As a writer, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate the freedom and spontaneity of writing a blog. There are no publication deadlines, no limitations of distribution, and no delay in making updates available. When things change, the ability to share the information in a blink of the eye is astonishing. That’s sheer ecstasy for a writer.

However, as you can tell from how infrequently I post, I have lost the focus needed to keep this blog vibrant and up to date.

As Paula’s Choice continues to grow (we had a brilliant year: my international distributors are doing great, and I launched some of the best products I have ever formulated), I just don’t have time to do my blog justice and neither does my team.

Aside from the many responsibilities I have of running my company and formulating products (thank God for the team I have around me), I have a fervent desire to make the information and articles on PaulasChoice.com and my other intertwining websites—Beautypedia.com and CosmeticsCop.com—more dynamic, current, and scrupulously accurate.

As a result of all this, our brains and energies are maxed out. The reality (and this was a big wakeup call) is that none of us have room in our schedules to pay attention to this blog so it can flourish.

Therefore, as of today, January 6, 2011, the Beauty Bunch blog will become inactive. I will definitely miss your feedback and the questions you shared here. To those who took the time to comment, whether it was positive or negative, thank you for joining the conversation.

Going forward, my team and I will be more involved on Facebook (I sporadically go on to answer questions live). We will announce the updates we do to articles and product launches that appear on PaulasChoice.com or CosmeticsCop.com at our Paula’s Choice Facebook page, as well as @PaulasChoice on Twitter.

I want to thank you again for sharing this incredible forum with me. In the future I look forward to reading your comments and concerns on Facebook!

Warmest regards,

Paula

CEO and owner of Paula’s Choice

www.PaulasChoice.com

Ever since I first started working on the Don’t Go… books with Paula, we have had a fondness for doing our hands-on research in the beautiful city of Vancouver, British Columbia. Not only is this major city a relatively short drive from Seattle, but time and again it has proven to be a very friendly, helpful city for The Cosmetics Cop Team to work in.

By “work,” I mean we literally hit the streets, notes in hand, ready to visit drugstores, department stores, and specialty shops to personally look at dozens upon dozens of skin-care and makeup products. As you might imagine, this process requires lots of preparedness and concentration, not to mention a comfortable pair of walking shoes!

A co-worker and I recently did some research in Vancouver and it went beautifully! Not once were we asked to leave a store (yes that actually happens to us) or suspiciously questioned as to what we were doing, or even eyed with nervous apprehension. It seemed the salespeople simply viewed us as conscientious consumers with a rather intense curiosity about cosmetics—and that’s just fine with us!

What really struck me during this last trip was how different it can be doing such research in Vancouver vs. Seattle and environs. When we’re out doing our work in the U.S. we’re almost always on guard, ready to explain why we’re taking notes, why we need to see every shade of foundation (not just those the salesperson thinks will match our skin), and why we need the complete ingredient list rather than just the buzz-worthy ingredients the cosmetics industry loves to emphasize. We were careful in Vancouver, too, but found that for the most part, the salespeople weren’t all that concerned with what we were doing (and when they approached us they were always polite as opposed to the terse “What are you doing?” we normally get). 

I don’t know why this is, but we really appreciated just being able to go about doing our research without being questioned or treated like we’re up to no good. It’s amazing how often we’re either viewed as shoplifters or, more often, as employees from another store, there to check out the prices at a local competitor (I’ve been accused of this at Walgreens and Wal-Mart, and have had my notes scrutinized by management at Wal-Mart, not to mention questioned by security at Sephora stores) despite the fact the information we are gathering is mandated by the FDA to be available to the public.

The department stores can be the worst. Salespeople are often rude, they tend to hover, or they protect their products as if we were going to steal something. We gladly go through these experiences for you and have for years (even Paula has been thrown out of stores for writing down ingredients lists), because our goal is to do what it takes to get you the facts about the products you are buying. We truly want to help you spend your cosmetics dollars wisely, because wasting money is never pretty.

Of course, we’ve had lots of pleasant experience doing cosmetics research in the States. I can think of several salespeople who’ve been exceptionally helpful and who’ve willingly provided the information we need. These encounters are always appreciated. But I do need to send a great big “thank you” to the city of Vancouver for being such a great overall place for The Cosmetics Cop Team to do the work that so many consumers rely on to make informed decisions about what they buy. Until next time, Vancouver, THANK YOU!

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.

People often assume that because I’m Paula Begoun’s assistant, and given that I work alongside The Cosmetics Cop Team who reviews products for the most comprehensive beauty resource in the world (Beautypedia.com), I must know all the latest and greatest makeup and skin-care products. While I do feel blessed to have such invaluable knowledge at my fingertips, I still sometimes struggle when shopping for cosmetics. In some ways, the more I learn, the harder it becomes.

Fortunately in the realm of skin care, I’ll never have to gamble another dollar on a “miracle treatment” again. Since I started using Paula’s Choice products my skin is in the best shape it’s ever been, and I can rest easy knowing that I’m only using ingredients that have proven benefit for skin. (Not to mention the fact that Paula wouldn’t hire me unless I agreed to stop tanning, and I can already see my skin is better for it.)

But shopping for makeup, on the other hand, is a different story. While I used to impulsively stroll into Sephora for my makeup fix, I am now all too conscious of what’s lurking on those shelves. Are the ingredients bad for my skin? Is it worth the price? Is the packaging conducive to the active ingredients? Does it contain fragrance? Will it live up to the claims? How does it compare to other products in the category? Despite my efforts to research products on Beautypedia.com before I leave the house, once I’m surrounded by a sea of options on display I can’t help but be tempted to stray from my list. It’s frustrating because I know that even if something looks great initially, it may not be good for my skin below the surface or have the longevity I’m looking for.

Then it dawned on me… hello, the name of Paula’s book is Don’t Go to the Cosmetics Counter Without Me! So I did just as the title says and hit the stores with my copy of the book knowing fully well that I’d be attracting attention from every salesperson in sight. Some were intrigued or impressed, while others were apprehensive, but either way I had peace of mind knowing that I didn’t have to second-guess whether or not a particular mascara would end up flaking by the day’s end or if that long-wear lipstick really held true to it’s name—all the answers were right there in the palm of my hand.

Interestingly, the instant I pulled out the book the sales pitch changed. It’s as if the consultants realized they weren’t going to be able to pull the wool over my eyes. One woman, who was trying to sell me a kit of products including an eye cream, completely changed her tune as soon as I spoke up about Paula’s theory about eye creams. She went on to not only agree with my point, but then also began recommending products from a line other than the one she was working for. What a breath of fresh air!

Another salesman wasn’t so congenial. He watched me as I flipped through pages of the book and exclaimed, “Oh honey, that is so cute,” as if to say that I was so naïve in the world of cosmetics. I didn’t let his demeaning attitude get to me. Instead, when he began rambling on about how magnificent a particular line of products were, I cut him off and told him “Thank you, but I’d rather look it up in my book.” The look on his face was priceless!

Would I go shopping with my copy of Don’t Go to the Cosmetics Counter Without Me again and again and again? In a heartbeat! Not only did I have peace of mind and a more informed experience with salespeople, I also had a quick and easy way to shut them up if need be!

Insider’s tip: Soon you will be able to access Beautypedia.com from your iPhone or other smart phone device!  Now that will be something to really get excited about! Stay tuned…

Subscribers to Beautypedia.com know that our Web site is home to reviews of thousands of skin-care, makeup, hair-care, and body-care products. From Avon to Zo Skin Health, if it’s on the market, Beautypedia probably has a review of it—or we’ll get to it eventually!

