Estee Lauder has a new anti-wrinkle product (I know, what a shock; add this to the other 300 anti-wrinkle products they sell from their various lines). Perfectionist [CP+] Targeted Deep Wrinkle Filler ($39.50 for 1 ounce) is said to be a “powerful daily treatment for your deepest wrinkles”. It’s designed to be used on lines around the eye, creases in the forehead, furrows between the brow—anywhere you have lines that don’t go away when your face is expressionless.

This type of product isn’t anything new. Estee Lauder’s defunct Prescriptives brand offered a version of this product years ago in their Magic line, Lancome had their Touche Optimage Line Blurring Concentrate, and Lauder-owned Good Skin (sold at Kohl’s department stores) sells TriAktiline Instant Deep Wrinkle Filler. All of these are silicone-based serum-like products that serve as a soft spackle for wrinkles and large pores. You pat the product into and over creases, and they have a superficial, temporary filling effect. How long results last depend on the formula and, more critically, how expressive you are. And of course, none of these products have even a fractional ability to work like Botox or dermal fillers, but that’s another story.

We’re about to review this new Perfectionist product on Beautypedia, and although we don’t typically try products before we review them (we prefer to focus on the ingredient list, product claims, and research rather than personal experience which doesn’t help thousands of women know what really works) I decided to give this a go. At age 36, I have some minor lines around my eyes and wanted to see how Perfectionist would work to “push up” my wrinkles, as the copy on the packaging reads.

I followed the directions provided and dispensed a small amount of this wrinkle filler into my lines, gently patting to smooth the excess. This filler has a texture that is very much like spackle, so I instantly felt like I was doing some serious patchwork under the bright lights of my bathroom. Perfectionist feels supremely silky and sets quickly to a soft, powder-like matte finish laced with subtle sparkles, which I didn’t care for. The filling effect was impressive. It really did a good job of smoothing superficial lines—definitely better than my usual moisturizer.

Here’s the part where things started to go downhill. I reasoned that most women using this product are likely to apply it before makeup. After all, why bother with the cosmetic effect of filling lines right before going to sleep? You want your lines to be less apparent during the day, right? So once Perfectionist had set, I pulled out a Lauder foundation and applied it around the eyes. Imagine my surprise when the makeup looked TERRIBLE over the area where Perfectionist was applied. Lauder’s liquid foundation looked patchy and, as the day went by the skin around my eyes looked cracked and crepy—Perfectionist + foundation actually made me look older! How depressing is that?

Back at the office, I tried several other foundations over the Perfectionist Wrinkle Filler. Any liquid or cream-to-powder foundation with any type of silicone in it didn’t look good. In fact, the combination made wrinkles and even minor lines more apparent. When I applied a silicone-free foundation (Laura Mercier’s Oil-Free) over Perfectionist, the result was great. This combination kept the lines filled while actually allowing the foundation to look better than it does when used alone. The problem is that the majority of foundations, concealers, and most tinted moisturizers sold today contain one or more forms of silicone. You shouldn’t have to give up your favorite foundation or concealer in order to experience the benefits (however temporary) Perfectionist offers.

Oddly enough, the aforementioned TriAktiline Instant Deep Wrinkle Filler from Lauder-owned Good Skin works beautifully with foundations and concealers that contain silicone.

One more comment: Lauder isn’t known for offering fragrance-free skin-care products, and Perfectionist is no exception. After a few days of applying this product around my eyes, I experienced stinging and tenderness on my skin and in my eyes. Both issues went away as soon as I stopped using this product, which has a much stronger scent than what anyone should be applying so close to their eyes (and what woman who purchases this product to fill wrinkles isn’t going to try it around her eyes?)

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

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

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

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

I was struck by an ad I saw in a magazine for Clinique. The copy asserted their products were tested on thousands of people and if even one of them has an allergic reaction they would reformulate the product. I don’t doubt Clinique’s advertisement, assuming a gigantic company the size of Lauder (Clinique is owned by Lauder) could easily get caught up on something like that. So is it true? Have thousands of people never had an allergic reaction to a Clinique product after or before it launches? It can’t possibly be true. Everyone can be allergic to something. That’s a fact; just think of how many people you know who are allergic to bees, pollen, dust, dogs, cats, sesame seeds, shellfish, milk, wheat, lanolin, peanuts, and on and on and on and on.

Taking this into account in light of Clinique’s claim that they reformulate even if one person had an allergic reaction, there would be a strong likelihood that someone else or many people would be allergic to the new ingredient change when they retested the product. In other words, Clinique would be continually going back to the drawing board, forever trying to create a product that absolutely no one has an allergic reaction to—a feat that simply isn’t possible.

Though I am extremely skeptical of Clinique’s claim (and that is truly an understatement), giving them the benefit of doubt, how could this claim be true so it could be boldly states in a magazine ad? I couldn’t get an answer from Clinique as to what kind of testing they used to support this boast so let me postulate a few theories:

Most cosmetic testing for allergic reactions is done by an occlusive patch test on some part of the body other than the face. After three days to six weeks of putting the ingredient or product on, say, the forearm, they uncover it and see if a histamine reaction was elicited. While that kind of information can be helpful, not all parts of the body react the same way to the same substance. Facial skin reacts very differently than skin on the arm does. So the arm doing well with this patch test doesn’t tell you how the face would’ve done under the same conditions.

Let’s take it a step further and assume Clinique did the test on thousands of faces and no one had an allergic reaction (again that’s really stretching, but without proof one way or the other, we’re working on their claim as true premise) does that translate to better products for your skin? Not in the least. It would be nice if a formula was free of producing histamines but an allergic reaction isn’t the only reaction you need to be concerned about. What about ingredients that cause skin damaging irritation? And at the other end of the spectrum what about ingredients that offer no benefit at all. An allergy test would be completely meaningless for those important concerns.

An allergic reaction is only a small part of a cosmetic’s impact on your skin. Irritation from fragrant plant extracts (which Clinique occasionally uses), synthetic fragrance, highly alkaline ingredients, preservatives, alcohol, and harsh abrasives would seriously damage skin and that has nothing to do with allergies. And what about skin care routines that don’t offer sun protection? Again, no allergic reaction, but you would be exposing your skin to a risk of skin cancer and a 100% guarantee of premature aging and wrinkles.

Beneath cosmetic claims lurks curves and turns you have to watch out for. Think twice and then a third time before you absorb and accept the information cosmetics companies want you to believe. More often than not, they are fraught with half-truths, misleading information, and, surprising amount of time they’re little more than out-and-out lies.

I am a lipstick junkie. I love the way my lips look with lipstick on. You will rarely ever see me without lipstick. I particularly love red lipstick. Red is just so classic, both retro and elegant at the same time. But I can’t wear red lipstick. Actually, I struggle with just about any lipstick color! Without exception all lipsticks eventually bleed on me, traveling straight into the lines around my mouth. This was even a problem for me when I was younger but it is even worse now.

My own matte lipsticks were the best ones for me on the market, they stayed on and held back from bleeding into lines longer then anything else I ever tested. Not that there were that many options to test. Regrettably, the direction lipsticks have taken over the past several years has been for the worse as far as my lips are concerned. Consumers want to buy lip glosses and lipsticks that are slippery, greasy, shiny swaths of color. In fact most lipsticks are little more the lip glosses in stick form. True creamy lipsticks bleed fast enough but glossy, slippery lipsticks are as fast as lightening into lines around the mouth. The term “matte” on lipsticks is mostly meaningless; they are almost always creamy or glossy, not matte in the least.

But with one fantastic new lipstick, all of that has changed. I am now in love with Estee Lauder’s Double Wear Stay in Place Lipstick ($22). It goes on creamy and slippery (which scared me at first) but it dried into place and didn’t move, not a millimeter. The lines around my mouth were lipstick free and the lipstick stayed on for what seemed like all day.

I bought and used the rose and coral color which were perfect. And then I went back and decided to try the red, which was a gorgeous true shade of red with a slight blue undertone. I put it on and the color was perfect, dramatic and so completely Vogue from the ‘50s. Then I waited. I checked my magnifying mirror every few minutes, then on the hour, and then finally, after about 6 or 7 hours it seemed obvious that this wasn’t going to bleed! Shangri-La for my lips!

Because I am a reviewer at heart and not one to share personal anecdotal information very often let me say that not everyone is going to appreciate how matte this is and if you put a lip gloss on top you lose the benefit of the matte finish and the feathering will ensue. But for those women whose lipstick spreads all over their face shortly after application this is one you simply must try.

I just got off the phone with a reporter. I could scream. It was a completely bizarre conversation that went something like this.

Reporter: What skin care products are worth splurging on?

Me: None. Save your money, there isn’t an expensive skin care product that can’t be replaced by an inexpensive option.

