The Dilemma of the Skincare World
The cosmetic industry has been struggling to regulate harmful ingredients from the market in the past and even in the modern-day. Skincare items with dangerous ingredients should be identified as drugs due to their excessive amounts of side effects and future problems they have caused consumers to go through. Drugs can be absorbed by the skin, swallowed, injected, and even sprayed to enter the human body. As a comparison skincare products are also absorbed into the skin. According to Joseph C. DiNardo and Craig A. Downs writes more on the statistics that the Centers of Disease Control states,”97% of the people tested have oxybenzone present in their urine.” What seemed like an industry producing harmless products just showed how much of an effect these creams, essence, and makeup products have on our body internally.
In the article, “Dermatological and environmental toxicological impact of the sunscreen ingredient oxybenzone/benzophenone-3” from the Wiley Online Library discussed the concern that,” Personal care products containing oxybenzone must be raised and compared with the potential negative health and environmental effects.” Everyday products that consumers use to protect their skin from the harmful rays of the sun are known as sunscreens that in many cases, in fact, contain harmful ingredients that have been ”reported to produce contact and photo contact allergy reactions.” Not only are these products leading to concerning allergic reactions but also have been linked to causing “Hirschsprung’s disease.” The ingredients that are being put into skincare are in fact causing us to face health problems and are still not considered to be associated with drugs which are shocking.
The FDA seems to get away with not regulating skincare ingredients since they have limited power from the legislation. It has been proven,” thirteen thousand chemicals that are used in cosmetics only 10%” are tested for safety before being placed onto shelves. The FDA clearly does not have strict enough regulations for products that most women and men use on a daily basis.
The idea that drugs have a specific definition that is not altered is frightening. Technology is advancing every single day and there are new ingredients being used in cosmetics. Consumers tend to lack education when it comes to cosmetics but rely on what influencers and trends communicate to them. Being exposed to these harmful cosmetics can result in allergic reactions, chemical burns, and even unrecoverable side effects that can be detrimental. The author of this journal Morgan G. Egebers writes how the FDCA, on the other hand, defines drugs as,” articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.” Even though these might be good categories that drugs fall into there should be subcategories. When we think of drugs we think of not only medications but narcotics, certain types of foods, and alcohol. Even though these so-called “drugs’ ‘ are not used to cure a disease or prevent it they are still considered drugs by the government that in fact have very harsh regulations. When thinking of narcotics I think of injections, snorting, absorption by the skin, and oral usage. Cosmetics that are aborted by the skin and have harmful or even more detrimental ingredients in them still are not considered to be at the same level as drugs and should be.
Both drug store cosmetic companies such as L’Oreal and other higher-end big names such as NARS have been reported to contain lead in their products which has been vocally expressed to the public for years and is still not resolved. People are still buying these harmful products since they have trust in the FDA that in reality was never there to make an impactful effect on the industry’s regulations. The fact that we know that our most favored cosmetic companies contain harmful ingredients shows a lack of transparency from big-name companies. In the article,” COSMETICS: A Dermatologist Looks to the Future: Promises and Problems’ “Albert M. Kilgman explains how people using these cosmetics have a lack of education with,” No premarketing proof of efficacy or safety is required.” Manufacturers are also able to make any claims they desire and still be placed on the market. This shows how lousy regulated the cosmetic industry is even in a day and age where everything seems to be doubled-checked and approved.
People are simple creatures that love to spend money on anything until they experience any negative effects in skincare for example allergic reactions or even health problems in some cases is a beginning for consumers to get concerned. It takes countless products and negative side effects for a consumer to start getting interested in the ingredient list of cosmetics which shows how corrupt the cosmetic industry has been.
The regulations placed by the United States compared to Europe also differentiate. In the article,” Analytical Challenges and Regulatory Requirements for Nasal Drug Products in Europe and the U.S. ” from the MDPI website, I realized how intricate and precise regulations are placed on the production and testing of nasal sprays and drops. A nasal spray is considered a drug even though it is absorbed by the skin. The skincare industry does not have nearly as much testing and regulations for products that will be released and also for the fact that they are absorbed by the skin. Things that are taken into consideration when producing a nasal spray include,” droplet size distribution (DSD), plume geometry, spray pattern and shot weights of solution nasal sprays.” These small details are all necessary to make sure a product works accurately and has limited faults. On the website Science Direct the article,” COSMETICS: A Dermatologist Looks to the Future: Promises and Problems’ ‘ it is stated that there is no “proof of efficacy or safety” in topical products that are said to be antiaging and brightening. This statement alone explains how the cosmetic industry is so large and developed, yet still has no intentions to advance its procedures for safety and order to prevent toxic ingredients that are marketed from getting approved.
References
Egeberg, M. G. (2020). Beauty is Pain: An Analytical View of the American Beauty Industry and the Effects of Regulation on Consumers. Redirecting… Retrieved March 5, 2022, from https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals handle=hein.journals%2Fqhlj23&id=325&men_tab=searchresults
DiNardo, J. C., & Downs, C. A. (2017, October 31). Dermatological and environmental … – wiley online library. Wiley Online Library . Retrieved March 5, 2022, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jocd.12449
Trows, S., Wuchner, K., Spycher, R., & Steckel, H. (2014, April 11). Analytical challenges and regulatory requirements for nasal drug products in Europe and the U.S. MDPI. Retrieved March 5, 2022, from https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4923/6/2/195/htm
Liu, Y., Krueger, L. D., & Nguyen, H. P. (2020, December 6). Regulation of skin lightening agents in the United States and implications for public health. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology . Retrieved March 5, 2022, from https://www.jaad.org/article/S0190-9622(20)33151-0/fulltext#relatedArticles
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
I really appreciated the cohesion your paragraphs offer especially in regard to the way you incorporated evidence. I found passion in your tone of voice in the subject material which is also something I appreciate in good writing. Your causal arguments came out extremely clear, I found three without even reading too much into them.
To offer more constructive criticism. I would first start by slimming down your points and your paragraphs. You make lovely points about the subject but you would benefit on an organizational level to separate it into smaller points and smaller paragraphs. Another small criticism is that your references aren’t in alphabetical order. Last but not least, although I love the way you incorporated your evidence vocabulary-wise using those sentence starters variously, I do notice some grammar mistakes in plopping those points in their. For instance, the following sentence can be fixed by removing a apostrophe,”A Dermatologist Looks to the Future: Promises and Problems’ it is stated that there is no “proof of efficacy or safety”
Another example is ““Dermatological and environmental toxicological impact of the sunscreen ingredient oxybenzone/benzophenone-3” from the Wiley Online Library discussed the concern that,” Personal care products containing oxybenzone must be raised..” Once again the punctuation needs to be adjusted to either have a semi-colon or to lowercase the personal and
The most impressive part of this argument is the link between skincare and drugs. Everybody knows that drugs are extremely harmful to the body and would never willingly take them, though every single day, we use cosmetic products. It causes us to question our morals and why we are willing to use one but not the other. I like how convincing it is and how the author relates it to our real lives. People are more likely to pay attention to an essay if they are effected by the issue in question.
This article’s flaws, if any, are the breakdown of the paragraphs. There are times when the topic changes, but the paragraph does not split. Once a new subject is brought up, a new paragraph should begin, even if the previous one was only two sentences.
One thing that stood out to me was that you definitely know what you’re talking about. I didn’t even know that skincare products could contain harmful ingredients. This gives you an authority on your subject which is exactly what you’re looking for.
Some criticism would be to break up your paragraphs a bit. Only state what you need to and put it in block quotes. By doing this, you leave more room and have more words to use at your disposal.
I love the blame and false faith directed at the FDA. The whole argument reminds me of an argument I made during a public speaking class about supplements and the lack of regulation by the FDA in that market. More scrutiny should undoubtedly be placed on the FDA and the products it regulates.
I agree with some sentiments already stated. Some of the paragraphs are drawn out. Looking at two of them gives me a sense of anxiety that gives the sections complications before I even read them. The other thing I would add is leaving out words such as seems. This paper has a strong argument, but adding words like seems lessens the idea. It takes away from a definitive stance and makes it more of a, “I think this is what the argument should be”
I really enjoyed this writing. It is something new and I have never thought about drugs and skincare being compared in one writing. Most people are smart enough to stay away from drugs due to the facts that they are dangerous, but I didn’t realize how dangerous skincare products are. You would think they take care of your skin so you think nothing of it and use the product, but some are actually doing more harm than good for your skin.
I do enjoy this writing, but I think it is a little too much in the fact of comparing drugs to skincare products. Everything made in todays day in age has a risk or warning with the product and it is good to write about the dangers, but shouldn’t be compared to drugs due to the fact that drugs are way more of a serious issue.
I appreciate the fact that you provided so much detail as to why these “drugs” should be considered on the same list as other well know drugs. You gave evidence that made me realize you are right and that the products some companies are marketing as safe are in fact not.
You did a good job of explaining how cosmetics are harmful to the skin and what damage these products can cause. I found your point about makeup being virtually unregulated especially powerful in solidifying your argument that we do not know what products we are putting on our face and the beauty companies don’t really know either or they are covering it up.
I would make sure to breakdown your paragraphs into single main points. If your paragraphs have too much information it is easy for it to be misconstrued and lost. I personally would suggest touching more on the topic of how makeup and drugs are similar and how they could be classified. I get the overall point but I would like to see this explained more!
I like how the author argues that a major problem is that we allow the cosmetic industry to purposefully make their products with harsh chemicals and ingredients, yet it isn’t cared about in society until we start to see people reap the consequences of using said chemical and harsh ingredients on their bodies.
I believe the most impressive aspect of this argument is how well the connection between skin care products and drugs. I think you did a great job explaining how they are drugs, with similar ways to be administered and how little the FDA actually does to regulate these products. The quotes used are very supportive.
To offer my critique I would begin with cutting down on paragraph size. When reading it is far more pleasant to see short ideas with one idea than a wall of words. Another point I think could use some work is your grammar. I noted some issues with the implementation of the quotes. As the professor told me, if the work is accessible on the internet it should be linked.
The most impressive part of this argument is how the author talks about the human behaviors. Instead of just addressing the different problems with make up and how the different ingredients affect the skin, the author took it a step further and addresses why people will do this to themselves, which I have come to appreciate. It is as informative as it is convincing.
The only problem with that I see with this is the breakdown of the paragraphs and the punctuation. The paragraphs could be broken down a little better. And the punctuation is a little off, but it isn’t all that bad.
The only criticism I would offer would be to break up your paragraphs and only discuss one main idea per. The paragraphs you have now contain so much information that it can be harder to digest in such a large chunk. I also think you should try and find a different way of explaining the effects of these drugs on the skin as I found you tend to repeat the same ideas across multiple paragraphs.
I think your comparisons to drugs and skincare products is very strong for your argument. It helps the reader understand that skincare products should be weighted more in regulations, since they have much similarities to drugs, but also pointing out that the lack of education from consumers and the non-transparency from the industry poses issues for the consumers.
I believe at times that the sentences were difficult to read. Some sentences extended over multiple lines and sometimes stringed multiple ideas into one, which ended up getting tricky to read and interpret. For example, “ People are simple creatures that love to spend money on anything until they experience any negative effects in skincare for example allergic reactions or even health problems in some cases is a beginning for consumers to get concerned”. If I take time, then I understand what points you are making in the sentence but from the first read it was difficult to interpret. I think just cleaning up of sentence structure will be able to highlight the strong points you have even more
One thing that is not really clear to me is when the author mentioned that the regulations are different in the U.S. than in Europe. It doesn’t really explain how they differentiate or why each place has their own regulations. I think a little more clarity would be beneficial.
I really liked the part where you called out big man skin care companies and would say how they would have lead in them and wouldn’t be transparent with their product enough to let people know this. It connected to the next paragraph of how people would buy anything as long as it doesn’t cause any noticeable harm to them.
One critique that I would say is that some of the paragraphs seem too long and seem as though they have multiple ideas in those paragraphs. This confuses me as it looks as if you are quickly jumping from subject to subject without allow me to take it in.
I think the argument makes the reader feel like the author is talking about an urgent matter. The connection of cosmetics to dangerous drugs helps push the matter forward as though it applies to the reader and they should help. Plus with the comments on how the FDA and large cosmetic companies allow these potentially damaging cosmetics to be on the market, the author makes the audience feel decieved
I like the comparisons between drugs and skincare, I think it is a very strong argument that you support very well. It really points out the lack of education consumers have on these products, and the standard that we hold skincare companies to.
I believe that some of what you were trying to say could be a bit confusing at times. Certain sentences have multiple ideas that they are trying to present, making it confusing for the reader. It can be hard for the reader to interpret what you are trying to say at times.
I feel like you did a very nice job at making your claims clear like how the FDA needs to regulate skincare products since many ingredients have not been properly studied and tested. It’s also nice to see that you drew a comparison to drugs and skincare products as you mentioned drugs come in many different forms and can enter the body in many different ways.
One critical thing is that some of your paragraphs may be considered too long. Try to keep them shorter but still provide the same arguments. I would suggest also using block quotes as it would allow the readers to have a better understanding if its you writing or a quote from another article. Improve sentence structure also but overall your essay was pretty easy to understand.
I really like this topic, I think it’s something very important that needs to be discussed. You did a really good job in showing the intensity of this situation, and how the FDA needs to change for the good of the people. You are 100% correct that often times people don’t even think about what they are putting on their skin, if it’s on the shelf they assume its beneficial. We have so much blind trust in the FDA, that their mistakes in not regulating skincare is going to be extremely harmful. Labelling skin care as a drug, since it’s also absorbed through the skin, is an amazing way to help fix this issue. Great job!
The only place that i think this essay needs work is the structure. Your ideas aren’t separated by paragraph, and that makes it a little harder to follow along. It feels like almost one big paragraph, since new ideas and new pieces of evidence aren’t separated.
