9th Annual Meeting of Skin Forum

Back in London and I am just finishing a few days at the 9th Annual Meeting of Skin Forum, a series of academic and research presentations at the School of Pharmacy in the University of London. As a distinctly non-academic, I usually have to ask the lecturers to explain some of their finer points in layman’s language as most of the other delegates are post-grad researchers or senior clinicians (I counted at least 16 Professors in the room). Luckily I’ve had our technical manager Steve with me and he untangles some of the jargon when the physical chemistry flies way over my head.

The presentation where I felt most at home was given by Professor Monique Simmonds, head of the plant research unit at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. We’ve met on a number of occasions as we’ve commissioned the labs here to conduct some independent research for us over the years, notably with aloe identification and also when we started to make our own plant extracts without propylene glycol as a solubiliser (the Kew team were pleasantly surprised at their level of activity).  Prof Simmonds made the point that the correct identification of plant species is vitally important for both cosmetic and drug use. The taxonomy department at Kew is world-class, with over 8 million preserved specimens in their library and around 40,000 living accessions. However, last year, 25% of the plants they were asked to identify were wrongly labelled and out of 1,684 samples 15 of these were extremely toxic. The difficulties are legion – there are over 100 different legal names for Santalam album (sandalwood) so there is plenty of scope for rogue traders. The Prof revealed that of the 29 samples of “Santalam album” sandalwood essential oil supplied, none met the standard and one was actually completely synthetic! This is just one reason why we have our own in-house botanical and ingredient sourcing team as well as very strict measures in place when we buy our raw materials, as so much of what is available on the market to the formulators in our industry is not actually as it appears. We try and buy direct from farmers, growers and co-operatives we know and trust and not from industry wholesalers, as this can be a bit of a grey area.

Another fascinating area of research is nano-technology and much of the discussions focused on the nano and micro- particle size of skincare ingredients and whether these present any potential danger. As regular readers will know, I have previously written on Professor Jonathan Hadgraft et al’s research that de-bunks the beauty myth that 60% of what we put onto our skin is absorbed (it isn’t – the figure is closer to 1 – 2% and even that depends very much on the specific formulation as skincare ingredient molecules are simply too large to ‘slip’ through the stratum corneum of the epidermis, let alone reach the lower basal layer or dermis).  It was interesting to hear presentations from international teams of researchers (notably France, Belgium and the United States) all conclude that even the most microscopically small nano-particle is still too large to penetrate into living tissues below the dead, outer stratum corneum of the skin. Of especial interest was the work looking at titanium dioxide, as we use this in our Sunshade range and are currently working on improved formulations for next year, potentially with higher SPF protection. It seems this ingredient is not only a very good sunscreen, but is also the safest of all to use, having no toxicity even when injected into the body (something only researchers would actually do, of course), making it the very best choice for the sensitive, fair skinned and youngsters. If you’re interested in this field of bio-chemistry, you might like to check out the data on their website - www.skin-forum.eu

Truth in Beauty

A few days ago I hosted our second Truth in Beauty forum for senior health and beauty editors and members of the beauty press. Last time, our topic was absorption and Professor Jonathan Hadgraft discussed precisely what can (or, as it turns out, what can’t) penetrate through the skin. He successfully disproved the beauty myth that 60% of what we put onto our skin is absorbed into the bloodstream. The figure is more like 1-2% and even this small amount is doubtful (you can read more on this subject in our Blog archives from October 11th 2007, October 19th and November 9th 2006). This time we turned our attention on busting yet another pervasive beauty myth and one that has caused much scare-mongering and worry. The subject under scrutiny was how safe are the preservatives in skincare? You may well have read articles over the years with attention-grabbing, tabloid headlines such as Toxic Toiletries! or Killer Cosmetics! - especially when a group of preservatives called parabens are mentioned. So I invited leading independent dermatologist Professor Michael Cork, together with Dene Godfrey, a technical specialist with more than 25 years expertise in this field, to discuss the issues and examine the scientific evidence for such fears.

