ziam

Dr. Dray drags Fenty Skin

Recommended Posts

Raspberry Swirl
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Blue G said:

Dermatologist will rightly not recommend fragranced products to a general audience, but one on one with a client who has no issues with fragrance they will. Which is why it's ridiculous that this woman would trash any product especially one not marketing itself as a medical grade product. A warning to those sensitive to fragrance is mostly all she had to do. 

Yes, this is why products will always say something like "Discontinue use if signs of irritation and/or rash appear". Even fragrance-free/dermatology-office-only products carry that warning since you never know what people can react to.

Edited by Raspberry Swirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maat
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Raspberry Swirl said:

I'm neutral to Rih, and I just want to say that @Blue G has the tea. Warning, long essay ahead.

 

Well, I'm not a cosmetic chemist (yet... maybe eventually) but I've taken several formulation science classes (+ a cosmetics elective) in my degree and have had an interest in skincare (+ I used to read about aromatherapy/essential oils as a hobby).

 

TLDA: Fragrance dangers in skincare are massively overhyped. Unless you are a rare case with a known skin sensitivity, or a skin condition like psoriasis, you do not need to fear fragrance in commercial skincare products.

 

Fragrance (often labeled parfum) in products is used in very low concentrations. That's why they are always near/at the very bottom of those ingredient lists. You only need very, very low concentrations of odor compounds (often less than 1%) for the product to have a significant scent, and at these concentrations they will not pose a problem to people without allergies or unusual fragrance sensitivities. I mean, these fragrance raw materials are quite expensive, so why would they be spammed in mass-produced products? And as mentioned by @Blue G, a very small population actually has these sensitivities. Obviously, if any perfume sprayed on your skin gives you a massive reaction, I agree with you being wary about your skincare, but consider that liquid perfume is a way more concentrated solution of fragrance compounds compared to skincare products.

 

Most essential oils and synthetic fragrance compounds found in commercial products will be those with known safety profiles, used at concentrations safe for the general population. They are often tested at higher concentrations than normal (vs. in skincare products) and deemed to be non-irritating and non-sensitizing before they are allowed by IFRA for use in skincare products. Some specific, nasty essential oils like cinnamon bark/lemon verbena/cold-pressed bergamot are either banned outright, have their acceptable levels of use tightly-regulated, or must have the specific dangerous chemicals distilled out to be used. But do be careful of 'homemade soaps' sold by random vendors...

 

Also, off the top of my head, I can think of two reasons why fragrance might be inescapable in a product:

1. To mask a bad-smelling active ingredient. E.g. Vitamin C on its own smells metallic, and I'm sure there are far nastier-smelling things that I can't think of right now. 

2. An active ingredient is a plant extract, not necessarily an essential oil, that has its own fragrance. E.g. chamomile extract.

 

I'm sure I've missed some talking points, feel free to point them out.

 

My thoughts on why the dangers were overhyped in the first place are in the spoilers below, as they are not crucial to this discussion. Random history lesson I guess:

  Reveal hidden contents

Not sure precisely where it started but I want to blame Ms. 'Cosmetics Cop' Paula Begoun, her book and her website Beautypedia (which preceded her own skincare line :toofunny2:, hint hint) . She marketed herself exceptionally well, and some people still consider her the bible on cosmetics safety though she had no scientific training (was just an MUA IIRC). One of her favorite things to preach was that fragrance had ZERO place in skincare, and she would cite a lot of journals as 'evidence' that certain fragrance materials would wreak havoc on your skin. The issue is, she would skim through journals, cherry-pick her favorite phrases, and present them as evidence without considering the context, in a way preying on the fact that most of the GP does not know how to analyze data presented in scientific journals:

 

There's a link here that takes apart her claims one by one (YES the guy sells essential oils, but his criticisms are very valid):

https://roberttisserand.com/2011/08/lavender-oil-skin-savior-or-skin-irritant/

For instance, she overstated the dangers of peroxidation of lavender oil (a SLOW process, and sometimes antioxidants in the general formula can act as preservatives). More in the link above.

 

Paula has since backtracked on a lot of her claims (some plant extracts that used to freak her out are now listed as good) and has distanced herself from beautypedia, but the damage has been done. You now see people parroting her philosophies about fragrance-free skincare. I think it has its advantages as companies are pressured to provide fragrance-free, minimalist skincare options, but at the same time it's not really based on sound scientific evidence.

 

 

The truth is in the middle. IFRA operates on a completely voluntary principle, meaning they have no legal right to enforce their recommendations. The biggest manufacturers claim they follow IFRA’s guidelines. Furthermore, IFRA had an impact on European Commission’s Cosmetics Product Regulation. The reason you can see 26 different fragrance compounds (e.g. Linalool, Limonene, Geraniol, Citral, Benzyl Alcohol, Eugenol) listed in addition to just “fragrance/parfum” is because the European Commission consider them or their degradation products sensitizing (meaning able to create an allergic reaction). The USA doesn’t require them to be listed, but big manufacturers want to standardize their products worldwide, so they are usually listed. These 26 compounds  can be added individually, but more often than not that they are present in essential oils, e.g. linalool is a major component of lavander essential oil, and if lavander is present in any meaningful concentration, linalool should also be listed. 


IFRA keeps tightening their recommendations, as the risk of acquiring a sensitization to a fragrance compound is cumulative. Meaning there is usually a specific threshold needed for each at risk individual to develop an allergic reaction. For example, 0.1% of Citral in a face cream, used twice daily might not develop an immunological reaction, but if you encounter citral in a body lotion, face cream, eye cream, toner, serum, fine fragrance etc. in that same day, the risk increases. Once an allergy is develop it is permanent, and your body will recognize that sensitizing compound and create a reaction to it. 
In addition, much higher population of people will develop an irritant reaction, where your immune system is not involved, and there is no priming needed, irritation can be felt with the first use.

 

Fragrance is usually used at less than 1% in skin care, because it’s expensive and serious brands don’t want to receive complaints by customers. However, natural fragrance compounds like essential oils don’t have such a strong “projection” and they don’t last very long on the skin, that’s why modern fragrance relies heavily on synthetic compounds which can be used in very small concentration and still be impactful.

So products that comply with natural standards will often have a higher level of fragrance. Moreover, unsaturated compounds (containing  double and triple bonds) like plant oils are prone to degradation and creating off-odors, that’s why “natural” products have to have even higher levels of fragrance to conceal that.

 

Finally, many fragrance compounds are themselves prone to degradation, that’s why having them in sunscreen products is not the best idea. For example linalool (present in Lavander oil) on its own is not such a sensitizing ingredient, but when degraded it forms hydroperoxides of linalool which are much more sensitizing.

Edited by maat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raspberry Swirl
Just now, maat said:

The truth is in the middle. IFRA operates on a completely voluntary principle, meaning they have no legal right to enforce their recommendations. The biggest manufacturers claim they follow IFRA’s guidelines. Furthermore, IFRA had an impact on European Commission’s Cosmetics Product Regulation. The reason you can see 26 different fragrance compounds (e.g. Linalool, Limonene, Geraniol, Citral, Benzyl Alcohol, Eugenol) listed in addition to just “fragrance/parfum” is because the European Commission consider them or their degradation products sensitizing (meaning able to create an allergic reaction). The USA doesn’t require them to be listed, but big manufacturers want to standardize their products worldwide, so they are usually listed. These 26 compounds  can be added individually, but more often than not that they are present in essential oils, e.g. linalool is a major component of lavander essential oil, and if lavander is present in any meaningful concentration, linalool should also be listed. 

You are right that IFRA is not a regulatory authority: they can only make recommendations. Sorry if my earlier post was misleading about this.

 

Companies follow them simply because it's not worth the cost of having to do a recall when people start to suffer reactions that could have easily been prevented. That's why those weird homemade soap people can get away with all kinds of nonsense, but they can still be sued if someone unlucky gets a severe reaction. And yes that bit about linalool/eugenol etc. at the end of ingredients lists is accurate, too.

 

22 minutes ago, maat said:

IFRA keeps tightening their recommendations, as the risk of acquiring a sensitization to a fragrance compound is cumulative. Meaning there is usually a specific threshold needed for each at risk individual to develop an allergic reaction. For example, 0.1% of Citral in a face cream, used twice daily might not develop an immunological reaction, but if you encounter citral in a body lotion, face cream, eye cream, toner, serum, fine fragrance etc. in that same day, the risk increases. Once an allergy is develop it is permanent, and your body will recognize that sensitizing compound and create a reaction to it. 
In addition, much higher population of people will develop an irritant reaction, where your immune system is not involved, and there is no priming needed, irritation can be felt with the first use.

It needs to be said that most fragrance material safety testing (on animals, sadly...) is performed at various concentrations, including concentrations much higher than what you will encounter in skincare. For instance, 10%. They will test for sensitization and irritancy at these unrealistic concentrations too, and  over an extended time period, and materials that produce positive results in a significant % of subjects are likely to either be banned or heavily restricted to very low concentrations in skincare that will minimize the risks. IFRA etc. would certainly account for repeated exposure and the potential of different products layering the same fragrance compounds, and err on the side of caution. 

The cases of sensitization I've read about have been attributed to 

1) Repeated exposure to undiluted material or material in high concentration over a long time

2) Occupational exposure, which is tied to 1)

3) Use on broken skin, which is warned against on almost any product

 

Your description of sensitization and irritation are correct, though.

 

 

23 minutes ago, maat said:

Fragrance is usually used at less than 1% in skin care, because it’s expensive and serious brands don’t want to receive complaints by customers. However, natural fragrance compounds like essential oils don’t have such a strong “projection” and they don’t last very long on the skin, that’s why modern fragrance relies heavily on synthetic compounds which can be used in very small concentration and still be impactful.

So products that comply with natural standards will often have a higher level of fragrance. Moreover, unsaturated compounds (containing  double and triple bonds) like plant oils are prone to degradation and creating off-odors, that’s why “natural” products have to have even higher levels of fragrance to conceal that.

First sentence: yes, absolutely.

Second part: this is true if you compare natural fragrance to synthetics, however we are talking about skincare here and not perfume, so we don't need to emphasize things like sillage or projection in the product. In fact, having a powerful, lingering fragrance can be a off-putting in a product for consumers to spread on their faces, right near the nose. Even the fragrance in hand creams doesn't last that long compared to a perfume.

 

Natural products do indeed face that challenge due to the fixed plant oils, but they often accommodate by using natural preservatives (rosemary oleoresin is a common one). Jojoba is the exception, that one lasts forever because it's more wax than oil. Of course, these preservatives are inferior to synthetic preservatives, and this is reflected in the expiry date of the product, usually one year or less (vs. most products that are often up to 2 years). 

 

And anyway, the reason why they can be very fragranced (see Jurlique or Aesop) is not due to the need to conceal the scent of rancid oils, but more of the fact that many of the "active plant extracts" they like to employ (and come up with vague claims for) have their own innate fragrances. For instance, a lot of these brands like to make claims about the skin benefits of rose oil and rosewater, so their products are going to smell strongly of rose, and it doesn't have that much to do with hiding the smell of fixed oils going bad.

 

23 minutes ago, maat said:

Finally, many fragrance compounds are themselves prone to degradation, that’s why having them in sunscreen products is not the best idea. For example linalool (present in Lavander oil) on its own is not such a sensitizing ingredient, but when degraded it form hydroperoxides of linalool which are much more sensitizing.

Linalool (lavender, neroli, other flowers), the pinenes (tea tree oil, conifers), and limonene (citrus oils) are the ones to watch out for when it comes to degradation over time. These oils are used in a low concentration anyway, so a negligible concentration of peroxides will be formed within the product's shelf life of maybe 2 years. In the case of certain natural brands where these tend to be used at higher concentrations, the expiry date is appropriately brought forward. It's also important to note that most commercial skincare does contain antioxidants/preservatives that will slow down this process. This is more of a concern with neat essential oil application (NOT recommended at all, but people do do that sometimes in aromatherapy) and massage (which often uses higher EO concentrations in massage oils).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maat
3 hours ago, Raspberry Swirl said:

Natural products do indeed face that challenge due to the fixed plant oils, but they often accommodate by using natural preservatives (rosemary oleoresin is a common one). Jojoba is the exception, that one lasts forever because it's more wax than oil. Of course, these preservatives are inferior to synthetic preservatives, and this is reflected in the expiry date of the product, usually one year or less (vs. most products that are often up to 2 years). 

I would like to point out that rosemary oleoresin acts as an antioxidant, not a preservative. Antioxidants are used to control oxidation, but most of them don’t have an inhibitory effect on microorganisms. Preservatives are used to control microbial count and are highly regulated, e.g. they are listed in Annex V of Regulaton (EC) No 1223 / 2009 for the European Union.

 

Antioxidants are really not a magic bullet that they are presented as, they will offset rancidity only for some time, and definitely not for the full shelf life. Those products that don’t have a stated date of expiry, will be there for years. Check if your Aesop product has a date of expiry (an actual month and year) or only period-after-opening (PAO) pot drawn on the packaging. If this has PAO, it means it can stay at least 2,5 years on the shelf.


Jojoba oil as a long chain monoester (aka wax), lasts longer than your typical plant oil composed of triglycerides. However, it goes rancid as well, I had 2 different samples that started going rancid after a while, and you can definitely smell all those aldehydes forming.

3 hours ago, Raspberry Swirl said:

For instance, a lot of these brands like to make claims about the skin benefits of rose oil and rosewater

It’s funny how much “natural” brands love rose oil, when it was hit hard by both IFRA and the European Commission, for containing a high concentration of methyl eugenol a recognized carcinogen. Many perfumes had to be reformulated. So much for “natural” brands being “safer”.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EnoughSaid

She's a skin care expert? She looks like a half dead ghoul. What's wrong with her face/lips? Girl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raspberry Swirl
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, maat said:

I would like to point out that rosemary oleoresin acts as an antioxidant, not a preservative. Antioxidants are used to control oxidation, but most of them don’t have an inhibitory effect on microorganisms. Preservatives are used to control microbial count and are highly regulated, e.g. they are listed in Annex V of Regulaton (EC) No 1223 / 2009 for the European Union.

 

Antioxidants are really not a magic bullet that they are presented as, they will offset rancidity only for some time, and definitely not for the full shelf life. Those products that don’t have a stated date of expiry, will be there for years. Check if your Aesop product has a date of expiry (an actual month and year) or only period-after-opening (PAO) pot drawn on the packaging. If this has PAO, it means it can stay at least 2,5 years on the shelf.


Jojoba oil as a long chain monoester (aka wax), lasts longer than your typical plant oil composed of triglycerides. However, it goes rancid as well, I had 2 different samples that started going rancid after a while, and you can definitely smell all those aldehydes forming.

It’s funny how much “natural” brands love rose oil, when it was hit hard by both IFRA and the European Commission, for containing a high concentration of methyl eugenol a recognized carcinogen. Many perfumes had to be reformulated. So much for “natural” brands being “safer”.

 

 

That depends on how you define 'preservative', actually. The thing is, the FDA doesn't specially regulate preservatives in cosmetics, but they do in food, where the definition simply defines it as substances to 'prevent or slow* deterioration of' the product.

*they used a word starting with r that has six letters, but I'm not going to waste energy getting reported over this

 

European commission:

Quote

A preservative is a natural or synthetic ingredient that is added to products to prevent them from spoiling. The availability of a wide and safe range of preservatives is one of the key challenges to the cosmetics sector.

Couldn't find the Asean Cosmetics Directive definition, they might not have defined it.

 

Aesop uses some synthetic preservatives like phenoxyethanol: not truly a natural brand but I was citing it as an example because of its strong fragrance and tendency to use natural ingredients as 'actives'. Those other Australian brands that use things like rosemary oleoresin have very short shelf-lives. 

 

Everything I've read (and experienced) about jojoba suggests it doesn't go rancid. Your experience is a little strange, maybe there were other ingredients in there?

 

I'm not a fan of rose in skincare either, but the amount used in products is low because the oil is ridiculously expensive (low yield, and it's a flower oil) and the fragrance is intense. Anyway, perfumes use much, much higher concentrations of fragrant material than skincare products, so no surprises there. And I agree natural brands aren't safer, that's just BS preached by salespeople or those chemikillz types. 

Edited by Raspberry Swirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maat
Posted (edited)

@Raspberry Swirl
Regulation (EC) 1223 / 2009, Chapter I, Article 2, (l)”preservatives means substances which are exclusively or mainly intended to inhibit the development of micro- organisms in the cosmetic product.”

Also:

(26) “substances which are intended to be used as colorants, preservatives and UV-filters should be listed in the Annexes IV, V and VI respectively in order to be allowed for these uses.”

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/endocrine_disruptors/docs/cosmetic_1223_2009_regulation_en.pdf

 

So there is no ambiguity what is a preservative under European legislation, if it’s listed in Annex V, it is a preservative, if it’s not it’s not a preservative. 
I’m aware that some other ingredients will contribute to microbial control which are not listed there like ethanol, however, antioxidants like rosemary oleoresin, tocopherol etc. will not contribute to it, some of them might even serve as a food source to microorganisms.

 

Jojoba oil has one double bond on the alcohol and another one on the acid part of the molecule, so of course it goes rancid eventually. I’ve looked over a few studies now, for example one study uses oxidative stability index (OSI) at 110°C. Cold pressed jojoba oil reached 55.9h, refined high oleic sunflower 49.8h, crude jojoba oil 34.5h, refined jojoba oil 31.4h, deodorized jojoba oil 23.5h, while refined soybean oil reached 19.9h, just to put things in perspective. So yes it definitely goes rancid.

https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/25491/PDF

 

 

 

Edited by maat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raspberry Swirl
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, maat said:

...

Saw your pm, agreed, let's take it there.

Edited by Raspberry Swirl
Shortened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MONSTER NAVY
On 7/31/2020 at 8:25 PM, that G.U.Y. said:

Imagine launching a skincare line full of fragrance in 2020 :rip:

1 percent is full?? maybe u need to go back to math class

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Komet blu

it's 2020, it's kinda dumb to release skincare with fragrance in it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WeFoundWill

Not the Skincare experts on ATRL eating this woman UP :clap3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grumpy Cat
12 hours ago, EnoughSaid said:

She's a skin care expert? She looks like a half dead ghoul. What's wrong with her face/lips? Girl

she is a PhD dermatologist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grumpy Cat
28 minutes ago, WeFoundWill said:

Not the Skincare experts on ATRL eating this woman UP :clap3:

she makes points tho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gloamingtheplain

The first 30 seconds alone, tells me she just hates celebrity Skin Care lines in general, and she sounds like the kind of person that would bash it even if it was the best of the best. Her attitude towards it is horrible even before she talks about it :rip: 

 

How is this a non bias overview? I'm in different to it, I haven't bought anything Fenty. But if I wanted to watch a review, I would have closed this straight away. 

It's full of bias, and she's pissed other influencers got it first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bathomet

Rih serving literal "DERMATOLOGISTS HATE HER" tea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G.U.Y. Gaga
17 hours ago, EnoughSaid said:

She's a skin care expert? She looks like a half dead ghoul. What's wrong with her face/lips? Girl

 

Rih serving literal "DERMATOLOGISTS HATE HER" tea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Javan
23 hours ago, maat said:

The truth is in the middle. IFRA operates on a completely voluntary principle, meaning they have no legal right to enforce their recommendations. The biggest manufacturers claim they follow IFRA’s guidelines. Furthermore, IFRA had an impact on European Commission’s Cosmetics Product Regulation. The reason you can see 26 different fragrance compounds (e.g. Linalool, Limonene, Geraniol, Citral, Benzyl Alcohol, Eugenol) listed in addition to just “fragrance/parfum” is because the European Commission consider them or their degradation products sensitizing (meaning able to create an allergic reaction). The USA doesn’t require them to be listed, but big manufacturers want to standardize their products worldwide, so they are usually listed. These 26 compounds  can be added individually, but more often than not that they are present in essential oils, e.g. linalool is a major component of lavander essential oil, and if lavander is present in any meaningful concentration, linalool should also be listed. 


IFRA keeps tightening their recommendations, as the risk of acquiring a sensitization to a fragrance compound is cumulative. Meaning there is usually a specific threshold needed for each at risk individual to develop an allergic reaction. For example, 0.1% of Citral in a face cream, used twice daily might not develop an immunological reaction, but if you encounter citral in a body lotion, face cream, eye cream, toner, serum, fine fragrance etc. in that same day, the risk increases. Once an allergy is develop it is permanent, and your body will recognize that sensitizing compound and create a reaction to it. 
In addition, much higher population of people will develop an irritant reaction, where your immune system is not involved, and there is no priming needed, irritation can be felt with the first use.

 

Fragrance is usually used at less than 1% in skin care, because it’s expensive and serious brands don’t want to receive complaints by customers. However, natural fragrance compounds like essential oils don’t have such a strong “projection” and they don’t last very long on the skin, that’s why modern fragrance relies heavily on synthetic compounds which can be used in very small concentration and still be impactful.

So products that comply with natural standards will often have a higher level of fragrance. Moreover, unsaturated compounds (containing  double and triple bonds) like plant oils are prone to degradation and creating off-odors, that’s why “natural” products have to have even higher levels of fragrance to conceal that.

 

Finally, many fragrance compounds are themselves prone to degradation, that’s why having them in sunscreen products is not the best idea. For example linalool (present in Lavander oil) on its own is not such a sensitizing ingredient, but when degraded it forms hydroperoxides of linalool which are much more sensitizing.

Not everyday u log into atrl and learn smth. Nice read :giraffe:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Javan
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Raspberry Swirl said:

Saw your pm, agreed, let's take it there.

Whyyy. I was enjoying the read :emofish:

Edited by Javan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raspberry Swirl
3 minutes ago, Javan said:

Whyyy. I was enjoying the dead :emofish:

I think you meant 'read' :deadbanana2:

 

We just felt like we were clogging up the thread. Most ATRLers don't seem fond of walls of text. :michael:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
letscauseascene1

Fragrance should NEVER be in any of your skin care products, she's not wrong. That's why I'm not even going to bother with this line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Petty Bourgeoisie
10 hours ago, Raspberry Swirl said:

I think you meant 'read' :deadbanana2:

 

We just felt like we were clogging up the thread. Most ATRLers don't seem fond of walls of text. :michael:

Chile I read every word. Y’all should collab on a blog or sumn. Serving Ebert & Roeper but make it cosmetics. Information >>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1989

She looks...worrying :biblio:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robattack332
On 7/31/2020 at 5:20 AM, Mythology said:

All those fragrance sheep:ahh:

Fragrance-free is a topic that some brands have been trying to push just to find a way to promote their fragrance-free brands

Most of the most famous and renowned skin care brands like Estée Lauder, Lancôme, Olay, L’Oreal, La Prairie, La Mer, their products all have fragrance and artificial coloring in their products but most people have no problems with using them for decades and they’re still going strong without removing them from its ingredients

Only very few amount of people are allergic to fragrance. And even they’re allergenic, most people’s skin is only sensitive to a very specific type of fragrance. They only need to avoid those one specific type of ingredient

Unless there are a lot of kinds of fragrance have been adding to one product, it won’t hurt your skin. Stop acting like they can burn your skin:skull:

While many who follow skincare are, indeed, sheep (see parabens, silicones, sulfates, etc....), fragrance absolutely does not fall into that category. You are correct that most of the population will not see immediate irritation, but there are sensitizing effects fragrance has on the skin that can easily go unnoticed for a long time. This means that you will be at higher risk to develop irritations and issues to other ingredients as you use them more. Most importantly, It can cause further sensitivity to sunlight which will lead to quicker signs of aging and higher risks of skin cancer. It serves absolutely no role in skincare whatsoever, so why even bother putting it in?

 

You are also right that a lot of those brands have used it for years. Simultaneously, levels of skin cancer, sun damage, and skin irritation in general are higher than ever with the older (and younger) population. I'm not necessarily saying those products are a direct correlation (we don't have that exact data), but I find strange that your argument is that people "have had no problem using them" when skin issues are at an all-time high right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robattack332
On 8/2/2020 at 3:57 AM, gloamingtheplain said:

The first 30 seconds alone, tells me she just hates celebrity Skin Care lines in general, and she sounds like the kind of person that would bash it even if it was the best of the best. Her attitude towards it is horrible even before she talks about it :rip: 

 

How is this a non bias overview? I'm in different to it, I haven't bought anything Fenty. But if I wanted to watch a review, I would have closed this straight away. 

It's full of bias, and she's pissed other influencers got it first. 

It's a non-bias interview because she's talking about the ingredients. Celebrities have a track record of having terrible ingredients in their lines and selling marketing gimmicks at insane prices. So yeah, I can't blame her for having a bad attitude, but the ingredients are the ingredients.....and surprise, they're not that great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chris1991
On 8/1/2020 at 5:32 PM, EnoughSaid said:

She's a skin care expert? She looks like a half dead ghoul. What's wrong with her face/lips? Girl

Lmao girl I had the same though. She’s not even that popular other accounts with more views say it’s overall fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites