What lies beneath the “SCIENCE!”

OK, this post is going to be a bit more personal – because frankly this is something that’s been on my mind for quite some time and I think really needs to be discussed.

There’s a big problem in science-based beauty writing – especially from retailers, and I think it boils down to one big issue: Bias.

Science writing has always been difficult. It’s the translation of an experiment or analysis that’s very specific, distilled down to its essential point, and then presented in a way that will attract clicks.

“Moon leaf extract treats acne” is a much more appealing story than “Moon leaf extract reduces ratings on an acne severity grading scale compared to a placebo…in this study on Japanese people…but there was no effect on the Caucasian people in the study…it might also be due to changes in the weather – we don’t know. This is a preliminary study and another group should replicate it to validate our results. P.S. Our moon leaf extract may have been contaminated.”

You tend to lose all the nuances of a study once you summarise it into a single sentence. Often those nuances are important. This is something I worry about when writing for other websites and when I’m quoted in articles. Editors want clean and strong facts, and readers or customers want definitive and clear advice. Now add on to this the issue of bias, when most of us sit down to write we have a goal or idea and, we consciously or not, tend to focus on research that supports it. Writing a piece on green tea? I may read the supportive studies more closely or dismiss and be overly nitpicky with the studies that showed negative or no effect. Promoting a product that contains green tea? That bias presumably becomes stronger.

We’re humans, it’s hard to be impartial. I’m biased, I certainly have conscious ones and I definitely have unconscious ones. Do I like niacinamide based on its research? Or have I spent more time reading about niacinamide because I’ve been told it was well-researched? Do I favour my own formulations over others and do I lose out on improving my own formulations because of this bias?

Cosmetic research as a whole is neither vigorous nor impartial. It’s often funded by the manufacturer or a brand that is promoting its use. Most research on cosmetic ingredients extends to a single study – that will never be replicated. Most cosmetic research isn’t even done on humans – it’s performed on cells, on models, on animals, on plates of plastic. Most cosmetic products are studied in isolation.

It’s really difficult to take this loose, ephemeral, wishy-washy data and give a hard answer – that is unless you’re comfortable leaving out the gaps in the data, confounds, and specific conditions in the study, and unfortunately some science-based writers and retailers are. I get it – it’s not a great feeling to have someone reach out to you for advice and give them an answer that is at its core a long winded sigh of ‘Mayyybbbbeeeeeee’. That I can sympathise with, I can’t sympathise with people or companies who misconstrue or occlude information to position themselves as an expert or to sell a product.

I’m considering taking “skincare expert” out of my headline because I don’t think I am one – I’ve been told an “expert” just needs to know 1% more than the population, but I don’t think that’s enough. I think “expert” implies someone that has answers – and answers I do not have. What I do have is results from other people’s research, an opinion, and a desire to share both.

I want to be very clear: I know there are many writers out there that do seek out research, are curious, do their best to read it, understand it, and explain it to their readers. I also understand that not everyone has journal access or a relevant background. To them, I say get in touch with me – and I will help you get access to the paper and explain concepts. My issue is with the writers and companies who do have access, who twist and misconstrue, who leave out information that doesn’t support their view, those who are satisfied without questioning their conclusions, who write too confidently, who are OK with presenting a question as a fact, and who should know better.

So to my fellow writers, these are my suggestions to help our readers and customers make better beauty and skincare decisions

Clear and functional sources

Be proud of your sources, don’t source-puke a long list of unclickable, poorly formatted text in the hopes that people will be daunted and just trust what you wrote. Don’t just link to the journal’s homepage or a textbook. Take the effort and help people find where you found your information.

We live in the age of Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), it’s a permanent link that will always point to that resource – even if it gets moved to a new location. Use them! Or at least stick to a style guide for your sources, the ACS style guide is commonly used.

Relevance

Source and quote material that is relevant to your topic. Don’t source tangential things to try to make your writing look more researched. Was the experiment performed on humans? If not, you should point that out. Was it performed on humans, or animals, or cells? Was it a review of other research?

