Makeup-users, get ready. AI is ready to tell us we look ugly.
The app ModiFace scrutinizes your skin type, points out what&#8217;s wrong with your face, (you&#8217;ve got wrinkles here, a spot there), and suggests cosmetics that might be able to repair or cover those flaws.
If you just thought, &#8220;Hey, making people feel insecure is a great way to get people to buy cosmetics,&#8221; you&#8217;re not alone. <a href="https://futurism.com/loreal-goes-after-3d-printed-human-skin-to-test-beauty-products/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">French cosmetic giant L’Oreal</a> recently purchased the Canadian company for an undisclosed (but likely astronomical) sum.
In theory, the tool sounds kind of cool. The company has published more than 200 scientific studies and holds 30 patents in development of this technology, so there&#8217;s reason to believe it works better than some of the <a href="http://www.instyle.com/beauty/beauty-try-on-apps-makeup">other makeup apps</a> already out there (ModiFace would probably become the best-known of these once L&#8217;Oreal makes it ubiquitous). And because it&#8217;s an app, it doesn&#8217;t require investment in a whole new piece of hardware, the way <a href="https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/1/3/16844300/amazon-patent-mirror-virtual-clothes-fashion">Amazon smartmirror</a> would.
Plus it sounds pretty convenient. Trying a new foundation without having to go to the store and covering my hand with poorly-colored product? Yes, please.
But there&#8217;s an obvious downside to ModiFace: it provides users with a limited definition of what it means to look beautiful.
That standard is getting narrower all the time thanks to social media. Despite some effort to expand beauty standards to people of different colors, shapes, and sizes, the popularity of sites like Instagram and Snapchat make the same old beauty standards seem attainable and immediate, the airbrushing and photoshopping seem less obvious.
&#8220;We are on the verge of a very, very serious problem,&#8221;Jane Cunningham, the author of <a class="u-underline" title="" href="http://britishbeautyblogger.com/">Britishbeautyblogger.com</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/dec/06/body-image-healthy-fashion-models-young-people-rosie-nelson">told The Guardian in 2015.</a> &#8220;The world of vloggers and YouTubers has created a perverse, homogenized sense of distorted &#8216;beauty&#8217; with no diversity or reality&#8230; Society is losing all perspective on the diversity of beauty and it’s contributing to an alarming growth in dysmorphia.” Recent <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/55f5/811ee5d09f5bd42d3f6e71bc7aa4010154a2.pdf">scientific literature</a> <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444817694499">has confirmed</a> this assessment.
Consumers, especially women, don&#8217;t need another faceless entity pointing out every little flaw. That&#8217;s especially true for women of color, for whom <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/the-underlying-bias-of-facial-recognition-systems/476991/">facial recognition software can be inaccurate</a>. Might ModiFace direct non-white users towards <a href="https://www.refinery29.com/2018/01/189152/fenty-beauty-best-kardashian-beauty-lines">more limited products</a> for their skin tones, or push them to ascribe to a particular aesthetic they may not agree with? Well, <a href="https://qz.com/1054067/cosmetics-marketed-to-women-of-color-may-contain-more-harsh-chemicals/">it wouldn&#8217;t be the first time</a>. And it&#8217;s not clear from ModiFace&#8217;s marketing materials whether the tool works for non-cis women — a <a href="http://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/brands-are-throwing-out-gender-norms-reflect-more-fluid-world-174070/">growing market</a> of makeup consumers (in 2016 L&#8217;Oreal itself <a href="https://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/Article/2016/09/01/L-Oreal-uses-first-ever-male-model-in-a-cosmetics-campaign">used a male model</a> to advertise cosmetics).
A tool like ModiFace might be useful for some makeup users, or convenient even. But for others, it will just be another entity telling them they&#8217;re not young enough, not white enough, not pretty enough.

A robot pointing out all your fine lines and skin discolorations. Just what you needed.

L'Oreal buys augmented reality beauty app, allowing robots to point out our every flaw

Future Society

Augmented reality promises to show women exactly what's wrong with their faces, so they can spend money in the futile attempt to fix it. What's not to like?

