Understanding the hype

 

If you don’t understand how the cosmetics industry works—the good, the bad, and the ugly—you will be a victim of its advertising manipulations, exaggerations, and deceptions, and that isn’t good for your skin or your budget.

I had an interesting discussion with a producer of an infomercial as I was finishing up the last chapter for this book before it went to press. Because of confidentiality I can’t tell you which one, but it really doesn’t matter because they are all the same and they all mislead or deceive or lie through their teeth in the same way. This producer knew that the script she was going to be videotaping was mostly misleading or untrue. Don’t get me wrong: She was very nice and she appreciated my research and critique of the topic, but of course there was nothing she could do about it. And nothing I could do either.

What most women don’t realize is how everyone in the cosmetics industry knows that the marketing and advertising for cosmetics is either meaningless, hypocritical, or dishon- est. That fashion magazines are hamstrung by their advertisers and can’t report “beauty” information objectively. They can’t disagree with their advertisers. The reporters, producers, and editors all know it. They all talk about it and then shrug their shoulders and say, well, it’s a living. Or they laugh about it. Ultimately, they all know women are being suckered into products that can’t possibly perform as the claims on the label assert.

 

Why CosmetiCs Companies Can mislead legally

Reporters all over the world constantly ask me why cosmetics companies mislead and often out and out lie to women, and how they manage to get away with it. The simple answer is that women like to be lied to. We want to believe that the products we buy can get us what we want. We prefer the promise of eternal youth (or some approximation) and clear, flawless skin to reality. No matter how many thousands of products there are, often dozens of them from the same companies, and all guaranteeing some degree of a miracle, it still happens—we just don’t seem to have a learning curve. We want the next one we buy to be the answer. Using either scientific mumbo jumbo or concoctions said to come straight from the earth, or a mix of both, they tell us exactly what we want to hear. Most cosmetics companies need to lie just to gain a consumer’s attention because the truth is never as enticing as the deception.

While women want to find hope in a jar, regulatory agencies do what they can to pro- tect us. However the official limitations provide no real protection from truly misleading information or lies. One of the most beguiling aspects of the cosmetics industry in the

U.S. and Canada is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Canada (HC), and most regulatory boards around the world—with the exception of the European Union (EU) member countries—don’t require cosmetics companies to prove their claims. “Neither

 

 

cosmetic products nor cosmetic ingredients are reviewed or approved by FDA before they are sold to the public.” (Sources: Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, www. cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-206.html, March 3, 2005; and FDA Authority Over Cosmetics and Health Canada, www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/prod/cosmet-eng.php). That means cosmetics companies, whether they call their products cosmeceutical or otherwise, get to say just about anything they want about their products without any substantiation or proof whatsoever.

Pharmaceutical and over-the-counter drug regulations are infinitely stricter than those dealing with cosmetics. If a drug company makes a claim about what an antihistamine can do to prevent sneezing, the product must contain particular ingredients in specified amounts to win approval from the FDA. The same is true for aspirin and other analgesics, antacids, decongestants, anti-inflammatories, and all drugs across the board in the world of pharmaceuticals. The same is not true for cosmetics.

The only fundamental FDA restriction on cosmetics companies’ claims is the legal pro- hibition of phrases that directly state or promise a permanent change in the skin or hair. Of course, there are a million ways to make something sound like a permanent change to consumers without sounding permanent to the FDA.

What about federal regulations concerning truth in advertising? That issue generally falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Com- munications Commission (FCC), but it doesn’t take much to get around these guys either. For example, I can describe at great length how miraculously my product works as long as I throw in phrases such as “appears to,” “seems to,” “feels as if,” “looks like,” “you may experience,” and lots more variations on these themes. All of these phrases invalidate any promise about a product’s performance. A company is not considered to be lying to the consumer when these kinds of terms are used because the purported results are subjective, not actual. It may “seem” like your cellulite has disappeared, or you may “appear” to look younger, or you can “experience” a clear complexion, but nothing has happened except that you may be convinced something has taken place.

Better Than Botox? That question mark poses a question, not a statement, so the FDA is happy, and meanwhile what the consumer hears is that the product is better than Botox. It doesn’t take fancy terminology to keep within regulatory guidelines while still misleading the consumer because reading caveats doesn’t get our attention. That’s how most cosmetics advertising gets around truth-in-advertising restrictions every time.

Another game in the industry happens when companies step way over the line in their advertising campaigns, either on televison or in fashion magazines, and mislead or lie to consumers. They do this because they know that by the time the FDA or HC can take action the advertisement has run its course and made an impression on consumers. Mis- sion accomplished; the company is on to its next product launch. Also, many cosmetics companies know that the FDC and HC are just so overloaded with work and underfunded that their deceptive ads can easily slip under the radar of these agencies and continue on, safe and sound, without any fear of repercussions.

 

 

And beyond the lack of regulation, the language and images are manipulated to create a veneer of scientific authority in advertisements that promise everything from younger skin to smoother thighs. The problem here has to do with the studies the cosmetics companies claim are backed by actual research that proves their assertions to be true. This is the wide- open world of claim substantiation, a whole industry of its own that has given the word deception an entirely new meaning.

 

the BUsiness of Claim sUBstantiation

—oUr stUdy shoWs

Just about every cosmetics company has a study or studies they tout as being proof that their product(s) work. From this perspective there isn’t a product—from any line—that doesn’t work miracles. But of course you never see their studies of the products that failed (something must have failed, right?). Yet since we aren’t getting rid of our wrinkles (somehow plastic surgeons and dermatologists are not going out of business because of new skin-care products), while hundreds of new, seemingly miracle-making products are launched every year, it appears that most of these so-called studies must be little more than shams. It turns out that’s exactly what most of them are.

When the  EU created their  Cosmetics Industry Directive,  the entire 27- member nation group was obliged to follow it. One of the new regulations unique to the EU was that cosmetics companies must have on file studies that support their claims (Source: Consolidated Version of Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ cosmetics/html/consolidated_dir.htm). Almost instantly, the industry of claim substantiation was created. In other words, the EU tried to make a difference but failed miserably; they just created a loophole that cosmetics companies could easily get through.

In the world of skin care today, there is an entire business known as claim substantiation, but its studies definitely do not equate with those done under legitimate scientific research standards. Laboratories, including those at some respected universities and colleges, are expert at setting up a study so that the results support whatever the label or advertisements say that a product can do. One important question about this research that many consum- ers and physicians aren’t aware of—and this includes lots of physicians who are involved in these dubious and often completely bogus studies—is this: “Under what conditions were the studies performed?” In the industry, in place of a plausible answer, what happens goes by many names, such as creative claim substantiation, or substantiation strategies (Source: Society of Cosmetic Chemists, www.scconline.org/website/referrals/consultants.shtml).

These research labs exist solely to provide pseudoscientific material for the cosmetics industry. That way, if the marketing copy claims that a moisturizer provides an 82% in- crease in moisturization or a 90% increase in the skin’s water content, the company may very well be able to point to a study that says this is true. Whether the study is the least bit valid is another question altogether. Quoting these inconclusive, vague studies in a news story or ad can make them sound significant and meaningful, but in truth they are more often than not just more hype and exaggeration generated to sell products. One of these

 

 

claim-substantiation companies actually advertises its ability to deliver “creative claim generation/substantiation.”

For example, in a skin-care study to establish whether or not a product gets rid of wrinkles, the subjects participating often begin by washing their face and then stripping it clear with alcohol. The company then takes the “before” photos and measurements (such as wrinkle depth, skin tone, and water loss, among other parameters). With that starting point, it’s hardly surprising that the “before” situation is much worse than the “after” results. What would the results have been if the woman had started by using a gentle cleanser, a good moisturizer, and a sunscreen (for example, effective ones different from those being tested)? Or, what would the effects of any other products have been if compared to those of the product being tested? Perhaps dozens of other products could have performed as well or better.

(Sources for the above: Cosmetic Claims Substantiation, Cosmetic Science and Technology Series, vol. 18, ed. Louise Aust, New York: Marcel Dekker, 1998; and the Cosmetics and Toiletries article: “The European Group on Efficacy Measurement of Cosmetics and Other Topical Products is considering new cosmetic legislation to regulate claims of efficacy,” by

G.   E. Pierard, Ph.D, Allured Publishing Corp., Boca Raton, FL, 2000.)

During the more than 25 years I’ve been researching and reviewing the cosmetics industry I have asked every cosmetics company whose product or products we’ve reviewed to show us their “studies” and in all those 25 years, I have received only five of these studies (and none, and I mean NONE, of those five studies proved the claims the companies were making). There are lots of ways to use pseudo-science to create proof for a claim that, in reality, has very little to do with science and everything to do with marketing

According to an article in Cosmetics & Toiletries magazine (December 1999, pages 52–53), “Skin moisturization studies using bioengineering methods are commonplace today. If data generated for a new test product demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the test product and untreated skin in favor of increased hydration, then claims indicating this to the consumer would be substantiated.… For example, [the claim] ‘moisturizes your skin for up to 8 hours’ would be substantiated by a study where a statistical difference was observed between the test product and untreated skin for up to 8 hours following applica- tion of the test product.” In essence, in examples like this, what the words “our studies show” are telling you is that, when compared with plain, unmoisturized, washed skin, the moisturizer made skin moist! That isn’t exactly shocking. The use of any moisturizer would show the same results.

I’ve seen this process at work firsthand, and it is disturbing. Whoever is paying the bill

hires the research lab. The lab is handed the products and told what to look for and what kind of results are needed—for example, proof of moisturization, exfoliation, smoothness, or some other measurable parameter. Then the lab goes about setting up a study to prove that position. Rarely are these studies done double blind, nor do they use a large group of women, or show long-term results, and rarely (actually never) are the results negative. More to the point, these studies are never published. Unpublished research is nothing more than sheer fantasy and illusion. It’s completely unscientific and considered invalid by independent

 

 

researchers. Yet consumers are led to believe this unverified information is fact when they read about it in editorials in fashion magazines and other media. And the cosmetic compa- nies are quick to point out how many studies they’ve done, but few are ever published and even fewer are ever substantiated.

