New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Cosmetic Ads' Science Claims Lack Foundation

An analysis of some 300 cosmetics ads in magazines found the vast majority of their science claims to be either false or too vague to judge

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

“Clinically Proven.” “Breakthrough Technology.” “Ten Years of Genetic Research.” These are phrases you might expect to find in the pages of Scientific American. But these descriptions also show up in commercials and print ads for cosmetics.

Now a study finds that some—well, make that a lot—of those science-sounding claims are simply not true.

Researchers looked at nearly 300 ads in magazines such as Vogue. They analyzed claims in the ads and ranked them on a scale ranging from acceptable to outright lie. And they found that just 18 percent of the boasts that the researchers looked at were true. 23 percent were outright lies. And 42 percent were too vague to even classify. The study is in the Journal of Global Fashion Marketing. [Jie G. Fowler, Timothy H. Reisenwitz and Les Carlson, Deception in cosmetics advertising: Examining cosmetics advertising claims in fashion magazine ads]


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The Food and Drug Administration regulates what goes into your cosmetics and what goes on the label. If a claim is blatantly untrue, the FDA can take action. Vague language on labels may be a way to keep the FDA at bay.

Meanwhile, ads are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. Just last year they charged L’Oreal for deceptive advertising of its Génifique products, which the company said were “clinically proven” to boost genes’ activity that would lead to the production of proteins causing “visibly younger skin in just seven days.” A settlement agreement forced L’Oreal to back off on the claims.  

So take those cosmetic ads with a grain of that salt scrub—after all, if scientists had really come up with a product that reversed your wrinkles or grew your eyelashes, it would sell itself.

—Erika Beras  

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe