Here’s a quick glimpse into the cosmetic industry and how the people who run it really don’t want you to know what’s really going on with your skin or the products you’re using. This example, though there are countless ones, is courtesy of Patricia Wexler M.D..

Frequently, we review products using sample sizes, which rarely if ever include full ingredient listings (we’re putting it on our face, shouldn’t we know what’s in it even if it’s a sample?), so then it’s up to us to track down the information either by calling the company’s CS number, emailing or traipsing off to the local mall to find the product so we can provide the most useful and accurate review. In this case, I’d sent in an email request for information on a new product to Bath & Body Works, the parent company to Patricia Wexler’s line, to which I received this reply:

“Information regarding the ingredients we use and the manufacturing of cosmetics and toiletry items can be found at your local library, and we encourage you to do some research there.”

The library? Of all the responses Paula has gotten from a cosmetic company this one takes the cake, and from an MD no less. How rude can you get? The email’s patronizing tone aside, Paula’s standard is that we don’t rely on the cosmetic company any way, and personally I must admit that I love that opportunity to assuage my nerdy heart. I’m a big fan of getting lost in the library stacks, so I decided to take Patricia Wexler’s advice and do some research at the library on her brand and the ingredients they use aside from the information Paula provides or would research on her own (I want Paula’s job). Well, wouldn’t you know it, I came up short on library resources that would helped illuminate what ingredients she uses in her products – as if that information could be found easily at the local library!

However, my efforts proved worth the trouble, because I did find this little nugget in Ellen Lupton’s 2007 book Skin: It’s a quote from none other than Patricia Wexler herself, making an unfortunate, sweeping generalization about women’s attitudes toward beauty products containing objectionable ingredients. She says, “When it comes to cosmetic matters, women have a ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell me, please!’ policy” (pg. 41). Well, I’m not one of those women, and nor are the millions of women who read Paula’s books and come to visit our web site www.Beautypedia.com. Perhaps that’s why Wexler has her share of problematic products. She figured as long as her name was on them and her professional reputation intact, women would simply use what she told them to use, and spend their money indiscriminately. Never a good idea, but our readers and visitors already know that, now if only cosmetic company’s like Wexler’s would learn the same thing! Sigh.

To be honest, doing “field work” for Beautypedia is always stressful. Though I’m certain I’ll probably never be exposed as working “undercover” for Beautypedia at the cosmetics counters, there are a fair amount of nerve racking encounters (pun intended) that take over when I’m trying to get information that you know someone doesn’t want you to have, regardless of whether you are entitled to it (and when it comes to ingredient listings on cosmetics that is absolutely public information).

Before I came to work for Beautypedia, I was easily intimidated by cosmetic counter people; they always made me feel “sized up,” and less aware and informed then they are. Now that I have learned quite a bit doing my job here at Beautypedia and reading Paula’s reviews and accumulated research I know these salespeople are pathetically misinformed and I can see that the judgmental arch in their brows is completely meaningless.

A recent OMG moment took place at a Clarins counter. I approached with my Beautypedia coworker, and we browsed the displays, picking up testers and trying to seem interested while we scanned for the specific item we were seeking. The counter person greeted us, and I explained that I was doing some pre-Mother’s Day shopping for my Mom who has very sensitive skin. Before I bought her anything, I explained, I’d need to check the ingredient list with my Dad to be sure that it didn’t contain any of her “no-nos.” This all seems plausible enough, and well within my rights as a consumer, so once I’d found the $80 jar-packaged anti-wrinkle cream I sought, I began to jot down the ingredients on a small notepad.

Before I’d finished the first row of ingredients, the lady stopped me and said, “You really only need to write down the first five ingredients.” She looked me square in the eye, and continued, “The rest aren’t really that important.” Really? Really!! That’s interesting because the product’s claims showcase the inclusion of specific extracts, and in this product, which has 42 ingredients total, the ingredient featured by name on the box is #18! So if the first five ingredients are the only ones that matter, then why boast about the 18th ingredient? Doesn’t make sense, does it? Needless to say, I wrote down all 42 of the ingredients, and walked away, shaking my head in disbelief once again.

One of the enjoyable parts of researching for Beautypedia (and there are many!) is creating the various stories we need to use that will gain us access at a cosmetic counter to the ingredient lists they often refuse to let us write down. As fictitious are our tales often are, these stories don’t exactly haunt our consciences because they often reflect the kind of questions that Beautypedia subscribers ask us all the time and are never so far-fetched that they don’t resemble that of an actual customer. Examples would be when subscribers seek to check an unknown ingredient with their dermatologist, or cross check for interactions with other products, or just simply want to be informed consumers. We know we are working on your behalf when we’re out there collecting information, which makes it all the more frustrating when the answers don’t come easily, or in many cases accurately.

Fortunately for Beautypedia subscribers, we have the expertise to tell if the information we’ve been given by a cosmetics counter representative doesn’t add up. Without that kind of expertise, however, consumers trying to figure out what to buy are at a serious disadvantage. If there’s one thing that we’ve learned as researchers for Beautypedia, it’s that the cosmetics counter people don’t consistently or even often distribute correct information. Whether it’s intentionally misleading or (more likely) simply borne of bad sales training which produces complete and utter misinformation of their own product, we’re frequently reminded that salespeople are exactly that, salespeople and it’s not wise to rely on the information they give you about skin care or the value of the products they sell.

Case in point: Last week I called a Shiseido counter for foundation’s ingredients and the salesperson couldn’t even find the ingredient list on the box. And even though I patiently assured her that it was there somewhere, she became flustered and snapped “I’m the one looking at it, and I can assure you it’s not listed.” You can imagine the restraint it required not to call her back and gloat, after the next counter I called had found it without any trouble at all.

Locating the ingredients isn’t the only hurdle, however. Sometimes, companies can’t decide which ingredients they’re using at all. Take, for instance, a few phone calls we made recently to a few cosmetic counters in order to confirm the active ingredient in a Laura Mercier sunscreen. ALL SPF products must list the active ingredients they use in their products. I mean, it’s a simple question: “Can you tell me the active ingredients for your sunscreen?” The first counter person told us, “Argan Oil,” which, incidentally, is neither a sunscreen ingredient nor an active ingredient of any kind. The next counter we called told us “Oxybenzone,” which is indeed a sunscreen, but the counter rep couldn’t tell us the amount used and it is rarely used by itself on an ingredient list. We then called Laura Mercier’s corporate office; they told us “titanium dioxide,” a wholly different ingredient from the last, and the amount they specified? “Less than 1%.” If that’s the case it doesn’t amount to much more then an SPF of 2! Geesh!

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.