This same sleight of hand is used quite effectively in brochures and ads. Many cosmetics counters hand out impressively designed, scientific-looking brochures showing how well a product works on the skin. You might see, for example, a microscopic close-up of a patch of skin paired with an explanation of why it looks bad. Beside it is another close-up of the same patch of skin after the product is applied. See how wonderfully the product worked? The deception here is that you are not given enough “before” information. For example, if the woman had acne, what was she doing before to take care of her skin? Was she using products that clogged pores or aggravated breakouts? Had she never used any effective skin-care products for acne? In that case, any basic skin-care routine for acne could make a difference. And was this person the sole best result of the lot? Were there perhaps others who still had breakouts despite treatment or did their skin get worse? Just because information looks scientific doesn’t mean it is.

Next time you see stories about test results showing younger-looking skin, new cell growth, or any other claim that sounds too good to be true, regardless of who is making the claim, stop and think. Ask yourself how many times you have heard this “perfect skin in a bottle” message before. Is this “story” about only a single study, or are there any corroborating stud- ies? Does it sound too good to be true? Where is the entire study? What did it really test? You may also want to ask yourself how many more times you are going to swallow another exaggerated claim about a skin-care product, or spend money believing that you’ve finally found the “best” product available. (Do you really believe that gorgeous, childlike model in the picture looks like that because of the products being advertised?) Think about how many times you’ve been sucked in by a cosmetics ad, claim, or fashion magazine story, only to be disappointed again and again, until the next advertising campaign for a new product catches your attention. There are many wonderful things that you can do to take care of your skin! But there are also a ton of things that are an embarrassing waste of money.

 

a perfeCt example of hoW “stUdies” Can mislead

Boots No7 Restore & Renew Beauty Serum ($21.99 for 1 ounce) is one of my favorite examples of how this game of claim substantiation works and can easily fool the media. Here are the facts:

A television documentary that aired in the United Kingdom in March 2007 featured the results of a blind test that compared the efficacy of this Boots serum to tretinoin. Tretinoin is the active ingredient in Retin-A and Renova and is also available as a generic. The research was carried out by scientists at the University of Manchester, with the conclusion that this Boots serum was just as effective at stimulating collagen production as tretinoin, yet cost considerably less. That sounds great until you learn that Boots paid for the research. That means the University was making money on the study and so everyone had a vested interest in making sure the study made the product look great.

 

 

The study was done blind instead of double-blind, which means the researchers knew who was getting what product. This type of study isn’t as reliable as double-blind studies because, especially when money is at stake, there is a natural bias toward making sure the product in question comes out in the best possible light. Moreover, comparing tretinoin to a “serum” and saying they do the same thing doesn’t tell you if myriad other products would have fared just as well. Maybe using someone else’s serum, say from Neutrogena or Olay, could produce the same results. But because Neutrogena or Olay weren’t the ones paying for the study no one bothered to see if that would be the case. What is distressing is that sunscreen was left out of the equation, which means women might mistakenly believe that all it takes is the Boots serum and your skin will be fine. And finally, if the Boots product is so spectacular, you have to wonder why does Boots continue to sell dozens of other products with different formulas that claim the exact same benefits?

Similar pseudo-science abounds in the cosmetics industry, and I expose it repeatedly when I review products. Believing the claims a cosmetics company makes based on their studies is a risk you don’t want to take because more often than not, the study is nothing more than a marketing ploy and not indicative of anything meaningful.

 

myth BUsting: 30 major BeaUty myths and  the real faCts

I know 30 myths to bust seems like an awful lot, but believe me, there could have been lots more. I struggled on which ones to include that would be the most helpful. What women are led to believe about skin care and makeup could fill volumes. We are incessantly bombarded with these myths disguised as truths, and like any brainwashing procedure it takes effort and facts to get to what is really possible and what is worth your time and money. So these 30 myths represent a snapshot of the typical erroneous information you get from cosmetics companies that end up hurting your skin and budget because they are a poor way to make decisions about the products you buy.

 

1.  Myth: There are skin-care products that really are better than Botox or better than dermal fillers.

Fact: Over the past few years cosmetics companies have positioned their skin- care products by claiming that they can compete with or even outdo medical corrective procedures such as Botox. The ads in fashion magazines for these types of skin-care products often make claims about how dangerous Botox injections can be. There is nothing scary about Botox (other than the sound of the botulism toxin mate- rial used). In fact, the research about Botox’s effectiveness and safety is overwhelmingly positive for every disorder they treat with it, and there are many, from cerebral palsy in children to headaches and eye tics. (Sources: Journal of Neural Transmission, April 2008, pages 617–623; Laryngoscope, May 2008, pages 790–796; Journal of Headache and Pain, October 2007, pages 294–300; Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, June 2007, pages 1059–1072; and Pediatrics, July 2007, pages 49–58.)

 

 

On the other hand, there is absolutely no research showing that any skin-care product can even remotely work in any manner like Botox, or like dermal fillers such as Restylane or Artecol, or like laser resurfacing. Regardless of their ingredients or the claims these skin-care products make, it just isn’t possible. Even Botox can’t work like Botox if you apply it topically rather than injecting it into facial muscles. Nor can der- mal fillers plump up wrinkles when applied topically rather than being injected. When performed by professionals, Botox and dermal injections make wrinkles in the treated area disappear almost immediately. Believing that skin-care products can do the same is a complete waste of money. There has never been a single skin-care product that has ever put a plastic surgeon or cosmetic dermatologist out of business! It makes sense, then, even with the increasing number of products claiming to be better than Botox, that there were more Botox injections and dermal filler injections performed in 2007 than ever before—millions and millions of them.

 

2.  Myth:  Dermal fillers such as Radiesse and Restylane are completely safe and are the best filler options available.

Fact: Absolutely not true! First, there are more than 30 dermal filler materials be- ing used, and many of them are even more beneficial and definitely longer lasting than Radiesse and Restylane (Sources: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, November 2007, pages 33S–40S; and Dermatologic Therapy, May 2006, pages 141–150; and Clinical and Plastic Surgery, April 2005, pages 151–162). Although dermal fillers do work beautifully to fill out depressed areas of the face, such as the nasal labial folds that extend from your nose to your mouth, deep lines between the eyebrows, and marionette lines along the sides of the mouth, they do pose risks. The advertising for these two products, and the repeated mention of them in fashion magazines, have led consumers to believe that these work flawlessly. There are definitely problems (albeit infrequent) associated with these fillers, and with all of the more than 30 fillers currently being used. These problems and adverse events are primarily granulomas and nodules, which are lumps or hard spheres that may occur under the skin. Although these sometimes must be corrected with surgery, for the temporary fillers the adverse events do fade with time while the semi-permanent fillers can stay in place for far longer periods of time. The trade off is duration versus risk, and the decision is yours.

Please don’t take this information to mean you shouldn’t consider using dermal fillers to successfully treat wrinkles (millions of successful treatments have been performed); it’s just that you should be fully informed before you make any decision about any product or procedure you are considering. One more thing: there are absolutely no skin-care products that can work in any way, shape, or form like a dermal filler. (Sources: Dermatologic Surgery, June 2008, Supplemental, pages S92–S99, and December 2007, Supplemental, pages S168–S175; Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, November 2007, Supplemental, pages S17–S26; Dermatology, April 2006, pages 300–304; Journal of Cosmetic Laser Therapy, December 2005, pages 171–176; and Aesthetic and Plastic Surgery, January–February 2005, pages 34–48.)

 

 

3.  Myth: You should choose skin-care products based on your age.

Fact: Many products on the market claim to be designed for a specific age group,

especially for “mature” women; mature usually refers to women over 50. Before you buy into any arbitrary age division when choosing skin-care products, ask yourself why the over-50 group is always lumped together. According to this logic, someone who is 40 or 45 shouldn’t be using the same products as someone who is 50 (only 5 or 10 years older), yet someone who is 80 should be using the same products as someone who is 50. If you think that doesn’t make sense, you’re right.

To clear up the confusion, what you need to know is that skin has different needs that are based on skin type, not on age. Not everyone in the same age group has the same skin type. Your skin-care routine depends on how dry, sun-damaged, oily, sensi- tive, thin, blemished, or normal your skin is, all of which have nothing to do with age. Then there are the issues of rosacea, psoriasis, allergies, and other skin disorders, which again have nothing to do with age. What everyone needs to do is protect the outer bar- rier of their skin in exactly the same way—avoid unnecessary direct sun exposure (sun protection), don’t smoke, don’t irritate your skin, and do use state-of-the-art skin-care products loaded with antioxidants and skin-identical ingredients (Sources: International Journal of Cosmetic Science, October 2007, pages 409–410; and Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology, April 2007, pages 343–357). Plenty of young women have dry skin, and plenty of older women have oily skin and breakouts (particularly women who are experiencing perimenopausal or menopausal hormone fluctuations).

Some skin disorders, diseases, and functionality problems are associated with older skin, but whether they appear or not depends on the woman and her particular skin. They are not universally true of older skin because even these specific maladies can occur in younger people as well (such as ulcerated skin, wounds that don’t heal, itchy skin, and thinning skin). In addition, none of these problems have anything to do with “normal,” daily skin-care needs; whatever your age, a healthy skin-care routine for your skin type can do wonders (Sources: British Journal of Community Nursing, May 2007, pages 203–204; Journal of Investigative Dermatology, December 2005, pages 364–368; and Journal of Vascular Surgery, October 1999, pages 734–743).

Turning 50 does not mean a woman should assume that her skin is drying up and that she must therefore begin using “mature” skin-care products. After all, those are almost always just products that are designed for dry skin, and are in no way differ- ent from any of the other skin-care products for dry skin on the market. Besides, for many women over 50 (including me), it definitely does not mean that the battle with blemishes is over. Let me just reiterate this: There are no products designed for older women that address any special needs other than dry skin!

 

4.  Myth: Products labeled as “hypoallergenic” are better for sensitive skin.

Fact: “Hypoallergenic” is little more than a nonsense word. In the world of cos- metics, this term is nothing more than an advertising contrivance meant to imply that a product is unlikely or less likely to cause allergic reactions and therefore is better for

 

 

sensitive or problem skin. To “imply” is never the same as to state a “fact,” and in this situation it is patently untrue that products labeled “hypoallergenic” are any better for sensitive skin! There are absolutely no accepted testing methods, ingredient restrictions, regulations, guidelines, rules, or procedures of any kind, anywhere in the world, for determining whether or not a product qualifies as being hypoallergenic. A company can label their product “hypoallergenic” because there is no regulation that says they can’t, no matter what proof they may point to—and what proof can they provide given there is no standard to measure against? Given that there are no regulations governing this supposed category that was made up by the cosmetics industry, there are plenty of products labeled “hypoallergenic” that contain problematic ingredients and that could indeed trigger allergic reactions, even for those with no previous history of skin sensitivity. The word “hypoallergenic” gives you no reliable understanding of what you are or aren’t putting on your skin (Sources: www.fda.gov; and Ostomy and Wound Management, March 2003, pages 20–21).

