ASA Adjudication on Clarins (UK) Ltd

Ad

A magazine and national press ad and a leaflet for Expertise 3P (Poly Pollution Protection).

a. The magazine and national press ad stated "If electromagnetic waves can penetrate walls, imagine what they can do to your skin. Today, electromagnetic waves generated by a host of modern day electronic devices join a list of well-known pollutants which can damage skin. For the first time, Clarins Research reveals the link between exposure to artificial electromagnetic waves and accelerated skin ageing.* Clarins introduces Expertise 3P (Poly Pollution Protection). WORLDWIDE FIRST. Clarins Expertise 3P Exceptional plant extracts with super-adapting powers against all types of pollution: Thermus Thermophillus from the ocean and Rhodiola Rosea from Siberia. Together with free radical fighters, White Tea and Succory Dock-Cress, they form an advanced anti-pollution complex to help maintain skin's health and beauty. Innovative skin protection for today's world. *Clarins discovery. The subject of a scientific research paper." Underneath the text was a photograph of a bottle of the product; text on the bottle stated " … Anti-Electromagnetic Waves & Urban Pollution Screen Mist".

b. The leaflet stated “Worldwide First Expertise 3P … If electromagnetic waves can penetrate walls, imagine what they can do to your skin. For the first time, the link between accelerated skin ageing and exposure to artificial electromagnetic waves generated by the modern world has been revealed. So has the solution on how to stop it. Expertise 3P Look Beautiful and feel good in today’s world. Expertise 3P is a new youth and beauty routine to help protect the skin against all kinds of modern pollution and for the first time in cosmetics, it also protects against artificial electromagnetic waves* generated by domestic communications equipment. It is the most advanced protection that preserves the skin’s youthful qualities and radiance … Domestic communications equipment used to transmit sound and images has revolutionized our daily lives but what are the artificial electromagnetic waves they generate doing to our skin? For the very first time, Clarins Research, in collaboration with a University Research Institute, has demonstrated the effects these waves can have on our skin. This ‘pollution’ by artificial electromagnetic waves is now added to daily urban pollution (car emissions, industrial smoke, acid rain…) as well as domestic pollution (air that is not renewed often, certain types of paint, synthetic carpeting, toxic cleansing products, cigarette smoke…).” Small print underneath stated “* Electromagnetic waves are a form of energy. There are several different types and their spectrum is vast (cosmic rays, UV rays, daylight, microwaves etc …).” The main text went on to state “… This Clarins discovery became the subject of a scientific publication. Clarins Study** focused on artificial electromagnetic waves and revealed that only a few hours of exposure was enough to note an increase in free radical production, a slow down in cellular renewal and a modification in the skin’s natural barrier …”. Small print underneath stated “** in-vitro test”. The following page showed a photograph of a bottle of the product; text on the bottle stated " … Anti-Electromagnetic Waves & Urban Pollution Screen Mist".

Issue

Six complainants challenged whether:

1.  Clarins could substantiate the claim that electromagnetic waves, generated by modern day devices or "domestic communications equipment", could damage or age skin;

2.  the implied anti-ageing and pro-health efficacy claims for the product, including the claim on the bottle "Anti-Electromagnetic Waves", could be substantiated and

3.  the ads made an undue appeal to readers fear of the harm that could be caused by man-made electromagnetic waves.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Clarins asserted that they had been studying invisible pollution in the skins environment for many years. They had looked at electromagnetic waves produced by different types of domestic communications equipment and their effects on the skin; that study had been long and complex, because they had needed to create an area which could isolate cells to such a degree that they would be exposed only to the selected waves and specific wavelengths they wanted to study. They asserted that cell cultures had been exposed, for varying periods of time in an isolated room, to a frequency of 900 MHz which, they argued, was the most commonly used frequency for communications transmissions. They said they had then measured different features of the life of those cells and noted the changes that could affect skin quality. They argued that the conclusions of their study showed an increased production of free radicals which led to accelerated skin ageing, a slow down in cellular renewal, an increase in stress indicators and a deterioration in the skins natural protective barrier.

Clarins submitted scientific studies on the influence of electromagnetic waves on skin cells. They also sent results of the roles of active ingredients working against the damages identified on cells after irradiation.

2. Clarins referred again to the scientific studies they had sent. They said skin was their area of expertise and, therefore, they were interested only in how electromagnetic waves might affect the skin. They argued that they had not said man-made electromagnetic waves were harmful; they had merely identified an effect on the metabolism of the epidermis cells and how they could try to neutralize those consequences.  

Clarins asserted that the role of the product was not to block the waves but to provide skin cells with active ingredients that were proven to reinforce the skins self-defence capacity against the damages identified after exposure to electromagnetic waves. They said electromagnetic waves produced by sunbeds were not part of their studies; they did not advocate the use of sunbeds because of the documented harmful effects of UV rays. They said Expertise 3P did not contain UV protection and they would recommend it was used in conjunction with a product with a sun protection factor if the user were to be exposed to UV rays.

3. Clarins argued that the ads were factual and informative and did not make an undue appeal to readers' fear of the harm that could be caused by man-made electromagnetic waves.

Assessment

The ASA took expert advice. The expert said the tests had all been carried out in vitro, not in vivo. He said he would expect evidence for products such as Expertise 3P to have been carried out in vivo, because in vitro trials were imperfect as models of human skin. The expert said the test parameters of many of the studies were questionable in their relevance to exposure to radiation. The expert said there was no evidence that, when applied in vivo, the product gave any anti-ageing, or other, benefits. He also pointed out that the studies showed only the effects of emissions from mobile phones on skin cells. Some of the studies showed the effects of mobile phones on cells following six hours of continuous exposure; others on the effects following 24 hours of continuous exposure. He said the test results showed that any effects occurred only after 24 hours continuous exposure; there was no evidence of the cumulative effect on skin cells of repeated exposure in smaller doses.

