First, this product isn’t advised for daytime use unless you’re willing to pair it with a product rated SPF 15 or greater. Even then this remains a tough product to recommend due to the irritating plants it contains. Fragrant lavender water leads the pack and its followed by thickeners that don’t help keep oily areas looking matte. The tapioca starch has some absorbent properties but isn’t as effective or elegant as silicone polymers or synthetic (yet safe) absorbent ingredients such as nylon-12.
The chief problem-child ingredients and reason for the poor rating are bergamot and lavender oils. Both present numerous problems for skin, and bergamot oil, in particular, contains a chemical known as bergapten that makes skin more sun-sensitive (Source: www.naturaldatabase.com). The irritating ingredients this contains can stimulate oil production in the pore, making oily skin or oily areas worse, not better.
This contains some beneficial, anti-inflammatory plant extracts but they’re fighting a losing battle against the problematic plants—and none of them provide sun protection as alluded to in online claims for this product.
This lightweight skincare treatment creates a matte effect as it reduces shine and balances combination skin. It provides antibacterial properties and protects skin against free radicals to combat signs of premature aging.
Lavandula Angustifolia (Lavender) Flower Water, Cetearyl Ethylhexanoate, Glycerin, Lauryl Laurate, Cetearyl Alcohol, Tapioca Starch, Cetearyl Glucoside, Oryzanol, Salix Nigra (Willow) Bark Extract, Amorphophallus Konjac Root Powder, Crataegus Oxyacantha Stem Extract, Carbomer, Phenoxyethanol, Vaccinium Macrocarpon (Cranberry) Seed Oil, Laminaria Ochroleuca Extract, Cassia Alata Leaf Extract, Pueraria Lobata (Kudzu) Symbiozome Extract, Bisabolol, Sodium Hydroxymethylglycinate, Lavandula Angustifolia (Lavender) Oil, Citrus Aurantium Bergamia (Bergamot) Fruit Oil, Callitris Intratropica Wood Oil, Limonene, Linalool, Glucose, Tocopherol.
Hailing from the United Kingdom, the Ren line was developed by two businessmen who are, according to company information, "evangelical" about skin care. The story goes that Robert Calcraft and Anthony Buck were former consultants who began researching the skin-care market after Buck's wife began having adverse reactions to every skin-care product she used while pregnant. Apparently neither man believed that there was a line out there that offered consumers high-tech products that were "totally clean" and "completely effective," and so, voilá, a new skin-care line was born.
We wish we could write that these men were really onto something for all women, not just Buck's wife, but that's simply not the case. First of all, their assessment of the cosmetics industry is bizarre, because in truth there are indeed many cosmetic lines offering "clean" and "effective" products ("clean," by Ren's definition, are products that don't contain problematic ingredients). Second, which lines did Ren's founders check out to determine that there was a missing link? An even better question is: What criteria were they using, because almost all of their products are either poorly formulated or contain irritating ingredients?
Calcraft and Buck apparently worked with a cosmetic pharmacologist; although that sounds impressive, a cosmetic pharmacologist works with drugs designed to improve mental ability in healthy individuals, not with skin-care formulations. All of this back story is nothing more than proof that the people behind this line really didn't do their homework, and the consumer who buys these products will be the poorer (both skin health- and money-wise) because of it.
It still shocks us when we review a line that's laden with products claiming to improve wrinkles and other signs of aging skin, and yet there's limited options for sun protection. Few researchers question how critical daily sun protection is to preserving the health and appearance of skin. Many of Ren's products contain antioxidants, and several have high amounts of green tea oil. But all the green tea in Japan isn't capable of protecting skin from environmental damage, which of course includes sunlight.
More so than many other lines that eschew certain ingredients for their alleged (and, sometimes, proven) negative effects when present in skin-care products, Ren loves to point out everything they don't use. This is a line for those who love to see the word "No" followed by a long list of chemical-sounding names that can seem scary to the uninformed. A consumer may have no idea what a polyquaternium is, but because of lines like Ren, the message is clear that it's not desirable. Ren doesn't provide any documentation supporting their ban on certain ingredients, which is typical of lines whose marketing angle relies on perpetuating the myth that synthetic ingredients are evil and that natural is the only truly safe way to go.
It would be great if Ren's "do not use" list benefited consumers, but it doesn't. Frustratingly, many of the ingredients Ren opts to use instead of synthetics are proven irritants for skin. Bergamot, peppermint, tangerine, and arnica are indeed natural ingredients, but each has its share of problems for skin. We could go on, but you get our point: Ren is really nothing more than an overly fragranced, fear-mongering, natural "me too" line using the same tired plant-based ingredient angle as countless other brands. The difference is that many of those other brands have a product assortment that, either from a price or formulary perspective, is much better than this one.
For more information about Ren, call (732) 553-1185 or visit www.renskincare.com.