There are three claims we could technically make about our own products that we choose not to, because the evidence behind them doesn't hold up to the standard we'd want applied if we were the customer reading it. This post names them specifically: colloidal silver in our Anti Acne Gel, the sunscreen filter in our sunscreen, and a brightening claim tied to our Thanaka Face Moisturiser. Here's what the evidence actually says about each, and what we say instead.
Most brands round up. A cell-culture study becomes "clinically proven." A supplier's marketing data becomes an independent claim. We'd rather tell you where the evidence is thin than round it up, even when that means saying less about our own products than we technically could get away with.
Colloidal silver: no antibacterial or acne-clearing claim
Our Anti Acne Gel contains colloidal silver alongside other actives. We will not tell you that the colloidal silver in it is antibacterial or that it clears acne, because the evidence doesn't support that claim.
The U.S. FDA ruled in 1999, and the ruling still stands, that over-the-counter colloidal silver is not generally recognized as safe and effective. Separately, some in-vitro testing of commercial colloidal silver solutions found no measurable antimicrobial activity at all. That's a genuinely weak and contested evidence base, not a technicality we're glossing over.
So if colloidal silver is in the formula, why include it at all, and what are we actually claiming for the product? The gel's function against acne-causing bacteria and inflammation, to the extent we discuss it, comes from its other actives, not from the silver. We'd rather have that be an honest gap in the marketing copy than a claim we can't stand behind if someone asks us to cite a source.
"Suncate DE": no invented mechanism
Our sunscreen lists a filter referred to as "Suncate DE." When we went looking for how this specific filter works, mechanistically, at the molecular level, we couldn't find it listed or documented in any UV filter database we checked. That doesn't necessarily mean the filter doesn't do its job as part of the overall formula; it means we're not going to invent a mechanism for it just because "here's exactly how this ingredient blocks UV rays" reads more impressively than "we couldn't independently verify this one filter's specific mechanism."
What we can talk about honestly is broad-spectrum protection generally: a sunscreen labeled broad-spectrum with an SPF 50 and PA+++ rating is formulated to protect against both UVB rays (the main cause of sunburn) and UVA rays (linked to photoaging and longer-term skin damage), using a combination of filters working together. That's the accurate, general claim we can make about the product. The specific chemistry of one named filter within it is not something we're willing to make up to fill a gap.
Thanaka's brightening claim: disclosed, not independently verified
Our Thanaka Face Moisturiser uses daisy extract (Bellis perennis), the ingredient traditionally associated with thanaka. There's real in-vitro evidence here: multi-pathway tyrosinase inhibition shown in melanoma cell line studies, and a photoprotective effect against UVA damage shown in human keratinocyte cell studies. Those are genuine findings, and we're comfortable citing them as lab-level evidence.
Where we draw a line is the stronger claim that this ingredient "significantly lightens skin and age spots in vivo," meaning in a living person, not just in a lab dish. That specific claim traces back to the commercial ingredient supplier's own data (CLR Berlin, under the trade name Belides), not to an independently conducted or peer-reviewed human clinical trial. Supplier data isn't automatically wrong, but it isn't the same evidentiary weight as an independent study, and treating it as though it were would be exactly the kind of rounding-up we're trying not to do. So when we talk about Thanaka, we'll say the lab and cell-study evidence for tyrosinase inhibition and UVA protection is real, and that the stronger in-vivo lightening claim comes from the supplier, not from independent research.
How we decided where to draw these lines
We used three questions to sort out what we would and wouldn't claim, and it's worth naming them, because they're a useful filter for reading any skincare brand's ingredient claims, not just ours.
First: is this evidence from a human clinical trial, an in-vitro or cell-culture study, or an animal study? Each of those tells you something different, and language should match. "Research suggests" and "lab studies show" belong to cell-culture and in-vitro findings. Stronger language like "shown to work" or "clinically proven" should be reserved for human trials that actually measured the outcome being claimed.
Second: who ran the study, and do they have a financial interest in the result? Independent, peer-reviewed research carries more weight than a supplier's own marketing data, even when the underlying science is the same. Both can be worth citing, but only one should be treated as independently confirmed.
Third: does the study measure the exact outcome we want to claim, or something adjacent to it? A study measuring UVA protection in isolated skin cells is not the same as a study measuring visible skin lightening in a living person, even if both involve the same ingredient. Conflating the two is one of the more common ways skincare marketing overstates what an ingredient does.
Running our own formulas through these three questions is what produced the three disclosures above. None of them came from a customer complaint or a regulatory notice; we went looking, and we're publishing what we found rather than sitting on it.
Why we're publishing this at all
None of these three disclosures makes any of these products less useful for what they actually do. The Anti Acne Gel's other actives still address acne-related concerns; the sunscreen still provides broad-spectrum SPF 50 protection; the Thanaka moisturiser still carries real lab-level tyrosinase-inhibition and UVA-protection evidence. What changes is how confidently we talk about the specific parts of each formula where the science is thinner than the marketing language in this industry usually admits.
We'd rather earn trust by being the brand that tells you where the evidence is thin, than lose it later when someone looks the ingredient up themselves and finds a gap we didn't mention.
FAQ
Does this mean colloidal silver does nothing in the Anti Acne Gel?
We don't have evidence it functions as an antibacterial or acne-clearing agent, based on the FDA's ruling and available in-vitro testing. Any acne-related benefit from the gel comes from its other ingredients, not from the silver specifically.
Is the sunscreen still effective if one filter's mechanism is unverified?
The product's broad-spectrum SPF 50, PA+++ rating reflects testing of the finished formula as a whole. What we can't do is describe the individual mechanism of the "Suncate DE" filter, since we couldn't independently verify it in UV filter databases.
Is supplier-sourced data automatically untrustworthy?
Not automatically, but it carries a conflict of interest an independent, peer-reviewed study doesn't have. We think it should be disclosed as supplier-sourced rather than presented as independently confirmed, which is what we do with the Thanaka in-vivo claim.
Why not just remove these ingredients if the evidence is weak?
Weak evidence for one specific claim about an ingredient isn't the same as evidence the ingredient is harmful or useless. We've chosen to keep these ingredients while being precise about what we will and won't claim on their behalf.
Will this list change over time?
Yes. If independent research on any of these ingredients develops further, we'll update our claims to match it, in either direction.
How can I tell if another brand is overstating an ingredient's evidence?
Ask which of the three questions above the claim would fail: is it a human trial or a lab study, is the source independent or a supplier, and does the study actually measure the outcome being claimed. If a brand can't answer those clearly, or the language sounds stronger than "research suggests" for a cell-culture finding, that's worth a second look.
Keep reading:
Does a Vitamin C Face Wash Actually Brighten Skin? The Truth About Contact Time applies this same standard to a fourth product. And if what you're dealing with sounds more medical than cosmetic, When Your Skin Doesn't Need a Product — It Needs a Dermatologist is the place to start instead.