In this episode of the Aesthetics Today podcast, TV beauty expert, presenter and former model, Gabrielle Richens hosted special guest, Dr Theresa Callaghan, a biochemist, author, and cosmetic claims specialist, for a frank discussion about the state of the beauty industry. With nearly 40 years in skincare science under her belt, Dr Callaghan has helped brands “turn science into truth” by separating real results from marketing hype. She isn’t afraid to call out the excesses and misinformation in today’s beauty market.
Dr Theresa Callaghan’s foray into skincare began not in a cosmetics lab, but in the halls of academia. Armed with a PhD in biochemistry from the University of Bath, she was researching autoimmune skin diseases at the renowned Pasteur Institute in Paris when an unexpected opportunity knocked. Luxury giant LVMH (Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton) and its Dior research team invited her to collaborate on Project “Capture”, an innovative skincare line that was among the first to use liposome technology for delivering active ingredients. “It was their first liposome skincare product, and I believe the brand is still on the market,” she says of Dior’s Capture line. This cutting-edge product development in the late 1980s was eye-opening for a young scientist used to the slower tempo of academia. She returned to the UK to join Unilever’s R&D ranks, fully immersing herself in the business of beauty.
Dr Callaghan never lost sight of the core scientific fascination that drew her in, skin health. Part of her passion is personal, she notes with a laugh that as someone with Celtic heritage and chronically dry skin, she’s always been “very passionate” about finding what keeps skin in good condition. In the late ’80s and early ’90s, firms like Unilever and L’Oréal maintained almost academic-style internal research teams, and innovation moved at a measured pace. “It was a much slower industry,” Dr Callaghan recalls.
“There was thought, there was circumspection, there was detail, there was double-checking. The commercial pressure [wasn’t] what it is today.”
Fast forward to today, and the beauty landscape is unrecognisable. She describes the modern skincare market as “a jungle out there” with too many brands to count and an incessant demand for “new, new, new.” The statistics back her up. More than a quarter of all new consumer brands launched in recent years have been in the beauty and personal care space. This explosion of products and companies has a downside. “There’s too many brands and as a result we have too many ingredients, that’s impacting sustainability and the environment. And because it’s a jungle out there, the claims become… eyebrow-raising at times,” Dr Callaghan says.
One major concern is the disconnect between marketing language and scientific reality. Dr Callaghan acknowledges that not all marketing teams are clueless about science, “there are some very astute marketing people who understand” the limits of what a product can do, she notes. But all too often, especially under intense commercial pressure, brands promise results that aren’t truly backed by evidence. Glossy terms like “clinically proven to erase wrinkles” or pseudo-scientific buzzwords can mislead consumers. Meanwhile, the real data from any product testing that was done (whether consumer perception trials or clinical measurements on skin) gets lost in translation.
The rise of the internet and social media has only amplified the confusion. Beauty shoppers today are not constrained by regional regulations or labels; they can read reviews and buy products from anywhere in the world with a few clicks. This means misinformation spreads globally, and products that don’t meet the strict standards of one country can still find eager buyers in another. Dr Callaghan points out that the European Union (and until recently, the UK) has strong cosmetic regulations, both on product safety and the veracity of claims, whereas other markets like the U.S. historically have taken a more laissez-faire approach. The result is a fragmented global regulatory picture.
“Consumers… live on the Internet, they live on social media – this is where they’re buying their products,” she says. “So they can buy products from anywhere in the world. And then they are picking up misinformation at the end of the day.” One example she gives is the so-called “toxic” beauty narrative, the wave of fearmongering claims that all chemicals in cosmetics are harmful.
On the one hand, this frustration with rampant misinformation could be disheartening for a scientist, but Dr Callaghan uses it as fuel. “It’s that frustration that keeps me motivated,” she says. She half-jokingly adds, “By mistake I married my job, I knew it would never love me back!”. Despite all the noise, she firmly believes that consumers don’t actually want outrageous claims or endless new products. They want honest products that work and transparency about what’s in them. Crucially, Dr Callaghan stresses, cosmetics are not miracles, and they shouldn’t be sold as such.
“They (products) are there to keep the skin in good condition and by doing so, yes, you are going to see a change and improvement. Of course, if you want something faster, then that’s when you go to your aesthetics clinic or salon to have those adjustments.”
Dr Callaghan worries that the beauty industry has entangled itself too closely with the fashion industry’s mindset, where skin is treated like a trend or accessory. She emphatically reminds us that “the skin is not a fashion item. Skin is an organ of the body.” Unlike a handbag or a pair of shoes that you can swap out with the season, you only get one skin to live in. The word “beauty” itself, she notes, has no legal definition in cosmetics regulations, it’s entirely subjective. The industry should dial back the hype and return to that careful, methodical development process she remembers.
The Truth Behind Skincare Testing
If anyone understands how to substantiate a skincare claim, it’s Dr Callaghan. She has built a career as a cosmetic claims expert, advising brands on how to test their products and communicate results without running afoul of regulations. In the EU and UK, cosmetic claims are governed by strict “Common Criteria”, 6 principles in the law that require claims to be truthful, evidence-based, honest and fair. Regulators (and competitors) can challenge a product’s claims if they aren’t backed by robust proof. This is why proper testing is so important. However, as Dr Callaghan observes, not every company has the patience or expertise to do it right, especially in today’s fast-paced launch cycles.
Dr Callaghan drives home the point that cutting corners on research is a false economy. If you don’t invest in good science up front, your product may not live up to its claims, and in the long run, it won’t “go anywhere” because consumers will figure out it doesn’t deliver.
So what does proper claims testing involve? Dr Callaghan explains it requires planning at the concept stage, deciding what claims you want to make, and then designing studies (whether lab assays, clinical instrument measurements on volunteers, or consumer perception trials) to specifically validate those claims. It also means timing those studies correctly and using appropriate subjects.
Another critical point she makes is that in cosmetics, unlike pharmaceuticals, companies mostly rely on ingredient suppliers for initial research. A new active ingredient (say, an algae extract or a peptide) will often come with a dossier of lab studies or small trials provided by the supplier. That data is useful, but it’s about the ingredient alone, not the final formulated product that consumers use. Dr Callaghan cautions brands not to simply lift claims from ingredient brochures. You cannot just say “our cream reduces wrinkles by 50% in 2 weeks” because the ingredient maker observed that in a petri dish or on 5 volunteers using a test serum. You have to prove your finished product does that in a properly designed study. If you throw 20 “hero” ingredients together, something unpredictable could happen. Regulators in countries like France have been especially insistent on this point, claims must relate to the final product.
Encouragingly, Dr Callaghan notes that the industry is slowly waking up to these realities. She sometimes has to remind herself that “there are new people coming into the industry every day,” and they may simply be unaware of the historical lessons and regulations. Education is key. Interestingly, she also believes investors have a role to play in pushing for better science. In the rush of venture capital into beauty, a lot of indie brands have sprung up with big promises. Dr Callaghan suggests that whether an investor is short-term or in it for the long haul, they should do their due diligence on a brand’s claims and test data.
Ultimately, Dr Callaghan’s stance is that solid science and transparency are good for business in the long run. They build trust and weed out the bad actors. She and other veterans pushed the EU to adopt the cosmetic claims regulation a decade ago because, as she puts it, “enough is enough” with outrageous claims. Now she’d like to see that ethos spread globally and even go further, for example, by creating a public registry of cosmetic product studies (similar to clinical trial registries for medicines) to ensure companies can’t hide negative results and only trumpet the positive.
Skin Biology Meets Aesthetics
As the conversation turned to aesthetic medicine, procedures like injectables, lasers, and high-tech skin treatments that straddle the line between beauty and medical science, Dr Callaghan was adamant about one thing, a deep understanding of skin biology is non-negotiable for anyone performing these treatments. Modern aesthetics blurs the boundaries between a salon facial and a medical intervention. Clinics now offer everything from chemical peels and microneedling to Botox, dermal fillers, and energy-device therapies. Aesthetics nowadays is combining medical science with beauty, Richens noted, asking why a deep knowledge of skin is so critical for safe, lasting results.
Dr Callaghan points out that even in the regular cosmetics sphere, safety is paramount, for example, sunscreens are classified as cosmetic products in Europe but they serve a clear health function (protecting against skin cancer), so they must be formulated and tested with utmost care. Take that mindset into semi-invasive aesthetic treatments and the stakes get even higher. Some of these treatments physically penetrate the skin or alter tissue in the pursuit of beauty. Without proper training and respect for skin biology, things can go very wrong. She references a recent BBC documentary that exposed “backstreet Botox” injections.
