R&D Sponsored by
“For time and the world do not stand still. Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or the present are certain to miss the future.”
—John F. Kennedy
This entry marks the 15th anniversary of the Chemical Reaction column. The world was remarkably different in August 1998. Google was incorporated on September 4, 1998, and its beta version was already beginning to supplant early search engines. Facebook was launched in February 2004, and the first iPhone became available in June 2007. The revolutionary changes in communication were not created by our industry, but, the bottom line is, they have transformed it more than any new raw material or formulation ever will.
So what hasn’t changed? We are still waiting for the Final Sunscreen Monograph. So much material was released by FDA in 2011 that it looked enough like a monograph to fool even the industry press, but while we have indeed had updates on testing and labeling, it isn’t really a monograph. The biggest substantive change is the need to address UVA to create broad spectrum protection. For consumers, in this regard, the biggest change from 1998 to now is that SPF has moved off the beach and into almost every skin product form, contributing to the double letter phenomenon.
On another front, we have wanted to be “green” for 20 years, but we still can’t agree on a definition of “green,” natural” or “sustainable.” The January 1999 issue of Global Cosmetic Industry had a feature article titled “You Call That Natural?!”. Well, here we are in 2013, and we still struggle with what natural is—or is not. Two decades of confusion and creative marketing have diluted the concepts to the point where they are just part of the background noise. Companies unwilling to pay for certification, or who consider the standard certification processes lacking, simply create their own standards. The stock procedure is to put “green” somewhere on the label, prominently display a picture of a leaf, and consumers instinctively feel that, in some way, it’s better for themselves and the Earth.
Another issue that was around in 1998 and is still with us is the resistance toward transparency in fragrance,1 which leaves a festering distrust on the part of some NGOs and consumer groups. There is probably a weakening of opposition in the industry to ingredient disclosure, but it is unclear if or when this issue will be resolved. The basic points for not revealing ingredients and their counterarguments:
It would be wise to accept transparency and take the biggest complaint away from the critics.
The biggest growth area in the industry remains skin care, led by cosmeceuticals—though the term still has no legal meaning. And it’s worth noting that the more a product really works and claims as much, the more it invites a warning letter from the FDA [see “Marketing and Regulations: Friends or Foes? Or Both?” for more on this topic]. Cutting-edge beauty companies are now working with genetics, the epigenome, DNA repair and anything that can turn the clock back on aging skin. But do we really want a cosmetic company, no matter how technically sophisticated, to play with DNA? Maybe a researcher from Johns Hopkins would be a better choice for such endeavors.
In any event, we now seem to have put cosmeceuticals on the back burner as all attention is on the double letter products: BB, CC, DD. One must be an initiate to even know what the letters mean, and of course more double letters are sure to come. Popular for years in Asia, multifunctional products have taken Western markets by storm lately. BB cream stands for blemish balm, blemish base or beauty balm. CC stands for color control or color correcting. DD cream has been defined as “dynamic do all” (what happened to the A?). If one Googles EE cream, one finds a breed of dachshund, which may create some confusion during casual Web searches for skin care.
So where will the future lead us? Information and communication are the keys for both the industry’s relationship to consumers and for more effective product development.
In terms of consumers access to information, we find a double-edged sword. On the plus side it allows a flow of promotional material and allows user interaction and feedback. On the down side, it provides an unfiltered forum for critics of the industry who often cite bad science or no science at all in their pronouncements. There is a small but vocal group that firmly believes that cosmetics are delivery systems for endocrine disruptors and carcinogens. It has always been a challenge for cold rational science to prevail over hot, raw, uninformed emotions. The industry must learn ways to speak reason to consumers in a compelling fashion.
Discover how to optimize your formulations for feel, stability, delivery, trials and claims in Cosmetics & Toiletries online, video course, Optimization for Cosmetics.
Based on the lectures of well-respected and dearly missed colleague, Johann W. Wiechers, PhD, Optimization for Cosmetics is instructed by Steven Abbott, PhD who leads participants through a series of 5 lessons. The course allows formulators to tackle old problems with fresh ideas and will increase personal development and benefit whichever company they work for.
Learn more at learn.CosmeticsandToiletries.com.