Find us on...
CTPA’s Caroline Rainsford, Director of Science, and Héloïse Prieur, Head of Communications and Marketing, reflect on the shared challenge of making scientific messaging understood, trusted and useful.
CTPA’s first Scientific Conference explored the theme “Aligning Science, Policy and Consumer Perception.” It brought together experts from across the scientific and communications fields to consider how evidence, regulatory decision-making and public understanding intersect, particularly at a time when audiences face information overload, fragmented sources and widespread misinformation. Following the event, Caroline Rainsford and Héloïse Prieur sat down to unpack some of the central questions raised at the CTPA event.
1. What are some key challenges shared by scientists and communications professionals?
- Turning complexity into clarity without losing accuracy.
Caroline Rainsford: Scientific evidence is very rarely black and white, and it depends on the quality of the data, the conditions under which studies were conducted, the weight of the available evidence and the degree of uncertainty that remains. During the CTPA Scientific Conference, Professor Carys Mitchelmore illustrated this very nicely with her talk about the current state of the science around the impact of UV filters on the marine environment. Legislative bans have not been based on the most appropriate evidence.
Additionally, the laws covering cosmetics and their ingredients interact in ways that are not quick to explain. Many cosmetic ingredient bans are driven by other pieces of hazard-based chemicals legislation that interact with the cosmetics regulation, which is risk-based. This means that even if a ban is based on a chemical’s ‘worst-case’ properties, which are not relevant to how it is used in cosmetics, sometimes this can lead to a ban in cosmetics. Explaining the reasons for the ban to consumers and why this doesn’t mean it is unsafe as a cosmetic ingredient can be very challenging. Recent examples include the professional nail ingredient TPO and several fragrance ingredients.
Heloise Prieur: When it comes to scientific communications about everyday products, a common challenge is that most audiences do not have specialist knowledge or unlimited time, nor should we expect them to. The difficulty is to find language that is accessible and memorable while remaining faithful to the science. This is particularly important because vivid or alarming claims are often easier to remember and easier to spread than a careful, evidence-based explanation. Our role is therefore to translate complexity without diluting it. This requires judgement. If we include every technical detail, the central message can and will be lost; if we simplify too far, we risk triggering assumptions that the evidence does not support.
- Building trust in the shadow of past and unrelated controversies
Heloise Prieur: We never communicate in a vacuum. Every message is developed and received within a wider context. When we communicate scientific information about cosmetics and personal care products, one might hope that the evidence will be assessed on its own merits. In reality, public understanding is also shaped by past controversies or assumptions carried over from unrelated sectors and the wider climate of trust in institutions, experts and industry. This is what communications experts referred sometimes to as the "halo effect". A concern may have little to do with the evidence immediately in front of us and much more to do with what an audience has previously seen, heard or experienced.
Messages from for-profit organisations can also begin at a trust disadvantage, which means communicators may have significant ground to regain before the specific issue at hand can even be considered. We need to recognise that context rather than dismiss it. Trust grows when we listen carefully, acknowledge legitimate questions and communicate consistently and constructively over time.
Caroline Rainsford: The cosmetics industry has incredibly rigorous safety processes behind all our ingredients and products, and this is what helps us to build trust. This is why it’s so important for our industry to communicate carefully and avoid reinforcing incorrect negative safety messages about our ingredients. It takes a long time to build trust, and a very short time to destroy it. It was fascinating to hear from an industry trade association and a regulator at our Scientific Conference about consumer perception of chemicals and their safety, and the importance of all actors working together to develop trust in consumer products and the robust legal frameworks covering their safety.
- Keeping pace with a faster and more fragmented information environment.
Caroline Rainsford: New scientific findings can travel widely before they have been set into context, or even correctly interpreted. Let’s take a scenario where a new scientific study investigates the impact of a large amount of a substance used in many industries, including as a cosmetic ingredient, on cells grown in a lab. The results of our fictional study are that the substance impacts ‘biomarkers’ such as gene or structural changes within the cells. Then, we see the results of this important, interesting and rich scientific study condensed to simply ‘this cosmetic ingredient causes cancer,’ which travels rapidly amongst consumers. This doesn’t consider the amount we would be exposed to from a cosmetic, how we would come into contact with this substance, the fact that our bodies are much more complicated than a single line of cells and have capacity to metabolise and excrete substances, and much more. Therefore, this conclusion is not correct. However, it is simple, memorable and very difficult to control after it has ‘left the lab’.
