| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Feb 01, 2010 2:33 pm  |
WOW! Thanks Alien, too the chagrin of many here I have felt this way about much of the cosmetic industry and how they play us for fools! The link works fine on my iPhone so it should do so on any computer. I think both books mentioned are worth a read. Thanks again what a fantastic find!
DM  |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:54 pm |
| Talking about "cosmetic science" seems a bit redutive. There is certainly valid double-blind peer reviewed science out there on a number of skin actives--vitamin C, retinoids, etc. It is true that there are a lot of so-alled "clinical trials" that are nothing more than a manufacturer testing the product on a handful of subjects, with subjective assessment of results. That kind of thing gives "cosmetic science" a bad rap. But there's no reason to de dismissive of legitimate dermatology research. |
_________________
Late 50's, fair warm-toned skin, dryish except in T zone; regular user of CSRx Vitamin C, Avene Diacneal, Avene tinosorb sunscreen, Pro Light LED, and experiments on and off with many products. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:26 am |
Very interesting articles. However, none of the authors brought up the subject of control and regulation. Cosmetic manufacturers can promise us anything, simply because they do not come under any kind of regulatory control which states that the product must do what it promises. (Their are exceptions such as sunscreens and skin rash creams etc). But for the most part, only drugs are regulated in this way. And the only really proven skin anti-aging product is Retin-A - a drug.
Of course, manufacturers have tried to give their products a medical feel by calling them Cosmeceuticals (usually promoted by doctors), but like their counterparts, they also do not come under any statutory testing.
I don't think cosmetic science is any more bogus than any other kind of science. But until cosmetic products are held up to the same kind of account as pharmaceuticals we're all at their mercy. |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:08 am |
I agree Skippie, I feel it's a good reminder of some things we know but tend to dismiss. The cosmetic industry is SELF REGULATING that gives them pretty much free reign to make claims that only their own studies back up, and to put absurd price tags on products that don't warrant them. I really think we need to remember these facts and others brought up in the articles.
IMHO
DM |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
 |
Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:52 am |
| Keliu wrote: |
| However, none of the authors brought up the subject of control and regulation |
I actualy emailed the author- and he admitted the same. There simply is no technology, or definative "control" with which to meassure efficacy |
_________________
I don't buy product from EDS so no agenda |
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:40 am |
| We should all remember we are consumers and they are the sellers,and yes there is no control or regulation in they industry,so we have to educate ourselves and keep informed.Just because a product cost an arm and an leg doesn't mean it will work,just because it looks good,smells good doesn't mean it will do a thing.There are no over night transformations or miracle cream that I know of,but they would like us to believe so. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:04 am |
I thought it was interesting when someone awhile back on the forum mentioned that the British Advertising Standards Authority banned the Olay Regenerist commercial where the person in the commercial claimed that a study was presented at the World Congress of Dermatology showing that pentapeptides reduce the appearance of lines and wrinkles.
| Quote: |
The ASA expert added that the study that had been published had not shown that the changes when using pentapeptides were "at a level of significance" to make the claim it reduced the appearance of lines and wrinkles. In the self-evaluation part of the study, test subjects reported no effect for the pentapeptide-containing product.
A second study "in some respects contradicted the results in the published paper" and had also not proved that the pentapeptide product was likely to produce results "visually significant to the consumer", the ASA said. |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/mar/04/olay-ad-banned
I'm not aware that a commercial has ever been pulled in the U.S. over claims like that. Is anyone else? |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:12 am |
No Skippie none that I am aware of! I take that whole "Truth in Advertising" that was supposedly instituted a number of years back with a lot more than just a grain of salt!
DM |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:02 pm |
This particular article should more correctly be entitled: Is Cosmetic Marketing Really "Bad"
As a member of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists and the IFSCC, I recieve a monthly issue of the Journal of Cosmetic Science. The articles in this Journal are peer reviewed. The science discussed in these articles are of the highest order, and are full of test data, placebo trials, clinical trials, and unbiased scientific information.
The "science" involved in the conceptual design, production, and testing of cosmetic products is undeniable. Anbody who has taken a course in Chemistry will tell you, it is science, and it is factual.