The expert also pointed out that one of the studies looked at the effects of an unspecified product on keratinocytes placed in contact with exhaust gases from a motor; the exposure time was two hours. He believed the parameters of the study were not sufficiently defined; the study did not clarify the type of motor, the type of fuel, whether a catalytic converter was in place or whether the cells were exposed to air or another source of oxygen. He said they used cultures, fully hydrated, without an efficient surface barrier or surface oils and therefore not accurately replicating skin, as exposed in the environment. The expert said there was no evidence that, when applied topically in vivo, the ingredient used on its own, or formulated in a product, would have any beneficial effect.  

The expert believed the studies sent by Clarins were not robust enough to substantiate the implied anti-ageing and pro-health efficacy claims made for Expertise 3P.

1. Upheld

We noted the scientific studies sent by Clarins looked at the effect on skin cells of electromagnetic waves from mobile phones. We understood that a number of man-made products, including radios, TVs, microwave ovens and laptops, emitted electromagnetic waves. We considered that the ads, particularly the claims ... electromagnetic waves generated by a host of modern day electronic devices join a list of well-known pollutants which can damage skin" in ad (a) and "Domestic communications equipment used to transmit sound and images has revolutionized our daily lives but what are the artificial electromagnetic waves they generate doing to our skin? ... Clarins Research ... has demonstrated the effects these waves can have on our skin" in ad (b) implied that a number of man-made electronic and domestic communications devices had been shown to damage skin. We considered that, because the evidence Clarins had sent referred only to mobile phones, they had not substantiated that electromagnetic waves generated by a number of modern day devices or domestic communications equipment could damage or age skin.

In addition, we noted some studies were based on exposure to radiation from a simulated mobile phone for six hours and other studies used a constant 24-hour exposure. We considered that neither of those time periods were representative of typical consumer experience. We also understood that mobile phones would age, if anything, only a very small area of the bodys skin, around the ear, and were also likely to affect only one side of the face, yet there was no evidence of such ageing effects on consumers, despite mobile phones having been popular for some time. We noted the studies had all been carried out in vitro, not in vivo. We considered that the studies were not robust enough to substantiate that electromagnetic waves generated by mobile phones could damage or age skin.

On this point, the ads breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Upheld

We considered that the ads, particularly the claims "super-adapting powers against all types of pollution", "Poly Pollution Protection", "anti-pollution complex" and "skin protection for todays world" in ad (a), "Anti-Electromagnetic Waves" and "Urban Pollution Screen Mist" in ads (a) and (b) and " ... help protect the skin against all kinds of modern pollution", "advanced protection that preserves the skins youthful qualities", "This pollution ... is now added to daily urban pollution (car emissions, industrial smoke, acid rain ...) as well as domestic pollution (air that is not renewed often, certain types of paint, synthetic carpeting, toxic cleansing products, cigarette smoke ...)" and " ... the solution on how to stop it" in ad (b), in conjunction with the claims about skin ageing and damage, implied the product would protect consumers from the ageing effects of all electromagnetic waves and from the damaging effects of everyday pollution.  We noted the studies sent by Clarins were carried out only on exposure to electromagnetic waves from mobile phones. We understood that there were many types of electromagnetic waves including man-made, ultraviolet rays, gamma rays and X-rays. We considered that, because Clarins had not sent evidence relating to different types of electromagnetic waves, they had not substantiated the implication that the product would protect people from the effects of all electromagnetic waves. We also noted Clarins had sent a study on only one type of pollution - exhaust fumes; the expert considered the parameters of that study were insufficient and there was no evidence that, when applied topically in vivo, the ingredient used on its own, or formulated in a product, would have any beneficial effect. We considered that Clarins had not substantiated that the product could protect against everyday pollution.

We also noted the studies had all been carried out in vitro, not in vivo. The experts view was that, to support the claims made for Expertise 3P, the studies should have been carried out in vivo. We concluded that the evidence was not robust enough to substantiate the implied anti-ageing and pro-health efficacy claims for Expertise 3P.

On this point, the ads breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 50.1 and 50.7 (Health & beauty products and therapies - General).

3. Upheld

We considered that the ads, particularly the claims "If electromagnetic waves can penetrate walls, imagine what they can do to your skin" in ads (a) and (b), "Today, electromagnetic waves generated by a host of modern day electronic devices join a list of well-known pollutants which can damage skin" in ad (a) and "the link between accelerated skin ageing and exposure to artificial electromagnetic waves generated by the modern world has been revealed" in ad (b), implied that electromagnetic waves from a number of electronic devices could cause serious damage to skin. Because we had seen evidence relating to only one electronic device - mobile phones - and because, for the reasons stated in points 1 and 2, we considered the evidence we had seen for that device was not robust enough to show that electromagnetic waves from it would damage skin. We considered, therefore that the ads made an undue appeal to readers fear of the harm that could be caused by man-made electromagnetic waves.

On this point, the ads breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 9.1 (Fear and distress).

Action

We told Clarins not to state that electromagnetic waves generated by modern-day devices or domestic communications equipment could damage or age skin or to imply anti-ageing and pro-health efficacy claims for Expertise 3P unless they held robust scientific evidence to support that. We also told them not to make an undue appeal to consumers fear of the harm that could be caused by man-made electromagnetic waves.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)