And now, a special announcement: Things that piss me off about the world of beauty.

There's nothing more irritating to me than seeing a blantently dishonest ad for beauty or fashion; some air brushed, stick thin, walking hypodermic needle of a model pouting and touting the newest innovation (if you can call it that) in the world of aesthetics. I give kudos to companies like the Body Shop and Dove that campaign against the usual mindless factory cookie cutter looking models out there (anyone remember Ruby from the Body Shop? And don't forget Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty). But it still pisses me off because companies can, will and still are lying to women and can get away with it. Shocked? Surprised that you've been lied to? I think some women like the feeling actually because in a sense it does deliver some strange notion of hope. That THIS will be product to end all products (insert whatever formulation there is that is being advertised here_). That the cosmetic sales person really truly has your best interest at heart (and shit, some of them may, I'm not pointing fingers). But face the facts guys and gals; cosmetic companies make big bucks off being lying, misleading bastards.

Example; ever walked by a cosmetic counter and seen before and after photos? The before photo usually looks so awful because majority of the time the person wiped down their skin with alcohol; the kind that dries out skin, irritates pores and makes skin look -surprise!- shitty! So slathering on whatever product after is going to make a world of difference! Usually that is. Companies can also get away with lying because in some stretch of the imagination, it's not really lying. What the hell does that mean right? Let me set the scenario up: you walk into _ store and are looking for whatever skin product. You read the ad for it and it probably goes something like this: "with our new, groundbreaking technology to hydrate skin, refresh pores and virtually eliminate wrinkles, skin appears younger, smoother, and more toned." Sounds familiar, so why the bitching and moaning on my end?

"Skin APPEARS.. skin SEEMS.." are just two terms that are commonly used that skirt around the elephant in the room; that "appearing and seeming to be..." are not concrete enough to actually show results. They're wishy washy claims that entice buyers (like you and at times, myself) into thinking "WOW! I need this in my life yesterday!". Don't fall for it.

I get pissed off because I have such a huge respect for women and their beauty and presence. Women wake up everyday and face the fact that they aren't being paid as much as male counter parts, face legal confinements, face sexual discrimination, face harassment, sexism, bigotry, and more. Yet they're pigeon-holed into  this impossible stereotype of what a woman SHOULD be (enter; the endless supply and demand for youth, sexiness and femininity that the cosmetic world tries to push so hard). So when a woman goes to spend her hard earned cash, she's met with the option of spending hundreds of dollars on some shit product with a fancy name (I'm not going to risk saying anything specific here) simply because she may have been forced to believe that THIS, this product, will cure her ails.

I get pissed because it also doesn't have to be like that, but it probably won't change either. Looking at cosmetic ads, fashion magazines and beauty promos, you'd have to be pretty naive to think that big fashion houses and cosmetic labels would EVER cast someone that couldn't be sold to the public as either congenitally pretty/approachable or sexy. If you don't fit into those boxes you're relegated to a class of people that SHOULD be buying that product because YOU'RE the one that needs help looking like the person in the ad. And that's fucking insulting. While I see nothing wrong with the way that, say, Ellen or Halley Berry look (they are beautiful with or without the makeup they're promoting), I think it's a little degrading to try and constantly perpetuate an impossible standard for women to follow. I do however, give Olay/Cover Girl credit for casting an openly gay woman as the face for a foundation, no matter how unbendable and shitty the colors are though.

With that being said, I hope that maybe one day beauty ads cater more towards promoting an idea and awareness of "love thyself" rather than "loathe thyself because you are _ and not _". 

Guest post! I Call Bullshit – Estée Lauder, Mary Kay and Avon

I am pleased to share a guest post from a very talented writer that I was contacted by via email to share her information about the recent information that's been circulating around the internet about various well known companies engaging in animal testing. Thank you Izzy for the post and everyone please be sure to share your thoughts on this topic:

This month PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) announced that Estée Lauder, Mary Kay and Avon have all resumed testing their products on animals, after being among the first major cosmetic companies to ban animal testing back in the late 80s.

In China, government regulations require cosmetic products to be tested on animals before they can be sold there. And as the Chinese cosmetic marketplace has rapidly risen to become one of the most important in the world currently, Estée Lauder, Mary Kay and Avon obviously didn’t mind doing a turnaround in ethics to get their slice of the profits.

And the truth is…?

However, there seems to be some dispute in various internet forums and articles about the truth of all this. Some are saying that PETA are telling bare-faced lies (although these comments seem to be coming from people who are also saying how much they adore Avon), whilst the companies’ own animal testing policies seem to suggest they have known for some time that testing their products on animals happens in other countries. As usual, when trying to find the truth on these matters, it’s not a straight forward process.

Commitment to Profit

Apparently Mary Kay did make some effort to try to work with the Chinese government on getting them to accept alternative, non-animal testing methods, and Avon states that when the law in a particular country requires extra testing for their products they “will first attempt to persuade the requesting authority to accept non-animal test data.” Yet they also say, “When those attempts are unsuccessful, Avon must abide by local laws and submit the products for additional testing.” As if they have to sell their products in these countries. Like they have no other choice but to sell, sell, sell, otherwise they’ll all die. Estée Lauder makes a similarly wishy-washy declaration, saying “Estée Lauder is committed to the elimination of animal testing. We are equally committed to consumer health and safety, and bringing to market products that comply with applicable regulations in every country in which our products are sold.” In other words, we’re committed to stopping animal cruelty, but we’re also committed to not stopping it if it interferes with selling products.  Sounds like they need to look up the definition of the word ‘commitment’.

Animal Testing Policies – Reading between the lines

The problem with these companies testing policies (and many other cosmetic companies too - these three are not the only culprits) is that they’re written in such a misleading way. If you’re new to cruelty-free shopping, it’s easy to be fooled into thinking a company is saying they don’t test on animals, when in fact what they are saying is that they’re against animal testing, which isn’t strictly the same thing.

For example, on Avon’s website, in their Animal Welfare Q&A statement

 the question is asked:

“I am opposed to animal testing. Can I still use Avon products with confidence?”

The answer: “You can be confident that Avon shares your commitment. Opposition to animal testing and respect for animal welfare has been a cornerstone of Avon’s product safety program since 1989…”

The answer continues, however the fact that within the first two sentences Avon does not simply say, “Yes, you can still use our products with confidence” suggests that actually you can’t. They just don’t want to say so.

Saying What You Mean, Meaning What You Say

In contrast, Lush makes this unequivocal statement on their website: “LUSH is firmly committed to a policy that not only inhibits testing our products and ingredients on animals, or engaging with third-party suppliers to do so on our behalf, but that also prohibits buying any ingredient from any supplier that tests any materials on any animals for any purpose.” Can’t get much clearer than that.

Companies that stick to the values they profess to hold dear do not need to play silly word games. They’re able to say the direct truth, without having to figure out clever ways to cover up what they’re really doing. The best way to determine which companies to buy cosmetics from is to take a look at their policies. If all they’re talking about is ‘sharing your commitment’, then they’re probably still dripping chemicals into rabbit’s eyes.

You can take a look at PETA’s database of which companies test on animals and which don’t, here.

(and a little more the guest blogger) 

Carrie Lomax is a full time writer and researcher currently living in London. She got her big break writing promotional pieces for a company selling memory foam mattresses

 

 but has since gone on to work for a huge range of different clients. She specialises in health and beauty topics with a keen interest in travel too. 

Brands that won't help your skin: Green People

A little back story behind the brand of Green People can be found here:(sourced from http://www.greenpeople.co.uk/about.aspx)

First and foremost, I need to express that I have nothing against an organic diet or lifestyle. It's only when "green" companies try and boast that their products are somehow superior to their evil "chemical" sister products that it gets under my skin. The reason for this is that many times, these reasons for claiming that natural = better, is that there is no scientific research to back up these claims. What's even more is that there is an abundance of research showing  the harmful effects on skin from natural products; many essential oils can cause contact dermatitis (eczema), can break down cells and kill healthy skin cultures and can leave skin susceptible to sun damage. With this in mind why invest in a system of skin care that promotes to assist skin with helping it to function and act healthier/better/become acne free, etc., when in fact it's not doing any of that at all?

Green People, as with many skin care companies will claim, started off from humble beginnings; a mother wanted to help her daughter get over her battle with eczema. Long story short, the products her daughter was using were loaded with chemicals and when they were eliminated from her regimen (surprise!) her problematic skin calmed down. I'm not saying that this can't happen at all; I am going to say that it's highly unlikely that a skin  care routine based solely off natural ingredients is truly going to help eczema heal. What's interesting is that many natural products have been shown to irritate skin and actually CAUSE eczema in the first place!

