"Dermatologically Tested"

braveheart

"Dermatologically Tested" or "Clinically Tested"

Does either this really mean anything but marketing theme? Are products not dermatologically tested when people test them and they report back that it worked or didn't work for them? Are products not clinically tested when they go through challenge or microbiological testing?

pma

I don't know about US, but in my country to claim "dermatologically tested" you need to do RIPT (Repeat Insult Patch Test) or another test that I don't remember its name.

Perry

It's mostly marketing.  I mean you can't say dermatologically tested if there wasn't a dermatologist involved in the testing, but the specific test doesn't really matter since you're just claiming it was dermatologically tested.  

Usually when something is tested by dermatologist you hire a company to run a moisturization test and a dermatologist either scores the legs or reviews the report and signs it.

But just having someone test a product and report back to you wouldn't be dermatologically tested.  Micro challenge testing might qualify as clinically tested if some clinical lab did the testing.

***These are the rules in the US.  Other places around the world may be different.

heraklit

In Europe derm. tested is a claim that you must prove it doing patch test in an accredited lab under the control of a dermatologist (simple patch test - 10-20 volunterrs for 48h or HRIPT - 50 volunteers for 3 weeks).

Bobzchemist

I always thought that was a very amusing way of making a claim. "Clinically tested" - note that there is no information as to whether or not the product actually PASSED the test...

cossci21

Have had many products dermatologically tested and have never had one fail, even ''harsh'' products.

Involves RIPT testing usually on 50 subjects and a extra charge for a dermatologist to sign off on the results.

agree with you bobzchemist

David

 heraklit , do you have any reference on where it is stated in the EU regulation ? Only thing i can find is this "The claim "dermatologically tested" implies that the product was tested on humans under the
supervision of a dermatologist. Depending on the presentation of the claim, it may, refer to a
specific efficacy or tolerance of the product." 
Nothing on how it should be done or not even if it has to pass the test like Bobzchemist noted.
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/files/pdf/guide_reg_claims_en.pdf

Perry

This question prompted me to write a blog post about cosmetic claims.  Let me know what you think.

Questionable cosmetic claims

heraklit

In the mandatory PIF (product info file) you must include test reports about the safety of the product. See at page 22 Annex 1 partA-10:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:342:0059:0209:en:PDF
Also some guidance - "When, after an in-depth evaluation of the safety of the final product, the safety
assessor does not expect it to cause any adverse effect under foreseeable conditions of
use, it is recommended to undertake compatibility testing on a number of human
volunteers before the product is finally marketed":
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_s_006.pdf
About test protocols here:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/docs/service_contract_20096104_en.pdf

braveheart

That was a really good piece of marketing expose, Perry. I particularly liked the reference - Guiding Principles on Responsible Advertising and Marketing Communication. 

But when marketers use these terms, is it wrong or misleading? I am asking/saying that because I am a marketer. As a marketer, you want your product to stand out from the competitive crowd, you put a red dress on your product to make it look different from all the other grays in the field. That gets the customer's attention - "hypoallergenic", what if that is the intention of the maker/marketer? Is this wrong? If he doesn't highlight this "benefit" for the customer to see, how would the customer know?

If this is wrong, how should the marketer present his product to the public or potential customer? This is not an indictment on the article, I just am curious to know.