FDA: dōTERRA & Young Living Reps Making EO Drug Claims

 

Giving Advice On Healing Properties Of Essential Oils

The enjoyment of essential oils is certainly not lost on me and I use them in my body care formulas and LOVE them for the soothing aroma they offer me over synthetic fragrance.  I also am aware of the history of EO's and how wonderful they can be for many health benefits, but sharing that info under the context of medicinal qualities or healing benefits would be tantamount to providing a drug or practicing medicine without a license....and that is a scary thing.

Unfortunately, this is EXACTLY what is occurring with MLM reps of two companies that are rapidly growing in popularity which are dōTERRA and Young Living.  To some degree these companies have developed quite the cult following which can be dangerous to the average consumer.  If they are taking their healing and medical rhetoric to the point of an infallible belief because one may not be knowledgeable about essential oils, this is where harm can be done to the populace.  If one wishes to self diagnose, then great....but to offer diagnosis to another person simply based on the fact that a company is headed up or founded by a doctor, does not allow or provide the credentials for someone to spread the information as scientifically or medically sound.

One lady in particular and my good friend, Kayla Fioravanti, has spent many years formulating and using essential oils and has now written a book on the subject and her research is exemplary.  It is however this very knowledge she shared, courageously I might add, that set off a firestorm of the most hateful and mean spirited comments after she wrote the article which I decided to share below.  It was clear that many of them are in this cult like following of being duped by these companies and clearly accepted their marketing materials at face value.... which in a sense has become all about the money rather than the scientific reality of these essential oils.  These sales people have zero training in safe use of these oils, let alone having the education it requires to understand the possibility of drug interaction with others the person might be taking at the time of use.  They are merely trained in how to sell these products and recruit more sales staff to grow these two company's bottom line.

Fortunately, as of Sept. 22nd, 2014, Kayla's attempts to protect and inform the public are now vindicated for all to see.  Thankfully, the FDA finally stepped in and issued Violation Letters to both dōTERRA and Young Living in order to prevent harm to the public.  This is serious stuff once they become involved.  It was clear that the proponents of these companies have been misguided and are breaking the law as is represented in the comment wars in the link above.  Now the founders of these companies have to answer to the scrutiny of the FDA, especially since they advise people to ingest these essential oils.  Not a wise thing to do at all and frankly I don't understand this concept.  Holistic healing is awesome, but without the science to prove it or under the care of a practicing physician, this is ill advised by many EO experts.  What I do find interesting however, is since publishing this latest update involving the FDA, it is nothing but crickets from her critics.  Truth and science rule the day, EVERY TIME!

Letter to Young Living from the FDA

Letter to dōTERRA from the FDA

If you know anyone or you yourself are using these oils in some type of medicinal way as promoted by these MLM companies, please share this vital information so as to keep yourself and others from possible harm of using essential oils in such a way as they are being promoted that goes outside the boundaries of safe use.  Kayla's article will shed much light on this issue and I hope you find it helpful.

Original Complaint Filed by Aromatherapy United

 

Warnings dōTERRA And Young Living Won’t Tell You - author Kayla Fioravanti

The dangerous practices of consuming essential oils and applying them undiluted on the skin have gone viral on the internet, chat rooms and via sale representatives of many dōTERRA and Young Living MLM representatives. Beware of anyone who tells you to ingest essential oils either by putting a few drops in your water or putting them into a capsule. The only cases of death, organ failure and hospitalization in the history of aromatherapy have been caused by ingesting essential oils. It is THAT dangerous.

Another dangerous practice many dōTERRA and Young Living representatives teach is to apply essential oils undiluted directly on your skin. Please don’t.

I am so passionate about the safe use of essential ones that I dedicated an entire chapter to it in my book The Art, Science and Business of Aromatherapy. I decided to share a section Chapter 10 in response to the overwhelming number of people I am hearing from who are being taught to ingest essential oils and use them undiluted. Please share with your friends and family. Keep aromatherapy safe.

My Top 12 Aromatherapy Safety Rules from Chapter 10

History and safety testing have given us useful aromatherapy data. For review of this chapter, please study the following twelve rules that I think are the most important when it comes to using essential oils safely.

Rule #1

Never consume essential oils. Even if you read a book by an aromatherapist from a country that uses essential oils internally, they should never be consumed. The practice of consuming essential oils is dangerous and was designed to be done under the care of an aromatherapist trained in that form of therapy. In addition, studies have shown that topical aromatherapy is more effective than internal aromatherapy methods.

Rule #2

Always dilute your essential oils before applying them to the skin. There are a very small handful of exceptions to this rule including lavender and tea tree which can be occasionally applied neat, or directly, to the skin. In different aromatherapy books there may be recommendations of essential oils over 3% in massage oils but it simply isn’t necessary. Less is more in the world of essential oils. There is no need to overdose and it is always better to be safe than sorry.

Essential oils are incredibly potent and need to be dispersed into a carrier before applying them to the skin. You wouldn’t wrap your body in 30 lbs. of plant material so don’t apply that much or more directly onto your skin.

Typically, essential oils are diluted into products at 1 to 3% – sometimes less and sometimes more, but that is the general rule of thumb. Some essential oils have an intense aroma and price tag combination that allows for their use as low as 0.1% Take jasmine, blue chamomile and neroli for example.

Raindrop therapy is a good example of how undiluted and too high of concentrations of essential oils can be dangerous. This method of applying essential oils is the practice of dripping pure undiluted essential oils directly onto the skin which has many adverse effects. People have had burns, skin irritation, and intense detoxification effects that could have been avoided if this dangerous practice was no longer taught. The human body does not need to detoxify at such a rapid rate, and the skin should not come in direct contact with undiluted essential oils. Please report injuries at the Atlantic Institute.

Rule #3

Keep all essential oils out of the reach of children; they are notorious for putting everything in their mouths. Compared to adults, essential oils should be used in half the dosage rate for children for topical application. They are not miniature adults, and their bodies were not designed to process the same ratio of essential oils on their skin. I have safely used aromatherapy on all three of my children since 1998.

I heard of a case of a woman who read that tangerine essential oil would help with hyperactivity in children. She decided to put undiluted tangerine essential oil directly on the palms of her child’s hands. Thankfully, tangerine is a safe enough essential oil and the child suffered no serious ill effect. But she had decided to try it on a day that the child had a big test to take at school, and the high concentration of tangerine oil knocked the child out for the entire day and he slept through his test, lunch, dinner…and into the next morning.

Rule #4

Stay with the tried and true essential oils. Avoid ones that are not the common essential oils used historically in aromatherapy. Unless you understand the chemistry, it is best to stick with the commonly used essential oils. A trained aromatherapist can read the chemical composition of an essential oil profile and make an educated decision about the safety of an essential oil. But without that training you would not know whether you should avoid or use essential oils based on their chemical composition of aldehydes, esthers, ketones, phenols, and monoterpene hydrocarbons.

Rule #5

Know which essential oils to avoid or use with caution. Avoid them even if you like the way they smell or the properties that you read about them.

