LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE* By GF.O•tOF. G. Ko•,^•t As ¾ot: •^VE BEE• informed, tonight I am in the role of clairvoyant and soothsayer. I wish to add that in this capacity I speak as an individual and not as president or in behalf of the SOCIETY. I consider this a very challenging role and yet one with its compensations. Before departing into the realm of Nostredamus, I would like to point out the hazards besetting this road and the pitfalls that scientists far superior to me have fallen into when branching out into this field. It was in the early part of the century that a most distinguished scientist, Dr. Newcomb, thought he could foresee in the future well enough to pro- claim that man would never fly. A few weeks later on a cold December day in 1903 the Wright brothers made their now famous ascent. Also, there was that other scientist, Osborne Reynolds, who stated in the 1880's that electricity had little future because a mile or so from its source, it would lose half its power. So we should remember that foresight has physical as well as historical limitations. We all recognize that we are living in times of change and that it is im- possible for any company to continue to market products without making modifications for even a short period of time. Year-end reports from many of the leading pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies recite the fact that 60 to 80 per cent of their volume today is on items that were not in their lines five years ago. Further, it is anticipated that our population in 20 years will increase by about a third, or 63 million people. This alone means a much greater potential for the sale of cosmetics. Add to this the increas- ing purchasing power of all families and you can recognize that there will be more business for the concern and chemist who develops products with the thought of an expanding market. Before proceeding on my actual prophesies of new products, first, I think I should read to you, once again, the definition of the term cosmetic as stated in the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. "The term 'cosmetic' means, (1) articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appear- ance, and (2) articles intended for use as a component of any such articles, except that such term shall not include soap." * Presented at the Chicago and New York City Section Meetings, November, 1956. 76

LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE 77 I want this clarified at the outset because it is my firm conviction that many cosmetics of the future, developed and produced by you people here, are going to fall in that category specified as "introduced into" for "altering the appearance." Now, further study of the Act, will show the value of having had attorneys, these movers of words, develop these definitions to encompass the many categories of those products of the future. For it also states under the term "drug" as follows, "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in man...and intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man, etc." As you will see from my ensuing remarks, these products which I prophesy will be considered under these definitions, both drugs and cosmetics. I might add at this juncture that we have been launched into this era of which I speak for some time without, I think, giving proper recognition to it. The early forerunners have been the depilatories, the antiperspirants and more recently the "hormone creams" and thioglycolate waving lotions. Is it any wonder that, as Paul Lauffer (1) has pointed out in THe. JouR•^L ov xH•. Soc•Ezv o•' CosM•.T•c C•.mszs, of the first 170 articles published in our JOURNAL, the largest single category reported on dealt with the derma- tological and biochemical aspects of the skin. We cosmetic chemists can no longer be exclusively creators of "art" products. True, cosmetic science must always remain, as Dr. Evans (2) has said, "a handmaiden to cosmetic art" but we must now be more of a biochemist, dermatologist, toxicologist and above all a pharmacologist. The changes taking place in Washington, D.C., give further emphasis to this. Now that the election is over, I think it can safely be said that regard- less of what administration is in power, there is relentless movement toward greater regulation and policing. This to me is an observation that is very apparent and borne out this past year when a 15 per cent appropriations increase for the Food & Drug Administration for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1956 was granted. The 15 per cent budget increase--the largest in many years for F.D.A.--ran the agency's appropriation to $6.7 million, an increase of $929,000. There are indications that F.D.A. is spending about three-fourths of this increase for hiring chemists and new field in- spectors. It is safe to assume that all certified dyes and colors will get a very thorough investigation. The conclusions to be reached from these findings will be made only through industry-government compromise. What with the present methods of certification, I can only see a decrease in the number of dyes available to the cosmetic chemist as decertification procedures increase. This August the Second Circuit Court handed down a decision upholding the F.D.A. ruling of 1955 which last November banned