Ep 326 – Word on the Street – Controversial Skin Care Industry Topics

Summary

ASCP Esty Talk – Episode 326: "Word on the Street – Controversial Skin Care Industry Topics"

Release Date: May 28, 2025
Hosts: Ella Cressman & Maggie Stasik
Produced by: Associated Skin Care Professionals (ASCP)

In Episode 326 of ASCP Esty Talk, hosts Ella Cressman and Maggie Stasik delve into a series of hot-button issues currently stirring debate within the skincare industry. This comprehensive discussion covers regulatory changes, ethical concerns, marketing practices, and the evolving landscape of skincare treatments. Below is a detailed summary of the key topics explored during the episode.

---

1. Shout Out to Skin Specialists Students

Timestamp: [01:32]

Ella kicks off the episode with a special acknowledgment to Jasmine and her classmates at Skin Specialists in Fayetteville, North Carolina. She mentions how these students actively engage with the podcast by completing assignments based on each episode, fostering a community of learning and professional growth.

"So we have a shout out today. It's a shout out to Jasmine and all the students at the Skin Specialists in Fayetteville, North Carolina." – Ella Cressman [01:46]

---

2. FDA’s New Regulations on Chemical Sunscreens and Animal Testing

Timestamp: [02:13] - [06:13]

The hosts discuss the FDA's February 2025 announcement mandating additional safety testing for certain chemical sunscreen ingredients. This move requires manufacturers to conduct more rigorous studies, potentially involving animal testing, to maintain their products' "Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective" (GRASE) status.

"In February 2025, the FDA confirmed that certain chemical sunscreen ingredients... would now require additional testing..." – Ella Cressman [02:28]

Key Points:

• Controversy Over Testing Methods: The requirement may lead to more animal testing, sparking ethical debates.
• Chemical vs. Mineral Sunscreens: The discussion highlights the ongoing debate about the efficacy and safety of chemical sunscreens compared to mineral alternatives.
• Regulatory Differences: In the US, sunscreens are classified as over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, necessitating stringent testing, unlike in some other countries where they are treated as cosmetics.

"Classification of sunscreens as over the counter drugs in the US means that they have these more stringent testing requirements compared to other countries..." – Maggie Stasik [05:17]

---

3. Animal Testing and Global Regulatory Discrepancies

Timestamp: [06:13] - [08:49]

Ella and Maggie explore the complexities of animal testing regulations across different countries. While some nations, like China, have historically required animal testing for imported cosmetics, recent changes are altering this landscape. The hosts ponder the challenges faced by brands striving to maintain cruelty-free statuses internationally.

"Advocacy groups are really urging the FDA to reconsider these requirements for those poor little baby bunnies and to accept existing human data and other like, non animal testing methods." – Ella Cressman [06:13]

---

4. Lack of FDA Oversight for Cosmetic Claims

Timestamp: [08:49] - [10:44]

The conversation shifts to the ambiguity surrounding cosmetic claims. Terms such as "anti-aging" and "clinically proven" are scrutinized for their vague and often misleading nature, as they don't require substantial evidence to support them.

"Terms like anti aging, clinically proven, dermatologists approve. These are vague and misleading, but they don't require proof." – Ella Cressman [09:17]

Key Points:

• Misleading Language: Brands often use appealing terms without backing them with scientific evidence.
• Regulatory Gaps: The absence of strict guidelines allows for broad interpretation of claims, potentially misleading consumers.

---

5. Over-Medicalization of Skincare

Timestamp: [10:44] - [16:22]

Ella introduces the concept of over-medicalization, where skincare brands use clinical-sounding language like "prescription strength" or "dermaceutical" to market products, blurring the lines between aesthetic care and medical treatments.

"This blurs a line between aesthetic care and dermatological treatment or prescriptive treatments." – Ella Cressman [11:47]

Key Points:

• Consumer Perception: The use of medical terminology can lead consumers to overestimate the efficacy of products.
• Regulatory Loopholes: The lack of clear definitions for terms like "cosmeceutical" creates a gray area in product classification.

---

6. The Cosmeceutical Loophole

Timestamp: [16:22] - [15:15]

The hosts dissect the term "cosmeceutical," a blend of cosmetic and pharmaceutical, highlighting its role in allowing products with drug-like actions to be marketed as cosmetics without stringent oversight.