It should be mentioned that Green People does have a "scent free" line that is geared more towards people with sensitive skin; what makes it a miss for those with sensitive skin though is the inclusion of certain plant extracts that have been shown to cause irritation not just in sensitive skin types but in ALL skin types. Rosemary and avocado have been shown to cause irritation and possibly leave skin open to sun damage which is nothing that sensitive skin should be exposed to (or any skin type for that matter). Should the inclusion of rosemary have been left out, this would have been an amazing choice for those with dry, sensitive skin.

The creator of Green People also states that:

"From the very beginning, Charlotte vowed never to use chemicals such as Sodium Lauryl Sulphate (SLS), Parabens or synthetic fragrances or colorants in her products."

For the record, it should be noted that colorants and synthetic  fragrances have been shown to be safe in cosmetics (while fragrances are safe, they're not needed in skin care and may cause some irritation, but do not lead to any profuse skin care issues). Sodium Lauryl Sulphate (SLS) is commonly used in cleansers/shampoos or wash away products and has been shown to be irritating to skin/scalp, so kudos to Green People for leaving that out of their line up (although that doesn't equal better or even good skin care due to the inclusion of dozens of irritants still present). I've written extensively about parabens and long story short they're not a threat in skin care/body care products. This has been proven through FDA regulated tests and shown that in the typical minute amount that is used in almost all products they're found in, parabens are not a threat for skin/scalp.

I wish that Green People would have left out the fragrant oils of their skin care and the inclusion of certain extracts; this would have still kept it in the running for natural skin care and catered to folks that consider that a must have. Remember; fragrance doesn't equal skin care and that natural DOESN'T mean better than synthetic (there are some wonderful natural ingredients out there, and some bad ones, just like synthetics).

I call bullshit: Sisley Paris Cosmetics

What you need to know, blog readers everyone, is that expensive DOES NOT mean better. And I am here to show you the perfect example. Sisley Paris loves to tout it's French inspiration and influence around (for the record, European skin care does not equate to superior products; that's part of the allure though that it does because it seems so glamorous).

Sisley also mentions something called Phytocosmetology, which is a really fancy way of saying using plants in products (which is something almost every single product line out there does today and is nothing worth spending the exorbitant amount of money on). Here's how the company explains it (pulled from Sisley's website which can be found here: http://www.sisley-cosmetics.com/us-en/?page=accueil )

Phytocosmetology involves using natural plant extracts in beauty products.

Each natural extract contains key active ingredients that perform a specific action. 

The synergy of natural extracts results in the amplification and strengthening of the effects of each individual active ingredient.

This synergy is at the heart of Sisley research.

Sisley believes that phytocosmetology is a know-how that brings together:

• knowledge of plants, their composition and benefits of their active molecules (or key active ingredients),
• perfect mastery of dosage for the main active ingredients to obtain the desired efficacy and guarantee perfect innocuousness,
• the assurance of constant quality for the botanical extracts,
• mastery of our combination of natural extracts, creating synergies and multiplying the efficacy of every key active ingredient.

All of which sounds convincing and pretty and reasonable on paper right? What Sisley doesn't mention is the fact that while the products may contain some good (and there are many) plant extracts out there, there are just as many (if not more) really bad ones too that show up in their products. By this I mean volatile oils, fragrance and irritants that can and usually are all harvasted from the one places that Sisley claims is going to be the absolute best bet for your skin aging woes; plants. 

Taking a look at one of their products and you can see why it is problematic to invest so much time and money in products with huge claims and no way of backing them up. Listed below is the information for Sisley's Supremya La Nuit serum:

The Claims:

"With SUPREMŸA, Sisley helps to delay the skin’s natural aging process for a visibly rejuvenated appearance. At the heart of this exceptional night skin care: Phyto-complex LC12, a powerful combination of active plant extracts, based on Sisley’s research on cellular life. It works at night, a key moment for skin regeneration, to repair past damages and to prepare the cells’ future. A surprising cream serum texture. Spectacular rejuvenating results."

