I've been reading lots of press coverage this week about the potential danger posed by nano particles in cosmetics. The renewed interest (the issue was first raised by the Royal Society back in 2004 and then again in 2006) has been sparked by a report issued last week by consumer watchdog Which?
The Which? report, entitled Small Wonder: Nanotechnology in Cosmetics said that 'nano materials are being used in a wide range of cosmetic products despite unresolved issues surrounding their safety' and raised concerns about the fact that most nano materials 'do not have to undergo an independent safety assessement'.
While the watchdog was clear that it wasn't saying the use of nanotechonology in cosmetics was a bad thing, it was concerned about safety testing and that so few companies came forward when asked for information about the nanotechnology used in their products.
As you know, Queen does not operate at the glamorous end of hi-tech cosmetics (although we have finally dipped our toe into the anti-wrinkle cream market - more of that later), preferring to continue to plow our lonely furrow of highly effective yet simple, high-quality, unperfumed products exclusively for sensitive skin. As such, nano-particles are not something we have looked at. Yet, the fact that so many companies are using them - some Which? says without even declaring that they are doing so - just underlines yet again how the industry is marketing driven, with companies desperate to be able to offer consumers the non-invasive (painful and costly) equivalents of Botox injections and other surgical procedure.
So, what exactly is nanotechnology and where is it used in the cosmetic industry? According to Which?, it's 'a revolutionary new way of manipulating materials on a tiny scale, giving them new properties and potentially beneficial capabilities'. There are nano emulsions which are used to preserve active ingredients such as vitamins and anti-oxidants and which enable creams such as sunscreen to be very light and transparent and also carbon fullerenes which are used in anti-ageing products.
We're not taking the moral high ground here (look how we've bowed to demand for an anti-wrinkle product!) but if, as I'm sure is the case, these nano-particles are so great and perfectly safe, the big cosmetic players should surely be prepared to be more open or the industry risks shooting itself in the foot. So far, there has been a government voluntary reporting scheme on the use and development of nano particles (to guide the development of regulations). This has had limited success so more stringent regulations are bound to be brought in, perhaps without input from the industry. Regulation is, of course, a good thing but wouldn't it be great if it was the cosmetic companies proactively saying ''we welcome regulation, this is what we're doing and here's all the safety assessments etc', thus building confidence in an industry which feels as if it is always being knocked by ingredient scare story after ingredient scare story. Not only does trust in the industry suffer but consumers may end up not benefiting from ingredients such as nano-particles which could be the best thing to happen to cosmetics.
If there was more trust in the industry or the industry was prepared to be more forthcoming and open, perhaps the whole parabens scare wouldn't have been so dramatic and had such far reaching consequences. In an article in November's SCP about preservatives, the article's author Chris Nichols writes: 'The story behind the parabens problem is not a new one...popular ingredient gets attacked by poorly thought out/poorly researched/poorly written science..story gets picked up by press/internet...industry bows to remove ingredient......What is different in the case of parabens is it is the first time that this level of damage has been sustained by such a widely used ingredient and one universally regarded as 'safe'.'
He goes on to say that as one permitted (on the EU Cosmetic Directive list Annex VI) preservative is knocked down so the next one in line is exposed and there are not an infinite number of them.
At the end of his article, called 'The Preservative Paradigm', Chris Nichols says: 'We use preservatives to comply with the cosmetic directive that "cosmetic products should not be harmful under normal or foreseeable conditions of use". It is getting harder to find preservatives that are acceptable to much of our target market. If we continue to lurch from crisis to crisis, we will eventually run out of options'.
Anyway, enough of all this serious stuff. We are pleased to say great feedback for our Sensiderma Renew & Refine (our anti-wrinkle cream for sensitive skin) is flooding in. 'Ooh, yes I can already see a difference,' says one customer upgrading to full-size bottle after trying her sample. 'It's lovely, light, feels really nice on my skin and I need some more.' Keep using it, we say!
Have a good weekend.
No comments:
Post a Comment