This month The New York Times Editorial Board wrote an article entitled, “Do You Know What’s In Your Cosmetics?” (Feb. 9, 2019) The article’s caption states: “Thousands of chemicals, in billions of dollars worth of products, are being governed by regulations that haven’t been updated in decades.” The New York Times is making people aware of something we at PHYTO5 have known all along:
In addition, the Swiss government plays a proactive ongoing role of factory supervision for Swiss-based manufacturers. This double layer of Swiss and European regulation and supervision provides a substantial level of protection for the American consumer who buys authentic Swiss-made skincare products such as PHYTO5 skincare.
The New York Times article goes on to articulate the lack of U. S. governmental action:
“In a 1988 hearing, Congress took the cosmetics industry to task for a rash of health and safety problems. Cosmetologists were reporting serious respiratory and nervous system damage. And according to government data, nearly 1,000 toxic chemicals were lurking in countless other personal care products. Cosmetics companies were not doing enough to ensure that these products were safe, and the Food and Drug Administration did not have enough power to adequately police them… Legislative reform was clearly needed. That was 30 years ago. To date, no such reforms have been passed.”
The article further explains that the laws governing the role of the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Cosmetics and Colors run just two pages long and have not been updated since 1938 when they were first enacted. That office with an annual budget of just $8 million and 27 staff members is now facing a seventy billion dollar a year American cosmetics industry.
The article concludes that “such meager tools leave federal officials nearly powerless to regulate the makeup, lotions, toothpastes, deodorants and other elixirs that often are applied to the most intimate parts of the human body.”
The F. D. A. does not require companies to submit safety data before they market a product while in the European Union a product could never be put on the market without such basic documentation.
The F. D. A. does not monitor adherence to basic manufacturing standards while the Swiss government makes it its business to do so.
In the U. S., manufacturing companies are not required to report problems attributed to products while the E. U. has a central data bank responsible for distilling and coordinating all product documentation including skin and toxicity tests as well as any adverse events attributed to products.
Although the article states that the F.D.A. also does not ensure the safety of imported cosmetics which have doubled in volume in the past decade, it fails to state that Swiss- and E. U.-made products that are also marketed in Europe meet stringent regulations that already exceed whatever has been advocated by American consumer groups.
There are still many products manufactured overseas which are not subject to rules similar to those in force in the E. U. The F. D. A. inspects less than one percent of the three million or so cosmetics shipments that come in to the states every year. Among those that it does test, roughly 15% of products manufactured outside the E. U. are found to be contaminated or to contain dangerous ingredients.
Most consumers are against the idea of products being tested on animals. We remind all our clients that we have never tested PHYTO5 skincare on animals and nor are any of the ingredients we use tested on animals. Animal testing is, in fact, no longer necessary since by E. U. regulations, all products must pass independent toxicity tests to ensure no harm, irritation or toxicity to human skin.
Both the state of California and federal government are considering tighter measures to regulate the production and distribution of skincare products made in the U. S. but the proposals are receiving substantial pushback from the industry and given the reluctance of the current administration to impose regulations on businesses the federal bill is likely to be defeated. If a bill were to pass it would be greatly diluted, therefore it remains that products made in Europe represent a far greater level of consumer safety.
An additional sad conclusion is that while the skincare product industry is booming, a recent industry survey found that 71% of consumers say their skin care needs are not being met. This is just one insight contained in an extensive 3-part report from Denise Herich of The Benchmarking Company, running consecutively in the March, April and May 2019 issues of Global Cosmetic Industry.*
Keeping in mind that the skin absorbs what we put on it and what comes into its vicinity, and since the U. S. is largely unwilling to ensure that our skincare products are actually and totally safe for our health, it makes complete sense to buy 100% Swiss-made skincare such as PHYTO5 which has been subjected to a double layer of Swiss and European regulation and supervision. Beware of companies using the Swiss flag in their branding or catch phrases and titles using the word “Swiss.” In many cases, these products are merely Swiss-inspired or only a small percentage of the product was actually produced in Switzerland.
Rest assured that PHYTO5 skincare is 100% made in Switzerland. Combine this with our natural, holistic and vital energy concept and you will enjoy Swiss skincare capable of delivering benefits to you most other skincare lines cannot claim.
* To gauge consumer’s thoughts and feelings on skin care, The Benchmarking Company surveyed more than 4,600 female beauty consumers about all things skin care.
Part 1: March 2019: Consumer attitudes, generational concerns, unmet needs, what she’s using now and products she’d like to try.
Part 2: April 2019: What they’re willing to spend, on what and where; key purchase influencers; consumer-approved trends; retail category picks.
Part 3: May 2019: Generic skin care and skin care kits; the continued appeal of luxury and mass skin care; social media and beauty loyalty programs; natural and organic skin care product and brand appeal.
The Editorial Board. “Cosmetics Safety Needs a Makeover.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 9 Feb. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/02/09/opinion/cosmetics-safety-makeup.html.
Lipton, Eric. "F.D.A. Has 6 Inspectors for 3 Million Shipments of Cosmetics." The New York Times. The New York Times, 02 Aug. 2017. Web. 16 Feb. 2019.
Gleason-Allured, Jeb. “New Skin Care Report Series: What 4,600 Consumers Think.” Global Cosmetic Industry, www.gcimagazine.com/marketstrends/segments/skincare/New-Skin-Care-Report-Series-What-4600-Consumers-Say-505218081.html.