In the UK and EU, cosmetic procedures have been getting new regulatory attention. Laws are being put in place to crack down on the “cosmetic cowboys” who for too long operated with impunity. For instance, the UK passed the Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Act 2021 which bans giving Botox or fillers to anyone under 18, and as of 2022 has empowered the government to set up a licensing scheme for all higher-risk cosmetic procedures. In August 2025, authorities confirmed they will roll out national licensing and stricter qualification requirements for practitioners performing injectable treatments, and restrict high-risk surgeries to only medically qualified professionals.
Another stark example she gives is the use of injectable silicone for body contouring, a practice that has occurred in some countries or illicitly. “One thing, a personal opinion, that worries me about the aesthetics industry is the use of silicone injections, because it’s non-biodegradable,” she says. Permanent silicone gel injections (as opposed to temporary fillers like hyaluronic acid) have caused disfigurements and medical emergencies, yet stories abound of people traveling abroad to get bargain-basement “liquid BBLs” (Brazilian Butt Lifts) or illicit silicone filler in lips, hips, wherever. “It is very worrying,” agrees Richens. Dr Callaghan’s bewilderment is evident: “You just ask yourself, why? What are we doing as an industry that’s encouraging this?”
Kids’ Skincare Controversy
Perhaps the most sobering part of the discussion came when talk turned to the impact of social media and the emergence of children’s skincare routines. Dr Callaghan, and host Gabrielle Richens, both sounded alarmed at how far things have gone. It’s no secret that Instagram and TikTok have fostered a culture of perfection, with filters smoothing every face and influencers flaunting elaborate 10-step routines. But now even preteens (aka tweens) are mimicking these behaviors. The podcast noted reports of “Sephora for kids” product lines and viral TikToks of 9- or 10-year-olds showing off nightly skincare regimens.
Her alarm is grounded in science and common sense. Children’s skin is not the same as adult skin, it’s more delicate and still developing. In fact, dermatologists have been speaking out about this trend too, warning that young kids do not need complex products and could actually harm their skin by using potent actives. For example, children have thinner epidermis and weaker barrier function, making them more prone to irritation. Strong acids or retinoids can easily disrupt a child’s skin barrier and cause eczema or allergic reactions. “I don’t see what benefit giving a child the equivalent of an adult skincare routine and makeup [has].” She finds it “terrifying” and fundamentally “wrong on every level.”
A recent Yale University study found 20% of preteens and teens are using 5+ skincare products and spending significant pocket money on these items each month, often products they “don’t need” and which can create irritation or allergies. The situation got so concerning in the U.S. that in 2024 the Connecticut Attorney General publicly urged parents to be cautious about kids using anti-aging skincare, even sending a warning letter to Sephora over marketing to children.
Dr Callaghan squarely blames the social media-driven beauty culture for “making children into mini adults.” The colorful packaging and trendy marketing of some brands targeting younger demographics certainly don’t help. There’s “money in fear,” as Richens says, and even grade-school girls are now made to feel they must “fix” perfectly normal skin. Even something as seemingly harmless as kiddie nail polish can pose issues (children instinctively put fingers in their mouths, potentially ingesting chemicals).
Thankfully, not all news is bad. Our experts observe a budding backlash against fake perfection. Some celebrities have started championing the “au naturel” look, Gabrielle Richens cites actress Pamela Anderson’s recent makeup-free public appearances, and Kate Winslet’s long-standing refusal to succumb to Hollywood’s pressure to look eternally 20. Dr Callaghan cheers this on. “There’s nothing wrong with using cosmetic products or having some of these ‘tweakments’ if you like,” she says, after all, she’s in the business and she appreciates the confidence a good cream or a bit of Botox can give someone. “But you shouldn’t let them control you.”
With all the talk of industry challenges, Dr Callaghan also shared some insights into skin science itself. Particularly the importance of the skin barrier. In fact, one of her early career highlights was being part of the team that pioneered “skin-identical” ceramides for use in moisturisers. Ceramides are lipid molecules naturally present in our outer skin layer; they form a protective seal that keeps moisture in and irritants out. Many skincare aficionados today recognise ceramides as hero ingredients for repairing the skin barrier, you’ll find them in popular products like CeraVe creams and high-end serums. But back in the late 1980s, creating synthetic ceramides that perfectly mimic those in human skin was cutting-edge biotechnology.
