I just had to blog about a recent experience I had at Barneys department store in Seattle. We’re working diligently to update all the brands to be featured in the 8th edition of Paula’s book, Don’t Go to the Cosmetics Counter Without Me, as well as compiling information for new skin care brands that will be added to the book and www.beautypedia.com. It’s going to be a busy summer!

Chantecaille was the line I’ve been working on. I was almost finished with compiling all of the information, but needed one more ingredient list for a moisturizer: the Nano Gold Energizing Cream. I’d called various stores and spas locally, as well as a spa in Vegas that sells the brand, hoping that someone would be willing to photocopy the info and fax it to me (this was offered by a local spa, but they were out of stock of this product) but nothing panned out. I also tried requesting the information through live chat of department stores that carry this brand. No luck. So my last resort was trying Barneys in Seattle. I’ve heard stories of Paula’s employees who had helped with her previous books and their experiences at Barneys. Needless to say, they’re not the most pleasant department store to visit for the information we need, as I soon found out for myself.

I called in advance to see if I could come in and write down the ingredient list. The gentleman on the phone offered various other solutions, like trying Chantecaille’s web site, or other retailers who might carry it. I told him I’d exhausted all of those options, and would like to just come in and quickly jot down the information. I assured him I’d make myself discreet and wouldn’t get in his way. He agreed.

After sitting through our infamous freeway traffic, I was at the door for Barneys. Deep breath. I walked in and a saleswoman smiled, but offered no help. I looked around for the Chantecaille products, and decided I wanted to get in and get out as quickly as possible, so I asked for assistance. This saleswoman was eager to give me the catalog for Chantecaille’s products, and pointed out the “key” ingredients listed for the Nano Gold Energizing Cream. I asked if I could see the box and write down the ingredient list in its entirety, rather than just seeing what some of the ingredients are. She hesitated, then brought the cream to me and suspiciously looked me over. As I was jotting down the ingredients as swiftly as my hand could handle the pen, she was shooting all sorts of questions at me: Are you allergic to an ingredient? Is there something specific you’re looking for? (I thought to myself, Yes, I’m trying to come up with a sane reason why someone would buy this ridiculously expensive product!) How was I supposed to write anything down with her hovering like this?! She finally walked away, and the gentleman I spoke with on the phone was standing in front of his counter, eyes locked on me, watching my every move, as if at any second I was going to run out the door with this moisturizer in hand. I was only jotting down information that is readily available if I were to just stand there and read the box! How come if you write down the information it immediately becomes suspicious?

I finished writing down the ingredients and thanked the saleswoman for her help. (She didn’t help all that much, but I thought I’d be friendly about it anyhow.) I didn’t get kicked out, but I sure felt on the verge of being accused of something—though I have no idea of what (maybe wanting to be an informed consumer? Perish the thought!). I’m amazed at how intense the Barneys salespeople were. With a department store that sells only designer (I use that term loosely) brands, you’d think they’d be more eager to help than be so scrutinizing. Especially when someone is inquiring about a $420 moisturizer! Hopefully the next line I handle won’t come down to such a tense standoff between me and some imperious cosmetics salespeople!

I received an email the other day from a woman who wrote to thank us for our advice about using sunscreen and the importance of sun protection. We get complimentary messages like this every so often (and they never fail to delight and motivate us), but this one stood out. The timing of the message coinciding with our latest special report on the best sunscreens plus the fact that it’s summer all coalesced and made this email stand out. Why? Because the dear woman who wrote in included a picture of herself after having had a skin cancer removed from her face. As you will see from the photo below (which she graciously granted us permission to as a powerful visual reminder about the importance of sun protection), removing her skin cancer resulted in a scar in a conspicuous place. Here is the note she sent to us, followed by some additional comments from me:

Paula,
I just read your latest report on sun protection and the guide for the best sunscreens. I wish I had had this information years ago when I was in my early 20’s and thought a tan made me look better. Instead, I believed that using sunscreen just kept me from getting a great tan, so I didn’t bother with it.

Needless to say, here I am at age 57 and am paying the price. Just thought I would send you this picture of what I went through a couple months ago having a tiny basal cell carcinoma removed from my face. Now I’m scarred for life. I NEVER go out without applying sunscreen, but the damage is already done. Hopefully I will not have any more of these skin cancers pop up. I take such good care of my skin now; you can tell from my picture (with no makeup on) that I don’t have any wrinkles thanks to what I learned from you. However, I’m so embarrassed now about the scar down the front of my face.

Please keep up the good work of keeping people informed on the need of using a good sunscreen.

Name withheld by request

This woman’s story of regret and what happened to her after years without sun protection should prompt all of us, whether we want to admit or not, to confront the fact that the sun can cause what no one wants to have: cancer. No matter how good the sun feels on a temperate blue-sky day or how gorgeous you think you look with a deep, dark tan, it’s a sobering fact that the sun can (and does) kill us. Of course, simply applying a well-formulated sunscreen rated SPF 15 or above allows us to enjoy the positive aspects of the sun while severely minimizing its potential to cause damage. Personally, I don’t avoid the sun as much as I enjoy it responsibly, like many other things in life.
I want to thank this woman for sharing her story and photo. I hope it resonates with anyone reading this blog who doesn’t use sun protection or, for whatever reason, continues to tan. Skin cancer isn’t the automatic inevitable outcome of sun damage for everyone, but playing roulette with the health and appearance of your skin is not a bet worth making.

My team and I recently reviewed the Isomers skin care line on www.Beautypedia.com. Within hours of the full review being posted, the Isomers forum (on the company’s Web site) was buzzing with comments, mostly in defense of Isomers. I certainly understand consumers wanting to defend the products they’re using, and without question there were many Isomers products that didn’t get a favorable review (yet many also received happy face ratings). What really struck me was the catty response from Manuela Marcheggiani, a co-owner and spokesperson for Isomers on www.shopnbc.com. I’m not going to post what she wrote, but the summation of her defense to my reviews (which, as always, are based on published, substantiated research or the lack thereof, not my personal opinion of the products) included the following:

• I’m self-serving so what I have to say doesn’t matter
• I look too old, so I couldn’t possibly be using good products to take care of my skin
• My background as a makeup artist disqualifies me from possibly knowing anything else other than how to paint faces
• I’m not respected by any professional associations or professionals in the cosmetics industry
• My reviews are meant to serve as a distraction to make my readers feel insecure and keep them from finding “their own truths”
• The only reason I negatively review a product is to make myself feel better (so according to her, the crux of my work is about nothing more than stroking my ego)

I could go on, but I’m sure you get the idea. Here is what I wrote in response to Manuela’s comments; feel free to comment about this on my blog. I look forward to your feedback, for better or worse (I can take it, so don’t hold back if you’re upset about my review of Isomers):

My goodness, not exactly loving, but definitely filled with feelings (a bit insulting but I’m sure you feel I insulted you so perhaps we can call it even and change karma.) Nonetheless, I do my work based on published research so let me state what I believe to be true by the facts and then we can simply agree to disagree.

• I have sold over 3 million books since 1984.
• I am a member of the Society for Cosmetic Chemists.
• I have presented papers at dermatology conferences around the world.
• I have consulted with many dermatology practices and pharmaceutical companies over the years (I used to be a formulary consultant).
• My books are in dermatology offices around the world (at least those that don’t sell skin care products).
• I have developed products for other cosmetic companies.
• I had a science background in college and continue to follow scientific advances and studies.
• I do love selling my books and selling my products (I assume you love selling your products too).
• I am the only cosmetic company in the world that recommends hundreds of other products besides my own. How self-serving can any company be who isn’t afraid to say someone else has great products too and give them great big happy faces when they do and publish that information?

