Attention All Cottage-Cheese Butts!
-
- |
-
- |
- |
- 6
Yesterday morning I nearly spit out my Corn Flakes as I read the latest New York Times “Skin Deep” feature, “Treating Cellulite, It’s Still There.” And not because, “the ass pictured is almost cellulite-free, while the story is about the terrible problem of cellulite,” as Gawker’s Hamilton Nolan put it.
Ladies, it shouldn’t be news that anti-cellulite treatments don’t work. Or that cellulite is incurable. Also what shouldn’t be news—but, maddeningly, is—is that most anti-cellulite products and anti-aging creams are illegal and flourishing under the unconscionably laissez-faire FDA. It’s ironic that the “Skin Deep” column takes its title from the great muckraking book of 1934 by Mary Catherine Phillips—one of several books that led to the creation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, which is supposed to protect consumers from bogus cosmetics and drugs.
The act states in no uncertain terms that cosmetics cannot claim to “affect the structure or any function of the body of man.” In other words, cosmetics companies must stick to matters of appearance, not therapy. Cosmetic companies cannot market products that claim to change any aspect of your skin or your skin’s structure or function: Collagen-plumping serums? Illegal. Free radical-preserving goop? Illegal. Cellulite-busting unguents? Illegal.
If a product does makes such a claim it is, by definition, a drug, and needs to go through rigorous testing at the Office of Drug Evaluation and Research to prove not only that it is safe but that it also works. So if a cellulite reduction cream claims to melt cellulite or tighten skin then legally, the claim needs to be tested and cleared by the FDA. This is a basic consumer protection provided by the Act. We should stop tolerating less!
In the 1960s and then again in the 1980s journalists frequently reported on misbranded anti-wrinkle and anti-cellulite products, and the FDA challenged these companies in court. On April 10, 1988, when the FDA was in the midst of its last crackdown, The New York Times published the following in an op-ed: “All the FDA is asking is that fantasy and reality be kept separate. The cosmetic companies need only retreat back to fantasy”—meaning abandon the therapeutic claims for traditional "this will make you gorgeous" puffery—“and their customers will live as happily as before.”
As baby boomers advance into old age we’ve all had to adapt to the anti-aging-centric marketplace and have come to accept and even embrace the proliferation of cosmetics that are actually misbranded drugs. I'm sure the democratization of plastic surgery has a lot to do with this: why opt for a regular bottle of Oil of Olay body cream when you can benefit from the anti-cellulite version? But is it too much to ask the New York Times and other journalists to separate fantasy from reality? And, most crucially, if the FDA did its job we would have known that cellulite was incurable because the $47 million anti-cellulite product market wouldn’t exist and fool us into thinking—or misunderstanding, or blundering, or wondering, or hoping—otherwise.
Comments
We all want who is sale
By: Replica | Sat, 09/26/2009 - 23:17
We all want who is sale Replica Louis Vuitton because all the popular louis vuitton store purses offer them to have the most superior in design at costs that make it a reality. I did some searching and most of discounted louis vuitton go for no more than $1 000! They are very cheap louis vuitton outlet We all like Replica Louis Vuitton Let’s go to buy Louis Vuitton Replica
jeesh!
By: paultunes | Sun, 06/28/2009 - 18:09
i think "The Beauty Myth" should be mandatory reading for every woman and girl!!! does anyone remember the Special K commercial years back that had a bunch of men in a bar asking if their pants made them look fat? or what the guys thought of new shirt? the voice over at the end asked since men don't worry or talk about this stuff so why should women? i still don't know. Women inflict themselves with bad self image. Here's a news flash! if you All stopped wearing make up and wore plain clothes men would still want to ask you out. i mean Amish boys still like to hang with Amish girls.
It is actually the FDA's job...
By: elizabelle | Sun, 06/28/2009 - 18:04
I disagree with "joy-ryde"...In fact, regulating the claims of the cosmetics industry is indeed the FDA's job. And as a consumer, I expect the FDA to do its job so that when I make purchases I know what I'm getting...I fail to see how such consumer protection can be construed as evidence of a "nanny state"...
Are you kidding me?
By: fancynancy1984 | Sat, 06/27/2009 - 17:07
Just today I heard an add for an anti-wrinkle product that claimed to do something to the skin's collagen, minimizing "even deep wrinkles." And, even the stuff at Target sells for 50-100$. The FDA damn well should do their job and stop these companies from making stuff up. It may not be the most important part of their job, but we as women need to stop believing that we can stop aging. The flip side of that message is that if you are aging, there is something wrong with you.
Seriously?
By: joy-ryde | Sat, 06/27/2009 - 14:26
This big bunch of silliness finally inspired me to register to comment. I want the FDA to make sure the cancer drugs are safe, that my kids' vaccines are safe. Compared to those things, cellulite creams don't even register on my list of priorities. Adding regulation of cosmetics to the FDA's all ready back-logged responsibilities will only slow up innovation and make things more expensive for everyone, epecially people with legitimate health problems.
Ms. Kawalek's hyperventilating, nanny-state fussiness is laughable and this sloppy example of "journalism" is an example of the kind of crap that would never make it on Slate. Way go, Double X. (Slow, sarcastic clap.)
The author complains that the
By: katiebear | Sat, 06/27/2009 - 10:21
The author complains that the FDA is allowing anti-cellulite products to be promoted with drug-like claims, but she doesn't cite a single example of a product bearing such a claim. The anti-cellulite products I've seen are labeled as reducing the "appearance" of cellulite, which sounds like a cosmetic claim to me. E.g., I'm looking at a (fairly old) tube of Dove Intensive Firming Cream, which states, "After 1 week, skin around problem areas is significantly firmer" (that claim seems borderline, but still arguably cosmetic) and "After 2 weeks, the appearance of cellulite is visibly reduced." It doesn't promise to get rid of the cellulite, but only to make it harder to see. Far be it from me to defend these guys, but I don't think these claims are illegal. (I am a lawyer, by the way, although I don't have any particular expertise in food, drug, and cosmetic law.)