Many of you have asked The Cosmetics Cop Team about our take on The Story of Cosmetics video sponsored by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. It is clear the information in the video is inaccurate, unsupported, and is merely a vehicle to scare consumers—for some unknown reason—about the cosmetics they use. However, we strongly recommend watching this video from YouTube’s HowTheWorldWorks channel. It is well thought-out with independent research, so you can see for yourself what the real facts are instead of being misled by stick drawings and undocumented assertions as made by The Story of Cosmetics.

Because The Story of Cosmetics video is so shockingly biased, what you don’t know is that the assertions of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics are routinely discredited by the independent scientific community. No one is dying or getting sick from using cosmetics and the environment is not falling apart. Rather, we now have safer and more effective skin care, better makeup, impressive shampoos and styling products, and more remarkable hair dyes than ever before. There is not a shred of evidence proving otherwise.

Bottom line: The information in the video sponsored by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is either misleading or 100% false. Much of what’s stated is not based on solid science, and only loosely (and we mean really loosely) based on facts. The truth is that there are some cosmetic ingredients to be concerned about; however, those ingredients are prohibited by regulatory groups worldwide, or the studies concerning their risks don’t relate to how they are used in cosmetic products.

The real story behind The Story of Cosmetics video is to tell you about The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. This Act seeks to put much tighter restrictions on what can and cannot be used in cosmetics. The problem? They are using information that in comparison would make sugar and salt in food illegal. The explanation they use that Europe has taken a lead in this arena is also ludicrous. My products are sold easily in Europe, but the proposal here in the U.S. would put my products in question and, regardless of brand, would leave consumers without many of the tried-and-true products essential for keeping skin issues like acne in check, not to mention helping your skin look younger, longer.

RapidLash is a cosmetic product claiming to grow lashes. Like many companies with their version of lash-growing products, RapidLash wants to compete with Allergan’s expensive prescription-only version called Latisse ($160 for 0.1 ounce). Most of these Latisse-wannabes are nothing more than colorless liquid eyeliners with some peptides thrown in that have no research showing they can affect hair growth. RapidLash stands apart not only because it costs considerably less than Latisse but it does, at least in theory, work to grow lashes.

A serious distinction between Latisse and RapidLash is that Latisse is a prescription-only drug. Therefore, it is subjected by the FDA to intense scrutiny, proof of safety, and proof of efficacy. Because RapidLash is a cosmetic, it is not subject to these same requirements. Rocasuba, the company that distributes RapidLash, has done some amount of their own testing, but it pales in comparison to the level of testing Latisse went through to prove what it can and can’t do and what risks accompany its benefits.

Claims for RapidLash are carefully worded so they remain strictly cosmetic and not like a drug but here’s the difference: RapidLash does contain an ingredient that quite possibly allows it to work like Latisse. The active ingredient in Latisse is bimatoprost. Bimatoprost is the active ingredient in the prescription medication Lumigan used to treat glaucoma. Patients with glaucoma who used Lumigan noticed their eyelashes really grew and got darker. Allergan owns Lumigan and so they took advantage of this side effect and obtained FDA approval to sell this active ingredient as a lash growing treatment.

RapidLash contains an ingredient called isopropyl cloprostenate, which has some distant molecular similarities to bimatoprost. While there is no published research showing isopropyl cloprostenate can grow lashes, its relation to bimatoprost clearly exists. This association is the likely explanation behind RapidLash’s runaway success. A quick Google search produces thousands of online “fans” all attesting to its efficacy.

Given there is evidence that RapidLash could work similarly to Latisse, it is therefore possible that the same side effects associated with Latisse could occur when using RapidLash as well. Bimatoprost can cause irritation, redness, a bluish skin discoloration around the eye that could be permanent, and a permanent change in eye color among other potential problems anyone considering Latisse should be told about. The company selling RapidLash says they have no research or evidence showing these risks exist for their product, but their research is not reviewed by the FDA nor are they required to perform the mandatory safety and efficacy tests for drugs required by federal law. However, it is reassuring that the company has made the efforts to ensure the safety of RapidLash, and they willingly provided these documents to us.

