A fan of Paula’s recently sent us a transcript of an online chat he had with a customer service representative from the Murad brand. He was inquiring about the prominence of denatured alcohol (the type of alcohol Paula recommends avoiding) in one of the company’s pore-refining products. He was, wisely, inquiring about why Dr. Murad would use such a drying, irritating ingredient in a skin-care product.

He sent us the chat transcript he had with the Murad customer service representative, here’s their response:

“Some Murad products do contain a certain type of alcohol. Alcohol, in the context of cosmetic formulations, is a frequently misunderstood ingredient. This is despite the fact that it can be extremely beneficial in a particular formula. A mild cosmetic alcohol, Specially Denatured (SD) Alcohol (SDA) is an excellent delivery vehicle commonly used in astringents, toners, and gels. SD Alcohol is not necessarily dehydrating to the skin when it is mixed with other moisture-binding ingredients.”

Since this information conflicted with what Paula has written about this type of alcohol, he decided to ask us why Paula’s opinion about alcohol differs from Murad’s. I’m glad he did, because what the Murad representative told him was at the very least misleading but mostly it was just false. Paula and I were both appalled. Here was our response:

“The issue isn’t that Paula has a different opinion. Alcohol being damaging to skin isn’t about opinion any more then saying at night the moon rises and in the morning it sets. Alcohol (meaning SD alcohol, methanol, ethanol, or benzyl alcohol) in terms of being a skin irritant, generating free radical damage, causing cell death, and damaging the skin’s barrier are the facts as demonstrated by extensive published research. (Sources: Clinical Experimental Dermatology, September 2009, online, Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, November 2008, page 26; Alcohol Research and Health, 2003, Volume 27, Issue 4, pages 277-284).

There is nothing to “misunderstand” about alcohol as it’s used in cosmetics, especially when it is one of the main ingredients. Yes, it can de-grease skin and prompt a shine-free finish and because it disrupts the skin’s barrier it is a vehicle to get ingredients into skin. However, lots of other ingredients can do that without the inherent risks to skin health alcohol presents.

There is no such thing as a “mild cosmetic alcohol” any more then there is a mild consumable martini. SD alcohol refers to ethanol (pure alcohol) that has been “specially denatured” so it is unfit for drinking. It is absolutely not a case of a unique alcohol that’s somehow made gentle enough for inclusion in cosmetics.

The Murad representative was right that alcohol is less dehydrating to skin when it is mixed with other moisturizing ingredients, but why mitigate the damage and just not include it in the first place? I would love to see Murad, or anyone else for that matter, present research showing any benefit alcohol has in skin care products.

Overall, aside from this issue, Dr. Murad has perhaps the largest selection of poorly formulated products I’ve seen. He tends to use irritating ingredients with no rhyme or reason or proven benefit to skin. Of course, Murad has some good products, too (I’m bracing myself for the vitriol from the Murad fans out there) but by and large this isn’t a line with a creator who understands the problems that occur when skin is repeatedly subjected to irritating ingredients without a benefit.

I will be the first to admit it- I used to be a tanorexic. I look back at pictures and realize I had darker skin than a Chocolate Labrador! And trust me, my true skin color is no where that level of tan.

My days of sun-worshipping began as a child when my summers were spent playing in the pool for hours and coming out with some very distinct tan lines. The idea of applying sunscreen was a foreign concept to my parents. That stuff was just for pale red heads right? Then during my teen years I became obsessed with tan skin, thinking that if I got dark enough my blemishes would be camouflaged, and maybe even dry out. So the vicious cycle began- tanning beds, laying out and lathering on baby oil, hours of softball practice with no sunscreen. I even had so-called “tan offs” with my friends to see who could get the darkest by summer’s end. By this point I knew the dangers of skin cancer, but I had the mentality that it wouldn’t happen to me, and if it did, oh well we are all going to die of cancer somehow if we live long enough. (I know, some of you want to kick me right now! I would kick me if I could go back in time.) All of this carried on through my college years and well…even up until a couple months ago.

You see, I had a job interview with a world-renowned beauty and skin care expert- you guessed it, Paula herself. Near the end of our interview she stopped and asked “How do you feel about losing your tan?” At first, I thought she was making a reference about how hard I would be working, being clammed up in my office and not seeing the light of day. Instead, Paula went on to explain her views on sun damage and handed me her book, The Original Beauty Bible, 3rd Edition. Despite her disparaging comments about my sun-induced skin color, she hired me anyway.

Turning the pages of that book began a life-changing chapter in my relationship with the sun. It may seem like I’m being a bit melodramatic but the truth is, I had been in denial and had never taken the time to truly consider the extent of damage I was doing to my body. Not only did I find out that skin cancer is much more common than I originally thought, but that I was also setting myself up for melasma (brown sun spots), wrinkling, and severe skin aging. I was disturbed when I read that the physical results of sun damage typically do not start to show up until over the age of 30. That means that for the last 25 years that I thought I was invincible, I wasn’t, and I will pay for it sooner rather than later. But by far, my biggest eye-opener was that the sun’s rays are harmful rain or shine, winter or summer. When I realized that UVA rays can penetrate through a window, I was even more shocked! It may not seem like a big deal in the moment, but think about that over a lifespan and imagine the toll it can take on your physical appearance and health.

