Keeping Cosmetics in Check: How Scientific are Cosmetics?

Recently, Cosmetics & Toiletries (C&T) asked readers to respond to the one-click poll:¹ “Is it challenging to communicate scientific aspects of your formulations to non-technical stakeholders?” On the spectrum of debate as to whether cosmetics are more science or marketing, this question seems to land on the side of science.

In relation, I never had the honor of meeting Johann Wiechers, Ph.D., before his untimely death. However, I was a great admirer of his work and teachings in our industry. More recently, Tony O’Lenick, in a series of C&T articles called ”Words from Weichers,” republished one of Wiechers' columns called “How Scientific is Cosmetic Science?”² In it, Wiechers questioned how rigorous the scientific evidence was in support of some of the claims being made for products, noting, “normally we do not offer explanations as to how our products work.”

The implication of C&T's question suggests that cosmetic formulations can be quite scientifically complex and as such, it is a challenge to explain them to non-scientific persons. I like and agree with this point of view while also agreeing with Wiechers that sometimes the evidence we have in support of claims may not be scientifically rigorous.

The question becomes how to explain the science behind our formulations to non-technical people. My proposal is to forget the technical principles involved in formulations and focus on what the products do and how they do it. Frequently, simple terms can successfully convey a fairly convincing argument about the technical sophistication involved in cosmetic formulations.

Following are two examples of this approach, applied to conventional cosmetic product types used by most consumers.

Very Water Resistant Sunscreen, SPF 30

(Note that the information presented below is based on the EU guidelines³ and may differ slightly from guidelines in other countries or parts of the world.)

Just explaining to a marketer/consumer what functions a sunscreen product must serve will support their understanding of it — as well as convince them of the technical and scientific complexity of the formulation. For example, "a thin layer of the product spread over the body must be capable of blocking the transmission of 97% of the sun’s burning rays and 90% of the sun’s long wavelengths of light that contribute to aging and skin cancer. In addition, after spending 1 hr and 20 min (i.e., four 20-min periods of time) in the water, the product still protects the skin against 93% of burning radiation and 80% of the longer wavelengths of light."

Furthermore, "it performs these functions with just a very thin film of product applied to the skin. It also does so without the skin feeling sticky, coated or uncomfortable. Moreover, as with any cosmetic formulation applied to the skin, it must feel good, smell good, be stable for at least three years and maintain its cosmetic stability against contamination by bacteria, even with frequent use and handling by consumers. In addition to all of these functions, the product must be easily removed from the skin by conventional washing products and procedures. Finally, the product must also be safe to use and reasonably economic to buy."

Without getting into a technical discussion of how, in fact, the product delivers all of these functions, just explaining what the product must do supports consumers' and marketers' understanding of the product. It also elucidates how highly technical and sophisticated these products are. Obviously, special benefits beyond those mentioned can be added to further promote the technical achievements the product delivers.

I am well aware that most countries require discussions of sun care products in terms of SPF and SP-UVA protection. Obviously, this would be required in the labeling. But as far I know, it is not prohibited to use other terms to further explain how these products work.

Conditioning Hair Shampoo

Most consumers and marketing experts would not think of a conditioning shampoo as a scientifically complex formulation. However, considering the simultaneous functions it serves reveals it is a fairly complex scientific technical achievement.

Again, focusing on its functions, most everyone understands "the basic function of a shampoo is to clean hair." That means it must be "capable of removing, from the hair and scalp, a wide variety of chemicals and other contaminants; i.e., chemicals found in sebum, oils from other hair care products, chemical residues from other products, dirt associated with environmental contamination, etc." 

From a technical view, the shampoo removes these materials by emulsification, solubilization and the suspension of insoluble dirt residues in the foam. Thus, "all contaminants must also remain suspended or dissolved in the foam while the product is being rinsed from the hair. And at the same time, the shampoo cannot be so aggressive as to strip the hair of oil and leave a dried-out feeling." While performing all of these cleaning processes, the conditioning shampoo must additionally "deposit onto the hair a different kind of 'soil' that leaves the surface coated and makes it easier to comb and style." So essentially, a conditioning shampoo is a product that "cleans one kind of soil off the hair while depositing another kind of soil on the hair."

When described in these terms, the conditioning shampoo's overall functions are clear to understand but still demonstrate technical sophistication. These functions, of course, are achieved using different scientific principles. Solubilization, emulsification and suspension are used to remove the soil from the hair and scalp at the same time. Ionic attractive forces are used to deposit the conditioning chemicals onto hair. And since ionic attraction forces for deposition are of a different nature than solubilization, emulsification, etc., the two processes for cleaning do not interfere with each other. I have not even mentioned the other technical issues that must be taken into account: foaming viscosity, perfuming, stability, microbiological, stability, etc.

Focus on Function

Explaining to marketers and consumers the scientific complexities behind cosmetic formulations can be a difficult task, but I think it can be handled by focusing on the functional benefits the product must deliver, explained in basic scientific terms rather than describing all the science behind the formulation.

Also, to answer, How scientific are cosmetics? I think that considering the descriptions above, most would agree this is, indeed, a sophisticated and technically challenging science.

References

1. Cosmetics & Toiletries. (2024, Mar 11). [poll results] Is it challenging to communicate scientific aspects of your formulations to non-technical stakeholders? Available at https://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/polls/news/22888758/.

2. O’Lenick, Jr., A. and Weichers, J. (2019, Oct 8). Words from Wiechers: How scientific is cosmetic science? Cosmetics & Toiletries. Available at https://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/research/methods-tools/article/21835616.

3. Coslaw.eu. (2021, Jun 30). Sunscreen products and claims. A guidance to the EU regulatory framework. Available at https://coslaw.eu/sunscreen-products-and-claims-a-guidance-to-the-eu-regulatory-framework/