 

5.  Myth: “Dermatologist tested” on a cosmetics label is a good indication that the product is reliable and can live up to the claims.

Fact: You absolutely should not rely on the “dermatologist tested” claim any more than you should rely on the appearance of a doctor’s name on a product’s label to indicate you are getting a superior formulation. There are many misleading and deceptive aspects to the term “dermatologist-tested” as it’s used on a label, but at the top of the list is that this claim does not tell you what dermatologist did the testing, what he or she tested, how he or she performed the testing, or what the results were. That is, they don’t tell you what they found with their supposed testing; they just tell you that they tested it. Without all of the testing information and results, there is no way to determine what it means. More often than not it just means that a cosmetics company paid a doctor to say that it’s a good product (and there are lots of doctors on the payroll of lots of cosmetics companies). Or they could actually have performed a test, but only on six people, or used testing methods that guaranteed a positive outcome, which happens more often that you’d think. But that hardly provides results you can rely on. Dermatologist-tested is nothing more than a marketing gimmick because people like to believe that doctors have the consumer’s best interest at heart. In the world of cosmetics, however, that is not always the case.

 

6.  Myth: Cosmeceutical companies make better products than cosmetics companies.

Fact: The term “cosmeceutical” is, sad to say, a false advertising gimmick cre-

ated by dermatologists to suggest that their “cosmeceutical” products are somehow better than other products in the cosmetics industry. What pathetic chicanery and deceit! At the very least what you should expect from the medical world is scientific fact, not these fictitious, sales-oriented machinations. When you hear the word “cos- meceutical,” you’re supposed to think a product is a blend of cosmetic ingredients and pharmaceutical-grade ingredients and, therefore, it must be better for your skin—right? The fact is, “cosmeceutical” is just a trumped-up word that has no legal or recognized

 

 

meaning; it definitely has nothing to do with what the product may contain versus the content of any “non-cosmeceutical” cosmetic. A quick comparison of ingredient lists reveals that there is nothing any more unique or pharmaceutical about cosmeceuticals than any other cosmetics in the cosmetics industry. Plus, the FDA does not consider the term “cosmeceutical” to be a valid product class, so the term isn’t regulated. So you should view it merely as a marketing term, and nothing more. Anyone can use that term to represent their brand’s identity (Source: www.fda.gov).

Organizations like the American Academy of Dermatology have muddied the issue even further by stating “Dermatologists know how to use cosmeceutical ingredients and can advise their patients about the best ways to achieve healthy looking skin” (Source: AAD, www.aad.org). I read dermatology journals every month, and I’ve been to enough dermatology conferences to know that is absolutely not true. They haven’t a clue. But even more to the point, dermatologists don’t agree on what makes one product a cosmeceutical and the other not. Depending on who you talk to, products containing retinol (or other retinoids, which are part of the vitamin A molecule), or hydroquinone, or certain botanicals such as green tea, soy, pomegranate, curcumin, or grape, are the gold standard. But all these ingredients are available for use by all cosmetics companies—and indeed they show up in all kinds of products and often not in the ones labeled cosmeceutical.

Another description tossed around maintains that a cosmeceutical contains an in- gredient that performs some kind of special action on the skin. However, all of those ingredients can be used by any cosmetics company, regardless of their designation or where they’re applied.

According to the AAD, “the answer to whether or not cosmeceuticals really work lies in the ingredients and how they interact with the biological mechanisms that occur in aging skin.” But again, that’s true for any cosmetic. Even doctors can be seduced by their own hype so they can sell skin-care products and market them as something different by using a coined, misleading term.

 

7.   Myth: Age spots are best treated with specialty skin lighteners, whiteners, or products claiming to get rid of brown skin discolorations.

Fact: First, the term “age spot” is really a misnomer. Brown, freckle-like skin discolorations are not a result of age; they are the result of years of unprotected sun exposure. You can demonstrate this for yourself: just compare the skin on the parts of your body that haven’t seen the sun (like your backside or the inner part of your arm) with skin on the parts of your body that see the sun on a regular basis. The parts of your body that don’t the see sun will have minimal to no skin discolorations. And keep in mind that the bad rays of the sun also come through windows! (Sources: Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, September 2007, pages 195–202; Dermatology Nursing, October 2004, pages 401–413; and Age and Ageing, March 2006, pages 110–115.)

Second, a number of skin-care products that claim they can make skin whiter or lighter more often than not contain no ingredients that can have any significant, or

 

 

even minor, impact on melanin production (melanin is the brown pigment in skin). In addition, even when the product does contain an ingredient that can have an effect, it usually contains such a small amount that it won’t help at all. Basically, there is no comparison between the effects (or non-effects) of using one of these products and using a sunscreen plus a product containing hydroquinone.

Because unprotected sun exposure is the primary trigger for most brown, freckle-like skin discolorations, the primary way to reduce, prevent, and possibly even eliminate skin discolorations is diligent, daily application of a well-formulated sunscreen. Be sure not to forget the back of your hands and your chest (and be sure to reapply every time you wash your hands, because sunscreen does wash off ).

No other aspect of controlling or reducing brown skin discolorations is as important as being careful about not getting a tan, and never exposing your skin to the sun without using a sunscreen rated SPF 15 or more—and more is usually better. And make sure that the sunscreen includes the UVA-protecting ingredients of titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, avobenzone (which can also be on the label as butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane), Tinosorb, or Mexoryl SX (which can also be on the label as ecamsule), because they prevent the UVA damage that triggers brown spots (Source: Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, December 2006, pages 1048–1065).

Though I rarely express my own personal, anecdotal experience (I always rely on scientific studies rather than guess why a positive or negative result is taking place), in this case I will share what I do. I have found that using a sunscreen with only titanium dioxide and zinc oxide as the active ingredients has the most impressive results. The dif- ference in my face, arms, and hands has been significant ever since I made that change several years ago. There is some research that supports this personal experience, but I wish there were more science to back it up. I suspect the reason why the results may be superior is the coverage zinc oxide or titanium dioxide provides (more like a blanket over skin), “blocking” the sun rather than chemically converting the rays as synthetic sunscreen agents do. Keeping the sun from penetrating into skin is the best protection possible for skin (Sources: The Lancet, August 2007, pages 528–537; Skin Pharmacology and Physiology, June 2005, pages 253–262; www.aad.org/public/publications/pamphlets/ common_melasma.html; and www.emedicine.com/DERM/topic260.htm).

Beyond the use of sunscreen, hydroquinone has the highest efficacy for lightening skin, with a long history of safe use behind it, more so than any other skin-lightening ingredient. There are other alternatives that show promise for lightening skin, but they have been the subject of far less research and their effectiveness often pales in comparison to that of hydroquinone. It is interesting to note that when applied to the skin some of these alternative ingredients actually break down into small amounts of hydroquinone, which explains why they have an effect. These alternative ingredients include Mitracar- pus scaber extract, Uva ursi (bearberry) extract, Morus bombycis (mulberry), Morus alba (white mulberry), and Broussonetia papyrifera (paper mulberry), all of which contain arbutin, which can inhibit melanin production. Technically, these extracts contain hydroquinone-beta-D-glucoside. Pure forms of arbutin, such as alpha-arbutin, beta-

 

 

arbutin, and deoxy-arbutin, are considered more potent for skin lightening, but again the research is at best limited. Other ingredients that have some amount of research on their potential skin-lightening abilities are licorice extract (specifically glabridin), azelaic acid, and stabilized vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid, ascorbic acid, and magnesium ascorbyl phosphate), aloesin, gentisic acid, flavonoids, hesperidin, niacinamide, and polyphenols. However, no one knows how much is needed in a cosmetic lotion or cream to have an effect, and most of the research has been done in vitro, not on human skin.

To sum it up, there is a very specific game plan you can follow to get the most impressive results; it starts with avoiding sun exposure, daily use of a well-formulated sunscreen (365 days per year), and using a skin-care product that contains hydroqui- none. In addition, an exfoliant (such as AHAs and BHA) can be helpful; certain laser, intense-pulsed light, and radio wave treatments from a dermatologist or plastic surgeon can also be extremely helpful. But, and this is an important but: If you don’t also use a sunscreen daily you will be wasting your time and money! (Sources: Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery, May–June 2008, pages 107–113; Journal of Investigative Derma- tology Symposium Proceedings, April 2008, pages 20–24; Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry, December 2005, pages 2368–2373; Experimental Dermatology, August 2005, pages 601–608; Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, March 2005, pages 272–276; International Journal of Dermatology, August 2004, pages 604–607; Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, July–August 2004, pages 377–381; Dermatologic Surgery, March 2004, pages 385–388; and Facial and Plastic Surgery, February 2004, pages 3–9.)

 

8.  Myth: Women outgrow acne; you’re not supposed to break out once you reach your 20s and beyond!

Fact: If only that were true, my skin-care struggles in life would have been very different. In fact, women in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and even 50s can have acne just like teenagers, and the treatment principles remain the same. Not everyone who has acne as a teenager will grow out of it, and even if you had clear skin as a teenager, there’s no guarantee that you won’t get acne later in life, perhaps during menopause. You can blame this often-maddening inconsistency on hormones! What is true is that men can outgrow acne, because after puberty men’s hormone levels level out, while women’s hormone levels fluctuate throughout their lifetime, which is why many women experi- ence breakouts around their menstrual cycle (Sources: International Journal of Derma- tology, November 2007, pages 1188–1191; American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, May 2006, pages 281–290; and International Journal of Cosmetic Science, June 2004, pages 129–138). There are actually lots of myths about acne; see the following for a few corollaries to Myth #8.

 

9.  Myth: Acne is caused by eating the wrong foods.

Fact: This is both true and false. The traditional foods thought to cause acne, such as chocolate and greasy foods, have no effect on acne, and there is no research indicat- ing otherwise. However, there is the potential that individual dietary allergic reactions can trigger acne, such as eating foods that contain iodine, like shellfish, although there

 

 

is an ongoing controversy about that. A bit more conclusive is new research showing that milk, especially skim milk, can increase the risk of acne. The same may be true for a diet high in carbohydrates; a high glycemic load can increase breakouts, while a low glycemic load can reduce their occurrence. (Glycemic load is a ranking system for the amount of carbohydrates in a food portion; too many carbs in your diet could trigger breakouts.) Experimenting for a few months to see which of these food groups either hurt or help your skin is worth the effort (Sources: Molecular Nutrition and Food Research, June 2008, pages 718–726; Dermatologic Therapy, March–April 2008, pages 86–95; Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, May 2008, pages 787–793; and Dermatology Online Journal, May 30, 2006).

 

10.  Myth: If you clean your face better you can clear up your acne.

Fact: Over-cleaning your face can actually make matters worse. Acne is caused primarily by hormonal fluctuations that affect the oil gland, creating an environment where acne-causing bacteria (Propionibacterium acnes) can flourish. Don’t confuse scrub- bing or “deep cleaning” with helping acne, because it absolutely doesn’t. Over-cleansing your face triggers inflammation that can actually make acne worse. What really helps breakouts is using a gentle cleanser so you don’t damage your skin’s outer barrier or create inflammation, both of which hinder your skin’s ability to heal and fight bacteria, along with using gentle exfoliation. An effective exfoliating product that contains salicylic acid or glycolic acid can make all the difference in reducing acne when used with a topical disinfectant containing benzoyl peroxide. None of these products should contain any irritating ingredients whatsoever, and particularly not alcohol, menthol, peppermint, or eucalyptus. (Sources: Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology Venereology, May 2008, pages 629–631; Expert Opinion in Pharmacotherapy, April 2008, pages 955–971; International Journal of Dermatology, March 2008, pages 301–302; Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, March 2007, pages 59–65; Cutis, July 2006, Supplemental, pages 34–40; and Skin Pharmacology and Physiology, June 2006, pages 296–302.)

 

11.  Myth: Makeup causes acne.

Fact: Probably not. There is no research indicating that makeup or skin-care prod- ucts cause acne, and there is no consensus on which ingredients are problematic. In the late 1970s there was some research performed on rabbit skin using 100% concentra- tions of ingredients to determine whether or not they caused acne. Subsequently, it was determined that this study had nothing to do with the way women wear makeup or use skin-care products, and it was never repeated or considered useful in any way. Still, women do experience breakouts after using some skin-care or makeup products (or a random combination of both—I know I do). Such breakouts can be the result of an irritant or an inflammatory response, a random skin reaction, or a result of prob- lematic ingredients unique to a person’s skin type. That means you have to experiment to see what might be causing your breakouts. There is no information from medical research or the cosmetics industry to help or point you in the right direction. And just so you know, “noncomedogenic” is a meaningless word the cosmetics industry uses to

 

 

indicate that a product is less likely to cause breakouts; the problem is no standards or regulations have been set up to describe this category.

 

12.  Myth: Stress causes acne.

Fact: Generally, it is believed that stress can trigger acne, but no one is ex-

actly sure how that works, and there is conflicting research. While it never hurts to reduce angst and worry in your life, stress as a causative factor for acne is hard to pinpoint. Plus, the way to treat acne doesn’t change because of the stressors in your life. (Sources: Archives of Dermatologic Research, July 2008, pages 311–316; European Journal of Dermatology, July–August 2008, pages 412–415; American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, May 2006, pages 281–290; and International Journal of Cosmetic Science, June 2004, pages 129–138.)

 

13.  Myth: Toothpaste works to prevent or quickly heal a pimple.

Fact: Absolutely not true!!! This would be funny if so many people didn’t believe it. None of the ingredients in toothpaste can have a positive effect on acne or change a blemish once you have it, and actually it can make matters worse. The bacteria in your mouth are not related to the bacteria (P. acnes) in your pores that cause acne. And although the fluoride or sodium monofluorophosphate in your toothpaste can help fight bacteria in your mouth, on your skin they can actually cause pimples and redness in the areas they come in contact with. This is known as perioral dermatitis (Sources: Journal of the American Dental Association, September 2003, page 1165; Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, June 1990, pages 1029–1032; and Archives of Dermatology, June 1975, page 793). The other ingredients in toothpaste might have minimal abrasive properties, but they provide nothing that a gentle rubbing with a washcloth can’t do far better. Another issue for skin is that the flavorings added to toothpaste present additional problems that you should avoid on your skin (Source: Contact Dermatitis, October 2000, pages 216–222).

 

14.  Myth: Applying collagen and elastin to skin will add to the collagen and elastin content of skin, which will eliminate wrinkles.

Fact: Collagen and elastin in skin-care products can serve as good water-binding agents, but they cannot fuse with your skin’s natural supply of these supportive elements. In most cases, the collagen molecule is too large to penetrate into the skin. But even when it is made small enough to be absorbed it cannot bind with the col- lagen existing in skin, and there isn’t a shred of research indicating otherwise. What do exist are myriad studies showing that collagen is a very good moisturizing ingredient, which is great for skin, but it is neither unique nor the only formulary option. It is important to point out that even if you were to take the collagen that is used in medi- cally administered dermal injections and rub it on your skin, it wouldn’t be absorbed, and it wouldn’t change wrinkles by bolstering the existing collagen. There is even less research showing that elastin has any benefit when applied topically (Source: Interna- tional Journal of Cosmetic Science, April 2005, pages 101–106).

 

 

Keep in mind that even if collagen or elastin could be absorbed, and even if they could combine with your existing collagen or elastin, without guidelines you would just keep adding collagen and elastin to your skin, and eventually it would stick out in places you wouldn’t want it to, stick out in lumps if too much was absorbed in one place, and plump up your fingers because that’s what you use to apply the product that contains these ingredients. When a physician uses collagen injections to plump up lips and lines on the face, he or she can inject only so much collagen into your face before you end up with overblown lips and a distorted facial expression.

Protecting your skin from sun damage, daily exfoliation with a well-formulated AHA or BHA product, and treating your skin to a range of ingredients (antioxidants, cell- communicating ingredients, and skin-identical ingredients) that it needs to look and feel its best will protect its natural collagen supply and allow it to build new collagen— something healthy, protected skin loves to do and does quite well.

 

15.  Myth: Eye creams are specially formulated for use around the delicate eye area.

Fact: There is no evidence, research, or documentation validating the claim

that the eye area needs ingredients different from those you use on your face, neck area, or décolletage. Even if there were ingredients that were special for the eye area, that isn’t evident in the labels for eye-care products; their formulations seem to be chosen at random, with no consistency in the industry. All cosmetics companies put whatever ingredients they want to into their eye products. Typically, they give you half as much but charge you twice as much as the same product being sold for your face. The ingredient labels on these “specialty” products more than prove the point. Eye creams are a whim of the cosmetics industry designed to evoke the sale of two products when only one is needed.

One more point: Occasionally a physician, aesthetician, or someone selling skin-

care products will defend their eye creams by telling me that the eye area doesn’t need ingredients that cause irritation. Well, I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, but the same is absolutely true for the face, or anywhere else on your body. You shouldn’t be applying formulations with needlessly irritating ingredients—period! That means that all your eye area needs is a well-formulated product, and that can certainly be the same product you use on your face.

 

16.   Myth: There is (or will be) a product out there that really can eliminate wrinkles.

Fact: Regrettably, there is no magic potion or combination of products in any price range that can make wrinkles truly disappear, or prevent them, except daily use of a well-formulated sunscreen (and never getting a tan). The wrinkles you see and agonize over (not to be confused with fine lines caused by dryness, which are easily remedied with a good moisturizer) are the result of cumulative sun damage and the inevitable breakdown of your skin’s natural support structure. Skin-care ingredients, no matter who is selling them or what claims they make for them, cannot replace what plastic surgeons and cosmetic dermatologists do. There are literally thousands of anti-

 

 

wrinkle products being sold and we buy more of them than almost any other beauty product. Yet as I stated before, despite this onslaught of products, plastic surgeons and dermatologists are not going out of business.

An interesting study in Skin Research and Technology (May 2007, pages 189–194) compared the effects of an inexpensive moisturizing face cream with an expensive one in a luxurious jar. Eighty Swedish women ages 35–64 years were randomly divided into three groups: Group A treated their facial skin for six weeks with the expensive cream in its luxury jar, Group B used an inexpensive moisturizer presented in the same luxury jar, and Group C used the expensive cream contained in a neutral jar. The evaluations were made by the subjects, by a clinical trained observer, and by measuring the skin surface relief using optical profilometry (a method that measures the contours and roughness of surface skin). All the results showed no differences between the three groups related to the effects on wrinkles and smoothness, and there was no assessment of their skin feeling younger or more beautiful. Facial appearance was the same and profilometry showed reduced surface microrelief with all the products.

Don’t take this to mean that there aren’t skin-care products that can significantly help improve skin, because there are, including sunscreen, exfoliants (AHAs or BHA), moisturizers loaded with antioxidants and cell-communicating ingredients, retinoids (components of Vitamin A), and numerous others. It’s just that anti-wrinkle skin-care products can’t perform according to the exaggerated claims on the label. After all, if they worked as promised then cosmetics companies wouldn’t be launching new anti- wrinkle products every few months.

 

17.  Myth: Expensive cosmetics are better than inexpensive cosmetics.

Fact: The absolute truth is that there are good and bad products in all price cat-

egories. The amount of money you spend on skin-care products has nothing to do with the quality or uniqueness of the formula. An expensive soap by Erno Laszlo is no better for your skin than an inexpensive bar soap such as Dove (though I suggest that both are potentially too irritating and drying for all skin types). On the other hand, an irritant-free toner by Neutrogena can be just as good as, or maybe even better than, an irritant-free toner by Orlane or La Prairie (depending on the formulation), and any irritant-free toner is infinitely better than a toner that contains alcohol, peppermint, menthol, es- sential oils, eucalyptus, lemon, or other irritants, no matter how natural-sounding the ingredients are and regardless of the price or claim. I’ve seen lots of expensive products that are little more than water and wax, and inexpensive products that are beautifully formulated. And in all price ranges I’ve seen products come in jar packaging, which is like throwing your money away, since jar packaging can’t keep important, air-sensitive ingredients such as antioxidants stable. Spending less doesn’t hurt your skin, and spend- ing more doesn’t help it. It’s all about the formulation, not the price.

