When I arrived in New York to launch Lancôme’s Primordiale in 1995, I received a sobering comment from the head of the American branch of L’Oréal. 

Primordiale was a world première in so far as it contained a brand new technology in the domain of vesicles: nanocapsules of vitamin E; I had published nine papers in peer reviewed journals to show their efficacy. I showed the efficacy of vitamin E in protecting cultured cells against UV radiation and, more importantly, the efficacy of those nanocapsules in protecting the human epidermis against the morphological changes induced by UV radiation. And since aging is defined as accumulation of damage, we had solid clinical evidence that vitamin E was a real anti-aging factor. 

During my dress rehearsal before the executives, I was told by the head of L’Oréal USA not to make that presentation. “You have shown that vitamin E has a physiological effect, it is therefore a drug. We do not sell drugs,” is what he said to me. Before I could start arguing about the fantastic data we had obtained, he added: “If you show that water has a physiological effect, it becomes a drug and we cannot sell our products anymore.” 

The anti-aging claim for vitamin E remained buried with the discarded slides of my presentation. 

Seventeen years later or so, Lancôme Génifique claimed that it could “boost genes’ activity and stimulate the production of youth proteins,” resulting in “visibly younger skin in just 7 days.” It was also claimed to improve the condition of stem cells and stimulate cell regeneration. Therefore the product was rendered as a drug “under section 201(g)(1)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(C)]” and the marketing of these products with such claims is a violation of the Act. And in 2012, the FDA issued a warning letter to Lancôme USA providing guidance about how to correct the violations. Later, these claims were the subject of a 2014 Federal Trade Commission (TFC) settlement that barred L’Oréal from making such gene-targeting claims without competent scientific evidence. 

Lying Is Forbidden; Telling Truth is Impossible

That story shows that claims resting on solid experimental data are the best way to convince the FDA that one is selling drugs. It also shows that claims resting on the imagination of one scientist who aimed at pleasing a marketing executive are a good way to have the FTC calling you a liar. 

What one is left with, then, is the creation of new words, so that the meaning of the claim is susceptible to interpretations and can never be cornered in something lexically meaningful. The latest wording that caught my eye is “Problem Solving Cosmetics.” That is a very intelligent expression. Indeed it applies to color cosmetics that only modifies the physical appearance of the surface of the skin, as well as to unwanted conditions of the skin for which a more precise wording would ipso facto lead to incriminating marketing executives with drug-selling activity.

Can’t Use Hard Data? Use Hard Imagination

So we have had many neologisms that fall under this umbrella. We had in the past a meaningless word, hypoallergenic, that was very successful in conveying a message of safety while avoiding the pharmaceutical word “non-allergizing.” We also had upset skin to indicate itchy skin, acneic skin or simply sensitive skin. In the context of the claim, it helps the consumer to understand what the products activity is. If it clears upset skin, it is an anti-acne product. If it soothes upset skin, it is an anti-itch product, if it calms upset skin, it is an anti-inflammatory cream, etcetera. 

A known cosmetic category is the world of moisturizers. They do not hydrate the skin, they make the skin moist. They make the skin supple, resilient, bright, luminous, radiant, soft. 

All these qualities are perceived by the consumer and can be assessed by panels of expert examiners. They are very difficult to measure with a scientific instrument. Sometimes they exfoliate, but please, do not tell how they do it, it might betray a well hidden biochemical-physiological process and trigger some FDA investigation! 

Another word that is meaningless when applied to skin is longevity (unless we speak of the longevity of the beauty of the skin). A claim for longevity can be added to the legally accepted claim of anti-aging that can be used for products containing sunfilters. Ingredients that somehow boost a physiological mechanism of repair, be it the repair of DNA, the removal of damaged proteins, the evening out of dark spots, are advertised as being able to improve skin longevity. In this field we have recently observed the introduction of the word senolytic, a Latin-Greek neologism from senex, old (hence senator) and luo, I dissolve (hence lysis), indicating the capability of dissolving old things, particularly old cells. 

From cell biology we know that cultured cells can replicate a well-defined number of times, after which they enter a state called “senescence.” There is a thought-provoking situation in cell biology: cultured keratinocytes can duplicate twenty times or so, then they become senescent, whereas in vivo, keratinocytes duplicate once a day for all the duration of the life of their host. Cultured fibroblasts duplicate fifty times or so, and in vivo it is far from evident that fibroblasts dublicate that many times. Senescent cells are alive but are unable to duplicate, that is, reproduce. So, these cells are somewhere between life and death. It is an open question to know whether senescent cells are actually found in a living human body. 

While waiting for the answer, the concept of zombie cells has been introduced and several products claim to be able to help get rid of them. Since zombie cells do not exist, getting rid of zombie cells is neither true nor false.

Paolo Giacomoni, PhD of Insight Analysis Consulting acts as an independent consultant to the skin care industry. He served as executive director of Research at Estée Lauder and was head of the department of biology with L’Oréal. He has built a record of achievements through research on DNA damage and metabolic impairment induced by UV radiation as well as on the positive effects of vitamins and antioxidants. He has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed publications and has more than 20 patents. He is presently head of R&D with L.RAPHAEL—The science of beauty—Geneva, Switzerland. His email is: paologiac@gmail.com.