The Ugly Side of Pretty
by Jan Edwards
The skincare and anti-aging sector of the beauty industry continues to expand at an alarming rate, with many manufacturers and distributors enjoying what is no more than a license to print money.
Marketers craft their copy to encourage us to believe that the potion, lotion, injection, pill or machine will give us back the looks of 10 or 20 years ago.
But, behind the hype, are we looking at the ugly side of pretty?
According to John E Bailey (Director of Food and Drug Administration) - “Image is what the cosmetic industry sells through its products and it’s up to the consumer to believe it or not”
OK, Mr Bailey, “caveat emptor” is a tried and tested maxim for all business transactions, but, with this industry, the play is 100% on the dream of anti-aging - and there are precious few independent reviews to shake the dreams into reality.
Just grab a copy of Vogue or Cosmopolitan and you’ll find maybe 30 or 40 advertisements for anti-wrinkle products - each proclaiming to be “the best” - with most of the product’s performance verified by “clinical studies”. There is no doubt that some products are excellent and do exactly what they say they will, but some are repackaged ” snake oil” which means that consumers will continue to pay the price in dollars and disappointment.
It’s certainly no surprise that many who work in the industry (both in the US and the UK), feel that it is better to sort itself out from within, rather than rely on increased regulatory authority.
Whilst, on the face of it, this could be considered a recipe for inaction with less than stringent Trade Associations policing their own members, it is clear that many of these well established bodies are quite pro-active in their quest to keep their industry squeaky clean. Government legislation, on the other hand, seems out of touch with this fast moving industry.
Take for example, two examples of government at work in the UK. On 18th June 2008, the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 2008 (upgraded from 2004) came into force - with the Principal Directive to protect public health by prohibiting the use of certain substances in cosmetics and imposing restrictions on the use of others.
Drinks all round - at least they’re on the case. But (and can you believe this?) on 1st October 2008, the same government proposes to remove non-surgical laser treatments from current healthcare legislation! “Snake oil” salesmen will be dancing in the streets. Government figures estimate that it will cost the NHS an extra £1.8 million to sort out the problems of “adverse incidents” caused by the decline in procedural standards.
Opposition bodies claim that this figure is way low of the mark and Ben Bradshaw MP (Health Minister) will be under pressure from cosmetic clinics, medical bodies, patient groups and the consumer magazine Which? to think again.
The British Association of Cosmetic Doctors joins the fray by warning of the dangers of rogue practioners offering dermal fillers and anti-aging injections, without medical training and a proper understanding of the risks involved.
And so it goes on…..the poor consumer, meanwhile, in his quest for holding back the years, will be forced to continue with choices based on the strength of ad copy rather than the evidence of independent testing and the performance of suitably qualified practitioners.
The day may not be far off when a trip to the hairdressers may well be “just a cut and blow dry plus a couple of shots of filler into the lips, please”
It could well be the ugly side of pretty.