Essential oils to be avoided altogether include: unrectified bitter almond, basil ct. methyl chavicol, birch, boldo leaf, blue cypress, bitter fennel, bog myrtle, buchu, unrectified cade, calamint, calamus, (brown, blue or yellow) camphor, cassia, cinnamon bark, costus, davana, dog basil, elecampane, fig leaf, horseradish, jaborandi, lantana, melaleuca bracteata, mustard, mugwort, parsley seed, pennyroyal, rue, dalmatian sage, santolina, sassafras, savin, tansy, tarragon, tea absolute, thuja, tonka bean, verbena, wintergreen, wormseed, and wormwood.

Essential oils that should be used with caution or at very low dosages include: yarrow, dill, tarragon, caraway, white camphor, hyssop, spearmint, rosemary ct. verbenone, and tagette. Essential oils that should be heavily diluted due to potential skin irritation include: cassia, cinnamon leaf, cumin, lemongrass, oregano, clove stem, clove bud, clove leaf, wild thyme, and red thyme.

Rule #6

Always wear protective gear while handling essential oils. Remember that essential oils are very concentrated and should not be applied directly to the skin. If you wear gloves while handling essential oils you lessen the chance of spilling undiluted essential oils directly onto your hands. Even if it doesn’t hurt at the moment, it could hurt later. A good example is how peppermint essential oil spilled directly onto your hands might not hurt at the moment, but later when you touch your eye, it will burn like crazy.

Rule #7

Work in a well-ventilated area. Remember that essential oils can enter the body through inhalation. Some essential oils can cause euphoria, sleepiness or can be extremely stimulating. In a closed space with poor circulation the essential oils can become overwhelming.

Rule #8

Use extra caution when using essential oils on children and the elderly. The dosages should be at least half that of what you would use for a healthy adult. And essential oils are toxic to cats so never ever use essential oils on them.

Rule #9

Use common sense. Essential oils are safe when used in moderation. Many substances on earth are toxic when used in the extreme. Too much water can lead to water poisoning, and carrots, tomatoes, saffron, and mustard will all cause illness when consumed in excess.

Rule #10

To safeguard your business, do not make healing claims about your products. That would transform your cosmetic into a drug. The rules and regulations for drugs are completely different, and aromatherapy does not qualify on any monograph for approved over-the-counter drugs.

Rule #11

Always use the botanical name for essential oils when ordering. I never make an aromatherapy decision without reviewing the botanical name. The botanical name tells the genus and species of the plant and includes information about the variety, cultivar, chemotype, and hybrid when needed. Often these details are the difference between an essential oil being safe for use or not.

Rule #12

Check contraindications of an essential oil before using it. You don’t want to be making a sleepy time bath with essential oils that are contraindicated for insomnia like peppermint, basil, lemon verbena, cornmint, or rosemary.

FYI (from earlier in Chapter 10) on the Seriousness of Ingesting Essential Oils

There has never been a reported case of a woman or baby being harmed by topical or inhalation therapy used during pregnancy or labor. Aromatherapists all warn their clients away from pennyroyal essential oil due to a case in the USA in which a woman drank a large dose of pennyroyal in order to induce an abortion that proved fatal to her (Gold and Cates, 1980). One out of four cases in which pregnant women accidently drank camphor oil instead of castor oil resulted in the death of the baby (Weiss and Catalano, 1976).

Another reported case in which pennyroyal and parsley seed were taken in large doses caused hepatotoxicity which resulted in the death of the baby.

There are two other cases in which women consumed the same large doses of pennyroyal (100 to 200 times the recommended topical application) in which both the mothers and the babies survived unharmed. It is cases like this that give essential oils their warnings and contraindications.

Other Safety Topics

Chapter 10 of my book The Art, Science and Business of Aromatherapy also includes other safety topics including: essential oil testings, grades of essential oils, drug claims, essential oil adulteration, contraindications, more safety warnings, the use of essential oils during pregnancy, the history of aromatherapy warnings in pregnancy, MSDS information along with my top 12 aromatherapy warnings. You can find it in paperback and on Kindle.

What makes me qualified to teach about aromatherapy? I am a Certified and was a Registered Aromatherapist with more than a dozen years of experience. The references for this article and my book can be found here. I was certified by a school approved by the National Association of Holistic Aromatherapy and was registered by The Aromatherapy Council.

UPDATE From Kayla: Many of the comments in this article ask for proof. Others have said injury is only caused by other brands of essential oils. Please take the time to read these articles. I would like to leave comments open on my blog post, but some of have been so ugly and negative that I am having second thoughts. I have added this information below to try to answer the attacks before they come.

Articles that document injuries:

Essential Oil Safety: Documented Side Effects, Injuries, and Deaths from Essential Oil Ingestion by Lee Tea

A near fatal case of high dose peppermint oil ingestion- Lessons learnt by US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health

Essential oil ingestion and adverse reactions (proof) by Lea Harris

Essential oils and eye safety by Robert Tisserand

Truth Seekers – Young Living Deposition on Personal Care Truth

Adverse Reactions to Peppermint Oil and With Friends Like This, Who Needs Enemies by Aromaceuticals

Want A Tattoo? FDA Has Latest Warning On The Dangers!

Tattoos, Love Them Or Hate Them

Although I am not a huge fan of sporting a tattoo, I also believe in "to each his own" and "live and let live".  However, when it comes to my readers health, this latest FDA warning is not something I wished to allow to go unshared, no matter my personal beliefs on the practice.  I just can't wrap my head around having a needle stuck in me, no matter the purpose for it's use, let alone electing to do it.  I grow faint and nauseated when they take blood for crying out loud!

I did an article on Tattoos several years back titled "The Dangers Of Permanent Makeup, AKA Cosmetic Tattooing".  There are so many unspoken risks to using inks from who knows where, that I wanted to at least show the repercussions of deciding to have permanent makeup tattooed onto our skin.  The risks are very real, which include allergic reactions, infections, staph and many others that can compromise our immune system or create sepsis in our blood.

Don't Ignore The Safety Precautions Or Recalls

Aside from all of the warnings, many are willing to take the risk and most turn out okay.  Yet we are now being notified of a recall on a certain brand of ink that has been shown to have bacteria within "unopened" bottles.  White and Blue Lion, Inc. recalled contaminated products on July 11, 2014, but FDA is still concerned that consumers and professional tattoo artists may be purchasing or using contaminated home tattoo kits and inks from other distributors.

“Reporting an infection to FDA and the artist is important in order for FDA to investigate, and to enable the artist to take steps to prevent others from becoming infected,” says epidemiologist Katherine Hollinger, D.V.M., M.P.H., from the Office of Cosmetics and Colors.

Take the advice in this scenario and practice self awareness when and if you should decide that permanent makeup or an artistic tattoo is for you.  It is vital when dealing with many of these inks coming here from overseas, that we make sure we protect ourselves through due diligence and taking the FDA's advice in regard to assessing the safety of these inks and / or the professional using them.

The FDA Update For Tattoo Inks And The Recall

This information may very well prevent someone from choosing poorly and if they do, then the information on symptoms of being contaminated with the "bad ink" can help you know if your health is now at risk.  The FDA link also shows you what to do and how to report an incident.

Choose wisely and take this warning to heart because no amount of pretty ink is worth your well being.

