Dusting for Cracks in the Beauty Industry

The Vanity Industry, also known as the Beauty Industry, is at its most popular and profitable level in history. But is this need real, or manufactured by big business for big profits?

We know sex sells … but does insecurity?

By: Luis Fernando Arce, Senior Co-online Editor

A DEADLY SIN OR JUST A REALITY?

Though for Christians (and I suppose for other religions too), vanity is one of the seven deadliest sins, most of us willingly give in to it on a daily basis; and we do it without being despicable sinners headed straight to the deepest pits of hell (at least not in regards to our vanity). We take great pride in our appearance – some more than others – and our fashion is always kept up-to-date with the latest trends, lest we be forgotten in the world of the antiquated.

And really, we all are ‘guilty’ of this, if you can actually be guilty of such a thing.

In the morning, as I groom myself in front of the bathroom mirror, I scrutinize my reflection, making sure there are no stray hairs poking up or dry and crusted tears around my eyes. I shave the patches of facial hair on my otherwise smooth face, and I put on a heavenly-smelling after-shave; then I walk to my room and slather on some cologne, making sure to get a little on my neck and my shirt, so as to make my dollars count. I then walk back and look in the mirror again, make sure I am up to “my” satisfaction, and I walk out ….

Ironically, as I drive to my job (or to school or whatever the case may be), I continue insisting that I am not vain.

Most of us do this on a daily basis, and whether we want to admit it or not we are all tapping into an all-too-human trait called vanity. And in our society, vanity has become such a common trait that people have found a way to capitalize on our fabricated need to look good.

ONE MAN’S REALITY IS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM’S PROFITS

The Vanity Industry, also known as the Beauty Industry, is perhaps at its most popular and profitable level since ‘capitalism’, ‘industry’ and ‘profits’ entered our vernacular. And I don’t really have to research that fact, or give you figures to convince you of that. At this day and age, it seems almost like a self-evident truth; something that no one would try to prove wrong given the current global social conditions.

I mean, comparing our day to say, the Medieval Ages, or even the Renaissance, it is probably much easier for a modern-day tourist strolling the streets of any major metropolitan city in the world to find hair and beauty salons, health-spas and other such places than it is for him/her to find a free-clinic; whereas, in the Medieval Ages, I presume a health-clinic (or the closest thing to it – perhaps a hut with a practising veterinarian, if that) was way easier to find, as opposed to a place where the women could get their nails polished, trimmed and painted.

Today, the importance of looking good in a modern, First World city is practically tantamount to the other basic needs of the human. In any home, you are bound to find food, clothes, medicine, sometimes enlightening reading material, and a milieu of creams, powders and, in the most extreme cases, even syringes and chemicals all aimed at helping its user look and feel younger and, therefore, better. Once again, I think this is a self-evident truth.

In Canada alone, reports estimate that individuals spend around the same yearly amount on cosmetics and other ‘beautifying’ products as they do on home appliances. In Japan and France, the same article nearly doubles the figure.

Darren Praznik, president and CEO of the Canadian Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CCTFA), an organization that works with government regulators to “ensure the development and effective representation of industry positions on all regulatory matters”, told me that the beauty industry is roughly a $7.8 to $8 billion industry.

This figure accounts for about four to five percent of the retail and wholesale industry in Canada, which itself accounts for 13% of our GDP. With approximately 3,700 cosmetics companies in Canada, there are over 20,000 kinds of cosmetic products available for sale. Further, the number of beauty parlours in the country is around the 1.5 million mark, plenty of places to cool off and exfoliate!

An article, appropriately titled “Pampering doesn’t take a break during Economic Downturns” by Candy Williams, cites London-based Economist Magazine when it states that globally the beauty industry rakes in an estimated $160 billion a year in profits. Moreover, Goldman Sachs analysts estimate that “world-wide, skin care brings in $24 billion; makeup, $18 billion; hair care, $38 billion; and perfume, $15 billion” a year, representing almost a 7% annual growth.