The article time and again refers to "claims" that are made on cosmetics that may or may not be scientific (or factual). The "claims" made on a product are not necessarily produced by the "science" but almost assuredly by the "marketing". The claims made on a product were probably never written by the cosmetic chemist, but almost assuredly by the marketing manager. If you were to pick up and read the laboratory notebooks written by a cosmetic chemist you would probably be bored to tears or fall asleep. The notebook would have no opinions or "claims" in it. It would be full of raw test data, and observtions on tests and clinical trials. That.... is science. When the cosmetic chemist "observes" something such as an increase in skin moisturization over time on a graph, that gets reported to management. Marketing gets ahold of this data and then all of a sudden the product can "moisturize the skin for more than 24 hours even in deep Sahara Desert Conditions with just one application per week!". It is this type of marketing spin that makes the cosmetic science world appear to be distorted, or even downright lies.
The author mentions that at trade shows, it is almost always a "Marketing" member of the team that delivers papers and presentations. This is almost always true...unfortunately. However, when I worked for a raw material supply company, I was chosen by my marketing manager to give the presentations. There was a very compelling reason for this company to choose the "cosmetic chemist" over the "Marketing Manager" for the presentation. The oils and products sold by this company were always "high end". These raw materials cost far more than the inferior "commodity grade" raw materials. But, I found that they had superior skin function in many, many tests that we ran against the inferior commodity grade products. Now, the marketing manager knew that there were hundreds of products out there that could moisturize and feel good on the skin. Why would any cosmetic company pay more just because this company's products were natural, botanical and stable? That just wasn't enough to justify the high price to most cosmetic companies.
He knew that he needed the "scientist" to prove, with scientific data, that there was superior function per price in these high end materials. That is why the cosmetic chemist was chosen over the marketing manager. The message contained no "marketing spin", on scientific data. And this, was what convinced many cosmetic houses to go with the higher priced, yet more functional raw materials.
But, this is a rare case. Not many do it this way, and that is why the cosmetics have a bad reputation as being full of junk science. It is really junk marketing that is causing the problems for the consumers.
That is why I always say to read the ingredients list on the label. Understand what chemicals are in the product and know if they will function for your skin or hair. It is best to completely ignor the "marketing spin" because the sole purpose of "marketing spin" is to make you WANT to buy something regardless of the effectiveness.
John |
_________________
President and Chief Formulator, Never Over The Hill Cosmetics, Patend holder, Award winning cosmetic chemist, neveroverthehill.com, Age 51 and staying young forever! |
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 02, 2010 2:09 pm |
I agree wholeheartedly with Notch on this one. It is more about shameful "Bad Cosmetic Marketing"! It is a huge money making industry that has no conscience, really.
Without science we have nothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:11 pm |
That's the point we mere mortals aren't privy to any actual unbiased science behind most of what is marketed to us out there! And with all due respect to John (who's opinion and input I respect) there are some of us who would like to decide for ourselves about reading those boring studies! I for one after wading through highly technical computer books many weighing in at 13 pounds and dealing with some of the best sleep aids you could imagine, I for one would like the privilege of choice!
DM |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:22 pm |
| No, I agree with you DarkMoon, I wish the big cosmetic houses would put out something like a "Technical Data Sheet" on the products that they sell, and skip the "spin marketing" altogether. The problem is, they wouldn't sell as much product that way. Nor would they continue to make the obscene profits that they do. Sure, the TDS would show scientific proof that something may work. But, then the meer mortals would read the ingredients list along with the loading levels, and realize that the whiz bang 1/4 ounce jar of cosmetic should really cost about $5.50 versus the $300.00 that they are charging in retail price! |
_________________
President and Chief Formulator, Never Over The Hill Cosmetics, Patend holder, Award winning cosmetic chemist, neveroverthehill.com, Age 51 and staying young forever! |
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:38 pm |
| NOTCH wrote: |
| No, I agree with you DarkMoon, I wish the big cosmetic houses would put out something like a "Technical Data Sheet" on the products that they sell, and skip the "spin marketing" altogether. The problem is, they wouldn't sell as much product that way. Nor would they continue to make the obscene profits that they do. Sure, the TDS would show scientific proof that something may work. But, then the meer mortals would read the ingredients list along with the loading levels, and realize that the whiz bang 1/4 ounce jar of cosmetic should really cost about $5.50 versus the $300.00 that they are charging in retail price! |
Thanks John,
That was my point to start with, I have learned that I as a consumer have to read that ingredient list and then search one by one about those actives to find anything out about them and how effective they may be and at what concentration! I am jaded as far as the commercials and magazine adds which actually make me laugh especially when a barely pubescent girl is trying to hype wrinkle cream! All the fancy packaging in the world doesn't piqué my interset either! I see very expensive creams and wow ingredient one on the list aqua/water, I know that is the working of an industry majorly driven by greed and gullible consumers who seem to think a hefty price tag buys quality. It is a Shane we mere mortals can't get our hands in those facts you can!
