This article in Thursday's New York Times Style section got me thinking for a while.
The section's Skin Deep column always runs pieces that I find interesting - both professionally and personally.
This latest column discusses the trend of skin care companies pushing over-the-counter creams, lotions, and potions that work with the body's day and night cycles. That is fascinating enough - what woman doesn't have a random assortment of bottles and jars, some for daytime, some for nighttime, some for work, some for going out, some for really special occasions?
But the part that caught my curiosity was the discussion of what being a "cosmeceutical" really means. Companies want us to believe that there are hard data and stern scientists behind their claims of "47% improvement in radiance in just 7 days" when we buy their products; but if there were any real, objective proof, they would require regulation by the FDA, which is clearly something they're not interested in getting mixed up in for their drugstore brands.
It makes sense, right? How effective can these over-the-counter promotions be at "reducing the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles" or "tightening loose skin without surgery"? Otherwise the FDA would be regulating whatever "special active ingredient" as the latest, greatest drug...
Should seem obvious to a medical school-educated person with loads of practical experience in dealing with the FDA's fine print and convolutions. I guess it was just the hopeful consumer in me that was lulled into suspending disbelief by the pretty pictures and fancy words of cosmeceutical ads. Yeah, I bought it. A lot of it. But, now, both eyes are open - I'm on to you companies now.
