I'm curious as to how well they think their research efforts will hold up in court when people start litigating over 2nd and 3rd degree burns and skin cancer claims. If they KNOW that their product really doesn't work as advertised and they make the research look as though it does work, I can't help but believe that they are very liable for any damages incurred by the public.

As a member of the cosmetic industry, I was dismayed to see the writer pass this off as a beauty product when in actuality it's an oral supplement. Once I got to the description of the supplement materials - "The pill combines lycopene and beta-carotene — the red and orange substances in tomatoes and carrots, respectively" - I began to get a strong impression someone had an ax to grind against this product. Lycopene and beta carotene aren't just "red and orange substances", they're among the strongest of the plant-derived antioxidant group known as carotenoids. Downplaying an ingredient's activity is a common ploy among journalists seeking to sway the reader's opinion against the research being reported. Since there's so many clinical studies available on true topical beauty products, my question is "why pick on this study, and only this study, for your article?" followed by, "who put you up to this? Did it come from a press release put out by one of L'Oreal's many competitors?"

yeah that is true, major brands do give out free samples of their popular health products best place to check is http://bit.ly/9UAtgc send it to your friends

Rebecca - is there evidence somewhere that ingested lycopene or beta carotene (or a combination of these) has the ability to reduce the effect of UV rays on skin?

If people are upset about this they need to pressure the FDA and the FTC to pay attention to and required full disclosure about the "research" conducted and truth in advertising. The cosmetic industry runs poorly designed trials, the nutritional supplement/diet industry claims their products are based on research that is not done at all (when there is "scientific" evidence, it's based on peripherally related research not done on their products. The EMEA is starting to crack down, it's about time our agencies beef up their staff and crack down as well

It is a very interesting article, but the claims are a stretch for sure. They did show an increase in the MED at mid study in the treated group of ~20% but by the end of the period, it appears the placebo group and the treated group had the same color of skin end essentially the same MED. They did not compare the placebo and the treated group statistically. Bogus.

Perhaps folks should just stop believing the BS companies put out about their products. Or, perhaps a company like Underwriters Labs should go into business and provide a 'Seal of Approval" for cosmetics. The fee charged would be for the truely scientific investigation. If the claims are true and the product functions as adverstized, they get the seal, if not, no refund. My wife spends about $75 a month for some crap that is supposed to reduce wrinkles around the eye. All I've noticed is the decline in our money. I don't think it does anything but make the skin around her eyes greasy.

My first thoughts were the little girl with the dog pulling her underpants down in the old tanning commercials on the tan products of the time. I believe that has as much "scientific research" behind this as the women who got their "butts, behinds" exposed to see what results happened with a pill.

Get real. This is really one big scam. Anyone who buys this product deserves to be scammed.