Science you can see: why evidence has become both a premium and a liability

IngredientsAgency (communication / marketing / trends / digital/AI)

You Can Only Sell the Proof You Can Verify

Beauty is leaving the age of hype. Across markets, consumers have stopped settling for a promise and started asking for clinical data, ingredient transparency and results they can see and measure. For brands, that shift is an opportunity: proof now commands a premium, and those who hold it can charge for it.

But there is a second half to that sentence, and it is rarely in the trend reports. The proof a brand sells downstream is almost never the proof it produced. It came from an active supplier, a contract manufacturer, a testing lab. The brand carries the liability for a claim it did not generate. Which makes one question strategic: how do you tell a substantiated claim from a well-told story?

The demand for proof, in numbers

Data shared with MakeUp in NewYork by Mintel shows how close to universal the expectation has become in the premium segment. In US luxury beauty, 94% of consumers say clinical studies and test results appeal to them, and 93% respond to visible, measurable results backed by instrumentation. Ingredient transparency scores just as high, and consumers no longer stop at what is in the formula: they want to know why it is there and how it works.

The expectation travels. In Germany, 70% of dermocosmetics shoppers want written clinical results printed on pack, and more than half treat before-and-after photography as a meaningful proof cue. In Canada and France, roughly seven consumers in ten call for more scientific evidence behind beauty claims. In Thailand, 87% believe brands should provide clinically tested certificates for their ingredients, and 46% research those ingredients before buying.

The reversal worth noting

In Thailand’s beauty supplement market, scientific credibility (45%) and clinically backed ingredients and dosage (44%) now outrank brand reputation (37%) as purchase drivers.

In the United States, 51% of skincare consumers name proven effectiveness as the single most important factor in their decision.

Evidence is starting to do the work that branding used to do.

AI has moved into the formulation lab

Part of what makes this new standard reachable is that the cost of generating evidence is falling. Mintel points to AI-accelerated ingredient selection that compresses testing time and shortens development cycles, and to receptor-docking approaches that let actives be designed around a biological target rather than found by trial and error. One documented example is an AI co-developed ingredient designed to block tyrosinase receptors and reduce hyperpigmentation.

AI is also being used to identify sustainable substitutes for ingredients under regulatory or environmental pressure, and in UK bodycare to isolate the differentiating ingredients that support a trade-up claim. The point is not that algorithms replace chemists. It is that formulation becomes faster, more targeted and, crucially, easier to defend when the claim is challenged.

Beauty enters the health era

The demand for proof does not stand alone. It arrives alongside a broader movement, analysed by Cosmetics Inspiration & Creation, trend partner of MakeUp in NewYork 2026: as consumers adopt a more holistic view of wellbeing, the line between beauty and health is dissolving. Three dynamics carry the shift.

• Emotional resonance, beauty as a sanctuary. Beauty takes on an emotional function, creating moments of calm and supporting balance. As the brain-skin axis gains attention, stress, cortisol and sensory overload become territories for innovation.

• Recovery culture, from rest to resilience. Recovery becomes a health priority, moving from temporary relief toward lasting repair. Dermocosmetic and medical codes bring barrier repair and post-procedure care closer to everyday beauty.

• Extreme adaptation, beauty in first-response mode. Climate volatility, heat and environmental stress drive demand for adaptive skincare, from first-response soothing to temperature-responsive technologies.

Each of these territories borrows its credibility from medicine. Which raises the bar again: a claim that sounds clinical will be read as clinical, and judged accordingly.

What "proven" actually requires

Two regulators have already defined what substantiation means, and both set the bar considerably higher than the marketing shorthand suggests.

In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission updated its Health Products Compliance Guidance in December 2022, its first revision in roughly twenty-five years. Health-related claims are generally expected to rest on randomised, controlled human testing conducted by experts in the relevant field. Animal studies, in-vitro work and consumer satisfaction surveys are not sufficient on their own. The Commission also weighs the internal validity of each piece of evidence, considering sample size, duration and outcome measures, and states plainly that quality of research matters more than quantity: several weak studies do not add up to one sound one.

One point deserves particular attention from anyone writing pack copy. The FTC takes the position that a literally true phrase such as clinically tested may convey to a consumer that the testing actually proved a benefit. The implied claim, not just the literal one, has to be substantiated.

In Europe, Regulation 655/2013 establishes six common criteria for cosmetic claims, one of which is evidential support. Every claim, explicit or implicit, must be backed by adequate and verifiable evidence. Where studies are used, they must be relevant to the product and to the benefit claimed, follow well-designed and well-conducted methodologies that are valid, reliable and reproducible, and respect ethical standards. The level of substantiation must match the type of claim, particularly where a lack of efficacy could create a safety problem.

The two frameworks differ in mechanics but converge on a principle: a claim is not proof until the method behind it holds.

Three questions to ask your supplier

1. Does the study population match the people the product is sold to, in skin type, age and condition?

2. Was the active tested at the concentration that ends up in the finished formula, or at a laboratory dose?

3. Is the measured endpoint the one being advertised, and is the result clinically meaningful rather than merely statistically significant?

Where the conversation continues

These are the questions that separate an innovation from a well-told story. They are also the ones our jury asks of every IT Awards submission, and they run through three sessions of the 2026 program.

• September 16, 4:00 to 4:45 PM. Beauty 2030: what will define the next decade of growth - by CEW, with Sarah Jindal, VP of Insights, Beauty & Household, Americas at Mintel.

• September 17, 10:45 to 11:30 AM. Where beauty meets health: longevity and the science behind the claims.

• September 17, 12:45 to 1:30 PM. Hush State - Why Beauty Is Becoming a Sanctuary for Emotional Recovery, with Leila Rochet, Cosmetics Inspiration & Creation.

MakeUp in NewYork 2026 takes place on September 16 and 17 at the Javits Center. Reserve your badge. Free registration, for industry professionals only.

Sources

Consumer data and AI formulation examples: Mintel, shared with MakeUp in NewYork. Health-era dynamics: Cosmetics Inspiration & Creation. Regulatory framework: US Federal Trade Commission, Health Products Compliance Guidance (December 2022); Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 laying down common criteria for the justification of claims used in relation to cosmetic products.