safety of a new product is very difficult to prove
Posted by Catherine Cartwright Jones on October 1, 2002 at 13:35:36:
: resources and information to lobby in favor of its approved
: application on the skin.
If that could be done .... one of the big cosmetic industries would
have already done it. Proving efficacy and safety is expensive,
tedious and likely to fail ... particularly when the quality and
purity of imports is dodgy at best. As long as there's dyed sand in
nearly every henna shipment out of India (not to mention what is in
the pre-mixes) ... the FDA is NOT going to look kindly on henna.
Henna suffers from not being "grandfathered" in. Many things that
"Americans" were accustomed to using simply got the "ok", (whether
they are good for us or not). Henna for hair was grandfathered in
because it was used by the Victorians for those long silky tresses.
If henna body art had been a familiar practice among WASP's, there
would never have been a problem. Because it's introduced now, and is
very poorly regulated, there's an uphill struggle just to
differentiate it from PPD.
It would be easier to prove that banning henna is in conflict with
people's freedom of religion! That would have to be taken up by a
Muslim or Hindu lobby group.
|Served by ruboard 2.1.1; Copyright © 1998 by Andrew Maltsev.|