Recently, a Beautypedia subscriber wrote in to inquire about a discrepancy she found between the bottle and the box of Bare Escentuals’ bareVitamins Skin Rev-er Upper, a BHA product that she had purchased because it earned a Paula’s Pick. Her email chronicled her struggle with the company to understand how the bottle and the packaging could be different, and how was she to know which was accurate? Ultimately, Bare Escentuals’ Customer Service couldn’t explain it either, and only told her that, “as a consumer she was supposed to know that what is written on the bottle is always the correct ingredient list.” Her plight caught our attention, not only because we need to keep Beautypedia as accurate as possible, but also because if this were the case, this product’s real ingredient list (which includes arnica, St. John’s Wort and witch hazel) poses serious problems for skin, and it would need to lose its Paula’s Pick status, ASAP!

So I headed out to investigate at a nearby Ulta. When I came upon the Bare Escentuals’ display, I found the small-sized bottle of the Skin Rev-er Upper product that comes with the intro kit, I couldn’t find it on the kit’s box, at least not before the salesperson approached me, so I asked him where I could find the ingredient list. He simply said “Glycolic acid is the active ingredient.” I had to laugh to myself, because that not only didn’t answer my question, but it’s inaccurate: Salicylic Acid (BHA) is the “active” ingredient, not glycolic acid (AHA). I didn’t correct him, however; instead I told him that I wanted to see the whole ingredient list for myself, and he located a full-size box of Skin Rev-er Upper, which I opened to find that the list on the bottle and the accompanying box were indeed dissimilar, in all the problematic ways that had been outlined in the reader’s e-mail. I showed the salesperson the discrepancy, and he looked appropriately confounded, saying “My, that is strange…” I said, perhaps a little antagonistically, “What about customers who might be allergic to one of those omitted ingredients?” He didn’t answer my pointed question (and I don’t blame him), instead he handed me off to a Bare Escentuals’ Regional Sales Rep who just so happened that the in the store while I was there. I couldn’t believe my luck – it looked like I might get some answers after all!

She came over to me swiftly, and spent a long time looking at the box and bottle, and then finally, looked up and could offer no explanation. She said that there had been no reformulation, and had no clue why the discrepancy existed, but thanked me for pointing this out, said that she’d take the matter up with the appropriate people, and seemed to generally want me out of her hair. To my surprise, she didn’t take my name or number to follow up, she didn’t discuss the matter further, she didn’t even try to sell me anything; instead, she just started to back away. But before she got too far, I took that opportunity to share with her our subscriber’s experience of calling the company about this same discrepancy (though I could not disclose that she was a Beautypedia subscriber or that I work for Paula and Beautypedia), and so I explained that when my “aunt” inquired, she wasn’t met with any thanks at all, only ridicule for not knowing that what’s printed on the bottle is always correct, no matter what other packaging indicates. I swear she turned eight shades of red – her face reflecting anger, embarrassment and more than a little discomfort at being held accountable for her company’s products and behavior. At that moment, I really felt like I was advocating for our readers and for everything that Beautypedia strives to do, even if I didn’t get any real answers. And, by the way, the Bare Escentuals product in question is no longer rated a Paula’s Pick.