Pharmaceutical laboratories were singled out in “Le Nouvel Obs” 50 years ago for their many useless products, but the test conditions of certain products by manufacturers of cosmetics and beauty products of all kinds were also highlighted in the weekly.
In the archives of the “Obs”
Which world, which French people, which society told “Le Nouvel Observateur” (which became “L’Obs” in 2014) half a century ago? Every weekend, we offer you an article, interview, report, portrait or letter from readers drawn from our archives.
Against a few cigarettes for teenagers and money for the management, it is in particular at the Work of the Orphans Apprentices of Auteuil that a dermatologist recruited his guinea pigs, reported Mariella Righini in the article that we republish below. “For three months, the backs of orphans become the testing ground for cosmetologists. » Beyond, “everywhere there is activity, preferably on the backs of subjects in a state of dependence on the experimenter: pupils, prisoners, collaborators, employees. Their state of subordination removes all freedom from their consent. »
Apparently not illegal practices, but which posed serious ethical questions.
50 years ago in “l’Obs”: the rush of Spaniards to the porn cinemas of Perpignan
Article published in “Le Nouvel Observateur” n° 440, Monday, April 16, 1973
(Title and typography are contemporary.)
The sequel after the ad
SANTE
The good back of guinea pigs
After the white mice, the orphans: it is necessary to test the beauty products
by Marialle Righini
A few square centimeters of adolescent skin against two cigarettes when the test patch is applied, ten cigarettes when removed and two as a bonus for each new recruit, plus a check for one hundred and fifty francs per session to the management. This is the deal concluded between a brother of the Holy Spirit and a dermatologist from the 17th arrondissement: Father Friedrich, director of the Saint-Philippe de Meudon orphanage, property of the Œuvre des Orphelins Apprentis d’Auteuil, and Dr. Gautard, former assistant doctor at the Rothschild Foundation.
The sequel after the ad
Every other Thursday, the doctor’s assistant enters the establishment, strips the backs of some forty “volunteers” recruited in the classes by the general supervisor, sticks an adhesive strip to them under which five or six coated pellets are attached. of products to be tested: milks, creams, soaps, algae. The next day the doctor tears off the plaster, notes and counts the redness, pimples, blisters, burns. For three months, the backs of orphans become the testing ground for cosmetologists.
The day when the little guinea pigs of Meudon reveal “the affair of the ointments”, no laboratory takes umbrage. “These are private matters that concern no one”, they say. Pushed to the limit, some houses nevertheless recognize that the method was not “not very friendly”. The others hide in complicit silence. “These are perfectly legal and daily practices”, justified Dr. Gautard. They have nothing to add. The Union of Parlumerie only notes that “the conditions for observing the effect of the product were not ideal in an orphanage”.
Who are the guinea pigs of cosmetologists? On whom do they test their makeup, their lacquers, their dyes, their powders, before launching them on the market?
“We are at your disposal to show you around our pet shop”, answer the manufacturers of beauty products. And they insist on the hypersensitive pink eyes of albino rabbits, a privileged field of research for the testers. But coloring shampoos are not intended to give highlights to the hair of mice, nor lipsticks to make up the beaks of hens. There comes a time when you have to move into a human environment.
The sequel after the ad
Nazi medicine?
“It’s the ultimate precaution.we insist in a large laboratory, once the toxicological tests on animals have been conclusive, that the perfect harmlessness of the product has been demonstrated. » A formality, in short, which one discharges discreetly.
“In hospital setting”, first of all, as cosmetologists who want to remain vague say. In the dermatology or allergology departments of certain hospitals, or in the private practices of skin specialists. The patient arrives with all the products for his bathroom and his kitchen in a suitcase to have the substance responsible for his allergy identified. The doctor sticks on his back as many impregnated pellets as there are suspect products. Plus two or three more soaked in eyeliner or scented nail polish remover. On the occasion of a consultation for identification of allergy, the patient lends his skin to prospective tests sponsored by a laboratory. With his consent, or without his knowledge, according to the conscience of the dermatologist.
“It’s the same with drugs, do we observe at l’Oréal, except that we don’t swallow. »
The sequel after the ad
“It is not harmful and it can benefit the patientnotes a specialist. By pointing out to him that in addition to the products responsible for his allergy there are others that risk sensitizing him, I am providing him with useful information. »
The reasoning is ethically acceptable. Even if, in fact, the interests of the firm take precedence over those of the patient who comes to consult, but there are more expeditious methods, which bother little with therapeutic justifications. They are not practiced for a curative purpose but as a pure experience. They are applied to healthy and normal subjects to whom an attempt is made to inoculate with allergies. “It’s Nazi medicine”said on the antennas of France-Inter Dr. GH, allergist.
In other words, we take the risk of making healthy people allergic, of provoking polysensitization phenomena, chain reactions.
Like the kitchen
The sequel after the ad
The ideal terrain for this type of experiment: the immediate surroundings of the experimenter. The small medical or paramedical staff, first, from the voluntary nurse to the zealous student passing by the dedicated extern. “If there is an accident in the service, notes a guinea pig caregiver, we are careful not to make it noise. »
Another field of investigation: the laboratory staff. From the laboratory technician to the chemist, from the packer to the worker. ” This is completely normal, remarks the pharmacist of a brand of cosmetics. When you cook, you taste yourself before serving. »
These tests can also spill over to panels of consumers, listed by age, skin type, tendencies, problems. They are sent the lipstick or the hormone cream with instructions for use and a questionnaire to be returned duly completed. If it loses its scientific rigor, the method does not get rid of its risks. Especially since it escapes any medical control here.
In the United States, tests on the healthy population have been proven in penitentiaries. For years, Dr. Kligmal, one of the greatest dermatologists (sic) Americans, continues its tests in full view of everyone, on convicts in Philadelphia prison. In France, we practice in the shadow of orphanages. There is activity everywhere, preferably on the backs of subjects in a state of dependence on the experimenter: pupils, prisoners, collaborators, employees. Their state of subordination removes all freedom from their consent.
In the absence of any legislation on the manufacture and testing of cosmetic products, testers have free rein. Knowing the gaps in the texts, Dr. Gautard is perfectly at ease in asserting that, in Meudon as elsewhere, “all practical tests followed the law from A to Z”.
MARIELLA RIGHINI