Part of my job as Beautypedia Database Coordinator at Paula’s Choice is to keep our Web site’s information as current as possible, and that means tracking the launch of all new beauty products as well as discontinuations and reformulations of existing ones. Something as innocuous as a single new shade of a foundation means that research must be done—in fact, any change to a product means that its review needs to be revisited and potentially revised. With over 300 brands represented on Beautypedia, simply saying that keeping up with the industry is “a lot of work” is somewhat of an understatement. Sometimes, my head swims just thinking about it! But thanks to our readers, my job and that of the rest of the Beautypedia team isn’t nearly as difficult as it could be.

On a regular basis, my inbox teems with your insider tips, alerts and feedback. Many of our Beautypedia subscribers have become an important part of our Cosmetics Cop Team. Fielding these emails is a part of my job I always enjoy, because I’m continually impressed at the insights, knowledge, and tenacity of our readers—and I’m grateful for their willingness to share information with us! Those of you who take the time to let us know what cosmetic counter representatives are telling you, or what you’re seeing (or not seeing) on stores shelves are helpful to us in ways that defy words.

Not surprisingly, a good number of our readers are industry insiders themselves, and they let us know what new products are in the works, or just take the time to thank us for our hard work and dedication to holding this industry accountable for the empty promises it makes to consumers. And let me tell you, those thanks fill us with a lot of pride in what we do!

The email product alerts we receive makes Beautypedia (the big, beautiful, information-laden beast that it is) a more interactive experience for us and our subscribers. What amazes me about this process is that the information you give us gets cycled through Paula and the Cosmetics Cop Team and right back to other subscribers. And often, there’s very little lag. If a reader alerts us to a reformulation, we can research it, confirm it, and have the team revise the review and rating, usually the same day. Same thing goes for discontinuations. That’s pretty cool, and it makes Beautypedia more than a Web site—it’s an active community of fellow Cosmetic Cops!

I want to thank all of you who responded to my request to help me figure out exactly how to describe my skin care and makeup company, Paula’s Choice, to other people who don’t know my products, books, or bulletins.

All of your comments were thoughtful, insightful, flattering, humbling, and truthful. Most of all they stimulated a meaningful contemplation of what my business is all about.

My marketing team and I have spent quite a bit of time discussing what you have contributed. It has brought a keen understanding of how those of you who shop Paula’s Choice, read my books, or use Beautypedia.com experience what we have created.

After reading all of your absorbing and fascinating comments, I think I can sum up my company and life’s work like this:

Paula’s Choice is a specialized range of skin care and makeup products I formulated after 32 years of research and writing 18 books analyzing the facts about skin care and makeup products.

Because my only mission is to help you find the best products to take care of your skin I am the only cosmetics company in the world that recommends products other than my own.

Come visit us at PaulasChoice.com and find out what you are missing!

Inorder to compose the summaries of the brands Paula reviews, we have to gather information about the company history and background in order to put the brand’s products into context for Paula and, of course, for the benefit of Beautypedia subscribers. While compiling information for Sally Hansen, I encountered another positively baffling encounter with a customer service rep, which just might be the kookiest yet!

I thoroughly searched Sally Hansen’s website and that of their parent company Coty, Inc. to find some information about the brand—for instance, who is Sally Hansen? Why is she so focused on nail care? How did the company come to be a drugstore mainstay?—and was coming up with zilch. I couldn’t find any information, not even when it was founded and by whom—basic stuff that almost all cosmetic brands put on their websites. Even a search on Wikipedia and Google yielded no results. So I opted to call Sally Hansen’s customer service, explaining that I was doing some research on the brand and wanted to know some background history. Here’s how that conversation transpired:

Me: Hi! I’m doing some research and I was wondering if you could tell me a little bit about the Sally Hansen brand. Who is Sally Hansen? How did the company originate? Or can you put me in touch with someone who might know?

SH: Sure! I can direct you to our website. All that information is available on SallyHansen.com.

Me: Actually, I started there, and there’s no “About Us” info on your site at all. Or if it is there, I’m just not seeing it.

SH: Then it should be on Coty.com.

Me: I tried there too, but Sally Hansen isn’t even listed as one of Coty’s affiliate brands. That’s why I thought I’d give you a call.

SH: Well, I guess that site hasn’t been updated in awhile! Can you please hold?

*TEN MINUTES PASS*

SH: Sorry for the long delay. I can tell you that Sally Hansen wasn’t actually a real person, and all the other company history information we have is available at SallyHansen.com.

Me: Okay, that’s helpful. But I’m just not seeing where that information is on your site. Can you tell me the tab you clicked on or the URL of what you’re looking at?

SH: Did you click on Contact Us or Customer Service?

Me: Yes, I’m looking at that page now.

SH: All the company information is listed there.

Me: But there’s nothing there.

SH: Well, then, I’m told that’s all the information we have.

Me: So all the information you have is no information?

SH: Yes, all the information we have is listed there.

Me: But have you looked at the page? There’s nothing there. It’s only the customer service phone number and an email address.

SH: Well, you should send your inquiry via email and someone can get back to you.

Me: Great! Which department receives those emails?

SH: This department. Customer Service.

Me: But aren’t I talking to you now? How would emailing you help?

*EXTREMELY AWKWARD SILENCE*

Me: Thank you for your time.

*CLICK*

So, dear readers, after all that, all I know for sure is that Sally Hansen wasn’t actually a real person. Whether or not that accounts for the company’s gaps in their employees’ logic and the staggering lack of background information they give their customers, I can’t say. But in my experience this kind of doublespeak and nonsense at the customer service level doesn’t bode well for how their products will stand up to Paula’s scrutiny. Either way, look for those reviews on Beautypedia soon!

J ust seconds ago I finished approving the last round of edits for what will be Paula’s next book, Don’t Go to the Cosmetics Counter Without Me, 8th Edition. The book is huge! Even with our decision to only include lines readers ask us about most often (over 120 brands) the book still ended up being over 1,200 pages. I almost hurt my arm carrying the manuscript back to the designer’s office (and a special thanks to our graphic designer for making these books look so good).

Just last week Paula took me and our team out for a beautiful celebratory dinner at one of Seattle’s finest restaurants. It was a special evening, and the culmination of months of demanding, exacting work. It really does take a village to publish a book that candidly reviews thousands upon thousands of skin care and makeup products!

My team and I have spent the last couple of months making sure the book is as current as possible before it goes to print. Talk about anxiety! Thanks to lots of Starbucks drinks and healthy doses of humor we have made it to the end of another edition of Paula’s most popular book. Just like for the 7th Edition, we have Beautypedia to fall back on. Beautypedia serves as an extension of Don’t Go to the Cosmetics Counter Without Me, and includes reviews of over 130 more brands we couldn’t fit into the book. Believe me, it eases our anxiety about sending the book to the printer and finding out, mere days later, that a major line is launching a new anti-wrinkle cream or another brand is completely redoing its makeup. When we were only writing books, such announcements left us crestfallen. With Beautypedia, we can make these changes as they occur, so the book, as it exists on Beautypedia, won’t be out-of-date.

With every new book one of our laments is that we always get feedback from readers asking us about the brands didn’t include. Although such feedback is welcome, we all feel disappointed since we endeavor to include a mix of well-known brands along with niche lines that have gained in prominence or popularity. As much as we try to hit a bull’s eye that will please everyone, we know that some readers will be upset that their favorite brand (or one they’re curious about) isn’t in the book. All I can do, besides apologize and let them know we track requests for all brands readers ask us about, is steer them toward all of the brilliant products we recommend in the latest book and on Beautypedia.com. I can say with 100% confidence that there is nothing in any line we didn’t review that could possibly surpass the best of what’s in the book and on Beautypedia.com. That may be hard to believe, we all want to believe there is an ultimate best or miracle lurking about somewhere, but after working with Paula on six books, countless newsletters, Beautypedia, and thousands of pages of content, heck, even I’d bet on that claim, and I’m not much of a gambler!

OK, I know this was a bit of a pat-ourselves-on-the-back blog entry, but I hope when the book is available (December) that you’ll agree it was a job well done. I’m thrilled with the team effort and thankful to Paula for the opportunity she’s given us to help educate consumers about the fascinating, sometimes brilliant, and often utterly maddening cosmetics industry!

Every day, I call cosmetic company after cosmetic company (either their marketing departments or customer service call centers), send e-mails to the same, and visit cosmetic counters in stores in order to gather product information for the product reviews that will eventually show up on Beautypedia.com. I do this day after day, (it is a full time job), despite the frustration because I really do love my job, even though getting information from a cosmetics company is harder than squeezing water from a rock.

It’s a sad fact, but more than half of the e-mails I send asking for information about a company’s products (often the same as any consumer might), never gets a reply. Even fewer phone calls are ever returned. If I were a customer, I would have long since thrown in the towel on trying to contact these companies, and I surely would never purchase any products from companies who seem to place such little value in their customers. Understanding that strong customer service breeds brand loyalty, and with such a competitive market to boot, it makes sense that the smaller brands tend to reply more often, because to them each and every customer counts. It’s ironic that even with a smaller brand’s limited staff they are still able to excel at customer service, while the large companies are definitely remain the worst offenders – and with their deep pockets and overpriced products, there’s just no excuse!

Here’s a classic example: Christian Dior. In the past two weeks, I have made no less than 50 calls to 1-800-929-DIOR – a number which, incidentally, is not available anywhere on their website, and was given to me by the extremely helpful customer service staff at Nordstrom, because Dior’s old customer service number on file here at Beautypedia is out of service, with no forwarding number either! Each time I call Dior, I’m greeted by a fancy French-accented voice that instructs me to press #1 for “Product or Consumer Information.” From there, the phone rings twice before a voice tells me that no one can take my call. Then, a dial tone. No option to leave a message, no operator to re-direct my call. This happens no matter what time of day it is, on any day of the week. If it weren’t my job to be so tenacious, I would’ve given up on Dior long, long ago.

At this point, contacting Dior directly has become somewhat of an office joke. For about a week straight, I would call three or four times per day on speakerphone just for amusement. As a result, we’ve become strangely endeared to the voice on the other end (I’ve named her Frenchy), and each time I am transferred to “Product or Consumer Information,” I wait, brows raised in mock anticipation, until the inevitable “We’re sorry…” and then the dial tone that follows. In the meantime, I’ve taken to calling Dior counters for the information I need, but because department stores have to stagger their schedules, the counters are rarely staffed with anyone who knows anything about Dior. Case in point: It took no less than 14 calls to Dior counters across the country before I found one staffed with an actual Dior representative. When I asked her my product question, she replied: “I’m sorry, I’ve only been with Dior for 2 days, but I worked for Chanel for years, do you have any questions about that brand?” I must admit, I was tempted to give her my answer in dial tone, but I knew she wasn’t to blame. It’s all just typical of an industry that doesn’t really want to answer customer questions unless they have your cash in hand first – and probably not even then!

Every now and then we hear from cosmetic companies after we review their products. We really do welcome their comments (well, most of the time… Sometimes the comments are just so off the wall it’s just irksome), but it’s always so strange how so many companies are quick to respond to us when they object to something we’ve written, yet trying to get information from them before we’ve written a word is almost impossible.

We recently received a letter from the Vice President of Product Development and the Director of Education for the Nia 24 brand. They took issue with several points in our review of their products. They did provide some clarification and we made changes where appropriate. Overall, what they were pushing for is for us to admit that the form of the B vitamin niacin that they use in their products was superior to every other form.

I know this will make for a longer, more technical blog than we normally do, but for those interested in how we handle such correspondence, I have included the original letter below along with my responses to each point. Interestingly, the overall review for this brand was quite positive but their form of niacin is not the best. That part of the review has not changed! I stand by the research I originally used as well as the documented sources provided in my response to the company. Enjoy!

Here’s the letter from Nia24 with our responses in red.

Dear Bryan, Paula and Associates:

It was recently called to our attention by a loyal fan of NIA 24® and subscriber to your Beautypedia website that the information you have posted about the NIA 24® products is inaccurate. Indeed, after reading the review ourselves, we wanted to clarify a few discrepancies in hopes that you will alter your website to reflect the true facts that substantiate and support NIA 24®.

1. “their claims for niacinamide.” (under “Strengths”, line 2) – To clarify, Niadyne Inc, maker of NIA 24®, does not make claims about niacinamide because that is not the ingredient in our products. As you mention further down in your review, NIA 24® products are based on nicotinic acid – an alternate form of Niacin chosen for two reasons:
(1) the presence of nicotinic acid receptors on skin cells (see attached, newly published article)
(2) nicotinic acid is known to increase levels of cyclic AMP within skin cells and release the hormone leptin intracellularly. Nicotinic acid has been clinically proven to affect hyperpigmentation reduction pathways through these receptors found within skin. Conversely, niacinamide has not been shown to have such effects.

This has been clarified on Beautypedia. However, there is ample research proving niacinamide (nicotinamide) is a cell-communicating (cell-signaling) ingredient too, not to mention its effect on hyperpigmentation. Sources include: International Journal of Molecular Medicine, August 2008, pages 229-236; Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, April 2008, pages 298-304; Current Medicinal Chemistry, Volume 13, 2006, pages 883-895; and IFSCC Magazine, Volume 5, No. 4, 2002, pages 285-289)

2. “very small line of products” (under “Weaknesses”, line 1) – The product offerings within NIA 24® represent a stream-lined product range developed for physician dispensing that effectively delivers clinically-proven efficacious levels of the Pro-Niacin® molecule in an easy to use regimen still able to be tailored to various skin types.

This is a fact. The Nia 24 line consists of seven products. Yes, that’s streamlined but hardly an assortment of products capable of meeting the needs of “various skin types”. Therefore, we believe the line’s size is a weakness because it does not offer enough products to meet a variety of skin types, preferences, and other mitigating factors.

3. “no exfoliants” (Weaknesses, line 1) – The Physical Cleansing Scrub is a physical exfoliant using spherical jojoba beads encapsulated with the Pro-Niacin® molecule, which roll across skin to provide gentle exfoliation without tearing the skin.

This has been corrected so it now reads “No AHA or BHA exfoliants”. We actually praised your scrub and put it under “strengths”. I apologize that the distinction wasn’t originally made clearer.

4. “sole sunscreen contains irritating fragrance chemicals” (Weaknesses, Line 2) – NIA 24® products are fragrance, color and dye-free with masking agents that simply mask the less desirable odors inherent in mineral sunscreens.

Your mineral sunscreen contains the following fragrance chemicals known to cause irritation (all are on the EU list of 26 fragrance allergens required to be listed if they are part of a cosmetic company’s fragrance blend):

• Eugenol
• Citronellol
• Geraniol
• Isoeugenol
• Limonene
• Linalool

In addition, it contains the ingredient methyldihydrojasmonate, which is INCI-classified as a fragrance ingredient by virtue of its function (Source: International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary and Handbook, Eleventh Edition, 2006, page 1,353).

Eugenol and isoeugenol are problematic, with isoeugenol less of a sensitization concern. We doubt the amount of the fragrance ingredients listed above are cause for concern for the majority of consumers, but the fact remains that skin-care products are better off without them (Sources: Journal of Applied Toxicology, May 2008, pages 530-534; Toxicologic Pathology, 2007, pages 696-701; and British Journal of Dermatology, February 2000, pages 279-283).

5. “NIA 24® is all about the B vitamin niacinamide” (1st paragraph, Line 1) – This is inaccurate. NIA 24® does not contain niacinamide but rather, a patented form of Niacin, called Pro-Niacin®, made of nicotinic acid with an added lipophilic tail. This patented structure enables optimal penetration of the molecule through the lipid-rich stratum corneum, deep within skin to deliver Niacin to the lower epidermal layers where skin cells divide. As skin regenerates, healthy Niacin-enhanced cells gradually replace older unhealthy cells to promote the generation of healthier skin cells from the inside-out and build a stronger skin barrier.