So should you consider trying RapidLash for longer lashes and fuller eyebrows? The Cosmetics Cop Team is leaving this product unrated and not making a conclusion one way or the other. There just isn’t enough substantiated information to make a clear recommendation. For your own eye health, if you do decide to try RapidLash, or Latisse for that matter, watch for any negative side effects as mentioned above and it never hurts to check with your doctor first. Bottom line: RapidLash should work, at least in theory, to produce the results you want.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has released their annual sunscreen scare report to help mislead consumers about how to take care of their skin. On the 24th of May, the Washington, D.C.-based lobbying group sent out a press release stating that retinyl palmitate (a form of vitamin A) in sunscreens is linked to skin cancer and tumor growth. Not surprisingly, within hours of the release we received a flurry of emails from concerned consumers. Once again, the EWG has propagated incomplete, ridiculous information under the guise of being consumer watchdogs—and once again lots of consumers are eyeing their sunscreens with the same suspicion they’d normally reserve for an unmarked vat of toxic chemicals.

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) was implicated in this report, with the basic sentiment being that the risks associated with retinyl palmitate and skin damage was something they were aware of yet failed to warn the public about. Reading the EWG report, you’d think a large percentage of sunscreen-wearing consumers would be stricken with cancer (never mind that sun exposure in and of itself is the most potent carcinogen we’re exposed to on a daily basis) by the very products they’re using in good faith to prevent this disease. In fact, the EWG report points to the increased use of sunscreen as the cause for the increase in current skin cancer cases. This is the very definition of stupidity. The real reason for rising skin cancer rates is the simple fact that today’s skin cancer cases are the result of decades of long-term unprotected sun exposure. There’s also the fact that research shows only 10% of the population even uses sunscreen on a regular basis. 10%! Now that’s a statistic worthy of a press release!

The EWG’s assertions about sunscreen efficacy flies in the face of hundreds of published, peer-reviewed studies from medical and research centers all over the world proving sunscreen can prevent skin cancer as well as wrinkles and skin discolorations.

In terms of vitamin A in sunscreens being a concern, the EWG seems to be completely ignorant of the fact that retinyl palmitate is one of the primary sources of antioxidant protection found naturally in skin (Source: Toxicology and Industrial Health, May 2006, pages 181–191).

The Personal Care Products Council, lead by former FDA chief John Bailey (himself a scientist), was quick to respond to the allegations in the EWG’s report. This group represents the global cosmetic and personal care industry, and is on the leading edge of not only product innovation, but of safety. Here are the highlights you must know:

Sunscreens: General Info

• The safety and efficacy of sunscreen products have been thoroughly studied and tested by scientists and regulatory authorities throughout the world.

• There is an extensive body of research supporting the safety and efficacy of commercially-available sunscreen actives—far too much to list here.

• Daily use of a well-formulated sunscreen rated SPF 15 or greater is recommended not only by the FDA, but by the American Academy of Dermatology, the Skin Cancer Foundation, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

• Sunscreens in the U.S. are regulated as over-the-counter (OTC) drugs by the FDA and must undergo pre-market approval that involves rigorous scientific assessment including safety and efficacy substantiation according to FDA standards. You will be pleased to know that these standards are among the most rigorous in the world.

The EWG’s Inaccurate Sunscreen Assertions

• EWG’s statements against sunscreens are in direct conflict with the established scientific and FDA safety assessments of sunscreen products and their ingredients. This includes scientific and regulatory bodies in the European Union, Canada, and several other countries.

• According to the Personal Care Products Council, the EWG has invented its own method for calculating how much protection a sunscreen provides; however, this system is “based on very questionable scientific methodology” that has “proven to be inaccurate and unreliable by sunscreen experts around the world.”

• Dermatologist Dr. Zoe Draelos had the following comments about the EWG’s latest report: “I think it’s very sad. A lot of their sunscreen recommendations are based on very old technology, and some of the best sunscreens on the market have newer chemicals that are much more effective. A lot of their opinions are not keeping pace with technology and an understanding of the science of these formulations.”

Vitamin A Isn’t Going to Give You Cancer
Here are the key facts about vitamin A (including the retinyl palmitate form) and sunscreen use that you need to know:

• Retinyl palmitate is approved by the FDA as a food additive, as an over-the-counter (OTC) drug, and a prescription drug. To achieve premarket approval, the FDA requires extensive and rigorous testing. This vitamin wouldn’t be widely used if pre-market tests showed it to be carcinogenic (cancer-causing).

• According to the Personal Care Products Council statement, “In 2000, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) published a notice stating that it would study the potential of retinyl palmitate to enhance UV radiation-induced photocarcinogenisity. While the study is listed as ‘in progress,’ the NTP recently released preliminary data on their Web site; scientific peer review of the entire study is now scheduled for late 2010 or early 2011. Peer review is essential before the results of a study can be accurately interpreted or used to support conclusions. It must be noted that this NTP study was not designed to study retinyl palmitate in the presence or absence of sunscreen formulations.” Therefore, the EWG reached their conclusion based on preliminary, inconclusive data.

• A truly credible scientific organization would never evaluate such preliminary data and make recommendations based upon it, especially those that lead to consumer confusion and fear (with fear being what the EWG seems to thrive on).

• Retinyl palmitate has been shown in UVB exposure studies to offer sun protection all by itself, and it is a potent antioxidant (Sources: International Journal of Pharmaceutics, October 2007, pages 181–189; and Journal of Investigative Dermatology, November 2003, pages 1,163–1,167).

• In vitro (test tube) research showed that pure vitamin A (retinol) has a mutagenic effect on cultured skin cells when exposed to UV light. However, the conclusion reached was as follows: “Vitamin A in the skin resides in a complex environment that in many ways is very different from the chemical environment in solution and in vitro test systems. Relevant clinical studies or studies in animal models are therefore needed to establish whether the pro-oxidant activity of photoexcited vitamin A is observed in vivo [on human skin], and to assess the related risks.”

• The studies examining vitamin A’s role in the presence of UV light did not involve the use of a well formulated sunscreen or credible sunscreen actives. Although damaging effects upon exposure to UV light were tied to vitamin A, there was no comparison to see what would happen if the lab samples were treated with sunscreen prior to UV exposure (Sources: Toxicology and Industrial Health, November 2007, pages 625–631; Toxicology Letters, May 2006, pages 30–43; and International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, June 2006, pages 185–190).

• We know that vitamin A is an antioxidant, and we also know that antioxidants break down in the presence of sunlight, generating by-products that can potentially cause damage. This is how antioxidants work to protect your skin from the greater source of damage, which is sunlight—and it’s precisely why daily sunscreen use is essential!

The EWG’s Own Conflict of Interest

You may have noticed that the EWG recommends a small percentage of sunscreens. But did you also notice that the sunscreens they recommend as safe are available for purchase via links from their site? By linking to the sunscreen manufacturer’s Web site and making a purchase, you are adding to the financial coffers of the EWG, giving them the support they need to continue these unfounded, needlessly alarming reports. This represents the EWG’s commercial interest; they only want you to purchase the sunscreens that they think are safe (and they leave out hundreds of sunscreens we know to be perfectly safe and effective). If they were really concerned about your health and well-being, they would be more open to presenting accurate, peer-reviewed information and would have to admit that their stance on sunscreens is mostly without merit.

In summation, there is no credible, substantiated reason to avoid using sunscreens that contain any form of vitamin A, including retinyl palmitate. Following the EWG’s advice about sunscreen use and which sunscreens are safe not only severely limits your options, but is not based on criteria that even a novice scientist would consider wise.

First things first: I love my mom. She’s an incredibly sweet, caring woman and it is because of her nurturing I was able to develop an inquisitive, determined nature (as a kid, I was the human version of Curious George and no end of exasperation for my mother).

Like women all over the world, my mom checks with me in my role as the director of The Cosmetics Cop Team about some of her beauty concerns. Lately, it’s been about hair-care products. At age 63, like many women Mom is experiencing thinner, more fragile hair. Mom states that her hair is thinner, drier, and harder to manage than ever. She’s always on the lookout for new styling products, and often asks me about the Redken items her salon uses (I advise her to save her money and she typically doesn’t fall for the sales pitch).

Not too long ago, she became overly interested and excited about Kerastase, the ultra-expensive salon brand owned by L’Oreal. It didn’t help that her sister (who definitely has money to burn) raves about the products. My mom took her recommendations seriously because they have similar hair types. Eventually, she wrote to me asking for less expensive alternatives (I had a feeling the high cost of Kerastase would get to her). Her Kerastase phase seems to be over, and she’s been happy with some of the comparable products I recommended from another L’Oreal-owned company, Garnier Fructis.

Here’s where things went awry: Mom’s looking for a lightweight styling product to tame her hair and add shine but not weight. I recommended the Aveeno Nourish + Style Volumizing Foam. It’s a good, inexpensive liquid mousse that should work really well for her, as she heat-styles her hair. She thanked me and then proceeded to check out this product online. Several minutes later, another email from Mom landed in my Inbox:

“Honey, one person who reviewed this product said it left a residue. Now I’m not so sure about it.” I wrote back and asked why she zeroed in on the one negative comment (which we didn’t find to be true in our review for this product) and seemed to ignore the 20+ positive (I mean really positive) reviews also posted there. She didn’t have an answer but that one negative comment stood out like a sore thumb and her trepidation soared despite what I had told her. She was worried it would feel heavy on her hair, too.

I responded as follows: “Mom, I understand your concern, but you don’t know anything about that woman and why she wrote what she did. For example, what if this reviewer doesn’t wash her hair that often? What if she uses a hairspray that leaves a residue, or double processes her hair? What other products does she use? What is her definition of residue? What kind of hair does she have? Without more information there is no way to know why she liked or disliked a product.”

Of course, the sobering truth is Mom just didn’t believe me—at least not 100%. She’d rather believe an anonymous woman online than her own son, despite the fact I’ve been studying and writing about cosmetic products (including hair care) for over 10 years. I mentioned this exchange to Paula, and she could relate. She remarked that it was years before she could get her mother to stop shopping for skin care at Neiman Marcus in tandem with her friends who only wanted to believe expensive meant better (Paula’s mom didn’t break this habit until Paula created her own line PaulasChoice.com).

Sigh. It isn’t easy being a Cosmetic Cop. There are so many hurdles to overcome like obnoxious advertising and thousands of opinions from people without the research or expertise to evaluate or really understand what they are using. Personal experience means something, but given the wide, often fickle range of preferences and expectations, it’s not the most reliable way to assess a product’s value or efficacy.

But my own mother! That is just disheartening. I love you Mom (and, to be fair, I’m not the perfect son and, like everyone else, have my weaknesses) but sometimes I just want to pick up the phone after these email exchanges and yell saying, “Mom, just buy what I tell you, I am 1000% right. I have the science, research, and the largest comparison database of cosmetic products in the world I use to base my recommendations on!” Of course, if I did that she’d likely acquiesce and promise to listen better next time. But I know it’s only a matter of time before she sends me another question about a product a friend, co-worker, or her hairstylist mentions, and we’ll go around and around again.

A caller to my weekly Internet radio show had a question about a skin-care product she had been using. With earnest, she told me she bought a product called AminoCare and wanted to know what I thought of this alleged “Genetic Solution for Anti-Aging.” Before I could say much of anything, she made sure to tell me AminoCare was created by a doctor who had a brilliant reputation for curing cancer. Wow! Somehow, this phenomenal achievement was missed by mainstream media, leading medical organizations, and the FDA. Along with stopping cancer in its tracks, this doctor found time to create anti-aging skin care capable of stopping cells from aging (I guess if you can cure cancer you may as well keep going and stop aging, too).

She had heard about AminoCare from a friend, who heard about it from another friend or something like that. I was choking back laughter and frustration, though I’m fairly certain I was yelling, “You can’t really believe this crap!” or worse. But she did believe it (at least enough to buy the products), just like lots of women do. But the reason she was calling, despite her enthusiasm about this doctor’s credentials, was she was now having doubts. After some prodding on my part, she said she and her husband had been using AminoCare for a year but hadn’t noticed any difference. Obviously, AminoCare hadn’t cured aging after all. What a shock. Now this vulnerable, naïve, dear woman was going to try something else (I can’t remember what products she was ready to believe could stop wrinkles and aging) and asked what I thought of these new ones she was considering. She mentioned the products were supposed to lift skin back into place, which started another round of ranting on my part—thousands of products with thousands of identical claims and we wonder endlessly which story sounds the most convincing.

But back to AminoCare: It was clear from the ingredients in these products that they weren’t even well formulated and the entire scheme was banking on the snake oil ingredient tamanu oil. Period. That’s the doctor’s answer to stopping aging and wrinkles. Imagine: curing cancer and wrinkles with two creams and some supplements! Now if that isn’t the epitome of marketing nonsense I don’t know what is.

The day after my radio show was broadcast one of my listeners sent me this (with a few edits from me):

The lady who called into Paula’s show yesterday about a product called AminoCare: she stated something about the reputation of the product’s creator. I would highly encourage your staff to perform a web search for Stanislaw Burzynski. I am not sure what she knows about his “excellent” reputation, but he has made the news a lot here in Houston over his controversial cancer treatments.

I don’t know much, other than what I’ve read; however, the gentleman apparently has a long history of not following federal laws or FDA regulations and has been indicted (although not convicted) several times over the issue. This doctor is obsessed with urine-based therapeutics, so I wouldn’t be terribly surprised to learn that he probably pees in his skin care line.

I personally don’t understand why all of these people make things so hard on themselves; quit the nonsense, and just don’t buy anything without Paula and her Cosmetics Cop team’s blessings.

Best of luck with your research, and thank all of you for making skin care so much easier.

Jennifer

Thank you, Jennifer. Your research is spot on. I decided to see if there was any reference to Dr. Burzynski on one of my favorite medical myth-busting sites, www.quackwatch.org. I wasn’t surprised to find three paragraphs about his shenanigans in an article on questionable cancer therapies. As you mentioned, this doctor has been in lots of legal trouble for his purported cancer treatments, and yes, they are derived from urine. You can read the entire article here.

As far as his AminoCare products, the tamanu oil is absolutely nothing to get excited about. It is just one more of the hundreds of overhyped cosmetic ingredients accompanied by marketing stupidity that blows your hopes out of the water and grabs your money as you drown in useless and limited or problematic skin-care products (for example, AminoCare doesn’t sell a sunscreen and doesn’t recommend one either; I guess this doctor missed the proven association between sun damage and aging). There is no research anywhere proving that tamanu oil can stop aging, reverse wrinkles, or make you look even one second younger.

By the way, anyone considering the AminoCare products should know the company does not allow returns. Here’s part of what you see on the AminoCare site when you click on return policy: “It is our company policy that all sales are considered final and we do not issue refunds for any items which have been purchased, used or unused.” Love me or leave me is this “doctor’s” philosophy, I think that says it all—leave as fast as you can!

Every now and then we receive a letter from a reader that reaffirms what we know to be true: a large part of the cosmetics industry, and particularly the spa industry, is mostly crazy! It’s not that there aren’t great spas and spa services (massage, anyone?). And there are countless estheticians who have an earnest desire to help their clients achieve and maintain their skin care goals. So before I get attacked for insulting estheticians—this blog entry is about showing how really bad skin-care information gets perpetuated by a company’s product educator that then gets handed down as truth when it is anything but truth. What a vicious cycle!

Dear Paula,

I work in the skin care industry and my company recently sent me to the International Dermal Institute for a class on their Dermalogica products. I was ASTOUNDED. I have worked with that line for over 3 years now, and I always knew there was something “off” about it. My class today confirmed that this is no line I would ever go out of my way to recommend again. The instructor was, in a word, odd. She was also very defensive of Dermalogica’s products. She was immediately defensive when students would ask any question pertaining to irritation from products their clients had experienced.

At the end of class we had “skin bar” time, where we were able to try the products on our own skin. People were actually BURNING from the Multi Active Toner!

I actually have two questions for you: the first is that I saw “Pine cone” listed as an ingredient in one of the Dermalogica products, what is the benefit of slathering pine cone on your skin (or IS there a benefit at all)? The other thing that I found it strange when the instructor stated that in order to have a “true” sensitive skin you have to be of Northern European descent, have light hair & eyes, and also have eczema or asthma. She claimed that all people who do not fit this mold are “sensitized” not sensitive. Is there any merit to this claim?

This is what I replied to her:

Thanks for sharing your experience with us and we’re not the least bit surprised! We are always fuming over training information we’ve seen cosmetic companies provide to the people who sell their products. In the case of Dermalogica, despite their skin-oriented name, they are one of the many problematic spa/esthetician brands around when it comes to their training. Of the 83 Dermalogica products we’ve reviewed on Beautypedia.com, 59 (or, looked at another way, 71% of the line’s offerings) received an unhappy face rating, mostly due to the inclusion of far too many irritating ingredients. Only 12 of Dermalogica’s products were rated highly, including a couple of their expensive serums. This isn’t a line I’d encourage any budding or seasoned esthetician to embrace with gusto!

As for pine cone extract, it can be a good antioxidant and also provide mild antibacterial action for skin. In contrast, pine oil contains several volatile fragrance chemicals that can be a potent source of irritation for skin. Dermalogica uses pine oil (among other fragrant oils) in their Close Shave Oil (I feel sorry for any man who uses this oil).

As for your instructor’s comment about who has sensitive vs. sensitized skin, I would’ve told her this (and keep in mind I’m not known for my subtlety and tend to be blunt): “Your explanation is just silly and doesn’t make any sense. Sensitive skin doesn’t have an ancestral profile, not to mention that, by definition, someone with sensitized skin is someone who has sensitive skin; they aren’t two different skin conditions. If skin wasn’t sensitive, then it wouldn’t become sensitized by things you put on it.”

In reality, though there are degrees of how sensitive someone may be in terms of a visual reaction to things we put on our skin, the prevailing thought is that everyone has sensitive skin to one degree or another. Much of what causes irritation and then a sensitizing reaction, even when it doesn’t show up on the surface as red, irritated, or itchy skin, is still causing damage underneath the skin. Think about sun damage: everyone is sensitive to that because it causes damage under the skin within the first minute of unprotected exposure, even if you can’t immediately see the damage on the surface.

So regardless of what skin type you have, we all have sensitive skin. That’s why it is best to avoid cosmetic products that contain needless irritants including fragrance, fragrant oils, menthol, peppermint, alcohol, and camphor, to name a few. After extensive research, dermatologist Leslie Baumann stated that “Sensitive skin is a very common complaint globally,” and research confirms this worldwide fact!

Our Product Development Manager, Kate, recently gave me a lab sample of a new product she and Paula are working on for the RESIST line. It’s a serum with retinol, an ingredient which typically makes me run scared. It’s not that I’m unaware of what a great ingredient retinol is for skin (if you’re only going to use one antiaging ingredient beyond a good sunscreen, retinol or retinoids should be it), but my skin and retinol don’t have the best relationship. In fact, retinol is sort of like the out-of-town relative you love to have visit, but for no more than a couple of days. Beyond that, things start unraveling. The shine wears off, and you’re reminded of why you don’t suggest said relative stay for a whole week.