This fortune also seems to be oozing from beautifying services, such as health-spas and Botox clinics, a trend rapidly gaining in popularity. An article analyzing some of the beauty industry’s trends found that “medical spa services performed by a licensed physician, physician’s assistant or registered nurse will increase through 2010 as baby boomers age and demand for such procedures increases [particularly] in younger women.” Moreover, the article estimates that by 2018 the “demand for hairstylists and cosmetologists will increase by 20%; skin care specialists by 38%”.

Praznik, moreover, asserts that it is a “very competitive industry” given the large selection of companies and products available, and as result the industry is generally fairly steady. He also agrees that there seems to be a kind of phenomenon, where even during bad times, be them economic like the financial crisis or social, like the 9/11 events, people “will buy personal care products to make themselves feel better.”

In times of financial crises, budgets may tighten and there may be a “shift” in regards to the products people buy, but generally speaking, he continues, the industry is fairly steady, and as the economy turns it will certainly see a “healthy growth”.

Of course the ‘self-pampering’ phenomenon may also be perpetuated by the fact that, especially during hard economic times, “companies … devote a fair amount of effort to get their brands in front of the consumer,” he told me.

In any event, the 8 or so billion dollars a year that the industry contributes to the Canadian GDP is only in sales. In addition to that, it must be considered, Praznik told me, that there are “probably several thousands of jobs associated with the manufacturing of products in Canada, and often those products are exported … to North America if not internationally”, creating yet more jobs in the exporting world.

And as with fashion, new trends constantly emerge in this area; and the Free Market has found a way to very successfully tap into the profits to be made.

NEW TRENDS AND NEW MARKETS – SATURATING BOTH ENDS

Companies selling beautifying products and services have found that the ‘beauty’ industry is capable of evolving and creating new trends. They have discovered, in other words, that it is self-generating.

As with clothes and fashion, new trends emerge in the beauty industry that makes its predecessors seem obsolete, antiquated and ‘un-modern’. And in true capitalist spirit, entrepreneurs and companies alike have pounced on the chance to sell their products (or their innovations) to a new, untapped market.

Take for example the popularity that ‘going green’ has amassed. Almost every sector of the economy has found a way to tap into this trend and make a profit from it (whether the intentions are altruistic or not is not the subject of this article, though in itself the matter deserves attention). And the beauty industry has not fallen behind.

A company named Montagne Jeunesse, for instance, offers consumers affordable “moments of self-indulgence” in a way that concurs with what the company claims is its ethos: “Embracing Life on Earth”. Their face-masques are made with real crushed fruit juice and flower extracts. Moreover, the company, which is also one of the founders of Cosmetics Industry Coalition for Animal Welfare (CICAW), has claimed that none of their products are ever tested on animals and that they are 100% vegetarian and approved by the Vegetarian Society.

But the fact that products are labelled ‘all-natural’, according to Praznik, can be somewhat misleading. Namely, there is an assumed “implication … that [they] are safer … but the ‘natural’ [only] refers to the sourcing of the molecule, not what the molecule does”. The molecules can be sourced naturally, like from a plant or mineral, or produced synthetically in a laboratory; and though the molecule produced naturally may not be hazardous, it can be used to produce an ingredient that is.

On the other hand, “just because [something] is derived from a natural source, it doesn’t make them necessarily safe given their hazardous properties or your exposure to them,” like lead, for example, which is produced naturally, but extremely hazardous to our health.

“You have to look at actual ingredients and [ask] is there a hazardous property to that ingredient and what my exposure is going to be to it to know whether or not it is safe,” said Praznik. “There has been a lot of discussion about natural and what is organic and synthetic … but that doesn’t necessarily determine whether a product is healthy or safe for you.”

Another trend, perhaps one of the most profitable ones, has been dubbed the rise of the ‘Frugalista’, a “consumer composite of beauty aficionados looking for affordable beauty products and care.”

As we saw above, the beauty industry is a resilient industry. Despite the financial crisis we saw from 2007 – 2010, the industry as a whole still saw a 7% increase. Salon and spa owners around the world have noticed that despite a tight financial situation, loyal customers see the treatment they “receive [as] essential to their well-being”. This is the cause for the rise of the ‘Frugalistas’, who helped skin care products realize a 3% growth in 2009, while in the same year “premium beauty products sales declined by 1%”.

