Anti-ageing is the beauty industry’s most lucrative segment, growing at a compound annual growth rate of nearly 8% on the basis of questionable claims about ‘youthful skin’ and ‘anti-wrinkle’ effects that tend to cast natural ageing in a negative light.

Consumers are confused 

In a society seemingly obsessed with maintaining a youthful appearance, the scientific realities of biological decline that are associated with skin ageing are rarely, if ever, addressed by the anti-ageing sector. As a result, consumers of skincare products have struggled to distinguish between genuine scientific advances and sometimes intentionally confusing marketing noise.

What is skin ageing?

Ageing is an intricate biological process at a cellular level that results in a loss of homeostasis, or healthy balance. This manifests in the aesthetics of older skin, and a reduced ability of skin to protect and repair itself. A combination of intrinsic factors, meaning a natural decline of functionality over time, and extrinsic factors such as damage due to  sun exposure, contribute to ageing. The complex nature of skin ageing is still debated in research circles. 

Ultimately both intrinsic and extrinsic ageing are the consequence of damage that has accumulated from human lifestyles and environment. Direct damage can come from the sun, skin products and pollution. Indirect damage might come from poor diet, other lifestyle choices and how your biology is wired to cope with the associated damage they create. These so-called ‘insults’ to skin generate damaging reactive oxygen species that cause key biological systems within and between cells to lose homeostasis. 

Promises of anti-ageing products

Anti-ageing skincare products claim to slow down, prevent or reverse the visible effects of ageing on the skin. These products assure the reduction of puffiness, dark circles, fine lines, wrinkles, thinning, sagging and discoloration of skin, thereby claiming to deliver ‘younger-looking appearance.’ These are generally marketed using medical-sounding terms, such as ‘dermatologist-approved’, ‘hypoallergenic’, and ‘clinically tested’.

Confusion masks disappointing reality 

These claims often give the impression of being scientifically backed, when in reality, they are primarily marketing tools that seldom provide objective metrics. Terms like ‘dermatologist-tested’ are misleading, as there are no universal standards for the testing procedures. Similarly, products that claim to ‘detoxify’ or ‘rejuvenate’ the skin are frequently deceptive, as their impact can be unclear. Rejuvenating the surface epidermis layer, for example, has a very different impact from that on the dermis deeper down which determines the majority of the biological decline associated with ageing. 

Navigating beauty regulations

Regulation classifies beauty products as those that ‘promote attractiveness and alter appearance.’ This vagueness suits beauty companies who often lack detailed knowledge of the biological complexity of skin. Wording such as decreasing ‘the appearance’ of fine lines avoids having to face the reality of having to generate hard evidence to validate what the product does and how this complies with the regulatory framework.

The regulatory situation is restrictive on what products can do and claim to do. The definition of medicinal products being those that alter physiology by metabolic means, for instance, would in practice mean food, exercise and supplements are drugs! Case law has subsequently refined the interpretation of this to clarify that the alteration of physiology by these means cannot be ‘significant’.

As many dermatologists point out while there are several products that claim to offer a solution to issues such as hydration, fine lines, pigmentation, their effect is generally short-lived and temporary. Indeed for such a physical impact, regulation requires this to be the case.

Scientific transparency benefits the consumer

According to standard scientific procedure, an effective anti-ageing skincare regimen should be based on an understanding of how healthy young skin functions in homeostasis and the manner by which ageing imbalances it. In line with other areas of biological research, the regimen would then be objectively tested using validated and scientifically robust assays and metrics pertinent to the claims being made. 

Providing these results to the consumer, along with a clear explanation of what they mean, would enable the public to make more informed choices. For example, the data would enable potential consumers to make a quantitative assessment of the performance of different products.

Vested interests and a fear scrutiny

Implementing a science-based regime of this kind hasn’t happened for a good reason. It is not in the commercial interests of dominant beauty businesses to have the efficacy of their products exposed to scrutiny unless those products are going to pass the test. 

The reluctance of established beauty brands to embrace scientific validation is not hard to understand, considering the billions of dollars at stake. Passing rigorous tests is objectively hard because of the sheer complexity of the biology of skin, and slowing or reversing the impacts of ageing that are associated with biological decline is perhaps the greatest challenge of them all.  This is further complicated by the regulatory wording around physiological alteration, medicinal products and the understandable reluctance of cosmetic companies to stray into this space. 

To meet this challenge, the first step would be to properly define the nature of the technical requirements. Second, a means of interpreting biological complexity would need to be found. Third, researchers would need to find a way of delivering scientifically measurable benefits of the kind that consumers are looking for, in a way that is compliant with cosmetic regulations. Fortunately, new Phenodynamics technology offers the prospect of making this process a practical reality.

Embracing ageing with positivity

Over the next few years, science is likely to develop a deeper understanding of the biological complexity of skin, enabling innovation to focus more on measurable results than on marketing hype. Beyond scientific progress, society may also come to recognise that human skin is intrinsically linked to the environment to which it is exposed, as are the endogenous repair systems that evolution has created to counter damage. 

The challenge for new skincare products, surely, is to work with the skin’s natural defence and repair mechanisms, not against them, and to promote healthy-looking skin in a scientifically objective way that enables customers to distinguish truth from fable.