A sunscreen brand war has exposed a regulatory gap
Summary
- Honasa's Mamaearth and Hindustan Unilever Ltd's (HUL) Lakme have ended hostilities but shown how acutely India is in need of efficacy-focused regulatory standards for such products. Tighter regulation will strengthen Indian brands.
Honasa and Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) have, under the court’s auspices, settled their dispute over an advertisement by HUL’s Lakme that trashed the efficacy of Honasa’s Mama- earth sunscreen in offering actual protection. HUL is modifying its ads and Mamaearth is removing its social media posts that disparage Lakme.
The peace may or may not prove durable, but the sun continues to blaze, and—as if global warming is not bad enough—our skin remains vulnerable to its ultraviolet rays. These are of two types: UV rays of type A reach deep under our skin, while the shorter-wavelength B variety rays do not go too deep but redden the skin and leave a tan that many dread. Both kinds have the potential to cause skin cancer, although Indian skin-tones typically have enough pigment to offer some protection.
Also Read: India must adopt a policy framework for early cancer detection
Type A rays accelerate the ageing of our skin. Further, some kinds of medication strip the skin of its natural protection from UV rays, making it essential to use special lotions. Whether or not brand wars resume, it matters to consumers if the sunscreen lotion they slather on offers a real shield or not. For that, we cannot rely on claims and counter-claims. We need effective regulation. Unfortunately, cosmetics are regulated too loosely in India.
India has had a law governing cosmetics since 1940, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, with its rules updated in 2020. Its focus, however, has been on ensuring that cosmetics sold do not contain harmful chemicals and their testing doesn’t make animals suffer, rather than on their performance. Moreover, the regulatory approach is schizophrenic. At the central and state levels, the agency in charge is the Drugs Standard Control Organisation (DSCO). But, unlike in the case of drugs, the standards for cosmetics are set by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS).
Also Read: Are you wearing the right sunscreen?
This contrasts with the US, where the Food and Drugs Administration governs both drugs and cosmetics, besides food products. Sunscreens fall between the cracks in India, since neither the Central DSCO nor the BIS has set any bar for these products to out- perform. The BIS standard lays down what kind of testing should be done: ‘in vivo,’ that is, carried out on a live being. ‘In vitro’ means in a lab, but lab testing is not good enough for a product that could behave differently when it is actually used. So live tests make sense.
However, sunscreens are susceptible to photo instability, which means they could break down under sunlight. They may also underperform when exposed to moisture. What we lack is a standard that lays down the proportion of UV rays that should be blocked for specified time intervals after application. If we had set such a bar, the war of words between sunscreen brands might have cited specific measures.
Also Read: Are startups really failing India? Let’s look at the big picture
Recently, a Union minister derided startups that do not venture into hard technology. India’s startup success in cosmetics, wellness products and their swift delivery, though, is welcome for the value and jobs being created. Indian brands can go global on the coat-tails of the diaspora to begin with and more generally after that.
Effective regulation, with clear standards and enforcement, would help them occupy shelf- and mind-space globally. The government must tighten its regulatory apparatus for cosmetics to protect consumers, who mustn’t be left bewildered when brands take potshots at each other. The other goal should be to foster global successes.
