TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/101491/1014130.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 5.7 KB | 120 lines

                                                                                HEALTH, Page 83

Fountain of Youth in a Jar


Cosmetics firms are touting new types of skin creams to ward
off aging and cellulite, but so far the evidence is scant

By ANASTASIA TOUFEXIS -- Reported by Sally B. Donnelly/Los
Angeles and Kathryn Jackson Fallon/New York


    In the fantasy world of cosmetics, hope and hype have
always been the rulers, and truth the rude beggar at the gate.
Americans have long recognized that fact -- and dismissed it.
"Oh, I know it probably doesn't do everything they say it does,"
admits Evelyn, a San Diego secretary, while purchasing some skin
cream at a Nordstrom counter. "But it makes my skin look and
feel better, so I'll keep buying it."

    These days, however, manufacturers are going to greater
lengths to exploit consumers' unwary nature. Critics charge that
cosmetics promotion has moved beyond the bounds of puffery and
into the realm of unsubstantiated medical claims. "Where is the
evidence?" asks dermatologist John Reeves of San Francisco.
"It's time for cosmetics manufacturers to put up or shut up."

    The growing debate centers mainly on the pricey potions,
lotions, creams and gels that promise to thwart the wrinkly
ravages of aging and smooth the pockets of fat, dubbed cellulite
by cosmetologists, that dimple many women's hips and thighs.
Thanks to the aging of the baby boomers, U.S. sales of skin-care
products have surged more than 50% since 1985, to $3.7 billion
a year. That makes them the fastest-growing segment of the
toiletries and cosmetics industry, which rakes in almost $24
billion annually.

    The cosmetics firms are trying to capitalize on
preliminary scientific research suggesting that certain vitamins
and other chemicals may improve skin appearance. Some seem to
counteract the bad effects of substances called free radicals,
which are produced regularly by the body's metabolism. These
highly volatile substances -- oxygen ions are one example --
react with cell membranes, and over time the radicals may play
a role in various ailments and the aging process itself. There
is evidence that at least one radical-fighting skin cream, a
vitamin-A derivative called Retin-A, stimulates skin-cell
production, but it is sold only by prescription. Another
prescription product, Lac-Hydrin, contains 12% lactic acid, one
of a class of compounds called alpha-hydroxy acids. These
chemicals seem to help combat dry skin.

    But researchers are a long way from putting the Fountain
of Youth in a jar, and there is no rigorous scientific evidence
to support the sweeping claims made by the manufacturers of
scores of cosmetics sold over the counter. They contain some of
the same ingredients as prescription drugs, but in much lower
concentrations.

    Elizabeth Arden boasts that its Ceramide Time Complex
Capsules contain various ingredients, including retinyl
palmitate, and vitamins E and F, that together "fix, replenish
or repair the barrier function of the skin." Shisheido touts
Bio-Performance as a "super-revitalizer" that awakens the
"skin's youthful balance." Avon is pushing three different
antiaging treatments: BioAdvance (with vitamin A), Collagen
Booster (vitamin C) and a new product to be introduced next
year, Aneu (alpha-hydroxy acids). As for cellulite nostrums,
Arden promotes its gel and moisturizer by citing clinical tests
"from a renowned university in France." Lancome says its gel can
provide "relief" from cellulite in two to four weeks. And
Clarins contends that consumers can slim down and firm up with
the help of its concentrated anticellulite gel.

    Medical specialists are leery of the aggressive marketing.
Advertisements, they complain, frequently imply that the
treatments alter body physiology. If that is true, then the
products should be reclassified as drugs by the Food and Drug
Administration and thus be subject to the same rigorous -- and
costly -- testing for efficacy required of all medications.
Doctors are skeptical of the evidence that cosmetics firms
currently offer in support of their claims, including before and
after pictures and clinical reports. Albert Kligman, a professor
emeritus of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, says
he has never seen an industry research paper that was
"believable."

    Manufacturers insist that their promotional materials
suggest only that use of the products will improve a person's
appearance. "We can claim that the product helps to promote
younger-looking skin," says Mari Chihaya of Shiseido, "but we
cannot say it is younger skin because that becomes a drug
claim." Other companies are bolder in their assertions. Alex
Znaiden, director of product development at Avon, says, "Our eye
gel contains materials that, as they go into the skin, are able
to influence the cellular environment and cause changes to
occur." Not everyone is happy to hear that. Says Alice Longley,
an industry analyst with the Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette
investment firm: "It's pretty frightening if there are products
out there that change the body and haven't gone through that
rigorous testing process."

    Critics hope that the FDA and the Federal Trade
Commission, which oversees advertising, will do more to curb the
cosmetics industry's excesses. Since 1987, the FDA has sent
complaints to 50 cosmetics companies over specific claims, and
in response most firms have changed these pitches. In 1989 the
FTC cited Revlon for unsubstantiated advertising promises for
an anticellulite treatment, by then taken off the market by the
company. But new products and promotions are being launched all
the time. Consumers should take most of the claims with a grain
of salt, or at least a dollop of blusher.