In the US, L’Oreal has had its knuckles well and truly rapped for claiming that their skin care products can boost genes and claiming the use of ‘gene science’ to imply that somehow, face creams are capable of modifying genes to deliver anti-ageing results.
The FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection finds that L’Oreal are unable to support these claims.
There are so many brands making eyebrow raising claims that you could drive a tractor through if you were educated enough in science terms. Most bloggers and beauty journalists are not, so it can often seem easier to take the path of least resistance and just go with it, especially if there is any ad revenue involved. In the end, you get information weary – it’s hard to see the wood for the trees when brands are all vying to catch your attention with huge claims and ever more complicated ingredient lists.
Specifically, L’Oreal Youth Code and Lancome Genifique claims have been found wanting by the Bureau; so if you were hoping for some youth genes to be dug up by using them, then you may be rather disappointed. I went to the initial launch of Genefique some years back. It all sounded so plausible and most of us weren’t able to go deep enough into the science to question it. I used Genefique and actually rather liked it – it certainly had an effect on skin texture. But did I ever think it was doing something to my genes? Thinking back, I probably did at the time, because it was what I’d been told. But, I was never in a position, like everyone other than FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection, to prove or disprove. And there lies the difficulty. I know, as does anyone working in the beauty sphere, that there are very many improbable claims doing the rounds at any one time. We can’t disprove them any more than we can prove them independently.
Conversely, there are some beauty brands doing pretty incredible stuff and they specifically don’t make claims or indications about them at all, for fear of being deemed medical rather than cosmetic. That would be shooting themselves in the retail foot rather hard.
So, it’s all something of a mess. Trying to translate complex information into something digestible for the consumer is what brands rely on us for to help them spread a message that their product is somehow better, more potent and definitely worth investing your money in. When something like this happens, with L’Oreal no longer allowed to make claims that gene activity is boosted or that certain products affect genes until they’re able to support the claims with reliable evidence, it affects all other brands with any claims around genes and skin.
At the same time, I can’t say, hand on heart that what they’ve claimed doesn’t have some truth – it could be that their presentation of ‘evidence’ just wasn’t robust enough to meet a difficult criteria. Because, when you think about it, no major brand makes such claims knowing them to be untrue. It’s just not what they do.
In medicine, it is possible to deliver gene altering agents to skin topically but it’s medicine and not something you can buy at a beauty counter. But, it does mean that technology is there to target wrinkles by using topical applications on wrinkles. So, I don’t know.. and nor does anyone outside of the lab..what the truth of genetic alterations in skin care is. It’s confusing for all of us to know what to believe and what not to believe.
At the end of the day, if you find a product that your skin loves, then go with it. It won’t matter than it doesn’t alter genes or change cell shapes or drive products ‘deep into the epidermis’ – if your skin likes it and you like it, then that’s enough. I feel like it’s time to go back to basics with skin care – time to give the consumer a bit of a break from the science battering, and certainly time to stop baffling those charged with passing on the message with increasingly complex promises. I often feel uncomfortable when brands take medical words and throw them into the mix concerning a beauty product. I say leave the gene therapy for people who are really ill and truly need it. Beauty world doesn’t need it and it never, ever has.
Transparency Disclosure
All products are sent to me as samples from brands and agencies unless otherwise stated. Affiliate links may be used. Posts are not affiliate driven.
5 comments
I think people are confusing ‘cells’ with ‘genes’. A topical cream could very likely influence the fluid within the cells and impact upon the firmness and chemical content. But to claim a product can alter your genetic code – involves genetic engineering and that is not possible or desirable with a topical treatment. Genes are molecules that contain a protein based code inside a cell that contain everything the cell needs to replicate itself successfully. If you were to alter this you would cause errors in the code – leading to mutation and cell division issues including tumorous growth. I couldn’t imagine how a cream could somehow change the code so specifically to suggest that it could now replicate better as a result of the cream? I would say with a high level of conconfidence that that sort of claim is bordering on science fiction. At the moment at least!
I think partly using terms like ‘gene science’ has not helped with this..and a lot of the other terminology that forces the consumer to make assumptions about what these creams can do to genes. I’m pretty sure L’oreal didn’t confuse cells and genes – at least I really, really hope not !! but maybe their terminology gave a different impression for the consumer. I think I will re-read what the claims actually are in full.
Hm.. Same here. My skin actually lines genifique serum alot. It feels softer and more supple, I will continue to use it as long as it still works for me.
So is Youth Code the L’Oreal branded version of Genifique? Because if so I’ll steer clear. Genifique (the serum) actually did make me look considerably younger – teenage in fact – with the worst outbreak of blackheads and acne I’d experienced in 25 years.
I have stopped reading the blurb for this reason and, to be perfectly honest, i hardly ever buy (expensive) skincare recommendations from magazines and/or bloggers because I question the expertise behind it. Most of the time I’m not even sure *I* am able to tell whether a cream has done anything for me or whether it wasn’t actually something else like regression to the mean, aging, stress, nutrition or just the good old placebo effect. I know I’m lucky because my skin isn’t dry and looking at my mother, I think I’m going to age well as long as I stay out of the sun.
The only thing that I check are ingredient lists but I’m also fully aware that how the ingredients are combined effects their efficiency(something I cannot judge – I’m not a scientist) so there’s always this nagging feeling that I’m going to be ripped off either way.
I agree though that brands don’t lie intentionally but I do strongly believe that they lobby extensively to get away with promises of miraculous results. I also believe that they are consciously trying to make products seem better than they are,e.g. by including lots of silicones to make a product feel “nice” when you rub e.g. it on the back of your hand, but scrimp on active ingredients. It probably depends on what you want – if skincare is a relaxing ritual for you, this probably doesn’t matter that much but if you’re like me and it’s only an expensive chore then the whole thing is just endlessly frustrating.