Last week, I took notice of this article featured in The New York Times’ Skin Deep section. In it, a profile of Dr. Perricone’s new “Super” line (due in late October in Sephora stores) revealed that the 25- to 30-year-old anti-wrinkle market is a sales juggernaut just waiting to take off. With products that have cutesy names and iPod-like packaging, the idea is to speak directly to young women who deeply fear the sudden onset of aging. “Thirty is not baby-faced,” Andrea Lavinthal, a beauty editor at realbeauty.com said, “I feel like I am on a landslide to 40.”

Wait—what?

This article—and Perricone’s marketing angle—had me incensed. This is straight-up fear-mongering at its most basic and transparent. When did 30 become old? Nobody should be afraid of their 30-year-old skin, or that they will suddenly get old “overnight,” a complaint that Dr. Perricone reported straight from his patients. His unprofessional polling technique notwithstanding, his warnings are nothing more than scare tactics disguised as marketing—people don’t wake up older out of the blue! The irony here is that a recent beauty survey I read indicated that most women feel they’re at their most beautiful in their 30s, but that survey doesn’t seem to have been taken into consideration by anyone’s marketing team.

Let’s get back to reality: The signs of aging accumulate over time, and the best thing that women of any age can do to avoid accelerated aging is to exfoliate regularly, never get a tan, apply sunscreen 365 days a year, and use products loaded with antioxidants and cell communicating ingredients (of which you’ll find many at PaulasChoice.com and Beautypedia.com). Speaking of sunscreen, it stands to reason given abundant research that the single most powerful anti-aging product anyone of any age could be using to prevent “aging” is a well formulated sunscreen. A quick call to Perricone’s customer service number confirmed that not one of the 13 new anti-aging products include sun protection. This glaring omission alone doesn’t bode well for this new “Super” line, but we’ll know for sure once The Cosmetics Cop Team reviews these products next month.

A small, healthy debate ignited between some of the members of The Cosmetics Cop Team over these products and their marketing angle. Is Perricone speaking to a real fear that women in this age range have, or is it a fear that’s perpetuated by the industry itself, by continually exposing women to ever-younger (and ever-photo retouched) images of beauty? Are these products fueled by legitimate demand from women who want to stop wrinkles before they start, or is the beauty industry manufacturing a need, and expensive boutique products to conveniently swoop in and meet it?

I suspect that it’s a chicken-or-the-egg type of situation, and I’m skeptical if anyone can say for sure which came first. The relationship between 20-somethings and anti-aging appears somewhat symbiotic: young women have this fear and the industry fans the flame.

Readers, what do you think?

The May issue of Harper’s Bazaar arrived with a stunning photograph of Halle Berry on the cover and an article inside about whether or not a daughter will inherit her mother’s face. The skin care-themed article actually had several good pointers on what to do to avoid making the same mistakes that Mom may have made such as not using sunscreen, smoking, and engaging in yo-yo dieting. Also included were several snapshots of younger celebrities and their mothers. Of course, in every case the younger women looked better than the older women. A woman in her 20s or 30s isn’t going to see much sagging or pronounced wrinkles, but that’s typically not the case as she enters her fourth, fifth, or sixth decade of life, especially if sun protection and sun avoidance wasn’t practiced daily. But in this case, most of the older women (including Ivana Trump and Goldie Hawn) have so obviously had cosmetic corrective procedures done that there’s no way anyone would believe that they’ve chosen to age naturally (just compare their faces to younger pictures of themselves, something Bazaar didn’t include).

Here’s what really got me about this article, though: if you read between the lines, you’ll see it’s essentially a thinly veiled advertisement for the latest anti-aging products from Chanel, Lancome, Estee Lauder, and Olay. All but one of the experts quoted are those behind the very products the article recommends for women at various ages. Noted dermatologist Patricia Wexler recommends women use a sunscreen with antioxidants. OK, that’s great. She doesn’t recommend one of her own products, which is rather objective, but instead her idea of what qualifies as a good sunscreen with antioxidants is Chanel’s UV Essentiel SPF 30+. This sunscreen contains a hefty amount of zinc oxide, but its base formula is mostly water and alcohol (which causes free-radical damage and that hurts skin). Antioxidants or any other beneficial group of ingredients are in short supply, with all but one appearing after the fragrance. And it costs $48 for 1 ounce, so you’ll be replacing this every two weeks if used correctly (meaning liberal application). Talk about bizarre! Dr. Wexler what were you thinking, did they pay you to recommend this?

The article also recommends Olay’s expensive Pro-X eye cream with no mention that their Nutrients, Definity, and Regenerist brands offer nearly identical products for less money. Olay Nutrients just launched and they are as well formulated as any in the Olay groupings, and less money. Other new products that get a sterling recommendation with no regard to formula or packaging include Lauder’s Time Zone daytime moisturizers (the ones packaged in jars—which mean the ingredients won’t stay stable) and Lancome’s overhyped yet truly underwhelming Genifique serum (this formula is just embarrassing). All of these products were deemed “best anti-aging buys” but when you consider what you’re getting for the money, all but one of them are mediocre buys, and that’s being generous. I’m not sure others will notice, but just a quick scan makes it impossible to ignore that it can’t be an accident half of the products recommended in this article had glossy ads appearing elsewhere in Bazaar.

Every day, the emails arrive, asking about the latest anti-wrinkle/firming/lifting/brightening/re-contouring product to hit the cosmetic counters. Message after message implores us to review these items. And all of them are geared toward one burning question: does “Product X” really work as claimed? Don’t get me wrong, we love hearing what our readers want us to review (it is a major factor when we make these decisions) but every now and then I have to step away from my desk, take the dog for a walk, and rant a bit.

Here’s my issue: why do we (as consumers) have such a disconnect when it comes to believing cosmetic companies marketing anti-wrinkle products that seem too good to be true? Why isn’t an air of skepticism our default? Instead, hope springs eternal as month after month all of the major cosmetic lines (and every fashion magazine) herald the arrival of their latest youth-in-a-bottle product. No one ever stops to think about last month’s wonder product because now there’s something new essentially stating it does the same thing.

What never ceases to amaze me is that no matter how many times Paula and I have debunked fantastic-sounding claims (and supported our conclusions with published research) many of our readers remain faithful that the next product will get it right. It doesn’t faze them that Lancome (for example) has had products claiming to work like Botox and lasers, yet none of them performed remotely as claimed. Not a single consumer saw their forehead creases go away or saw their imperfections zapped with laser-like precision. Yet many of us bought the products anyway, hoping against hope (and reality) that they’d work. Now Lancome has a new anti-aging serum claiming to boost the activity of the genes in our skin, resulting in renewed youth. It’s scary how many skin-care products are making ever more remarkable claims, yet rarely are they backed by formulas capable of doing what’s stated in black and white. But still, we believe. We really want to believe these cosmetic companies have our skin’s best interests in mind.

My mother is guilty of this, too. She knows what I do for a living. She’s read the books. She’s met Paula. Yet at least once per month I get an email or phone call from her asking about a line-erasing product or eye cream claiming to tighten bags under the eye and turn back the clock on wrinkles. Every time I tell her the same thing: Mom, stop wasting money on these products and start saving for a cosmetic procedure that really will make a difference—and please Mom, start using sunscreen. I guess she, like many consumers, doesn’t want to face facts. After all, it’s easy to look past the truth when the temptation to get what you want from a readily-accessible skin-care product is all around us.

A very attractive, young, pert, blonde receptionist who had just heard me do an interview on the radio station where she worked asked me on my way out, “Should a 25-year-old start using anti-aging products?” I thought, what does she want to do, revert to birth? But I knew what she meant and I responded by saying, “the only thing you really need is a great sunscreen, and be sure to never get a tan, and you will do fine; the rest is just skin care, important but not as relevant in any way in comparison to being sun smart.” She sat up and in a 20-something kind of way, said “But I love the sun and I love getting tan, I just don’t want to wrinkle.” I said, “Well then, you might as well buy a lottery ticket, because you probably believe you will win that windfall as well! False hope springs eternal; the reality you live in isn’t how skin works.”

Okay, I was in a mood. I usually just smile and walk away, but it’s getting worse out there, not better and my frustration is at an all-time high. If I believed in conspiracy theories I would say the media is in bed with the cosmetics industry, but alas it isn’t theory, it’s fact. Every time I do a talk show I’m always asked if I’m going to be critical of any of their advertisers, of if I’m going to say anything that might be of legal concern (sort of like Oprah Winfrey saying she didn’t want to eat hamburger). Advertisers are in control of what I say on TV or radio, and even to some extent in print (fashion magazines are a foregone conclusion; they treat me as if I don’t exist or simply don’t know what I’m talking about).

Reporters all over the world ask me what works, but the answer assumes that something must work to get rid of wrinkles. The endless press releases from mainstream cosmetics companies, physician-owned cosmetic companies, and spas and salons of all kinds have created the ultimate, anti-wrinkle products, you just have to find the ones that aren’t lying to you (somehow we know everyone can’t be telling the truth, but the notion that everyone is lying to one degree or another is something most women just won’t believe) and the one in front of you at the moment (especially if you’re feeling vulnerable) or that’s endorsed by a celebrity or has an attractive ad wins every time.

Women seemingly never tire of a product promising it can firm the skin, erase wrinkles, restore youth, fight aging, and on and on. There are literally thousands and thousands of anti-aging products perpetually using the same nebulous yet miraculous claims that often stop just short of lying (or blatantly lie). In some ways it is beyond belief how many products are launched every month, year after year. But because women keep believing the claims from the endless assault of anti-aging/anti-wrinkle products, I guess for me, it’s job security!