Care Skin Care by Stella McCartney At-A-Glance
Strengths: None, save for packaging that minimizes the products’ exposure to light and air, and slows potential contamination and degradation.
Weaknesses: Expensive; no sunscreens; lack of effective preservatives; no AHA, BHA, or skin-lightening products; no products for acne; every product contains a blend of irritating fragrant oils.
As is the case for many fledgling skin-care lines, these products appeared on the market because the individual behind the line supposedly couldn’t find suitable products to care for her skin. Despite the thousands upon thousands of options available, such well-intentioned people are convinced that something is missing. Sometimes, they’re right, but that is rarely the case; more often, it’s a business opportunity, and of course there is nothing wrong with business, but in this case Care Skin Care by Stella McCartney doesn’t add much to what is already available and has some missteps that are hard to ignore.
British fashion designer and daughter of famed ex-Beatle Paul McCartney, Stella McCartney is a fan of, and prefers to use, natural products. Stella claims she’s different, however, in that she was aware of how many products were not “all natural” and also that the legitimately natural products were far from elegant.
Care Skin Care purports to offer skin “everything it needs and nothing it doesn’t.” Yet never has a tag line been so far off base! Unfortunately, none of the Care Skin Care by Stella McCartney products are gentle, none have a reliable preservative system (at least not as listed on the label), there is nothing offered for exfoliation, sunscreens are absent (a major need for all skin at any age), and the moisturizers fall short of offering skin an impressive complement of ingredients to restore and maintain a healthy barrier (think antioxidants, cell-communicating ingredients, and skin-identical ingredients). Those with oily skin, acne, or skin discolorations are out of luck, as are those looking for a serious collection of anti-aging products (though anti-wrinkle claims are peppered throughout the line, albeit with unsubstantiated claims for the ingredients).
When asked why the line does not offer a single sunscreen, the company responded that “It is not possible to have chemical filters in organic products [and] … only chemical filters permit both high SPF and luxury textures.” Well, they’re wrong on both counts. There is no reason chemical sunscreens (such as avobenzone) cannot be included in organic products. Adding them would negate their “100% organic” claim, but it is possible to add them, and it’s far better for your skin than not using a sunscreen. (Is her philosophy really to let skin be damaged by the sun rather than to protect it with an “unnatural” ingredient?) Is the company just choosing a trend (organic cosmetics), rather than offering to protect the health of your skin? Does Ms. McCartney only ride a bicycle and not use a car?
The second part of their statement, which can be translated into “our chemists really don’t know how to combine mineral sunscreens with ingredients that contribute to a luxurious texture,” is equally misleading. Perhaps they took the easy way out (sunscreen formulas can be exceedingly difficult) by stating, incorrectly, that only chemical sunscreens can be used if a luxurious texture is desired. So, just because the company won’t do the work necessary to make an elegant formulation with mineral sunscreen agents, the consumer who chooses to use these products is left unprotected and that means more wrinkles, brown discolorations, and a risk of skin cancer.
The many essential oils present in all of the Care Skin Care products are likely meant to serve as stand-ins for traditional preservatives such as parabens or phenoxyethanol, but there is no essential oil or blend that has the broad-spectrum capability to protect a cosmetic formulation from a host of pathogens. The company claims that their packaging preserves the products, which is slightly misleading. Appropriate packaging can go a long way toward keeping cosmetic ingredients stable for longer—but these ingredients eventually break down and can become rancid, even if protected from light and air. McCartney and associates clearly believe this too, or they wouldn’t mention that the shelf life of most of their products is two-and-a-half years (a fairly standard length of time for cosmetics left unopened, so I’m skeptical of that claim too—even a bottle of olive oil in your kitchen cupboard only has a shelf life of about 6 months).
I suppose the only strong positive is that Care Skin Care has admirable, environmentally conscious goals that more companies should work towards. What a shame that so many of the ingredients selected for these products are unnecessary irritants, and that the blatant omissions in some cases are harmful to the health of your skin. All in all, if “organic” is your most important criterion, then Care Skin Care products fit the bill (although not every formula is 100% organic), but you have to ask yourself: What’s more important, organic principles or beautiful, healthy skin? You can’t have it both ways with this line.