Apples may have anti-ageing effect

The adage ‘an apple a day keeps the doctor away’ may no longer apply to apples having the ability to keep just the flu bug away.

The discovery of phloretin, an antioxidant derived from apples, means that the fruit may also help reduce the risk of skin cancer.

‘Phloretin is a powerful antioxidant found to be effective in protecting human skin from the effects of the sun when applied topically,’ said Dr Sheldon Pinnell, founder of SkinCeuticals. He was the leader of the scientific team that made the discovery after five years of research.

The United States-based skincare brand is the first to combine phloretin with other well-known antioxidants like vitamin C into a single anti-ageing serum called Phloretin CF.

Early clinical studies showed that phloretin – found both in the flesh and skin of apples, as well as in the root bark of apple, pear and grapefruit trees – effectively fights the effects of photo-ageing.

Photo-ageing refers to the ageing of skin by ultraviolet (UV) radiation as a result of repeated exposure to the sun over many years.

A 2006 study published in the Biological And Pharmaceutical Bulletin found that phloretin reduces DNA damage caused by UV radiation by 80 per cent.

In addition, the compound also inhibits the enzyme elastase, which causes wrinkles and sagging skin.

Excessive exposure to UV rays causes skin cells to weaken.

The worst outcome of this damage is skin cancer, where skin cells start to multiply abnormally.

Resisting this process are chemical compounds called antioxidants.

Antioxidants guard against photo-ageing by transforming unstable molecules, called free radicals, into unreactive compounds.

The tricky part, when using antioxidants in skincare products, is combining them with other chemicals such that their efficacy will not be lowered. Vitamin C, for instance, is unstable and disintegrates after some time.

The development of the patent-pending technology in the formula Phloretin CF, now sold as a skincare product containing a cocktail of three antioxidants – vitamin C, ferulic acid and phloretin – is the cumulation of over 20 years of work, said Dr Pinnell.

However, this breakthrough does not mean that antioxidants can replace sunscreen entirely, he said.

‘At this point, I wouldn’t say that you can eliminate sunscreen,’ he said. ‘Maybe in the future, as antioxidant technology gets better.’

However, Dr Pinnell recommends the use of antioxidants in addition to the application of sunscreen in a daily skincare regimen.

‘Sunscreen contains a lot of synthetic chemicals,’ he said. ‘It works only on the outside, absorbing UV rays.

‘Antioxidants, on the other hand, work inside the skin and provide long-term protection.’

Having said that, it is important not to overdo things, added Dr Pinnell. This is because UV rays help our skin produce vitamin D that is vital for calcium absorption.

‘You can be relatively vitamin D-deficient if you use sunscreen and antioxidants very religiously,’ he said.

Full Article and Credits

Suit accuses cosmetic makers of organic ruse

 

 

A long-simmering dispute over the definition of organic personal care products boiled over into court Monday, when Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps filed a lawsuit charging many of its competitors with deceptively marketing their soaps and lotions.

 

The lawsuit – filed in San Francisco Superior Court – targeted many widely known cosmetic manufacturers including Estee Lauder, Kiss My Face, Hain Celestial and Stella McCartney America. It also named smaller firms such as Mill Valley-based Juice Beauty.

 

In the suit, Dr. Bronner’s accused the firms of false advertising by labeling products “organic” that contain relatively little organic material, that contain synthetic chemicals, or that use petrochemicals in processing.

 

“This is the corrosive marketing of the cosmetics industry that hollowed out the meaning of ‘natural’ and now is doing the same with ‘organic’,” said David Bronner, president of the 60-year-old company.

 

The lawsuit is evidence of the growing clout of green consumers, particularly in the arena of personal care products. Sales of natural body care products grew from $499 million in 2004 to $685 million in 2006 – an increase of 37 percent, according to the consumer products research firm Mintel.

Chasing consumers

 

Both large and small companies have been wooing eco-minded consumers, with big corporations including Estee Lauder acquiring brands such as Aveda that market themselves as natural or organic.

 

At the same time, though, there are no federal regulations governing either natural or organic personal care products.

 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture sets strict standards for organic food. But it doesn’t have a similar standard for soaps, shampoos and cosmetics.

 

Some firms like Dr. Bronner’s have voluntarily adopted the USDA’s organic food standard for their body care products, which requires that 95 percent of the ingredients be organic if a product is to call itself organic.

 

Some other firms like Juice Beauty adhere to California’s standard for organic body care products, which is less demanding than the USDA food standard.

 

And still other firms simply label their body care products organic without trying to meet any external guidelines.

Voluntary standards

 

“Companies are all over the board with what the word organic means,” said Stacy Malkan, the Berkeley author of “Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry.”

 

For several years, cosmetic companies and consumer groups have started trying to sort things out by coming up with voluntary standards.

 

But they haven’t managed to reach a consensus. A nonprofit standard-setting group called NSF International released draft rules for organic personal care products in January. Then in March, 30 cosmetic companies, including Estee Lauder’s Aveda, came out with their own set of rules called Organic and Sustainability Industry Standards (OASIS).

 

“This particular industry seems incapable of coming to any agreement about it,” said Ann Blake, an environmental consultant in Alameda.

 

In Monday’s lawsuit, Dr. Bronner’s accused OASIS as well as 10 individual companies of misleading consumers by watering down the term organic.

Who decides what’s organic?

 

Among the issues raised in the suit are whether organic personal care products must contain a certain percentage of organic ingredients, whether they may contain petrochemicals and whether they may contain synthetic preservatives.

 

An OASIS spokeswoman declined to comment on the lawsuit because she hadn’t yet seen it, but denied trying to mislead anyone.

 

Meanwhile, some companies questioned Dr. Bronner’s right to define organic.

 

“We meet the standards of the California Organic Products Act, which is the only regulation in place for organic skin care,” said Karen Behnke of Juice Beauty. “The last we know, Bronner was not appointed by any government agency to set a standard. I’m not sure why we would have to follow a standard set by him.”

 

For now, it’s unclear how or when a clear definition of organic body care products will emerge for consumers to rely upon.

 

It’s possible that a new administration in Washington might take a more active role in setting organic standards. Or one of the competing industry efforts at standard-setting may win out.

 

Or – with the Dr. Bronner’s lawsuit – the courts may end up deciding what constitutes an organic soap or skin lotion.

 

“The question that needs to be answered,” said Malkan, “is, ‘How organic is “organic” going to be?’ It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Full Article