Another Product Myth Disguised As Fact

Just For Laughs

My gift to you today is laughter, because just when I thought I have seen everything as it relates to the myths surrounding chemicals, natural ingredients and the like, this latest "fun fact" showed up all over facebook this summer, beginning in July.  Of course once I saw this, I just had to share.

This hit me like a clunk on the head, not in a bad way, but with me laughing hysterically.  This has probably got to be the best info-graphic of disinformation I've seen to date.

The Claim Being Made

Supposedly, consumers can tell the chemical makeup of tube contents just by checking the color of a small square at the bottom of the tube crimp. This shared little secret is being propogated by many in social media which include facebook, blogs, twitter, and the promo is "please share right away" as another way to make this go viral.  It is also a prime example of how this disinformation spreads and then is out over the airwaves for all eternity.

This savvy advice (dripping sarcasm) informs one that whatever product in a tube you might be using, such as toothpaste for instance, just by looking at this mark placed on the crimp will reveal all.  Colors that you'll find are a GREEN square which means contents are 'all natural', RED means 'mostly chemicals' with some natural composition, and BLACK means 'only chemicals' are used.

Never mind the fact that this would not pass muster with FDA, but it is pure and utter nonsense.  Let us also remember that the term natural versus chemical are not mutually exclusive as all things are chemical.  I also couldn't help noticing the choice of the color coding identifying the differences.  I admire their imagination because it reminds me of a traffic light;

• GREEN = good, healthy, safe, warm and fuzzy

• RED = stop, bad, unsafe, green-washing, harmful

• BLACK = kiss of death, toxic, skull and crossbones, poison

What The Little Marks On The Crimp Really Mean

These marks or lines on tubes referred to in the message, perform a specific purpose during the packaging process. The marks are called "eye marks" (or sometimes "eye spots").  They do not in any way indicate the chemical content of the formulas within the tubes they are displayed on, regardless of what color they are.  Furthermore, their color coding can include all colors of the rainbow, not just the ones selected here for making what I have determined, is a subtle hint of some kind....but maybe it's just me....don't think so, but maybe.

Eye marks can be identified by electronic eyes as the packaging goes through a sophisticated machine mechanism at high rates of speed.  The marks serve a variety of packaging purposes such as telling the machine where to cut and crimp tubes or indicating the desired color of print on packaging.  Many products have such eye marks, although they may not always be visible to consumers as they are on tubes.

What's Wrong With Spreading This Type Of Urban Myth

The message that is circulating with this info graphic is "did you know squares on tubes mean something" followed by the color identifier you see in the graphic.  These "squares" in fact do mean something....to packaging machines and the people who operate them.  These are marks for them to read, but to us, the average consumer, these should mean nothing to us and are not for us to worry about, at least not in the context that is being conveyed.

This is simply another exploitative ploy to try to convince the unknowing consumer that we in the beauty and personal care industry are again, trying to hide or perpetuate a huge fraud on the consumer.  That we are secretly within our inner circle, including ingredients in a product without having to inform the public. 

REALLY?!  Can we have a cognitive moment here and can you help me bring these myth tellers back from the land of Shangri-la? 

Simply say, "Want to know what the contents are in a product that is on the market?"

"You'll find it right on the side panel, or the back of the tube, or on exterior packaging and it will be in full detail..... That's the law, pure and simple.  Some websites will also add continued detail of the ingredients, as we do for all of our products."

As always, once you peel back the myth, the truth can always be found by those that seek it, and these same people don't always accept things at face value, thankfully.  And I can certainly assure those that are easily mired in this type of rhetoric that the little mark on the tube's base will tell you nothing whatsoever about its chemical makeup or that it is some conspiracy to keep the public in the dark so we can continue to hide the so called "real truth" from the discerning public.

Now after you have a good laugh as I did, please enjoy your weekend and share this tidbit at every opportunity with all of your lovely friends and family.  Just say "NO" to the dupers!

We can stop this ridiculousness about our industry, collectively! 

CHEERS

FDA Non Approved Drug Used In Peter Roth Eyelash Products

Ingredient Labels Are Crucial In Identifying A Potential Risk Of Harm

Peter Roth LLC created a brow, mascara and eye lash treatment containing an ingredient that is found in Latisse, known for growing longer and thicker eyelashes.  I guess they felt they could offer an eyelash treatment similar to that of Latisse.

In looking at the ingredient label for this eyelash treatment known as "Lashes to Die For Plantinum", it is clear due to the location of the prostaglandin as the second ingredient, it could be considered high in content therefore becoming an active ingredient.  It is clearly added for some purported benefit due to their claims.

The ingredient label follows below:

Water, 17-Phenyl Trinor Prostaglandin E2 Serinol Amide, Sodium Hyaluronate, Hydrolyzed Glycosaminoglycans, Acrylates/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate Crosspolymer, Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice, Panthenol, Retinyl Palmitate, Ascorbyl Palmitate, Tocopheryl Acetate, Phospholipids, Cyclodextrin, Triethanolamine, Disodium EDTA, Methylparaben, Imidazolidinyl Urea

The product description follows below:

A nighttime eyelash treatment that helps lashes appear nearly twice as long, in just eight weeks.  It will dramatically increase the appearance of lash length, thickness, and fullness in just four to eight weeks. This formula's key ingredient, Prostaglandin Analogue Complex, is concentrated at clinical strength to deliver dramatic results. Lashes are strengthened and nourished with Vitamins A, C, E, pro vitamin B5, and aloe vera.  This product is ophthalmologist tested, endorsed, and recommended.  

Research Results:  In an eight week clinical trial on 40 female subjects (ages 18-60):- 100 of users reported the appearance of longer lashes.- 100 of users reported the appearance of thicker lashes.- 100 of users reported the appearance of fuller lashes.

As I have written in the past about clinical studies, especially on such a small number of women, the results can be whatever the trial wants to report.  Was this a controlled study, instead of a blind study?  Was this their study or a study duplicated by Latisse?  Is it their product that is endorsed by ophthalmologists or are they following the endorsement provided with Latisse?   Many questions..... and without these questions being factored in for the public, this proves nothing, including not revealing in the study on any side effects, only on the purported benefit. 

The Drug Benefit Now Becomes A Liability

Unfortunately, in my opinion and apparently the opinion of the Tennessee Attorney General's office (I'll get into that later), this is irresponsible on the part of the manufactures of this eyelash product.  They essentially are taking a controlled substance and infusing it into their eyelash formula without any drug monograph or warnings to the user as to any known side effects which accompany this drug, at all points of sale.

Peter Roth LLC has not done FDA approved studies proving the benefit, let alone the lack of care in releasing a drug on the open market in the form of a cosmetic in the first place without the FDA approved clinical trials....essentially placing the consumer in harms way.  Latisse duplicated studies cannot be extrapolated to Peter Roth products.  They must perform their own independent trials.

They also can't have it both ways legally; on one hand make product claims only to not list the proprietary ingredient as "active" and then place a disclaimer on the same package.

The drug component of this product can have similar side effects of other prostaglandin analogues such as bimatoprost.  So the users eyelash area where this drug is applied, similar to Latisse warnings, could turn blue and the color of the eye (the iris) could change to brown along with experiencing irritation, redness, and extreme tearing.   I mean really, why do you think Latisse is available by prescription only?

Where this goes beyond being reprehensible, the product is sold at multiple locations such as Amazon and Sephora, and they offer no medical warnings or drug interactions with the drug 17-Phenyl Trinor Prostaglandin E2 Serinol Amide contained in this eyelash treatment at the point of sale.  So, if you're using medicated eye drops to manage glaucoma, this could have an impact on your eye health.  An Opthalmologist should be consulted on this drug interaction if using any medication for your eyes...since eyes are sacred, and damaging them...well there is no going back and this scares the heck out of me.

However, how would one unsuspecting consumer know since the ingredient is added benignly among other ingredients instead of showing it as "Active"?  Did they do this to avoid FDA compliance with gaining OTC drug approval or following labeling requirements?  So now the unsuspecting user of this product is placed at risk of having any of these reported drug side effects, and once the iris changes color, it becomes permanent.  Is this worth it for our vanity sake?

Tennessee Attorney General Takes Peter Roth LLC To Task

Peter Roth LLC did resolve the lawsuit filed by the Tennessee Attorney General’s office after allegations that their products contained  FDA non approved ingredients in a product being sold as a cosmetic.  The company was alleged to have included a derivative of the drug compound prostaglandin in eye lash products “Lashes to Die For” (now discontinued), “Brows to Die For” and “Lashes to Die For Platinum.” (the replacement for the original due to a higher drug ratio was incorporated into the product)

The state says that using this potent hormone-like chemical without authorization and without informing customers of the health risks violates the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977.

The lawsuit was resolved by Roth denying any wrongdoing but voluntarily agreed to stop selling the products.  Attorney General Cooper said: “Although there were no complaints from Tennesseans, we are satisfied the company agreed to stop sales and comply with the law before anyone could be harmed.”

I can assure you however, the FDA disclaimer they place on the labels does not remove their responsibility of not following FDA drug regulations, and the State of Tennessee agrees.  If you're going to incorporate a known FDA regulated drug into the formulas, it is now a drug / cosmetic combined, and needed FDA approval as an OTC drug, just like sunscreens....no more, no less.

SIDE NOTE For Clarification: In regard to the use of minerals in makeup where they are known as an FDA approved OTC for sunscreens, and not listed as "active" do not fall into the same category since they are also defined by FDA as a colorant and are used to change shades on color products.  It is about the claims of the purported sunscreen benefit which would change a cosmetic to a drug, as Peter Roth did in his claims made on the label along with the fact that the ingredient in question is a DRUG, constituting this as an OTC drug.

The investigation of the eyelash and eyebrow products yielded positive results for protecting consumers.  They were essentially accused of having “illegally manufactured, marketed and sold the eyelash products that contain analogs or derivatives of the drug phostaglandin without FDA approval.” 

They did reach a settlement and it specifies that the company will stop selling their eyelash products in the state until they have been authorized by the FDA or declared outside its jurisdiction.  The company was also ordered to make a token payment of $1500.00 to cover attorney’s fees and costs of the investigation.

I have noticed though, that Sephora and other websites have done the responsible thing by no longer making it available, which is a good thing since this should not be isolated to just Tennessee.  However, you can still find it being sold by Ebay stores and Amazon.  An example of the blind leading the blind...basically "no one told them!"

What The Heck Is All The Hoopla About This Drug?

Prostaglandins are chemical compounds used for medical purposes to lower blood pressure, regulate body temperature and platelet formation, control inflammation and vascular permeability and affect certain hormones.

They are commonly used in cosmetic eyecare products by prescription only, or at the very least getting approval as an OTC drug / cosmetic because of their effect of creating longer, thicker lashes through a drug benefit, which in turn would include a drug monograph warning consumers of drug reaction and interactions.

They have been associated very rarely with health problems in some customers.  Although Prostaglandins are legal in the US, the state claims that if Roth wished to include them in their products, they needed to obtain approval from the FDA and disclose the fact to customers.

No matter the minimal effects from the drug, a side effect is a side effect and should be divulged at the point of sale so the consumer can make an intelligent decision in regard to their health when it comes to spending their hard earned dollar.

Peter Roth Not Alone On This One

The Tennessee state Attorney General also settled in February with cosmetics company Nutraluxe LLC, who agreed to stop selling the so called “Beautylash” products which were found to contain prostaglandin derivatives or analogs as well.

Nutraluxe, who retailed their brand through Amazon, also denied wrongdoing as part of the settlement of the lawsuit.....well of course they did.

My only question at this point is, why a local state had to intercede?

I'm waiting and watching to see, if ever, the FDA will become involved since this is a prime example of a cosmetic which would be determined by the FDA as ILLEGAL and MIS-BRANDED!

In the meantime folks....PLEASE check your ingredient labels where provided, and if there is an ingredient you don't understand or aren't sure of, hit the PAUSE button and put the item back on the shelf after notating the ingredient in question and then Google it...either at home or right there on your cell phone.  It may very well keep you from having an unexpected reaction due to lack of knowing what the heck it is.

And for those that continue to not disclose the ingredients to the public all for the sake of masking certain ingredients, or only list the "key" ones.....then by all means, take your dollars elsewhere.  Because you'd have to wonder what else they are hiding...wouldn't you?

We always comply with truth in labeling and disclose every ingredient used at the point of sale where you add to your shopping bag and is on all of our product labels.  No secret ingredients or mysterious labels, just the facts!

Be Wise and Be Safe!

FDA Sends More Warning Letters For Drug Claims In Skincare

FDA Is No Longer Being Complacent It Seems

FDA has sent out more warning letters to a small number of companies that specialize in skincare creams that correlate with Diabetes, since they are proclaiming a drug benefit when you use one of their topical treatments.  Although this is not a cosmetic company scenario, it still is something to underscore that FDA is keeping an eye out for those wanting to make medical claims that their skin cream will do more than just moisturize and help skin look and feel better.

Who Was Targeted This Time With An FDA Warning?

It was these medical skin care providers listed below:

• Health Care Products, Diabetes Division, concerning two of its Zostrix skin care products

• Anastasia Marie Laboratories for its Diapedic treatment

• The Magni Group for a number of medicated skin care products, to treat shingle-, diabetic- and other medical related skin care issues.

The FDA based their warning letters on the premise that some of the purported product claims offered by way of marketing and advertising, which is a violation of FTC regulations as well, also violated The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, with specific reference to drug claims that might pertain to the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease.  In these cases, it revolved around those suffering from diabetes.

Although I have covered this in the past in many of my articles I feel they are worth repeating:

FDA is clear about a disease is any condition of the body such as wrinkles due to aging, dryness, skin damage due to sun exposure, acne, psoriasis, eczema etc.  Whereas a cosmetic is defined as a product intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance.

So most skincare creams or makeup products can clearly make us look and feel better including soothing skin and even improving its texture temporarily and / or skins appearance with cumulative effects.  However their descriptions, despite the ingredient profile of known benefits, especially when organic ingredients are used, cannot purport to be curative in any way of any disease, skin condition or otherwise.

