From Promise to Proof: How Science Validates Product Claims

A few years ago, I was reviewing a product label when I noticed a familiar buzzword: “non-toxic.” It’s one of those terms that feels reassuring, but as a toxicologist, I couldn’t help but wonder: What does this actually mean in this context?

As consumers, it's easy to assume that if a product is labeled “non-toxic,” it carries zero risk. But in toxicology, everything is a toxin at the wrong dose—even water. The truth is that claims like these need scientific backing, not just good intentions. This is where claims substantiation comes in. 

Science Backs Claims

Claims substantiation is a process that separates marketing fluff from meaningful, science-backed assurances. Yet, many companies don’t realize the complexity involved until they’re already deep in the launch process, scrambling to find data that supports what they’ve already promised. Most consumers don’t think twice when seeing labels like “hypoallergenic” or “safe for sensitive skin.” However, from a regulatory and toxicological standpoint, those claims must be backed by concrete evidence. 

Claims substantiation varies based on what’s being promised. Safety claims (“non-toxic,” “safe for children”) require toxicological risk assessments, exposure studies, and sometimes human patch tests. Efficacy claims (“reduces wrinkles in 4 weeks”) demand clinical trials or consumer perception studies, while Environmental claims (“biodegradable,” “reef-safe”) often require ecotoxicity data and degradation studies.

Most people don’t realize that just because an ingredient or product hasn’t been proven harmful doesn’t automatically mean it’s safe. Regulators expect positive proof of safety, not just an absence of harm.

Many assume that toxicologists only focus on poisons or high-risk chemicals, but in reality, we spend a lot of time ensuring that consumer product claims hold up to scrutiny. When a company wants to make a claim, we ask questions like: What does the data say? Are there studies proving this claim? What do regulatory bodies require? Are we meeting the legal definition of this claim? What could go wrong? Could this claim be misleading, even unintentionally?

Take “hypoallergenic” as an example. The term suggests a product is unlikely to cause allergic reactions, but there’s no universal standard for what makes something hypoallergenic. Instead, as a toxicologist, I rely on dermal irritation studies, consumer patch testing, and ingredient profiles to assess potential risks. A company that makes this claim without data is leaving itself open to legal and consumer backlash.

Few terms are more widely misinterpreted than “non-toxic.” It implies that a product has zero risk at any exposure level—an impossible standard.

Consider a home fragrance product. If a company markets it as “non-toxic” without defining what it means, they’re taking a risk. Why? Because while the ingredients may be safe under normal use (emphasis on “normal”), inhalation at excessive levels could still cause mild irritation. A more accurate claim might be: “Formulated without known respiratory irritants” or “Meets industry safety standards for indoor air quality.” This level of precision protects both the brand and the consumer—a win for safety and credibility.

When claims aren’t adequately substantiated, the risks extend beyond regulatory fines. These risks include:

• Legal consequences: Regulatory bodies like the FDA, FTC, and EU regulators actively monitor misleading claims, issuing fines or product recalls.

• Reputation damage: Losing consumer trust can be far more costly than a fine.

• Consumer misuse: Overstating a product’s safety can lead people to use it in unintended ways—like assuming a “natural” cleaning spray is safe to ingest.

One well-documented example involves “formaldehyde-free” hair treatments. Some products were marketed as such, yet lab tests revealed that the ingredients released formaldehyde gas when exposed to heat. This resulted in health concerns for both consumers and salon workers, leading to lawsuits and regulatory action.

This is why precision matters. My role as a toxicologist isn’t just about saying “yes” or “no” to claims—it’s about making sure claims are accurate, transparent, and backed by science. Most brands genuinely want to be truthful in their claims, but staying competitive often leads to oversimplified or exaggerated messaging. 

From my perspective, here’s how companies can ensure their claims are scientifically sound and legally defensible:

• Engage with toxicologists/product safety experts at the product development stage.

• Invest in proper testing to strengthen claims, whether through in-vitro, in-vivo, or computational toxicology methods.

• Use precise language. If a product reduces fine lines but not deep wrinkles, say that. If it’s less irritating but not allergy-proof, be clear.

• Follow regulatory guidance. Different regions have different standards—what’s allowed in the U.S. may not fly in the EU.

• Educate marketing teams. Many claims controversies stem from well-intentioned marketing teams not knowing the nuances of toxicology.

Trust is at the core of claims substantiation. Brands that prioritize scientific validation over marketing hype build long-term credibility with consumers and regulators alike. As a toxicologist, my goal isn’t to stifle creativity—it’s to help brands make strong, truthful claims that hold up under scrutiny. When science and marketing work together, everyone benefits.

So the next time you see a product labeled “non-toxic” or “safe for all skin types,” ask yourself: What’s the science behind the statement? If the answer isn’t clear, it’s time to dig deeper.

If you work in product development, regulatory affairs, or marketing and want to strengthen your claims strategy, the right expertise can mean the difference between a claim that builds trust and one that invites legal trouble. On the other hand, if you’re a consumer, keep asking questions. Because in an era of buzzwords and branding, science remains the ultimate safety net.