Collagen: beauty miracle or uncomfortable truth?

Collagen is everywhere. From powders stirred into morning coffee to capsules, drinks and beauty supplements promising firmer skin, fewer wrinkles, stronger nails and healthier joints, it has become one of the wellness industry’s biggest success stories.

The message is appealing: take a daily supplement, invest in your future skin and help your body maintain the collagen it naturally loses as it ages.

But there is another side to this increasingly lucrative industry — one that receives far less attention on social media.

Behind the glossy packaging and carefully crafted promises are questions about the strength of the scientific evidence, the influence of commercial funding on research, animal welfare, deforestation and the impact of global animal-skin supply chains on vulnerable communities.

Some collagen is produced from animal materials that would otherwise be discarded. That can sound like a sensible use of resources. But calling something a by-product does not automatically make its production ethical or environmentally harmless.

And when the benefits being sold to consumers remain uncertain, it is worth asking a bigger question: what is the true cost of chasing better skin?

1. Does collagen supplementation actually work?

Collagen is the most abundant protein in the human body. It helps provide structure to skin, bones, tendons, cartilage and other connective tissues. Our natural collagen production changes as we age, while factors such as ultraviolet exposure and smoking can contribute to its breakdown.

This biological role is not in question. The more important question is whether swallowing collagen peptides in a supplement meaningfully improves the skin or joints of a healthy person.

The industry often makes the process sound straightforward: take collagen, absorb it, send it to the skin and rebuild what has been lost. Human biology is more complicated than that. Digested collagen is broken down into peptides and amino acids, which the body uses in a range of ways. Taking a collagen supplement does not mean that it travels directly to your face and becomes new skin collagen.

Some clinical trials have reported improvements in measures such as skin hydration and elasticity. However, positive findings do not automatically establish that a product delivers a meaningful, visible or lasting benefit in everyday life.

A particularly important systematic review and meta-analysis, published in The American Journal of Medicine in 2025, examined 23 randomised controlled trials involving 1,474 participants. Although the overall analysis suggested improvements in skin hydration, elasticity and wrinkles, the researchers found a different picture when they examined the studies by funding source and quality.

Studies without pharmaceutical-company funding did not show significant benefits for those skin outcomes. Nor did the subgroup of higher-quality studies. The authors concluded that the clinical evidence did not support using collagen supplements to prevent or treat skin ageing.

Read the 2025 systematic review in The American Journal of Medicine.

This does not prove that every collagen supplement is ineffective, nor does it mean that every study reporting a benefit is wrong. It does mean that the headline-grabbing promises deserve more scrutiny than they often receive.

What about joints?

The evidence for joint health is not identical to the evidence for skin. Some reviews of trials in people with knee osteoarthritis have reported improvements in pain or function following collagen supplementation. However, study quality, products, doses and outcomes vary, and further robust research is needed.

It would therefore be misleading to say that there is no evidence whatsoever for any possible benefit. Equally, it is premature to treat collagen as a proven solution for everyone experiencing joint discomfort.

The sensible conclusion is that the evidence is mixed and depends on what outcome is being investigated. Marketing claims can sound much more certain than the science warrants.

2. When the industry funds the evidence

There is another issue worth considering: who pays for the research?

Clinical trials cost money. In the supplement industry, manufacturers have a commercial interest in demonstrating that their products work. That does not automatically invalidate a study, but it makes transparency, independent replication and careful assessment of potential conflicts of interest essential.

The 2025 review is particularly relevant because it examined both the quality of the trials and their funding. Its findings raise a legitimate concern: the positive results seen across all studies were not reproduced in the higher-quality studies or those without pharmaceutical-company funding.

This is why a headline such as “Study proves collagen reduces wrinkles” tells us very little on its own. We need to know how the study was designed, how many people took part, what was measured, how large the effects were, who funded the work and whether independent researchers have replicated the findings.

There is also a difference between a statistically significant result and a benefit that people can genuinely see or feel.

When an industry stands to make substantial profits from a particular claim, independent research becomes especially important. Consumers should not have to navigate a maze of sponsored studies, influencer partnerships and impressive-looking before-and-after photographs to work out whether a product is worth buying.

The question is not simply whether a study reports a benefit. It is how reliable that evidence is — and whether it stands up when commercial interests are taken out of the picture.

3. The environmental cost hidden behind the word “by-product”

Most familiar collagen supplements are made from animal-derived materials, commonly cattle, pigs or fish. Manufacturers often describe these ingredients as by-products of meat, leather or fish processing.

Using material from an existing supply chain can reduce waste. However, the environmental impact depends on where the animals came from, how they were raised, how their materials were processed and whether the demand for these products helps make intensive animal production more profitable.

A major investigation published in 2023 by The Guardian, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and partner organisations examined the links between the collagen industry and cattle supply chains in Brazil.

The investigation found that cattle from farms associated with deforestation had entered supply chains connected to international collagen production. It also documented links between the wider industry, forest destruction and threats to Indigenous communities.

Some of the collagen traced through the investigation was linked to products sold by major supplement brands. The findings raised serious questions about the ability of consumers to know whether their collagen had been sourced responsibly.

Read the investigation by The Guardian.

The issue is particularly significant in Brazil, where cattle ranching is a major driver of deforestation. Cattle can move through several farms and intermediaries before reaching a slaughterhouse, making it difficult to trace their origins without robust monitoring throughout the supply chain.

The investigation also challenged the comforting assumption that collagen is environmentally benign simply because it comes from material left over after meat production. Animal skins and other non-meat products can generate significant commercial value for processors. The wider market for these materials is therefore part of an economic system, not necessarily just a way of disposing of waste.

What about JBS?

JBS is one of the major Brazilian meat-processing companies that has faced scrutiny over cattle sourcing and deforestation risks in the wider livestock industry. Its name is relevant to discussions about traceability, land use and the responsibilities of large meat processors.

However, it is important to be precise: evidence of environmental risks in a company's broader cattle supply chain does not, on its own, prove that every collagen product associated with that company comes from a deforested area. Nor should we assume that every collagen brand has the same supply chain.

The wider point remains: if animal-derived ingredients pass through complex networks of farms, slaughterhouses, processors and manufacturers, credible traceability is essential. Consumers should be able to find out where ingredients originate and what safeguards are in place to prevent deforestation and human-rights abuses.

At present, the supply-chain questions raised by the 2023 investigation show why vague assurances about sustainability are not enough.

4. Donkey hides: the human cost behind another collagen-related trade

The environmental impact of cattle-derived collagen is only one part of the story. Another animal-hide trade raises serious concerns about animal welfare and the livelihoods of families in parts of Africa.

Donkey skin is used to produce ejiao, a gelatin traditionally used in Chinese medicine and also incorporated into some foods and beauty-related products. This is a distinct supply chain from the bovine collagen commonly found in supplements, so it is important not to suggest that all collagen powders contain donkey-derived ingredients.

Nevertheless, the global demand for donkey hides demonstrates how the commercial value of animal skins can have consequences far beyond the finished product.

Donkeys are not simply a source of raw material. In many rural communities, they are essential working animals. They help transport water, food, crops, firewood and goods, often supporting livelihoods where alternatives are unaffordable or unavailable.

Women in particular may depend on donkeys for tasks that would otherwise require hours of additional physical labour. When an animal is stolen or lost, the consequences can ripple through an entire household. Work becomes harder, income can be threatened and children may have to help with extra responsibilities.

A 2025 report by The Guardian explored how the international trade in donkey skins affects women and girls, including through theft and the loss of animals that families rely on for daily life.

Read: How the global trade in donkey skins threatens the lives of women and girls.

This is not simply an animal-welfare issue. It is also about poverty, gender inequality and the resilience of communities that have few resources to absorb the loss of a valuable working animal.

A vast seizure in Hong Kong

The scale of the trade was brought into sharp focus in October 2025, when Hong Kong Customs reported seizing 150 tonnes of suspected smuggled donkey skin in five shipping containers declared as carrying frozen food.

The seizure formed part of a wider investigation into suspected smuggling. It does not establish the origin of every hide or prove that the material was destined for a particular beauty brand, but it illustrates the scale and complexity of international donkey-skin trafficking.

Read the Hong Kong Customs announcement.

The trade has become a concern for animal-welfare organisations and governments because demand can outstrip sustainable local supply, encouraging theft, poorly regulated slaughter and cross-border trafficking. In February 2024, the African Union backed a continent-wide moratorium on the slaughter of donkeys for their skins.

When we see a beauty product promising radiance or youthful skin, we rarely see the people and animals further down the supply chain. But their lives can be directly affected by the demand for ingredients that are marketed as luxury wellness products.

5. Can an ingredient be a by-product and still be unethical?

This is perhaps the most important question in the entire debate.

There is a legitimate argument for making better use of materials generated by existing food and agricultural systems. Using a genuine by-product may avoid some waste, and not every animal-derived ingredient is automatically linked to deforestation, illegal trade or human-rights abuses.

But the label by-product should not end the conversation.

If an ingredient becomes sufficiently valuable, it can help increase the commercial value of the industry that produces it. That does not mean collagen demand alone causes deforestation or animal slaughter; those systems have multiple drivers. It does mean that calling a material waste does not remove the need to examine the economic incentives surrounding it.

Ethical sourcing should involve more than a statement on a website. It requires meaningful traceability, credible environmental safeguards, attention to animal welfare and respect for the people whose livelihoods may be affected.

For consumers, this information can be difficult to find. A jar or tub of collagen powder may list its animal source without offering meaningful details about where the animals were raised, how the raw material was obtained or what environmental protections apply.

The more complex the supply chain, the more important independent verification becomes.

6. The beauty industry’s promise of control

Collagen also raises a wider question about the way beauty is marketed.

Ageing is a normal biological process, yet it is increasingly presented as a problem that needs to be managed through a growing collection of powders, pills, drinks and treatments. The suggestion is that if we buy the right product, we can regain control over our skin and delay the visible signs of getting older.

That message can be powerful, particularly for women who have spent years being told that wrinkles, loss of firmness and other natural changes are flaws to correct.

The wellness industry often combines scientific language with aspirational marketing. A genuine biological fact — that collagen plays a vital role in the body — can become the foundation for a much bigger commercial promise: that taking a particular product will restore what time has taken away.

But the fact that our bodies need collagen does not automatically mean that a collagen supplement is necessary, effective or ethically sourced.

Before buying, it is worth stepping back from the promise and asking some basic questions:

• What human evidence supports the specific benefit being advertised?

• Are the studies independent, well-designed and replicated?

• Does the brand disclose potential conflicts of interest?

• Can the company trace the ingredient to its source?

• What does it say about animal welfare, deforestation and the communities involved?

• Is the likely benefit meaningful enough to justify the cost and the environmental footprint?

These are not anti-science questions. They are exactly the questions a science-led industry should welcome.

7. A different approach to skin health

At Ermana, we believe healthy skin is about looking after the skin you have, rather than treating ageing as something that must be defeated.

That means paying attention to the everyday factors that support skin health: sun protection, adequate sleep, a balanced diet, not smoking, managing stress where possible and using skincare that suits your skin. It also means being wary of products that promise dramatic results without convincing evidence.

Our approach to skincare is rooted in simplicity. We make plant-oil-based, water-free skincare in small batches in Glasgow, with an emphasis on nourishing the skin and avoiding unnecessary complexity in a routine.

That philosophy does not mean that every plant-based product is automatically sustainable, or that natural ingredients are always better than synthetic ones. Ethical sourcing and environmental responsibility still matter. But it does mean we question the idea that better skin always requires another product, another supplement or another purchase.

You do not have to buy your way out of ageing. Nor should you feel that your skin is failing because it changes over time.

Final thoughts: look beyond the label

Collagen is not a simple story of a miracle ingredient that either works or does not. Some studies report benefits, particularly for certain joint outcomes and measures of skin hydration or elasticity. But the evidence for skin ageing is contested, and the 2025 analysis showing that positive findings were concentrated in industry-funded and lower-quality studies deserves serious attention.

Alongside those scientific questions, investigations into cattle-derived collagen have raised concerns about deforestation, supply-chain transparency and human rights. The donkey-skin trade reveals a different set of ethical problems, with consequences for animal welfare and families who depend on donkeys for their livelihoods.

These issues do not prove that every collagen supplement is unethical or that every product is ineffective. They do show why consumers need more than a persuasive label and a celebrity endorsement before deciding that a product deserves their money.

If the evidence for a beauty benefit is uncertain, and the sourcing behind an ingredient may carry environmental or human costs, it is reasonable to ask whether the product is worth buying at all.

Perhaps the most useful beauty habit is not adding another supplement to our morning routine. Perhaps it is becoming more questioning about what we are sold, who benefits from our purchases and what remains hidden behind the promise.

Healthy skin deserves evidence, not hype. And ethical choices deserve transparency, not just marketing.

Photo by Florian GIORGIO on Unsplash