You can call it whatever they want, but the fact is they you’re using one of many forms of niacinamide (Myristyl nicotinate). We do mention that your form of niacinamide is not the same as pure niacinamide, but that they have similar functions. The doctors behind Nia 24 have published several papers on niacin, which is another name for niacinamide. Nicotinic acid is the scientific name for vitamin B3 (Source: www.naturaldatabase.com).

6. “how it [Pro-Niacin®] performs on skin isn’t fundamentally different from how “regular” niacinamide functions” (3rd paragraph, last sentence) – On the contrary, study data indicates that Pro-Niacin®, which effectively delivers nicotinic acid (not niacinamide) is very much “fundamentally different” for the following reasons:

(1) Its patented structure dramatically improves penetration of the molecule into skin, delivering Niacin to skin cells to stimulate natural repair processes (see attached graph from clinical study comparing Pro-Niacin® to niacinamide).

The attached “study” is simply a graph showing their form of niacinamide performed better than “regular” niacinamide. There are lots of studies from Procter & Gamble indicating niacinamide’s affinity for certain cell receptors. The doctors behind Nia 24 may feel their form of niacinamide is superior, but that stands to reason given their stake in the company (Sources: British Journal of Dermatology, September 2008, pages 567-577; Dermatologic Surgery, July 2005, pages 860-865; and Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, March 2007, pages 20-26).

To further illustrate this point, consider this quote from the Cosmetic Ingredient Review board’s final report of the safety assessment of niacinamide and niacin: “The CIR Expert Panel considered that Niacinamide and Niacin are sufficiently similar from a toxicologic standpoint to combine the available data and reach a conclusion on the safety of both as cosmetic ingredients.” They also stated that “Both ingredients are readily absorbed from skin, blood, and the intestines and widely distribute throughout the body” (Source: International Journal of Toxicology, 2005 Supplement, pages 1-31).

(2) As stated previously, Nicotinic Acid stimulates mechanisms NOT stimulated by niacinamide. Refer to attached 2009 published paper for a more in depth review.

Their paper mentions this but the studies were done by the doctors behind Nia 24 and the paper has a disclaimer stating that it is “sponsored research managed in accordance with the Arizona Board of Reagents conflict-of-interest policies, supported in part by Niadyne Development. All of the published studies on PubMed dealing with myristyl nicotinate were performed by the doctors behind Nia 24. In contrast, there is significantly more (and more varied) research about niacinamide’s role in skin care and overall health care. If anything, when we wrote the review we relied more on those studies instead of what the Jacobsons have published about their form of niacinamide. Although it’s true that P&G’s studies on niacinamide are tied to their use of this ingredient in several Olay products, there is a wealth of independent, substantiated research on niacinamide that is simply lacking for myristyl nicotinate. However, based on what we know about how niacinamide functions topically, we concluded that the Nia 24 products would, in fact, offer skin multiple benefits.

This is an important bit of research sourced from the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, April 2004:

Nicotinic acid (also generally known as niacin) and niacinamide (also known as nicotinamide) are similarly effective as a vitamin because they can be converted into each other within the organism. The blanket term vitamin B(3) is used for both. Niacinamide is a component of important coenzymes involved in hydrogen transfer. Here, the two codehydrogenases, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADP) are of central importance. Topical application of niacinamide has a stabilizing effect on epidermal barrier function, seen as a reduction in transepidermal water loss and an improvement in the moisture content of the horny layer. Niacinamide leads to an increase in protein synthesis (e.g. keratin), has a stimulating effect on ceramide synthesis, speeds up the differentiation of keratinocytes, and raises intracellular NADP levels. In ageing skin, topical application of niacinamide improves the surface structure, smoothes out wrinkles and inhibits photocarcinogenesis. It is possible to demonstrate anti-inflammatory effects in acne, rosacea and nitrogen mustard-induced irritation. Because of its verifiable beneficial effects, niacinamide would be a suitable component in cosmetic products for use in disorders of epidermal barrier function, for ageing skin, for improving pigmentary disorders and for use on skin prone to acne.

