Read this sample student essay first.

Decide for yourself where it succeeds, and where it fails, to make a persuasive case that cosmetics should be regulated by the FDA.

Then review the sample feedback at
The Skincare Definition Workshop.

Leave your analysis of the effectiveness of the
student essay as a Reply to THAT PAGE.

---

The Dilemma of the Skincare World

The cosmetic industry has been struggling to regulate harmful ingredients from the market in the past and even in the modern-day. Skincare items with dangerous ingredients should be identified as drugs due to their excessive amounts of side effects and future problems they have caused consumers to go through. Drugs can be absorbed by the skin, swallowed, injected, and even sprayed to enter the human body. As a comparison skincare products are also absorbed into the skin. According to Joseph C. DiNardo and Craig A. Downs writes more on the statistics that the Centers of Disease Control states, “97% of the people tested have oxybenzone present in their urine.” What seemed like an industry producing harmless products just showed how much of an effect these creams, essence, and makeup products have on our body internally.

In the article, “Dermatological and environmental toxicological impact of the sunscreen ingredient oxybenzone/benzophenone-3” from the Wiley Online Library discussed the concern that “personal care products containing oxybenzone must be raised and compared with the potential negative health and environmental effects.” Everyday products that consumers use to protect their skin from the harmful rays of the sun are known as sunscreens that in many cases, in fact, contain harmful ingredients that have been “reported to produce contact and photo contact allergy reactions.” Not only are these products leading to concerning allergic reactions but also have been linked to causing “Hirschsprung’s disease.” The ingredients that are being put into skincare are in fact causing us to face health problems and are still not considered to be associated with drugs which are shocking. 

The FDA seems to get away with not regulating skincare ingredients since they have limited power from the legislation. It has been proven, “thirteen thousand chemicals that are used in cosmetics only 10%” are tested for safety before being placed onto shelves. The FDA clearly does not have strict enough regulations for products that most women and men use on a daily basis. 

The idea that drugs have a specific definition that is not altered is frightening. Technology is advancing every single day and there are new ingredients being used in cosmetics. Consumers tend to lack education when it comes to cosmetics but rely on what influencers and trends communicate to them. Being exposed to these harmful cosmetics can result in allergic reactions, chemical burns, and even unrecoverable side effects that can be detrimental.  The author of this journal Morgan G. Egebers writes how the  FDCA, on the other hand, defines drugs as, “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.” Even though these might be good categories that drugs fall into there should be subcategories. When we think of drugs we think of not only medications but narcotics, certain types of foods, and alcohol. Even though these so-called “drugs” are not used to cure a disease or prevent it they are still considered drugs by the government that in fact have very harsh regulations. When thinking of narcotics I think of injections, snorting, absorption by the skin, and oral usage. Cosmetics that are aborted by the skin and have harmful or even more detrimental ingredients in them still are not considered to be at the same level as drugs and should be. 

Both drug store cosmetic companies such as L’Oreal and other higher-end big names such as NARS have been reported to contain lead in their products which has been vocally expressed to the public for years and is still not resolved. People are still buying these harmful products since they have trust in the FDA that in reality was never there to make an impactful effect on the industry’s regulations. The fact that we know that our most favored cosmetic companies contain harmful ingredients shows a lack of transparency from big-name companies. In the article, “COSMETICS: A Dermatologist Looks to the Future: Promises and Problems,” Albert M. Kilgman explains how people using these cosmetics have a lack of education with “No premarketing proof of efficacy or safety is required.” Manufacturers are also able to make any claims they desire and still be placed on the market. This shows how lousy regulated the cosmetic industry is even in a day and age where everything seems to be doubled-checked and approved. 

People are simple creatures that love to spend money on anything until they experience any negative effects in skincare for example allergic reactions or even health problems in some cases is a beginning for consumers to get concerned. It takes countless products and negative side effects for a consumer to start getting interested in the ingredient list of cosmetics which shows how corrupt the cosmetic industry has been. 

The regulations placed by the United States compared to Europe also differentiate. In the article, “Analytical Challenges and Regulatory Requirements for Nasal Drug Products in Europe and the U.S.,” from the MDPI website, I realized how intricate and precise regulations are placed on the production and testing of nasal sprays and drops. A nasal spray is considered a drug even though it is absorbed by the skin. The skincare industry does not have nearly as much testing and regulations for products that will be released and also for the fact that they are absorbed by the skin. Things that are taken into consideration when producing a nasal spray include, “droplet size distribution (DSD), plume geometry, spray pattern and shot weights of solution nasal sprays.” These small details are all necessary to make sure a product works accurately and has limited faults. On the website Science Direct the article, “COSMETICS: A Dermatologist Looks to the Future: Promises and Problems,” it is stated that there is no “proof of efficacy or safety” in topical products that are said to be antiaging and brightening. This statement alone explains how the cosmetic industry is so large and developed, yet still has no intentions to advance its procedures for safety and order to prevent toxic ingredients that are marketed from getting approved. 

References

Egeberg, M. G. (2020). Beauty is Pain: An Analytical View of the American Beauty Industry and the Effects of Regulation on Consumers. Redirecting… Retrieved March 5, 2022, from https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals handle=hein.journals%2Fqhlj23&id=325&men_tab=searchresults 

DiNardo, J. C., & Downs, C. A. (2017, October 31). Dermatological and environmental … – wiley online library. Wiley Online Library . Retrieved March 5, 2022, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jocd.12449 

Trows, S., Wuchner, K., Spycher, R., & Steckel, H. (2014, April 11). Analytical challenges and regulatory requirements for nasal drug products in Europe and the U.S. MDPI. Retrieved March 5, 2022, from https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4923/6/2/195/htm 

Liu, Y., Krueger, L. D., & Nguyen, H. P. (2020, December 6). Regulation of skin lightening agents in the United States and implications for public health. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology . Retrieved March 5, 2022, from https://www.jaad.org/article/S0190-9622(20)33151-0/fulltext#relatedArticles