I would love to proclaim historical and anecdotal evidence of how organic ingredients can truly react remarkably on skin, but without the actual clinical studies, no can do!  Only you can decide how your skin does or what you know has been improved after using a certain skincare product.

FDA Sent Out Warning Letters For Anti Aging Claims Last Year

Last Fall, the FDA notified some of the heavy hitters in our cosmetic and skincare industry and gave them a major smack down because they were making product claims relating to anti-aging benefits without actual FDA approved clinical trials.

Some of you may remember the companies that were targeted; Avon, L’Oreal (Lancome) and Janson Becket for example, making claims that their products can help treat or visibly repair wrinkles.  You can see the FDA list and who and what type of warning letters were issued to various cosmetic and skincare companies.

The FDA is especially keen to point out that many companies marketing anti-aging products avoid making claims that such treatments can have a physiological impact on the body or the appearance, which according to its definition of a cosmetic product, gives it a drug claim.  The term 'anti-aging' in and of itself could be determined also as a drug claim since it infers that it is reversing or preventing aging of our skin, which no product can do.  It can help skin look better and slow the process to a degree, but to prevent or reverse, this will not happen.

The FDA won't typically have a problem with a name of a product so much as a description based on its' intended use.  For instance you can call a product 'rejuvenate' or 'revitalize' as long as the name by definition doesn't broaden to a description that the skin will some how be completely transformed back to perfection before the wrinkles or damage.  However, in the other context, a product called 'acne buster' or 'acne complex' does create an inference within the name that it will do something for acne, such as cure or correct it without product description.  This would therefore fall under FDA scrutiny as a skincare product duping as a drug.

Claims that any skincare or cosmetic product will rejuvenate (restore to new), repair, or restructure the skin may also be a drug claim.  Another in particular that I have frowned on and know to be categorically false, are those that claim they can restore collagen simply by applying a collagen molecule to the skin.  Synthetic collagen is actually protein molecules, and they are too large to even penetrate skin, much less do anything to help restore our loss of natural collagen as we age.  

This also is something Lancome was claiming in their skincare products and this is tantamount to making a 'drug' claim.  So always be wary of those promising you the moon, stars and sun in a fountain of youth, physiologically speaking.  It simply cannot be done with a topical cream!

Are Cosmetic or Skincare Products FDA Approved or Certified?

WOW... Now I Know These Products Are Safe

As I do my ongoing research and participate with scientists in discussions about the industry and all the facets within it, I find these claims all the time, "our products are FDA approved" or "our products are manufactured by an FDA certified lab."

So naturally, the consumer who may not realize the facts of the situation take it at face value.  I know this because I have had many customers contact me and pose these questions.  Or they will share their stories of past products, stating they knew they were safe because they were supposedly FDA approved.

I can't even count the websites within my industry that make this claim as well.

Let Me Make Things Perfectly Clear And Dispel This Myth

The FDA is solely responsible for protecting the public health by regulating human and animal drugs, biologics, medical devices, food and animal feed, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.

The FDA does NOT approve or certify any cosmetic or skincare products on the market today.  The only ingredients in cosmetics that are FDA approved are the colorants that go into products.  And the FDA has a separate division for this.

They DO NOT approve or certify manufacturing facilities, and they DO NOT approve or certify labs.

But They Are FDA Registered

As an FDA registered facility ourselves, this does not mean the FDA endorses, approves or certifies our products are the best or safe or proved promise of efficacy.  We are not manufacturing drugs here.  This is of course a voluntary program and as a cosmetic formulator, I believe this is vital to credibility of the products we provide as complying with all FDA regulations....such as GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices).

The FDA DOES inspect facilities to make sure they (we) are complying with those GMP guidelines because if they do discover violations, it can be grounds for being shut down or penalized.

FDA registration however, is mandatory for owners and operators of domestic or foreign food, drug, and most device facilities are required to register with FDA. Blood and tissue facilities also must register with the agency.

What The FDA Does Approve Or Certify

Mammography facilities must be FDA certified.  Mammography facilities are required to display their FDA certificates where patients can see them.  The certificate indicates that the facilities have met stringent standards and can provide quality mammography.

New drugs and biologics must be proven safe and effective to FDA's satisfaction before companies can market them.  In fact this is where some of the confusion occurs and the truth gets stretched.  Since the FDA does not develop or test products, they rely only on FDA experts which review the results of the private laboratory, animal, and human clinical testing done by manufacturers, and if FDA grants an approval, it means the agency has determined that the benefits of the product outweigh the risks for the intended use.

So even though a manufacturer gets a product approved under these stringent regs, it does not make their facility an FDA certified lab.  So I guess if one were looking for a lab to produce a product for them, then a track record of sorts on the labs products gaining approval from the FDA is beneficial as showing a standard of producing exceptional quality using GMP.... but that is as far as it goes.

Colorants for purposes of cosmetics........

As I stated earlier about colorants, the FDA does approve these and they are found in food, dietary supplements, drugs, cosmetics, and some medical devices.  These color additives (except coal-tar hair dyes) are subject by law to approval by the agency, and each must be used only in compliance with its approved uses, specifications, and restrictions. 

In the approval process, FDA evaluates safety data to ensure that a color additive is safe for its intended purposes.  This is why some of our colorants used are clearly noted that they are not safe for lips, such as Ultra Marines, so these should never be found in a lip color.  If they are found in a lip color for sale then these would be determined as a violation and deemed unsafe for use.

As a whole FDA does not, nor ever has approved cosmetics such as perfumes, makeup, moisturizers, shampoos, hair dyes, face and body cleansers, and shaving preparations.

FDA field investigators inspect cosmetic companies, examine imports, and collect samples for analysis.  FDA may take action against non-compliant products, or against firms or individuals who violate the law.  This can also be said for making medical or anti-aging claims since then this would put the product into the DRUG category whereby requiring compliance with the approval process, anything short of this is a violation of FDA regulations.

Side Note: Some may think Sunscreens are approved by the FDA since they are considered OTC drugs.  However, the FDA does not approve the sunscreen per se, but only the ingredients used to create sun protection are approved.  It is still up to the company to validate their SPF levels as proof of efficacy, followed by submission of their testing to the FDA for approval, and then comply with all drug monograph labeling practices.

So always be suspicious of labels that try to claim FDA Approval.  False and misleading statements are a violation and should be reported to the FDA when located, whether at the point of sale, such as websites, or on the product packaging itself.

This Is My Favorite Most Of All

"Our products are certified organic by the FDA and ECOCERT."

FDA does not define or regulate terms such as “organic” and “natural.”  However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does regulate the use of the term “organic” when used in terms of agricultural ingredient marketing.  There are also private organizations that certify “natural” and other claims; however, these organizations are in no way affiliated with FDA.  ECOCERT and NOP (National Organic Program) would be an example of these organizations, however separate and apart from the FDA.

Also, remember that all cosmetics are required to be safe, regardless of the sources of their ingredients.  An ingredient’s source does not determine its safety.  Even natural ingredients can cause potential harm to a person if they should be allergic to it... in science and chemistry, nothing is perfect absolutely.