I really appreciate the topic of this essay. Most people wouldn’t really consider cosmetics as a drug because nearly everyone uses it. It is really eye-opening to read about this topic, and I love all the support given. It’s amazing to see how such an ignored topic in society could be so dangerous.
To add some criticism, since this topic is so ignored, it might be easier to use smaller paragraphs. People might not want to read all of these words that they believe don’t matter, but if you get straight to the point, they won’t have the opportunity to get bored.
The information presented about harmful products to your skin is very influential to the readers and I think it is well written to get your point across.
I like how your ideas and arguments flow into one another, and you do a good job at incorporating useful quotes with statistics and numbers from your sources to further explain your argument. I do however believe you could benefit from revising your spacing with quotation marks, like in this example:
in the article,” COSMETICS: A Dermatologist Looks to the Future: Promises and Problems’ “Albert M. Kilgman explains how people using these cosmetics have a lack of education with,” No premarketing proof of efficacy or safety is required.”
just makes the quotes and article titles a bit hard to read.
One thing that I would fix is to maybe break up the bigger paragraphs and space it out so it isn’t all clumped together.
I like the end of the argument especially. Drawing a contrast between the skincare industry and another does wonders here for the strength of the assertion that the skincare industry does not have the proper controls and regulations in place to ensure its products are thoroughly tested for safety and integrity despite being prone to cause harm.
The names and the categories we assign to things all carry connotations, and those are important, but I think this argument fails to reconcile your acknowledgement that many kinds of products share the moniker of a “drug” with the argument that assigning it to skincare is warranted for the sake of making people aware of the risks. If people are used to all sorts of harmful and helpful products alike sharing that same name, then assigning it to skincare products in an effort to encourage consumers to be warry is unlikely to make a significant difference, as to your credit you also acknowledge. However I think this ultimately makes the argument seem weaker. If the primary argument for you is more to suggest that the FDA should impose greater regulations, than I think there’s a stronger (albeit safer) argument to be made, but I think you should put in more work to actually prove that these measures would also influence consumer behavior desirably considering your mention of how people base many decisions off of trends and influencers.
I thought your overall argument was very clear while also being independent and against common belief. I thought the opening was very strong and appreciated how you went into your argument within the first paragraph rather than asking questions or making unimportant statements.
The only place I feel like the argument slightly faluted was close to the end. In the second to last paragraph, you start going after the consumer saying they are too self obsessed and negligent to care about this issue. I think you can re-write this section to put less blame on them, since they can’t do anything to make the changes you want to see.
In this argument there are many dead end claims or ideas made, with no follow-up or briefing afterwards. Paragraphs run on often, and the main premises of corruption in the cosmetic industry is frequently repeated but never concluded with a solution
When reading this I like her claims and how the author attacked the problems off how the FDA does the minimum with drugs involved in skin care products. The author made me as a reader feel understand clearly of her argument and also made me agree to them and join their point of view.
Just a heads up, I think there’s an error with quotations in the beginning of the second paragraph, the middle ” should be changed to ‘ if it inside a quotation. Other than that, solid paper. This is a real problem that I am not very aware of while buying things like sunscreen because I’m not a huge skincare consumer.
I like that you can tell the author really believes in the topic of the argument. They have a lot of good points to make, and it’s something I never would have thought about before.
I was a little confused near the end about what a drug is defined as in the author’s perspective. It might be better to break up the paragraph into smaller points to more clearly argue that topic.
My favorite aspect of this argument is the emphasis on how skincare products share a lot of similarities with drugs. This is not something that I would have that about, but the drawing back to different ingredients in the products that are known to not be good for someone adds to the argument well. I also enjoyed the passion that the author has for this argument.
One aspect I struggle with understanding is the different quotes used. Some of them seemed to be punctuated oddly and it causes a distraction for me. Additionally, I think the end leaves me in a state of confusion.
I love how you went into details and explained the types of drugs that can be found in cosmetics, and the side effects it can have on people’s skin. All of the researched articles and statements definitely contributed and strengthened your argument as to why cosmetics can be dangerous to people’s skin.
I would recommend explaining to the readers what the main objective of organizations like “FDA” and “FDCA” are. some might not know what it stands for or what it is which might cause confusion when reading the paper.
The most impressive part I found of this short argument is how the author compared skincare and drugs. This was outstanding and got me as a reader into the writing even more. Everyone knows drugs are very harmful to the body but to think of cosmetics is crazy. We use cosmetics every day if of life voluntarily, as for drugs we have a choice.
What i think should be added is breaking up the paragraphs a little more and adding more detail of which cosmetics are harmful.