‘Scienceploitation’, the use of fake science to sell wellness products

UNITED STATES – You cannot browse a grocery store or pharmacy without being subject to labels that promote health benefits. In the beverage aisle, you might find “prebiotic” sodas that supposedly support “gut health”. In the beauty department, you will see “medical-grade” serums, “probiotic” facial creams and “skin detoxing” treatments. Go to the supplements section for promises of “immunity support”, “hormone balance” and “energy enhancement”.

Marketers have been using scientific-sounding buzzwords to sell products for centuries. But it is becoming more common, said Professor Timothy Caulfield, a research chair in health law and policy at the University of Alberta in Canada. He coined the term “scienceploitation” to describe how brands borrow language from emerging areas of science to market unproven products.

Scienceploitation crops up in far more places today than ever before, including in search results, on social media platforms and from influencers, he said.

Consumers are often inundated with confusing options as more companies position themselves as healthy. Buyers are prioritising scientific evidence, said analyst Sienna Piccioni, head of beauty at WGSN, a trend forecasting company. But they cannot always separate fact from fiction: A 2021 study suggested that people who trust science were more likely to share false claims that contained scientific references than claims that did not.

In December, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) revised its guidelines for health-related products, emphasising that companies should support health claims “with high quality, randomised, controlled human clinical trials”.

But experts said it was unlikely that the commission could closely monitor how companies marketed their products, at least not without a huge increase in funding.

“There are just too many brands,” said Dr Kevin Klatt, an assistant research scientist in the department of nutrition sciences and toxicology at the University of California, Berkeley.

Here are some marketing tactics to be aware of.

Jam-packed ingredient lists

Companies often try to cash in on fads such as adaptogens and activated charcoal, which you can find listed on items including cookie packaging and toothpaste tubes.

Even ingredients that are known to be effective can be manipulated. Beauty and skincare brands, for instance, might use 0.2 per cent of vitamin C in a moisturiser, even though evidence shows the amount would need to be higher to have any effect, said cosmetic chemist Michelle Wong, who runs the blog Lab Muffin Beauty Science and helped popularise the term “science washing” in beauty circles.

This is why it is not necessarily helpful to scour a scientific-looking list of ingredients, she added. Most do not say much about the quality or quantity of each ingredient, nor how it interacts with other ingredients or its stability – all of which affect efficacy.

Vague terms such as ‘boosts’

Manufacturers use words without clear and specific definitions – such as “aids”, “promotes”, “supports”, “stimulates”, “boosts” and “optimises” – to suggest positive health outcomes.

There is no quantifiable way to measure an ambiguous word such as “support”, said Mr Jonathan Jarry, a scientist and science communicator with McGill University’s Office for Science and Society.

Supplement companies, which do not have to prove effectiveness to the US Food and Drug Administration, frequently rely on the terms used above. But there is often a small disclaimer on the bottle that says the product “is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease”.

“They’re implying the product works, and then on the same label, much less visible, is the fact that there’s no evidence that it works,” said Dr Josh Bloom, director of chemical and pharmaceutical sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Still, he said, people see a word such as “supports” and might assume the product will treat their symptoms.

Other phrases – including “clinically tested”, “research-backed”, “doctor-recommended” and “evidence-based” – show up in the beauty or personal-care aisle and often lack the context they would need to be verified, Dr Wong said. With such terms, you should ask: What were the results of the tests? What was the quality of the research? Who conducted it? Was the researcher or endorser a legitimate authority in that field?

Questionable studies

Wellness brands might pad their websites with links to studies. But some are simply summaries of the emerging data without any mention of the product in question. Many companies include research unrelated to the claim.

Evidence cited by a company “could be one poorly designed study”, said Dr Nick Tiller, a senior researcher in exercise physiology at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. “It could be cherry-picked.”

“What you want to see are the results of actual rigorous studies of the product itself, showing that it works,” Mr Jarry said. “But that’s almost never the case.”

Assessing claims

If you are trying to get a feel for the legitimacy of a product, the FTC recommends doing a search for the name of the product online, plus the words “review”, “complaint” or “scam”.

You can also check what respected professional associations and public health organisations such as the US National Institutes of Health or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say about a specific product, protocol or ingredient, experts advise.

If a herbal supplement claims to address high blood pressure, for instance, you might search the sites of the American Heart Association or the American College of Cardiology, as these organisations often have articles, position statements and meta-analyses on them, said Dr Danielle Belardo, a cardiologist who hosts the podcast Wellness: Fact Vs Fiction.

When considering a buzzy ingredient or product, remember that “one exciting study” does not mean much, Prof Caulfield said. Kombucha bottles often say they have “microbiome-friendly” benefits, even though microbiome research is still in its infancy. Before shelling out money, give more credence to sources that include a larger body of evidence on a topic, he added.

And keep in mind that no single ingredient can change your health overnight. If a product was indeed a cure-all, every medical organisation would be rushing to endorse it, Dr Klatt said.

“Anything that sounds too good to be true is probably too good to be true,” he added. NYTIMES