The Frugalista, in turn, has given rise to a new trend that Trish Crawford from The Star calls ‘The Lipstick Revolution’, which consists in more and more stores across Canada opting to include a rather large section dedicated to cosmetics and other such products in their stores, which as she notes, has spiked sales.

By introducing the ‘everyday woman’ to beauty products considered ‘high-end’, but with a price tag considering the consumer, the industry has seen an average of around 10% growth of total sales (2007). It does this by injecting products that are over-saturated with celebrity endorsements and advertisements into local markets that are frequented by the ‘everyday woman’ such as Zellers, Wal-Mart and, among its most noticeable success stories, Shoppers Drug-Mart, which has 141 in-store beauty boutiques around the country and with 40 more on the way.

Included in these stores are tons of products aimed at helping people (women, particularly) look younger. As Julyne Derrick, beauty guide for www.about.com puts it, there is a rise in the amount of products aimed at offering women a “simpler, less costly option to look younger” because marketers know that insecurity is good business. Making Botox injections or “microdermabrasion products, Retinoids … antioxidants and peels” available at local malls or drug-stores has definitely driven up the interest and usage of such services, to the point where women are “getting [injections] in the mall of all places”.

There is, however, a concern echoed by Praznik which speaks to the problem of counterfeiting beauty products. Though consumers may find more beauty products in regular stores at affordable prices, they must be aware that counterfeit products are out there, “dumped in retail establishments” all over the country.

“Many major international trade members will tell you that their products are regularly counterfeited,” said Praznik. Adding that consumers can usually tell it is counterfeited “because they’re being offered that product at a ridiculously low price”. But, he says, it is highly unlikely that you’ll find these products in regular, well-known stores. They are most likely to be found where “people are selling at a significantly lower price … such as flea markets and discount stores,” for example.

Perhaps the most alarming of trends is the increasingly tolerant view towards teens and pre-teens using make-up and other cosmetics. Sephora, for instance, makes tons of money by targeting teens and pre-teens, according to Julyne.

As with the trend of including the ‘every-day woman’ into the Vanity Market, entrepreneurs have also found a way to let ‘plus-sized’ women know that they, too, are beautiful. For instance, the Ottawa-based Ben Barry Agency occupies itself with persuading its clients (among them L’Oreal, The Bay, and Univeler) to invest in products aimed at women other than “wafer-like” models. In other instances, Ben Barry himself has organized small ‘fashion shows’ in malls featuring minorities as the main talent.

Thus, the industry has found a way to tap the market from both ends at the same time: on one end, an aging and increasingly vain population consumes products and services that are aimed at halting or hopefully even reversing the aging process; while on the other end, an entirely new market is found in easily-influenced adolescents that crave the need to at the very least look older if feeling older is not yet possible, and minorities that simply crave the need to adapt and to fit in a new country.

However, though the industry may drive profits up, there are social and health-related bumps and blemishes that, like unwanted acne on the teenager’s face, leave a nasty mark on an otherwise smooth industry.

SOCIETAL ZITS AND HEALTH BLEMISHES

Society: ‘It’s A Hollywood Thing!’

While some argue that it is simply the accessibility to beauty and cosmetic products and procedures that is titillating and inviting to women, others argue that it is our society’s deep infatuation with celebrities and the ‘beautiful people’ that is the main engine behind such interests.

As noted above, Julyne Derrick is of the opinion that insecurity is big business, and that companies know to target this through a barrage of celebrity endorsed advertising. To paraphrase her, while in the 1980s and 1990s the super-model was the main spokes-person for ‘beauty’, today it is the movie or music celebrity that endorses the tubs of anti-aging cream and water proof make-up, among a myriad of other things, which they themselves “don’t wear that much of, but make tons of money … advertising … .”

We live in a world where celebrities and Hollywood stars hold almost as much importance (and definitely more prestige) than do presidents and political figureheads! Is it any wonder, then, that women and even men now follow their every word and buy every product they tell us is ‘the best’?

In fact, our infatuation with celebrities and everything that comes with them, including beauty tips and even fashion lines, has grown so large that capitalists are manufacturing ways, as was shown above, to include regular people in a world they otherwise can only aspire to reach. Thus, shopping-mall fashion-shows, where the talent are young kids from different ethnic minorities or plus-sized women, have become not only acceptable, but desirable.

But questions arise in the minds of some people.

For instance, amidst rhetoric of being equals under the eyes of god and the law, politicians as well as civilians have criticized our obsession with “unattainable degrees of beauty” that are only possible in Hollywood and the like. Interest groups have surfaced speaking about the social effects that this obsession has on young people, particularly women.

News of teenagers self-inducing vomiting after meals because they want to be ‘thin’ has become almost common parlance; others speak of the ‘prosti-tots’ phenomenon, where girls as young as 9 or 10 are demanding their parents to buy them skimpy outfits they saw celebrities like Britney Spears (in her time) or Fergie wear.

Praznik suggests that there exists a “code of advertising ethics” that sort of regulates how young they can begin to target people. It is his opinion, furthermore, that “there have been fair efforts in the last while to ensure that people are not being targeted in a manner that wouldn’t be appropriate in advertising.”

Yet it is evident that people of all ages, especially the youth, are more aware of the latest fashion trends, products and brand-names than of whom their Member of Parliament is. Praznik himself tells me that his teenage step-daughter can “tell you all the brand name stores she wants to go for a t-shirt or sweater”. However, he insists that this “speaks … to a larger social issue of education of our young people and in our schools”, but that with “advertising standards like the Advertising Standards Council of Canada … and [with] what we teach our children about values and sense of propriety” at home, they may lead a balanced life.

He did not seem to think that advertising and the high-status of celebrities were largely to blame for the acute awareness of everything to do with fashion, and the general ignorance or apathy towards societal issues and politics evident in our society, particularly among the youth.

HEALTHY LOOKS AND TOXIC INGREDIENTS

There also exists a more worrisome and concrete issue related to our Health. Herizons Magazine – a Winnipeg-based non-for-profit publication focused on the Canadian Women’s Movement, from health and the environment to politics and legal cases established since 1979 – has published an article examining the health risks associated with the chemical ingredients that go into cosmetics. Reportedly, men are not entirely free from these alleged risks.

According to the article, the Canadian Hotlist of restricted and banned chemicals was expanded in 2003 “from less than 100 to almost 500” chemicals after reviewing some in the European Union hotlist. Praznik agrees with the figure, more or less (he put it “just over 600”), but as far as the rest of the article goes, he expresses disagreement or at least scepticism. One reason for the difference in the number of ingredients in the hot list, explained Praznik, is because in Canada they name the compounds, while in the EU they name each individual ingredient that goes into a compound.

For instance, the article mentions that hydroquinone, a chemical deemed a carcinogen in the European Union, is used in many skin whiteners and hair straightening products in certain parts of the world where it is not banned. Though not used in cosmetics in Canada, it is used in certain drugs. Moreover, the article also mentions that studies have found that black women under 40 have a higher breast-cancer incidence compared to white women of the same age group. The studies also show that it is the former group that is more exposed to these products, even from childhood in some cases.

However, Praznik says that these studies are not entirely founded, and that many lack coherent scientific research. He asserts that “some of these groups … come out and say there is a hazard … and [that] therefore there is a risk. [But] they don’t look at the exposure level; they don’t look at route of exposure, etc.”, referring to the formula for risk that he produced for me, namely: Risk = Hazard x Exposure.

Speaking specifically about hydroquinone, he told me that it is found even in blackberries and other types of fruit and red wine. Therefore, though our harmful exposure to it is mostly from foods, Health Canada has deemed that the amounts will be so small that it will not do us harm. He did not refer to the drug side.

Praznik also suggests that even if hydroquinone was used in cosmetics we would not be exposed to it “sufficiently to do [us] harm”.