As it turns out, there is a danger with preservatives – but it is not what you might expect. The danger is in not using preservatives – especially in a formulation such as a moisturiser or body lotion which is a mix of oils and water. Any formulation that has water or aqua in its ingredient labelling needs to be properly preserved to keep it safe for us to use (and even those made without water may need preserving too). Professor Cork is a leading eczema specialist and his interest in this subject was triggered by patients who were using un-preserved natural remedies for their eczema and developing dangerously septic skin conditions as a result. One little boy very nearly died simply by using a non-preserved cream that was full of bugs on his damaged skin. Professor Cork showed plenty of gruesome slides to illustrate his point. His team are just completing a clinical study highlighting the perils of not using properly preserved skincare and this is due to be published in the next few months in a leading international medical journal. I’ll write more about this when it’s published.

So, as preservatives are so important for our health and safety, which ones should we be using? You may be surprised to hear that some of the safest and most effective are the family of parabens, first used in the 1920’s but largely out of favour due to incredible scare-stories about their safety. So, what is the truth here? Are parabens dangerous? Again, the answer may surprise you as it is a total and unequivocal No! As a result of our expert forum, I am now in the process of putting together a factsheet on the subject of preservatives in general - and parabens in particular. This will be available shortly on our website. In the meantime, I can tell you the following facts about parabens which might give you some reassurance if you have been worried by the many misguided media reports: Parabens are nature-identical ingredients first found in fruit where they occur as a natural preservative. You’ll find parabens in produce such as apples and blackberries and they are the main reason why blueberries stay fresh longer than strawberries. They first began to get a bad press following studies in 1998 which discovered that some parabens (no activity was discovered in methylparaben) have mildly oestrogenic properties, which could in theory have the potential to disrupt hormone activity. However, far from being perilous, these studies showed the very weak nature of this activity – weaker than, say, the oestrogenic activity from eating an apple and far less than the activity found in health foods such as whole grain cereals and soya. So although oestrogenic activity was established, it was proven to be so low as to be barely there. You could reasonably argue this actually proves the very safety of parabens. So what happened to cause the panic? The principle reason was the publication of a study in 2004, linking parabens in breast cancer tumours to the use of underarm deodorants. This study has since been found to be highly flawed and the professional review during our press forum showed it to be staggeringly inaccurate. In this particular study, all the samples studied, including 6 blank controls, were found to contain the same microscopic traces of parabens. In fact, in some cases, the blank controls (supposed to be just that – blank) actually had a higher parabens count than the breast tissue! Clearly a major flaw. This study does not prove any link at all between parabens and breast cancer. It also does not link deodorants with breast cancer either as the vast majority of deodorants and anti-perspirants do not contain parabens – and never have done, ever! Some have suggested that ingredients in underarm toiletries can ‘migrate’ into breast tissue, but this supposes firstly that they are significantly absorbed through the skin (they aren’t) and also defies basic anatomy. Both our blood circulation and our lymphatic circulation flow in the direction from the heart and down the arm, not the other way around. So unless these ingredients can swim upstream, they are not going to flow toward the breast. If present at all, they would be flushed in the opposite direction.

As a company, we have always taken the safety of all our formulations extremely seriously. You have probably read our ingredients policy which we highlight in each newsletter we send out. We carry out many highly stringent tests to ensure that we more than comply with the steps needed to make sure our entire range is safe to use. Actually for us, parabens are not important ingredients as we only use tiny traces in six of our formulations (we’ve found many other high quality preservatives over the years). So why spend time highlighting this beauty myth? I bother about it simply because it is wrong to create false fears. I now have no doubt about the safety of these naturally occurring group of ingredients and am angered by the needless worry caused by poor research by some - and deliberate scare-mongering by others. I strongly advise those with a lowered immune system, such as the young, the elderly, those with skin disorders or those being treated for conditions such as cancer to take great care and use properly preserved skincare. Preferably preserved with safe and effective ingredients – and that includes the parabens family. We must seriously hope that no-one ends up getting hurt by using toxic skincare – not toxic because it contains preservatives, but toxic because it doesn’t.

Christmas and Research in Kenya

I’m now back in Kenya for Christmas, combining time spent with family and friends with some new botanical ingredient research in the New Year too. One species our botanist Anna Macleod and I have been investigating for several years now is the fascinating ‘sausage tree’, so-called because of the long sausage-shaped pods that hang from its tall branches, not unlike salamis hanging in an Italian deli’s window. The sausage tree (real name Kigelia africana) has some very unusual and interesting skin-tightening and firming properties, as well as being a useful local antiseptic and anti-inflammatory ingredient used here in herbal medicine. It’s also a very attractive tree, with large, dark green, fig-like leaves that provide useful shade cover in very hot climates. We have an extensive tree planting programme here on our small farm and one of the first things we do on arrival is to check on their progress. I spent the best part of today in thick-soled, thorn-proof boots walking the boundaries to make sure that all our newly planted trees are being regularly watered and protected from marauding giraffe, who like nothing better than to nibble out the tasty central crown shoots of a young thorn tree. I was especially keen to check on the progress of the three small Kigelia africana planted last time I was here. We chose a hot, dry, dusty area at the back of our boundary for these, in the hope that they will one day provide a useful respite from the relentless sun. Fortunately, they don’t seem to be to the giraffe’s liking and they all look healthy and strong, with lots of shiny green leaves sprouting.

There’s no doubt that extreme sun exposure causes many problems for the skin, especially in tropical countries or locations close to the Equator. The arid desert plains of Kenya are especially harsh as there is low humidity and little moisture in the air, so the sun over-dries the face in an instant. I’ve been especially pleased that I packed several jars of our Superskin Moisturiser, as its high levels of skin-repairing Essential Fatty Acids (EFA’s) and plant oils are fantastically re-moisturising without being in the slightest bit sticky. It’s so rich and nourishing that I can feel my skin being instantly replenished and soothed after a long day in the extreme heat. I’m obviously using our Sunshade SPF25 when outside too, but the additional antioxidant benefits of the pomegranate and natural-source Vitamin E are especially soothing and repairing. By contrast, I’ve just received the last instalment from Dr Amy Rogers, the researcher we helped sponsor for new research into climate change on an Antarctic expedition. There are probably not many skin creams currently being exposed to two such climatic extremes so many thousands of miles apart – and it’s good to know that Superskin’s botanical formulation holds up well under pressure! Here is Dr Roger’s last journal entry:

Dr Amy Rogers writes:
“I’ve now been in Antarctica for about 5 weeks. We were due to fly out last week, on December 10th. Unfortunately an Antarctic snowstorm has meant that we have been stranded here with no possibility of an aircraft landing to pick us up. We haven't seen the sun for nine days now and have had total whiteout conditions. At the moment visibility is down to a few metres. We've also had snow drifts up to six feet high, so we have been busy digging our tent out of the snow each day to ensure we don’t end up buried. The weather has cleared and we are hoping that it will be possible to clear the ice runway of over 6000 tonnes of snow by tomorrow morning. If the plane from Punta Arenas can’t land tomorrow, then we will most likely be stuck in Antarctica for another week. This means that we could be spending Christmas in Antarctica. We’ve all got our fingers crossed that the snow-blowers will be able to move the snow off the runaway before the weather closes in again. This last week has brought some new challenges to test my Superskin moisturiser. Now back at the main basecamp we spend a lot of time moving between mess tents and the outdoors. This can involve temperature changes of 30-40 degrees. Moving between these different temperatures doesn’t seem to have presented too many problems. I’ve been really pleased with the way that the Superskin moisturiser has worked at protecting my face in such extreme conditions. It’s made my Antarctic expedition a lot more comfortable. Instead of the lasting skin damage that I was worried I would get from being here, I think that my skin feels better than it did before I went away.”

Heavy Frost

The weather has finally turned wintry and this morning there was a thick layer of heavy frost dusting the lawn, bushes and tree branches – very Christmassy! Although it might look pretty, unfortunately the colder temperatures outside, combined with the fast-forward of the central heating thermostat inside, are just about the fastest ways to dry out the skin. At this time of the year, I usually start to double-dose my Skin Repair Moisturiser, applying a second layer once the first has sunk in. This year however, I have switched to our new Superskin Moisturiser (UK), (US), and am very impressed with its powers of rehydration – even in this weather. No more double-layering required! And I’m not the only one to be getting good results in a colder climate either. Earlier this year, we helped to sponsor Dr Amy Rogers, a teacher taking part in a research expedition to the Antarctic to study the effects of climate change. In return for our help with her sponsorship, she offered to take some supplies of our new Superskin Moisturiser amongst her polar rations - and report back on how well it performs under extremely cold conditions (down to minus 65 degrees!!). I’m very pleased to report that, so far, all seems to be going well – both with Dr Amy’s research and her cold-climate skincare studies. Here are a few fascinating extracts from her journals:

Dr Amy Rogers writes:
28 November
“I’ve now been in Antarctica for 17 days carrying out science research into Antarctic lichens and sending back daily updates to my pupils back in the UK. We’ve had a great week with lots of exciting lichen finds although the weather has been a bit frustrating and has seen us tent bound for a couple of days. For the last 10 days I have been using Liz Earle Superskin Moisturiser.  I don’t know what I would do without it! It has become the highlight of my day to apply it and the other Liz Earle products I have been using. If nothing else at least the tent smells more pleasant. Which I can tell you after 17 days of myself and my tent partner not washing is no small thing! I’m always amazed at how non greasy it is and, as long as it is defrosted, how easy it is to apply. My skin seems to be faring quite well to the extreme conditions here so far. We have another few weeks to go yet though!”

11th December
“I’ve now spent 30 days in Antarctica, carrying out science research on lichen and interacting with my pupils back in the UK, through the internet and satellite phone conversations. It has been fantastic although very hardwork at times. We’ve just completed a 17 hour man-haul back to our basecamp, getting back at 5am this morning. For the last 21 days I’ve been enjoying using my Superskin moisturiser. I can genuinely say that I have been astounded by the results and it’s quickly become one of my favourite items of kit. In the driest continent on earth I’m amazed at how well my skin has coped. The worst I have had is a small amount of nose peeling-which has been quickly restored with Superbalm. With constant winds and temperatures down to -65 degrees, the skin of some of my other expedition members has really suffered. Used in combination with my Liz Earle sunscreen I haven’t been burnt (despite the lack of ozone and hours spent outside), my skin is quite smooth, non-greasy and comfortable. In fact-despite the conditions and not washing for 30 days - my face probably looks better than it did before I left.  I usually suffer from eczema patches on my face, these have now disappeared. Now I am back at the basecamp a few people have commented on the fact that it doesn’t look like I’ve spent a month man-hauling through Antarctica! No goggle marks, no signs of sun or wind damage. People at home won’t believe I’ve done anything. My expedition members have been highly recommending the sunscreen to other expedition teams and have been popping round to my tent for Superbalm fixes for their worst skin problems.”

Superskin in Antarctica

LA Press Interviews

I’m spending a few days in Los Angeles for press interviews and to scout the local beauty stores on the West Coast of America. I haven’t been to LA for about ten years – the last time was a trip with GMTV when I was their fashion and beauty correspondent and covered the glamorous run-up to the Oscars. My co-host was the irrepressible Marc Freden, then the Hollywood correspondent and a real industry insider. I’m hoping to catch up with my old friend Marc a little later in the week, but my first meeting was with Los Angeles Magazine – in their stylish offices overlooking the famous white Hollywood sign that overlooks the city. In a town obsessed with youth and good looks, the editor was most interested in our new Superskin Moisturiser, (UK), (US) and the impressive data from the independent tests showing that it dramatically improves plumpness, smoothness and overall skin rejuvenation. Couldn’t be any more perfect for the Hollywood elite as well as mere mortals like me. After many months of using this botanical wonder-cream and seeing the amazing results on my own skin, I certainly wouldn’t use any other moisturiser now.

Back at the beautiful Bel-Air hotel I booked a manicure with their star therapist, Fabiola. Formerly from Iran, Fabiola escaped the oppressive Islamic regime and came to America, bringing traditional beauty skills with her. These include threading, taught to her by her mother, who was taught by her grandmother before her. This natural form of hair removal involves sliding a simple length of cotton in a scissor-like action over the skin. The technique removes hair quickly and (fairly) painlessly, leaving no redness – unlike waxing or plucking. Fabiola asked me if I’d like my eyebrows ‘tidied’ by this technique, so feeling bold, I decided to give it a go. No sooner had Fabiola started on my eyebrows than she was ‘threading’ the rest of my face – whisking off the superfine baby hairs that we all have on our skin. Apparently, this is the latest beauty trick that movie stars use to look flawlessly smooth on the big-screen close-ups. I was amazed to find afterwards that my skin wasn’t red at all, just unnaturally smooth. I have to say that bald skin feels just a little bit weird, so don’t think I’ll be rushing back – although I was impressed with the eyebrow technique and it works very well on sensitive areas such as the chin and upper lip. A few beauty salons in the UK are now offering threading as a natural form of hair removal. With no chemical depilators, resources or waste, (other than a simple piece of cotton thread) I would also describe it as the most eco-friendly beauty treatment there is.