Should Cosmetics Be Regulated Less?

This is a special guest post by SoapyGuy. You can get more cosmetic science insights from SoapyGuy by following him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/soapyguy

As consumers demand increasing efficacy from cosmetic products, companies are faced with creating products that approach closer and closer to what the FDA would consider drugs. While some have suggested the FDA needs to loosen its requirements to allow for more efficacious cosmetics, I would argue against such actions.

Cosmeceutical

It’s certainly a given that our understanding of skin physiology and how to alter it is increasing at a rapid pace. Cosmetic scientists now have a staggering array of ingredients that can be used to improve nearly every aspect of appearance possible. Many, however, go beyond the stratum corneum to provide functional benefits. They cross over into a gray area many refer to as ‘cosmeceutical’. Some of them even go beyond the epidermis, into territory that is clearly drug-like.

Now that we have the technology to produce increasingly effective cosmetic products, should the FDA rethink its drug vs. cosmetic policy? Should cosmetics be allowed that alter the structure and function of skin? Shouldn’t we be allowed to use whatever tools are available to improve the appearance of skin in cosmetics?

I say No for a couple of reasons.

Risk of More Effective Cosmetics

The cosmetic industry, as a self-regulated body in the US, does not have a large number of standards for determining safety of products. This is because cosmetic products only act on the non-viable stratum corneum with minimal penetration to the epidermal layers below.

However, technologies are now being sold to cosmetic companies and incorporated into products that have the ability to penetrate deep into the epidermis and even into the dermis. This means they could potentially enter the blood stream. The associated risk of side effects increases as the potential for efficacy increases. These products should not be brought to market without standardized risk assessments.

No Standards for Claims

Although technologies to dramatically improve the skin appearance are available, there are no standards for establishing efficacy. Time and time again cosmetics companies are bringing to market products that have little or no testing to support their claims. Many products have been found to contain ‘actives’ at levels far below what is needed to support stated claims.

Products also use in-vitro data to make claims of in-vivo efficacy.  And still more use claims promoted by a technology supplier – these often have weak support and are not tested in the finished product, which can make a dramatic difference in efficacy.

SoapyGuy Says…

Instead of suggesting that our brave new world of cosmeceuticals should continue without FDA oversight, I suggest a new non-drug classification should be created which would provide for standards in risk and efficacy testing.

Obviously it is too onerous to demand the tremendous amount of drug testing on products with minimal penetration through epidermis, but increased standards and oversight will help establish products as relatively safe and effective. Let’s use the opportunity of new science to create winning products with real standards and real efficacy. Let’s put an end once and for all to the snake oil treatments and empty promises. And most importantly, let’s make sure we’re not harming anyone in the process.

Do you think scientists should make more “effective” cosmetics without increasing test requirements? Leave a comment below and let the Beauty Brain’s community know what you think.