Often results from experiments on cells or animals are presented in a way to make us expect the same results when applied to our skin. Unfortunately, these results don’t always predict the results we can expect on humans. These types of studies can be useful in discovering how or why an ingredient works the way it does or if it’s possible for an ingredient to work – but they can’t replace results observed on actual people.

A review of ethanol’s effects on liver cells has been presented as evidence that ethanol applied onto the skin will cause the same damage – while there is a possible mechanism, that study isn’t strong evidence. Our skin acts as a barrier, ethanol evaporates quickly, other skin components like hyaluronic acid may reduce the effect, and human skin cells may respond differently than liver cells – these are just some factors that can change ethanol’s effect when put on our skin – but aren’t often mentioned.

Scrutinize yourself

We all make mistakes and we don’t all have editors or peers who can double-check our work. Saying something that isn’t common knowledge or you’re unsure of? Take a quick hop into Google and confirm it, otherwise, you might mischaracterize copper gluconate as a copper peptide.

If you’re citing research, read it! Finding a line that supports your point and skipping the rest of the paper is irresponsible, can be misleading to your readers, and most of all you’ve done yourself a disservice by missing out on some valuable knowledge.

Search broadly

Research is not an easter egg hunt. Searching for “Vitamin C+ Hyperpigmentation” won’t give you an unbiased and complete result. Because of the way paper abstracts and titles are written, searching for “Vitamin C + Hyperpigmentation” will likely only return results where Vitamin C was found to have a positive effect on hyperpigmentation. 

Instead try a broader search like “Vitamin C + Cosmetic”, “Vitamin C + Topical”, or “Vitamin C + Skin”.

Stop “SCIENCING!” the shit out of things

It is absolutely OK to not know something, or to not have an answer, or to have an opinion that isn’t researched. You can be honest with your readers and customers, I think they’ll appreciate that. Your opinions as a person or brand are valuable – as long as they’re transparent. Don’t use science as a veil, science is a process of discovery and learning – not a marketing angle or sales tactic.

“It’s important to keep in mind as you study chemistry or any other science that scientific theories are not laws of nature and can never be absolutely proven. There’s always the chance that a new experiment might give results that can’t be explained by present theory. All a theory can do is to represent the best explanation that we can come up with at the present time. If new experiments uncover results that present theories can’t explain, the theories will have to be modified or perhaps even replaced.”

— John E. McMurry, Chemistry (7th Edition)

Be honest

I think this is something that I can improve on as well. I will try to make it clear when I’m unsure about something and when I come across research that doesn’t “prove my point”.

Along those lines, I’d also like to thank you, the reader,  for your wonderful questions. There are often times when I get a new insight from a question, or it makes me realise that there’s a gap in my understanding.  I would love to give you answers to all of your questions, but I don’t have them. Sometimes I can only show you a map, but I can’t mark out the path. My broad advice is to let go of the notion of a “perfect routine” or “perfect product”. While the search for the perfect routine or skin care product isn’t a mythical quest – we’re not there yet. We don’t even know for sure if it’s better to apply a moisturiser before or after sunscreen – we have some educated guesses, but no strong proof! We’re even further from an answer that would apply to all sunscreen and all moisturiser combinations.

Skincare, as it is now, is a field of ‘maybes’. Maybe some of those expensive and rare botanical extracts have amazing anti-ageing effects and maybe it’s just the glycerin in your lotion that’s making your skin glow. Many skincare questions don’t have real answers yet and there’s even less information on whether or not an ingredient is better than another.

You should think about what your ‘evidence filter’ is set to. Is skincare fun and exciting for you? Do you have the budget and time to try newer and more novel ingredients? Then set your filter wider, enjoy the cornucopia of beautiful and fun products out there. Enjoy the process of applying them to your skin, of searching for them, of reading about other people’s experiences with them.

If that’s not what you want, then set your filter tighter, use ingredients that have more research on them – like a sunscreen with strong UVA and UVB protection and prescription retinoids. Take fewer risks and spend your money on skincare that has been shown to work for most people. You may be missing out on some truly effective ingredients, but you’re also avoiding ingredients that are just marketing.

In the long-run who will benefit more from their skincare routine? The person that seeks out the many novel and exciting products, or the one that picks the few researched and qualified products?

We just don’t know.

…Yet.

#BeautyRecap: September 6th, 2016

Retail

People stand inside a Lush cosmetics store in Berlin, Germany, July 14, 2016. REUTERS/Hannibal Hanschke

Lush relocates its UK staff to Germany after Brexit
Reuters.com

Fresh celebrates 25 years and launches new Vitamin Nectar line
EPRRetailNews.com

Morphe Cosmetics opens store in Burbank, California
ModernSalon.com

Kat Von D Beauty to launch in the UK and Ireland
WWD.com

Sikasso De Suisse launches cosmetic line for people of colour
Bustle.com

Marc Jacobs expands in the UK with John Lewis partnership
WWD.com

Read more

“Physical” vs. “chemical” sunscreens and other sunscreen myths

Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide are often categorised as “physical” sunscreens, whereas every other sunscreen used is considered a “chemical” sunscreen.

 

“Physical” Sunscreens “Chemical” Sunscreens
Zinc Oxide
Titanium Dioxide
Octocrylene
Avobenzone
Octinoxate
Octisalate
Oxybenzone
Homosalate
Mexoryl SX
Mexoryl XL
Tinosorb S
Tinosorb M

You’ll often find different rules and advice for using “physical” and “chemical” sunscreens. One dermatologist says that you need to apply less physical sunscreen compared to a chemical sunscreen. There’s also the belief that “physical” sunscreens provide protection instantly, don’t absorb into the skin, don’t degrade in the sun, and don’t need reapplication.

These are myths and are not backed by research or chemical knowledge. By following these rules (or myths) you’re not using your sunscreen to its greatest effect!

“Physical” vs. “Chemical”

Dividing sunscreens into “physical” and “chemical” isn’t the best way to do it. These two categories overlap completely. If we were to draw a Venn diagram of the two groups, it’d look like this

Sketch (1)

Chemicals are physical – they have a mass and take up space. On the other end, the “physical” sunscreens titanium dioxide and zinc oxide are chemicals, you can find the elements titanium and zinc on the periodic table.

ptabletizno

 

It’s sometimes explained that titanium dioxide and zinc oxide are suspensions of particles, they don’t dissolve or form solutions like chemical sunscreens. This is true and their even distribution in the sunscreen formula and on the skin is very important – poor distribution can greatly reduce how much UV protection titanium dioxide or zinc oxide can provide on the skin.

However, there are caveats, sunscreens like Tinosorb M (INCI: Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol) also exist as particle suspensions – not solutions. Tinosorb M comes as a very fine suspension of particles in water. So, if you were to draw the line based on that you’d have to include Tinosorb M,  a “chemical” sunscreen with the “physical” sunscreens.

What does differentiate titanium dioxide and zinc oxide then? Well, they’re both metal oxides or metals combined with oxygen. Metal oxide sunscreen doesn’t have the same ring to it, but there is another way to describe them.

Inorganic vs. Organic

In marketing, organic is a label that describes how something is produced – often with a safe-list of chemical treatments and approved practices.

In chemistry, organic means the chemistry of compounds that contain carbon. Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide don’t contain carbon. They’re made up of metal and oxygen and classified as inorganic.

Marking the categories as organic and inorganic makes more sense because all of the sunscreen chemicals used contain carbon, except for titanium dioxide and zinc oxide.

