Scientists at the University of Leeds are planning to extract chemical compounds from different species of seaweed and use them to develop a new range of hair dyes. The naturally sourced compounds will be used by scientists as substitutes for synthetic ingredients that can be found in most hair dyes currently on the market.

Many compounds in existing products are allergens and certain chemicals, notably p-phenylenediamine (PPD), have been linked to more serious long-term health effects.

The project also hopes to develop other safer and more environmentally friendly cosmetics, including hair treatments and skin care, from the compounds extracted from the Shetland seaweed.

“We are hoping to be able to offer people a real alternative to current hair dyes that contain chemicals which are known to be very bad for you,” explains project leader Dr Richard Blackburn, a natural products researcher at The University of Leeds.

The good news is that the new hair dyes won’t be green – scientists are confident that a range of colours including blonde, brown and red, and even black, can be made using the seaweed extracts.

“We can make a range of colours using these natural compounds because the variety of British seaweed species is so diverse,” explains Professor Christopher Rayner, also at the University of Leeds, who is working alongside Dr Blackburn on the project.

“Seaweed is especially suited to being used in cosmetics because it has evolved very clever techniques to protect itself from weathering. And cosmetics are all about protection from ageing and the elements,” says Dr Blackburn.

Laboratory work at the University of Leeds will focus on developing ways of isolating and extracting individual compounds found in seaweed that have these special properties in order to understand them better and explore their potential uses in other products.

The 2-year project is worth just over £500,000, including an investment of nearly £300,000 from the Technology Strategy Board plus from projects partners, including The Body Shop and Böd Ayre, Shetland seaweed farmers and processors based in Lunnaness.

“This could bring commercial and job opportunities to Shetland for a new high-value farming industry. It would be much better to extract the seaweed on Shetland rather than shipping elsewhere for processing,” said Margaret Blance from Böd Ayre.

Source:
Clare Ryan
University of Leeds

It was among more than 12,000 scientific reports scheduled for presentation at the meeting, one of the largest scientific gatherings of 2010.

Joseph Laszlo, Ph.D., who headed the research, pointed out that sales of sunscreens and other skin-care products that protect against the damaging effects of ultraviolet (UV) light have been booming. Driving the multi-billion-dollar-per-year market are consumers who are better informed about the link between overexposure to the sun and skin cancer and sunlight’s effects in giving skin an aged appearance. At the same time, however, concerns have arisen over certain ingredients in today’s mainstay sunscreens. “One, for instance, is a substance known as oxybenzone that is a suspected hormone disruptor that could contribute to the disruption of aquatic species reproduction.”

“We’re trying to provide nature-inspired skin-care materials that avoid such health concerns and at the same time have fewer adverse environmental impacts,” Laszlo said. He is with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service in Peoria, Ill. Sunscreens are among the substances, termed “pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs),” that constitute a relatively new family of water contaminants with potential adverse health effects on wildlife and people.

Sunscreens protect against skin cancer by shielding the body from two types of UV light. One is UV-A, which absorbs deep in the skin and is linked to reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation. The other is UV-B, which causes sunburn. Some sunscreen ingredients generate ROS when exposed to UV-A, which can damage DNA.

For years, the sunscreen industry focused on offering UV-B protection to prevent sunburn. Laszlo and colleagues have developed technology for converting soybean oil into a biobased active ingredient for sunscreen products. It involves incorporating ferulic acid, found naturally in hundreds of plants, into soybean oil.

The use of ferulic acid along with vegetable oil produces a water-resistant material capable of absorbing both UV- A and UVB light. In addition, it can be used as an anti-aging and anti-wrinkle product, Laszlo said. Called feruloyl soy glycerides (FSG), the material is produced commercially by iSoy Technologies Corporation and used in several cosmetic products in the U.S. and Asia.

“The skin ages not just from exposure to the sun but also from air pollutants and other environmental effects,” Laszlo said. “We believe that this molecule (ferulic acid) could prevent some of the damage caused by the free-radical processes involved in those environmental exposures.That’s particularly important for preserving the integrity and health of skin tissue. The approach builds on knowledge that antioxidants consumed in the diet or applied topically can prevent some of that damage.”

In his ACS presentation, Laszlo reported on various aspects of FSG production, clinical safety and efficacy test results and his group’s recent discoveries on the antioxidant effects of one major component of FSG.

“Our findings support the hypothesis that FSG can protect sensitive cellular components and reduce the impacts of skin sun exposure,” he said. “Our work also demonstrates how agricultural materials can be used to craft safe and useful consumer products.”