Reporter: But aren’t there advances in skin care that are worth spending your money on like Estee Lauder using situins.

Me: Sirtuins are a group of enzymes that protect cells. Lauder is using an ingredient they are calling resveratrate in their Re-Nutriv Ultimate Youth Crème. It is similar to resveratrol, an antioxidant from grapes. That’s nice but there are lots of great antioxidants, this isn’t the miracle one. And does that mean all the other Lauder anti-aging products (think Clinique, Aveda, Prescriptives, La Mer etc.) should be dumped? And by the way, did you notice the product comes in a jar and that antioxidants don’t stay stable in jar packaging?

Reporter: Oh right, jars. But I’ve talked to the President of Lauder and they are reformulating all their products.

Me: I don’t believe that for a second, but assuming that’s true shouldn’t they write a press release saying this is the best of our products forget the others? Or at least alert their loyal customers that, oops, they goofed but this time they’re really going to get it right and tell you the truth?

We had a few more back and forths that didn’t make any sense either but this was the kicker:

Reporter: Nothing really works right so it doesn’t matter?

Me: That’s not true at all. There is a ton of research showing there are wonderful, potent, powerfully effective ingredients that can benefit skin. What’s true is that there just isn’t a magic bullet. There isn’t one ingredient that is the final miracle for skin.

Reporter: There is no research showing that to be true.

Me: Of course there is, just check the National Institute for Health’s database of over 5,000 science journals.

Reporter: I don’t believe research done by the cosmetic companies.

Me: There are mostly studies done outside of the cosmetic industry, but even if the studies are from the industry as long as the studies are published and you can evaluate how they were done and the results, you can make an informed decision.

Reporter: Those studies are always biased.

Me: Then ignore the studies from cosmetics companies and just focus on the ones that are from independent sources.

Reporter: They’re all biased except the ones from Universities.

Me: But cosmetic companies often pay institutions for their studies. But this is all off topic… you were asking about products that are worth splurging on and I’m saying there aren’t any so I’m probably not the best person for your story.

Reporter: But what about sirtuins and clock genes?

Me: Well I could quote you the research as it relates to the cosmetic industry but you just said you don’t believe any unbiased research exists, you don’t trust the research from cosmetic companies but you believe the press releases you get from cosmetics companies? I’m confused.

There was a bit more, but you get the gist of it. And these are the people writing stories about skin care “breakthroughs” that my readers find and then ask me about. Sigh. I really did try to help this reporter but somehow I think I only made matters worse by stating the facts!

As researchers for Beautypedia, it’s fair to say we work the beat for the Cosmetics Cop precinct. Every day we take to the phones and to the streets in an effort to track down complete and correct ingredient information for the thousands of products housed in Beautypedia. Considering that no formula-specific or trade secrets are revealed within these lists (and that these products go on our bodies and faces) it’s simply baffling that this information isn’t made readily available. Companies like to boast about their newest, magical ingredients and then suddenly get shy when you want to know anything more (basic stuff like studies or research details). The more time we spend patrolling the industry for Beautypedia, the more we feel that you should know the kind of lengths we have to go to do our jobs– it’s sometimes amusing, often maddening, and always makes us shake our heads in disbelief.

What’s so infuriating is that sometimes even the bigwigs in the cosmetic industry agree that disclosing ingredient information is important, and yet either hypocritically or just because they think no one will notice they keep this information deliberately unavailable or difficult to access. For example, in this month’s ELLE Jane Lauder (VP and GM of Origins, not to mention Estee Lauder’s granddaughter) went on the record as saying “Every company should be clear about what ingredients it is using.” If only that were true! This quote brought a groan from all of us here at Beautypedia that could have been heard around the world. First of all, Estee Lauder is one of the more notorious companies for making it almost impossible for us to get ingredient information from – their web sites are void of ingredient listings. For us that means we have go to the cosmetic counter and transcribe it by hand, or contact their call center and wait 1-5 days for the ingredient list to be sent to you, if it arrives at all.

I know “mineral” makeup remains a popular choice for many women. There are some great mineral makeup options available for those who are fans of this type of product. But without question this is one cosmetic product where the claims has spiraled out of control and taken on a fairytale life of their own (and I don’t mean Aesop’s Fables, because at least those have a good homily at the end, the story behind mineral makeup is all lies and puffery to the max!).

