Opinion: Skincare's Pseudoscience

By Stella Huggins

Image from Colin Lloyd on unsplash

How’s your skin feeling right now? Radiant? Hydrated? Are you giving off an effervescent glow that touches every stranger you walk past? If you are, you’ve probably got a great diet going, with an exercise routine to match.

However, an industry preys on your worries about crows feet, that dark scarring on your chin, and the stretch marks that your body naturally creates when your tissue increases. Skincare; the bane of every collagen cell’s existence. Littered with emotive, fantastical language that touches the heart, scientific terminology that appeases the mind, and a looming lump of pseudoscience that leaves your pores wanting more, the billion-dollar industry keeps itself in operation day in, day out.

Long have I wondered if the various goops, creams, foaming washes, plant-based protein creams, acids, and face masks actually do anything to improve the condition of my largest organ. Just anecdotally, some products of course feel better than others — that $10 cleanser probably has some harmful chemicals that don’t do you any favours. But the more expensive and elaborate skincare gets, the harder it becomes to pick holes in the iron-clad marketing ploys cooked up by the industry.

First, let me differentiate between dermatology and skincare. Dermatology is absolutely not a pseudoscientific practice. It’s a study of the skin, involving extensive undergraduate study in a Bachelor of Medical Science. Dermatology’s focus is to treat diseases of the skin. Skincare, on the other hand, is purely cosmetic. This cosmetic obsession is what I am referring to when I talk about the skincare industry.

Cosmetics are complicated. Deeply intertwined with numerous complications of the world; capitalism, misogyny, to name a few, as well as more personal matters of self-identity, dysmorphic views of your own appearance, and personal wealth, it’s a dense topic to unpack. The issue is complicated further by rapidly evolving narratives in social media, not yet touched by the literature of self-image. The notion of ‘self-care’, and new hyper-versions of self-image that are symbiotic with modern feminism, can make the use of cosmetic products sometimes too complex to even bear thinking about. Companies know this. Marketing strategies work significantly faster than journal literature does when it comes to penetrating the public perception of a topic, making skincare one of the most insidious pseudoscience industries. Differentiating between a discussion of intrinsic and extrinsic degradation of the skin is important to note here. Intrinsic degradation describes cellular processes that regenerate tissue as a result of normal ageing. It occurs in the absence of harmful substances due to free radical production, normal hormonal shifts and other biological processes. It is safe to say that a definitive answer to slow the effects of this process has not yet been found. Extrinsic degradation describes environmental factors or lifestyle choices that cause deterioration of the skin condition.

Skincare in of itself is not completely invalid. It can alleviate some negative effects; moisturising protects the skin’s function of protecting the body from dehydration or desiccation [1], cleansing daily immensely reduces the risk of infections and open wounds becoming unsightly [2], and SPF application (arguably the most important long-term product use) protects against harmful ultraviolet rays [3]. However, breaking past these very basic routines lies a plethora of products that use carefully concocted language.

Image from Doğancan Özturan on unsplash

Intended to convince the consumer of its efficacy, the marketing aims to succeed at moving products whilst avoiding concrete claims that could expose them to legal action. Capitalist models of beauty are designed to keep the consumer buying, and believing the narrative of external beauty — the idea that one’s appearance should fit a certain mold, and that certain products will help you get there. It seems apparent that the issue of misleading information within the skincare industry lies mostly within the emphasis placed on products, and a gross extrapolation of the extent to which products can aid appearance to the consumer’s desire.

Most societies grasp the benefits of exercise, diet, and significance of environment in overall health — skin is no exception. 80% of extrinsic skin health can be attributed to the quality of several factors, including: UV exposure, pollution, diet, hygiene, drug use and sleep [4]. That is to say, a large majority of skin appearance is dictated by your lifestyle, and where you live.

Topical treatment of amino acids is an example of a popular practice in skincare. Select amino acids are able to be absorbed through the skin. However, evidence for this was procured through in vitro experiments, and generally performed on animal skin [5]. Animal testing has been a long-standing feature of the skincare industry. A common experimental design utilises the Franz diffusion chamber [6], and measures the amount of amino acids that pass over the tissue, rather than the quantities of amino acids that are retained [7]. Chemical absorption can occur through a number of pathways in the skin. Intercellular routes, intracellular routes, through sweat glands and through hair follicles are all places where absorption can occur [8].

This is all good and well, but it means that the evidence that amino acids are retained by topical treatments is shaky. This is not helped by the motives of researchers. Most skincare research is performed or funded by companies themselves [9]. This should ring alarm bells in a reader’s head. A clear conflict of interest is present here. It’s highly unlikely that companies would engage in malpractice, altering results to fit their marketing ploys. However conscious or unconscious bias may have an effect on how results are presented to corporate bodies, and subsequently to consumers [10]. This is a common dilemma of commercial science; when profit and margins drive results, personal influence can become increasingly confounding.

The darker end of the skincare industry is that the developing science sometimes confidently oversteps, promising safety and efficacy — when the long-term results harbour quite the opposite effects. The commercial model aids this mindset, with profit motivating the message that the treatment in question is safe. Intentionally or unintentionally, this sometimes leads to adverse outcomes for consumers [11]. Nanoparticles are a producer’s dream — they do in fact increase efficacy [12]. But their newness comes with downfalls.