If you or someone in your company will send me the published research disputing the facts in my review (which we called and asked for before we wrote a word, we were told once that there wasn’t any and the next time that it wasn’t available to the public) I will alter my reviews. For example, what evidence is there, except from the manufacturer, that matrixyl or Accelerated Recovery Complex has benefit for skin in comparison to other products or even by itself. Please provide me any and all research you have and I will be glad to correct any errors.

Paula Begoun, Author Don’t Go To The Cosmetics Counter Without Me and www.beautypedia.com

It almost goes without saying, but since starting to work for Paula, I’ve begun using her products religiously. Sure, it’s taken me a little while to figure out my skin’s preferred product cocktail, but now I wake up each morning unable to believe that the skin I’m looking at belongs to me. Talk about employee benefits!

Now that I’ve committed to my new skin care ritual, I’ve also started to think differently about why I take such good care of my skin. At first, it was thrilling simply to see what my face looked like as it became increasingly blemish-free, as the blackheads that used to pepper my nose became barely perceptible, even in the scary high-magnification mirror. Finally, products that work! Soon friends and family took notice and started to comment, and it felt great. But the more time I spend caring for my skin, the more I am beginning to understand that it’s not just about the way you look, it’s also about the way you feel.

As trite as that sounds, a simple self-esteem boost isn’t exactly what I mean (though it is a lovely byproduct of clear skin). Like I imagine most people do, I used to perform my skincare ritual leaning over the sink, staring at myself in the mirror, focusing on every blemish, hating the enormity of my forehead with my hair pulled back, and cursing fine lines and the beginnings of crow’s feet as I dabbed them with creams. But I’ve started doing something different: Instead of obsessing in the mirror about fixing every flaw as I apply products, I close my eyes while I put them on. The experience is amazing.

With my eyes closed, I can really appreciate the elegant, silky textures of these incredible products as I use them, as well as the softness of my skin – something easy to overlook when you are fixated on only the negative (and, let’s face it, we can always find something negative to fixate on). But I’m learning that reaching complexion perfection isn’t the sole point of skincare, far from it. Whether we choose to acknowledge it (most cosmetic companies certainly do) skincare really is a uniquely tactile experience, and it’s one worth relishing daily. Just by closing my eyes, I can think less about skincare as a way to simply look better and more as a way to feel better – on the inside and out.

Below is the daily routine that I am currently using:

AM
Skin Balancing Cleanser for Normal to Oily/Combination
Skin Balancing Toner
Blemish Fighting Solution (2.5% benzoyl peroxide)
Barely There Sheer Matte Tinted Moisturizer with SPF 20

PM
One Step Face Cleanser for Normal to Oil/Combination
Blemish Fighting Solution ((2.5% benzoyl peroxide)
2% BHA Liquid
Super Antioxidant Concentrate for All Skin Types

I received this letter from a reader:

Hi from Spain. I am independent journalist in nutrition and cosmetics and I have been reading your new book The Original Beauty Bible (its great) and I noted you talk about anti-inflammatory diet. First of all I believe you are so influenced in nutrition by Dr Weil, but the original creator of anti-inflamatory nutrition is Dr Barry Sears (read for example THE ANTI-INFLAMMATION ZONE). Second, it’s so odd for me that you recommend anti-inflammatory diet and then you say diet is not linked with acne and there aren’t studies about this. Really there are many important clinical and published studies about how a high glycemic diet and a low Omega 3 diet worsen acne. You can read chapter 8 of “Cosmetic Dermatology” (2009) by Leslie Baumann MD or all literature of Loren Cordain (in “The Dietary Cure for Acne” explains based on studies how diet affects acne, for me the very best book about this topic). And really all my readers have improved their acne condition following an Omega3 anti-inflammatory diet.

Here are my comments:

While I apprecaited the feedback and the great compliment there were a few things wrong with the assessment. First, in terms of influence, I actually rarely use Dr. Weil, rather I use a vast number of research journals that I have online access to. In terms of Cosmetic Dermatology, I know that publication well and have a subscription to it, though it is a bit suspect because so much of the research published is paid for by manufacturers of skin care products (both prescription and non-prescription brands) and some of the doctors who write the articles are on the payroll of cosmetic companies.

