An article on Anti-Aging
Our thirst to improve on nature and prevent the ravages of time seems to be unquenchable. In the UK, the skincare market is now worth Pounds 337m a year; in the US, $3.2 billion. As Professor Ronald Marks, a dermatologist at the University of Wales, says: "You can sell hope in a pot for a lot of money.''
But the glamorous face of the international beauty business is now looking a little bruised and battered. After a two-year campaign by the Food and Drug Administration in the US to prevent companies making extreme claims about anti-ageing creams (many of which cost as much as Pounds 35 for a small jar), the Department of Trade and Industry in this country has begun a similar crackdown.
Under the spotlight are products whose labelling implies they can prevent ageing by methods such as cellular renewal. As Prof Marks says: "A lot of this stuff is cosmetic hoo-ha. People do sometimes look better, but this is the result of superficial changes.'' And Professor Albert Kligman, of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, says in a new book, The Skin Game by Gerald McKnight (Sidgwick & Jackson, Pounds 13.95), that most anti-ageing creams work only for a few hours, smoothing away wrinkles by puffing up the top layer of the skin.
The FDA wrote to 23 cosmetics companies threatening drastic action (product seizure and court proceedings) if they did not withdraw anti-ageing claims or subject their products to stringent safety and efficacy tests for drug licensing. Most complied by withdrawing exaggerated claims.
Now the DTI has followed suit, and has written to the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association, which represents the manufacturers, asking its members not to make unsubstantiated pseudo-scientific claims which suggest that their products can prevent physiological ageing, rather than just masking the signs of ageing.
Dermatologists are also concerned that tampering with skin cells could lead to the production of cancerous as well as normal cells, so the department has asked leading cosmetics firms to come up with scientific proof for the safety of products which claim cellular renewal. According to James Peacock, a DTI spokesman: "We are doubtful that they work, but we have to be careful ... if their claims are justified, then they will have to register their products under the Medicine Acts ... if they are found to be dangerous, they will be banned.''
There is another threat to the industry. The cosmetics companies both here (under a European directive) and in the US have been banned from using retinoic acid, a product hailed as the latest anti-ageing miracle by leading dermatologists such as Prof Kligman. According to Kligman, retinoic acid, unlike other anti-ageing creams, does penetrate the top layer of skin and acts on the lower layer (the dermis) with more permanent effect.
Retin-A (the drug's brand name) is already available on prescription in the UK and the US as an acne treatment and is undergoing tests in both for use as an anti-ageing drug. If it is licensed, the cosmetics companies' glossily packaged, expensive lotions will have to compete with a drug which will be prescribed at low cost to women by their doctors.
Despite these moves, the cosmetics industry is remaining calm and insists it is acting responsibly. "Our companies believe that they make safe products and sell them in a perfectly proper way,'' says Marion Kelly, the director-general of the association.
But questions linger about whether the DTI alone has time to monitor closely the cosmetics groups. Certainly, it has taken several years for action on anti-ageing creams. But dermatologists such as Dr David Fenton of the Dowling Skin Clinic, St Thomas Hospital, London, are still concerned that manufacturers are unwilling to specify even a list of the ingredients in a cream, and that their research is often inadequate. "It wouldn't be unreasonable to set up a separate body which would monitor cosmetics research claims in the same way the Committee for the Safety of Medicines controls pharmaceuticals,'' he says.
But the glamorous face of the international beauty business is now looking a little bruised and battered. After a two-year campaign by the Food and Drug Administration in the US to prevent companies making extreme claims about anti-ageing creams (many of which cost as much as Pounds 35 for a small jar), the Department of Trade and Industry in this country has begun a similar crackdown.
Under the spotlight are products whose labelling implies they can prevent ageing by methods such as cellular renewal. As Prof Marks says: "A lot of this stuff is cosmetic hoo-ha. People do sometimes look better, but this is the result of superficial changes.'' And Professor Albert Kligman, of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, says in a new book, The Skin Game by Gerald McKnight (Sidgwick & Jackson, Pounds 13.95), that most anti-ageing creams work only for a few hours, smoothing away wrinkles by puffing up the top layer of the skin.
The FDA wrote to 23 cosmetics companies threatening drastic action (product seizure and court proceedings) if they did not withdraw anti-ageing claims or subject their products to stringent safety and efficacy tests for drug licensing. Most complied by withdrawing exaggerated claims.
Now the DTI has followed suit, and has written to the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association, which represents the manufacturers, asking its members not to make unsubstantiated pseudo-scientific claims which suggest that their products can prevent physiological ageing, rather than just masking the signs of ageing.
Dermatologists are also concerned that tampering with skin cells could lead to the production of cancerous as well as normal cells, so the department has asked leading cosmetics firms to come up with scientific proof for the safety of products which claim cellular renewal. According to James Peacock, a DTI spokesman: "We are doubtful that they work, but we have to be careful ... if their claims are justified, then they will have to register their products under the Medicine Acts ... if they are found to be dangerous, they will be banned.''
There is another threat to the industry. The cosmetics companies both here (under a European directive) and in the US have been banned from using retinoic acid, a product hailed as the latest anti-ageing miracle by leading dermatologists such as Prof Kligman. According to Kligman, retinoic acid, unlike other anti-ageing creams, does penetrate the top layer of skin and acts on the lower layer (the dermis) with more permanent effect.
Retin-A (the drug's brand name) is already available on prescription in the UK and the US as an acne treatment and is undergoing tests in both for use as an anti-ageing drug. If it is licensed, the cosmetics companies' glossily packaged, expensive lotions will have to compete with a drug which will be prescribed at low cost to women by their doctors.
Despite these moves, the cosmetics industry is remaining calm and insists it is acting responsibly. "Our companies believe that they make safe products and sell them in a perfectly proper way,'' says Marion Kelly, the director-general of the association.
But questions linger about whether the DTI alone has time to monitor closely the cosmetics groups. Certainly, it has taken several years for action on anti-ageing creams. But dermatologists such as Dr David Fenton of the Dowling Skin Clinic, St Thomas Hospital, London, are still concerned that manufacturers are unwilling to specify even a list of the ingredients in a cream, and that their research is often inadequate. "It wouldn't be unreasonable to set up a separate body which would monitor cosmetics research claims in the same way the Committee for the Safety of Medicines controls pharmaceuticals,'' he says.