Although the producer Union Swiss three well conducted studies still managed to produce, they are the experts of the ASA written off due to lack of sufficient evidence. Our cosmetic chemist Johann Wiechers who was involved in the proof for the claims afterwards, responds that it is unjust. 'Cosmetics you should not pharmaceutical way to test if the claim has not requested it. It is applied science, tests with volunteers who give their findings and lubricate suffice. "
This is what we reported about earlier:
According to the experts of ASA, there is no cosmeticum that can reduce scarring . If Bio Oil claims this to be able to do so, they must submit research that conforms to scientific protocols, so the double-blind and placebo-controlled studies are conducted. Only then, say the experts, you can do some serious claims only become seriously. Bio Oil did have good research conducted, but it was not double blind placebo controlled. However, there may be something to the skin color and the hardness of the tissue to be done, say the experts, and this is also now enough evidence to find by simply massaging and a moisturizer to lubricate. On these points satisfies the oil then only.
About the visible reduction of stretch marks was the ASA also clear: the proof was too skinny. The submitted research with measurable results, there was very little improvement, it was mainly the opinions of the participating women themselves provided a high score visible improvement. The latter is too subjective to be taken seriously says ASA. The point is that basically all cosmetic brands here always make ample use of results to discuss: the opinion of the participant counts heavily. But this opinion is obviously heavily colored by the fervent hope, you want it to work, so you are inclined to believe that it works well and can be a good skin feel even obscure the truth.
But according to Johann Wiechers have here nothing wrong with it, it's just what the brand claims .
Johann Wiechers tells us :
"The ASA is therefore of the opinion that if you are a volunteer in a study asks whether his or her skin condition is improved by the use of a product, this in advance is not credible. This person will - according to the ASA - Always the answer you want to hear as a researcher, it is subjective. The ASA is a consumer test as Bio Oil which has performed and on which the claims are based is not sufficient. In America very often questionnaires given to subjects, and the evidence for the effectivitiet through these lists obtained. In Europe, people think differently about this. Here we use preferably more objective observations such as by means of measuring devices can be obtained.
A second issue is that there is not a double-blind study was conducted, but something you jargon in a single blind study calls. In placebo-controlled trials knows both the test group and the researcher is not what is true is lubricated. This is the case when one half of the subjects the active product allows lubrication, while the other half a "fake" product gets, or a placebo. But something else happened in this study. Since Bio-Oil just something about the product claims and not on one or more of the ingredients (more on this later), was tested against untreated skin. You let people test one piece of skin with the product (the full product thus, not only an ingredient out there) but treat the other piece remains untreated. Because the people in the control group and the test group the same people is a double-blind study are not possible, because now you know the one that lubricates do which of the two arms of the product that has received because they themselves opgesmeerd. A single-blind study, and so it is by definition wrong according to the ASA.
The ASA believes that the efficacy of a product with a fundamentally new effect can be demonstrated only with standards such as those in pharmacy and medicine are, therefore double-blind placebo-controlled study. But as a cosmetic chemist with knowledge of claim substantiation I say that this is only relevant when the efficacy of individual active substances and want to show it also claims to want to put "Ingredient X creates ...." but Bio Oil makes no statements on individual substances and their efficacy, it only makes statements about the overall product. That is ultimately what the consumer buys and so interested.
The raw material suppliers test their ingredients very nicely against a placebo, because they want to prove their ingredient works. Then can you as a company (the jars filled with the ingredients in the market place) that an ingredient in a cream stop, but that does not mean that the ingredient works. Therefore, if you end processor (the brand so) prove your finished work. It is not only those active substances, it is the total product including emulsifiers, water, fats, et cetera.
I give courses on claim substantiation and the key question is always: "What is your product control?" A placebo or a piece of untreated skin? And that depends on your claim. You claim that your total product works, then you need that product testing against a product minus the product, so an untreated skin. You can claim your ingredient works, then you should test product to that product minus the active ingredient, so a placebo. In all cases, this may be the best to the skin of the same person. ASA enforces Bio Oil now to the product of the double-blind placebo-controlled manner and testing to show that one or more ingredients, whereas Bio Oil that totally does not want to claim . Either: I must prove my Ferrari 300 km per hour drive, while I only say that the color of my Ferrari Ferrari red. Which therefore suffice with watching that car and its color to that of an official Ferrari color card to compare. Will the color of my Ferrari and the color on the card match, then that is sufficient.
The cosmetics has something to do with active ingredients such as pharmaceuticals too, but you communicate the total product.
The point is that there is often no cosmetic chemists in this type of control bodies work, and the people who work there, often from medical angle, have no affinity. They just say, cosmetics does not work, and if it works it should be a medicinal product. That implies that you are working with disease (!).
The interpretation of what a drug does and a cosmetic, true to my idea anymore. Someone who is bald and an active cosmetic product get is not ill? Baldness is not a disease? The current legislation is before the time we have unraveled the structure of DNA. You see today both in cosmetics and in the pharmaceutical substances on the DNA work and that they have always done, we've just never known, as in the case of cosmetics. All those cosmetics now suddenly drugs? It is time for a reinterpretation of the law. "