THE CASE
About homeopathy I wrote:
Well, I was wrong, there is a whole industry that was specifically designed to circumvent as many consumer protection laws as possible.
About ten years ago the word "cosmeceutical" was popularised. The intention was to give cosmetics the scientific respectability of pharmaceuticals by using a semantic trick. Cosmeceuticals are cosmetics that the manufacturers claim have drug-like benefits. Examples include products that claim to reverse skin anti-aging, prevent or cure wrinkles, or reverse hair-loss. Such products are labelled with claims that superficially seem specific and credible, but on close examination are often quite meaningless.
For example, a hair product may say "makes your hair 3 times stronger". To a normal person this means that on average, before treatment, a strand of hair will support a given weight, and after treatment the same hair would support 3 times this weight.
To a cosmetic company this claim means something very, very different. A number of volunteers are paid to try the product, then asked their opinion. In this case 3 times as many users of the product thought their hair was stronger as opposed to weaker. They then claim "makes your hair 3 times stronger" By using semantics instead of science the advertisers are presenting a subjective opinion as an objective fact.
This method is also used to "quantify" essentially unquantifiable positive or negative attributes like sheen, smoothness, frizziness, vibrancy, radiance or plumpness.
Remember as Benjamin Disraeli (not Mark Twain) said:
Decide for yourself which category this behaviour belongs to.
In most jurisdictions cosmetics and cosmeceuticals are tested for safety, but there is no corresponding testing of efficacy. In other words there are no requirements to prove that the preparations actually live up to the manufacturer's claims.
This brings me directly to the concept of "Angel Dusting". Cosmeceutical manufacturers are very fond of putting sub-therapeutic amounts of active substances in preparations then carefully wording the associated literature, making sure that it tells the truth. They say this preparation contains "ingredient X". They also say that "ingredient X" is good for treating "condition Y". But what they carefully don't claim is that their product will treat "condition Y", because it can't. There is simply not enough "ingredient X" in it. This neatly skips around all sorts of regulative hurdles in many jurisdictions. Hey! does this remind you of homeopathy?
Attendees at the 2008 annual meeting of the the Australasian College of Dermatologists were told that the multi-national skincare companies are discouraged from testing their products in scientific trials, because if they products actually worked they might be reclassified from cosmetics to prescription drugs. So basically these companies are trying to have two bob each way. As the CEO of the college Dr John Flynn says, products that are truly effective are usually prescription only.
The meeting was also told that sunscreens are the only ingredients that actually work to prevent aging. Consumers are therefore allowing themselves to be ripped off by paying hundreds of dollars for useless products. The best way to treat your skin, is a non-soap cleanser followed by an application of sunscreen each morning - and that's it.
The February 2008 edition of Cosmos magazine put it quite neatly:
MY VERDICT
If the claims for a product seem too good to be true, they almost certainly are. Cosmeceuticals are often homeopathic style products manufactured by multinational companies.
Go to your local pharmacy. Walk quickly past all the Clarins, L'Oreal, Estee Lauder and Clinique products (notice how they always have French names no matter where they are based). Buy a big tub of sorbolene cream, preferably without glycerine, as glycerine is a false moisturiser. Then buy bottle of non-soap cleanser manufactured by a reputable company, if in doubt always choose the one with the least number of ingredients. This way you will be able to look after your skin properly for six months for less than $20. Now spend the savings on good quality sunscreens.
About homeopathy I wrote:
"It is hard to think of any other group of products that so successfully avoids the scrutiny of consumer protection legislation."
Well, I was wrong, there is a whole industry that was specifically designed to circumvent as many consumer protection laws as possible.
About ten years ago the word "cosmeceutical" was popularised. The intention was to give cosmetics the scientific respectability of pharmaceuticals by using a semantic trick. Cosmeceuticals are cosmetics that the manufacturers claim have drug-like benefits. Examples include products that claim to reverse skin anti-aging, prevent or cure wrinkles, or reverse hair-loss. Such products are labelled with claims that superficially seem specific and credible, but on close examination are often quite meaningless.
For example, a hair product may say "makes your hair 3 times stronger". To a normal person this means that on average, before treatment, a strand of hair will support a given weight, and after treatment the same hair would support 3 times this weight.
To a cosmetic company this claim means something very, very different. A number of volunteers are paid to try the product, then asked their opinion. In this case 3 times as many users of the product thought their hair was stronger as opposed to weaker. They then claim "makes your hair 3 times stronger" By using semantics instead of science the advertisers are presenting a subjective opinion as an objective fact.
This method is also used to "quantify" essentially unquantifiable positive or negative attributes like sheen, smoothness, frizziness, vibrancy, radiance or plumpness.
Remember as Benjamin Disraeli (not Mark Twain) said:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Decide for yourself which category this behaviour belongs to.
In most jurisdictions cosmetics and cosmeceuticals are tested for safety, but there is no corresponding testing of efficacy. In other words there are no requirements to prove that the preparations actually live up to the manufacturer's claims.
This brings me directly to the concept of "Angel Dusting". Cosmeceutical manufacturers are very fond of putting sub-therapeutic amounts of active substances in preparations then carefully wording the associated literature, making sure that it tells the truth. They say this preparation contains "ingredient X". They also say that "ingredient X" is good for treating "condition Y". But what they carefully don't claim is that their product will treat "condition Y", because it can't. There is simply not enough "ingredient X" in it. This neatly skips around all sorts of regulative hurdles in many jurisdictions. Hey! does this remind you of homeopathy?
Attendees at the 2008 annual meeting of the the Australasian College of Dermatologists were told that the multi-national skincare companies are discouraged from testing their products in scientific trials, because if they products actually worked they might be reclassified from cosmetics to prescription drugs. So basically these companies are trying to have two bob each way. As the CEO of the college Dr John Flynn says, products that are truly effective are usually prescription only.
The meeting was also told that sunscreens are the only ingredients that actually work to prevent aging. Consumers are therefore allowing themselves to be ripped off by paying hundreds of dollars for useless products. The best way to treat your skin, is a non-soap cleanser followed by an application of sunscreen each morning - and that's it.
The February 2008 edition of Cosmos magazine put it quite neatly:
So it's not just consumers being left in the dark. Not even scientists know what these products actually do. The cosmeceutical industry operates outside of accepted scientific methodology. The in-house studies of cosmetic companies have to be taken with a grain of salt, and the scientific literature that does exist doesn't seem to address the fundamental questions: do the active ingredients penetrate human skin? Do they do it in the mixtures found in creams? What concentrations do they reach? What effects do they have when they get there?But help may be on the way, our drug regulator the TGA has put these purveyors of half truths on notice. It has issued a warning that specious claims such as "scientifically tested "and "clinically proven" should not be used unless there is real evidence based research to back them up. Thank goodness and about time!
MY VERDICT
If the claims for a product seem too good to be true, they almost certainly are. Cosmeceuticals are often homeopathic style products manufactured by multinational companies.
Go to your local pharmacy. Walk quickly past all the Clarins, L'Oreal, Estee Lauder and Clinique products (notice how they always have French names no matter where they are based). Buy a big tub of sorbolene cream, preferably without glycerine, as glycerine is a false moisturiser. Then buy bottle of non-soap cleanser manufactured by a reputable company, if in doubt always choose the one with the least number of ingredients. This way you will be able to look after your skin properly for six months for less than $20. Now spend the savings on good quality sunscreens.
0 comments:
Post a Comment