He reassures me that “for any particular ingredient of personal care product, there is a potential hazard to it; [but] the question is how are we exposed to it and how much?” He then said what Health Canada looks for in exposure is the amount and the route of exposure.

“For something to do harm to me, I have to ingest it and get it in my bloodstream. If I’m putting it on my skin which is hugely impervious – if it was easy to penetrate the skin the pharmaceutical industry would have been using that for years to get drugs in the system”. He then said that “if the exposure comes through ingesting it or getting it in our bloods-stream and were putting a small amount of it on our skin … there is no risk”.

But the article in Herizons Magazine suggests that our skin, particularly women’s, who have “greater percentage of fat” than men, does absorb chemicals that are “fat-soluble more easily”. Breast tissue, the article says, “is one such site where chemicals can accumulate.”

Parabens and phthalates are two such chemicals. The first is used to preserve antiperspirants and creams; the second one is also commonly found in personal care products, like soaps and perfumes. The article also cites that scientists “suspect the absorption of cosmetics through the skin could explain why young women in one study had 20 times the level of phthalates in their body compared to young men”.

The chemicals have been found to be harmful, to different degrees. The former has been found to possibly be linked to the development of breast cancer, but does suggest that more research is needed. The latter has been found to be linked to liver malfunction, low testosterone levels and low sperm counts (yikes!).

The article also says that studies have also found that “the accumulation of chemicals found in personal care products may affect men and women’s offspring”.

It sources a study done by the University of Rochester which found that the “development of the genitals of boys whose mothers had high levels of phthalates in their bodies was less complete compared to those exposed to lower levels”.

The article also criticizes Health Canada for not demanding that products undergo independent testing, and that instead it only requires an ingredient list to be produced. It also criticizes the fact that governments have historically exempted cosmetics from listing their ingredients on their packaging, unlike food manufacturers.

Praznik, on the other hand, tells me that “what we’ve seen from some in the environmental community and women’s organizations … is that they have said that if there is a hazard we shouldn’t do anything with it … so in other words if something has potential to do harm we should just avoid it”.

In response to the criticism about Health Canada and the lack of independent testing, he asserts that “ingredients-testers test their products [and that] manufacturers do certain amount of testing as well. Health Canada looks at studies that are related to these ingredients that are done all around the world and at what other jurisdictions do as well … that’s why there are things they prohibit and restrict”.

He furthermore states, as a former provincial minister of Health in Manitoba, that Health Canada never ignores any independent studies, and that “if there is a risk with any ingredient that is new and substantiated, it will be addressed … in this industry,” he continues, “if using the ingredient that the evidence says there is a problem with, it will drop that ingredient very quickly”.

Health Canada, he also said, “works very closely with regulators in Europe and the United States and in Japan as well. They are always talking to regulators and they are always looking at scientific information”. His own criticism is that many of the environmental and women’s groups “take stuff that is not really scientific and simply repackage it,” and because there is nothing new in them Health Canada and regulators dismiss them. Often times, he adds, the people “who do these studies or claim to do these studies … don’t go and give it to Health Canada, and they have a press conference instead.”

“Heath Canada,” he assures me, “works for the Canadian public … so they are the Honest Brokers,” unlike NGOs who have to raise money and have a cause or agenda, and industry which, although, as he says, never wants to cause harm to consumers, people still can criticize them and say that they are only trying to sell a product.

“These are the people who are the Honest Brokers; these are the people without self interests, other than the protection of consumers … if they look at this and say there isn’t a problem, I think consumers can take comfort in that.”

Still, Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep has created “fact sheets that identify which chemicals and which companies to avoid. [And] Revlon, Estée Lauder, Avon, L’Oreal and Johnson & Johnson are ranked in the group’s top 20 of concern. Chanel cosmetics are not tested on animals, but the group gives them the number two rating of brands to avoid, citing a lack of safety data available for the ingredients used.”

Moreover, according to Environmental Working Group’s report, “hair colour, nail polish and nail treatments contain some of the most toxic chemicals.” Notably, the article goes on to say, “OPI’s natural nail strengtheners … contain toluene, formaldehyde and dibutyl-phthalate—three of the top ingredients of concern.”

