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.