Cosmetic claims: evidence and review

Choose between an evidence question and a boundary question

Begin with the exact statement, the product revision, where it appears and the surrounding presentation. A carton sentence, a website headline and a social caption can create different impressions. Keep the words and context together before deciding which review task is needed.

HPRA's claims guidance covers packaging and promotional material and describes the common criteria for claims. A statement's support and its compatibility with a cosmetic presentation are related questions, but collecting one more document does not automatically resolve both.

Build the evidence relationship

Choose the claims-file guide when the wording needs to be connected to supporting evidence and its limitations. Record the actual report, product or material studied, method and outcome. Ask the reviewer how those facts support the particular statement.

For example, a fictional cream's page promises a duration of effect, while the available file is an ingredient brochure. The first task is to establish the relationship between the evidence and the finished-product wording. A large folder of unrelated studies would not answer that specific question.

Escalate a product-boundary question

Choose the cosmetic-or-medicinal review when the presentation or intended function raises a classification question. Preserve the whole label, imagery, use instructions and advertising context. A prohibited-word list or a software score cannot classify the actual product.

The boundary guide provides authority examples and a synthetic escalation record. Use that record to keep the exact question and the evidence considered visible. Do not replace disputed wording with a suggested alternative and assume the new statement is approved.

Review a particular claim type

Natural, organic, free-from, sensitive-skin and testing claims each need their actual wording and evidence question. Use the relevant released task where available. The absence of a specialised guide leaves the question open; it does not make the claim acceptable by default.

Keep qualifications and limitations visible in the material the reviewer sees. If an image, caption or translation changes, record the new context instead of relying solely on a decision about older text.

Keep decisions connected across channels

A finding on carton revision 4 may not settle a new website comparison or social caption. Record the claim identifier, wording revision, channel, evidence and specialist decision. When the formula or evidence changes, identify which earlier findings need another review.

Use separate Ireland/EU, GB and NI scope decisions. The authority links and released resources provide starting points; this hub makes no product-specific finding for any of those markets. Finish by assigning the precise missing-evidence or interpretation question, with the exact presentation attached to its product revision. The resulting record should explain what is supported and what remains unresolved without converting a draft claim into permission to publish it.

Sources and legal dates