Yes, nutrition is important to skin care, after all if we don’t eat we die and then we don’t look so good, but the research about a specific diet and skin care is lacking, especially for acne (research about diet and wrinkles is also sparse but growing).

In terms of diet and acne I have seen the research about the glycemic index association but that is hardly conclusive and is more theory at this point then anything else.

Here is some information you may find interesting from the American Academy of Dermatology:

The American Academy of Dermatology (Academy) still says that diet does not cause acne. After all, haven’t research studies found that certain foods cause acne? If you have acne, you may even have noticed that when you eat certain foods you break out. With all this evidence, why does the Academy still say that food does not cause acne?

What the Research Really Shows
While studies have been conducted, more research is needed to conclude that what we eat can cause or prevent acne. What these studies have found suggests that diet may play a role in acne. Here is what the research has shown so far.

Milk and acne. Could drinking milk cause acne? One researcher reports that between 75% and 90% of the milk and milk products consumed in the United States come from pregnant cows. Could acne develop because drinking milk exposes us to the hormones that cows produce when they are pregnant? We know that hormones clearly play a role in acne.

To answer these questions, researchers began by asking people to recall what they ate. One such study asked 47,355 women to remember what they ate in high school 9 years prior. Another study asked teenage boys to recall what they ate and to determine the severity of their acne.

After analyzing the foods eaten, researchers concluded that there was one association. Sodas, chocolate, and even potato chips were not associated with acne. Only drinking milk was.

These studies had limitations. Trying to accurately recall what you ate years ago — or even days ago — can be difficult, so the collected data cannot be considered entirely reliable. What the data does show is that there maybe an association between drinking milk and acne. An association means that more research is needed to prove whether this is just an association or a cause.

It is possible that other causes were at work. These studies did not account for known causes of acne, such as heredity. Acne is known to run in families, and some of the women and teenage boys may have had acne because they inherited genes for acne. The researchers acknowledge the limitations of these studies and conclude that more research is needed.

Western diet and acne. Some researchers hypothesize (explanation that needs to be proven) that more than milk could be causing acne. It could be our Western diet, a diet rich in refined carbohydrates. A few studies have looked at this possibility. One study observed that people in 2 non-westernized societies — Kitavan Islanders (remote islands off the coast of Papua New Guinea) and the Aché hunter-gathers of Paraguay — did not have acne. The researchers attributed this to the people’s low-glycemic diet. A low-glycemic diet consists of fresh fruits, vegetables, and lean proteins.

When people eat a low-glycemic diet, the body works more efficiently. The body needs only produce relatively small amounts of insulin to keep blood glucose levels (glucose gives us energy) within the normal range. When the body works this way, the person is said to be insulin sensitive. This means the body requires relatively small amounts of insulin.

A high-glycemic diet can lead to insulin resistance, which means the body needs to produce a lot more insulin to maintain glucose levels. Insulin resistance can cause numerous health problems including high blood pressure, heart disease, and diabetes.

The researchers concluded that a Western diet, which often causes insulin resistance, might also be fueling known causes of acne such as the production of excess sebum (oily substance) and inflammation. More research is needed to find out if a low-glycemic diet can prevent acne and lead to clearer skin.

To find out, small studies have been conducted to look at the effect of a low-glycemic diet on acne. These studies suggest that a low-glycemic diet maybe helpful, but further research is needed to explain the role that diet plays.

There are still many unanswered questions. One question researchers must answer is why every obese person does not have long-term acne. Individuals who are obese generally have had insulin resistance for years. If insulin resistance leads to acne, then everyone living with diabetes would be expected to have acne. Why is this not the case?

The diet-recall studies also did not show an association between eating high-glycemic foods such as soda and chocolate and acne. Why is this?

More Research Needed
While the research shows that there may be an association between diet and acne, the researchers conclude that more evidence is needed to prove this association. Until research proves that diet causes acne, this site will continue to state what the research shows. To date, the research does not prove that diet causes acne.

References:
Adebamowo CA, Spiegelman D, Berkey CS et al. Milk consumption and acne in teenaged boys. J Am Acad Dermatol 2008; 58: 787-93.

Adebamowo CA, Spiegelman D, Danby FW et al. High school dietary dairy intake and teenage acne. J Am Acad Dermatol 2005; 52: 207-14.

Arbesman H. Dairy and acne–the iodine connection. J Am Acad Dermatol 2005; 53: 1102.
Bershad SV. Diet and acne–slim evidence, again. J Am Acad Dermatol 2005; 53: 1102; author reply 3.

Cordain L, Lindeberg S, Hurtado M et al. Acne vulgaris: a disease of Western civilization. Arch Dermatol 2002; 138: 1584-90.

Danby FW. Acne and milk, the diet myth, and beyond. J Am Acad Dermatol 2005; 52: 360-2.

Smith RN, Braue A, Varigos GA et al. The effect of a low glycemic load diet on acne vulgaris and the fatty acid composition of skin surface triglycerides. J Dermatol Sci 2008; 50: 41-52.

Smith RN, Mann NJ, Braue A et al. A low-glycemic-load diet improves symptoms in acne vulgaris patients: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr 2007; 86: 107-15.

Smith RN, Mann NJ, Braue A et al. The effect of a high-protein, low glycemic-load diet versus a conventional, high glycemic-load diet on biochemical parameters associated with acne vulgaris: a randomized, investigator-masked, controlled trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007; 57: 247-56.

Thiboutot DM, Strauss JS. Diet and acne revisited. Arch Dermatol 2002; 138: 1591-2.

Treloar V, Logan AC, Danby FW et al. Comment on acne and glycemic index. J Am Acad Dermatol 2008; 58: 175-7.

Webster GF. Commentary: Diet and acne. J Am Acad Dermatol 2008; 58: 794-5.

However, what is 100% certain is that anecdotal feedback about what helps acne makes for good reading. Yet anecdotal information isn’t solid research. Someone’s individual success, and I’ve seen it all, includes things that could not possibly help and if anything can hurt skin. For example, you can start a diet at the same time your hormones are changing (such as associated with stress or someone’s menstrual cycle) and you would mistakenly associate that with your diet. When the acne returns you may not be the one to hear about it (that’s the nature of anecdotal information). I do suggest experimenting with diet and I mention the relation to certain foods to see what may work for you, including specific allergies to nuts or milk, but that is still not fact, just theory and personal experience.

I recently received an email from a woman who disagreed with our reviews on some Avalon Organics products. Having people disagree with our reviews isn’t unusual, but this email stood out as being more irksome then helpful (we love helpful criticism). She stated she’s in her mid-40s and her biggest skin-care concerns are wrinkles and dark circles (how unusual right, as if there is a woman over 40 anywhere in the world who doesn’t have those concerns?). She wrote she had purchased a scrub from Avalon Organics, professing that she “fell in love” with the lavender smell (which made me think ‘uh-oh, we’re off to a bad start here’). She also let me know, in one of those tones that you can just feel oozing through the email that there’s “nothing wrong with lavender, we Europeans have been using it for centuries.” Great. So not only is she choosing skin care based on scent, it seems that somehow being European means the research about lavender that we’ve cited repeatedly (from European sources by the way) is wrong.