Kate can get very enthusiastic about the Paula’s Choice products in development, and she was practically giddy over this serum. Her enthusiasm was contagious, as I willingly agreed to try it, past history with retinol be damned. Imagine my surprise when I actually liked the product. I really liked it because after using it for just one night, my skin looked better. It was smoother, brighter, and, if I’m not mistaken, a bit firmer too (or at least it felt firmer). Being aware of the placebo effect, I kept using the product and monitoring the results. That’s when things got interesting…

By the fourth night in a row of using this concentrated retinol serum (it has an amazing texture and is really easy to apply) I was sure the results weren’t just placebo. How? Because in addition to my skin, including minor wrinkles, looking better, it was also looking worse—a side effect I’ve experienced with other retinol products, but this was different…it was a better kind of worse.

Allow me to explain: Lots of people cannot tolerate efficacious levels of retinol (at least not daily) because they get a strong kickback as it works. Redness, peeling, or skin feeling sunburned are not uncommon side effects. I’ve experienced all of these in the past, which led me to develop what I thought was a case of “retinol-itis.” The cure? Avoid anything with retinol, period. But I’m glad I wasn’t so resolute about that because I discovered the side effects from this retinol serum were brief and fleeting. I adjusted usage to once every two days, then two days off, and my skin acclimated beautifully! The initial peeling and minor sensation of sunburn (there was no visible effect) went away—and my skin keeps improving! Not only are my fine lines becoming much less apparent (though, full disclosure here, they weren’t all that obvious to begin with), but my skin tone is much better and minor freckles are fading. It appears I can finally use retinol as an ally in my fight against signs of aging!

All of this is to let you know I am over my retinol-itis thanks to this potential new serum from Paula’s Choice! I’ll make sure Paula gives this retinol serum strong consideration for approval. It’s a marvelous formula that I know our RESIST customers will love.

Paula and I get lots of requests to review the glut of lash growth products being sold. We’ve covered the big ones, but there was one we hadn’t reviewed until recently: RapidLash. After analyzing the formula and scouring published research to serve as the basis for our review, we came to the following conclusion: RapidLash doesn’t work as claimed.

I am sure many women were disappointed, as they really wanted to believe this was a slam-dunk alternative to prescription lash-growth product Latisse (which really does work and, unlike RapidLash, is supported by published studies confirming its efficacy). After all, RapidLash is widely available (I’m surprised I haven’t seen it sold at my local Safeway, right there in the checkout aisle) and, at $49.95 per tube, is a relative bargain compared to Latisse.

Even though we couldn’t find any ingredient in RapidLash that is proven to grow longer, thicker, darker lashes (and eyebrows), the number of online comments from women who use this product were too great to ignore. In fact, I mentioned this in our review: “What I can’t account for is the number of women who’ve tried RapidLash and swear that it worked for them. You can find pages and pages of positive reviews for this product, not to mention a legion of fans on Facebook, and endless mentions in fashion magazines.” Even though we presented this perspective, it hasn’t stopped several women from writing to us, describing our assessment of RapidLash as unfair, one-sided, or just plain wrong.

Sigh. I admit, to some extent, I expected a bit of a backlash. After all, if RapidLash works for you you’ll know it: the results are staring back at you with each glance in the mirror. It could be (and probably is) a placebo effect, something that often happens in the cosmetic industry, but that doesn’t change the emotional personal experience. However, there may be another reason we hadn’t considered before. Given that RapidLash doesn’t contain anything proven to grow longer, thicker lashes, perhaps the company that makes it (International Research Laboratories) is using something in their product without revealing to consumers what it is. We have no proof that this is true—it’s merely speculation on our part—but it would explain why women are seeing results if it isn’t just a placebo effect.

Arkansas plastic surgeon Dr. Ramona Bates also thinks something may be amiss with RapidLash. Why? As she reports on emaxhealth.com, there have been concerns from consumers over irritation along the lash line and pigmentation changes to the eye from RapidLash, two potential side effects for the prescription eyelash growth product Latisse. We know Latisse’s active ingredient and how it functions. We also know its potential side effects, which include what some users of RapidLash have reported. Whether or not there’s a legitimate connection has yet to (and may never) be confirmed. If it were me, and I have used lash growth products in the past, I’d go for the one with research behind its formula, not to mention up front information about safety concerns and known side effects. That means Latisse, even though it’s more expensive and requires a prescription. When it comes to the health and safety of your eyes, why wouldn’t you go with what’s been proven safe and effective rather than a similar product awash in the art of cosmetic claims?

Paula and I can’t stop laughing about the latest viral marketing campaign from Dove. Dermatologist Deborah Luftman is featured in Dove’s new online video for their Visibly Smooth Antiperspirant/Deodorant. It seems Dove has come up with a 3-step process for women to improve the condition of their underarm skin. It’s known as The Piticure. After watching the video, my assessment was that this was one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen. Why? Because the process has little to do with underarm skin and doesn’t address the unsightly issues some women have with skin in this area! Instead, it goes into detail about such practices such as hand massage, exfoliating dry elbows, and moisturizing. What that has to do with caring for underarm skin is anyone’s guess! Dr. Luftman mentions some problems underarm skin can have, and they’re related to improper cleansing or shaving, which makes sense. But the steps meant to improve matters are mostly bizarre.

The Piticure begins with a hand massage and elbow exfoliation, which have as much to do with underarm skin as a scalp massage does to easing back pain. Next you’re supposed to use an exfoliating cleansing wipe (they don’t mention which one, but Dove sells such a product), but using a warm cotton washcloth at home does the same thing (and is a great way to make sure your underarm area is thoroughly cleansed). After the cleansing, you’re directed to wait until underarm skin is dry, then apply deodorant (from Dove, of course). And that’s it. So basically Dove made a doctor-hosted “how-to” video that essentially directs women to do what they’re already doing: wash your underarm skin regularly to prevent problems and apply an antiperspirant/deodorant afterwards. Without knowing what it’s called, you’ve been giving yourself Piticures for years!

My partner and I recently took a trip to the beautiful Chelan area of Washington State, an area known for its scenic beauty as well as an abundance of wineries. Given that we enjoy Washington wines immensely, both of us were eager to explore some wineries and see what was new.

While visiting a hilltop winery that overlooked Lake Chelan and the surrounding valley (a stunning view), I struck up a conversation with the young woman in charge of the winery’s tasting room. After small talk and lots of accolades from me about the wines she was sampling that day, she asked what I did for a living. I mentioned I was a writer, which immediately prompted my partner to chime in “He’s a published author who writes books with one of the best-selling beauty authors of all time!” Well, so much for being low key about my career…

Once she learned this, she paused mid-pour. Then she asked for the name of the book. I told her it was Don’t Go to the Cosmetics Counter Without Me—and she went nuts. “Are you serious? I love that book. We all do.” I have to admit I was a bit surprised this young woman (she was only 20) had heard of the book. Come to find out, she holds a second job as a saleswoman for Lancome at Macys in a neighboring town. She told me that her district manager is a big fan of Paula’s work and insisted her teams have our book at their cosmetic counters! Imagine that!

I stopped to enjoy a sip of some estate-grown Syrah before responding, after which I asked “But didn’t your manager notice that we don’t say a lot of nice things about Lancome, especially their skin care?” She knew, but apparently that didn’t bother her. In fact, the young woman stated that she agrees with a lot of what we wrote, but was glad we were complimentary about Lancome’s makeup (Lancome has always excelled with makeup). As it turns out, she and her co-workers routinely consult the book while at work! They use it to learn more about what they’re selling as well as what neighboring lines offer.

I can’t tell you how great it was to visit a small town and run into someone who was not only aware of the books I write with Paula, but truly appreciated our hard work (really hard work!). In fact, as a thank you, she gave me a complimentary bottle of merlot (we bought a few bottles of their other wines, too). I felt like a celebrity.

Most of the time, and understandably so, cosmetic salespeople are quick to dismiss the vast amount of work that goes into each book unless we only write positive things about the brand they represent. I definitely raised a glass to this young woman’s cosmetics manager for not being afraid to show her team the perspective of someone not unduly influenced by cosmetics industry’s hype! And that brief exchange set the tone for a great weekend; after all, who doesn’t enjoy hearing that what they put out there in the world makes a real difference in the lives of lots of women?