Now, I don’t want all this to be doom and gloom. I wrote this in the hopes that I could catch the attention of others who have been in denial about their tanning habits and help them to come to the same realization that I did- it’s just not worth it! Let’s face it, most of us like to get a tan for vanity reasons, but you won’t be looking so hot down the road with wrinkly, discolored skin or scars from skin cancer removal. Yes, there is a certain extent of sun damage that is irreversible, but the good news the sooner you start the change, the more you can prevent further damage, decrease the odds of developing skin cancer and lessen the potential signs of aging. First line of defense: wear sunscreen EVERYDAY!

And guess what… thanks to a vast improvement with self-tanners and bronzers on the market you can still look tan when you want to.

I was recently in our local Nordstrom store, checking out some new philosophy makeup products. Because fall is upon us and lots of cosmetic companies are gearing up for big launches, the philosophy salesperson was eager to inform me of what was coming to the counter soon. Along with a new foundation and some other potentially intriguing makeup items was the claim she kept repeating: “…which will be paraben-free.” At one point I stopped her and asked what was so bad about parabens (I was curious to see what she’d say). Her reply was “Well, they cause cancer, especially breast cancer.” I replied that from the research I’ve seen there is no definitive link between breast (or any other type of) cancer and parabens. I asked where she got her information, to which she replied “That’s what they tell us in training.” Sigh. Cosmetic companies love using scare tactics to sell their products.

As I continued to take notes on the new makeup items, I asked her what was so bad about parabens. She admitted she didn’t know for sure, but philosophy is moving away from using them because “it’s just better for the products”. “Besides”, she said, “parabens aren’t natural.” Without wanting to further the debate since I was done with my research, I just smiled and nodded. So that’s what she was getting at all along. Never mind that parabens are, in fact, derived from a natural source (berries) the real theme is that philosophy is changing their marketing message to the familiar theme of natural = good, synthetic = bad, health-threatening, toxic, insert-your-own-unpleasant-adjective-here.

If I had more time to spend discussing this with her (she really was helpful and quite earnest in her fervor for philosophy) I would’ve mentioned that it would be far better if philosophy took an inventory of all the irritating ingredients in their formulas, many of which are natural, and removed those instead of parabens. But such a move would never happen because most consumers are convinced beyond a doubt that any natural ingredient is preferred to one of synthetic origin (often referred to as “chemicals” even though everything in our world is composed of chemicals). The truth is there are good and bad ingredients of either origin, not to mention that most cosmetic formulas wouldn’t be nearly as elegant or effective without the synthetic ingredients that play integral parts-and that includes parabens and other preservatives.

A customer wrote in asking me what I do for skin care when I travel and I do travel, over 100,000 miles every year, sometimes more. From Australia to Korea, Canada, Mexico, Europe, China, and throughout the United States too, over a 12 month period it is exhausting and wonderful.

When on a plane there really isn’t anything all that special to do in flight. Most of what you read in fashion and travel magazines about this topic doesn’t make sense (I’ll explain why). In the long run you have to experiment with what works for you but here are some basics that can help you the next time you have to go somewhere in the friendly skies:

It is indeed drier at 35,000 feet, but if you don’t have dry skin it doesn’t really matter. If you have dry skin and you are taking a long flight somewhere you may need to reapply moisturizer or a really good toner (loaded with state of the art ingredients not just water and slip agents), of course that assumes you are not wearing makeup. If you are wearing makeup, spraying water over your face is useless, it won’t get to the skin cells through the foundation. If you aren’t wearing makeup spraying your face with water is useless unless you apply a moisturizer over it very quickly as it will just be evaporated by the air.

In terms of expensive water, your skin cells can’t tell the difference between what kind of water you put on it (assuming it is potable water). The only cells water can really affect are the skin cells on the surface (the corneocytes of the epidermis) and they’re dead. The healthy ingredients for skin (skin identical ingredients, antioxidants, and cell communicating ingredients) applied on a daily basis will make skin far less dry, or eliminate it all together (but you have to use it every day!).

Because of airport security I always have my travel packets with me. In the years following security screenings my flat travel packets have always gotten through every airport around the world in my carry on luggage. They get by all on their own without taking up precious room in that little quart container you have to use for other liquids and creams. Not every company offers samples of all their products, or even some of their products, so in this case I’m making a shameless plug for my line Paula’s Choice (www.paulaschoice.com).

For long flights over 6 hours I travel without makeup. It is better for my skin and I hate having to wash up twice in those tiny little bathrooms. Just before I land, if I have an appointment I have to get to, I do wash up in the bathroom, apply my skin care routine and then apply my makeup. It looks a lot better that way.

For shorter flights I just wear my makeup as usual only I don’t powder until just before I land when I touch up my makeup. That way I don’t have anything drying on my face during the flight.