"Products can act like drugs by stimulating collagen or reducing melanin distribution, but they're sold as cosmetics with limited safety oversight." – Ella Cressman [14:30]

Key Points:

• Regulatory Ambiguity: Without a legal definition, cosmeceuticals evade some of the rigorous testing required for pharmaceuticals.
• Industry Impact: This loophole enables brands to market potent ingredients without full transparency or accountability.

---

7. Ingredient Overload and Skin Barrier Damage

Timestamp: [16:22] - [18:11]

Ella and Maggie discuss the trend of "ingredient overload," where the excessive use of acids, retinoids, and other active components leads to compromised skin barriers and increased sensitivity. They emphasize the importance of professional guidance to prevent adverse effects.

"Many consumers are unknowingly disrupting their barrier function." – Ella Cressman [17:07]

Key Points:

• DIY Treatments: The popularity of at-home skincare devices and treatments can result in improper usage and skin damage.
• Professional Oversight: Estheticians play a crucial role in educating clients about safe and effective skincare practices.

---

8. Fear-Based Marketing vs. Ingredient Science

Timestamp: [18:11] - [20:50]

The episode addresses the rise of "clean beauty" marketing, which often demonizes ingredients like parabens, silicones, and sulfates despite scientific consensus on their safety. This fear-based approach leads to consumer confusion and distracts from more significant formulation concerns.

"The fear-based narrative can lead to consumer confusion over formulation and neglect of more meaningful formulation concerns like pH balance or ingredient synergy." – Ella Cressman [19:17]

Key Points:

• Misconceptions: Negative perceptions of certain ingredients are not always backed by scientific evidence.
• Balanced Understanding: Consumers should focus on the overall formulation and efficacy rather than avoiding specific ingredients based on fear-driven marketing.

---

9. Misuse of Before and After Photos on Social Media

Timestamp: [20:50] - [22:03]

Ella highlights the problematic use of before and after images in marketing, where photo manipulation and inconsistent variables can create unrealistic expectations. This practice not only misleads consumers but also sets unattainable standards for practitioners.

"There can be photo manipulation, lighting tricks, or inconsistent variables that can misrepresent results." – Ella Cressman [20:25]

Key Points:

• False Expectations: Misrepresented results can lead to client dissatisfaction and distrust in skincare services.
• Ethical Marketing: The need for honest and transparent representation of treatment outcomes to maintain credibility and client trust.

---

10. Conclusion and Call to Action

Timestamp: [22:03] - [23:25]

As the episode wraps up, Ella encourages listeners to engage with the podcast by sharing their thoughts on the discussed controversies. She invites feedback through social media platforms and email, fostering an interactive community eager to address and navigate the complexities of the skincare industry.

"Now listeners, we really want to hear from you. What are your thoughts on animal testing, overmedicalization, greenwashing and all other controversial skincare topics?" – Ella Cressman [22:03]

---

Key Takeaways

• Regulatory Scrutiny: Ongoing changes in FDA regulations are reshaping the sunscreen market, raising ethical and practical concerns.
• Marketing Ethics: The use of misleading language and fear-based marketing tactics can confuse consumers and undermine trust in skincare professionals.
• Professional Guidance: Estheticians play a pivotal role in educating clients, ensuring safe treatment practices, and advocating for transparent and science-based product formulations.
• Global Standards: Navigating international regulations remains a challenge for brands aiming to maintain consistent ethical standards worldwide.

Notable Quotes:

• "It's just a made up term, a misleading term to say." – Ella Cressman [09:46]
• "Knowing is is this true, am I gonna get the results that you're seeing in this photo?" – Maggie Stasik [21:39]

---

For more insights and discussions on skincare and the beauty industry, tune in to future episodes of ASCP Esty Talk. Connect with Ella and Maggie through the show's social media channels or visit the show notes for additional resources and information.

Transcript

[Tyzo Skin]

Reveal a natural radiant glow with Tyzo Tinted Moisturizing Serum. With skin loving ingredients like hyaluronic acid, glycerin and ceramides, this serum delivers long lasting hydration leaving skin feeling nourished and refreshed. Five luminous shades provide a radiant hint of buildable color with a glowing sheer finish that enhances your tone and texture. Gentle all mineral SPF 30 and antioxidants protect against UV and environmental damage. Experience Skincare that hydrates, protects and perfects with Tyzo's Tinted moisturizing serum. Visit tyzoskin.com for details. Are you interested in providing results driven treatment services? Join a team of like minded individuals who share your passion and support your success. With more than 1,000 franchise locations in 49 states, Massage Envy is not only the nation's number one provider of massage services collectively across its franchise network, but also a national leader in skincare. Start or grow your career at a Massage Envy franchise location. Visit massagenv.comSDcareers for full details.

[Ella Cressman]

Hello and welcome to ASCP STTalk. I'm Ella Cressman, licensed esthetician. Pretty cool educator and content contributor for Associated Skincare Professionals.

[Maggie Stasik]

I'm Maggie Stasik, licensed esthetician and ASCP's program director.

[Ella Cressman]

So we have a shout out today. It's a shout out to Jasmine and all the students at the Skin Specialists in Fayetteville, North Carolina. So they listen to our podcast every week and then do an assignment. And today's the perfect opportunity for that.

[Maggie Stasik]

So excited. Hey Jasmine.

[Ella Cressman]

Um, so it's a beautiful day and the weather is perfect for a controversy. Are you excited for this one?

[Maggie Stasik]

Yes.

[Ella Cressman]

It's kind of creepy what's going on. Because of how this came about, there have been recent developments regarding the FDA's requirements for chemical sunscreens and animal testing. Oh, right.

[Maggie Stasik]

Yeah.

[Ella Cressman]

And it's kind of dizzying when we think about minerals are better, chemicals are better, this is bad for the reefs and the waterways and all these other things, but no, it's okay. Here's the thing. In February 2025, the FDA confirmed that certain chemical sunscreen ingredients, particularly those lack sufficient safety data, would now require additional testing in order to achieve the grace or generally recognized as safe and effective status. So what this means is, or what's going to come of this is this testing may include in vivo real life studies which often involve animal testing, such as the developmental and reproductive toxicity tests and carcinogenicity studies. Means a lot. And especially now that we're like knocking on summer's door and it's really easy just to grab that spray on easily covered SPF version. But this move has definitely sparked controversy, especially considering that many of these ingredients have been used for decades with really extensive real world human data available. But critics argue that the FDA should prioritize the modern human relevant testing methods over traditional animal testing. Pretty crazy.

[Maggie Stasik]

Really crazy. You know my automatic response to this is stick with your zinc, right?

[Ella Cressman]

Stick with zinc for the face and easy. But let's be honest, it's not an easy application for all over your body, especially by yourself or in sand or in like where we're at we have like dirt because you got to kind of reach those back places and then you know, the wind blows or something. It's so much easier just to spray it on. It's very interesting too because while the FDA has announced plans to phase out animal testing altogether for certain drugs by incorporating new approach methodologies or NAMs like AI based models or organ on a chip system, it's really unclear how or when these alternatives will be applied to the sunscreen ingredients. So another interesting fact is the classification of sunscreens as over the counter drugs in the US means that they have these more stringent testing requirements compared to other countries where sunscreens are regulated as cosmetics. So a drug versus a cosmetic, I don't know. That's good and that's bad because we're saying prove it. Where a XYZ company, skincare company, they have to prove certain level of testing, the spf, the coverage. So that's a good thing. But to put it in that classification means they're going to have to have these certain tests to prove that they're not toxic. What do you think?

[Maggie Stasik]

I think when this is a generalization, but European countries and sun exposure and bathing on the beach I think is much more accepted, if you will, compared to the US where we are very anti sun exposure and we are covering up. We have our hats, we have our spf. You even see, you know, people with their umbrellas. We have UPF clothing. And so culturally there's a big difference. So for European countries to classify their sunscreens as a cosmetic, where we're classifying as a drug, makes sense to me. Not to mention a product that has an SPF label. We are impacting the sun's ability to absorb the UV rays. So. So of course it's a drug. And then to say well prove that it's effective in doing so I guess makes sense. But I don't understand why we then have to go a step further. And say, well, let's test on those little baby bunnies to make sure it's.

[Ella Cressman]

Actually effective or not toxic, that there's not reproductive issues. But the same isn't required of other ingredients that have con, like potential controversy. So I guess let's watch it, let's check it out for sure. Advocacy groups are really urging the FDA to reconsider these requirements for those poor little baby bunnies and to accept existing human data and other like, non animal testing methods. So I don't know, I for one would rather I have some people you could test it on. I have a list of names that you can test on humans and let's see if this works. But this isn't really the only controversial topic in the skincare industry. I thought, hmm, if we're gonna talk about this stuff, let's talk about some other ones. One, of course, that is riding on just the heels of that is animal testing and regulatory discrepancies. A lot of brands tout cruelty free. But did you know that in other countries, let's say you're exporting this product, for example, China, until recently, some of these do require animal testing for imported products.

[Maggie Stasik]

Interesting.

[Ella Cressman]

Yeah, it's crazy to me. So I don't know, it's kind of interesting. In like the brands that you align with, do they still keep the same practice in other countries?

[Maggie Stasik]

Yeah. So what does that mean?

[Ella Cressman]

It means that let's say you have, let's say Ella Crest Skincare created an amazing serum and we don't test on animals and it's definitely organic and it has all these ingredient benefits and it's amazing. And it sells really well here. The brand grows really big and then I start to sell in another country. But that in order to import into that country, I have to show regulatory requirements. So every country has regulatory requirements. We hear that a lot when we talk about EU requirements or European standards. They have certain percentages and stuff. So when you're going through the regulatory process to import into another or export into another country, they look at your ingredient list, they look at your testing, your, your claims, your packaging. So sometimes you have to adjust that, whether it's a, a label or have a completely different packaging for other countries, that would mean Elacrest Skincare Magic Serum not tested on animals goes to I don't know what in the name of fake country insert that here. And they do require that, then that means I can't export to that country.

[Maggie Stasik]

Interesting.

[Ella Cressman]

I would think that most brands that do that would just stand on. We're not Going to have that happen.

[Maggie Stasik]

But yeah, I would hope, right?

[Ella Cressman]

Yeah. Something to consider.

[Maggie Stasik]

Very interesting.

[Ella Cressman]

So let's talk about another one. The lack of FDA oversight for cosmetic claims. Here's the issue. Skincare, as we know, is often regulated as cosmetics and not drugs. So a lot of times marketing claims that they make can get away with a lot as long as they don't cross into structure or function language. So here's the controversy. Terms like anti aging, clinically proven dermatologists approve. These are vague and misleading, but they don't require proof. This is something that we have everywhere.

[Maggie Stasik]

Yeah, clinically proven, dermatologist approved. I feel like certainly on over the counter products, you see that everywhere. Professional lines. Maybe not so much the term anti aging we use all the time, but what does that mean? Quote unquote, anti aging.

[Ella Cressman]

Right, right. And it's just a made up term, a misleading term to say. And that's what the, the issue is, is we can't like we. There's a broad amount of claims that we cannot make. And that's why you see, reduces the appearance of, instead of reduces wrinkles. Because if we're saying reduces wrinkles, this is structure, function, language. So I would help write copy for a couple of brands and it would get rejected sometimes because you couldn't, you can't say healing. That's a claim. So if you see healing on a package, I'm gonna go to the store.

[Maggie Stasik]

And check this because.

[Ella Cressman]

Oh, she's going to the store.

[Maggie Stasik]

I know. I have seen healing and anti aging and it is gonna erase those wrinkles from my forehead.

[Ella Cressman]

Yeah, I can't wait for the report. But it's like dermatologist approved. Well, I mean, it's misleading because it's saying, oh, dermatologists are skin people, they know what they're talking about.

[Maggie Stasik]

I was just gonna say, you know what, if it's dermatologist approved, I'm not buying it. I want something that says esthetician approved.

[Ella Cressman]

Okay, let's start that. And we can, because these are cosmetic claims. So that's awesome. How about this one? On that note, the over medicalization of skin care, this is something happening. And it's. I have a theory on it, but it's brands increasingly using clinical sounding language like prescription strength or dermaceutical or cosmeceutical jinxing. Even when the product doesn't meet that threshold or there really isn't a honest definition of that. It's just marketing a little bit. So this blurs a line between aesthetic care and dermatological treatment. Or prescriptive treatments. And this causes clients to skip professional guidance maybe, or overuse actives because they're in a big box store that says, you know, medically inspired.

[Maggie Stasik]

I, I get swayed by those words too, and I know better.

[Ella Cressman]

So what do you think? Now we're talking about a big box store and somebody going in to pick out their own things. How about the clinical language in an aesthetic business?

[Maggie Stasik]

I think that the consumer is like there's a beeline to that.

[Ella Cressman]

There's a beeline to that. So if the consumer is in an aesthetic clinic and the esthetician is recommending it more permissible than if they were in Ulta, I think that if you.

[Maggie Stasik]

Are in a spa or an esthetician's clinic and you have quote unquote medical lines or medical leaning lines, the environment you're in sways your opinion. You know, I'm more inclined to think I'm in an esthetician's practice. And this quote unquote medical line is going to work better because my esthetician is retailing this to me. It may be no different than something from Ulta, which also has estheticians, which also sells professional lines, but because I am in something that appears more clinical or this esthetician is solo or she has a medical director. You know what I'm saying?

