Vitamin F: The Latest in Skincare?
CHMSN member Dr Lauren Alex O'Hagan takes a look at vitamins in skincare
In the last few years, Vitamin F has become the focus of much attention in the skincare industry. A 2019 article in fashion magazine Vogue described it as an “unsung skincare hero” that “helps to keep the skin’s lipid barrier strong and to deliver a healthy-looking complexion.” Across Instagram and TikTok, influencers followed suit, hailing Vitamin F as “the hottest new skincare product” and even a skincare “superhero” and “saviour.”
But this is nothing new. The craze around Vitamin F in skincare, in fact, has its origins in the 1930s, shortly after it was first discovered by scientists.
Despite its name, vitamin F is not actually a vitamin in the traditional sense of the word. Rather, it is comprised of two essential omega-3 and omega-6 fats – alpha-linolenic acid and linoleic acid – which play a major role in the normal growth and function of the skin. As the body is unable to produce vitamin F on its own, beauty manufacturers recognised a lucrative opportunity with the discovery, swiftly adding it to their products and widely promoting its restorative abilities. In some cases, products already contained vitamin F – albeit unknowingly – but equipped with this new knowledge, brands now made the vitamin front and centre of their advertising campaigns.
By the 1930s, the beauty industry was firmly established thanks to a number of interconnected factors, such as the rise of Hollywood, the changing role of women, an increase in life expectancy and growing insecurities about ageing. Those who failed to ‘take part’ in this new beauty culture risked social stigma and were seen as ‘failing’ their ‘feminine’ duty.
Modernity was vital to the beauty industry, with the latest scientific and technological developments acknowledged in the design, distribution and ingredients of products. It was also at the heart of the rhetoric of advertisements. It is no surprise then that the discovery of vitamins represented a perfect way for beauty manufacturers to exploit science.
Historian Rima D. Apple describes the 1920s and 1930s as a time of ‘vitamania’. Following their discovery after experiments into the biochemical nature of the relationship between nutrition and health, vitamins were widely reported on in the press as a new wonder substance and were the subject of many articles, public lectures and advertisements for both food and cosmetics.
This meant that most of the newspaper-reading public encountered vitamins daily or had a basic knowledge of what they were, even if they did not fully understand them. For consumers, the duality of vitamins was alluring: they were mystical and magical, yet also represented the epitome of modern science and rationality.
In Sweden, the beauty manufacturer Mitzi was at the forefront of this craze, producing vitamin F creams, powders and lipsticks throughout the 1930s. The brand was owned by Henrik Gahns AB, founded in Uppsala in 1867 as an ink producer and, later, soap and disinfectant manufacturer. By the 1920s, Gahns had expanded into beauty, producing a range of popular brands from Faréna and Lanolin to Maniol and SECINO.
Mitzi’s advertisements were keen to emphasise the novelty of Vitamin F in their headings, with readers informed that this “new discovery” had the “biggest meaning” for skincare and would guarantee “younger, healthier skin” and “beauty success” for women. Additionally, no other cream on the market could make the skin so fresh and so young in such a short space of time. Such emotive language presented Mitzi as a rational skincare choice for women, not just selling them a product but also a set of lifestyle aspirations.
These lifestyle aspirations were accentuated by the accompanying images in advertisements, which capitalised on the popularity of Hollywood starlets like Mary Pickford, Marlene Dietrich and Sweden’s own Greta Garbo. Young women with short blonde waves, pencil-thin eyebrows, made-up eyes and lipstick stare coquettishly at the reader, sometimes accompanied by handsome men in tuxedos. They look confident and self-assured with their flawless skin, happy to be objects of gaze – the result of Mitzi’s fabled ingredient: vitamin F.
Across all advertisements, the copy outlines the ‘science’ behind Mitzi, informing consumers that Dr A.J. Pacini of New York and M.I. Shepherd of Chicago have recently discovered vitamin F, which “works wonders” on the skin. The naming of two scientific figures gives the product credibility, which is furthered by a simplified explanation of what vitamin F does and how Mitzi can help give users “the same proportion of vitamin F as in healthy skin.”
Advertisements note that, without the proper regulation of vitamin F, the skin’s glands cannot function properly, which can cause “wrinkles, cracks and blemishes” for those with dry skin and “blackheads and pimples” for those with oily skin. Mitzi, therefore, provides the skin with the “right level” of vitamin F to regulate the glands and is guaranteed to make skin fresher and younger “after just a few treatments.”
In other cases, explanations are more technical, yet their bamboozling buzzwords give women little room for manoeuvre and convince them that the cream will have a transformative effect on their lives. Advertisements state that Mitzi contains essential “biochemical constituents” like “cholesterol and lecithin,” as well as a “special component”: orthocerin. A Google search yields no explanation of what exactly orthocerin is, but according to the advertisements, it is a “worthy vitamin durable component” that provides the “same replacement as natural cells” and “penetrates deep into the dermis,” bringing “new life” to cells and glands.”
Another core aspect of all Mitzi advertisements is details of a product test that they ran with a group of consumers. According to one 1937 advertisement:
We got 50 women to try Mitzi day cream along with eight other brands. 32 placed Mitzi at the very top – a phenomenal result! You must try the cream for yourself and make up your own mind!
No details are provided of how this study was carried out, nor how the women or competing brands were selected. There is also no information on the extent to which the vitamin F content of Mitzi played a role in this result. Nonetheless, it sounds convincing to have a ‘scientifically’ conducted study to support the product’s use. Breaking down the figures, however, 64% (32/50) positioning Mitzi in first place is not, in fact, a very strong indication of its popularity.
Mitzi advertisements also frequently promote, what they call, the “three creams method,” which is supposedly based on a “scientific foundation.” The method consists of a three-step routine of cleansing, toning and moisturising, using a cold cream, skin nourisher and day cream, each with vitamin F and each offering “naturally firm, smooth and sleek” skin. Again, the descriptions are replete with scientific language:
COLD CREAM: which cleanses the skin without being absorbed, frees it from dirt and dust, loosens up the pores and makes them receptive for nourishment.
SKIN NOURISHER: which fattens the subcutaneous cells and glands, penetrates the surface, washes out and gives new life to the tissue, takes away wrinkles, blemishes and cracks.
DAY CREAM: which protects the skin, rapidly penetrates and settles like a matte film over the face and gives it a wonderful underlayer for rouge and powder.
By the 1940s, the novelty of vitamins had started to wear off. Keen to stay on the cutting edge of trends, Mitzi dropped any references to vitamin F in its advertisements, although their creams still contained the essential fatty acids. Instead, the brand began to turn its attention to the growing sunscreen market and expand its make-up range, surviving until 1964 when Gahns made cuts to its product lines. Not only does this abrupt shift highlight the fickleness of brands and the arbitrariness of certain terms, but also how consumers are led to understand commodities through marketing discourses. This, in turn, motivates them to buy a product, believing that they will obtain the lifestyle and cultural values that it promises.
While vitamin F undoubtedly holds numerous benefits for the skin, these benefits were – and continue to be – overexaggerated in advertisements, with the substance containing an air of mystery and held up as a panacea for skin complaints. Furthermore, despite its clear scientific rationale around moisture retention, inflammation reduction and skin protection, it is the beauty aspect that remains emphasised, with vitamin F creams promising all kinds of lifestyle aspirations.
Additionally, despite vitamin F creams being proven to have particular benefits for those suffering from acne, eczema and psoriasis, such individuals are notably absent from advertisements. Fresh-faced models are still preferred, thereby giving a false impression of its effects. If vitamin F is really as beneficial as it is purported to be for the skin, then brands should make a conscious effort to be more inclusive, using models in their advertisements that reflect real women and a range of skin types.