We do not yet understand the limits to which these transportation agents can travel [13]. The effects of interactions of carbon nanoparticles with DNA are not yet fully understood, though the mechanisms through which they interact are. Small enough nanoparticles can enter cells through the nuclear pore, and potentially bind to DNA — this could inhibit replication [14]. Nanoparticles may also produce free radicals, an example being metals that interact with hydrogen peroxide (present in every cell [15]), in turn causing the conversion to the hydroxyl radical. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles, used commonly in cosmetics, have been proven to produce excessive free radicals in the presence of both light and ultraviolet light [16].

The heterogeneity of ageing effects also confounds a multitude of claims products make about efficacy [17]. Ageing is highly variable among individuals — what works for some in slowing the ageing process can depend largely on the epigenetics of that individual [18]. Of course there are general rules that apply to most — SPF protection being beneficial is a prime example — but at the nitty gritty level, we’re all painstakingly individual. Skincare is important for maintaining general health, but there’s only so far that products can take you. After the basic routine of cleansing, moisturising and applying sunscreen, the rest of it lies on shaky science, carefully presented to imply fantastical results. Choose your goops wisely.

References

[1] Epidermis Hydration. (2006). Handbook of Non-Invasive Methods and the Skin, Second Edition, 327–327. https://doi.org/10.3109/9781420003307-45 Edited by Jorgen Serup, Gregor B.E. Jemec & Gary L. Grove

[2] Larson, E. (2001). Hygiene of the Skin: When Is Clean Too Clean? Emerging Infectious Diseases, 7(2), 225–230. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid0702.010215

[3] Flament, F., Bazin, R., Rubert, Simonpietri, Piot, B., & Laquieze. (2013). Effect of the sun on visible clinical signs of aging in Caucasian skin. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, 221. https://doi.org/10.2147/ccid.s44686

[4] Bielach-Bazyluk, A., Zbroch, E., Mysliwiec, H., Rydzewska-Rosolowska, A., Kakareko, K., Flisiak, I., & Hryszko, T. (2021). Sirtuin 1 and Skin: Implications in Intrinsic and Extrinsic Aging—A Systematic Review. Cells, 10(4), 813. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10040813

[5] Cosmetics testing FAQ. The Humane Society of the United States. (n.d.). https://www.humanesociety.org/ resources/cosmetic-testing-faq#:~:text=Although%2 0they%20are%20not%20required,rabbits%2C%20without%20any%20pain%20relief.

[6] Baert, B., Boonen, J., Burvenich, C., Roche, N., Stillaert, F., Blondeel, P., Van Boxclaer, J., & De Spiegeleer, B. (2010). A New Discriminative Criterion for the Development of Franz Diffusion Tests for Transdermal Pharmaceuticals. Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, 13(2), 218. https://doi.org/10.18433/j3ws33

[7] Myer, K., & Maibach, H. I. (2013). A Dermatological View—Percutaneous Penetration of Amino Acids. Cosmetics and Toiletries.

[8] Rodrigues, F., & Oliveira, M. B. (2016). Cell-based in vitro models for dermal permeability studies. Concepts and Models for Drug Permeability Studies, 155-167. doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-100094-6.00010-9

[9] Caulfield, T. (2017, February 08). The pseudoscience of beauty products. Retrieved May 22, 2021, from https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/05/the-pseudoscience-of-beauty-products/392201/

[10] Boy, J., Pandey, A. V., Emerson, J., Satterthwaite, M., Nov, O., & Bertini, E. (2017). Showing people behind data. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. doi:10.1145/3025453.3025512

[11] Khan, A. D., & Alam, M. N. (2019). Cosmetics and their associated adverse effects: A review. Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, 1-6. doi:10.31069/japsr.v2i1.1

[12] Larese Filon, F., Mauro, M., Adami, G., Bovenzi, M., & Crosera, M. (2015). Nanoparticles skin absorption: New aspects for a safety profile evaluation. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 72(2), 310-322. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.05.005

[13] Saunders, F. (n.d.). DNA Damage and Nanoparticles. Retrieved May 22, 2021, from https://muckrack.com/fenellasaunders

[14] Li, K., Zhao, X., K. Hammer, B., Du, S., & Chen, Y. (2013). Nanoparticles inhibit dna replication by binding to dna: Modeling and experimental validation. ACS Nano, 7(11), 9664-9674. doi:10.1021/nn402472k

[15] Halliwell, B., Clement, M. V., & Long, L. H. (2000). Hydrogen peroxide in the human body. FEBS Letters, 486(1), 10-13. doi:10.1016/s0014-5793(00)02197-9

[16] Bhattacharya, K., Davoren, M., Boertz, J., Schins, R. P., Hoffmann, E., & Dopp, E. (2009). Titanium dioxide nanoparticles induce oxidative stress and dna-adduct formation but not dna-breakage in human lung cells. Particle and Fibre Toxicology, 6(1), 17. doi:10.1186/1743-8977-6-17

[17] Cevenini, E., Invidia, L., Lescai, F., Salvioli, S., Tieri, P., Castellani, G., & Franceschi, C. (2008). Human models of aging and longevity. Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy, 8(9), 1393-1405. doi:10.1517/14712598.8.9.1393

[18] Ganceviciene, R., Liakou, A. I., Theodoridis, A., Makrantonaki, E., & Zouboulis, C. C. (2012). Skin anti-aging strategies. Dermato-Endocrinology, 4(3), 308-319. doi:10.4161/derm.22804