Just Merveilleux?

Life at № 42

Wishful thinking: from Proxylane to Dedifferentiated Rose Cells

delbardrose

Innocent Delbard Rose

I can’t tell you how annoying I find advertisements for cosmetics. What’s most irritating is that they work. The world’s wealthiest woman is, after all, Liliane Bettencourt the owner of L’Oreal. What L’Oreal manages to do, in a rather appalling way is to prey on insecurities to sell total bs. Take their new “discovery”, Dedifferentiated Rose Cells. Their website says:

“Botanical biotechnologies represent an extraordinary source of innovation for beauty, as a source of original active ingredients. One of the remarkable characteristics of plants is their capacity to regenerate after various types of aggressions, for example pruning roses in the fall. This capacity is related to the existence of stem cells in the leaves, roots, and buds. Since 1995, L’Oréal has had a biotechnology unit in Tours based on cultures of pant cells. From the stem cell cultures of a unique species of Delbard rose, the L’Oréal teams managed to obtain an extract that acts on skin regeneration: tests show an increase in the thickness of the epidermis, the secretion of growth factors and a regeneration of tissues.”

Okay- so roses grow back after being pruned and so? And I want to do what? Increase the thickness of my skin? Why? For the privilege of thick rosy skin, you’ll be asked to pay €153!!! Pretty jar, at least.

See original imageThe cream above also contains Proxylane. The only reason that’s not on the periodic table is because L’Oreal patented the name when they discovered it. In case you’re unsure Proxylane is a totally real scientific thing, they provide us with a picture of it:

Pro-Xylane®

And the description is really something:

“To reshape the architecture of skin tissue, which is altered by aging, the researchers focused all their efforts on finding molecules capable of stimulating the synthesis of mucopolysaccharides (MPSs), a priority target in the anti-aging line. The result was Proxylane®, obtained from xylose, present in beech wood, a very common tree in Western Europe. It triggers and stimulates the synthesis of mucopolysaccharides in the dermis and epidermis, with proven results on the elasticity and the tonicity of the skin (Absolue ßx by Lancôme and Novadiol by Vichy).

Over the years, Advanced Research has continued to accumulate evidence of the biological efficacy of this active ingredient. Proxylane has been formulated in Substiane by La Roche-Posay and Age Interruptor by Skinceuticals, and in 2012, in L’Oréal’s Paris Revitalift Laser X3, with very different claims for results (on very mature skin with results equivalent to anti-aging laser treatments).”

I despair. How is it that this is even legal? Reshape the architecture of the skin?

Advertisements

23 comments on “Wishful thinking: from Proxylane to Dedifferentiated Rose Cells

  1. karenjane
    January 5, 2017

    Skin care adverts make me laugh, but there are as you say,enough daft women (or men? ) who believe all the bs. I have never been one of them – any company which spends a small fortune on adverts then expects me to pay high sums for fancy face creams will never have my custom. I use skincare from a small company which makes everything from a few basic ingredients & includes lots of plant extracts. My everyday moisturiser costs £7.50 for 60ml, lasts at least 5 weeks & they don’t advertise or use ‘celebrities’. I doubt the owner will ever be in the wealth category of Liliane Bettencourt, but at least she makes simple, honest stuff that isn’t stuffed full of strange chemicals.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Tish Farrell
    January 5, 2017

    Plumes de Cheval Absolues? I use unadulturated shea butter on my face. It fends off attacks by pruning shears and winter winds, and a pot lasts so long it costs next to nothing. Thank you for this v. amusing expose, Ms.M. Happy New Year to you. PS on a more worrying note – this is scientific gobbledegook used to sell only cosmetics. What’s truly concerning is the scientific truth-bending used to sell us more seriously damaging items.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Happy New Year to you too!
      All the bending that’s going on is frightening. Did you see yesterday’s ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority against an anti-fracking pamphlet? Absurd.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Tish Farrell
        January 5, 2017

        The problem is though even the ‘good guys’ like to tell a good story, which might be considered more manipulative than truthful – all in the cause of getting noticed in the general ferment of ‘content’ overload.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Esme upon the Cloud
      January 6, 2017

      Shea butter! Yes! It’s great stuff,

      – esme nodding upo the Cloud

      Liked by 1 person

      • Tish Farrell
        January 6, 2017

        My guiding thought is – if it is edible it is probably OK on my face – within reason of course 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • Esme upon the Cloud
        January 6, 2017

        Absolutely. I wear a custard pie on my face every evening before bed for one hour.

        – esme grinning upon the Cloud

        Liked by 1 person

      • Tish Farrell
        January 6, 2017

        Grinning back :O

        Liked by 2 people

  3. Dr Martina Feyzrakhmanova
    January 5, 2017

    Definitely, it is almost tempting to blame the victims of this kind of advertising.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Ruth
    January 5, 2017

    Haha! An advert came on the other day for something called Micellar Water for facial cleansing. I looked at TheBrit and said, “Now their just making up words!”

    I looked at some on the shelf the other day, just out of curiosity. It’s like ten bucks for a tiny bottle. Ten bucks for a tiny bottle of water and surfactants. That’s what’s in all facial cleansers that foam. And they’re not good for your skin. Good grief.

    I stopped using anything manufactured in the traditional sense a while ago. Much like Tish, I use natural oils and butters.

    Sounds like they’ve come up with a fancy name for rose water to me. They’re not restructuring the architecture of your skin. They’re restructuring the architecture of your wallet.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. tildeb
    January 5, 2017

    Buying rose extracts to enhance beauty is no different in principle than buying rhino horn to enhance erections or bear grease to grow hair; a successful sale requires a level of both ignorance and gullibility from the consumer. And those qualities seem to always be in abundance – being free of charge, of course – that one might think they are actually virtues.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Steve Ruis
    January 5, 2017

    I hate to be a wet blanket, but the vast majority of chemical names are “patent name.” Vitamin C has over 200 different names it goes buy. How this is in the public interest is way beyond me.

    There are very, very few ways to protect one’s skin and most involved hydration: either you drink a lot of water so it gets hydrated from the inside, or you smear grease on the outside to prevent water evaporation. Obviously preventing skin damage through exposure to sunlight is also effective.

    The outer layers of skin are dead cells and can not be brought back to life. They can be painted, or have oily things worked into them to make them softer (the Romans used olive oil, very practical) but very little else is going to do much, hence the bullstuff.

    PS Don’t get me started on wrinkle creams! And why don’t all of these things take into account the genetic base of the user. If ones parent’s and grandparents were shaped like butterballs, the odds on someone being willow thin are nonexistant.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Helen Devries
    January 5, 2017

    Perhaps a pick of La Bettencourt should be obligatory on all Oreal products…

    Liked by 1 person

  8. makagutu
    January 5, 2017

    Those who make cosmetics know there is a big market. They will even sell shit, give it a good name and start counting the dollars as they rain in

    Liked by 2 people

  9. foolsmusings
    January 5, 2017

    If truth in advertising was required, none of our elected officials would get elected.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Hariod Brawn
    January 5, 2017

    “Since 1995, L’Oréal has had a biotechnology unit in Tours based on cultures of pant cells.” – so they’ve admitted it, it’s all pants. Is that your typo or theirs?

    Liked by 2 people

  11. acflory
    January 5, 2017

    The only topical application that actually does have an effect on the skin [although not the top layer] is retinol A. But it’s not something you can just lather on, and the amounts to be found in face creams is so negligible, it will have no effect whatsoever.
    Good old-fashioned Nivea is just as effective as any other expensive cream on the market.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. belasbrightideas
    January 6, 2017

    Ohgod, thank your lucky stars you weren’t born a woman. And then had the audacity to age.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on January 5, 2017 by in activism and tagged , , , , , .
%d bloggers like this: