Times are changing. There was a time when consumers took cosmetics manufacturers' word for it on the qualities of their products. In 2019, the situation has deteriorated considerably and mistrust is rife. On boxes and bottles, ingredient lists are studied, deciphered and scanned. Public opinion is tossed back and forth between contradictory information to the point of creating a veritable cacophony. 6 years ago, the European Commission initiated a regulation aimed at regulating cosmetic claims, particularly those deemed disparaging (the famous "without" statements). This regulation, which has remained a dead letter, is attempting to rise from the ashes, with its implementation this July via a recommendation from the ARPP (Autorité de régulation professionnelle de la publicité) and a campaign orchestrated by the Febea (Fédération des entreprises de la beauté).

Positive communication

Fans of old cosmetics stories know that, for a long time, communication about this type of product has been positive. The Simon creamdeveloped in 1860 by a talented young pharmacist, was said to preserve "the complexion's youthful radiance" and, above all, combat "redness, tan and insect bites".

The Tokalon creamfor her part, claimed to use "Biocel", "a wonderful food for the skin". The consumer, seduced by the newly-discovered thorium and radium, but fearful when it came to using foundation ("make-up harms the health of the epidermis"), turned resolutely to the "Biocel". Tho-Radia range which seemed to have all the qualities. The claims were sometimes very optimistic (the Diadermine cream cleanses the skin morning and night and protects against sunburn), but after all, the legal framework had not yet been established. L'boric acidmixed with talcum powder, was sprinkled on babies' bottoms and fathers' cheeks... until the link between cosmetics and intoxication (and even infant death) was established - this was in the 1950s! Even though scientific studies were already pointing the finger at a number of "undesirable" ingredients, consumers at the time were lulled by the fine promises. At a time when lists of prohibited and conditionally authorized substances were not yet available (this was before the fateful date of 1972), fear was a feeling unknown to consumers, who had total confidence in the fledgling cosmetics industry.

Negative communication

From the 2000s onwards, the worm is in the fruit... published works by Philippa Darbre establishing a (hasty and poorly documented) link between deodorant and breast cancer, some cosmetics companies have decided to communicate differently. Instead of telling a good story about an ingredient they are trying to promote, they are now going to stigmatize a number of raw materials, in particular parabens. The first "paraben-free" products hit the shelves, to be joined over the years by cosmetics free of "silicone, PEG, kerosene, sulfates...".

The organic industry is rapidly settling into a communication strategy based on fear. It doesn't matter if the ingredients in question are in fact harmless, the main thing is to channel public opinion towards a segment of the industry that wants to gain market share as quickly as possible. In some cases, the anguish is so great that some women stop washing their hair and suggest homemade recipes on their blog so great is the fear of shampoo bases. Faced with this irrational fear of a certain number of ingredients, it's time to talk about cosmetophobia and to warn against a mode of communication that will lead consumers and manufacturers, in the more or less long term, into the wall!

Supervised communication

Commission Regulation (EU) No. 655/2013 of July 10, 2013, laying down common criteria that claims relating to cosmetic products must meet in order to be used, was then put in place to stem a communication that was going off the rails. The notion of "conformity with legislation", "veracity", "evidence", "fairness" and "informed choice" are thus detailed.

So you can start to breathe a sigh of relief that "no, no" cosmetics are a thing of the past. The Regulation clearly states that "claims relating to cosmetic products must be objective and may not denigrate either the competition or legally used ingredients". In practice, however, it appears that this Regulation is going completely unnoticed... to the point that ARPP has been obliged to draft an explanatory text to make the current European text easier to understand.

The V8 cosmetics recommendation (in force since 1^er July 2019) therefore details the need to abandon the mention "without without;", "in order to contribute to an enhancing image of cosmetic products", using "advertising that must be essentially devoted to positive arguments" The ban on the mention "without" is relayed by Febea, which organized a radio campaign public information campaigns to publicize the ban. Not everyone agrees, and is making this known on social networks, as in the case of theCosmébio association.

The need to clean up

When cosmetic products are found to make medical claims, for example, cosmetics that claiming to promote sleepthe breathingor treat stomach aches and bloatingWe're a long way from zero-defect cosmetics communication, and we're wondering whether we're complying with European regulations on communication. There's definitely room for improvement!

Authors

Céline Couteau
Senior Lecturer in Industrial Pharmacy and Cosmetology, University of Nantes, Historical authors The Conversation France

Laurence Coiffard
Professor of galenics and cosmetology, University of Nantes, Historical authors The Conversation France

This article is republished from The Conversation under Creative Commons license. Read theoriginal article.