Eyelash growth-enhancing products are being sold by a small but growing number of cosmetics companies. These types of products to one degree or another have been around for some time without much success. The success ratio changed when Jan Marini’s launched Age Intervention Eyelash, which contained an ingredient the company merely referred to as “eyelash growth factor.” There is no such thing as eyelash growth factor so that made-up marketing term was meaningless.

But who cared what they called it, because after a few weeks this product worked, and I mean really worked. My lashes actually became amazingly, almost preposterously long and darker. Applying mascara made it almost look like I was wearing false eyelashes which, to me, was astonishing. Every woman t in my office who was using it also experiencing the same thing. A cosmetic product that really worked (and worked fast) doesn’t happen every day or even a few times per year.

It turned out the mysterious eyelash growth factor was something the FDA did care about because the ingredient causing the lashes to grow within a few weeks was the glaucoma drug bimatoprost. Marini was using this prescription-only drug without following regulations.
As a result of FDA pressure Marini slightly renamed the product Age Intervention Eyelash Conditioner and listed the lash-growing ingredient on the label with its ridiculously  long chemical name of 7-(3, 5-dihydroxy-2-(3-hydroxy-4-(3-(triflormethyl) phenoxy)-1-butenyl) cyclopentyl), N-ethyl, )1R-(alpha(Z), 2beta (1E,3R), 3alpha, 5alpha)). No wonder she wanted to leave that off the label!

This nearly indecipherable ingredient is similar to a class of ingredients known as prostaglandin analogues. These drugs, including latanoprost, bimatoprost (the drug present in Marini’s original formula), and travoprost, are used in eye drops to treat eye health problems such as glaucoma or ocular hypertension. One of the common side-effects of using these prescription-only eye drops is that eyelashes grow, darken, and become thicker. Adapting this to a cosmetic made sense, so Marini stuck it in a tube with a thin brush to be applied once a day similar to how you would apply liquid eye liner. It was flying off the shelves in no time, and quickly became a celebrity favorite.

The “active” ingredient listed above is, according to Marini, a customized analogue her lab had created and therefore was not a drug. Therefore, she was not in any trouble with the FDA for using a prescription drug in a cosmetic product. At least that’s what Marini and her staff were telling the public and estheticians retailing the brand. Behind the scenes, the company was embroiled in a battle with Allergan, a pharmaceutical company that holds a patent for using bimatoprost in their own lash-enhancing product. Allergan was also spending lots of money getting it approved through the proper channels for a new drug application with the FDA. Its new drug status? Growing longer, darker, thicker eyelashes, of course! On the other hand, Marini was attempting to get around Allergan’s patent and the FDA at the same time with what she claimed was a proprietary formula. It didn’t work.

Patent infringement and FDA regulations aren’t something to sneeze at. In late 2007 the FDA seized over 12,600 tubes of Age Intervention Eyelash (the original formula) and sales were stopped. The FDA accused Marini of using a drug (bimatoprost) and misbranding it, which she was. So what was the danger? If a woman using Age Intervention Eyelash containing a form of this glaucoma medication and they are already using glaucoma eye drops to treat the disease she could be at increased risk for optic nerve damage and eye inflammation, both of which can have serious consequences, including blindness.

Given most of the public didn’t know what was going on and the product had already gained a strong following, Marini made the prudent marketing decision to reformulate and renamed the next version of her lash-enhancing product Marini Lash. This version does not contain bimatoprost or anything else even remotely similar. Instead, it now contains peptides that Marini claims works better than the previous version. Yet there is no research anywhere proving any peptide can grow longer, thicker, or darker eyelashes so it is NOT a lash-enhancing product I can recommend. And I have to wonder if Marini Lash would’ve ever seen the light of day if the FDA and Allergan hadn’t disrupted the runaway success of the original Age Intervention Eyelash product and its successor.

What happens now with Allergan’s patent and FDA approval? Allergan is getting ready to enjoy unprecedented success with the launch of their eyelash-growing product, which they’ve named Latisse. Latisse’s active ingredient is 0.03% bimatoprost, and it will come in a brush-on formula to be applied to the lash line, just like Marini’s original lash product.