However, even products that are created under these organic certifications are still regulated by FDA, and are subject to their jurisdiction under the law.  The USDA requirements for the use of the term “organic” are separate from the laws and regulations that FDA enforces for cosmetics.  Cosmetic products labeled with organic claims must comply with both USDA regulations for the organic claim and FDA regulations for labeling and safety requirements for cosmetics. 

In A Nutshell

So there you have it, the facts surrounding the bogus claims of "FDA Approved" or "FDA Certified" made by many cosmetic and skincare companies....and I have seen them on doctors websites turned skincare entrepreneur, making the offense worse since one would think they should know better.  Unfortunately, this just doesn't exist in reality.....and of course one more thing that those within our industry stoop to just to try and compete in the beauty products market.

Hopefully, a time will come when this practice of deceiving customers will stop and all of us will be on a level playing field helping customers make educated decisions based on the true science and benefits that any one product may provide.

Beauty Industry Professionals May Be Their Own Worst Enemy

Making Claims To Push The Envelope

I cannot even count anymore how many upstarts have come into the beauty industry game with little to zero knowledge on what they can and cannot say in regard to marketing claims.  They are consistently pushing the envelope for trying to make claims on their cosmetics that would be tantamount to being categorized as a drug.  Basically trying to gain any edge over their competitor even if it means s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g the truth.

The war is waged it seems within our industry as those who defend synthetics battle with the organic / natural crowd until one day there will be a winner, and it may be our government with overreaching, onerous regulation founded on misnomers, beauty claims and non scientific rhetoric.  Many in the beauty industry will come out the loser and it will be in part for the types of marketing claims they are making, including negative campaigns on certain ingredients.

This area should not be black and white because you can combine science with nature to create great products using all types of ingredients to achieve excellence.  It doesn't have to be an either or scenario.  Us against them is detrimental to our industry as a whole.  We should all be on the same team and work together to continue to create safe beauty products.

Furthermore, many claims that are made by beauty insiders are way over the top or are without any sense to the claim....basically, it just isn't a logical statement.

However, this is not isolated to newbies in the market but is also being propagated by those in business for 10 years or more, or by well meaning beauty bloggers...... because they can.  Just because the FDA or FTC has not rapped on their proverbial door doesn't mean what they are doing is valid, legal or proven.

Why Beauty Insiders Can Be Their Own Worst Enemy

The multitude of claims some of my fellow beauty entrepreneurs make without scientific evidence to prove their claim, hurt us as an industry and are part of the reason we have the EWG and Campaign for Safe Cosmetics breathing down our necks.  They instill fear through ignorance, which then foments to hate, all based on theory or an ideology by their target market.

However, with that stated, the EWG and Campaign for Safe Cosmetics lose credibility when they use these claims made by the indiscriminate beauty professional to create their scare campaigns with little to zero evidence of said claim to support their assault on many different ingredients. Unfortunately, watchdog groups gather strength to try to create new legislation out of the unsubstantiated claims made by the beauty industry.  So we have no one else to blame to an extent but ourselves when things go awry.

An example: A beauty product once upon a time, made a claim as to 60% of the product is absorbed for the nourishing, age defying benefit of it's lovely ingredients.  Basically instilling the idea in the potential customer that their exceptional product will feed and replenish aged skin, restoring it to it's youthful appearance.  However, toxic chemicals that can be absorbed into our blood stream, and there is no denying they are out there, such as chemical pesticides, and can even affect our nervous system, should not extrapolate to those used in cosmetics or be lumped into the ideology, "it is a chemical, therefore we absorb it."  All chemicals are not created equal.

However, based on this simple marketing proclamation, the CFSC and EWG played on this hook and have used it throughout their literature as to supporting that 60% of all chemicals, harmful or otherwise, are absorbed through the skin into our blood stream.  This has been totally misrepresented and has been regurgitated by.... oh so many bloggers, and there is no evidence to support this other than taking a marketing claim and spinning it to the detriment of us, and the benefit of the argument goes to the opposing team, EWG and CFSC. 

This type of ideological proclamation is a primary example of what our industry has to deal with on a regular basis.  Fortunately, more and more individuals are seeing through the facade of these types of claim.

Through the use of different types of penetration enhancers we can achieve great things, not only with skincare products, but with pharmaceuticals.  So penetration enhancers aren't necessarily the enemy as EWG and CFSC would paint all of them with a broad brush.  However, factual studies have shown that various penetration enhancers will only go so deep and something designed to deliver medicine through the skin to the bloodstream will not typically be utilized in a beauty product.

Penetration Enhancers - Friend or Foe is an article I wrote providing the science in regard to how they work and the incredible, even problematical factors it requires for an ingredient to penetrate our otherwise impermeable barrier, the skin. Basically it requires a 'perfect storm' to create the advantage for which they are used.

Ten Most Common Claims Which Also Reflect Myth

1. Free From ~ This statement has become the mantra for large commercial brands with the smaller brands following suit as a way to convey that their product is somehow safer than their competitors.
   • Danger of Claim: It can reinforce the idea that if something is "free from" a certain ingredient, that the missing ingredient is somehow "dangerous."  And what was once part of the formula has since been removed when it may have never been in the product in the first place.  This is marketing to the consumer that has been led to believe natural is better and everything else will kill them. Example: Parabens, sulfates, etc. get a bad rap when there is actually scientific data that shows these are perfectly safe for personal care use in the recommended dosages within the cosmetic formula.  Or if it is a leave on or rinse off product will also determine ratios.  Any chemical in its full strength has the potential for causing harm, yet these are not offered to the end user, ever.
   
   
2. Chemical Free ~ Another claim that bears no reality in truth or common sense.  Nothing formulated can be without chemicals as all things are chemical....natural or synthetic, makes no difference, it is just the manner in which they are derived or created.  Again, shamelessly used for SCARE tactic marketing.
   
   • Danger of Claim: This connotes the idea all things chemical are hazardous to our health.....think of water, essential oils, olive oil, etc.....these appear to be benign now don't they? However, from the point of view of the overstated 60% absorption claim, these are all potential penetration enhancers.  This claim also overlooks the fact of what the product is packaged in.  There is no getting around the chemical processes that goes into creating the packaging, such as a jar or tube, technically.
   
   
3. Hypoallergenic or Noncomedogenic ~ These terms are not even recognized by the FDA and there actually isn't any proven data in clinical trials, and has yet to be tested by the US Food and Drug Administration as to the validity of such terms. 
   • Danger of Claim: Any ingredient could cause a problem for any individual and this connotes that it won't cause a problem....sorry, but trial and error only, unfortunately.  Up to 10% of the population can and will have a reaction to something the majority of the population won't have.  This includes a developed allergy after using an ingredient for years.  Our bodies are ever changing.  Those with acne may have a similar reaction. What won't cause acne on one individual may be horribly occlusive to another.
   
   
4. Dermatologist / Clinically Tested ~ This is a claim that can be made based on a single doctor trying it out on themselves or a patient.  Based on this perception it is theorized by the end user it must be a proven product. A clinical study performed by the manufacturer on a small number of people will not constitute nationally what can occur if millions use the product.
   
   • Danger of Claim: Gives the perception that it must be safe and work because a doctor or a clinical study said so, but is not necessarily the reality. Safety and efficacy data will change as high volume of users join the pool, and this is PURE marketing! 
   
   
5. Anti-aging Formula ~ This ties into penetration enhancers being utilized within a skin cream and are designed to assist beneficial ingredients in penetrating into the otherwise impermeable surface layers of the skin to restore soft, supple skin with more elasticity.
   • Danger of Claim: EWG and Campaign for Safe Cosmetics have underscored this message as a penetration enhancer being the carrier of chemicals to the blood stream.  When in reality penetration enhancers for the purpose of cosmetics are only skin deep and are not geared toward penetration through the dermis layer into the blood brain barrier as would be the desired effect with a topical drug.  Permanent change does not occur with any cosmetic and only maintains the skin as long as the product is being used.  Anything else would make it an over the counter drug under FDA Regulations.
   
   
6. Non Toxic / Harmful Chemicals ~ What does this even mean?  Who and what entity is deciding what is toxic or not?  This is yet to be determined and will continue to be debatable since EWG and CFSC think anything other than naturally derived is toxic to our bodies.  The majority of scientific research does not support the validity of this marketing claim.  Plus, too much of anything natural or synthetic can cause issues for some.
   
   • Danger of Claim: This statement plays into the fears of the consumer and reinforces the CFSC's campaign rhetoric against beauty industry leaders and their products.  Such as lead being added to lipstick which is categorically FALSE and is considered a contaminant, which is found also in drinking water and the foods we eat that are grown in the ground.
   
   
7. 100% Pure / Natural / Organic ~ This connotes that only natural chemicals are safe for the body and that synthetic chemicals are the bane of our existence and will give us cancer or worse. There is no human scientific data to support this claim.  And animal studies do not extrapolate to humans despite how hard watchdog groups try to convince us.
   
   • Danger of Claim: Beauty products labeled as natural are less tested and scrutinized than are synthetic products and pharmaceuticals. In fact, most compounds as they exist in their natural state cannot be formulated into skin care products. They first must be chemically altered before they can be incorporated into cosmetics, thereby negating the claim of being pure and natural.
   
   
8. FDA Approved ~ This marketing claim gives the unwitting consumer the idea the product is endorsed by the FDA, and the product must have been tested by the FDA to show proof of the companies claim of safety and / or efficacy. 
   • Danger of Claim: This is outright FALSE and is actually in violation of FDA regulation.  FDA does not approve any finished product for the end user in the cosmetic and beauty industry.  Only prescription and OTC drugs and medical devices are FDA approved for their intended purpose. 
   
   
9. Does Not Contain Fillers ~ This marketing claim is designed to intimate that their product is formulated with nothing but pure and essential ingredients only, and that no fillers are used to create a less than desirable product, supposedly.
   • Danger of Claim: This insinuates that somehow a filler ingredient is cheap and makes another product substandard.  Unfortunately, this bears no weight in actual truth.  Those that claim their ingredients are the ultimate and then claim fillers as bad, are also ingredients that are used as filler.  Mica for instance is not only an essential ingredient to the formulation of the majority of mineral makeup, but it is also a FILLER ingredient.  By definition a filler ingredient is used for finish of product, bulking agent, or any ingredient utilized for the desired effect for smooth application.  There is no actual separation of the two.  Water can be considered a filler ingredient since it is not typically essential but makes up the bulk of many skin care products.
   
   
10. Non Irritating ~ This gives the end user of a product the assurance that their otherwise sensitive skin will not have any problem with the product.  This expands on item 3. 
    • Danger of Claim: The problem with this claim is everyone's skin is different.  There are ingredients that have a long standing history of safety and efficacy, yet there will be the small percentile that will have irritation when using it.  Mineral makeup for instance works well for the majority of women, Bismuth Oxychloride excluded, but for a small number, no matter how much they hope, they will always have an irritant reaction and can never wear minerals no matter its' popularity.  We disclose this fact, by using only ingredients with known lower irritant risk factors, but still only the end user will determine what is right for their skin or how they'll react through testing it on themselves.  It may not be a single ingredient, but when used in combination with another or its presumed ratio is where the problem lies.  So by not purchasing something because one may see a certain ingredient of concern, they may be missing out on what otherwise could be fantastic for their skin.   Always TEST...TEST...TEST the product for absolute certainty.

The American Academy of Dermatology wrote an excellent article on Cosmeceuticals and addresses in a common sense language, how and why skincare is devised for providing actual benefit to the end user.  They further establish the premise of many claims and what is reality versus marketing puffery.

There Is No Getting Around Marketing Claims, Though Less Common

The term "cosmeceutical" is often used in cosmetic advertising and may be misleading to the consumer. In fact it connotes that it might be similar to a pharmaceutical product so they conclude that cosmeceuticals are required to undergo the same testing for efficacy and safety as required for medication or OTC drugs.  The perception by the customer is this has more intrinsic value so this is why they cost more, when in reality, may actually be less effective and/or have substandard ingredients.

However, according to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act "does not recognize any such category as "cosmeceuticals." A product can be a drug, a cosmetic, or a combination of both, but the term "cosmeceutical" has no meaning under the law.

Additionally, the FDA states that: "Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act defines drugs as those products that cure, treat, mitigate or prevent disease or that affect the structure or function of the human body. While drugs are subject to an intensive review and approval process by FDA, cosmetics are not approved by FDA prior to sale.  If a product has drug properties, it must be approved as a drug."

To avoid inquiry and punitive action by the United States Federal Trade Commission, cosmeceuticals which do not intend to be regulated as drugs by the FDA, are carefully labeled to avoid making statements which would indicate that the product has drug properties.  Any such claims made regarding the product must be substantiated by scientific evidence as being truthful.

Besides, it is to the financial gain of the manufacturer that their products are not regulated by the FDA as drugs because the FDA review process for drugs can be very costly and may not yield a legally-marketable product if the FDA denies approval.  However, to further expand on item 8, the reputation of the product may be falsely enhanced if the consumer incorrectly believes that a "cosmeceutical" is held to the same FDA standards as a drug.

"Pharmaceutical Grade" buzz words also used to describe many cosmetics, including some mineral makeup companies, is no different.  This is pure marketing hype, insinuating that the product will perform better than others on the market and the connotation is, it will do something for the skin such as heal or cure something.  Also in violation of FDA since if this claim were true, without the proper studies and / or drug monograph including all the warnings provided on the label, this product would be considered mis-branded.  Another reason to pay close attention to labels.  I also wrote an article as it relates to FDA approved Sunscreens and their respective SPF.  All equates to being an OTC drug which includes the FDA required drug monograph.

Final Word

So don't get caught up in the mumbo jumbo of marketing finesse with claims that "sound too good to be true" because they usually are.  I do feel however, that it is important to let the customer know what a product "does not contain"  such as gluten, and in this context we offer it as a quick reference to check for any allergic or sensitivity issues.  But of course always read the full ingredient list to make sure nothing else might cause problems for your skin.

And to further stipulate, when represented as a reference for making sure nothing is in the product to pose a possible problem, it will not create the same concern that "FREE FROM" can, and doesn't connote that the ingredients listed are somehow "unsafe", but rather, they are an ingredient we have chosen not to add to our products based on two parts, personal preference and consumer demand.

And if we can all get on the same page as an industry, we won't all be standing around scratching our heads in confusion and surprise, uttering the word...........................................................

Faux Fur Mania 2011

Feeling The Chill

As Fall begins to creep in, the mornings are a bit cooler and days are shorter, signaling the coming of the changing season. I love this time of year....colors of vivid rust, orange, yellows and burgundy are everywhere.

Fall fashion also is my favorite clothing choice. The colors are warmer, richer and so diverse.

Blending shades of fall is also enjoyable for me and goes perfectly with my warm tea by the fire. They just make me feel comfy, safe, and the fall shades definitely improve my complexion color. What it also signals, is it will be time to bundle up and change our wardrobe. I am always on the lookout for something new and different to add as an accessory to my already bursting Fall wardrobe.

Fur fashion has been the rage for as long as I can remember and still continues today in all its glory. So many beautiful colors and textures to choose from, and a touch of fur gives that outfit that ultimate panache. But the fur fashion landscape has truly changed for the better in recent years....especially as recently as December 2010.....explained below.

Go Faux Fur

Although real fur fashion has been going strong in some countries and still is in the United States to a degree, real fur is no longer necessary unless it is to show the affluence of the person wearing it.

Faux fur has made huge strides in perfecting the realism of natural fur. Styling and beauty along with the technology of creating fabulous fibers simulating real fur, is truly remarkable.

When I find a fur coat or something or other in faux, I stop and check it out, and if the style is right, I buy it. I could sit and stroke my faux fur jacket or collar for hours. This is also why I love our mineral makeup brushes so much, the faux fur in them is incredibly soft and feels fabulous on the skin.

Trendy Styles Of Faux Fur Fashion Of 2011

The different styles of fashion you can play around with for 2011 have grown beyond boring to fun and flirty. I am actually giddy with anticipation of owning more of these garments flocked in faux fur.

You can spice up an outfit with a fuzzy hat, or you can take a simple low cut shirt and glam it up with a furry scarf, which also gives warmth and can hide some of that imperfect skin we seem to always get as we age. We don't always have to drape our necks in turtleneck sweaters.

Aside from Faux Fur Jackets, the fur vests are really hot this year. I saw some beauties just the other night on HSN. She offered a wide variety of colors and textures and they were sure to fool even the most savvy fur connoisseur. Layering an outfit with a gorgeous fur vest can be truly beautiful and trendy. Plus, some of them are so wickedly cool, I may have to stock up.

And of course, where would we be without our beloved accessories. You can get faux fur slippers, purses, mittens or gloves, including but never limited to faux fur flocked boots. I own a pair of these myself...so cushy warm they are.

If you aren't into all that fur stuff, then you can buy jackets or coats with just a touch of fur around the collar and / or on the cuffs.

Even faux Suede is the rage as well, and if you check the garment label, some of these are even washable. How cool is that?

Donna Salyer's Fabulous Furs has every faux fur imaginable which includes beautiful vests, coats, hats, scarves, gloves, purses, you name it, they seem to have it. You can even shop by Faux Fur type of animal you choose....coyote, sable, mink, lynx, etc. They have truly captured the essence of the real fur but without the expense or the cruelty. Check them out!

Real Fur Is Not Cool Anymore!

Many, many moons ago, I even owned a real full length fur coat in Mink and since then I have come to understand what the fur industry really stood for and it was about cruelty, greed, and ambivalence or indifference to the animals they destroyed to make these fur fashions.

With today's technology, the faux fur industry has really provided some products that could pass as the real thing in feel, looks and color. Some say the drawback with fake fur, they are not near as warm as the real thing, but hey, layer with other clothing items, I say. Also, some manufacturers are lining them in fabric that will enhance the warmth instead of using a satin liner. Personally I have been quite happy with my faux fur jackets, hats and coats. I keep plenty warm, and they are lined with material that is cozy and comfy.

Caution: Telling The Difference Between Fake Fur and Real Fur

Now for the caveat; fake fur, especially coming out of China and parts of the Ukraine, have a declaration of faux fur on the label, yet this does not clarify what or how it is produced. Unfortunately, the definition of fake fur for these countries are to farm and kill the fantastically beautiful raccoon dog, or worse yet, the household cat or dog.

Since technology has made faux furs almost impossible to tell the difference anymore, unless you are a trained furrier, simply looking at them or touching them will reveal very little to knowing for sure. They can be dyed and sewed similar to the real thing.

BURN TEST: There is a test you can conduct to make sure you are not buying or supporting the destruction of animals under a false labeling claim. Of course you won't be able to do this in the store, but if you take the garment home, you can conduct a burn test.

In general, natural fibers burn and synthetic fibers melt. Cut or pluck a few hairs off of the garment. Using a lighter or a match, try to burn the ends of the hair. If the tip of the hair burns, crumbles away when you touch it and smells like human hair burning, it is real fur. If the tip of the hair melts, curls up into a hard ball and smells like an unnatural chemical, the fur is synthetic.

If you discover it is still real animal hair, return it to the store and make your disdain known to the store manager, not the sales staff. If we educate the store of where we purchased the garment, this could exert pressure on them to be more careful and no longer buy from these sources that are providing mislabeled items or practicing deceit by simply calling dog hair, faux fur.

Last time I checked, I am pretty sure a cat or dog considers what they wear as fur for keeping them warm. So let's keep the fur on the animals where it belongs.

Truth In Labeling Law

Fortunately, the problem may have been solved to a large degree. A new law was signed by President Obama on December 18th 2010, requiring all products containing real fur to be labeled as such. Previously, the fur labeling law contained a loophole that exempted products if the value of the fur was under $150, leaving consumers in the dark about the real fur in their gloves, hats and fur-trimmed coats.

So instead of seeing "faux fur" on the label, it will now be described as "acrylic" or other synthetic fiber (type of polymer) utilized in the creation of the garment and it will be ascribed to the location on the jacket.

This new law also helps protect vegans who cherish a lifestyle, and want to be sure they are not contributing to the destruction of animals. I am so thrilled with this new law. But then again, I have always been about truth in labeling as in the case of cosmetics and skincare products.

SHARE THE LOVE: Also if you currently own a fur coat and you really don't enjoy wearing it anymore, but also don't want to pass it along for another to wear due to how you may feel about the fur industry, the Humane Society of the United States offers an outlet for donation of discarded furs. They use them in their "Coats For Cubs" program. The donated coat becomes a furry surrogate for orphaned wildlife that has been rescued. It is a cause I support(ed) with my own mink coat 6 years ago. Clicking on the program link above, will tell you how you can also donate your coat in full detail. I think it is a fantastic way to give back to the animals we once regarded as fur for fashion.

Faux Fur Fun

Even if wearing fur is not your thing, then beautiful faux fur blankets are also available, keeping you warm and fuzzy during those cold fall and winter nights on the couch, sipping hot cocoa or enjoying a libation of sorts. Or put a splash of designer faux fur in your favorite room with a fashionable throw pillow.

So, next time you're out shopping, check out the latest faux fur trends and see if adding a furry piece to your wardrobe or to your decor, doesn't give you that extra pizzazz you were looking for.

Caution: watch out for faux fur overload!


Happy Shopping!