ÖKO-TEST interview with Dr Schlippe, March 2010
‘Dermatologically tested’ or ‘clinically proven’: there is hardly any cosmetic product that does not bear one of these statements or a similar claim. Anyone who is led to believe that they are buying a particularly beneficial product should think again. This is because the approbation is, in fact, commonplace.
A written request from ÖKO-TEST regarding cosmetic labels?
The consternation this query caused among the 24 manufacturers to whom it was addressed was considerable. Why did ÖKO-TEST want to know what tests were behind the label? How should we reply without revealing too much? This was the cue for a succession of delaying and manoeuvring tactics. Dermatologically tested?
Certainly, it says so on the pack, but the Müller chemist chain pleaded: ‘Due to the confidential nature of our business relationship with our suppliers and in view of the liability provisions, we are unable to disclose to third parties any details with regard to the guidelines, the creation or verification of the claims.’ Others divulged slightly more, referring to tests conducted by ‘accredited, experienced dermatologists’ or to trials carried out by ‘reputable, independent testing institutes’. Only a few firms were prepared to provide the crucial assessment documentation or actually name the examiner.
Why is everything so secret?
The answer is really quite simple: most labels tell us very little. ‘Dermatologically tested’ means nothing more than that a test has taken place – but there is no mention of the outcome of the test. Labels with ‘Dermatologically tested’ act predominantly as a marketing prop. Serious firms, of course, routinely have their products tested for compatibility and tolerance before they are introduced to the market, but there are no hard and fast rules or standards that have to be observed.
Based in Münster, Dermatest is one of several institutes that conduct skin-tolerance trials for major cosmetics companies. Its name also appears fairly frequently in replies from the manufacturers. The general manager, Werner Voss, who founded the test institute 30 years ago and is a dermatologist himself, readily provides details. An epicutaneous test is a perfectly normal procedure for new products or formulations, Voss confirms. The substance is applied to the skin of several volunteers and covered with a plaster. After 24 hours at the earliest, the plaster is removed and the test site examined by a dermatologist for any signs of irritation. The test site is then monitored for two more days.
The usual number of volunteers for an epicutaneous test is 30 and, according to Voss, and American companies insist on as many as 50 participants. ‘Statistically speaking, a total of 18 people is quite adequate.’ If none of the volunteers, about one third of whom have sensitive skin, develops symptoms of irritation or an allergic reaction, the manufacturer is issued with a report stating the relevant information and ending with the statement: ‘The product may be declared as having been “dermatologically tested.”’
‘From a legal point of view, however, there are hardly any restrictions when it comes to the wording,’ explains Dr Voss. It is even conceivable that a manufacturer might label a product ‘dermatologically tested’ without submitting it to a trial. ‘If they were found out, it would result in an enormous loss of image for the company concerned.’ Much better to pay the 540 euros that Dermatest charges for the epicutaneous test – a comparatively trivial sum for large cosmetics companies.