Earlier this month, the National Advertising Division of BBB National Programs (NAD) recommended that Amyris Clean Beauty, Inc.’s (Amyris) Biossance skincare products modify or discontinue several claims regarding their “clean” and “ethically and sustainably sourced” ingredients, including:
- “Clean ingredients and clean formulas—we ban over 2000 ingredients that are known to be toxic to you and the environment. All of our ingredients are also ethically and sustainably sourced.”
- “Our 100% sugarcane derived squalane is ethically and sustainably sourced, keeping 2 million sharks every year safe from liver harvesting.”
- “Did you know our squalane is sugarcane derived and it’s a hero ingredient in *every* Biossance formula? This miracle multitasker locks in weightless moisture, calms and protects, and improves elasticity.”
NAD concluded that Amyris provided a reasonable basis for its claims about the source of the squalane and its efficacy as a skincare ingredient. However, NAD recommended Amyris:
- Modify its claim about banning over 2,000 ingredients to specify those typically used in cosmetics
- Discontinue or modify the claim about saving 2 million sharks annually
- Discontinue using the claim that all ingredients are ethically and sustainably sourced
“Clean” Ingredients Claim
Evaluating the claim “Clean ingredients and clean formulas—we ban over 2000 ingredients that are known to be toxic to you and the environment,” NAD noted that unqualified “clean” claims can be deceptive, especially considering recent concerns over the presence of PFAs in cosmetics.
Although Amyris qualified its “clean” claim by explaining that the Biossance products exclude “over 2,000 ingredients that are known to be toxic to humans and the environment,” NAD found Amyris’s substantiation for this qualified statement insufficient.
Amyris provided statements and lists from regulatory bodies, countries, and trade associations concerning harmful substances (such as the Environmental Working Group’s “Unacceptable List” of ingredients). However, NAD found that it could not ascertain whether there were 2,000 different ingredients listed or whether the excluded ingredients are typically used as cosmetic ingredients.
Ethically and Sustainably Sourced Claims
Reviewing Amyris’s claim that it keeps “2 million sharks every year safe from liver harvesting,” NAD found that the substantiation provided (a 2012 report estimating 1,363 sharks killed per ton of squalane created per year) did not provide an accurate figure as to the number of sharks saved.
NAD then determined that the third-party certification Amyris submitted provided a reasonable basis for the claim “Our 100% sugarcane derived squalane is ethically and sustainably sourced.” NAD noted that the certification, which applies to sugarcane mills, is awarded based on an assessment of “environmental, social and human rights risks, labor rights and occupational risks and production and processes focused on enhancing sustainability” and an assessment of each step in the sugarcane’s chain of custody in the production process. NAD determined this was a reasonable basis for the claim.
However, NAD determined that the broader claim that “all of our ingredients are also ethically and sustainably sourced” was not adequately supported by Amyris’s Supplier Code of Conduct, because such codes of conduct are only aspirational and fail to prove that the ingredient suppliers are adhering to the delineated conduct.
Efficacy Claims
For its claim “Did you know our squalane is sugarcane derived and it’s a hero ingredient in *every* Biossance formula? This miracle multitasker locks in weightless moisture, calms and protects, and improves elasticity,” Amyris presented three randomized, double-blind studies assessing the impact of squalane in the form and range of the amount found in the Biossance products. Each of the studies conducted included a Trans-Epidermal Water Loss (TEWL) assessment, which was sufficient to substantiate the moisture-locking claim, according to NAD. NAD agreed that in this context, “protects” also speaks to skin hydration.
Finally, NAD accepted Amyris’s assertion that the “calms” claim refers to the product’s impact on skin inflammation, and reliance on one of the randomized, double-blind studies’ spectrocolorimeter analysis of the ingredients’ impact on the skin. NAD also found that Amryis relied on well-recognized instruments for assessing skin elasticity. NAD determined the results of the studies were statistically significant and provided a reasonable basis for Amyris’s efficacy claim.
NAD’s assessment of Amyris’s claims follows a familiar pattern but offers further insight into its views on unqualified “clean” claims and skin “protection” claims. Further, the case makes it clear that NAD is willing to accept third-party certifications for “ethical and sustainable” claims in limited, qualified circumstances.