A higher altitude in the outdoors does require a higher rated SPF, but in an airplane up in the sky not much UV light is getting through those tiny windows. What you normally wear for sun protection, meaning an SPF 15 or greater will do just fine.

Happy trails!

All of us were shocked to read the announcement in Global Cosmetic Industry on Monday, September 21st that The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. will close global operations for their longstanding Prescriptives brand. Prescriptives came on the scene in 1979, during a time when it was rare to find a cosmetic line offering more than a half dozen shades of foundation. It was rarer still to find a foundation that didn’t have overtones of pink, rose, peach, orange, or copper. Prescriptives changed all of that, ushering in not only a new method of shopping for foundation (Colorprinting) but offering some truly neutral to yellow-toned shades among the less desirable options. Over the years the line expanded to include a full complement of makeup along with skin care and fragrance. In some ways, their success was the blueprint for the parade of makeup artist lines now available, not to mention a trigger for the other Lauder-owned brands to improve their foundations, which they eventually did.

Like us, you may be wondering why this decision was made. After all, Prescriptives is a well-known, established brand that offers a bevy of outstanding products (it was painful removing all of the Paula’s Picks from the book). The answer comes down to today’s economic climate, at least according to this statement from The Estee Lauder Companies: “After a thorough analysis of the Prescriptives brand, management concluded that the brand’s long term business model is no longer viable given the current market environment.” Fabrizio Freda, president and CEO of The Estee Lauder Companies commented “Ultimately, this action allows us to focus on those areas that we expect to benefit the company, our shareholders and business partners.” Definitely classic corporate rhetoric, but the reality is that we’ll likely see other brands succumb unless more consumers return to the department store to shop for cosmetics. I admit, many department store cosmetic items are way overpriced, but cannot deny there are hundreds of excellent products to consider, too. The trick is getting consumers to open their wallets at a time when most have cut way back, and justifiably so.

Due to this business decision, we have cut the Prescriptives line from Paula’s upcoming book, Don’t Go to the Cosmetics Counter Without Me, 8th Edition. The book will be available in December, and because Prescriptives will cease operations as of January 30, 2010 it didn’t make sense to keep it in (thank goodness this announcement didn’t come after the book had gone to print!). We will maintain the Prescriptives brand on Beautypedia until February 2010. The company has stated that they will continue to have a retail presence online until their inventory is depleted. We will not be reviewing any new Prescriptives products on Beautypedia because, well, what’s the point?

Oddly, one Prescriptives product escaped this massive downsizing: Calyx fragrance. This popular scent will be sold at department store fragrance counters once Prescriptives has shut down their full service counters worldwide.

A ccording to Webster’s Dictionary the adjective “original” means, “not secondary, derivative, or imitative; or, being the first instance or source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is or can be made.” As far as I can tell, someone needs to get this definition to Neutrogena pronto! The liberties that they are taking with the word “original,” are creating confusion for us and consumers!

This first inkling of what was going on came to our attention when a subscriber wrote in asking about the availability of Neutrogena’s Healthy Skin products, several of which Paula recommends. In order to answer her question, I had to sort through a dizzying array of products, most of which had been repackaged and some reformulated, all to become part of Neutrogena’s new Ageless Essentials line. As I worked through the line, I realized that what they called their Original Healthy Skin Anti-Wrinkle Cream had actually been reformulated to include SPF 15, but it was still called Original Healthy Skin Anti-Wrinkle Cream, only now it had an SPF 15 noted on the box, yet the former Original Healthy Skin Anti-Wrinkle Cream had no SPF at all.

I even checked this with the company, and they confirmed that indeed they were no longer making this product without the SPF 15, and yet it would still be called Original Healthy Skin Anti-Wrinkle Cream, even though it’s not the actual original formula. As it happens, this reformulation caused the product to lose its Paula’s Pick rating because the sunscreen included does not provide sufficient UVA protection. Poor rating aside, to me this begged a larger question: Can a product still be called Original if it has been reformulated?

This is not the only instance of Neutrogena playing fast and loose with the word “original.” Their transparent orange Facial Cleansing Bar comes in Original and Fragrance-Free versions, which is spelled out clearly enough on their site and on the packaging, but another of their classic products is Liquid Neutrogena—you know, the orange face soap in a square-shaped pump bottle—is now exclusively made in a fragrance-free formula and no longer with its original scent. No doubt, that’s a formulary improvement, but it’s not explained for consumers, who might, as I did, assume that the “original” product is discontinued and not that the fragrance-free version is a permanent replacement, especially since original Liquid Neutrogena and Fragrance-Free Liquid Neutrogena used to sit side-by-side on shelves, clearly marketed as separate products.

When I called Neutrogena to get the scoop on this change, the rep told me “It’s still the original formula, only now it’s fragrance-free.” Since I’m not looking to nit-pick, omitting only fragrance could still grant the formula “original” status (especially since it’s ultimately better for skin), but it doesn’t make this ever-changing brand any less confusing to figure out!

Honestly, if anyone from Neutrogena reads this blog, please submit my plea to stop the insanity! It’s a disservice to your best products and is bound to alienate customers.