team before advertising the product again. Max Huber Research Labs Inc - Creme de la Mer (Comment from the authors: If you believe unscientific garbage like this, then you deserve to be ripped off!) The Complaint: A member of the public raised an objection to a leaflet for Creme de la Mer skin care products. The leaflet stated "DO YOU BELIEVE IN MIRACLES? Because something has happened here that cannot be explained. If miracles are defined as unique events that appear inexplicable by the laws of nature, then surely Creme de la Mer is a miracle. For here is the creme that will truly change the way you see yourself ... There is nothing miraculous about the ingredients - sea kelp, calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron, lecithin, Vitamins C, D, E and B12, plus oils of citrus, eucalyptus, wheat germ, alfalfa and sunflower ... THE MIRACLE. Even now, it is not entirely clear as to why Creme de la Mer works ... But facts are facts and certainly the proof can be seen on the faces of those who use it. In a short time, skin becomes softer, firmer, looks virtually creaseless. Ageing lines and pores are noticeably less visible. Even the driest of complexions are healed. Sensitivities are soothed". The complainant challenged the claims: "At the heart of these preparations are Creme de La Mer's Deconstructed Waters. Through the wonders of engineering, water molecules are declustered, virtually split in two. Once divided, these waters assume a power or "potential" more distinct and higher than they had as a compound. These charged waters act as a generator to enhance the energy and performance of the other ingredients suspended in them". The complainant believed that splitting water molecules would not have the claimed effect; " With age, the waters that flow within and around skin cells can become "stagnant" - less able to deliver vital nutrients. Skin appears dull, lifeless. Surface discolourations can appear. The Face Serum utilizes Creme de La Mer's exclusive Deconstructed Waters to deliver a wealth of marine proteins, sea-derived enzymes and botanicals. The result is an explosion of activity. The waters once again flow more freely. Skin is infused with energy and enriched with essential nutrients. The appearance of unwanted discolourations is diminished. Skin that has been tarnished by age or exposure is clarified and brightened ...". The complainant objected that the claim implied that the product delivered nutrients to skin cells; he believed that a product that crossed the skin barrier had to be licensed as a medicine; and "... the cleansing lotion ... Thoroughly, yet tranquilly, it draws dirt, debris, face and eye makeup and pollutants from the skin's surface ... The addition of colloidal silver reduces potentially irritating preservative levels, while purifying skin. So gentle, it will not upset your complexion in any way, even when used with great frequency". The complainant challenged the claim because he believed that long-term use of silver preparations lead to Argyria and turned skin ashen-grey. Additionally, the Advertising Standards Authority challenged the efficacy of the products. The Adjudication: The complaint was upheld The advertisers explained that "Deconstructed Waters" was a marketing phrase and a trade mark for a processed water used in several of their speciality products. They claimed that they split molecule water by sending a salt-water solution through an electric field and that placing cosmetic agents in the charged solutions improved the efficacy of the cosmetic agent. They sent a covering letter, several reports on structured water, toxicological data, two curricule vita and reports on the efficacy of their face serum and cleansing lotion. The Authority took expert advice and understood that the advertisers' evidence was unpublished and non-peer reviewed and that the product trials the advertisers had sent were uncontrolled. It considered that the advertisers had not proved that split water molecules acted as a generator to enhance the energy and performance of the other ingredients suspended in them. The Authority also considered that the advertisers had not proven that their face serum delivered nutrients to the skin as implied by the advertisement. Although it understood that the use of colloidal silver in cosmetics was permitted by European Union law and that the risk from its use in the cleansing lotion was extremely low, the Authority was concerned that the advertisement claimed readers' complexions would not be upset by frequent use of the product and that the advertisers had not provided rigorous evidence to support the claim. The Authority concluded that the advertisers had substantiated neither the advertised claims nor the efficacy of the product. It told the advertisers to consult the Committee of Advertising Practice Copy Advice team before advertising the product again. Back to the top © Gina & Steve Antczak, 2001 This page was last updated, 31 March 2002 CosmeticsUnmasked.Com