Source:
Michael Bernstein
American Chemical Society

Dr Harvey Marcovitch, who commissioned leading experts in the field to write for this special issue said, “Patient safety is this journal’s main aim and there can be no area of medicine where patients in the UK are more in need of protection. We need tight control of advertising of cosmetic surgery – including internet advertising. We need proper regulation of the industry and we need both surgeons and GPs to manage patient expectation.”

In one paper, entitled ‘Clinical Risk in Aesthetic Surgery’, Nigel Mercer, consultant plastic surgeon and President of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS) argues: “We have reached a stage where public expectation, driven by media hype and, dare one say, professional greed, has brought us to a ‘perfect storm’ in the cosmetic surgical market.”

He adds, “There has been a massive increase in ‘marketing’, including discount vouchers, 2-for-1 offers and holidays with surgery! In no other area of medicine is there such an unregulated mess. What is worse is that national governments would not allow it to happen in other areas of medicine. Imagine a ‘2-for-1′ advert for general surgery? That way lies madness!”

Highlights:

Clinical Risk in Aesthetic Surgery: Nigel Mercer discusses the role of the media and advertising and calls for tighter regulations in the UK, comparing this country’s lack of regulation with the Food and Drug Administration’s role in the US.

Key quotes:

- “Perhaps, like tobacco, there should be a Europe-wide ban on advertising all cosmetic ’surgical’ procedures, including on search engines…”.

- “If we have to sell anything, we should sell our advice, not procedures. If we cannot self-regulate, then, like the financial institutions, regulation will eventually be imposed…”

- “All cosmetic treatments are medical interventions, and every medical intervention has a complication and failure rate. Consequently, there are no ‘consumers’ or ‘clients’ but only ‘patients’…”

- “Perhaps the single most important factor in reducing clinical risk in cosmetic surgery is the motive for performing any procedure must never be financial gain, so I suggest we get our act together as an industry as we are in grave danger of biting the hand that feeds us.”

France Sets Standards for Practice of Aesthetic Surgery: French consultant plastic surgeon, Alain Fogli describes the strictly defined guidelines for cosmetic surgery in France which include:

- Surgical procedures can only be undertaken by surgeons who are registered specialists and deemed competent. Possession of a general medical degree, and the fact that the practitioner is ‘experienced’ are not deemed to be sufficient qualifications

- A ban on all forms and methods of publicity and advertising, direct or indirect, in whatever form, including the Internet

Minimizing Risk in Aesthetic Surgery: Foad Nahai, President of the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ISAPS) and former president of the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS) describes how to minimise risk in each facet of ‘the safety diamond’: patient, facility, procedure and surgeon.

He tells readers:

“Regulations governing the training of all cosmetic surgeons are sorely needed. Governments are reluctant to become involved, as they see this issue as a ‘turf battle’ between various physician groups and not a public safety or patient safety issue. However, there is no question that this is a patient safety issue of paramount importance and I take our governments to task for not addressing it.”

- Since by law any physician is allowed to practise cosmetic surgery, attempts by individual physicians or plastic surgery organisations to restrict those who are not qualified is viewed as a restraint of trade.

Improving the Safety of Aesthetic Surgery: Recommendations Following a 14-Year Review of Cases to the Medical Defence Union (1990-2004): Consultant plastic surgeon and BAAPS Secretary, Rajiv Grover, reveals a 14-year audit of claims to the MDU which shows why patients sue. He provides recommendations to avoid these situations such as careful pre-operative counselling, thorough documentation and exploring with the patient what degree of correction and scarring is realistic – and not being falsely optimistic about the likely outcome.

Managing Risk to Reputation: Magnus Boyd, Partner at leading UK solicitors, Carter-Ruck suggests how doctors can protect their reputation and how the media can influence the outcome of a professional investigation or the expression of anger from a disgruntled patient.

Both Dr Harvey Marcovitch and Mr Nigel Mercer are available for comment.

Clinical Risk

The journal Clinical Risk aims to give both medical and legal professionals an enhanced understanding of key medico-legal issues relating to risk management and patient safety, through authoritative articles, reviews and news on the management of clinical risk. The AvMA Medical and Legal Journal and the Healthcare & Law Digest, both included within Clinical Risk, contain articles on current medico-legal issues and reports on a wide range of recently settled clinical negligence cases.

Source
BAAPS

The White House and Senate Democrats have turned to a proposal to tax breast implants, tummy tucks, wrinkle-smoothing injections and other procedures as they search for ways to pay for costly health care overhaul plans.

Vanity was an easy target as lawmakers scraped for cash for the nearly $1 trillion plan to expand health care to millions of Americans who lack insurance. But it’s no joke to the drug makers and people who perform the cosmetic nips and tucks. And they’re fighting back.

Skin-smoothing Botox injections could be hard-hit. There were some 4.7 million last year and an average cost per visit of about $400, some including several injections.

“It is a random hit on an easy target that is only punitive and not corrective,” said Caroline Van Hove, a spokeswoman for Allergan Inc., the maker of Botox Cosmetic. “The bottom line is that taxing cosmetic procedures is unnecessarily punitive on people who have merely decided to enhance their appearance.”

At issue is a proposal in the 10-year, nearly $1 trillion health care draft unveiled by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that would slap a 5 percent excise tax on elective cosmetic surgeries and procedures. The plan, projected to raise $6 billion, wouldn’t apply to surgery to fix a deformity or injury, but would include procedures such as face lifts, liposuction, cosmetic implants or teeth-whitening.

The plastic surgeons may have seemed like an appealing bunch to pick on given that they had already been skeptical of the Democrats’ overhaul proposal. But they say it will be a blow to countless American women — of every income level.

“The common misconception is that this is going to tax wealthy, suburban Republican women,” said Dr. Phil Haeck of Seattle, Wash., the president-elect of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. In fact, he said, of the 86 percent of cosmetic surgery patients who are female, 60 percent of them have incomes between $30,000 and $90,000.

In addition, he said the tax would be especially hurtful in tough economic times that have prompted many newly jobless women to look for ways to make themselves more marketable to prospective employers. He said, “They’re competing with people 10 to 15 years younger than them and they want to look better.”

The emergence of the tax in the latest Senate health legislation shows what can happen when an industry or company that’s in Congress’ cross-hairs isn’t vigilant enough.

Dr. Daniel Russo, the Birmingham, Ala., plastic surgeon who heads the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, said his group first heard of the cosmetic procedure tax idea over the summer. But after being assured by several lawmakers and senior congressional aides that it was not being seriously considered, the group opted not to engage in a major lobbying battle against it, he said.

“On multiple fronts, we were assured that this was not something that any one of the senators or representatives wanted to pursue. This is something that we did not foresee,” Russo said in an interview.

“We feel it’s unfair to those people who’ve saved hard-earned moneys to have something to improve their appearance, and now may not even be able to afford it,” he said.

His group isn’t registered to lobby, although the American Society of Plastic Surgeons reported spending nearly $400,000 this year trying to influence Congress. The society, which has two in-house lobbyists, didn’t list a plastic surgery tax among its legislative priorities in disclosures filed on Capitol Hill.

Haeck, president-elect of the society, said industry players whose products would be affected took the lead lobbying against it.

Allergan’s shares were down more than 2 percent Thursday after news of the tax broke. The company, which recently projected net product sales for this year of more than $4 billion, expects the injectible wrinkle-smoothing medicine to rake in $1.3 billion in 2009. It has spent $1.4 million lobbying Congress on health care issues this year.

But Medical device and pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, a maker of breast implants, saw its shares inch up. The company has spent more than $3 million lobbying Congress this year on a wide range of issues, many related to the health overhaul. It was a major player in a successful fight by the medical device industry to get lawmakers to cut in half a proposed $40 billion tax on their products.

Lobbyists and aides familiar with the proposed 5 percent cosmetic surgery tax said Allergan and Johnson & Johnson along with others in the industry helped persuade lawmakers to slash it from a 10 percent levy, which had been projected to cost about $11 billion over a decade.

Accounts vary on who first dreamed up the Botax. It came out of a late-July meeting on health care that included Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the Finance Committee chairman, and Peter Orszag, Obama’s budget director, although neither man’s staff acknowledges having hatched the scheme.

In the end, Reid revived it simply because “we needed money to make the bill work,” his spokesman Jim Manley said.

Now that it’s in the Senate legislation, plastic surgeons and the cosmetic product industry are dusting off their arguments against it. Opponents cite as a cautionary tale a similar 6 percent tax in effect in New Jersey. Haeck contends that tax has cost the state $3.39 for every $1 collected.

Whatever money would be raised, he said, would come from doctors and patients at a time they can ill-afford it, given the recession and rising unemployment.

“These women come in, they’ve lost their jobs, they don’t have the money for a facelift,” he said.

Source : Associated Press