 

Sunscreen Chemical Formula Composition
Zinc Oxide ZnO 1 Zinc + 1 Oxygen
Titanium Dioxide TiO2 1 Titanium + 2 Oxygens
Octocrylene C24H27NO2 24 Carbons + 27 Hydrogens + 1 Nitrogen + 2 Oxygens
Avobenzone C20H22O3 20 Carbons + 22 Hydrogens + 3 Oxygens
Octinoxate C18H26O3 18 Carbons + 26 Hydrogens + 3 Oxygens

Organic and inorganic is also a useful way to categorise sunscreens because the way that the carbon atoms are linked up in organic sunscreens is why they absorb UV energy. If you look at the chemical structure of an organic sunscreen like avobenzone you’ll see that they have single bonds alternated with double bonds.

avobenzone

This alternation or conjugation of the single and double bonds allows the molecule to absorb energy along the electromagnetic spectrum. The amount of conjugation determines which part of the electromagnetic spectrum they absorb, whether that be in the visible spectrum to produce a colour, or in the ultraviolet spectrum to protect our skin from UV.

uv-color-spectrum

Inorganic and organic neatly divide the two sunscreen types and are also descriptive. I know most companies won’t want to confuse their customers by labelling their 80% organic-certified sunscreen product with titanium dioxide as inorganic, but at least as sunscreen shoppers we can understand the difference!

 

Myths about using Inorganic vs Organic Sunscreens

 

“Inorganic sunscreen and organic sunscreens work differently”

Mostly Myth! It’s often said that inorganic sunscreens (titanium dioxide and zinc oxide) reflect UV off of the skin and organic sunscreens absorb UV and convert it into heat. In reality, for most of the UV spectrum they work very similarly.

Organic sunscreens absorb UV because of the way the bonds between their carbon molecules are arranged. The number of bonds between the carbon atoms in the sunscreen molecules and their conjugated arrangement give sunscreens their absorptive properties in the UV region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Remember that conjugated means alternating single and double bonds!

The energy from UV light promotes electrons in the conjugated carbon bonds of organic sunscreen molecules from a lower energy state to a higher energy excited state. The excited electrons in the bonds then relax or release the absorbed energy by stretching, vibrating, or bending – this turns that energy into heat.

In some cases, the organic sunscreen chemical can’t relax and release the absorbed energy by bending, stretching, or vibrating and the absorbed energy causes a change in its structure. This is what happens with avobenzone, it absorbs the UV energy and instead of relaxing, it changes its structure – and this new structure formed from avobenzone doesn’t absorb UV energy as well. As more and more avobenzone molecules’ structures change, the less UV energy is absorbed by the sunscreen formula. Some of the new structures formed from avobenzone are also more irritating and sensitising to the skin. Photo-stabilizers prevent this from happening by absorbing the energy from excited avobenzone and releasing it before its structure can change.

Inorganic sunscreens work very similarly – even though their structure is different from organic sunscreens. Metal oxides, like titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, have solid structures made of alternating sheets of metal and oxygen atoms. The principle behind the UV protection is exactly the same as organic sunscreens. Instead of the arrangement and amount of carbon bonds, the particle size of the titanium dioxide or zinc oxide determines which parts of the electromagnetic spectrum it absorbs.

There is a strong belief that these inorganic metal oxide sunscreens act by reflecting UV light instead of absorbing it, but this isn’t the complete story. UV light is divided into UVB and UVA. UVB is between 280 to 315 or 320 nm and UVA is between 315 or 320 to 400 nm. Inorganic sunscreens predominately absorb in the UVB spectrum and reflect in the long UVA (above 360 nm) and visible spectrum. Only about 5% of UVB light is reflected by inorganic sunscreens and the remainder gets absorbed and converted – just like organic sunscreens.

The results of a measurement show how much energy is reflected by different types and sizes of titanium dioxide. The horizontal scale represents the electromagnetic spectrum with my yellow highlight marking the UV spectrum. The vertical scale represents how much of the energy is being reflected, the higher up on the chart – the greater the amount of reflection.

titanium dioxide2

Between 250 nm and 350 nm titanium dioxide reflects less than 10% of the energy. Between 350 nm and 400 nm there is more reflection depending on the form of titanium dioxide and the particle size. The anatase form of titanium dioxide exhibits more reflection than the rutile form of titanium dioxide. These forms have to do with the way the titanium and oxygen atoms are arranged in the titanium dioxide. Sunscreens often use rutile titanium dioxide because they are safer and less reactive.

