segunda-feira, 16 de julho de 2007

Dermatologistas alertam sobre os possíveis efeitos colaterais

DA REPORTAGEM LOCAL


Preocupados com possíveis efeitos colaterais de cosméticos ou remédios à base de nanotecnologia, Europa e Estados Unidos começam a investir em pesquisas que apontem os riscos da novidade. No Brasil, a Anvisa (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária), responsável pela liberação de medicamentos e cosméticos, ainda não realiza testes específicos com os novos produtos.Questionado pela Folha, o órgão afirmou não ter estatística sobre quantos deles foram aprovados e estão à venda no país. A assessoria de imprensa informou que não há legislação nem testes específicos para nanotecnologia, mas que todo cosmético ou remédio passa por testes de eficácia e segurança antes de ser liberado.Os dermatologistas alertam que é preciso cautela com o uso desses produtos. "Se não houver receptor específico, as pequenas partículas podem ir para a corrente sangüínea e serem prejudiciais ao organismo", diz Denise Steiner, coordenadora do Departamento de Cosmiatria da Sociedade Brasileira de Dermatologia.Maurício Pupo, consultor na formulação do Corrige Lines, da Ada Tina, e também coordenador de pós-graduação em cosmetologia da Unicastelo (SP), da Unigranrio (RJ) e da Metrocamp (Campinas, interior de SP), reconhece que é preciso começar a considerar a possibilidade dessas partículas entrarem no organismo. "Se essa partícula não for de uma substância já tolerada pelo organismo, como vitaminas, ferro, zinco, não sabemos o que pode acontecer."Israel Feferman, diretor de pesquisa e desenvolvimento do Boticário, afirma que não há o que temer com substâncias toleradas pelo organismo. "Temos protocolos de testes que mostram que não há riscos. As partículas não chegam à corrente sangüínea e, em uma hipótese impossível disso acontecer com nossos produtos, usamos componentes naturais, e não farmacêuticos, que são aceitos pelos organismos."Jean Luc Gesztezi, cientista da Natura, explica que o tamanho da partícula utilizado pela empresa (150 nanômetros) é seguro. "Ele é grande o suficiente para não causar efeitos indesejáveis ou adversos", afirma. "Além disso, realizamos todas as avaliações que determinam o uso seguro desses produtos, desde estudos das matérias primas até estudos clínicos." (DT)


Fonte: www.folha.com.br -15/07/07

Nanotecnologia ganha adeptas no Brasil

Tendência mundial chega ao país e consumidoras descobrem cosméticos com partículas que penetram mais na peleCremes têm partículas de substâncias já encontradas nos produtos reduzidas a um bilionésimo do metro, explicam os pesquisadores

DANIELA TÓFOLIDA
REPORTAGEM LOCAL

Micropartículas de vitaminas e de substâncias como colágeno entram na pele e prometem fazer milagres. O fim das rugas, o clareamento das manchas, a redução da celulite. Quase tudo parece possível no mundo dos cosméticos com nanotecnologia. Nova mania mundial, esses produtos começam a ganhar adeptas no Brasil."Não abro mão do meu creme contra celulite que usa nanotecnologia", conta a professora Andréa Müller, 31, uma das defensoras dos produtos. "Sou vaidosa e os resultados estão sendo excelentes. Minha pele melhorou tanto que não fico mais sem", confessa.Nanotecnologia em cosméticos nada mais é do que o uso de partículas de substâncias já comumente encontradas nos produtos, como a vitamina C, reduzidas a um bilionésimo do metro. Bem menores, elas conseguem penetrar mais fundo na pele e, dessa forma, agir de forma mais eficaz, explicam os pesquisadores.O problema dessa tecnologia é que não se sabe ainda o que pode acontecer se as micropartículas ultrapassarem as camadas mais profundas da derme e caírem na corrente sangüínea (leia texto abaixo).A dermatologista Carolina Ferolla, proprietária de uma clínica que leva seu nome na Vila Nova Conceição, zona sul de São Paulo, confirma que a procura por produtos com nanotecnologia tem aumentado a cada mês. "Como alguns deles precisam de receita médica, tem paciente que marca consulta só para pedir o creme. Está virando uma mania."Não é preciso, porém, procurar um dermatologista para ter acesso a cosméticos com nanotecnologia. O Boticário, por exemplo, lançou neste ano o Nanopeeling Renovador (R$ 119), kit de esfoliação com nanoemulsão que promete funcionar como um poderoso antiidade. No ano passado, a empresa lançou o Nanoserum anti-sinais (R$ 89), também para combater o envelhecimento.O Boticário mantém um laboratório com 30 pesquisadores, que estão em busca de aplicações cosméticas da nanotecnologia. O mesmo está fazendo a Natura. Há três anos, a empresa investe em pesquisas sobre o assunto. Em março, lançou as Brumas de Leite Hidratante (R$ 29,80), que hidratam por 24 horas, tendo rápida absorção graças à nanotecnologia. Na quarta-feira, a Natura colocou à venda o Spray Corporal Refrescante (R$ 29,80), para o público masculino.Já a Galena Farmacêutica oferece substâncias feitas à base de nanotecnologia que prometem resultados nas primeiras aplicações. O X-Solve, lançado em maio, é um deles. O ativo tem como objetivo melhorar celulite e estrias em 30 minutos após aplicação. Em 2006, a empresa havia lançado um produto para tratar manchas na pele e outro que diz reduzir 2,5 cm no diâmetro abdominal em seis semanas. As substâncias estão à venda em farmácias de manipulação, mas precisam de receita.Outro produto à base de nanotecnologia encontrado em farmácias de manipulação é o Corrige Lines, do laboratório Ada Tina, que promete tratamento instantâneo das rugas. O creme custa R$ 125 e acaba de ser lançado.

