People of all ages are in a constant search of the best skin care products. As argued by Desmond Morris, a zoologist, flawless skin is the “most universally desired human feature” (Rodan et al., 2016, p.3). The ultimate beauty goal is to have radiant skin characterized by a smooth texture and tone. To this end, a range of products, including moisturizers, exist to supply the skin with the said benefits. This blogpost analyzes the efficacy of facial moisturizers in hydrating the skin to ascertain the most effective ones. Current State of the Skin Care Industry: The Paradox Figure 1: Picture of a woman with dry skin Marketers discovered years ago that science could serve as a crucial promotional approach for beauty products; therefore, they have capitalized on labels and advertisements that use scientific terms to boost sales. For example, companies use the phrase non-comedogenic, to indicate that their products do not cause pimples. Almost all moisturizers in the market use non-comedogenic ingredients in their products (Rodan et al., 2016). Although the authors do not indicate whether using non-comedogenic products is a standard U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirement, it is clear that there is nothing unique about these products. The Problem with the Skincare Industry Many consumers believe that these cosmetics can enhance their sexual attractiveness. Moreover, the cosmetic industry has capitalized on consumers’ need to feel attractive to generate profits through increased sales. While there is nothing wrong with pursuing glamour, I find the industry’s deceptive and manipulative approach immoral. Many salespersons market their products based on the notion that its contents have the capacity to help consumers attain the desired facial contrast. As a result, many clients have fallen victim to this pseudoscientific hokum thinking that the product will resolve their skincare needs. As mentioned earlier, most of these skin care products do not deliver their intended benefits. Yet, customers move from drug stores to drug stores, spending significant resources on ineffective commodities. Given the typical ineffectiveness of these cosmetic products, one is likely to questions whether consumers need them in the first place. Selling or receiving money for commodities that do little or nothing to change a person’s life is immoral and unethical. Fig. 2: A woman shares before and after photos after using a “specially formulated” moisturizer What I find even more appalling is that these products harm consumers. The review conducted by Ben-Nun (2016) revealed that skincare products cause 56.3% of the adverse effects triggered by cosmetic products (p.80). The commonly-reported adverse effects include breakouts, exacerbation of skin condition, irritation, burning, and peeling (Rodan et al., 2016). A story that stands out is that of St. Ives, a renowned company in the skincare industry; it was sued for $5 million for selling a facial scrub that harmed their customers (Nielsen, 2016). The complainants claimed that the product “tore away” their skin. Figure 3: St. Ives apricot scrub While this is a rare but actual occurrence, it shows how far-reaching the unregulated skincare industry’s effects are. It is worthwhile to mention that the beauty industry is largely unregula