The same is seen with zinc oxide, with most of the reflection being above 350 nm. The rest of the UV spectrum is absorbed.

zinc oxide

The high reflection above the UV spectrum (above 400 nm) into the visible light region of the electromagnetic spectrum is what causes the whitening effect and flashback when using inorganic sunscreens.

“You can use less of an inorganic sunscreen compared to an organic sunscreen”

Myth! All sunscreens are tested at the same density, which is 2 milligrams of sunscreen per square centimetre. That applies to inorganic, organic, spray, stick, lotion, wipes, etc.

If you want to get as close as possible to the protection on the label of the sunscreen product, you need to apply it at the same density it was tested at.

 

“Inorganic sunscreens sit on the skin. Organic sunscreens absorb into the skin”

Myth! Think of it this way, if we want to protect ourselves from the rain we need to hold the umbrella above our heads. Sunscreens work the same way, you want them to absorb the energy before they can reach our skin cells, particularly the living cells. The most effective way for this to be done is to have them on the surface of the skin in a continuous and even layer.

Both organic and inorganic sunscreen particles can penetrate into the upper layers of the skin. If and how much they penetrate is dependent on properties like their particle or molecular size as well as the overall sunscreen formula. This isn’t a desired effect and formulators work to reduce the amount that penetrates. Modern organic sunscreens often have larger molecular sizes, chemical and physical properties, or even coatings which make it more difficult for them to penetrate past the surface of the skin.

Keep in mind that skin penetration doesn’t mean that it’s causing harm to our bodies. There has to be a biological mechanism for it cause an effect. There is a lot current and ongoing research into this area, but we don’t have any strong answers yet.

 

“Inorganic sunscreens provide protection right away. Organic sunscreens need to activate on the skin”

Myth! Organic sunscreens and inorganic sunscreens absorb UV due to their electronic properties. There’s no activation or chemical reaction that occurs on the skin with organic sunscreens to create photoprotection.

We know this is true because we can measure how much UV is absorbed by an organic sunscreen off of the skin, like on a piece of clear plastic. Organic sunscreens will also prevent UV colour changing bracelets, beads, or stickers from changing colour.

Both inorganic and organic sunscreens will provide UV protection as soon as they’re placed on the skin. The reason why a wait time is part of the application instructions is to allow the sunscreen formula time to dry and form a film on the skin. This makes it harder for it to be wiped off and it also means it can dry to as even of a film on the skin as possible.

The more evenly distributed the sunscreen is on the skin, the more even the coverage and the greater the average protection. If we take 10 umbrellas and hold them over one person, that one person may remain very dry during a downpour but everyone else will get soaked – if we distribute the umbrellas evenly more people will remain dry. Photoprotection works the same way, it’s measured as an average – you don’t want some areas of the skin with more sunscreen and greater coverage at the expense of other areas with less sunscreen and less coverage.

 

“Inorganic sunscreens don’t need to be reapplied”

Myth! All sunscreens should be reapplied if you want to maintain photoprotection throughout the day. While it’s true that titanium dioxide and zinc oxide don’t change structure under normal UV radiation, that’s true for many organic sunscreens and sunscreen formulas as well.

The reason why reapplication is recommended is because we often don’t apply enough in the first place and it’s constantly being removed from our skin. Reapplication helps ensure that we have a minimum density of 2 milligrammes per square centimetre of sunscreen on our skin and that we maintain that density throughout the day.

We may not be conscious of removing our sunscreen, but touching our skin, putting on and taking off clothing, using our phones, sweating, eating…all these things will remove some of the sunscreen from our skin. Think about how the coverage of a foundation or lipstick changes throughout the day.

