July 2003
Dear Paula,
Contrary to what some people would lead you to believe, the term "antioxidant," when used in reference to cosmetics does not mean anti-oxygen. In actuality, it means anti-oxidation, to prevent the oxidizing or degeneration (aging) of the skin. Some people would foolishly have you believe that oxygen and its effects on the skin are detrimental. Science has proven that oxygen and its components play a key role in many of the processes of life itself. Molecular oxygen, whether it is being inhaled or applied topically, is basic for overall health, beauty, and healthy looking skin.

Some folks would also lead you to believe that topically applied oxygen-infused products cannot be absorbed by the skin; once again ... incorrect. Cosmetic products that contain time-released oxygen can certainly be absorbed by the skin, and this would indeed explain their effectiveness. Apparently, some people need to study the facts and clinical tests that have been initiated worldwide by professional doctors, dermatologists, and scientists before they start spouting off negatively on this subject. It is apparent to us that some individuals, for whatever reason, cannot seem to wrap their limited intellect around the fact that there are oxygen products on the market today that really work in retarding the aging process.

Some sources are indicating that oxygen itself causes free-radical damage to the skin, but in actuality, the greatest negative effects are from ultraviolet light from the sun and environmental factors such as smog and cigarette smoke. This has also been proven and is completely factual. Anyone who openly admits that oxygen is a free-radical factor in damaging the skin need only go to the public library or surf the Internet to be properly enlightened on this subject. We can only look upon this feeble attempt to derail what has taken years properly to develop, as perhaps some disgruntled plastic surgeon whose business has been faltering.

Valerie Dumont, President of Cosmetic Manufacturers Inc.

Dear Valerie,
Your information about oxygen and free-radical damage does not match any of the research I've seen. Further, your letter did not include any studies supporting your contentions, so there is no way to evaluate how you reached your conclusions [nor have I received any since I sent this letter to Ms. Dumont in March of this year]. Insulting the intelligence of those who recognize the damage oxygen can cause, citing unnamed dermatologists, and referring to unidentified test results does not establish, confirm, prove, or change anything.

Without question, published research on free-radical damage, and the many scientists researching it, confirms that oxygen, along with other factors such as sunlight, pollution, enzyme actions, and hydrogen peroxide, does cause free-radical damage. Oxygen is necessary for life, but so are the processes causing free-radical damage. Many human and plant systems would not work without it. However, oxygen (and other oxidizing agents) left unchecked (without the balance of antioxidants) can be problematic for the body and skin. I can quote from endless sources proving the problematic nature of oxygen; but here are just a few for your consideration.

Reproductive BioMedicine Online, January-February 2003, pages 84-96: "...many aspects of early mammalian development, from fertilization through to differentiation of the principal organ systems, take place in vivo in a low oxygen environment. This may serve to protect the embryo from free radical damage, from exposure of early embryos to ambient oxygen concentrations..."

Mutation Research, December 2002, pages 111-119: "However, it is known that exposure to high concentrations of oxygen may lead to oxidative stress and cause cell and tissue damage. Oxygen toxicity and possible cancer-promoting effects of HBO [hyperbaric oxygen] therapy have been a matter of serious concern."

Journal of Biological Chemistry, November 2002, pages 42563-42571: "...O2 [oxygen] and H2O [water] damage cells in different ways."

Toxicology Letters, July 21, 2002, pages 203-210: "Increased oxygen concentrations can also lead to an increased production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). If antioxidant defenses are not completely efficient, ROS can cause cell injury including DNA damage."

The Reporter, Vanderbilt Medical Center, www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporter, February 7, 2003: " ...oxygen is not as benign as many believe it is,' said Dr. L. Jackson Roberts II, professor of Pharmacology and Medicine... 'it [is] possible to study the oxygen-induced damage and to evaluate potential therapeutic interventions like antioxidants...' "

Life Extension Magazine, September 1998: "Free radicals are highly reactive molecules produced in the body, often derived from oxygen, that carry an unpaired electron on their surface, making them prone to causing damage to other molecules they encounter. The ongoing, damaging effects of free radicals may be involved in aging and degenerative disease."

You can search the Internet and find information that concurs with yours, but none of it is cited or identified, or when the information is sourced, it dates back to the '70s, well before the extensive research on oxidative damage started taking place. Valerie, any current evidence supporting your notion that oxygen does not cause free-radical damage would have been helpful to validate your viewpoint, but I suspect the reason you didn't include any is because there is none to be found.