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!

  • agissilver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • akrzOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • Chais@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • akrzOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • EdanGrey@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • akrzOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.