IF YOU ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY VIEWING IMAGES IN THIS EMAIL, GO HERE.

Completely Revised & Updated 3rd Edition of Don’t Go Shopping for Hair-Care Products Without Me Hot off the presses, this just-released third edition of Paula’s guide to all things hair care! Thousands of product reviews from more than 130 drugstore, department store, and salon lines, plus learn what styling products can (and can’t) do and find out how to have beautiful tresses without spending a fortune. Save $5 when you order directly from Paula! details.   bare escentuals Makeup All of the bareMinerals powders, whether for foundation, eyeshadow, brow color, or blush, are loose powders that are applied with a brush. The color line is known as i.d., and calls itself “the purest cosmetic collection in the world.” The products boast that they don’t contain fragrance, oil, binders, preservatives, emulsifiers, or any other problematic ingredients, but that turns out not to be the case. Bismuth oxychloride is a major ingredient in all the powder formulations and as a primary ingredient it can cause skin irritation, while the other minerals can be drying. Aside from the overstated claim about natural this and purity that, loose powders are as messy as it gets in terms of your vanity (countertop, not ego) and your makeup bag. The powder just gets all over the place! Additionally, while there are some soft neutrals as well as some fairly exotic shades, all are mildly to extremely shiny and make any amount of crepey skin look more so. The face powder does provide some amount of opaque coverage, but the shine and the thickness can be a bit much. The eyeshadows and blushes apply in a somewhat lighter way, though they still provide good coverage. If you find the loose powder makeup concept and the shine intriguing, these are an option, but I feel safe in suggesting they will end up as one of those cosmetics whims that you never use more than a few times. [The complete bare escentuals review is contained in my book, Don't Go to the Cosmetics Counter Without Me, which may be purchased from my site.]  bareMinerals foundation ($25) is the loose-powder foundation that put bare escentuals on the map and it is the backbone of this makeup line. This talc-free, mica-based powder has a soft, almost creamy texture and an undeniably shiny finish. The titanium dioxide and bismuth oxychloride lend this powder its opacity, medium coverage, and slightly thick finish. Nine shades are available, and they tend to lean a bit too far into the rose and peach zones, but not enough to avoid them. However, if this type of foundation with all of its trappings appeals to you, Jane Iredale’s Amazing Base SPF 20 ($35.50) offers a smoother formula, an effective titanium dioxide–based sunscreen, and more neutral colors--not to mention a pressed-powder option for those who don’t want to deal with the fallout from loose powder!  bareMinerals mineral veil ($19). is a talc-free loose powder with a softer and lighter consistency than the bareMinerals foundation, and sans the shine! It has a sheer, but dry, powder finish, and is best for someone with normal to oily skin. This is cornstarch-based, so avoid it if you’re prone to or are battling blemishes.  bareMinerals blush ($18) has the same basic texture as the loose foundation, and the comments about it being messy and hard to control apply here, too. There are some matte shades and the application is soft and relatively even once you’ve mastered how much loose color to pick up on your brush for best results. Although it’s hard for me to encourage this option, I’m sure some women will love it.  bareMinerals eyeshadow ($12). is similar to the blush and foundation reviewed above, though the eyeshadows have a much silkier, lighter texture. All of the colors are slightly shiny, though there are some great neutral shades. I still don’t get the advantage of going for this kind of messy, flaky application, but for some women it is an option. Dove  Sensitive Essentials Fragrance Free Foaming Cleanser ($5.95 for 6.76 ounces) carries the claim "no foaming cleanser is milder," but considering that Clean & Clear and Neutrogena have cleansers remarkably similar to this one, the claim isn't all that special. This does excel as a water-soluble cleanser that would work well for all skin types. It removes makeup, rinses cleanly, and does not contain any drying detergent cleansing agents. Despite the "Fragrance Free" portion of the name, this product does contain fragrant flower oil, and though the amount used is tiny it still imparts fragrance! What a completely disingenuous claim for Dove to make. Origins  A Perfect World Liquid Moisture with White Tea ($20 for 5 ounces) comes with claims that make it sound like a super-powered toner, with the ability to block oxidation, skin deterioration, and dehydration. I wonder if this can also leap tall buildings in a single bound? Kidding aside, this toner cannot fulfill any of its promises because it uses a standard formula seen in most alcohol-free toners. It becomes inherently problematic by including a group of irritating essential oils, including bergamot, lemon, sweet orange, spearmint, and orris. None of these are helpful to skin. Origins's continued introduction of such irritating ingredients (and their positioning of essential oils as skin-defending ingredients) is one the biggest inaccuracies occurring at cosmetics counters today. Spin-ster Sisters Politics aside, Myrna Blyth's book Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness and Liberalism to the Women of America is an interesting read for those who flip through fashion magazines every month. Blyth ruled the roost as editor-in-chief of Ladies' Home Journal from 1981 to 2002 and was former publishing director of More. Her insider's perspective in this scathing book is as scintillating as it is fascinating. One of her premises is that fashion magazines have turned feminism into a form of erotic, soft-core pornography accompanied by all the body-pampering requirements to achieve that level of sensuality. I agree. One of the main differences between men's "fashion" or lifestyle magazines and women's magazines is that women's fashion magazines have vastly more pictures of scantily clad women in erotic poses. In men's magazines, the male models are almost always completely dressed. There are also few, if any, stories about men being concerned about being too fat, changing their hairstyle, finding the latest antiwrinkle product, choosing among plastic surgery procedures, figuring out how to cover dark circles, and on and on. Most important, men's magazines never show men wearing expensive painful clothing (Manolo Blahniks may be sexy, but six blocks later and we're all aching for our flats). So much for equality between the sexes! My attraction to part of Blyth's viewpoint is that it echoes mine, yet she lived it from the inside. I have spent many years challenging the lack of objective information in fashion magazines and the deliberate manipulation of facts to ensure that every story supports the predetermined goal of not offending advertisers. The idea that you can fix your life via makeup, clothes, accessories, jewelry, pedicures, manicures, weight loss, cosmetic surgery, or a host of skin-care products is the bread and butter of fashion magazines. The so-called editorial content wedged in between the fashion layouts and advertisements is a mix of blatant reverence toward and service to the advertisers that pay the magazine's bills. Some women see fashion magazines for their limitations and biased influences; regrettably, many others believe every word they read, and never (or rarely) question the fickle nature of the reporting. Blyth's hard look at her own industry may help you view fashion magazines a bit more clearly the next time you flip through them. Shiseido's ultra-high-end Qiora line is closing its "Beautification Center" spa in New York and switching its distribution to 70 independent perfumeries. If you haven't heard of this line, that's not surprising. Outside of its namesake New York store, Qiora was in limited distribution in upscale department stores, where consumer response was tepid (and perhaps was eclipsed by the growing popularity of Shiseido's Cle de Peau line) and advertising was scarce (Source: The Rose Sheet, March 1, 2004, page 24). I had planned to review this line once it expanded beyond a few department store doors, but that never happened, and my readers' requests for reviews quickly diminished. What service ruled at hair salons in 2003? According to an annual survey conducted by Sally Beauty Supply and market research company Harris Interactive, highlights were the most popular salon service last year. The survey revealed that more than 20% of adults aged 18 to 34 have their hair highlighted, with 60% of those folks visiting the salon at least four times per year, requesting one change in hairstyle every 12 months (Source: HAPPI, Household and Personal Products Industry magazine, March 2004, page 14). Given how professionally done highlights can add depth, shine, and dimension to hair, these results make sense, though I wish I could get away with only four salon visits for color each year--gray hair and the media are too unforgiving to let me enjoy the national average! Dear Paula, I hope that this email actually makes its way to Paula. I have always looked forward to receiving my newsletters and the valuable information you provide. As a freelance writer and newspaper columnist, I have always admired your courage to "tell it like it is" when it comes to reporting on the cosmetics industry. I have also used some of your products and have liked them. I can't help noticing that as your own cosmetics line continues to blossom, the newsletter has actually become a monthly "advertising" piece for your products. I'm disappointed. Perhaps you should think about going back to the old monthly email newsletter, which had more information than advertising of Paula's Choice products, and have a separate advertising newsletter for clients who request it. Another thing that greatly disappoints me is that you have no problem printing negative material or reviews of other products, except for your own. It's nice to see good reviews about your products on your Web site, but in all fairness, the law of averages dictates that there is no way on God's green earth that everyone can be satisfied with every one of your products. I realize you must make a living but there is a huge difference between receiving advertisements about your products, specials, etc., and receiving an informative newsletter that rates products impartially. Jane, via email Dear Jane, Your email indeed reached me, and I thank you for writing. As you can imagine, it is a thorny road to walk between being an industry critic and selling my own products. I try very hard to keep the two roles separate. My products are barely noticeable in my books (I leave them unrated) and I am still the only cosmetics company in the world that recommends hundreds of other products besides my own. My company is assuredly the only cosmetics company that has other companies' products on its home page and lists them as "The Best Product of the Month." Reviewing my own products negatively would be difficult because they conform to everything I've written about. I make no claims of getting rid of wrinkles, curing acne, erasing scars, or undoing dark circles under the eye. I don't sell eye creams, I don't sell day creams without sunscreen, I eliminate fragrance and synthetic coloring agents from my skin-care products, and I make no exaggerated claims of performance. Further, I also explain limitations of ingredients in my ingredient dictionary. I wouldn't put my name on a product that I didn't stand behind wholeheartedly. Of course, not everyone is satisfied with every one of my products, which is why I have a guarantee and a liberal return policy. I do get returns (on average about 2%, well under the industry average of 5% to 10%). However, I never critique any company's products based on returns or consumer likes and dislikes (especially not allergic reactions, because these are specific to individuals). Rather, I rate a product's efficacy and claims versus published research and then compare it with other available products. Oftentimes the only negative comment I make about a product pertains to its price and its exaggerated claims, and consumers can decide for themselves if they want to spend more or less for equally effective options. My free emailed Beauty Bulletin does include both critiques of other companies' products and advertising for my products and monthly specials. Because it is free, I would be hard put not to include my products; as you say, I do need to support my company's viability. I still offer a paid-subscription newsletter that has no advertisements for any products and mentions my products only when they are new (and I always leave them unrated). Most issues have absolutely no mention of Paula's Choice or Paula's Select products. Plus, there is lots and lots of free information on my Web site. Paula’s Select Ultra-Thin Eye & Brow Pencil Enhance eyes and define brows with this retractable no-smudge pencil that never needs sharpening. “Goof-proof,” natural-looking application is easy with the ultra-fine point. Find out more here. Share the Value of the Beauty Bulletin! Please forward this Beauty Bulletin to your friends by filling in their email addresses below. You may also include a message: Your Name: Your Email: Friend's Email #1: Friend's Email #2: Friend's Email #3: Subject: Message: I think you'll like this Beauty Bulletin. It's free and includes a lot of great articles and money-saving tips! Remember to add the Beauty Bulletin (beautybulletin@cosmeticscop.com) to your Address Book (and "Buddy" or "People I Know" lists for AOL users or Safe List for Hotmail users) to continue receiving our emails. SUBSCRIBE    Edit your profile     Unsubscribe View our privacy policy. ©2004 Paula's Choice, Inc. 13075 Gateway Drive, Suite 160, Seattle, WA 98168. (800) 831-4088. All rights reserved.