I read an article about mineral makeup in the April issue of Day Spa magazine. This is a publication that is tailored for estheticians and other spa professionals (the ones that are going to be selling you the myth). There were so much false, ridiculous information I lost count. In fact, I couldn’t even finish the article; it was that bogus. Here are a few of the big lies the article intended to position as key selling points and benefits of using mineral makeup, followed by my response.

• Cleopatra started the mineral makeup trend centuries ago, so once again modern-day women can learn from the ancient wisdom of this Egyptian ruler.
  Does anyone still believe that Cleopatra had such forward-thinking knowledge of beauty? The woman lived at a time when products resembling what we refer to as mineral makeup were impossible to make. And if they dug up iron oxides, titanium, and other earth minerals they had no idea these were contaminated with toxic minerals such as lead, mercury, and cadmium. Cosmetic-grade ingredients are what are allowed today, and they’re purified to remove contaminants. And ancient wisdom? The Egyptians sacrificed human beings to their gods, buried family members alive with the king, and had hordes of slaves. Clearly an advance civilization we should learn from! Puhlease!!!
• The spa industry likes mineral makeup as something that sets them apart from the cosmetics industry at large.
  Perhaps that was true several years ago, when the only place to find mineral makeup was in small salons and spas carrying such lines as Youngblood or Jane Iredale. That’s definitely not the case anymore—mineral makeup is everywhere, from small cosmetic lines sold at Ulta to brands known worldwide such as Estee Lauder and Lancôme and Neutrogena and Maybelline. If anything, these non-spa cosmetic lines have improved mineral makeup considerably while many spa brands seem to be resting on their laurels and have not kept up with new technology.
• “Mineral makeup is all-natural and there are no by-products created during their production.”
  This one is patently false. Although the minerals in mineral makeup may have begun as a natural source, the process that turns titanium into titanium dioxide or bismuth into bismuth oxychloride is anything but natural—and it certainly produces by-products as they are chemically manipulated and manufactured to be suitable as cosmetic pigments and binding agents. Remember, in most cases these naturally-occurring minerals must be purified to remove harmful elements that, while also natural, aren’t what you’d ever want to put on your face.
• Mineral makeup is a green alternative to chemical-based cosmetics.
  This is a big selling point used by many lines selling mineral makeup exclusively. They attempt to scare consumers into believing that mineral makeup is the only safe, pure option and everything else is laden with “chemicals”. The word “chemicals” is used to inspire fear (and it works remarkably well, at least based on the emails we get) even though the basic truth is…..EVERYTHING is made up of chemicals! Yes, even natural ingredients are composed of chemicals (so many, in fact, that in some instances a synthetic version of a natural ingredient is actually safer and more beneficial because the potentially harmful chemicals are not included). Please don’t fall for the “chemical-free” claim many mineral makeup brands promote. It’s a lie, and the consumer is being duped big time.
• Bismuth oxychloride is “one of the best ingredients because it helps clear bacteria and heal skin”.
  The quote above is from the owner of a small mineral makeup company, and she is soooo wrong! Bismuth oxychloride is a synthetic ingredient that has no substantiated research anywhere proving it has antibacterial properties or has any healing effect on skin. It is used in mineral makeup due to its opacity and pearlescent finish, plus it adheres well to skin. In contrast, zinc oxide (another ingredient in some mineral makeups) has healing properties for wounds and there is documented evidence to support this (Sources: Wound Repair and Regeneration, January-February 2007, pages 2-16; and September-October 2006, pages 526-535) but lots of cosmetic companies use zinc oxide, this is hardly unique to mineral makeup!
• Mineral makeup helps keep skin hydrated.
  Anyone with dry skin who has tried mineral makeup without the benefit of a moisturizer underneath knows what a bunch of bunk that statement is! Traditional loose powder mineral makeup is composed of absorbent materials that are incapable of hydrating skin. Some of the ingredients may have natural water content, but their absorbent nature won’t transfer that water to your thirsty skin. Even it did, skin needs more than water to rebuild its barrier and reduce dryness. Believing that mineral makeup is the least bit hydrating is akin to thinking you can scrub away acne and blackheads. In both cases, it just isn’t going to happen.

There’s more, but I am sure by now you’re getting what a puff piece of reporting this story is—and this is the type of garbage well-meaning estheticians read, believe, and then pass on to their clients. Misinformation begetting misinformation, but hey, it’s selling product so why not? I’m not out to bad-mouth any esthetician. Even with their skills and experience, they can be just as prone to hyperbole as the rest of us. But if you are an esthetician and you read this blog, please think twice before jumping on the mineral makeup bandwagon for the reasons listed above. Mineral makeup has its place and certainly its proponents, but it doesn’t deserve its prefabricated status as the safe and natural.

