Every time I see a tanning salon I want to make a picket sign of some kind and parade in front shouting “Stay away, cancer lurks inside!” Very little has been done to protect people from what these businesses really have to offer. Campaigns to stay out of the sun for some reason rarely, if ever, mention tanning beds. Hopefully that will change since the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC a division of the World Health Organization, WHO) has re-categorized indoor tanning devices as being a carcinogen for humans. Tanning beds now share the spotlight with other dangerously high cancer risks.

I expect that this news will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes for those who are fans of using tanning beds. Those fans include 30 million people who tan indoors in the United States annually. Among that figure, 2.3 million are teens. According to the American Academy of Dermatology (AADA) research shows that the risk of melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer, increases by 75% when regular use of tanning beds and sunlamps begins before the age of 30. Sadly, melanoma is the most common form of cancer for young adults 25-29 years old and the second most common form of cancer for adolescents and young adults aged 15-29 years old.

As the AADA has stated in the past, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should ban the sale and use of tanning equipment for non-medical purposes. Unless and until the FDA bans the sale and use of tanning equipment for non-medical purposes, the AADA supports the following requirements for indoor tanning facilities:

• No minor should be permitted to use tanning devices.
• A Surgeon General’s warning should be placed on all tanning devices.
• No person or facility should advertise the use of any ultraviolet A or ultraviolet B tanning device using wording such as “safe,” “safe tanning,” “no harmful rays,” “no adverse effect,” or similar wording or concepts.

AADA, on this one you rock! And to my readers who still use tanning beds (and especially to parents of teens that visit tanning salons), I beg you to reconsider the risk you’re taking in the name of beauty (and by most standards around the world isn’t beautiful in the least). You may prefer a tan to your natural skin color, but what you perceive now as beautiful will lead to leathery-looking wrinkled skin and a very good chance of having a potentially life-threatening disease in the future.

My partner and I recently organized a neighborhood block party. Although we know some of our neighbors quite well, there are proportionately more that tend to keep to themselves unless someone in the community plans an event. Of course, when adults meet for the first time in a social setting, a common question is what one does for a living. I often state that I’m a writer. Or that I manage a Web site. Sometimes that generic answer works, but sometimes follow-up questions occur, such as what type of writing do I do? That’s where things can get sticky…

I don’t mind being more descriptive, but sometimes I find myself reluctant to elaborate because, well, I’m not quite sure why. It may be because I feel the need to over-explain what I do and how Paula and I go about reviewing products, or that I immediately think the person I’m speaking to will question my credentials or think we’re running some rinky-dink operation. After 25 years, even Paula still gets the occasional “who do you think you are?” or “what gives you the right to review products this way?” emails. Would a 40-something female attorney I just met be convinced that her 30-something suburban neighbor (a male, no less) could offer her meaningful, potentially complexion-changing advice about her skin-care routine? And why didn’t I just state that I work in retail, something I can easily converse about?

As it turns out, the female attorney I was speaking with was fascinated by my job. I briefly explained my background and the set of criteria Paula and I have established that form the basis of our reviews. But I was feeling increasingly self-conscious, and begin to wish that either the wine I was drinking would kick in or that someone would ask me to, oh, I don’t know, grill something. I suppose it’s at this point where I felt the need to say something impressive, perhaps to further convince the person I’m speaking with that yes, I really do know what I’m talking about. My attorney neighbor asked what I thought of the Origins line, which she’s been using for a couple of weeks. She stated that she was drawn to the line because they use natural ingredients. I must’ve had a sour look on my face because she took a step back as I explained to her that Origins has more problematic products than helpful ones. Uh-oh…now she was really intrigued.

Adjusting her stance, she leaned forward and exclaimed something I’ve heard time and time again: “But I thought natural ingredients were better for our skin!” I replied that nothing could be further from the truth, though there are some very good natural ingredients in skin-care products. She said “But not in Origins products?”, to which I responded “Sadly, no.” She looked horrified as if I told her that clumps of her hair had just fallen onto the potato salad. I mentioned that Origins was a Lauder-owned line, and although their skin-care products are loaded with fragrant plant irritants, the Estee Lauder and Clinique brands happen to offer some of the most brilliantly-formulated moisturizers and serums anywhere, and neither of these lines make a huge deal about natural ingredients. That perked her up, but it launched us into a discussion about eye creams (she’s a fan of Lauder’s). 20 minutes later (the wine had kicked in now) we were still talking, though I was being a bit more candid. As it turns out, she left vowing to check out our book and subscribe to Beautypedia. And for the next hour or so I fielded a dozen or so “What do you think about this product? “questions.

My job may be unusual, but as it turns out, talking about it can be a great ice-breaker, not to mention an opportunity to educate more people about the staggering amount of false information perpetuated by the cosmetics industry.

As many of you know, the cosmetics industry doesn’t love me and most companies treat me and my team like pariahs. While they send most beauty reporters gifts along with products it is a rare occasion that they even return my team’s phone calls. Given our work that‘s completely understandable and we rarely take offense (okay, sometimes we take offense, especially when the attacks are personal but that is the exception, not the rule).