There is no clear answer as to when you should reapply your sunscreen. We all do different things throughout the day in regards to our skin, so the amount of sunscreen removed from the skin will differ from person-to-person and day-to-day. That’s why it’s difficult to have a single rule that will apply to everyone. Conclusions from studies vary in their recommendations for when and how often to reapply.

What you choose to do is up to you, but you should take into account how much UV you’re exposed to, how much you expect to be exposed to, and your activities. You should think about reapplying your sunscreen before going for a jog outdoors. Work in an office? Maybe reapply before you leave the office. What’s clear though is that you should definitely reapply after sweating, swimming, bathing, and abrasion (like laying on sand) – even if you are using a water-resistant sunscreen.

In the UK many sunscreens are marketed as ‘once-a-day’, but health organisations recommend disregarding that and still reapplying throughout the day.


I hope this post has helped you understand why calling some sunscreens “physical” and others “chemical” isn’t as descriptive as it could be, as well as why inorganic and organic sunscreens should be used the same way. Sunscreen is an important part of a skincare routine, and there’s a lot of conflicting advice on how to best use it. Understanding some principles will help you make sense of what is good advice and poor advice when it comes to sunscreen.

I’d also like to thank my friend Jonathon Moir for his help in editing this article.

#BeautyRecap: August 30th, 2016

Retail

Print

RoC Skincare campaign predicts the most wrinkle prone cities in the US
PRNewswire.com

Curology secures $15 million USD in Series B funding to expand teledermatology service
PRNewswire.com

Clinique for Men hires Daniel Dae Kim and Levison Wood for new campaign
WWD.com

Biotherm Homme and David Beckham launch new Force Supreme range
PRNewswire.com

Taraji P. Henson and MAC collaborate on new makeup line
Essence.com

Urban Decay to open free-standing store in Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Straight.com

Tarte Cosmetics launches 8 blush palette
Popsugar.com

Kiehl’s to open its first free-standing store in Wales
WalesOnline.co.uk

Blogger Gary Thompson to star in new L’Oreal ad campaign
DailyMail.co.uk

Kardashians win injunction in court case over cosmetics branding
HollywoodReporter.com

L’Oreal Paris launches hair contouring campaign
LOreal.co.uk

Nudestix launches matte collection for Fall
WWD.com

John Lewis plans £9m beauty hall expansion
TheGuardian.com

Sephora opens it 400th store in Chicago
PRNewswire.com

Le Métier de Beauté to double business and expand into the UK next year
WWD.com

Ariana Grande returns to MAC with new Viva Glam collection
People.com

Smith & Cult expands out of nail polish with new eye makeup products
WWD.com

Tangle Teezer and Hello Kitty team up on compact hair brush
Licensing.biz

Lovelyloot app hopes to help consumers find new products with 100 000 item database
WWD.com

Sephora launches Instagram contest to promote its own makeup and beauty collection
LuxuryDaily.com

Doralie Bad Medina & Floyd Mayweather Jr. host launch party for Bad Medina Cosmetics
BroadwayWorld.com

Ulta to open second location in San Francisco
Hoodline.com

Kylie Cosmetics sponsors Kim Kardashian’s Makeup Masterclass in Dubai
TeenVogue.com

Baxter of California launches a men’s grooming video series
PRNewswire.com

You can now buy Proactiv in Ulta stores
PRNewswire.com

Asia

recap2

Foreign traders are buying Korean cosmetic stocks, which locals are shunning
Bloomberg.com

“The sheet mask sanitation scandal rocking the K-beauty world”
Racked.com

Ha Ji Won sues cosmetic company for using her likeness
Soompi.com

Exports of hallyu-related goods surge: data
YonhapNews.co.kr

Chinese FDA clarifies new sunscreen regulations. SPF 50+ and PA+++ are the limits
CosmeticsDesign.com

