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

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

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

A reader recently wrote an email taking Paula to task for reviewing products favorably when the company or brand behind them is known to conduct animal testing. This reader didn’t appreciate Paula praising a product when the very product in question may have been used for animal testing purposes, resulting in needless cruelty and death.

Without question, the issue of animal testing is complex and fraught with moral ambiguity. That is why Paula and her team made the decision years ago to not let a company’s animal testing status affect how products are reviewed. Instead, we chose to let consumers decide whether they want to support a company that engages in this practice or not. As fewer and fewer cosmetic companies continue to rely on animal testing, the neutral stance we’ve chosen has become less of an issue.

Despite this, the reader’s email nagged at me. She specified that we review many Olay products positively yet she won’t use this brand or any other owned by Olay’s parent company, Procter & Gamble. I have some friends who feel the same way, too. I decided to contact a P&G employee we’ve developed a professional relationship with. I wanted to hear firsthand what the company would say about this issue. Here is the response I received:

“P&G Beauty & Grooming’s position is we do not test our products on animals; nor do we ask suppliers to test them on our behalf. We do not test ingredients on animals, except in very rare cases when needed to meet government-mandated or safety obligations. Today, the vast majority of P&G’s cosmetic and grooming safety assessments (i.e., >99%) are conducted by using non-animal alternative methods. This is a direct result of our leadership efforts in developing alternative methods [to animal testing]. As a company, P&G has invested more than $250 million to date in helping to develop more than 50 proven alternative methods. And, we are committed to continuing our leadership in research to develop non-animal alternative methods which will ultimately result in the elimination of all animal testing.”

Given the breadth of P&G’s brand portfolio and the worldwide regulations they must abide by, it isn’t surprising that they may need to conduct a small amount of animal testing to meet regulatory, toxicology, or safety requirements. However, it seems they have abandoned animal testing as it relates to personal care products, which is great news.

I was surprised at how much money the company has invested in developing alternatives to animal testing. $250 million is an incredible sum! It’s clearly not one a corporation would offer if they weren’t interested in putting an end to animal suffering in the name of human beauty. My hat is off to them for their ongoing efforts, which no doubt will result in better products with stronger pre-market safety records.

As for consumers, including the woman whose email inspired this blog, the ball remains in your court. Are P&G’s efforts to phase out animal testing enough to convince you to shop their brands—or would you prefer to take an all-or-nothing approach and steer clear until they go on record stating that all company-sponsored animal testing has ceased? The choice is yours but it must be said that avoiding P&G products means you will not be using some of the best the cosmetics industry has to offer. Clearly, for many this issue isn’t as black and white as it once was.

One thing in cosmetic advertising that gets consumers and reporters every time is the claim about “our studies show…”.

“Our studies show” is a major attention-getting technique used in cosmetic advertising and press releases. Studies are great and vital to understanding how skin works and what helps skin work better, but not all studies are created equal and one study is not definitive of anything, and a study paid for by the company selling the product is ALWAYS circumspect. It’s not that the study may not be valid, but the bias is present from the beginning and that must always be taken into consideration. Though if it was really a valid study it would appear in a science journal of some kind but that is almost NEVER the case.

More to the point, any legitimate research would include the negative studies as well or compare other products from other lines (not just the one paying from the company paying for the study). No one has even seen a cosmetic company tell you about the studies they did where the product tested didn’t work or if other products from other companies worked as well. From my perspective that would be even more fascinating information but it will be a cold day in hell before that kind of data is ever offered up by a cosmetics company.

There are lots of great examples of how media hype can generate tremendous interest in (and resulting sales of) a product. It reminds me of the frenzy after ads for StriVectin-SD appeared in Parade magazine, with the tag line “Better than Botox!” Beauty chat rooms were quick to crown this serum as an anti-aging powerhouse, simply on the basis of media attention alone. It’s not that this serum isn’t worth purchasing, but I wouldn’t recommend anyone consider it over tretinoin or several other serums whose formulas outpace this one.

And don’t get me started on how the “studies” are designed to create the results they are going after.

Think about it, even the cosmetic companies bragging about their studies don’t believe their own claims or they wouldn’t be selling dozens of other products making the same promises about getting rid of wrinkles. If the one they launched worked what are all the others for?