It was a multi-year effort involving academic-industry collaboration and ultimately a biotech company that manufactured the ceramides for skincare use. One of the first products to market using this tech was Elizabeth Arden’s Ceramide Time Complex Capsules, launched around 1990. Those little golden capsules, still sold today, were filled with ceramide-rich serum and marketed as a breakthrough for youthful, hydrated skin.
So why are ceramides and the skin barrier such a big deal? The barrier (also known as the stratum corneum) is the outermost layer of skin, often likened to a brick-and-mortar wall where skin cells are the bricks and lipids (including ceramides, cholesterol, and fatty acids) are the mortar. This layer keeps moisture inside your body and keeps pathogens and irritants out. If the barrier breaks down, due to harsh products, environmental damage, age, or conditions like eczema, skin becomes dry, sensitive, inflamed, and prone to infection. Dr Callaghan points out shockingly that nearly every skincare product is a moisturiser, trying to help the barrier by adding moisture or protective lipids.
Caring for the barrier is step one in any skincare routine. It’s no coincidence that brands like CeraVe (named for ceramides) have gained a devoted following. Consumers have caught on that barrier health = better skin.
Interestingly, when asked to pick one ingredient she thinks is genuinely transformative, Dr Callaghan didn’t choose a trendy new discovery, but rather a class of well-established ones: peptides. These short chains of amino acids can act as signals or building blocks in the skin, and some evidence suggests certain peptides can stimulate collagen production or aid repair. “I still think [the most transformative ingredient] would be the class of peptides,” she says, noting that many modern “miracle” ingredients are in fact peptides designed to target various aging signs. And if she had to pick a simple, old-school ingredient? Lanolin, she says, the rich waxy substance derived from sheep’s wool. “It’s a very old ingredient, but it does what it says on the tin,” Dr Callaghan remarks. Lanolin was the cornerstone of classic moisturisers for decades, for instance, the original Nivea cream was lanolin-based. In fact, the name “Nivea” comes from nix, nivis (Latin for snow) referring to its pure white colour, which was achieved with a lanolin and water emulsion.
The Hero Ingredient Hype
The conversation also delved into “hero ingredients”, those star components that brands love to tout as the secret sauce of a product. Every few months it seems there’s a new one, whether it’s vitamin C, bakuchiol, snail mucin, or some Amazonian berry extract. Dr Callaghan acknowledged that the industry loves a good hero story, but she urges both formulators and consumers to maintain perspective. Not every trendy ingredient has solid evidence behind it, and even the ones that do (like retinol, vitamins, antioxidants, peptides, etc.) need to be formulated and used properly to be effective.
For instance, the host brought up that in aesthetics lately there’s a pivot from just filling or plumping the skin (with fillers or implants) to regenerating the skin. Using technologies or products that stimulate the skin to rebuild itself. Richens mentioned seeing more treatments aimed at collagen induction or skin quality improvement, which is indeed a notable trend (think microneedling with growth factors, PRP “vampire facials,” exosome therapies, etc.). Dr Callaghan agreed that regenerative approaches are exciting, but she quickly emphasised that safety and efficacy must be proven before wider adoption. “Do your research,” she advises clinicians. A responsible aesthetic practitioner shouldn’t just buy the latest device because it’s trending on Instagram, they should vet it like any medical tool.
One buzzword that came up is exosomes. In dermatology and aesthetics, exosomes (tiny vesicles secreted by cells, laden with growth factors and signals) are being explored as advanced skin rejuvenation agents, often derived from stem cells. Some medispas now offer exosome facials or injections claiming to “trigger skin repair.” Dr Callaghan’s take: promising, but proceed with caution. “We have to be careful with exosomes that they are not going to cause more problems than benefit,” she notes. “They’ve been around in recent times, but we still need to know more about them.” The same could be said for a lot of high-tech beauty innovations, from intense pulsed light (IPL) devices to at-home microcurrent wands, they often show potential, but real results and risks become evident only with time and study. Dr Callaghan circles back to her refrain: slow down. Validate these innovations rather than race to market for the sake of novelty.