CONCLUSIONS: THE ‘WELLNESS FACTOR’ IS BIG

Despite concerns raised about the ingredients used in cosmetics, a major drive behind people’s love affair with cosmetics and beauty products seems to be the ‘wellness factor’.

Indeed, Praznik states that for a variety of reasons people have always done “things with their appearance that ultimately made them feel better”. But it is important, he stresses, that there be a balance in our pursuits of vanity. Wanting to look more youthful is alright, according to him, but if this desire totally dominated his life, this would become an extreme and therefore a problem.

Writing for the Tribune-Review, Candy Williams cites three different women – one a professor, another a representative for US Steel Corporation, and the last a commercial brokerage and project coordinator for Colliers Penn – all of whom report the importance in pampering themselves for both their well being and for them to better perform at their job.

Parse, the professor, says that “it’s more important now to take care of yourself. People want to feel good about themselves. It promotes a very optimistic attitude about life.” The US Steel Corp. representative claimed that “salon professionals have taught her how to look her best by following a personal beauty regime.”

And finally Bishop, the coordinator for Colliers Penn, stated that it is important to take care of herself so she can be “good to the people around [her], people that count. With that reasoning in mind,” she continues, “I don’t feel guilty for pampering myself. In fact, I ask myself, ‘Why aren’t I doing more of this?”

But perhaps these attitudes reflect a deeper issue; a kind of blurring of the balance that Praznik and Williams spoke of.

For instance, Parse, who travels the world giving lectures and has therefore become a sort of role-model, as she herself puts it, is of the opinion that is important to look good while giving her lectures, particularly as she is a role-model. But would her message be cluttered because she was not wearing foundation? Is the message that to be heard, one must look good?

Bishop’s comments echo something similar: that the only way to relax, perform well at our jobs or “be good to those that count” we must first be pampered in a beauty salon.

Praznik is a bit more optimistic in his views. He told me that his father, now close to 80 years old, “likes to get new clothes every now and then,” and he wears a fragrance to his bingo games that cause all the ladies to comment on how good he smells. This says Praznik has put a spring in his step; it makes him feel great and when he gets home he revels in it.

In this view, Praznik believes that it is possible to maintain a balanced interest in looking good. Moreover, he opines that it is because we are now living much longer and are more healthy – virtually a new territory as we are now able to age more than before and see longer stages of life – “people are also looking for that in their appearance,” and as a result more anti-aging creams and products have entered the market.

Finally, when I asked him if he thought the beauty industry was worth maintaining rather than downplaying its importance in society, he answered that “consumers define that every-day with their purchases.” That if they “didn’t feel they were getting the value in the products they were buying they [simply] wouldn’t buy them.”

And he certainly did not believe that it is not a barrage of advertising that makes consumers consume as much as they do. Even in earliest times, he said, “before modern mass advertising, people used cosmetics of their day. In every culture they adorn themselves.” According to him, advertising is a consequence of the competition between the options out there.

“If there were no advertising, people would still be buying those products; the advertising simply tells you what options I can buy. But it’s the competition between the options” that ignites advertising, and that is the purpose of it – simply to let us know our choices.

Perhaps this is true. Perhaps advertising does only communicate to us the choices out there, and it does not have any influence over our behaviour or buying-impulse. Nevertheless, it is evident that ‘beauty’ has become practically tantamount to all other basic needs. Indeed, as mentioned above, people are finding that they need to look good to perform better at their jobs; to be more approachable; and in some cases, even to be heard.

It doesn’t seem like people will stop buying cosmetics and other beauty products in our lifetime. If anything, it seems as if this is actually going to increase. In any event, it is important for people to have accessible information about such a prevalent industry, and that, as Praznik said, they lead a balanced life where pampering and wanting to recapture their youth does not become an obsession that leads them to get Botox shots as they shop for groceries or clothes.

Banner image courtesy of Matt Trostle
Feature image courtesy of Maria Morri