“A famous scientist [doctor, chemist, pharmacist, dermatologist, or whatever—I've heard it all] created this formula and it is only now available to the public.”

Lots of doctors and chemists are involved in creating all kinds of products in the world of cosmetics, but all cosmetics contain standard cosmetic ingredients. They can’t contain anything else, as drugs do, or they would be regulated quite differently.

My favorite example of this type of claim is Estee Lauder Creme de la Mer. Quite a story accompanies this very costly little cream! It was created by Max Huber, a NASA aerospace physicist, supposedly to take care of burns he received in an accident. He sold and marketed this product himself. After his death, his daughter continued selling the cream until recently, when Estee Lauder purchased the rights to manufacture and distribute it.

The reality is that this very basic, and I mean really basic, cream doesn’t contain anything particularly extraordinary or unique, unless you want to believe that seaweed extract (sort of like seaweed tea) can somehow be worth this much money, or that it can in some way heal burns and scars. According to Susan Brawley, professor of plant biology at the University of Maine, “seaweed extract isn’t a rare, exotic, or expensive ingredient. Seaweed extract is readily available and used in everything from cosmetics to food products and medical applications.” Creme de la Mer contains mostly seaweed extract, mineral oil, petrolatum (similar to Vaseline), glycerin, waxlike thickening agents, plant oils, plant seeds, minerals, vitamins, more thickeners, and preservatives. How expensive can it be to stick some seaweed and vitamins in a cosmetic? According to the cosmetics chemists I’ve interviewed, it costs pennies, not hundreds of dollars.

Moreover, several additional products with formulas that are unrelated to the first now accompany Creme de la Mer’s original miracle product. If the first one was so spectacular why did it need company, and why did the subsequent products have completely different formulations? I guess the original wasn’t quite the miracle formula they thought it was.

Before I came to work for Paula, I spent several years working for various cosmetic companies, usually at the department store. For the most part, I enjoyed it. I taught myself how to do makeup, and developed a loyal clientele of regulars who requested my advice on what to purchase or how to apply it. But whether I worked at stores in the Midwest, south, or northwest United States, one thing was constant: women shopping for a new lipstick routinely gravitated toward colors that were similar if not nearly identical to what was already in their purse or on their vanities.

Here’s how the average scenario went: a woman approaches the counter with determined gusto and surveys the lipstick tester unit. I greet her and offer assistance, to which her response is that she’s “looking for a new color”. After a few questions to narrow down her preferences (creamy, matte, sheer, bright or muted colors, etc.) I make some suggestions. Sometimes that worked, sometimes it didn’t. After some frustrating experiences, I began asking women to show me the lipstick they use most often. It was almost always a pink-brown shade or a nude color. That’s fine, but then why, if you’re shopping for a new color, did they end up choosing something barely different from what they routinely wear?

I’d suggest going lighter, darker, more shimmery, pinker, or even (horrors!) trying a red tone, almost always to no avail. I have spoken to many women about this over the years, including those in my family and personal friends. None of them could give me a reasonable explanation for why they shop for a new lipstick color and end up purchasing the same type of shade they’ve always worn. So I have my own theory: the novelty and excitement of shopping for a new lipstick, that one shade that will give you an added boost and make people take notice (for the better) is just too irresistible. It gets women to the cosmetic counter, but when it comes time to select a truly new color, they back down and stick with what’s safe.

Perhaps they don’t want to leave feeling they’ve wasted their money (nowadays a department store lipstick can set you back $23 or more) or perhaps common sense prevails and they rationalize that what they chose is different enough to work, and hey, they really will wear it. Maybe that’s why free gifts with purchase are so popular: women can spend the qualifying amount on a product they’re certain they like and will use, yet still have the impetuous fun of trying new colors without the financial commitment. As for me, I learned that if I only suggested “new” colors that were slightly different than what the customer typically wore, she’d leave happy—and I’d have my commission and, more than likely, a repeat customer!

Did You Know? According to a survey conducted by Estee Lauder, more than 80% of women own at least one tube of lipstick; Women over the age of 35 use lipstick more frequently than younger women; Paula’s favorite cosmetic lines for those looking for gorgeous red lipsticks include Revlon, Lorac, Vincent Longo, and Trish McEvoy.