Fonte: www.folha.com.br - 15/07/07

quinta-feira, 12 de julho de 2007

Black for Me, Light for My Hips

By ANNA JANE GROSSMAN
Published: July 12, 2007

THE line between caffeine and, well, everything else you can buy is a little blurry. At Starbucks, you can pick up CDs and a book about child soldiers with your espresso. At Kiehl’s in New York, the scent of espresso beans wafts from the cafe through the aisles of soaps and hair tonics.
Now drugstore shelves, which once had few things caffeine-related, save perhaps the odd mug cozy or cappuccino-scented candle, are offering an array of skin care products containing the beloved stimulant.
The 20th century was a confusing time for caffeine. The Food and Drug Administration vacillated on whether it was good or bad for you. Sanka was created, but so was the frappuccino. The new millennium, however, is shaping up to be a good one for it.
Over the last few years, studies have suggested that caffeine is capable of staving off baldness and lowering the risks of Parkinson’s disease, among other wonders. And now, because of a boom in caffeinated topical agents, caffeine’s possible benefits are accessible even to the 10 percent of the population that abstains from drinking it.
More than 140 cosmetic skin care products containing caffeine were released in the United States last year alone, compared with 21 in 2003, according to the Mintel Global New Products Database, a company that tracks trends in skin care products.
As any coffee drinker can attest, caffeine has two indubitable qualities: It is a stimulant and a diuretic. And these are the two main properties that companies are trying to transfer into topical lotions and potions.
The majority of products containing caffeine are skin-firming tonics that attempt to use its dehydrating qualities to decrease liquid in fat cells. While there are numerous facial firming products containing caffeine, such as eye creams by Kiehl’s and Anthony Logistics for Men, most of the caffeinated lotions claim to be cellulite busters, including Bliss’s Fat Girl Slim and Avon’s Super Shape Anti-Cellulite and Stretchmark Cream.
“There’s a direct correlation between the increase in the amount of products that contain caffeine and the huge trend toward skin-firming products that work on cellulite, since so many of those products contain it,” said Rachael McFarland, Mintel’s cosmetic research analyst for the United States.
Many of these products entered the market after a 1999 study published in the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery concluded that caffeine-based liposome-encapsulated cream temporarily reduced the thickness of fat, particularly in the hips and triceps.
“The caffeine gets into the fat cell and this makes the fat cell get a little more energized,” said Dr. Lawrence Moy, a dermatologist in Manhattan Beach, Calif., who was one of the study’s authors and sells his own line of firming creams containing caffeine. “When fat cells get more energized, it affects the sodium-potassium balance in the cell. The sodium runs out of the cell and water leaves with it. Potassium runs into the cell and all this helps the cell to become a bit dehydrated and to shrink.”
The layman’s translation? It might make your legs look a bit less like cottage cheese, if only for a few hours.
Of course, all this assumes that the caffeine can penetrate the skin once its applied. According to a 2004 study conducted at the TNO Nutrition and Food Research center in the Netherlands, caffeine can indeed penetrate, at the rate of about 2 micrograms per centimeter squared per hour. That means it would take an hour for an amount the size of 1/15th of a grain of salt to penetrate a fingernail-size patch of skin.
Some companies would like you to believe that once it gets under the skin, it can make you feel like you just took a shot of espresso. V-tonic Bath Spheres by Fresh contains a cola-nut extract that the company promises will energize the skin, and Kiss My Face’s Wake Up toothpaste has guaranine, a form of caffeine found in guarana seeds. But Mia DiFrancesco-Licata, a Kiss My Face spokeswoman, said: “It’s such a small amount. It really just works subliminally.”
But the idea that a simple daily ablution could help speed the waking-up process is appealing, especially in an on-the-go culture that guzzles products like Red Bull and supports a Dunkin’ Donuts or a Starbucks on just about every corner.
“People are looking for more ways to jump-start the day now more than ever before,” said Ms. McFarland of Mintel. “It’s innovative and smart for companies to capitalize on that by creating more products that you’d use every day anyway, like soap, that just happen to also contain caffeine.”
Costic, a New Jersey-based wholesale company, sells a peppermint-scented soap that it says contains 2,400 milligrams of caffeine. (An average cup of coffee contains 200 milligrams.) The soap is available on various Web sites under different names; its biggest retailer is ThinkGeek.com, which sells it as “Shower Shock.”
But Jeff Costic, the company’s founder, said in an interview that he did not have any scientific research to back up ThinkGeek’s claim that the soap can provide the “ultimate clean buzz.”
“It was just an idea I came up with when I was trying to give consumers something they’re addicted to,” Mr. Costic said.
A similar soap containing close to 4,000 milligrams of caffeine is available at Xoxide.com.
But even if caffeine does enter the bloodstream via soap, the jury is out on whether enough of it can penetrate to make a difference in alertness.
“There is no way that enough caffeine could be absorbed through the skin during the amount of time that the average person showers,” said Dr. David Bank, director of the Center for Dermatology, Cosmetic and Laser Surgery in Mount Kisco, N.Y.
The bloggers behind TheBeautyBrains.com, a cosmetics-debunking Web site written by a group of cosmetic chemists who remain anonymous to keep from jeopardizing their day jobs, used the TNO Nutrition and Food Research study to estimate that it would take an hour of full-body scrubbing — without rinsing — for a body to absorb the amount of caffeine in one cup of coffee.
Caffeine is an antioxidant that can combat cell damage caused by free radicals, which is one reason it is an ingredient in some sunscreens, Dr. Bank said.
It can be found in products like Rodan & Fields Essentials Protect S.P.F. 30 and Origins Have a Nice Day Super-Charged Moisture Cream and Lotion S.P.F. 15; these companies say it’s there because of its anti-oxidant, anti-irritant and anti-redness benefits.Dr. Allan Conney, a professor of chemical biology, leukemia and cancer research at Rutgers University, said users of any caffeine-rich cosmetic could also unwittingly be benefiting from a possible side effect that one study hinted at: they might be killing off existing skin cancer cells.
In 2002, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science published a study led by Dr. Conney that used caffeine to kill off skin cancer sells on radiated mice. The results were promising, especially if you’re a mouse living in a coffee urn.
“Although caffeine has a sunscreen effect, it also has a biological effect of causing apoptosis — programmed cell death — in UVB-damaged skin cells and in tumors but not in normal skin or in areas adjacent to tumors in tumor-bearing mice,” Dr. Conney said in an e-mail message. “To the best of my knowledge, caffeine and caffeine sodium benzoate are the first examples of substances that have both a sunscreen effect and enhance cell death in a DNA-damaged tissue.”
There is no proof that this effect can translate to human skin. Nevertheless, Dr. Conney and Dr. Bank are among the doctors open to the idea that one day a once lumpy thigh may also be one that is free of skin cancer.
Even if it is someday proven that the benefits do translate to humans, it might be just as effective to spend a couple of dollars at the cafe inside Kiehl’s rather than loading up on the expensive lotions nearby.
“You’d get the same effect from just drinking it,” Dr. Conney said.

Fonte: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/12/fashion/12skin.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=fitnessandnutrition - 12/07/07

sexta-feira, 6 de julho de 2007

Do Sunscreens Have You Covered?

By NATASHA SINGER
Published: July 5, 2007

AS the noon sun began to cook bathers in Long Beach, N.Y., last Sunday, members of the Sofferman family lounged on towels, each wearing a sun lotion chosen with the care usually given to picking out a new bathing suit.
Denise Sofferman and Ilene Sofferman, sisters who both work in the apparel industry in Manhattan, had put on tanning oil, their bodies already golden brown. Denise’s daughter, Lauren Levy, 21, a student at the University of Pennsylvania, had protected her pale skin with a heavy-duty S.P.F. 50 product formulated for children. Ilene’s 9-year-old daughter, Alison, had received a head-to-toe coating of S.P.F. 30.
Two hours later, the daughters were sunburned, their backs as pink as watermelon.
“It says waterproof, but Lauren didn’t even go swimming,” said Denise Sofferman, reapplying sunscreen to her daughter.
Ilene Sofferman, smearing another coat of lotion on Alison’s pink face, read from the back of the sunscreen bottle. “They have all these different marketing terms —S.P.F., UVA, UVB, waterproof, sweat-resistant — but you have to figure out what they mean by trial and error,” she said.
After decades of warnings about the dangers of sun exposure, an increasing number of Americans are making sunscreen part of their skin-care routines. Americans bought 60 million units of sunscreen last year, a 13 percent increase compared with 2005, according to Information Resources Inc., which tracks cosmetics sales.
But the increased demand has spurred an explosion of lotions, sprays, pads and gels with such diverse marketing claims — All-day Protection! Ultra Sweatproof! Total Block! Continuous Protection! Ultra Sport! Instant Protection! Extra UVA Protection! — that the Soffermans are not alone in their confusion over how to choose the most effective sunscreen.
In the nearly 30 years since the Food and Drug Administration issued its first regulations for sunscreen as an over-the-counter drug intended to reduce sunburn risk, the science surrounding skin and cancer has expanded dramatically.
Critics have clamored for the F.D.A to update the rules, saying that the standards have not kept pace. At the same time, they complain, the agency has allowed manufacturers to make vague and improbable-sounding marketing claims, leaving consumers confused and, worse, misled about what to use and how to use it to protect themselves.
The pressure on the agency has been mounting in recent weeks. Last month, reports by Consumer Reports and by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit group in Washington, found that a variety of popular sunscreens lacked sufficient broad protection against the sun’s harmful rays. And in May, Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut’s attorney general, sent a scathing petition to the F.D.A. saying that unclear sunscreen labels and inflated marketing put people at risk.
“Most sunscreens are deceptively and misleadingly labeled, most perniciously to give consumers a false sense of security,” Mr. Blumenthal said last week. “In my view, the F.D.A.’s failure to act is unconscionable and unjustifiable in any public sense.”
John Bailey, the executive vice president for science at the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, an industry trade group, said that the directions on sunscreens adequately convey coverage. “These are very beneficial products which should be used to protect against the adverse effects of sunlight,” said Dr. Bailey, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry.
Nonetheless, the F.D.A. seems poised to address the labeling issue. Although it has been planning since 1999 to confirm new rules, Rita Chappelle, a spokeswoman for the F.D.A., said the agency expected to issue new sunscreen standards in the coming weeks. But until they are released, Ms. Chappelle said the agency would not answer questions about forthcoming regulations.
One fact about sunscreens is indisputable: They can impede sunburn and lower the incidence of at least one form of skin cancer in humans.
Dr. Allan C. Halpern, chief of dermatology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan, said that the regular use of sunscreen can inhibit squamous cell carcinoma, a cancer that kills 2,000 to 2,500 Americans a year.
In a study of about 1,600 residents of Nambour, Australia, volunteers who were given sunscreen to use every day for four and a half years had 40 percent fewer squamous cell cancers than a control group who maintained their normal skin-care routines. Even 10 years after the study concluded, the volunteers assigned to use sunscreen during the trial period had fewer cancers.
“It shows that using sun protection for almost five years gives you an intense, longer-term benefit against squamous cell carcinoma,” said Dr. Adèle C. Green, deputy director of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research in Brisbane, Australia, which ran the study.
Dr. Halpern said that sunscreen should also protect against melanoma, the deadliest skin cancer, and basal cell carcinoma, because the product can inhibit harmful ultraviolet rays that can contribute to the diseases.
Yet even after new F.D.A. labeling rules are published, it may take two years for the changes take effect.
Dr. James M. Spencer, a dermatologist in St. Petersburg, Fla., who specializes in skin cancer, said that he hopes the updated standards will clarify how much protection sunscreens provide, the dose needed to achieve significant protection, and the frequency with which a sunscreen should be reapplied.
The F.D.A. in 1978 first proposed a system of labeling products with an S.P.F. or Sun Protection Factor, which measures how effective the product is in preventing burn caused by the sun’s ultraviolet B rays. UVB radiation can also be a factor in skin cancer.
Dr. Spencer said that an S.P.F. 15 product screens about 94 percent of UVB rays while an S.P.F. 30 product screens 97 percent. Manufacturers determine the S.P.F. by dividing how many minutes it takes lab volunteers to burn wearing a thick layer of the product by the minutes they take to burn without the product.
But people rarely get the level of S.P.F. listed because labels do not explain how much to use, said Dr. Vincent A. DeLeo, chairman of dermatology at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center in Manhattan.
“Sunscreen is tested at 2 milligrams per square centimeter of skin, which means you should be using two ounces each time to cover your whole body,” Dr. DeLeo said. “But for most people an eight-ounce bottle lasts the whole summer.”
People who apply S.P.F. 30 too sparingly, for example, may end up with only S.P.F. 3 to S.P.F. 10, according to the Web site of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, www.bccdc.org/downloads/pdf/rps/reports/RIN15.pdf, which has comprehensive guidelines.
“The S.P.F. is a terrible system to guide consumers,” Dr. Spencer said. “Nobody is using sunscreen the way it is measured in a lab.” He said he hopes that the new standards will call for S.P.F. to be replaced with a system defining sun protection as high, medium or low.
Until then, Dr. Spencer said that people should use about a shot glass of sunscreen for the body and a teaspoon for the face to best achieve the S.P.F. protection listed on labels. It should be reapplied every few hours and immediately after swimming or sweating.
Dermatologists said that the agency is also likely to introduce a rating system for the sun’s ultraviolet A rays, which can contribute to cancer and skin aging. Many products already contain UVA screening agents, but under the current rules there is no rating for them.
Manufacturers are catching on that some consumers seek UVA protection. In print advertisements this month, Neutrogena and Banana Boat have been battling for UVA supremacy, including graphs in which each shows their product offering the highest coverage.
But Dr. David M. Pariser, the president-elect of the American Academy of Dermatology, said that without a standardized UVA rating system, consumers can’t be sure how much a sunscreen provides.
“Right now, we don’t know whether doubling the percentage of a UVA sunscreen ingredient doubles UVA protection or not,” Dr. Pariser said. “That is part of the muddled system we hope will be cleared up.”
Until then, Dr. Pariser said to choose sunscreens that contain ingredients known to filter UVA. These include Mexoryl SX, avobenzone, titanium dioxide and zinc oxide. He also recommended a database at www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/special/sunscreens/summary.php created by the Environmental Working Group that lists products with UVA protection.
Some doctors, along with Mr. Blumenthal of Connecticut, predicted that the new sunscreen rules would prohibit outsized marketing terms.
“ ‘All-day protection’ is just plain false since sunscreen has to be frequently reapplied,” Mr. Blumenthal said. “And ‘waterproof,’ which may be O.K. for an adult taking a quick dip in the pool but not for kids who are in and out of the water all day, is just plain deceptive.”
Dr. Green in Australia said the best way to prevent skin cancer is to stay out of the sun during peak hours and wear sun-protective clothing. But Dr. Halpern said you can’t keep Americans wrapped up.
“There is only a small subset of American society that is willing to wear long-sleeved shirts and wide-brimmed — defined as four inches wide — hats on a sunny day at the beach,” he said. “Until we can get that behavior, the next best thing is sunscreen. Put on two coats, so you won’t miss any spots.”
Precautions
Protection from the sun’s harmful rays requires more than slapping on a coating of cream. There are multiple precautions to take, according to interviews with doctors.
• Avoid outdoor activities during peak sun hours of 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
• Wear protective clothing, sunglasses and wide-brimmed hats.
• If you are prone to burn, use a sunscreen with S.P.F. 30 or higher.
• Apply about a teaspoon of sunscreen to your face and a shot glass of it to your body.
• Make sure your sunscreen contains at least one ingredient known to filter UVA rays, such as zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, avobenzone or Mexoryl SX.
• Reapply sunscreen frequently, and immediately after swimming.

Fonte: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/fashion/05skin.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=health - 05/07/07