From Anti-Aging to Pro-Health
No conversation with a skincare expert would be complete without touching on the topic of skin aging. The term “anti-aging” has been a staple of beauty marketing for decades, but it’s increasingly fraught, not just as a dubious claim (you can’t stop aging) but also philosophically. Many argue it implies that aging is something to be “anti-” or against, rather than a natural life process. The industry has toyed with rebranding, using terms like “pro-aging” or “healthy aging,” but even those can be clumsy. Euphemisms aside, her take is that the biggest misconception the beauty industry pushes about aging is “that we can halt aging permanently. We can’t.”
“We can only address certain factors associated with aging and help improve those,” she says, “but we’re not going to turn a 70-year-old into a 30-year-old. And particularly not with a cosmetic [non-prescription] product.”
Richens and Callaghan mentioned the high-profile case of a tech mogul (45-year-old Bryan Johnson) who’s been in the news for spending millions a year on an extreme anti-aging regimen to try to reverse his biological age. Dr Callaghan’s take? It’s an interesting personal experiment, but “I sometimes wonder about the amount of stress he’s under… that’s probably aging him, even if he doesn’t realise.” In fact, she notes, looking at his before-and-now photos, “he looks very unhappy compared to the happy-go-lucky guy he was when he started.” The irony of chasing youth so hard that you lose your joy isn’t lost on her. Moreover, any data he produces, is just one person’s results, not a clinical trial.
So, what does Dr Callaghan see for the next 10 years of the beauty and aesthetics industry? In her eyes, we’re at a tipping point. The status quo of the last decade, thousands of new brands popping up, each touting a miracle ingredient, amplified by social media, is becoming unsustainable. “It’s got to the point where enough is enough,” she says. She actually believes (and hopes) that the “jungle” will be cleared in the coming years.
One major driver of change is consumer demand for transparency and ethics. Today’s beauty consumers are arguably more ingredient-conscious and values-driven than any prior generation. They want to know not just what is in a product, but why it’s there, where it came from, and what the company stands for.
Hand in hand with transparency is the need to combat misinformation, especially in the digital realm. The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority has banned use of misleading beauty filters in ads, and truth-in-advertising enforcements are getting stricter on influencer content. Several countries are also discussing laws that would require labeling of retouched photos in ads to reduce body image harm.
Another concrete change she highlights is the fight against greenwashing, vague or misleading environmental claims. The EU, for example, is working on legislation to ban generic sustainability claims that aren’t backed by evidence (“natural,” “eco-friendly,” etc.), and to standardise labels for recyclability and carbon footprints. Dr Callaghan says such laws are going global. “Yes, [we’ll see] less greenwashing, because the laws are changing,” she notes, “and that will also mean less claims washing too.” (“Claims washing” meaning companies masking weak evidence with fluffy language.) For instance, as of 2023, the EU has banned terms like “free from [X]” or “hypoallergenic” on cosmetics if they are used in a misleading way.
On the sustainability front, one of the biggest moves afoot is eliminating environmentally persistent chemicals. Dr Callaghan brings up PFAS, the so-called “forever chemicals” used in some cosmetics (often to make products long-wearing or waterproof). These substances don’t break down in the environment and have been linked to health issues, which is why regulators are cracking down. “The French have banned PFAS in cosmetic products,” she notes, referring to a landmark law that France passed. Indeed, France became the first EU country to outlaw PFAS in cosmetics. It’s expected to pave the way for an EU-wide ban.
Dr Callaghan expects biotechnology to play a growing role in ingredient development. Instead of wild-harvesting rare plants from rainforests, companies can use bio-fermentation or cell culture to produce those actives in labs sustainably. This not only protects biodiversity but can yield purer ingredients.
All told, Dr Callaghan is guardedly optimistic about the next decade. The industry, she says, “is starting to acknowledge that it has to do something” to address its excesses and regain trust. The changes won’t happen overnight, but the momentum is building.
Love the Skin You’re In
After an hour of such an insightful, wide-ranging discussion, the core message Dr Theresa Callaghan wants to leave people with? It turns out to be wonderfully simple. “Love the skin you’re in, and don’t be anxious,” she says. Feel free to enjoy the creams, serums, or treatments that make you feel good. But do those things as acts of love for yourself, not fear that you’re not good enough.
Dr Callaghan’s decades of experience have taught her that the happiest clients and consumers are those who have realistic expectations and a healthy relationship with their own reflection.
In the end, beauty really is in the eye of the beholder, and it should start with how kindly we behold ourselves.
