Rethinking ‘Dermatologically Tested’

by | 29 November 2018

Have you ever wondered about studies and tests performed on skincare & ingredients and how accurate the findings and results are? The truth may surprise you and maybe even make you feel a little duped, I mean how do you like being lied to by omission?


The words dermatologically tested naturally fills you with trust for a product. We imagine a dermatologist performing in-depth testing on many volunteers over a long period of time. Unfortunately, this is not the case. In reality, all it means is that a dermatologist tried or reviewed the product and this can be just once. And maybe the doctor has been paid or has a stake in the company…


Dr Hans Lautenschlager who always presents very balanced argument says “It is a fact though, that the statement “dermatologically tested” is completely useless. Admittedly, it insinuates that a dermatologist was present during the test or that the product was examined according to dermatological criteria, however, neither the type of test nor the result has been disclosed in detail.”


He goes on to say “In order to evaluate studies and tests, they have to be accessible for public use. A similar example is the term hypoallergenic, which also is useless without a closer explanation of the conducted tests. Again, in this context are before and after pictures that were taken in non-standard conditions such as lighting, contrasts, background etc. No need to be an expert to recognise manipulations and realise that these are not reliable studies.”


Just to be clear, we’re absolutely not saying that this is the case in every time or aiming this at any particular brand. As a company, we’ve made a commitment not to add to the marketing hype that runs prevalent in our industry and be a source of education. If you want to arm yourself with the knowledge to help distinguish fact and fiction, you can start here.


Let us know your thought below!