Expensive eye creams 'a waste of time and money'

SPLASHING out on expensive eye creams is likely to be a waste of time and money, consumer watchdogs warned yesterday.

A new report suggests that those who spend a fortune on anti-wrinkle products are throwing cash away because a 3 budget moisturiser could do a better job.

Britons worried about ageing spent 32 million on eye-care products last year – nearly 10m more than in 2006 – but the report by consumer champion Which? says we could all save ourselves a fortune by ditching some of the luxury brands.

Among the products tested were mass market and luxury brands from L'Oral, Clinique, Clarins and Olay, as well as the most expensive from Dr Brandt costing 48.93.

Researchers carried out a series of tests in laboratory conditions using a camera to take high-definition photographs of the eye areas of volunteers.

Over a six-week period, the participants aged from 35 to 65 tested 12 anti-wrinkle eye products, including one which says it makes the face "look visibly younger", and found that none of them came close to eliminating or significantly reducing the appearance of wrinkles.

Jess Ross, editor of which.co.uk, said: "It's not just Hollywood stars who want to look younger, we all do, but it's unlikely that spending a fortune on the latest miracle product will get rid of wrinkles.

"Our tests show that anti-wrinkle eye creams have limited success, whatever they cost.

"To get the best results, pop down to your local pharmacy and pick up a good sunscreen."

In fact, Simple Kind to Skin Replenishing Rich Moisturiser, costing 3.21 for 125ml, which was used as a control product, outperformed a 47 eye cream, StriVectin-SD.

Among the seven products judged to deliver moderate wrinkle reduction was Boots No 7 Protect and Perfect Eye Cream, priced at 16.50.

Which? said that the least effective was RoC Retin-Ox Intensive Anti-Wrinkle Cream, priced at 19.95.

Nivea Visage Anti-Wrinkle Q10 Plus Eye Cream (9.99) was the testers' favourite and Which? found that it was one of the better performers, although even the best products made only slightly more improvements than the poorer ones.

Professor James Ferguson, consultant dermatologist at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee, said the public should be wary about the claims made by anti-ageing skin products.

"Emollients work for dry skin by preventing water loss. But whether one needs to pay a lot of money for such a product, the dermatology profession doubts the need to do that."

Treatments containing retinoids (vitamin A derivatives) show the best laboratory evidence of wrinkle repair. However, these are only available at prescription strength from a doctor. People worried about the onset of wrinkles can protect their eye area by using sunscreen, wearing UV-absorbing sunglasses and not smoking.

Professor Ferguson said retinoids had been used for at least 25 years in the cosmetic industry. Some creams actually act as an irritant, appearing to "plump up" the skin. But, he explained, the skin may only look rejuvenated for a short period.

Dr Nick Lowe, a member of the British Association of Dermatologists, said it was crucial for research to be conducted over a lengthy period. "I agree that you don't have to spend a lot of money on creams for similar benefits to the expensive ones," he said. "But six weeks is too short a time to come to the conclusions that they did. You need at least three to six months."