Botanical Cosmeceutical Myths

Hypoallergenic botanical cosmeceuticals do not produce allergic reactions

The term hypoallergenic is a marketing term meaning ‘reduced allergy’ not ‘nonallergenic’. This term was first popularized by Clinique cosmetics, a division of Estée Lauder, for advertising purposes to create a unique image for this new makeup line. There are no governmental guidelines that apply to the hypoallergenic concept. Dermatologists should consider hypoallergenic cosmetics as a source of allergic contact dermatitis for all patients ( Fig. 27.1 ). It is hoped that companies making the hypoallergenic claim have conducted repeat insult patch testing as part of their product safety assessment, but this cannot always be assumed. In general, hypoallergenic cosmeceuticals do not contain any of the ingredients on the dermatologist's standard patch test tray. In addition, they may have undergone testing on a panel of subjects who possess sensitive skin, such as persons with rosacea or atopic dermatitis. Dermatologists should view the hypoallergenic claim as a marketing claim and not a functional claim.

Preservative-free botanical cosmeceuticals produce fewer skin reactions

Many products are now claiming to be better for the skin because they are ‘preservative-free’. This is a somewhat meaningless term, since all products must contain preservatives ( Fig. 27.2 ). Preservatives fall into several categories. There are preservatives that are classified as antioxidants. These are substances designed to prevent the rancidity of the oils in the formulation and prevent the breakdown of coloring agents. Common antioxidant preservatives that perform this function are tocopheryl acetate, retinyl palmitate and ascorbic acid. These are of the same family as the topical vitamin E, A, and C additives that many companies are claiming prevent skin oxidation. Oxidation is a universal event leading to aging of any living or biologically derived material. However, tocopheryl acetate, retinyl palmitate, and ascorbic acid in the concentrations used for product preservation do not have much biologic activity for the prevention of skin oxidation. Products that contain vitamin-derived antioxidants may be called preservative free because they do not contain ‘synthetic’ preservatives.

Another category of preservatives comprises those aimed at preventing microbe contamination, whether the source is a bacterium, yeast, or fungus. These are substances such as phenoxyethanol, Kathon-CG, Bronopol, parabens, etc. All formulations that contain water must contain some type of preservative to maintain purity on the shelf, whether it is called a preservative or not. Some clove extracts, such as eugenol, have preservative characteristics and ‘natural’ formulations may use ingredients for this purpose. Some traditional preservatives, such as phenoxyethanol, have a rose fragrance and may have their stated purpose as a fragrance, even though they are functioning as a preservative. Most companies use a preservative in anhydrous formulations, even though it may not be necessary.

In summary, there is no such thing as a ‘preservative-free’ formulation, unless it is pure petrolatum. Preservatives may have other functions or may be natural ingredients with preservative properties, but all products must be protected against contamination and oxidation.

Botanical cosmeceuticals are natural

There is a misconception that all botanical cosmeceuticals are natural because they are derived from plant sources. Most botanical actives were first discovered and isolated from plant sources, but are no longer obtained from plants. This is far too expensive in most cases. Many botanical extracts are modified and chemically synthesized to obtain a form that can be easily incorporated into a skin moisturizer. Ground-up leaves or cactus spines ( Fig. 27.3 ) typically do not create an aesthetic feel when sprinkled in a moisturizer and undergo extensive processing to create a liquid or fine powder suitable for cosmeceutical use. An excellent example is allantoin, botanically obtained from the root of the comfrey plant. However, most allantoin used as an anti-inflammatory agent in sensitive skin cosmeceuticals is obtained from uric acid. It is bioidentical to plant-derived allantoin, but synthesized in a chemical plant, not grown by ‘mother nature’. Thus, the claim that botanicals are natural is meaningless. All chemicals are in some sense natural, since they are derived from materials present on the earth.