When it comes to supplements to stave off the effects of ageing, New Scientist columnist Graham Lawton is a hardened sceptic. In this column, he does not try to sell anyone on the fantasy that a pill can rewind time. Instead, he points to some evidence that a few supplements can improve biological age as we grow older. That distinction matters, because “feels younger” marketing is not the same thing as measurable shifts in biological age.

Lawton is careful to separate what sounds plausible from what shows up in studies. The core idea of his argument is straightforward: most anti-ageing supplement hype does not survive contact with real evidence, but there are a few cases where he finds some signal that biological age can improve over time. In other words, if you are looking for an evidence-based shortlist, his conclusion is not “nothing works.” It is “very few things work.”

That framing is useful for executives because the supplement industry runs on incentives that can overwhelm science. Companies benefit when they can tell a simple story about “anti-ageing,” because the audience is broad and the emotional payoff is immediate. But biological age is not an emotion metric. It is the kind of outcome that tends to require careful measurement, clear study design, and time horizons that are hard to compress into a marketing campaign. Lawton’s scepticism is effectively a warning light: if a supplement brand claims it targets ageing itself, the next question should be whether the evidence is actually moving biological age indicators, not just brand sentiment.

There is also a regulatory and compliance reality underneath this conversation. In most jurisdictions, supplements occupy a space where claims are often constrained, and where the burden of proof can land differently than it does with prescription drugs. That does not automatically mean supplements are worthless. It means claims can move faster than evidence, especially when companies lean on general language. When Lawton says he is a hardened sceptic but still finds evidence for a few, he is implicitly doing the diligence that regulation often cannot enforce uniformly. The signal comes from the studies, not the packaging.

For boards and investors, this matters because “anti-ageing” is a category where the surface area for risk is large. If you fund or acquire a supplement company built on broad promises, you inherit reputational risk when the evidence does not align with the claim. You also inherit commercial risk, because customers are increasingly aware that many products are built around biomarkers, generic health benefits, or theoretical mechanisms rather than demonstrated shifts in biological age. Lawton’s column pushes the conversation away from sweeping promises and toward measurable outcomes that can be checked.

There is a second-order implication here for strategy. If only a few supplements show evidence for improving biological age, that can shape how a company chooses candidates for development or partnership. It can also shape how pricing and positioning are defended. A brand that can only claim “anti-ageing” broadly will struggle to build durable differentiation. A brand that can point to specific evidence tied to biological age has a better case for both customer trust and long-term investor confidence.

It is worth noting that Lawton’s conclusion does not turn the column into a victory lap for the supplement sector. The piece still begins from scepticism, meaning the baseline assumption is caution. The “some evidence” framing implies that the evidence is selective and not universally persuasive across the category. For executives, that should influence how they interpret early-stage data, how they request study details, and how they avoid overpromising based on preliminary findings. The easiest way to lose trust is to stretch an evidence-based claim into an absolute one.

Ultimately, the stakes are about credibility. Ageing is a market that attracts both genuine science efforts and aggressive marketing. Lawton’s stance, as presented in this New Scientist column, gives decision-makers a cleaner benchmark: look for evidence tied to biological age improvements, accept that only a few may meet that bar, and treat the rest of the category as a field where hype often outruns results. If you are evaluating supplement investments, partnerships, or product claims, his message is a practical filter. It narrows the field before you spend more time, money, and attention chasing the many promises that do not cash out in biological age outcomes.