Neurocosmetics Claims: What Brands Can (and Can't) Say

As consumers increasingly view skincare as an extension of self-care, expectations are shifting beyond visible results toward experiences that support relaxation, balance, and emotional wellbeing.

Neurocosmetics reflect this evolution. Often described as a mind-body approach to beauty, they explore the connection between the skin and the nervous system – commonly referred to as the "skin-brain axis". The promise is compelling: skincare that not only improves how skin looks, but also how it feels, turning daily routines into moments of comfort, ritual, and restoration.

Yet, as interest grows, so does complexity. Claims that reference stress, mood, or neurological pathways sit at the intersection of innovation and regulation. While consumers are eager for products that "do more", cosmetic claims in this space are closely scrutinized, with clear limits on what brands are allowed to say. Understanding which neurocosmetic claims are acceptable (and which ones to steer clear of!), is essential for brands operating in this rapidly evolving category.

The Regulatory Reality: Where neurocosmetic claims meet their limits

In the EU and UK, neurocosmetic claims are governed by a well-defined regulatory framework designed to protect consumers from misleading or overstated benefits. The EU Cosmetic Products Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, together with Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 on common criteria for claims, requires that all cosmetic claims be truthful, evidence-based, and non-misleading. Following Brexit, the UK Cosmetics Regulation (UKCR) remains closely aligned with this framework. Under these regulations, cosmetic products must not claim to treat, prevent, or cure diseases, nor imply characteristics or functions they do not have. This is particularly relevant for neurocosmetics: even when products interact with skin nerve receptors, their action must remain local and superficial, and must not be presented as medicinal, neurological, or psychological in nature.

This is where neurocosmetic claims can quickly become complex. The category often sits close to medical or psychological language; the difference between a compliant claim and a problematic one frequently comes down to wording rather than the ingredient itself.

High-risk zone: Neurotransmitter- and hormone-adjacent claims

Claims such as "boosts endorphins", "reduces cortisol levels", or "balances stress hormones" may sound scientifically compelling, but they imply systemic biological effects and can suggest drug-like action, triggering immediate regulatory concern. Regulators push back on this language because neurotransmitters and hormones are associated with whole-body functions, not cosmetic outcomes. Safer alternatives focus on cosmetic framing, such as "helps protect skin from stress-related effects", "supports skin comfort under stress", or "inspired by neuroscience research". 

Safe & Strategic: Sensory and ritual-based claims

To stay compliant with regulations, sensory and ritual-based claims offer brands a powerful, lower-risk way to communicate emotional value. Claims centered on skin feel and experience, such as "soothing sensory experience", "cooling texture designed to comfort the skin", or "supports mindful skincare rituals", align closely with EU guidance, reflect how consumers actually experience neurocosmetics, and are easier to substantiate. In neurocosmetics, the science may be advanced, but success ultimately depends on keeping claim language firmly within cosmetic boundaries. 

Evidence still matters: Substantiating neurocosmetic claims

As with all cosmetic products, neurocosmetic claims must be supported by appropriate and relevant evidence. Depending on the nature of the claim, this. may include in-vitro studies, clinical testing, instrumental measurements, or consumer perception data, all of which must be documented and available for review. Crucially, the evidence must correspond directly to the specific claim being made – not just to the ingredient in isolation, but to the finished cosmetic product. While some brands are increasingly exploring advanced, neuroscience-inspired validation methods to support innovation, such approaches do not expand what can legally be claimed. They may strengthen scientific understanding, but they do not justify overreaching language that implies medical, neurological, or psychological effects. In neurocosmetics, robust substantiation builds trust, but only when claims remain firmly within cosmetic boundaries. 

Conclusion: Innovation thrives within clear boundaries

Neurocosmetics represent an exciting evolution in beauty, offering brands the opportunity to connect skincare with emotional wellbeing and sensorial experiences. Far from stifling creativity, regulatory frameworks provide clear boundaries that help ensure claims are truthful, evidence-based, and consumer-friendly. Brands that understand these limits can innovate with confidence, build long-term trust, and create products that resonate both scientifically and emotionally. In this space, the most successful neurocosmetic brands aren't those that make the boldest promises, but those that communicate the right benefits in a responsible, credible way.

Stay ahead of the latest developments in this fast-moving category with our dedicated Neurocosmetics Hub, where we bring together news, insights, and resources on all things neurocosmetics.