"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?
Comments
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
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
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?