What's Inside:

Water, Shea Butter, Squalane, Helianthus Annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil, Glycerin, Cetearyl Alcohol, Krameria Triandrea Root Extract, Butylene Glycol, Prunus Domestica Seed Extract, Padina Pavonica Thallus Extract, Oriza Sativa (Rice) Extract, Methyl Methacrylate Crosspolymer, Hydrolyzed Malt Extract, Triticum Monocum (Wheat) Seed Extract, Gossypium Herbaceum (Cotton) Seed Extract, Rosa Hybrid Flower Extract, Salix Alba (Willow) Leaf Extract, Mineral Oil, Lauryl Glucoside, Polyglyceryl-2n Dipolyhydroxy-Stearate, Propylene Glycol, Phenoxyethanol, Lentinus Edodes Extract, Rhodochrosite Extract, Physalis Alkekengi Calyx Extract, Panthenol Glycosphingolipids, Arginine, Ceteareth-20, Acrylate/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate Crosspolymer, Dipropylene Glycol, Bisabolol, Ethylhexylglycerin, Tocopheryl Acetate, Sorbic Acid, Pentylene Glycol, Xanthan Gum, Tetrasodium Edta, Michelia Alba Leaf Oil, Pelargonium Graveolens (Rose Geranium) Oil, Retinyl Palmitate, Aniba Rosaeodora (Rosewood) Wood Oil, Citric Acid, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Rosa Damascena Flower Oil, Sodium Benzoate, Chlorphenesin, Potassium Sorbate, Bht, Tocopherol, Citral, Citronellol, Eugenol, Linalool, Limonene, Natural Fragrance

Why It's bullshit:

Ok, something I didn't list is the price. Ready? For 1.7 ounces of product you're going to be dropping...$750. For some of us, that's an entire paycheck gone like that on ONE product. And let me start by saying for that amount of money, Sisley should be fucking ashamed. For one it includes several irritating fragances. And secondly, for this amount of money all of the antiaging ingrdients should be front and center with no filler and no irritating products. Not to mention getting about 5 times as much of the product for the amount you're paying. It should also be noted that NOTHING inside of here warrants the expense of the product; there are no exotic ingredients that would jack up the cost this much, no revolutionary ingredients that would mean you're paying extra for either are inside. 

Please be aware that even if you have a limitless cosmetic budget, you would be better off getting Botox done by a professional before dropping the almost $800 on this waste. 

Avoid this skin care rip off: Bare Escentuals Active Cell Renewal Night Serum

The claims:

"Our intensive night serum helps restore your skin's ability to reach its ideal renewal state. Powered by our proprietary ActiveSoil Complex–combined with a unique moisture boost technology–this formula maximizes cellular renewal and hydrates skin overnight. The result? Cells that are supercharged to protect you during the day and skin that looks firmer, healthier and younger." What's inside: Water, Butylene Glycol, Propanediol, Glycerin, Xylitol, Saccharomyces/Xylinum/Black Tea Ferment, Glycyl Glycine, Methyl Gluceth-10, 3-O-Ethyl Ascorbic Acid, Soil Minerals, Syringa Vulgaris (Lilac) Leaf Cell Culture Extract, Palmitoyl Tripeptide-5, Zizyphus Jujuba Seed , Phytoecdysteroids Extract, Maltodextrin, PPG-13-Decyltetradeceth-24, Ethylhexylglycerin, Ammonium Acryloyldimethyltaurate/VP Copolymer, PEG/PPG-14/7 Dimethyl Ether, Potassium Sorbate, Sodium Benzoate, Trisodium EDTA, Lavandula Hybrida Oil, Limonene, Citric Acid, Citrus Aurantium Dulcis (Orange) Fruit Extract, Tocopherol, Citronellol, Geraniol, Phenoxyethanol, Xanthan Gum Why it's a rip off: Bare Escentuals loves to throw around the fact that it has something called it's ActiveSoil complex- something that is comprised of minerals from soil. What you're getting in essence is- dirt. No matter how you try and glamorize it, it's dirt. Be it dirt from virgin soil, organic soil, European, Asian, or U.S. soil it's all dirt. Moving beyond that, Bare Escentuals has yet to provide any published research showing the effectiveness of such an ingredient (or for that matter, what's inside of it). Only touting the fact that it can "shrink pores, reduce wrinkles," etc... the whole bogus anti-aging, skin refining claims are here. But don't be so quick to buy into any of it. First off, the claim that states that this serum is going to protect cells during the day is bullshit; cells (or in this case I'm sure Bare Escentuals is talking about skin) can really only be protected when using a well formulated SPF of at least 15 with broad spectrum protection, not a serum (although a well formulated one of those under an SPF product doesn't hurt). The only thing that this is going to do is harm cells/skin. The biggest offender in here is lavender oil and the inclusion of orange fruit oil. Both are bad on their own but together they are going to end up causing mass amounts of irritation.  The addition of soil minerals (I'm guessing this is the ActiveSoil Complex) is iffy because again, Bare Escentuals has yet to say what's actually inside of it and any research showing it's effectiveness. What a well formulated serum SHOULD be doing is giving skin a mass amount of antioxidants and ingredients that can help skin look and act younger, which this product will not do.