A major difference between Marini’s former Age Intervention Lash products (as well as those from other brands selling the same thing and more on that in a moment) is that because Latisse is classified as a drug, it is available by prescription only. Not only will this require a trip to or consultation with your physician, but the cost is considerable: $120 for a one-month supply. Marini’s former lash products weren’t cheap either at $160 per tube, but at least they lasted several months with once-per-day usage.

There is every reason to believe that Latisse will have a noticeable impact on the length, color, and thickness of your eyelashes. However, there are still side effects to consider such as a stinging sensation on skin where Latisse is applied, potential skin discoloration, and a permanent change in pigmentation of the iris (the colored part of the eye). Incidences of such side effects are low, but, as with any drug, you need to discuss the pros and cons with your prescribing physician or pharmacist. By the way, these same side effects were potential with the Marini product, she just didn’t tell anyone. If anything, she went on and on about how safe her product was.

One question I’ve pondered since Allergan and Marini were at odds with each other is why Allergan (and the FDA, for that matter) only went after Marini for using a glaucoma drug off-label? Several other companies are selling products with the same drug or with another type of prostaglandin analogue. They include Peter Thomas Roth Lashes to Die For, MD Lash Factor, Revitalash, Lilash, and Neulash. As of this writing, all of these products are available, all are expensive, and none have been seized by the FDA or called into question by Allergan. In any event, it continues to bother me. Why should Marini take all the financial loss while other  companies continue to enjoy success selling lash enhancement products that work because, surprise, they contain prostaglandin analogues? If the FDA and Allergan wanted to make an example of Marini, then mission accomplished. But to be fair, they should’ve endeavored to make an example of any company selling this type of product. As Latisse launches with its success a foregone conclusion, perhaps they will.

(Sources for the above information: Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, November 2006, pages 755–764; www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/medmaster/a602027.html; http://dermatology.cdlib.org/93/commentary/alopecia/wolf.html; www.medscape.com/viewarticle/443657;  Drugs of Today, January 2003, pages 61–74, www.elixirnews.com/newsView.php?id=1149, www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS122104+18-Jul-2008+BW20080718, and www.truthinaging.com).

$$$ TRISH MCEVOY Protective Shield Concealer($21.00).
is a creamy concealer that creases endlessly unless it is set with lots of powder. The castor oil-based formula blends well and provides great coverage with a surprisingly natural finish that's not nearly as difficult to work with as similar concealers from Bobbi Brown and Laura Mercier, among others; however, the creasing keeps it from earning a higher rating. The shade selection has been edited to four; Honey is the only one to avoid because it is blatantly peach.

SALLY HANSEN Natural Beauty Inspired by Carmindy Sun Glow Powder Bronzer($12.99).
This talc-based pressed bronzing powder has a wonderfully smooth texture and soft, sheer application. Skin is enlivened with subtle tones of bronze, tan, and soft pink from the Spring shade or with tones of bronze, gold, and soft peach from the Summer shade. Either is great for fair to light skin. Those with medium to dark skin will have difficulty getting this bronzer to show up unless you apply a lot of it. The finish is subtle radiance with a hint of translucent sparkle. The sparkles don’t last too long, but the overall radiant/sheer color effect tends to go the distance.

$$$ GREEN CREAM Green Cream Level 3 ($36.00 for 1 ounce)
Designed for sensitive skin, this lightweight gel with retinol is a problem whether your skin is markedly sensitive or not. That’s because it contains alcohol (listed as ethanol) as the second ingredient. Alcohol is always a problem for skin because it causes irritation, dryness, and free-radical damage, which is detrimental for skin and prevents the retinol from helping skin.

For the latest new product reviews, reference Beautypedia.com, the completely searchable, continually updated version of my book, Don't Go to the Cosmetics Counter Without Me. It features over 40,000 detailed product reviews for only $24.95 per year.

Dear Paula,

I’m a Beautypedia subscriber and love reading your take on the new products that are launched every month even if I think you are not very objective. My question is: Do you test products or do you simply look at the formula? I like Aveda products and know you are usually quite OK with them but you are obviously against the Tourmaline line. Tourmaline is not an inert ingredient, it has pizoelectric properties, which means it converts warmth into a magnetic field; it is so powerful it has been patented to de-pollute waters or amplify detergent systems for the industry. Tourmaline lowers the need for harsh emulsifiers and [helps] to "open" the outer layer of the skin or hair; [one] US patent is using synthetic magnetic micro crystals of silica and the results are intense on its ability to swell hair or skin with just water! Tourmaline is similar.

