Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Rapid growth in microbiome-oriented cosmetics has resulted in the increased use of bioactive compounds with prebiotic, probiotic, postbiotic and microbiome-friendly marketing claims. However, inconsistencies in terminology, formulation practices and regulatory requirements result in some products being launched with claims that are not adequately aligned with the scientific and performance characteristics of the ingredients. Analysis was conducted on 264 products that were launched between December 2024 and December 2025 across selected Latin American countries which stated prebiotic, probiotic, postbiotic and skin microbiome claims on the label. A surprising finding was the substantial terminology mismatch between label claims and ingredients used; only 163 products were found to be consistent, i.e., a prebiotic claim and prebiotic ingredient. The remaining 101 products showed various inconsistencies, including 43 products making prebiotic or probiotic claims that contain no relevant ingredients. We also identified potentially microbiome-disruptive preservatives and surfactants in products that are marketed as microbiome-friendly. This study has shown that there is a growing market for cosmetic products with ‘microbiome’ claims but also highlights that there are discrepancies between marketing claims and the ingredients used. Future development of products in this area should focus on accurate marketing terminology and ingredient choice (e.g., if you are claiming a ‘prebiotic’, then you should use a prebiotic ingredient in the product). Establishing harmonised definitions and validated methodologies and applying clear regulatory guidance across Brazil and the rest of Latin America would help with scientific credibility and consumer protection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arruda et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: