Almost every strange sentence in skincare marketing exists because of one boundary. Words like appearance, look, feel and support are not stylistic tics. They are the visible edge of a legal line, and once you can see the line you can read the entire category differently.
Two definitions, and the space between them
A cosmetic product is defined in the retained cosmetics regulation as a substance or mixture intended to be placed in contact with the external parts of the human body, or with the teeth and mucous membranes of the oral cavity, with a view exclusively or mainly to cleaning them, perfuming them, changing their appearance, protecting them, keeping them in good condition or correcting body odours.
A medicinal product is defined in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 on two limbs. The first is presentation: a substance presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease. The second is function: a substance that may be used with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying a physiological function by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or to making a medical diagnosis.
Note what follows from the presentation limb. A product can become a medicinal product by what is said about it, regardless of what is in it. That is the single most important fact in cosmetic advertising and it explains the whole vocabulary of the sector.
How a borderline case is actually decided
The MHRA determines borderline cases and publishes guidance on what is a medicinal product. The assessment considers the whole picture rather than any single element.
- Claims made, in advertising, on the pack, on the website, in social content and in what sellers say.
- The product name, including any allusion to a condition or to a treatment.
- Ingredients and their known pharmacological activity, and at what concentration.
- The form and route of administration, including anything resembling a dosage form.
- How consumers are likely to perceive it, taken as a whole.
The consequence is that identical formulations can end up in different regulatory categories depending on how they are presented, and that a compliant cosmetic can be pushed over the line by a marketing decision made months after launch by somebody who never read the safety file.
| Cosmetic construction | Medicinal construction | What changed |
|---|---|---|
| Reduces the appearance of blemishes | Treats acne | A claim about how skin looks became a claim about a condition |
| Helps maintain the skin barrier | Repairs damaged skin | Keeping in good condition became restoring a function |
| Soothes the feeling of irritated skin | Relieves eczema | A sensory claim became a claim about a named disease |
| Helps reduce the look of redness | Treats rosacea | An appearance claim became a diagnosis and a treatment |
| Protects against sun damage as part of a sun protection regime | Prevents skin cancer | Protection became prevention of disease |
Read that table twice, because it is the grammar of the entire category. Once you know that the left column is what is permitted, you can hear the constraint operating in almost every piece of skincare copy you encounter.
Repairs the skin barrier
Depending on presentation, this may be read as a cosmetic claim about keeping skin in good condition, supported by evidence on hydration, water loss and the appearance and feel of dry skin.
Careful advertisers use constructions such as helps support or helps maintain, which sit more comfortably on the cosmetic side of the boundary.
It does not mean the product treats a diagnosed skin condition. It does not mean a structural change to skin has been demonstrated. Repair language moves towards restoring a physiological function, which is the language of the medicinal definition, and where it is combined with reference to a named condition the product risks being treated as a medicinal product by presentation.
Read as a claim about a disease, it would require a marketing authorisation, which almost no product carrying this phrase holds.
A cosmetic version of the claim would be evidenced by measurements consistent with a cosmetic function: transepidermal water loss, hydration, the appearance and feel of dry or rough skin. A medicinal version would require a marketing authorisation from the MHRA, supported by clinical data of an entirely different order.
Why brands crowd the line
Because the incentives point that way with considerable force, and because the penalty for getting close is much lower than the reward.
The economics of standing near a boundary
A cosmetic reaching the UK market requires a safety assessment, a product information file and a notification. A medicinal product requires a marketing authorisation supported by clinical data, with manufacturing under a different and much heavier quality regime, and a route to market measured in years rather than months.
Medicinal sounding language is meanwhile the most persuasive vocabulary available, because it borrows an authority that consumers have been taught to trust. A product that sounds like treatment sells like treatment while carrying the costs of a cosmetic.
So the rational commercial position is to get as close to the line as the compliance function will permit, and no closer. That is exactly what a great deal of skincare copy is doing.
- Brands. Capture the persuasive value of medical language at cosmetic cost and cosmetic speed
- Consumers with real conditions. Are steered towards cosmetics and away from treatments that would actually help
- Pharmaceutical manufacturers. Face competitors selling adjacency without meeting the evidential burden
- Regulators. Carry an enforcement load that grows faster than the resource available
A description of the incentive structure created by two very different regulatory regimes sitting side by side.
The categories that are not cosmetics at all
Two neighbouring categories confuse this further, and both appear on the same shelves.
- Medical devices. Some products achieve their principal intended action by physical rather than pharmacological means and are regulated as devices, with their own conformity assessment and marking.
- Biocidal products. Some products intended to control organisms fall under biocides legislation rather than cosmetics.
The practical point for a shopper is that similar looking products on adjacent shelves may sit under entirely different regimes with entirely different evidence requirements. There is no way to tell by looking, other than by markings on the pack that most people have never been told how to read.
The special case of sun protection
Sunscreens are cosmetics in the UK, and their claims are governed accordingly. Sun protection factor and broad spectrum claims are made against established test methods, and the label conventions on protection categories exist so that products can be compared.
The area where the line bites is disease prevention language. A sunscreen may be described in terms of protection against ultraviolet radiation and its effects on skin appearance and ageing. Claims about preventing a disease belong to a different regime, which is why public health messaging about skin cancer comes from health bodies such as the NHS and the British Association of Dermatologists rather than from product packaging.
What this means when you are choosing something
Three practical rules follow, and they are more useful than any ingredient list.
- If you have a diagnosed condition, buy the regime that matches it. A cosmetic cannot legally claim to treat it, which means a cosmetic is not the thing you are looking for.
- Treat medicinal sounding language as a warning rather than a promise. A cosmetic making a treatment claim is either overreaching or misclassified, and neither is a reason to buy.
- Notice the hedges. Helps, supports, the appearance of, the look of. These are not weak writing. They are the sound of a claim being kept legal, and they tell you the limit of what the product is permitted to assert.
For how those permitted claims are then evidenced, see what clinically proven is allowed to mean.