DM |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 02, 2010 6:50 pm |
| DarkMoon wrote: |
I for one would like the privilege of choice!
DM |
Hi Dark Moon,
I don't think that "freedom of choice" is the problem here. It just may be that there are grossly far too many choices, with only a few proven actives that actually work. Once you find what works, there is no need to keep looking beyond. Perhaps it is just the human
nature of us females? 
I used to try everything new that came out under the sun, but not anymore. I was also much younger then.
Most if it is just marketing & fluff! |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:13 pm |
Hi Star Model,
I take full advantage of my choice not to buy into the fluff and hype! What I would like to have the privilege of choice is to see those studies that John being in the industry has access to while we don't! That's just my nature of wanting as much information as I can get my hands on! Believe me my attitude about all these overpriced and over hyped products gets me in a bit of trouble with some members but I think research as a consumer about anything is important and necessary to be as informed as possible!
DM
| Star Model wrote: |
| DarkMoon wrote: |
I for one would like the privilege of choice!
DM |
Hi Dark Moon,
I don't think that "freedom of choice" is the problem here. It just may be that there are grossly far too many choices, with only a few proven actives that actually work. Once you find what works, there is no need to keep looking beyond. Perhaps it is just the human
nature of us females?
I used to try everything new that came out under the sun, but not anymore. I was also much younger then.
Most if it is just marketing & fluff! |
|
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:32 am |
I suppose my position is best summoned up with
" there really is no proof of efficacy".
Skin is too dynamic and individual- what works on one or one group can't be repeated on another.
Nutrition, lifestyle, genetics all play a role.
Studies are too small and consider too minuscule of the population to be of actual scientific use- looks good, but when I read it was a trial of 23 women...I just throw it away |
_________________
I don't buy product from EDS so no agenda |
|
|
|
|
Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:02 am |
| Alien wrote: |
I suppose my position is best summoned up with
" there really is no proof of efficacy".
Skin is too dynamic and individual- what works on one or one group can't be repeated on another.
Nutrition, lifestyle, genetics all play a role.
Studies are too small and consider too minuscule of the population to be of actual scientific use- looks good, but when I read it was a trial of 23 women...I just throw it away |
From all the "studies" I have seen I have to agree! It would be nice to have a control group, but with all the variables we humans have it seems impossible for that to ever happen! I find genetics are overlooked quite a bit when discussing the efficacy of products. I know people who have broken all the "rules" and in their mid 70's are wrinkle free without the use of any high end products, gadgets or fillers and plastic surgery!
DM |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:01 am |
| DarkMoon wrote: |
| I know people who have broken all the "rules" and in their mid 70's are wrinkle free without the use of any high end products, gadgets or fillers and plastic surgery! |
Damn them  |
_________________
I don't buy product from EDS so no agenda |
|
|
|
|
Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:04 am |
| Alien wrote: |
| DarkMoon wrote: |
| I know people who have broken all the "rules" and in their mid 70's are wrinkle free without the use of any high end products, gadgets or fillers and plastic surgery! |
Damn them |
LMAO Alien
DM |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:24 pm |
Off topic:
We got a new toy in the office- skin Tyte IPL
I'm going to play.... |
_________________
I don't buy product from EDS so no agenda |
|
|
|
|
Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:34 pm |
| Alien wrote: |
Off topic:
We got a new toy in the office- skin Tyte IPL
I'm going to play.... |
Enjoy recess! Let us know how you like it!
DM |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
| Wed Apr 24, 2024 10:09 pm |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