L’Occitane opens augmented reality store in Tokyo
JapanTrends.com

Naruko looks to expand in the Philippines
ManilaTimes.net

Cosmetics manufacturer Englewood Lab to go public in South Korea
KoreaHerald.com

IT Cosmetics now available on Sephora’s website in Malaysia
Elle.my

Market

recap3

Why the cosmetics market is booming post-Brexit
Telegraph.co.uk

Sales of consumer goods in the UAE are down
GulfNews.com

Global online beauty and personal care market expected to grow at 17% until 2020
BusinessWire.com

Neem market expected to grow from $720 million USD to $1.8 billion USD by 2021
GlobeNewswire.com

Global ascorbic acid market expected to grow from $820 million USD to $1 billion USD by 2021
GlobeNewswire.com

Indie beauty stores are on the hunt for new brands and more varied makeup shades
WWD.com

Outreach and Sustainability

recap4

New Zealand cosmetic companies unhappy with forced animal testing to enter Chinese market
Stuff.co.nz

1/3rd of fish caught in the English Channel have microplastic contamination
TheGuardian.com

Cetaphil supports Children’s Skin Disease Foundation and Camp Wonder
PRNewswire.com

GHD creates beauty tutorial for women affected by hair loss from chemotherapy
Nine.com.au

Unilever, Target, and CVS sign Equal Pay Pledge in the US
WhiteHouse.gov

South African doctor Willem Visser receives grant from L’Oreal to fund Acne keloidalis nuchae research
TheEastAfrican.co.ke

Corporate

recap5

e.l.f. Beauty files for $100 million USD IPO
SeekingAlpha.com, WWD.com

“Ulta Beauty has a male investor problem”
Forbes.com

P&G files lawsuit against Edgewell over branding and patent infringements
StreetInsider.com

Egyptian personal care company Dabur achieves 25% sales increase during Q1
DailyNewsEgypt.com

Interesting Reads

recap6

“How the camera phone changed beauty”
Vice.com

UK survey finds 4/10 people annoyed by people putting on makeup during commute
Yahoo.com

An interview with Xavier Vey, president and COO of L’Oreal Luxe
WWD.com

An interview with Sweat Cosmetics founder and Olympian Lindsay Tarpley
Aol.com

Inventor James Dyson has more personal care gadgets in the works
Forbes.com

Instagram account @Willitlookgoodonmethough shows makeup on different skin tones
TheFashionSpot.com

“Jessica Alba’s 5 tips to become a beauty boss”
Allure.com

13 Pokemon inspired makeup tutorials
Bustle.com

“The black pageant queens of the ’70s paved the way for new beauty standards”
HuffingtonPost.com

Laura Sanchez wins Vlogger of the Year Award at the NYX FACE Awards
MakeupMag.com

“How natural are ‘natural’ hair dyes?”
TorontoSun.com

Gwyneth Paltrow says Apple helps her stay current with makeup trends
NYPost.com

Glamglow founders buy an Apple 1 prototype for almost a million USD
WWD.com

#BeautyRecap: August 23rd, 2016

Retail

recap1

KFC introduces a fried chicken scented sunscreen
PRNewswire.com

Lancome’s custom foundation to be offered at 9 additional Nordstrom locations across the US
PRNewswire.com

Honest Beauty launches haircare products
InStyle.com

Hailey Baldwin to launch cosmetics line with Model Co.
Refinery29.com

Estee Lauder launches Flirt Cosmetics with Amber Rose and Donald Robertson
WWD.com

German cosmetics brand Catrice launches in the US
Racked.com

Read more

#BeautyRecap: August 14th, 2016

Retail

recap1

ModiFace update allows users to live swap a makeup look
WWD.com

Urban Decay announces new ‘NAKED Ultimate Basics’ eyeshadow palette
Bustle.com

Victoria Beckham unveils her 18 piece makeup collection with Estee Lauder
USMagazine.com

MAC’s Selena collection will debut at arena event in singer’s hometown of Corpus Christi, Texas
Billboard.com

That hand “supermodel” Ellen Sirot has her own line of anti-aging beauty products now!
Yahoo.com

Dermalogica launches facial oil
WWD.com

Read more