Avoid this rip off: The Body Shop Nutriganics Drops of Youth

The Claims:

"Our certified organic range has been created for the first signs of ageing. This innovative concentrate helps to enhance surface skin condition, leaving it looking smoother, fresher and healthier."

§  Helps enhance surface skin condition

§  Smoothes

§  Instantly moisturizing

§  99% of ingredients are of natural origin

What's inside:

Aqua/Water (Solvent/Diluent), Alcohol Denat. (Solvent/Diluent), Glycerin (Humectant), Chondrus Crispus Powder (Abrasive), Propanediol (Viscosity Modifier), Sodium Hyaluronate (Humectant), Benzyl Alcohol (Preservative), Fagus Sylvatica Bud Extract (Skin Conditioning Agent), Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice (Skin Conditioning Agent), Adenosine (Skin-Conditioning Agent), Parfum/Fragrance (Fragrance), Linalool (Fragrance Ingredient), Crithmum Maritimum Callus Culture Filtrate (Skin Protectant), Orbignya Oleifera Seed Oil (Emollient), Citric Acid (pH Adjuster), Citronellol (Fragrance Ingredient), Buddleja Davidii Extract (Skin-Conditioning Agent), Malva Sylvestris Flower/Leaf/Stem Extract/Malva Sylvestris (Mallow) Flower/Leaf/Stem Extract (Skin Conditioning Agent), Thymus Vulgaris Flower/Leaf Extract/Thymus Vulgaris (Thyme) Flower/Leaf Extract (Skin-Conditioning Agent), Benzoic Acid (Preservative), Sorbic Acid (Preservative), Limonene (Fragrance Ingredient), Sodium Benzoate (Preservative), Potassium Sorbate (Preservative). 

Why it's a rip off:

Although the Body Shop makes sound effort to point out it's environmental and humanitarian stance, this doesn't equate to making good (or in this case even adequate) skin care. Upon reading the ingredients it should be noted that alcohol (the kind that destroys collagen, breaks down skin's barrier and can make skin age FASTER) is the SECOND ingredient. Beyond that, everything that follows kind of falls down hill from there; a second type of alcohol (this time listed as benzyol) is listed as a preservative and although not as skin damaging as denatured alcohol, is still unneeded in an anti-aging product.  What's mind blowing is the inclusion of fragrance! Listed pretty far up on the list, you can bet this product may smell lovely, but say it with me FRAGRANCE IS NOT SKIN CARE!! This includes any fragrance that is synthetic, natural or claims to be beneficial in any way to skin. Beyond that, the inclusion of Thyme, Limeonene and Linalool are also going to irritate skin further.

It's a shame all the irritants in here because there are some beneifical oils for dry skin: babassu (listed as Orbignya Oleifera), aloe, Malva extract- all show signs to be very beign to skin. The inclusion of Buddleja Davidii is puzzling (a type of flower in the lilac family) as it shows no research to be beneficial to skin.

This is a product to be best left on the shelf!!

I call bullshit- biggest beauty offenders of 2011

Let the title speak for itself here; don't waste your money on these blunders that offer a promise of better skin or amp up anti-aging claims with crazy statistics that are totally impossible. Rather, what they will do are the top things that you should be trying to avoid when buying skin care; emptying your wallet, hurting your skin and making outlandish claims backed by little or no research. Without further ado:

The Claims: 

"Forever pushing boundaries, Rodial have gone one step further and present glamoxy snake serum.

glamoxy snake serum helps relax expression lines with a unique combination of snake venom-like peptides and oxygen. The revolutionary oxygenated, viper-inspired serum contains syn-ake; a neuro peptide that mimics the effects of the Temple Viper's potent venom to instantly lift the face, freeze muscles and plump fine lines and wrinkles.