Heloise Prieur: Audiences now encounter information through search, social media, influencers, traditional media and AI-generated answers, often moving between several of these sources within minutes. The same news can appear in a short video, a headline, a discussion forum and an automated summary, gaining apparent credibility very quickly through repetition, even when the original source is weak.
The rapid development of Artificial Intelligence in the information and media space adds another layer of complexity to our work. AI tools can make complex information easier to access, but they can also reproduce inaccuracies, flatten nuance or present uncertain information with unwarranted confidence. This makes the availability of clear, authoritative and well-structured source material even more important. Communicators need to think not only about how people read content, but also about how that content may be summarised, recombined and surfaced by machines.
Communications teams need to monitor more channels than ever, understand how information travels and, crucially, continue building their skills as formats and technologies evolve. Importantly, this is not a challenge for industry alone. Health authorities, policymakers and scientific organisations also have an interest in countering scientific misinformation and helping people identify information sources they can trust. Some recent work and new initiatives CTPA is a part of show that we have opportunities to come together with other stakeholders to address viral trends and misinformation that disserve the public. I am thinking for instance about CTPA’s SkinCare Simplified guidance for parents, to support conversation with young people on age-appropriate ways to look after their skin, away from social media pressures; this was delveloped in partnerhsip with dermatologists and receive great support from our stakeholders. Or the newly launched “Digital messaging and misinformation Task Force” on UV Safety, which CTPA is a part of, a follow-up initiative to support the Recommendations from the Beauty, Hair and wellbeing APPG Report on UV Safety.
2. What can scientists and communicators do?
Heloise Prieur: In a world where misinformation and dangerous viral trends are mass-produced and travel at the speed of light, it is essential to understand and address the roots of the issue rather than merely responding to its symptoms by tackling each topic in isolation. Addressing an inaccurate post or headline matters, but it does not tackle, for instance, the uneven level of scientific understanding that can make misinformation persuasive in the first place. We should support scientific education wherever we can, through accessible resources, meaningful public engagement and partnerships. Government also has a strong interest in this work because the consequences extend far beyond any single sector, touching many areas of daily life, health and public policy.
We should also build more understanding of what constitute a reliable source of information, encourage critical thinking and support media literacy. This is something CTPA supports in many ways, for instance as one part of our work within the ICCR (International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation, where cosmetics regulatory authorities and trade associations cooperate to the benefit of consumer safety across multiple countries).
Listen with empathy, and communicate with confidence. The challenges highlighted above make listening, empathy and humility essential, a golden rule communications professionals are familiar with. We need to understand the questions people are really asking, acknowledge why a concern may feel credible and be open about what is known, what is uncertain and how conclusions are reached. But humility should not be confused with hesitation. Clear, calm confidence matters too, particularly when misinformation is expressed with absolute certainty.
Also, commit to building credibility for the long term. Very importantly, trust is not built through one campaign, one statement or one successful response. It requires continuous effort and investment: being present before an issue becomes a crisis, communicating consistently, demonstrating over time why we are a credible, responsible voice, through consistency between words and actions.
Caroline Rainsford: Bring communications insight into the scientific conversation early. As scientists, we are usually focussed on facts, evidence and objectivity. However, when this collides with public concern and emotions, we don’t usually see a good result. It’s therefore critical for scientists to understand that public perception is shaped not only by facts, but also by language, experience, identity, values and emotion. Working with our communications colleagues is a good way to sense-check how our messages will be received and shape them for maximum impact.
The workshops at CTPA’s Scientific Conference which focussed on crafting engaging stories based on science -for example when communicating about safety or product performance - clearly demonstrated the importance of making evidence accessible. Once we unlock this part, other benefits such as building trust and being transparent will naturally follow.
There is also a clear role for Government in helping to build scientific literacy and combat misinformation. No single organisation or initiative can rebuild trust or counter misinformation alone. Taking an example from a different sector and thinking about initiatives in healthcare such as vaccines or smoking cessation clearly demonstrates that progress depends on consistent collaboration between Government, health authorities, scientists, industry and communicators. Each actor brings different expertise, but are all working towards the same goal of helping people make informed choices.
- The CTPA Scientific Conference was held on 6 October 2026. See press release
- CTPA’s website www.thefactsabout.co.uk provides clear, brand-neutral information on cosmetics and personal care products, including cosmetic science, products and ingredients safety, sustainability, wellbeing and usage, allowing the public to make informed, myth-free choices about everyday products.