The email went on to explain that shortly after experiencing amazing results with the lavender scrub (which ingredient-wise is like getting excited over white bread), she went ahead and purchased a lavender night cream from Avalon. She explained she had been using it for a year, and one day, as she was staring in the mirror, she observed that her wrinkles and dark circles had vanished. Imagine that! Not wanting to deal with signs of aging ever again, she ventured out and purchased several more products from Avalon Organics (lots of people believe “more is better” when it comes to skin care, but that’s usually a recipe for trouble). Given the Avalon lavender formulas, there is no way her experience comes from these products. They contain plenty of synthetic ingredients next to the natural ones, come in jar and clear packaging (so the natural ingredients wouldn’t stay stable for very long), and the sunscreen contains synthetic sunscreen agents without any of the critical UVA-protecting ingredients.

She also mentioned that whoever writes our reviews should stay home and cook because we obviously don’t know what we are talking about. Actually, I happen to be a very good cook and would love to stay home and cook all day but I work for Paula and love doing that too (plus it helps keep my weight in check). How do you reason with a person who is convinced that lavender and the host of other problem ingredients and packaging shortcoming in her skin-care routine eliminated wrinkles and dark circles? The only way this is even remotely possible is if her wrinkles and dark circles were caused by dryness rather than sun damage and the products she was using previously were somehow even worse than Avalon’s (any moisturizer can make superficial wrinkles from dry skin look better).

When emails like this arrive, I typically steer the person toward the research we used to support what we write about the product and its contents. But with this woman, I really didn’t know what to say, she wouldn’t believe me anyway. It definitely made me wonder why she reads Paula’s books and online reviews!

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!

I was unexpectedly saddened when I found out that stage and television actress Bea Arthur passed away. Hers was a rare talent that spanned several decades, though breakthrough success didn’t find her until she was in her late 30s and starred in the popular 1970s sitcom Maude. I remember watching that show with my Mom as a kid, and without knowing the difference between a feminist and a womanizer, I knew she was different. She could incite laughter with nothing more than a sidelong glance or hardened stare, and people gravitated to her. All this at a time when television stars were predominantly young and beautiful (actually, that’s still mostly true today) and Arthur wasn’t classically pretty, at least not by television standards.

I realized through the years of watching Arthur as part of the brilliant ensemble cast on The Golden Girls that someone with her strong personality and, yes, warmth, didn’t need flashy looks in order to be beautiful. Who she was and what came across on screen got right to the heart of what being beautiful is really all about: an attractive personality, wit, a willingness to be a friend, and a willingness to admit when you’re wrong or have wronged others. Being true to yourself, and letting the chips fall where they may.

From the celebrity tributes I read in the days following her death, it became clear these attributes weren’t just Arthur playing a character. They were a big part of who she was, even after the cameras stopped rolling. She said what she meant, and she meant what she said. How many of us go through our daily lives with that sense of blatant honesty? Most of us shy away from that because of how we might appear to others. True, there are times and places when bluntness isn’t called for or needed, but still, what a breath of fresh air it would be to behave like that all the time!

I will continue to enjoy Bea Arthur’s talents as I willingly watch reruns of the shows that made her a household name. And on days when I’m feeling down about the way I look (or, more accurately, the way I’d like to look) I’ll remember the well-known adage that Bea Arthur humanized with often hilarious results: true beauty comes from within.

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.

Paula would love to meet you when she is in Austin on Friday, June 19th. She will be appearing on a few TV programs while she’s there and then doing a presentation at the Barnes & Noble that evening.

Exciting News! Paula will be giving a free presentation on skin care myths in the cosmetics industry. She is armed with the most current research from her latest book, “The Original Beauty Bible, 3rd Edition,”.

• Learn the facts on what anti-wrinkle creams can and absolutely can’t do
• Find out what inflamm-aging is
• Hear new research on acne, learn why typical acne products can make breakouts worse
• The newest sunscreen controversy - the story from all sides
• Organic and Natural products - the reality vs. the hype
• PLUS book signing, free samples, and a chance to win a $100 gift certificate

Date: Friday, June 19, 2009
Time: 7 PM - 9 PM
Location: Barnes & Noble
Street: 10000 Research Blvd. #158
City/Town: Austin, TX 78759

RSVP either on Facebook or here.

Send This Event to a Friend