This a truly innovative and ground breaking addition to the glamtox skincare range, the question is 'How far will you go to look younger?" 

Why it's bullshit:

like many anti-aging products on the market, Rodial positions this product to impossible things right off the bat; freezing muscles, lifting the face and mimicking the affects of snake venom (which by the way is far from anything you want on your face as most snake venom can kill you in certain amounts of time). There is also nothing revolutionary about putting oxygen into skin care- companies have been doing that for some time and it isn't anything new- or good for that matter. Oxygen causes free radical damage (the kind that makes skin age and causes collagen to break down and increase the appearance of fine lines or what this product is saying it'll FIX). Also without an ingredients list that Rodial's website doesn't provide it's hard to see where on the ingredient list peptides are. This is important because peptides (a type of protein chain) are hard to keep stable and in form in skin care products. Without knowing the research behind this product, ingredients and not to mention paying out the ass for something so stupid and harmful for your skin, you have to ask yourself, why bother?

The Claims: 

"√ 88% of the visible wrinkle-reducing power of a prescription 

√ 0% irritation

Although it's not a prescription, in just 4 weeks nature's next generation power plant noticeably reduces wrinkle length & depth. Without the irritation. Visibly helps repair the vertical fret lines between your eyes, the stubborn furrows across your forehead and the deepening frownies that frame your mouth. Youthful "bounce" is revived. Skin is clinically firmer, smoother and more lifted-looking. And with continued use, results improve. What will nature think of next!"

Why it's bullshit:

Right off the bat you need to know this; natural skin care is not always better. And this is the perfect example. Not only are the claims bullshit in general (no irritation? For a product that contains nutmeg, lavender, orange and about a dozen other volatile fragrance oils that are documented to SHOW signs of irritation, sun damage and collagen damage?) Plus the undocumented claims of 88% of "wrinkle reducing power" (without a public publication of research, it's hard to know what that means, the sample size and many other important stats about this product). Not to mention the fact that in making anti-aging claims for skin care this product leaves skin highly sensitive and susceptible to sun damage that causes free radical damage and depletes collagen. Leave the natural plants and oil in this product in the garden and walk away. 

The Claims:

(for the serum alone)

"This highly targeted treatment contains our most highly concentrated plant-powered brightening blend to diminish the appearance of dark spots and discoloration.

• Helps promote surface cell turnover for greater skin clarity and luminosity.
• 100% naturally derived Plant-Powered Brightening Blend including Ascorbyl Glucoside (a vitamin C derivative), mulberry root, and grape extracts to help diminish the appearance of discoloration and dark spots.
• Salicylic Acid and Glucosamine help promote surface cell turnover.
• A soothing aroma made predominantly with organic lavender, sustainably sourced sandalwood, organic rose geranium and organic rosemary essential oils also helps soothe and calm the skin.
• Step 3 in the Enbrightenment skin care system which is clinically proven to improve skin's clarity by 52% and diminish the appearance of dark spots by 34%.* " 

Why it's bullshit:

Looking at the claims, you'd think that Aveda got the right idea; including lots of vitamin C, mulberry root and grape seed extract are all awesome ingredients for skin to have right? Yes, but, what else is in here is what causes the issue- a "soothing" aroma of lavender and etc.. is going to wreck havoc on the skin's natural ability to form collagen and will begin to break down the process not to mention leave skin susceptible to sun damage and irritation. The claims of a diminishing 52% of skin's discoloration and dark spots by 34% is undocumented (Aveda is owned by giant Estee Lauder and since the research was probably done by them, we'll have to trust the fact that it's somehow accurate right?). The ENTIRE (well, the cleanser is ok) line has it's faults; the serum is loaded with irritationg rosemary aroma, the moisturizer suffers from jar packaging, the toner smells so strongly of rosemary that it's bad news right from the start for skin and the mask is laden with skin irritating oils. While "green" skin care may seem popular, this is a line to best avoid and leave on the shelves. 

this is just a small assortment of products. I'll try and post more soon! Sorry I've been MIA lately