If this is true, and we have no reason to doubt it isn’t, it can be argued (just as we did in the summary for Nia 24) that these ingredients are so similar that their benefits overlap: either one is going to improve your skin. Nia 24 products are going to benefit your skin due to myristyl nicotinate’s similarity to niacinamide.

7. “This isn’t an affordable line by any stretch of the imagination.” – See attached Competitive Cost Analysis comparing NIA 24® to similar physician channel brand. In comparison to other lines that provide similar clinically proven results within skin, this line is quite competitive and is not considered “pricey” by most of our accounts.

The slides presented are not legible and the attachment cannot be enlarged beyond 100%, which still keeps the typeset unreadable. Regardless, although Nia 24 may be a deal when compared to other physician-owned/dispensed brands, the fact remains that there are mass market products with niacinamide that should give any consumer pause when they’re considering which brand to purchase.

I also found this bit of research interesting:

Mammals predominantly use nicotinamide rather than nicotinic acid as a precursor for NAD biosynthesis. Nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase (Nampt) is the rate-limiting enzyme that converts nicotinamide to nicotinamide mononucleotide in the NAD biosynthetic pathway from nicotinamide in mammals. The same protein has also been identified as a cytokine (pre-B-cell colony-enhancing factor or PBEF) or an insulin-mimetic hormone (visfatin).

Source for the above: http://http://journals.lww.com/co-gastroenterology/Abstract/2007/03000/The_regulation_of_nicotinamide_adenine.11.aspx

8. “Their claims of superiority aren’t supported in published studies” (last paragraph, 6th line) – This is completely inaccurate. With over 150 clinical studies, many funded by the National Institutes of Health and many listed in the attached document (only about 20 of these are provided on our website), clinical substantiation of the superiority of myristyl nicotinate to other forms of Niacin is available for your review in high quantity.

I looked over many of these studies, some of which were more claim substantiation-oriented. I didn’t find a single one that concluded myristyl nicotinate was superior to niacinamide. The National Institute of Health Web site didn’t have any of these superiority studies, either though they have considerably more information on niacinamide and skin than myristyl nicotinate and skin.

9. “You’re just as likely to see the same benefits from using less expensive products that contain efficacious amounts of niacinamide. (last paragraph, 7th line) – Please refer to attached graph illustrating the delivery of Pro-Niacin compared to niacinamide. In addition, please refer back to #2 and the attached published article which reviews the presence of nicotinic acid (not niacinamide) receptors on skin cells and the pathway of leptin release and hyperpigmentation reduction via nicotinic acid.

This is a repeat of your belief that the type of niacinamide Nia 24 uses is superior to other forms of niacin. You have not shown irrefutable proof that this is the case. Therefore, given the copious research on niacinamide, it was fair and honest of us to conclude that a consumer is likely to see the same benefits using a well-formulated product with niacinamide as they would using Nia 24’s version of this vitamin.

Again, it is our desire that your review of the NIA 24® products reflect accurate information and convey the 30 years of science that have gone into the making of this range. This proprietary niacin molecule is substantiated with 79 patents granted/pending and over $10 million in clinical data. We have also been chosen by the National Cancer Institute as a potential skin cancer prevention agent. Thus, there is a wealth of clinical studies and data backing the validity of any and all claims made by Niadyne, Inc.

Without question myristyl nicotinate has potential as a chemoprotective and anti-cancer ingredient, particularly in regard to skin cancer and precancerous lesions. However, so does niacinamide (not to mention many drugs such as 5-fluorouracil or imiquimod). The fact that the National Cancer Institute acknowledges myristyl nicotinate doesn’t mean it is the best or the only option to protect skin from UV damage that may lead to various skin cancers.