 

18.  Myth: European products, especially from countries like France, Switzerland, and Italy, are formulated better than products from other countries. European women just know how to take care of their skin.

 

 

Fact: Having spent a good deal of time in Europe doing presentations to women about skin care and reviewing European cosmetic brands I can say without hesi- tation that is utterly not true. The facts are on the ingredient label and European products have all the same problems that cosmetic products have all over the world, including jar packaging, which doesn’t keep air-sensitive ingredients such as plant extracts, vitamins, and many cell-communicating ingredients stable after opening; the use of irritating ingredients or overly drying ingredients; antiquated formulations; and overpriced concoctions that are little more than just wax and water. None of that creates superlative skin care by any definition.

The other notion, that European women take better care of their skin, is a strange ongoing myth. Although European women are not as overweight as American women (actually no country in the world has a bigger obesity problem than the U.S., but that’s another discussion), they do not take better care of their skin. They smoke, they tan, they use poorly formulated products, and they believe the same false claims women all over the world get sucked into believing.

 

19.  Myth:  Natural ingredients are better for skin than synthetic ingredients.

Fact:  Whatever preconceived notion someone might have about natural in-

gredients being better for the skin, or whatever media-induced fiction someone might believe, this is not true. There is no factual basis or scientific legitimacy for the belief that natural is better. Not only is the definition of “natural” hazy, but the term is loosely regulated, so any cosmetics company can use it to mean whatever they want it to mean. Just because an ingredient grows out of the ground or is found in nature doesn’t make it automatically good for skin, and the reverse is also true: Just because it is synthetic doesn’t make it bad.

“Consumers should not necessarily assume that an ‘organic’ or ‘natural’ ingredient

or product would possess greater inherent safety than another chemically identical version of the same ingredient,” Dr. Linda M. Katz, director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Cosmetics and Colors stated. “In fact, ‘natural’ ingredients may be harder to preserve against microbial contamination and growth than synthetic raw materials” (New York Times, November 1, 2007).

“But people should not interpret even the USDA Organic seal or any organic seal of approval on cosmetics as proof of health benefits or of efficacy,” said Joan Shaffer, USDA spokeswoman (Source: www.ams.usda.gov/nop/FactSheets/Backgrounder.html). The National Organic Program is a marketing program, not a safety program. Steak may be graded prime, but that has no bearing on whether it is safe or nutritious to eat.

 

20.  Myth: Packaging doesn’t matter when it comes to skin-care products; I just love products that come in beautiful containers, especially jars.

Fact: Packaging plays a significant role in the stability and effectiveness of the products you use. Because many state-of-the-art ingredients, from cell-communicating ingredients, antioxidants, and plant extracts to skin-identical ingredients, are unstable in the presense of air, jar packaging, once opened, permits air to enter freely, which

 

 

causes these important ingredients, the very ingredients that make a product most beneficial for skin, to break down and deteriorate. Jars also mean you are sticking your fingers into the product, which can transfer bacteria and further cause the great ingredients to break down. Think about how long an unprotected head of lettuce lasts in your refrigerator. Or after opening a can or jar of food, how long does it take before becoming a moldy mess? Airtight packaging, or any packaging that reduces the product’s exposure to air, is essential when you are buying the best products for your skin. You should also avoid clear packaging that lets light into the product. Light of any kind is a problem because it causes sensitive ingredients to break down. If that isn’t enough to make you reconsider jar packaging, it’s worth noting that The Guidelines on Stability of Cosmetic Products, March 2004, by the CTFA and COLIPA (respectively, the American and European cosmetic governing associations most cosmetic companies in Europe and the US belong to) states “Packaging can directly affect finished product stability because of interactions which can occur between the product, the package, and the external environment. Such interactions may include… Barrier properties of the container [and] its effectiveness in protecting the contents from the adverse effects of atmospheric oxygen….”

(Sources: Free Radical Biology and Medicine, September 2007, pages 818–829; Ageing Research Reviews, December 2007, pages 271–288; Dermatologic Therapy, September–October 2007, pages 314–321; International Journal of Pharmaceutics, June 12, 2005, pages 197–203; Pharmaceutical Development and Technology, January 2002, pages 1–32; International Society for Horticultural Science, www.actahort.org/members/ showpdf?booknrarnr=778_5; and Beautypackaging.com, www.beautypackaging.com/ articles/2007/03/airless-packaging.php.)

 

21.  Myth:  Blackheads are caused by dirt and can be scrubbed away.

Fact: Blackheads may make skin look dirty, but they are unrelated to dirt.

Blackheads are formed when hormones cause too much sebum (oil) production, dead skin cells get in the way, the pore is impaired or misshapen, and the path for the oil to exit through the pore is blocked, creating a clog. As this clog nears the surface of the skin, the mixture of oil and cellular debris oxidizes and turns, you guessed it, black. You cannot scrub away blackheads, at least not completely. Using a topical scrub removes the top portion of the blackhead, but does nothing to address the underlying cause, so they’re back again before too long. Instead of a scrub, try using a well-formulated BHA (salicylic acid) product. Salicylic acid exfoliates inside the pore lining, dissolving the oil and dead skin cells that lead to constant blackheads.

 

22.   Myth: Oily skin can be controlled externally (from the outside in) with the right skin-care products.

Fact: Possibly, but right now this is mere conjecture, involving an extremely complicated and difficult to understand process. Oil production is triggered primar- ily by androgens and estrogen (male and female hormones, respectively), and altering hormone production topically is not something available in the realm of cosmetics.

 

 

However, the sebaceous gland itself also produces active androgens that can increase sebum excretion. What can happen is that stress-sensing skin signals (think skin inflam- mation and irritation) can lead to the production and release of androgens and cause more oil production, which can clog pores (Sources: Experimental Dermatology, June 2008, pages 542–551; and Clinical Dermatology, September–October 2004, pages 360–366). These factors make topical irritation and inflammation bad for skin, but that still doesn’t affect the production of hormones inside the body, the primary source for triggering the pore to make too much oil.

What you can do is use a retinoid (vitamin A or tretinoin) to improve the shape of the pore so that the oil can flow more evenly, preventing clogging. There is some research that niacinamide in skin-care products can help, but no one is quite sure why. You also can avoid making matters worse by not using products that contain oils or thick emol- lient ingredients. You can absorb surface oil by using clay masks as part of your skin-care routine (though the effect is completely temporary), but you need to avoid masks that contain irritating ingredients. How often you should use a mask depends on your skin type; some people use one every day, others once a week. Masks of this kind may be used after cleansing, left on for 10–15 minutes, and then rinsed with tepid water.

 

23.  Myth: Dry skin is caused by a lack of water, either by not having enough in skin or simply not drinking enough water.

Fact: Ironically, dry skin is not as simple as just a lack of moisture. The stud- ies that have compared the water content of dry skin to that of normal or oily skin show that there doesn’t appear to be a statistically significant difference. Healthy skin requires a water content of about 15%, and adding too much moisture, like soaking in a bathtub, is bad for skin because it disrupts the skin’s outer barrier (the intercellular matrix) by breaking down the substances that keep skin cells functioning normally and in good shape.

What is thought to be taking place when dry skin occurs is that the intercellular matrix (the substances between skin cells that keep them intact, smooth, and healthy) has become depleted or damaged, bringing about a rough, uneven, and flaky texture that allows water to be lost. But adding water won’t keep that moisture in skin unless the outer barrier is maintained or repaired, and again too much water just causes problems.

To prevent dry skin, the primary goal is to avoid and reduce anything that damages the outer barrier, including sun damage, products that contain irritating ingredients, alcohol, drying cleansers, and smoking. All of the research about dry skin is related to the ingredients and treatments that reinforce the substances in skin that keep it functioning normally.

(Sources: British Journal of Dermatology, July 2008, pages 23–34; Journal of the Eu- ropean Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, September 2007, pages S1–S4; Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, June 2007, pages 75–82; Dermatologic Therapy, March 2004, Supplement 1, pages 43–48; and International Journal of Cosmetic Science, April 2003, pages 63–95, and October 2000, pages 371–383.)

 

 

As for drinking lots of water each day (a beauty tip that refuses to fade away), if all it took to get rid of dry skin was to drink more water, then no one would have dry skin and moisturizers would stop being sold. Keeping your liquid intake up is fine, but if you take in more water than your body needs, all you will be doing is running to the bathroom all day and night. The causes of and treatments for dry skin are far more complicated than water consumption. If anything, though rare, drinking too much water can be dangerous, causing a potentially deadly condition called hyponatremia.

 

24.    Myth: Dry skin causes wrinkles.

Fact: Dry skin and wrinkles are not related. The inseparable association of dry skin with wrinkles continues to endure in the mind of the consumer. Nonetheless, the simple truth is that dry skin and wrinkles are not related in the least. I know that state- ment may be hard to accept because we’re so conditioned by advertising and product claims to think otherwise, but believing the myth can hurt your skin by inducing you to concentrate on treating your dry skin or loading up on moisturizers hoping it will get rid of wrinkles. It just doesn’t work that way.

Abundant research has made it perfectly clear that wrinkles and dry skin are not related in terms of cause and effect. Extensive studies and analyses have shown that dry skin is frequently a by-product or result of other assaults on skin that are the real cause of wrinkles. In other words, dry skin is primarily a symptom of other factors that cause wrinkles.

If dry skin doesn’t cause wrinkles, what does? Wrinkles are permanent lines etched into skin from sun damage and internal causes (genetic changes, muscle movement, estrogen loss, and fat depletion). Nowhere, at least outside of ads and product claims, is dry skin ever mentioned as a cause of wrinkles. (Sources: Fertility Sterility, August 2005, pages 289–290; Current Molecular Medicine, March 2005, pages 171–177; Cu- tis, February 2005, Supplemental, pages 5–8; Rejuvenation Research, Fall 2004, pages 175–185; Journal of Dermatology, August 2004, pages 603–609; and Contact Dermatitis, September 2002, pages 139–146.)

Sun damage is by far the most notable cause of wrinkling, which is easily proven by something referred to as the backside test of aging. In other words, compare the areas of your skin that rarely, if ever, see the sun with the parts of your body exposed to the sun on a daily basis. Those areas with minimal sun exposure (such as your backside) are rarely, if ever dry, and they also have minimal to no signs of wrinkles or aging skin. They will also have far more of the firmness, elasticity, and color of “younger” skin because they have not been subjected to years of cumulative exposure to sunlight.

 

25.   Myth: Everyone needs a day cream and a night cream: Skin requires special care at night.

Fact: The ONLY difference between a daytime and nighttime moisturizer is that the daytime version should contain a well-formulated sunscreen. What you often hear cosmetics salespeople say is that the skin needs different ingredients at night than during the day. Yet there isn’t a shred of research or a list anywhere of what those

 

 

ingredients or formulas should be. Skin is repairing itself and producing skin cells every nanosecond of the day—and night. Helping skin do that in as healthy a manner as possible doesn’t change based on the time of day. Skin needs a generous amount of antioxidants, cell-communicating ingredients, and skin-identical ingredients all day and all night. Think about it like your diet: Green tea, grapes, flax, and all the other aspects of healthy eating are good for you day or night.

For daytime wear, unless your foundation contains an effective sunscreen, it is essential that your moisturizer feature a well-formulated, broad-spectrum sunscreen rated SPF 15 or higher. Well-formulated means that it contains UVA-protecting ingredients, specifically titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, avobenzone (also called butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane or Parsol 1789), Tinosorb, or Mexoryl SX (also called ecamsule). Regardless of the time of day, your skin needs all the current state-of-the- art ingredients it can get.

 

26.  Myth: Your skin adapts to the skin-care products you are using and you need to change to new products every now and then.

Fact: Skin doesn’t adapt to skin-care products any more than your body adapts to a healthy diet. If spinach and grapes are healthy for you they are always healthy, and they continue to be healthy, even if you eat them every day. The same is true for your skin; as long as you are applying what is healthy for skin it remains healthy. This is especially true for sunscreen and products that contain antioxidants, cell-communicating ingredients, and skin-identical ingredients (I explain those groups of products later in this book).

 

27.  Myth: I should just use what I like on my skin, that’s the most important thing.

Fact: That would be a huge mistake because lots of women often like what isn’t

good for them. For example, you may like getting a tan, but that can cause skin cancer and most certainly will cause wrinkles and skin discolorations. You may like smoking cigarettes, but that will cause skin cells to die and will cause the growth of unhealthy, malformed skin cells. You may like that daytime moisturizer you are using, but if it doesn’t contain sunscreen it leaves your skin wide open to sun damage. Or you may prefer a moisturizer packaged in a jar, yet because almost all of the important state-of-the-art ingredients, especially antioxidants, plant extracts, vitamins, and cell-communicating ingredients, deteriorate in the presence of air, the jar packaging will not keep these ingredients stable, so you would be short-changing your skin soon after the product is opened. What it takes to help your skin be at its best and to function normally and really fight wrinkles or acne or any other skin problem is far more complex than just using what you “like.” This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t like what you use, but do take the time to select products that are truly healthy and beneficial for skin. That is, take the time to read the ingredient list and consult reliable reviews of the products you’re considering, because you can’t determine the benefits intuitively.

Think of it like your diet. If you were given the choice between eating what you like, say chocolate cake versus spinach and broccoli, you would eat a lot more chocolate cake

 

 

than any green vegetable. But we eat the green veggies not so much because we like them but because we have learned they are better for us. It’s impossible to accurately judge effectiveness and value based just on how you feel about the product.

 

28.   Myth:You should buy all your skin-care products from one cosmetics brand because the products are designed to work together.

Fact: That may be good for the company’s sales, but it doesn’t help your skin and in many cases will only end up causing problems. Almost every skin-care line in the world has good and bad products or products that are inappropriate for special skin-care concerns. Lots of companies may have products containing prob- lematic ingredients, some because they use irritating ingredients or ingredients that can’t remotely live up to their claims, others because of what they don’t contain such as effective sun protection or products in stable packaging. Much like shopping for food, you have to pick and choose what works and an entire line may not be suited to meet that need.

 

29.  Myth: If it tingles or feels cooling on my skin it must be doing something.

Fact: Any noticeable sensation, even for a brief period of time, is almost always

damaging to your skin. That familiar tingling, cooling sensation is actually just your skin responding to irritation, resulting in inflammation. Products that produce that sensation can actually damage your skin’s healing process; make scarring worse; cause collagen and elastin to break down; cause dry, flaky skin; and increase the growth of bacteria that cause pimples.

Inflammation is the real culprit responsible for wrinkles and skin aging. Whether the inflammation in skin is brought about by the sun, smoking, pollution, or irritating ingredients used on the skin, the resulting reaction generates unpleasant and undesirable side effects ranging from dry, itchy skin to acne; reduced ability for the skin to heal; and collagen destruction. When the skin is being irritated from most any source you end up hurting your skin, not helping it.

A tingling or cooling sensation is a signal that your skin is being irritated and in- flamed. It is being caused by problematic skin-care ingredients that can include overly abrasive cleansers, alcohol, fragrant plant extracts, peppermint, menthol, eucalyptus, and on and on, and their continued use will greatly reduce your chances of having the kind of skin you want. (Sources: Skin Pharmacology and Physiology, June 2008, pages 124–135; Biochemistry and Pharmacology, June 2007, pages 1786–1795; Contact Dermatitis, June 2006, pages 303–312; and British Journal of Dermatology, July 2005, pages 124–131.)

There are times when cooling ingredients are helpful. Ingredients such as menthol, peppermint, camphor, and mint are counter-irritants (Sources: Archives of Dermatologic Research, May 1996, pages 245–248; Code of Federal Regulations Title 21–Food and Drugs, revised April 1, 2001, 21CFR310.545, www.fda.gov; and www.naturaldatabase. com). Counter-irritants are used to induce local inflammation in an effort to reduce

 

 

inflammation in deeper or adjacent tissues. In other words, they substitute one kind of inflammation for another, which is never good for skin, but can provide relief when itching is a temporary nuisance not abated by gentle scratching. Irritation or inflam- mation, no matter what causes it or how it happens, impairs the skin’s immune and healing response (Source: Skin Pharmacology and Applied Skin Physiology, November– December 2000, pages 358–371). And although your skin may not show it or doesn’t react in an irritated fashion, if you apply irritants to your skin the damage is still taking place and is ongoing, so it adds up over time (Source: Skin Research and Technology, November 2001, pages 227–237).

 

30.  Myth: The product I’m using contains ingredients that are known to irritate skin, like alcohol, lavender, bergamot, and peppermint, but I don’t feel anything, so those ingredients aren’t a problem for me.

Fact: Even though you don’t feel a substance reacting on your skin, that doesn’t mean it isn’t doing damage. For example, we don’t feel the UVA rays of the sun. We can be sitting in the shade or inside next to a window and the sun’s UVA rays are pen- etrating through, reaching our skin and causing serious, cumulative damage. Whether or not your skin reacts in the short term doesn’t mean damage isn’t happening beneath the surface, which is why it is so important to always treat your skin gently. Irritating, drying, and sensitizing ingredients cause problems underneath the skin that will take a toll in the long run, whether your skin shows it or not.

I know I said 30 myths in the title for this chapter but I couldn’t resist! Let me add one more:

 

31.  Myth: My grandmother or mother had (has) beautiful skin so I just use what they’ve always used.

Fact: While your lineage may include naturally perfect skin, using skin-care products formulated even more than ten years ago would be a mistake. It would be similar to saying, my grandmother was a great writer or researcher so I’m going to use the same typewriter or computer they used. No one is going to use a computer for more than five years anymore than they would use a typewriter and still be as produc- tive as they would be using a current state-of-the-art computer. The same is true for skin-care products. What we know nowadays about formulations, ingredients, how skin functions at its best, sun damage, exfoliation, healing, and on and on is rarely addressed in products developed before the millennium.

The brilliant advances in cosmetic chemistry, dermatology, and ingredient technol- ogy now allow for the creation of all types of products that have elegant textures, silky applications, superb finishes, and truly effective ingredients that can make a difference in every aspect of your skin-care needs. There are many excellent things to emulate about your grandmother or mother, but the skin-care products they used in the past shouldn’t be one of them.

 

 

advertising viCtims

Pervasive and endless advertising, along with the bias of fashion magazine cosmetics stories, fuels most cosmetics purchases to one degree or another. Advertising must work or the cosmetics industry wouldn’t spend billions of dollars on television, print (particularly fashion magazines), and radio advertising to get you to buy their products. If you don’t understand how advertising manipulates your purchases, you will always be a victim of its wiles and contrivances.

Lots of consumers make decisions about what they are going to buy based strictly on advertising. Is it any wonder that the advertising industry in the United States is a multi- billion-dollar business? Procter & Gamble alone spends $1.3 billion annually to advertise its products to the American public. L’Oreal and Estee Lauder each spend about the same. Companies spend these vast sums on advertising because they want (and get) more sales. Cosmetics companies sign celebrities to multimillion-dollar endorsement contracts because they know certain faces can sell millions of dollars worth of products.

We may think we recognize the influence advertising can have on us, and even feel we are above this kind of blatant artifice. But whether we like to admit it or not, we are greatly influenced by the power of advertising.

Celebrity endorsements are a powerful advertising tool in the cosmetics industry. Celeb- rities are visible everywhere in infomercials, fashion magazines, and TV ads because we as consumers equate being beautiful, or the ability to act, or any celebrity status with knowledge and integrity. An endorsement by someone with a well-known face carries weight. Enticing as it is to believe that listening to celebrities can help you have better skin and a better look, that’s not the way it is. Do we really believe that the celebrities in the ads for Revlon or Estee Lauder are there because they love the company’s products? Or is it more realistic to see the truth: that these models sign million-dollar contracts to smile brightly, showing their tacit, paid-for approval? A celebrity whose name is attached to a specific line has signed some type of lucrative contract; she’s not endorsing the products because she loves them.

