Dear Paula,

Perhaps you can help answer this, because this is something that has bugged me. All skin-care companies presumably employ a cosmetic chemist. Some companies (massive ones like Proctor & Gamble or Johnson & Johnson) probably put millions of dollars into cosmetic research, extensive testing, and the like to ensure their products work.

Now for my questions: if these companies have access to the same research as you do (which they would), then why would they consciously formulate problematic skin creams? Why would a company like Neutrogena, for instance, knowingly approve a product without full spectrum UVA protection? To use another example, if, as you say, jar packaging is so detrimental to a well-formulated product, why would a company like P&G (who’s able to employ the best cosmetic chemists in the industry) not realize the pitfalls of a jar? Where is all this big money going?

Chris, via comment on Paula’s Beauty Bunch Blog 

Dear Chris,

I wonder the same thing and I have asked the same questions of cosmetic chemist after cosmetic chemist and dermatologist after dermatologist and all I get is silence or some made-up nonsense that flies in the face of the facts. I had one cosmetic chemist at a major company tell me that their ingredients were micro-encapsulated and therefore could go in a jar package, but that isn’t possible. Encapsulation allows for enhanced penetration and potentially greater stability but does not protect from what air or light can do to certain ingredients. The short answer is I have no idea why they do what they do. The research is clear. I quote it in my books and online. There is no research to the contrary, at least none I can find.

My longer answer: You’re 100% right that all of the large cosmetic companies, from L’Oreal and Estee Lauder to P&G, employ brilliant cosmetic chemists capable of creating truly remarkable products (where would we be without the skill and formulary finesse of cosmetic chemists?). But they also employ marketing and public relations staffs that are adept at taking a formula a cosmetic chemist knows won’t work beyond simply moisturizing skin or protecting from free radical damage and then it’s all about fooling the consumer and turning the product into an anti-wrinkle miracle of the month. These marketing and PR departments are generally much larger and have much greater budgets than those for product research and development, and they know exactly how to appeal to consumers (especially women) concerned about aging, wrinkles, discolorations, cellulite, you name it. By and large, consumers like jars, fragrance, plant ingredients they can understand regardless of their benefit, and seemingly prefer marketing claims to ingredient listings they can’t understand.

As for the testing these companies conduct, at least the ones that end up being quoted in advertisements, most of them are all about claim substantiation. Cosmetic companies either hire third party or do the “study” themselves. Regardless, the sole mission is to take the product in question and put it through a battery of carefully-designed tests to ensure the results are whatever the company wants them to be. An 80% increase in collagen production, 40% reduction in wrinkle depth? 300% longer eyelashes? Check, check, check and done. Then the cosmetic company promotes these bogus tests as scientific evidence their products work as claimed, even though the cosmetic chemists (most of whom, by this time, have long since moved on to other projects) know it’s a fabrication, at least in terms of what the ingredients really can and cannot do. When have you ever seen a cosmetic company say they have a study where the product didn’t work? It doesn’t exist anywhere.

My theory on why so many companies continue to use jar packaging is because it’s what many consumers prefer. A pretty, sculpted jar sitting on one’s vanity is much more appealing than a clinical-looking opaque bottle with an airless pump applicator. The latter is exactly what’s needed to preserve the integrity of key anti-aging ingredients, yet because it’s not what most consumers want, it’s not what they get. The Lauder companies are a great example of this. I would recommend twice as many moisturizers from their brands if only they’d move more away from jar packaging or at least consider airless jars, something Clarins has done with some of their skin-care products (too bad their formulas aren’t as state-of-the-art as those from the Lauder brands).

Turning to the sunscreen issue and companies launching new sunscreens without sufficient UVA-protecting ingredients, don’t get me started. That fact is a constant source of frustration because it happens most from companies (like L’Oreal and Lancome) that know better (L’Oreal owns patents on UVA-protecting ingredients and knew about avobenzone’s importance long before they ever used it in their products). It’s hard to accept that they’re launching inferior products that put your skin’s health and appearance at risk, but that sobering fact is exactly what’s happening every time an unsuspecting consumer chooses a sunscreen that lacks the active ingredients research has shown are best for protecting skin from the full range of UVA light. I don’t know why they do it, but few things this industry does are motivated by common sense and an earnest desire to help consumers. The apathy is apparent because the message seems to be: just spend your money on our brand, don’t question our expertise, and enjoy the overly-fragranced, antioxidant-rich insufficient sunscreen we’ve packaged in a pretty jar.

I wish it were a slam-dunk that a multi-billion dollar cosmetics company with millions of dollars to devote to research, development, and hiring the best of the best would consistently produce five-star products. It seems so cut-and-dried, but it’s just not the reality. What is the reality? Multi-billion dollar cosmetic companies (and lots of smaller companies, too) spend a huge portion of their money convincing consumers via marketing, commercials, magazine ads, and other media that they have the answer to whatever is bothering you about your skin. Sometimes the products really do work as claimed or at least come as close as scientifically possible. But most of the time the claims and statistics are way off the mark and often the products are poorly formulated, and the packaging just sucks.