Anyway I think you've been wrong about tourmaline somehow, and the Lotion is using an incredible moisturizing system: oil-free, and with some notable antioxidants. Please continue your great job, but be honest and truly professional about it!

Randall, via e-mail


Dear Randall,

I do not personally test every product I review. Not only would that be impossible, it would also be meaningless. I might "like" a product, but that wouldn’t have anything to do with whether or not it could live up to its claims, or be a good way to tell if the formula was similar to another product (especially a less expensive one). Keep in mind that lots of people like things that aren't good for them (like smoking and tanning), or like products based on emotional reactions (including brand connections) instead of reality, plus the fact that personal preference is highly individual. I review skin-care products by determining if independent and primarily published research about a particular formulation or key ingredient supports the claims being asserted about the product. Thus, my “testing” is really researching and drawing on many sources, from interviews with dermatologists and chemists to my and my staff’s years of acquired knowledge, to reach a conclusion on a product’s ingredients and claims.

Tourmaline is indeed a unique mineral, but it is still inert. It only generates an electrical charge when under some kind of stress, such as pressure (that is what piezoelectric refers to), which is why tourmaline is used in pressure gauges. Tourmaline is also pyroelectric, a term that describes substances that generate an electrical charge during a temperature change (either hot or cold). Neither of these properties can take place in a cosmetic, though—and why would you want them to? For example, one of the aspects of generating an electric charge is that dust particles will become attached to one end of the tourmaline crystal. Now think of that happening on your face—talk about unappealing!

You're right, there is a patent for using tourmaline to decrease the need for surfactants, but this patent is for a complicated device and the effect is not generated by the tourmaline itself. Here is a quote from the patent I believe you are referring to, United States Patent number 6,308,356, Frederick, et al. October 30, 2001, entitled Substantially environmental-pollution-free cleaning method and device employing electric energy and surface physical properties. “The treatment of water by the electrically polar crystalline substance tourmaline requires much longer time to fill up one washing machine tub than the effect lasts. This yields this process of batch treatment before use as impractical as a laundry solution. In the current inventive method the treatment is done simultaneously with the work of cleaning and in the same location as the work of cleaning is being done." In other words, it is a process that utilizes tourmaline in some way, with the cleaning not a result of the tourmaline itself (the language is not clear). It doesn’t translate to cosmetics very well, and especially not in the trace amounts this mineral is found in cosmetics.

By the way, swelling the skin or hair is not a good thing, as it impairs or harms the structure of the skin or hair. In any case, I have seen no research or information describing tourmaline having that effect. Aveda uses some great antioxidants (as do most of the Estee Lauder-owned brands) in all of their Tourmaline products. Although I think the story behind tourmaline doesn’t apply to cosmetics, I happen to rate most of Aveda’s Tourmaline products highly.  Despite that bit of good news, I can only honestly, professionally conclude by saying that there is no research showing tourmaline to have any proven effect on skin of any kind whatsoever.

The Paula’s Choice Affiliate Program helps turn visits to your site into revenue for you.  You place links to our products on your website, and when a visitor follows those links to PaulasChoice.com and completes a qualifying purchase, you earn a commission.
We make it easy to enter and maintain this partnership by providing you with:

• Free membership
• 15% commission on qualifying sales
• Free professionally-designed banners
• Personally designed links that allow tracking your sales and activity
• Online access to traffic and earnings reports, updated daily
• Monthly payments

Getting Started
Just complete the online application to get started.  It’s that easy!

1. Sally Hansen Natural Beauty By Carmindy
2. TIGI Bed Head Maxxed-Out Massive Hold Hairspray
3. DuWop Lip Venom
4. Estee Lauder Time Zone Line & Wrinkle Reducing Moisturizer SPF 15 - Normal/Combination Lotion
5. Estee Lauder Time Zone Line & Wrinkle Reducing Moisturizer SPF 15 - Dry Creme

Access over 40,000 reviews at Paula Begoun's Beautypedia.com for only $24.95/year