Thursday, December 21, 2006
What happened to the time when makeup applied correctly was supposed to look “natural,” as if one didn’t have any on at all? Somewhere between “Project Runway and “Nip/Tuck,” we’ve definitely lost that minimalist approach to beauty.
The $70 billion a year cosmetic market wants to assure us that less is NOT more and that the fountain of youth can definitely be bought.
In the following weeks, from one boomer to another, we will try to evaluate products available to de-wrinkle, anti-age, pore minimize, cellulite shrink, collagen boost, laser enhance and other available means through which we can try to restore our former glory.
It is most important to note that the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 divided products according to their intended use. Drugs were those things that were expected to treat, prevent, or mitigate disease. They not only have to scientifically prove their efficacy, they are also expected to show no harm. Cosmetics, however, were only intended to beautify or enhance appearance, and as such, do not have to show ANY EFFICACY OR SAFETY. Therein lies a whole lot of room for marketing experts to convince us that the products in the beauty aisle are going to make us look 23 again.
Unfortunately, consumers are then left to wander the aisles, leaf through stacks of glamour magazines, pore over “before” and “after” photos and try to decide how to spend our cosmetic dollars. Do vitamins help? Are antioxidants worthwhile? Is an SPF of 30 twice as good as SPF 15? What does “noncomedogenic” mean? Do lasers work? Can sandpaper be used for dermabrasion? Is there a difference between a moisturizer that costs $3 and one that costs $30?
Check the “Beauty” page often at BoomerGirl.com. Together, we’ll demystify the choices and find out if one should worship at the altar of Clinque or pray to the goddess Aphrodite.
(By the way, save your sandpaper for that antique table you bought at the estate sale.)
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.