Fashion magazines often comment about products celebrities use separate from a signed endorsement. But actresses and models don’t all use the same products (or the same makeup artist, plastic surgeon, or dermatologist). They use lots and lots of different products in all price ranges from a vast array of lines, and, like all women, they can be fickle. What they use today may not be what they use tomorrow. Celebrities look for “perfect” products just like the next person and are just as subject to being misled and wasting money as anyone else. Besides, what someone else is using doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with your own skin-care or makeup needs.

Perhaps the most insidious and consistent form of cosmetics advertising ploy is show- casing an impossibly perfect, incongruously young woman (or several of them), groomed and photographed at the perfect moment by the best in the fashion world, and seeming to show how well a product works. As if their perfection is a result of any product or product line! In essence, this is fear advertising. Fear that everyone else has the answer, that everyone else is more beautiful and has more perfect skin than you do because they’re using products

 

 

that you aren’t. This is a compelling, though completely false, message. The women hired for these ads weren’t chosen because they used the product and became beautiful, they were selected from head shot photos provided by modeling agencies.

Fashion and women’s magazines in general are another major source of cosmetics in- formation. Yet the information from these pages is all one-sided. Cosmetics companys’ advertising dollars are the bread and butter of these magazines and the editors aren’t going to provide objective critical information about a main source of income. I can’t tell you the number of reporters who tell me they can’t print what I tell them even though I provide documented, published research proving what I’m explaining. They always say the same thing: Fashion magazines can’t upset their advertisers, and their editors won’t let the content through. There is little to no negative information about any cosmetic product or industry trend. Many women’s magazines love to feature their “best” cosmetic buys, but if you look closely you’ll notice they never include the worst cosmetic buys. If they know what’s best why not tell us what they didn’t like? Of course that is never going to happen, and this puts you at the mercy of misleading, prejudiced information.

What you need to keep in mind about almost all products, whether from the cosmetics industry or any other industry, is that they all have their pros and cons. The truth is that it is the task of the company paying for the ad, or the salesperson selling you the product, to portray the product in absolutely glowing, positive terms. You might still buy the product, but if you’re reading this book at least you will have some facts to base your decision on, not just pretty pictures and catchy words.

As far as cosmetics are concerned, the only objective information is found on the in- gredient list. Of course, that’s the only part of the package that never gets featured in the magazines or on television, yet it is the only place where the law requires the manufacturer to tell you the truth.

 

Brand-name loyalty

Ask yourself: Why should you be loyal to a cosmetics company if the cosmetics company isn’t even loyal to itself? For example:

•          Estee Lauder owns Aramis, Aveda, Clinique, Bobbi Brown, Prescriptives, M.A.C., Origins, Jo Malone, La Mer, Tommy Hilfiger fragrances, Bumble and Bumble, American Beauty, Flirt, Good Skin, Grassroots, Michael Kors Beauty, Darphin, Ojon, and Donna Karan Cosmetics.

•          L’Oreal owns Maybelline New York, Garnier, Lancome, Helena Rubinstein, Bio- Medic, Vichy, Biotherm, Shu Uemura, Kiehl’s, Soft Sheen-Carson, Redken, Matrix, Kerastase, Giorgio Armani, Inneov, Sanoflore, CCB Paris, Dermablend, The Body Shop, Skinceuticals, Ralph Lauren, and La Roche-Posay.

•          Procter  &  Gamble  owns

Cover Girl, Max Factor, Olay, DDF, Aussie,

Camay, Clairol, Gillette, Head & Shoulders, Ivory, Fredric Fekkai, Noxzema, Pan-

tene, SK-II, and Zest.

 

 

•          Johnson & Johnson owns Neutrogena, Aveeno, Clean & Clear, RoC, Rogaine, Lubriderm, Purpose, and Ambi.

Brand-name loyalty just does not make any sense. Clinique makes great mascaras, some great foundations, and some great moisturizers, but several of their toners contain alcohol, which is too irritating and drying for all skin types. Clinique also has several moisturizers packaged in jars that won’t keep the important ingredients stable. Lancome has some ex- cellent blushes and mascaras but their foundations with sunscreen typically don’t contain UVA-protecting ingredients, while their moisturizers are overly fragranced and most all of them lack state-of-the-art ingredients many other lines include. Neutrogena offers some wonderful makeup products and sunscreens but most of their cleansers are extremely dry- ing and irritating, and some of their sunscreens don’t contain UVA-protecting ingredients. Revlon has some great foundations, good mascaras, and terrific lip pencils, but they have failed repeatedly at eyeshadows and their attempts at mineral makeup. Staying with one line, in any price range, is usually a disservice to your skin and budget.

Even our own experience tells us that all the products within one product line aren’t great. Haven’t we all purchased expensive (and inexpensive) products that didn’t work or that we didn’t like? Yet the success of the major product lines in establishing brand-name loyalty is astonishing. It is particularly apparent in the way a woman responds to questions about what brand of makeup she is currently using. A customer usually whispers or acts embarrassed when she admits to using a drugstore brand, but if she’s using an expensive brand you can hear her across the room. The reality is that the cost of a cosmetic has nothing to do with whether it will work for you. We have all used both inexpensive and expensive makeup that worked beautifully for skin, as well as inexpensive and expensive makeup that looked awful and was bad for skin.

 

CosmeCeUtiCals: doCtors get in on the aCt

It is sobering to know that doctors are the second leading channel for distribution of skin-care products. More than 10,000 physicians sell skin-care products through their of- fices. Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse, now that doctors are in the mainstream of cosmetic sales their objectivity has gone in the same direction as the rest of the cosmetics industry. That is extremely distressing because while most women would never assume a physician would mislead them, I see it all the time. Products sold at a physician’s office are not automatically better and are often more overpriced than the rest of the industry. You often get the same sales pressure from a physician that you do at the cosmetics counter or from infomercials. Notably, several doctors are famous because of their presence on infomercials or in advertisements. However, do not mistake salesmanship with medical information; they are not the same.

For example, take the invention of “cosmeceuticals,” a term physicians created to describe the products they sell. Cosmeceuticals are loosely defined as products that combine the benefits of a cosmetic and a pharmaceutical. The term is used to give the impression that these products have more effective or more active ingredients than just ordinary cosmetics.

 

 

As more and more doctors get into selling or endorsing skin-care products, you will hear more and more about cosmeceuticals. Dr. Tina Alster is the spokesperson for Lancome; Dr. Karyn Grossman is the spokesperson for Prescriptives; Dr. Patricia Wexler’s namesake products, Patricia Wexler M.D. Dermatology, launched as the next best way to seeing Wex- ler herself, at least if you shop at Bath & Body Works; Skin Effects by Dr. Jeffrey Dover is at CVS; Dr. Sheldon Pinnell’s SkinCeuticals line has been purchased by L’Oreal; and, of course, there’s Dr. N.V. Perricone, Dr. Murad, and Dr. Howard Sobel, with his DDF line that’s now owned by Procter & Gamble.

Despite all this display of medical pedigree, the term cosmeceutical is not in any way regulated or controlled, and anyone can slap that label on their products to promote them as being more “medical.”

Do cosmeceuticals really differ from any other cosmetics? The answer is no, because no

matter how a product is labeled and marketed many skin-care treatments contain ingredi- ents that affect the function of skin. Effectiveness isn’t reserved just for cosmeceuticals, it is completely within the realm of any well-formulated product.

Regardless of the name—cosmeceutical or otherwise—a skin-care product is only as good as what it contains and the ability of those ingredients to help your skin function better; or, in the vernacular, to act younger. In fact, moisturizers, just like any other skin-care product claiming to have an effect on wrinkles or sagging skin, should absolutely contain an elegant mix of antioxidants, cell-communicating ingredients, and intercellular substances, because they help skin keep a normal level of hydration, build collagen, reduce skin discolorations,

and prevent cellular damage.

(Sources: Packaged Facts, U.S. Cosmeceuticals to 2008, www.the-infoshop.com; SKINmed, July–August, pages 214–220; Dermatologic Surgery, July 2005, pages 873–880; Photochemistry and Photobiology, January–February 2005, pages 38–45; Archives of Derma- tological Research, April 2005, pages 473–481; Business Week Online, “An Ugly Truth About Cosmetics,” November 30, 2004; Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin, April 2004, pages 510–514; Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry, December 2003, pages 5345–5352; and American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, March–April 2000, pages 81–88, and September– October 2000, pages 261–268.)

 

Why We Believe

 

 

Almost no one has perfect skin, but perfect skin is what we are all after.

 

I’m often asked why we believe all of this foolishness, given the copious amounts of in- formation to the contrary and the endless redundancy. (How many anti-wrinkle products can an industry launch until we realize they just can’t live up to their claims, especially since they keep on creating new ones?) Here we are, thousands upon thousands of products later, and we still wonder which one really works. Even the cosmetics companies themselves don’t believe their own half-truths and party lines, or they wouldn’t keep creating new products with the same old claims if the ones they launched earlier really worked.

 

 

Our willingness to believe the ads and celebrities and the infomercials and the cosmet- ics salespeople, not to mention the aestheticians and the dermatologists, all selling some new miracle product has little to do with being foolish or unintelligent. It is much more complicated than that, both from emotional and sociological perspectives. There are extremely compelling reasons why we get taken in by empty, meaningless ads and claims time after time.

For women (and to some degree men) our skin tells the world where we stand in terms of beauty and age, and in nearly every culture around the world being young and attractive is a strong part of a person’s identity and societal status. Skin displays the ravages of time, via sun damage, gravity, and genetically determined signs of aging, well before any of us want to see it. For women in cultures around the world, flawless and wrinkle-free skin on the face is considered an obligatory component of beauty. Thus begins our quest to achieve what women the world over want, to look and feel beautiful.

Reason No. 1. For the most part, skin-care products and, more specifically, wrinkle creams feel good and take very good care of skin. We all need to clean our faces, and many of us have to fight dry, oily, or combination skin. Most sunscreens really do work, many acne products can have benefit, and there are products with elegant, brilliant formulations. One way or another, without skin-care products we would be left with more problems than we started with. So the reason we buy the stuff in the first place is because a lot of these products take great care of our skin. They don’t perform the miracles they suggest; they aren’t worth the big bucks they frequently cost, but in general they do help. The fact that lots of skin-care products perform well can lead one to believe that another brand or price range may perform even better and this is where the seduction begins.

