showerthought: many skincare brands are sadly mostly marketing and no science

But that’s why it’s so nice that there are some gems who actually have scientifically backed formulations, or even better: contribute to science by doing studies and creating new categories!

20 points · 7 comments · view on lemmy.world

7 Comments

Alanjaow@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 3y (4 replies)

Aren't the majority of skin care things (and makeup) tested on animals though?

Chais@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 3y

In regards to safety, yes. They have to make sure you don't develop a rash or something. Good thing there are regulations for that, otherwise at least some companies would try without that, too.

akrz@programming.dev · 0 pts · 3y (2 replies)

i mean if it is required for safety reasons then that's okay imo

EdanGrey@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 3y (1 reply)

It's not required though, many companies do just fine without the testing on animals while still being compliant.

akrz@programming.dev · 3 pts · 3y

Often those companies just use ingredients and formulations that have been tested on animals by other companies and the patent has run out/it is not patented. Companies doing animal testing probably would not do animal testing on such products too. Most companies try to avoid costs.

agissilver@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3y (1 reply)

P&G does some interesting anti-aging research involving genetics. I saw a talk about it some years ago when I was in chemistry graduate school.

SK-II is therefore probably legit but it's too expensive for me.

akrz@programming.dev · 1 pts · 3y

you just sent me down a 30 min google spiral hahah, thank you for the tip!