[Ella Cressman]

Yeah. You know what's interesting is before the lines of medical aesthetics and aesthetic like spas were blurred, you know what we had back in the Wayback Machine that we had that implied this Clinique, when you went to the Clinique counter with my mom in the late 80s, they were in medical jacket or like lab coats.

[Maggie Stasik]

Yeah, white lab coats.

[Ella Cressman]

White lab coats and Clinique. I mean it's implying the name. That this Clinique was more effective was the implication. So it just continues on now into Walgreens cvs, that there's this different or whatever grocery store you go to and how these kind that influence is infiltrating there. So I think there's some good over the counter products. But this over medicalization brings us to the next one, which is the cosmeceutical loophole. So cosmeceutical, of course, is the marriage between cosmetic and pharmaceutical. Here's the issue. Products can act like drugs by stimulating collagen or reducing melanin distribution, but they're sold as cosmetics with limited safety oversight. This reminds me of the podcast we did on the potential of warning label in California for underage sale of actives. But because there's no legal Definition of cosmeceutical. This really does make it a regulatory gray area, ripe for confusion. Kind of along the lines for me as a medical esthetician. What do you think?

[Maggie Stasik]

I totally agree. I think there's a lot of ingredients, almost all the ingredients that we're using as estheticians that are creating change in the skin. And especially when we are combining these ingredients that, you know, especially estheticians that really understand their ingredients and the power of these ingredients, you can do marvelous things, but they're not classified as a drug. So is that a loophole? Is it a misunderstanding of our industry? By who, the fda? Or what is that? I don't know.

[Ella Cressman]

I wonder if it's an ability to explain to consumers what we really do, because we do combine ingredients and modalities.

[Maggie Stasik]

Yeah.

[Ella Cressman]

And the. I. Okay, listen, I got these new facial cupping things that I've been using on clients. Oh, my gosh, Crazy results. Adding in this modality of lymphatic drainage in a certain way, everybody. And I'm obsessed with it now. I'm like, oh, gosh, I'm pulling off of a lot of active treatments and incorporating this back in. Mind you, I just became a med spa, by the way. Cheers. But the opportunity for this modality, particularly in services, is also making changes. But how are we relaying. It's almost like we're saying, hey, look, we are cool. We're good. Not cool, we're good enough. We can be super effective. We use cosmeceutical grade ingredients. Where you're using cosmetic grade ingredients. Yeah, that was when I was in sales. That's how we sold it. These are cosmeceutical grade. They're a step up from anything your clients can get from other sources. So I think it's a way to explain that we use things in a different way. But that word or that term is now borrowed by everybody.

[Maggie Stasik]

Totally.

[Ella Cressman]

Yeah.

[Maggie Stasik]

A hundred percent.

[Ella Cressman]

You talked about ingredients, so how about this ingredient overload and skin barrier damage. So using more acids, more retinoids, more peels, more devices, obviously that's gained popularity that using everything in your toolbox philosophy. I call it the smack it up, flip it, rub it down in a facial or treatment or whatever you want. But what's also happened is a rise in sensitized or inflamed skin. So at home now, we have at home microneedling, we have at home dermaplaning, we have at home peels. And many consumers are unknowingly disrupting their barrier function. So what do you think? About that controversy.

[Maggie Stasik]

Well, I think we live in a world where we want immediate results and we got to a point where we don't want to wait for that at appointment. And if we can do it ourselves, even better.

[Ella Cressman]

Yep.

[Maggie Stasik]

You know, I mean, I'm fine with it, plain and simple. And you're right, you know, we have people at home who don't understand why they should be getting this treatment in the first place. They just know they're what, seeing it on social media or it's the latest trend and they're getting good results when they have the treatment. But what's the why? And that's where the esthetician comes in to educate and the esthetician understands the how and they understand the why. And maybe you can go to the store and get some version to do this at home, but really you're getting the best outcome and the best results if you can book that appointment and get it done professionally. Because you're getting not just the service but also the consultation, you're getting the post care and the follow up and all the things that go with it.

[Ella Cressman]

Yeah, because we're really talking about skin health. Like Michelle said on that podcast a few months ago, we're doing skin health. So seeking the advice of an esthetician who can help lead you in some of these home treatments. Say what maybe you should do, maybe what you shouldn't do, maybe what you should leave to pro versus some of the things you can achieve at home. So we've been talking a lot about terms. Let's talk about fear based marketing versus ingredient skincare. So here's the issue. Clean beauty. That term, quote unquote clean beauty often villainizes ingredients like parabens, silicones or sulfates. Right. Kind of conditioned to look for those and avoid those. Yet there's scientific consensus that there are generally considered safe of these malefic or thought to be malefic ingredients and that they are regulated at a certain level. So the fear based narrative can lead to consumer confusion over formulation and neglect of more meaningful formulation concerns like ph balance or ingredient synergy. What do you think about that?

[Maggie Stasik]

This takes me back to our original conversation about sunscreens and I think there's a lot of misunderstanding misconception about sunscreen versus sunblock. What safe. You had mentioned protecting the reefs and fear based marketing is one of those things. Understanding the ingredient science, protecting yourself from over sun exposure is important. And whether you're using a sunscreen or a sunblock, at the end of the day, either one is great. Whatever works Best for you. Whatever you have access to. I think it comes down to being sure you are just protecting yourself from over UV exposure.

[Ella Cressman]

Oh, my gosh. So there was this. I agree with you wholeheartedly because I think some things can be misunderstood. A couple years ago, we gave an analogy of putting a little bit of salt in a chocolate cake. And what was the function of that? Salt in the cake is to enhance flavor, but it also has a chemical response. But it doesn't mean that you're going to. You're at the risk of hypertension. Like if you should be avoiding or having low salt foods, it's not the same as a bag of potato chips. Remember that analogy?

[Maggie Stasik]

Yeah.

[Ella Cressman]

So I agree that it's not that these are horrible, awful all the time. It says you should be aware of how they work, where they are in the formula and what they're supposed to do, not just write them all off. It's like saying you're dating and you're maybe looking on a dating app and you're just dismissing people because they're brunette. Yeah, they don't. Not all brunettes are bad. Maggie the blonde.

[Maggie Stasik]

Hey, I know a great brunette. She's sitting right in front of me.

[Ella Cressman]

I used to be blonde, half there. So interesting. Oh, I have to tell you guys about my social media, by the way. A challenge accepted from Maggie. I'm really trying hard. One of the things that I touted recently was like, I don't do before and after pictures. I don't. I don't do it for a lot of reasons. But there's this one concern is the exploitation of the before and after images. The issue is that there can be photo manipulation, lighting tricks, or inconsistent variables that can misrepresent results like different angles and such. So the controversy is that this fuels false expectations on your social media. This is especially true for acne, hyperpigmentation, and even aging treatments. What do you think?

[Maggie Stasik]

I think in today's world, it's hard to trust what you're seeing.

[Ella Cressman]

Yes.

[Maggie Stasik]

You know, I mean, you just said it. There's manipulation. And it's not just in skincare, it's in all things. So knowing is this true, am I gonna get the results that I'm seeing in this photo? And it can be false marketing.

[Ella Cressman]

I wonder, does it set the expectation up for success as a practitioner? So working on hundreds of people and some results are slow, some results are fast, some results are digressive, some are progressive, goes up and down. But if you have a page full of these before and afters and the metric is I'm going to look for someone who has these kind of before and afters because that's what I want. But your lifestyle is completely different and your skincare needs and your genetics and everything is completely different. Can you give them those same results? Are they going to be disappointed because they're not getting it fast enough? Right?

[Maggie Stasik]

Yeah.

[Ella Cressman]

So all really interesting. Lots of controversy. Thanks for playing. Now listeners, we really want to hear from you. What are your thoughts on animal testing, overmedicalization, greenwashing and all other controversial skincare topics? Reach out via Instagram, Facebook or send us an [e-mail] we want to know all of the details. In the meantime, thank you for listening to ASCP sdtalk. For more information on this episode, or for ways to connect with Maggie or myself, or to learn more about ascp, check out the show notes and stay tuned for the next episode of ASCP STT Talk.

[Tyzo Skin]

This podcast is sponsored by Lamp Probe. Lamp Probe is a popular aesthetic tool that enables skin care practitioners to rapidly treat a wide variety of common minor skin irregularities or msi. Red MSI treated by Lamprobe include dilated capillaries and cherry angiomas, yellow MSI cholesterol deposits and sebaceous hyperplasia and brown MSI treated include skin tags and more. Lamprobe MSI treatments are non evasive and deliver immediate results. Lamprobe can empower your skin to practice with these new and highly in demand services. For more information, visit lamprobe. Com that's L A M P R O B E com and follow lampprobe on social media @lampprobe.