Beauty is on a repeat collision course with science.
The succession of big bangs has spawned a pool of technology-laden serums, led by a pack of dermatologists, that aim to replace the age-old “hope in a jar” with “help in a jar,” thanks to reams of clinical data and potent ingredients.
Many of these high-tech beauty brands, particularly those with an antiaging or medical bent, have latched onto the term “cosmeceutical” to market their offerings.
It may sound relatively contemporary, but the word “cosmeceutical” was coined in 1984 by Albert Kligman, a dermatologist at the University of Pennsylvania. Speaking from his residence in The Rittenhouse in downtown Philadelphia, Kligman said he came up with the term to acknowledge “the biological fact that anything you put onto your skin has a physiological effect.”
“The original definition of cosmetics as inert and inactive is biologically archaic,” he declared. Kligman recalled that when he first presented the idea of cosmeceuticals, he got flak from the beauty industry, which grew concerned that a dermatologist’s construct would invite scrutiny from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The industry has since done an about-face.
In the two decades since Kligman’s decree, beauty marketers have run away with the term, mining medicine and bio-tech for potent ingredients, including alpha lipoc acid, alpha hydroxy acids and peptides.
“Today, a soft, pleasant-smelling cream is the equivalent of a high school diploma,” quipped Jeanine Recckio, a self-defined beauty and lifestyle futurologist. Describing the mind-set of the prototypical beauty consumer, she said, “She’s 50 and she has wrinkles. She will buy anything.”
The cosmeceuticals movement, which was first carved out by niche companies, has hit the mainstream. It now accounts for 10 percent, or approximately $200 million, of prestige skin care sales, up from 4 percent in 2002, according to The NPD Group, which defines cosmeceuticals as brands that are inspired by doctors or have a clinical background. Cosmeceuticals’ hefty price tags — which range from $20 to more than $500 with some topping $1,000, according to NPD — have undoubtably helped push sales upward.
Karen Grant, senior beauty industry analyst for NPD, credited a cast of doctors — including Nicolas Perricone, Howard Murad, Howard Sobel of DDF and Dennis Gross of MD Skincare — with pioneering the trend.
Related Articles
You May Also Like
Many of these offerings are positioned as a more affordable (albeit not by much) and less invasive alternative to cosmetic procedures. Elizabeth Arden accelerated that message by aligning itself with pharmaceutical giant Allergan, the maker of Botox, to co-market Prevage. The antiaging serum is powered by idebenone, which Arden and Allergan bill as “one of the most potent and effective antioxidants on the market.”
In fact, Tony Vargas, vice president of global research and development for Elizabeth Arden, defines cosmeceuticals as “the link between cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.” Vargas declared that the mark of a strong ingredient is one that is supported with extensive, third-party clinical testing, which is then shared with peers. He noted that research on the effectiveness of idebenone was published in several peer-review journals including the January 2005 Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.
DDF’s co-founder Elaine Linker also looks to pharmaceuticals for inspiration. “Our formulas are modeled after efficacious prescriptions,” said Linker, adding that cosmeceuticals work on a cellular level to improve the skin. She noted that the explosion of biochemistry has led to a more sophisticated knowledge about how cells function, saying, “In the last 15 years, we have gained so much information about preventative skin care. In the next decade, I expect that we’ll have more information on how to restore skin.”
Wendy Lewis, skin care industry consultant and author, said that while techie skin care is largely a U.S. phenomenon, it’s also exportable. She noted that European retailers —
including Sephora France and Selfridges
and Harrods in London — are beginning to pluck American-born cosmeceuticals for their beauty mix.
The Canadian specialty store Holt Renfrew, which was the first retailer to sell the Swiss science brand Cellcosmet, has designs to move deeper into cosmeceuticals, a plan that will soon be reflected in its Vancouver concept store, said Shelley Rozenwald, the retailer’s senior vice president of cosmetics, skin care, fragrance and beauty services. Although she was mum on the details, Rozenwald said that in general Holt Renfrew is careful in considering what science brands to add to the mix. Her due diligence includes evaluating the formula’s active ingredients, the ownership of the company, where the products are manufactured and the name attached to the project. Rozenwald commented, “You have to ask, are there scientists or doctors behind it who bring more than their name to the table?”
Although the beauty industry tends to use the term “cosmeceuticals” to refer to cosmetics products that have drug-like benefits, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not recognize the term. The FDA subjects drugs to an intensive review and approval process, but the agency does not approve cosmetics products prior to sale. Under the FDA’s Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, in most cases, whether a product is considered a drug or a cosmetic depends on its intended use, which is spelled out by packaging and advertising claims.
A FDA spokeswoman stated that benefit claims that express or imply “the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease or claims to affect the structure or function of the body parts on the labels…and in other promotional materials are not appropriate for products marketed solely as cosmetics,” because they fall under the definition of a drug.
To complicate matters, dermatologists and beauty marketers offer varying
definitions of “cosmeceutical,” some implying that the word covers brands fronted by doctors, and others assigning the term to products that simply herald science and results.
In his book, “The Wrinkle Cure,” Nicolas Perricone defines cosmeceutical as “…a skin treatment that provides added benefits beyond a simple cosmetic or
moisturizer.”
In a recent conversation with WWD, Perricone said, “The beauty industry has a 100-year history of fragrance, oil and water emulsions with lots of marketing hype around them. Because of that history, the cosmetics industry has a credibility
problem.”
Perricone is attempting to distance himself from what he calls “hopeless in a jar,” with formulas based on decades of research on aging.
“I believe aging is an inflammatory process. To stop micro inflammation within the skin, you need to interrupt the process with antioxidants,” he said. Perricone’s line of products, which range from topicals to supplements, are designed to do exactly that.
Over the last 30 years, Ben Kaminsky, pharmaceutical and dermatological chemist and president of Odan Laboratories, has developed topicals that are prescribed by doctors and used in hospitals to treat skin conditions. In 1997, he and his son Howard co-founded B. Kamins, Chemist, a skin care range billed as “gentle cosmeceutical skin care.”
“It’s no longer acceptable that a skin cream just smells good and does nothing for the skin,” said Ben Kaminsky, who explained B. Kamins, Chemist products are designed to lessen the signs of extrinsic and environmental aging. “You can make a difference in solving skin concerns if you match the right preparation with the right client.” He added that topicals are useful in treating local inflammation, but that an extremely high level of antioxidants are needed to fight damage caused by free radicals. Kaminsky and his peers acknowledged that most beauty companies are careful to soften claims, even if they are backed by clinical research, to avoid the FDA’s scrutiny.
However, Scott E. Gurfein, president and chief executive officer of Freeze 24/7, said bold claims are what separate his company from the rest of the pack. “Being more definitive in product statement is a competitive advantage,” said Gurfein,
noting the line’s Freeze 24/7 product is frequently compared to the wrinkle-remover Botox. He noted his company looks to independent chemists, raw ingredient
providers and its own laboratory for technology but
describes Freeze’s approach as “less pharmaceutical and more aspiratioal.” In the end, he said, the consumer
is not concerned with marketing buzz words like cosmeceutical, clarifying,”She says, ‘I have a problem, and I want to solve it.'”
For a cosmeceutical to have merit in medical circles the product has to have science behind it and the finished formula needs to be tested in humans to ensure it’s free of allergens and is nonirritating, said Jessica Wu, Los Angeles-based dermatologist and creator of Dr. Jessica Wu Cosmeceuticals. Wu, who uses her product range in her practice, acknowledges that today any doctor can link arms with a contract manufacturer and have a namesake line without much effort.
Klinger Advanced Aesthetics is trying to emerge from the crowd of cosmeceuticals with Cosmedicine, a skin care range that relies on over-the-counter-grade pharmaceutical ingredients.
“Cosmeceuticals is just a marketing story,” said Jane Terker, senior vice president and chief marketing officer of KAA. “Our company is rooted in science and focused on replicative and measurable results.”
Over-the-counter-grade ingredients, noted Terker, are held to a higher standard of labeling and manufacturing by the FDA. For instance, all over-the-counter ingredients must be explained in a carefully regulated “drug facts panel” on the back of the product. Over-the-counter status also requires a strict protocol for manufacturing that stipulates machinery must be meticulously sterilized and that each stage of the manufacturing process is documented. Terker estimates the effort drives up the cost of manufacturing by more than 30 percent. It’s all part of KAA’s ambition to formularize standards in the beauty industry. To that end, KAA recruited Johns Hopkins Medicine to consult on the clinical trials and quantitatively measure product benefits. Johns Hopkins, which originally was to have a stake in the beauty firm but has since rethought that strategy, is paid a consulting fee.
Several beauty executives have suggested that the FDA may broaden its definition of cosmetics to allow for results-driven offerings that sit between over-the-counter and prescription skin care. An FDA spokeswoman said the agency has no plans to do so, and that a change in the agency’s authority would require Congress to change the laws.
“I don’t think anybody’s looking for a miracle in an over-the-counter product,” said Alexa B. Kimball, a dermatologist in Boston. “If it were a miracle, its use would flip over to a drug.”