Reason No. 2. Even though many skin-care products do their job, many also fail miserably. Women frequently buy the wrong products for their skin type, and more often than we’d like to think the formulations are so irritating and poorly conceived they cause complications, making matters worse, or, at the very least, they simply do not eliminate the skin problems they were bought for. That’s why so many women are constantly searching for the right products and making constantly changing choices. They believe the right products for their skin type are out there somewhere if only they could find them! Skin problems are a recurrent headache. It is the rare individual who doesn’t have to be concerned about acne, wrinkles, dry skin, oily skin, irritation, or a combination of these. Almost no one has perfect skin, but perfect skin is what we are all after.

Reason No. 3. Beauty myths die a long, hard death. Once we believe something about our skin (dry skin causes wrinkles, everyone needs a moisturizer, face creams can’t be used on other parts of the face or neck, natural ingredients are better for skin than synthetically derived ones, and on and on), it is very hard to change our minds. I bust many myths throughout this book, but they are endless, and the industry relentlessly and continually hammers them into our heads so that letting go of them is almost impossible. It takes information, and some of that information is boring, technical, and hard to grasp. But once you’ve mastered some of the basics, none of the bogus facts you hear or see will catch you off guard again.

 

 

Reason No. 4. Everything the ads, brochures, and cosmetics salespeople tell us sounds very convincing. Given the amount of money cosmetics companies spend on packaging, promotions, and advertising, it should! Just remember that all that glitters is not gold. The glitter and shine at the cosmetics counters sure looks like gold, but it rarely (if ever) is. Do not be convinced again and again that because something “sounds” good, it is, or that expensive means better—because it isn’t.

Reason No. 5. It is very difficult to believe cosmetics companies would deceive us, especially when what they are selling is so beguiling and beautifully packaged. This desire to trust in a company’s higher purpose is part of what we all want to presume. It is tiresome to be cautious about everything. And the spokesmodels for these companies look so convincing and sweet; surely they wouldn’t lie to us—yet that is exactly what they are doing to one degree or another. The empirical evidence as well as the vast amount of pub- lished research should convince us to be more circumspect. After all, consider a cosmetics company that is selling 30 anti-wrinkle products. Clearly they can’t believe their own hype, since if even one of those products lived up to the claims why would they need the 29 other versions they sell? Sure, some companies offer the same type of product for different skin types or personal preferences, and that’s fine. It just doesn’t explain or justify dozens of other products making the same anti-wrinkle claims.

Reason No. 6. We want to believe that what they tell us is true. It is reassuring to assume that the $10 or $50 or $150 you just spent is somehow going to take care of your skin-care or makeup problems. Surely all those scientists and dermatologists must have invented something that works by now!

We also want to believe that there are wrinkle creams that get rid of wrinkles and astrin- gents that close pores and lipsticks that last all day, but be skeptical. If wrinkle creams can work, why do any of us have wrinkles? If astringents or toners can close pores, why do any of us have open pores? If lipstick really can last all day, why must we constantly reapply it? It is OK to accept reality, because being realistic will not make you any less beautiful or prevent you from taking good care of your skin.

Reason No. 7. Most cosmetics companies aren’t out and out lying to us but they aren’t telling the truth either. Even the most extreme ads hedge their promises and claims with vague language that doesn’t really say anything specific. When you see an ad for a wrinkle cream that reduces fine lines, restores suppleness, and rejuvenates the skin, you must remember that any moisturizer can make that claim and not be lying. The company may really have a study showing that their skin-care product performed well, even though the study is paid for by the company selling the product, or was poorly controlled or designed, didn’t compare the product against a placebo or a competing brand, tested the products on ten or fewer women, and is little more than a publicity stunt.

Reason No. 8. Cosmetics salespeople are trained and paid to sell you their products and many do this very well. By far the best tactic in cosmetics sales is to reinforce a woman’s insecurity. This emotional battleground is the salesperson’s best weapon and one that the consumer is least equipped to avoid or resist. See if these routines sound familiar:

 

 

(A)   The salesperson reminds the consumer that she could look as good as some well- known celebrity or model. The salesperson offers a lipstick and says, “This product is used by [insert name of a well-known celebrity or model].” What Oprah or Jennifer Aniston uses is something we pay attention to, as is evidenced in fashion magazine after fashion magazine.

(B)  The salesperson helps the consumer notice all the problems her skin is having (after all, she’s the expert—she’s supposed to notice these problems). She may ask, “Aren’t you concerned about how dry your skin is, particularly around your eyes?” or “You aren’t using a special serum [shocked reaction]? Everyone needs a special serum to protect their skin from the environment, stress, hormones, or makeup.”

(C)    The salesperson suggests that if a woman continues to make the same skin-care mistakes over and over, she will pay for it down the road: “You can’t start too soon using this product because it can only get worse if you wait, and then it may be too late to do anything about it.” Time is of the essence, so act now is the pitch we’ve all run into if we’ve spent any time at a cosmetics counter or listening to a cosmetics sales spiel on television.

It is essential to know that cosmetics salespeople are not necessarily trained in skin care or makeup; they are trained to sell products. To assume these people have a scientific or even a basic knowledge about skin is a serious mistake. A 1992 study by the city of New York’s Department of Consumer Affairs assessed the statements and claims made by cos- metics salespeople and stated that “more than one in three [cosmetics salespeople] stretched the truth beyond recognition, making claims the company attorneys would never allow.” Another one-third gave ambiguous or cryptic responses to skin-care questions, and the rest just recommended products.

I know I come down hard on cosmetics salespeople. It isn’t that I haven’t met some wonderful cosmetics salespeople, because I have. Many times these remarkable women and men have given me insight into the cosmetics industry that otherwise would have been impossible for me to obtain. I would also like to acknowledge from experience that, for the most part, particularly at department stores, selling cosmetics is not an easy or lucrative way to earn a living.

Unfortunately, I have also had some difficult encounters with cosmetics salespeople. I have listened to and overheard hundreds of crazy conversations about skin care and makeup application that are nothing more than sales pressure and absurdly incorrect information. It is generally hard to distinguish sales technique from valid information, but it is safe to assume that when you are buying skin-care or makeup products from a cosmetics sales- person, or even an aesthetician, you are far more likely to encounter salesmanship than factual information.

Reason No. 9. It’s hard to question advice you receive from a cosmetics representa- tive of any kind. For one thing, it isn’t customary for women to refute or challenge what they hear, either directly or indirectly. Asserting your doubts and scrutinizing what you are told when dealing with cosmetics salespeople (or any salesperson) is difficult, but once you do, you will start noticing that the information being doled out is baseless and mostly unbelievable. As you start questioning what you hear, the salesperson inevitably gets caught

 

 

in the pretense and fumbles about, trying to find a plausible explanation. For example, next time a cosmetics salesperson or aesthetician tells you the product they want you to buy gets rid of wrinkles ask them what all the other “anti-wrinkle” products they sell are for. Once you’ve finished reading this book, you will know more than most of the women and men selling makeup and skin-care products.

Reason No. 10. Fashion magazines make everything sold by the cosmetics industry look and sound amazing. Articles in fashion magazines almost without exception glorify cosmetics, with only occasional, buried hints of objectivity. Cosmetics companies have a stranglehold on the way fashion magazines present information on skin care and makeup. What makes this so pathetic is that reading fashion magazines is the primary way women get advice, news, and reports on their beauty needs. Gloria Steinem, in an article in Ms. magazine, once explained why she would no longer accept advertisements for cosmetics. She said her advertisers demanded that their ads be placed near compatible and positive editorial stories, that they must not be near material that challenged the nature of the prod- uct, and that stories in the entire magazine must not contain anything the advertiser found objectionable or displeasing. That concisely explains why you never see a negative article about the cosmetics or fashion industry in the pages of fashion magazines.

 

the 10 BeaUty Commandments everyone shoUld KnoW

There are many ways to take beautiful care of your skin, but the first step is to acquire a clear understanding of how the so-called “beauty” industry works so you don’t repeatedly get waylaid by bad or ineffective products and misleading, absurd claims. Let’s start at the beginning with some basic guidelines that can help you get through most of this information. Get to know these commandments before you go shopping at another cosmetics counter, see another infomercial, have a friend introduce you to a new multilevel cosmetics line, talk to your dermatologist, have a facial, or read another fashion magazine. Once you’ve taken these basics to heart, you will have a better perspective on what you are really buying at the cosmetics counters, what these products can and can’t do, whether what you are using is worth the money, and, most important, whether any of this can hurt your skin.

One confession: This is just a partial list. There are many more “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots,” and I go through each and every one of these throughout this book, presenting the information you need to make an educated decision about your skin care, body care, and makeup.

1.       THOU SHALT NOT believe expensive cosmetics are better than inexpensive cosmetics.

2.       THOU SHALT NOT believe there is any such thing as a natural cosmetic (or that natural means better).

3.       THOU SHALT NOT believe in miracle ingredients that can cure skin-care woes.

4.       THOU SHALT NOT covet thy neighbor’s perfect skin (or believe her perfect skin came from a particular product or cosmetics line; skin is more complicated than that).

5.       THOU SHALT NOT believe everything a cosmetics salesperson tells you.

 

 

6.       THOU SHALT NOT believe in the existence of anti-wrinkle, firming, toning, lift- ing, or filling-in creams, lotions, or masks that can permanently erase wrinkles.

7.       THOU SHALT NOT be seduced by every new promotion, new product, or new product line that the cosmetics industry creates.

8.       THOU SHALT NOT get a tan; sun is your enemy, not your friend; it is the primary reason that skin wrinkles and develops skin cancer (and it isn’t just about getting a sunburn—turning the skin brown is equally as damaging when done on a regular basis).

9.       THOU SHALT NOT buy a cellulite cream, nor shalt thou assume it’s possible to dissolve fat from the outside in, because you absolutely cannot. If these products worked, who would have cellulite?

10.    THOU SHALT NOT see pictures of pubescent, anorexic models (who spend two hours getting their hair and makeup done and another two hours posing while the photographer and a corps of assistants determine the most flattering lighting, after which the resulting picture goes through a battery of digitally enhanced touch-ups and adjustments) and believe you will get the same (or even similar) results from using the products being advertised. That is, unless you happen to be pubescent, anorexic, and a model and can somehow stay in the right lighting all the time.