Occasionally, there have been cosmetic companies that have not only been cordial and helpful but have gone out of their way to provide us with an abundance of information and access to their chemists, research, or product development managers. Olay, Neutrogena, once in awhile L’Oreal and a few others have been terrific. But now I want to add Trish McEvoy Ltd. to the list for going above and beyond to help us with the upcoming edition of Don’t Go To The Cosmetics Counter Without Me!

McEvoy’s company has been nothing less then respectful and patient with my team. Their responses are epic in scope, forthcoming, thorough, and on every level cooperative and generous. Wow!

Geri Emmett, Vice President of Marketing and Product Development, sent us this email message along with an extensive update of their products: “We are so lucky that we’re a small company, and that Trish is still our owner. Everything we create is with Trish’s direction and touch, and we are incredibly lucky that Trish’s husband is a dermatologist and that we have a Skincare Center here in New York City, from where our skincare collection is developed. As you know, we continue to come out with new, exciting, innovative launches season after season, and we look forward to sharing them with you!”

This from a company higher up that knows we don’t like all of their products. Trish McEvoy Ltd. is a company that believes in what they are doing and is beyond reproach for transparency. So from our hearts and work schedule, we thank you Trish McEvoy Ltd. more then we can say!

I just got off the phone with a reporter. I could scream. It was a completely bizarre conversation that went something like this.

Reporter: What skin care products are worth splurging on?

Me: None. Save your money, there isn’t an expensive skin care product that can’t be replaced by an inexpensive option.

Reporter: But aren’t there advances in skin care that are worth spending your money on like Estee Lauder using situins.

Me: Sirtuins are a group of enzymes that protect cells. Lauder is using an ingredient they are calling resveratrate in their Re-Nutriv Ultimate Youth Crème. It is similar to resveratrol, an antioxidant from grapes. That’s nice but there are lots of great antioxidants, this isn’t the miracle one. And does that mean all the other Lauder anti-aging products (think Clinique, Aveda, Prescriptives, La Mer etc.) should be dumped? And by the way, did you notice the product comes in a jar and that antioxidants don’t stay stable in jar packaging?

Reporter: Oh right, jars. But I’ve talked to the President of Lauder and they are reformulating all their products.

Me: I don’t believe that for a second, but assuming that’s true shouldn’t they write a press release saying this is the best of our products forget the others? Or at least alert their loyal customers that, oops, they goofed but this time they’re really going to get it right and tell you the truth?

We had a few more back and forths that didn’t make any sense either but this was the kicker:

Reporter: Nothing really works right so it doesn’t matter?

Me: That’s not true at all. There is a ton of research showing there are wonderful, potent, powerfully effective ingredients that can benefit skin. What’s true is that there just isn’t a magic bullet. There isn’t one ingredient that is the final miracle for skin.

Reporter: There is no research showing that to be true.

Me: Of course there is, just check the National Institute for Health’s database of over 5,000 science journals.

Reporter: I don’t believe research done by the cosmetic companies.

Me: There are mostly studies done outside of the cosmetic industry, but even if the studies are from the industry as long as the studies are published and you can evaluate how they were done and the results, you can make an informed decision.

Reporter: Those studies are always biased.

Me: Then ignore the studies from cosmetics companies and just focus on the ones that are from independent sources.

Reporter: They’re all biased except the ones from Universities.

Me: But cosmetic companies often pay institutions for their studies. But this is all off topic… you were asking about products that are worth splurging on and I’m saying there aren’t any so I’m probably not the best person for your story.

Reporter: But what about sirtuins and clock genes?

Me: Well I could quote you the research as it relates to the cosmetic industry but you just said you don’t believe any unbiased research exists, you don’t trust the research from cosmetic companies but you believe the press releases you get from cosmetics companies? I’m confused.

There was a bit more, but you get the gist of it. And these are the people writing stories about skin care “breakthroughs” that my readers find and then ask me about. Sigh. I really did try to help this reporter but somehow I think I only made matters worse by stating the facts!

I listen to women say this all the time. It doesn’t matter if it is reporters, beauty editors, or women I encounter every day. They exclaim how much they love a product and this love is almost always for an expensive product, especially if it’s skin care. And other women listen (or overhear) and wonder if they would love it too. After all, love is a pretty powerful sentiment. Why would someone love a bad product or one that didn’t work as claimed?

Regardless of price, proclaiming that you love a product is one of the most useless remarks to make about any skin care product (makeup is another story altogether). First we all “love” things that are bad for us. We love that guy who won’t call us back or is rude and demeaning. Or we love chocolate cake and french fries. Or we love skin care products with bad formulas (useless or harmful ingredients), jar packaging, low SPF ratings, and on and on.

Of course makeup is a completely different issue because the benefits are completely subjective (there is nothing subjective about what is healthy for skin any more than it is subjective about what is healthy for your heart and hips—yes, I went back to the chocolate cake and french fries example).

My message is that it’s a good idea to stop loving your products until you know what you are buying and whether or not the product (or, if you prefer, object of your potential affection) is beneficial. Once you have that information then you can decide whether or not you “love” the way it feels on your skin. And I’ll be among the many women ready to listen as you spread the love for whatever product is truly giving you the results your skin deserves!