L'Oreal Buys Augmented Reality Beauty App, Allowing Robots To Point Out Our Every Flaw

New tech, same ol' beauty standards.

L’Oreal Buys Augmented Reality Beauty App, Allowing Robots To Point Out Our Every Flaw

Last week, a bill was put before the House of Representatives that would ban <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/health-mediarel-yr2017-gillespie031.htm?OpenDocument&amp;yr=2017&amp;mth=06">animal testing of industrial chemicals</a> intended solely for use in cosmetics.
The <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5885">proposed bill</a> would affect a wide variety of products: &#8220;cosmetics&#8221; are legally defined as any substance used on the body, or in the mouth to change its appearance, cleanse it, perfume it, or protect it. This includes soaps, shampoos, moisturizer, hair dye, perfumes, and deodorants.
It&#8217;s difficult to know exactly how many animals will be affected by this ban, as companies do not advertise their use of animal testing and results are often unpublished. It&#8217;s likely to be relatively small, but this ban will both improve their lives and be an important international signal.
Cosmetic testing commonly measures the reaction of animals&#8217; skin, eyes, and respiratory tracts to high concentrations of certain chemicals. Other tests determine a product&#8217;s potential to cause fetal abnormalities, cancer, or genetic mutations.
<h2>The Global Move Away from Animal Testing</h2>
As a practice, it has had a turbulent history. It&#8217;s increasingly <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-australia-needs-to-catch-up-on-animal-research-transparency-27169">opposed by the public</a> but many governments — including Australia&#8217;s — require animal tests to be conducted for some potentially hazardous new cosmetic ingredients.
Most prominent in this arena is the European Union. After animal testing was first banned in Germany in 1986, it was extended to the entire Union in 2004. In 2009 the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/cosmetics/animal-testing_en">ban was expanded to include ingredients</a>, not just the finished product. Then imports came under scrutiny, as Japan and the United States are major exporters to the EU, and imports of cosmetic products tested on animals were banned in 2013.
Since that time <a href="http://www.hsi.org/news/press_releases/2016/10/taiwan-bans-cosmetics-animal-testing-072116.html">Israel, India, Norway, New Zealand, South Korea, Turkey, Taiwan, and parts of Brazil</a> have all banned testing of cosmetics on animals. However, the Humane Society International estimates that globally around <a href="http://www.hsi.org/issues/becrueltyfree/facts/about_cosmetics_animal_testing.html">100,000-200,000</a> animals are still used annually for this purpose.
The US is considering a ban, which would drastically diminish the market for any manufacturers still using animal testing. Until recently China required all cosmetics to be tested on animals, although this requirement has now been <a href="http://www.cosmeticsdesign-asia.com/Regulation-Safety/China-ends-animal-testing-on-regular-cosmetics">relaxed</a> for non-specialized cosmetics such as hair, skin and nail care products, perfumes, and make-up.
<h2>Australia&#8217;s Situation</h2>
Until July 2018, animal testing will still be required in Australia for some cosmetic ingredients, as it is considered by the Department of Health to be the <a href="https://www.nicnas.gov.au/news-and-events/Topics-of-interest/subjects/animal-testing-and-cosmetics">best means of testing for potential toxicity</a>. After this time industrial chemicals scheduled for use only in cosmetics <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5885">may not be tested on animals</a>. Chemicals used for other purposes may still be tested on animals, providing a potential loophole for manufacturers.
However, many ingredients have already been extensively tested on animals, and there is no need to repeat this. For others, alternative means of testing are being developed, such as clinical trials on humans and use of skin samples from cosmetic surgery to test penetration levels.
There have been major advances in alternative testing methods in recent years. As well as clinical studies and skin tests, we can, for example, use hen&#8217;s eggs to test if a product is <a href="https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/iccvam/docs/protocols/ivocular-hetcam.pdf">likely to irritate human eyes</a>. In the future <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/lst_20140314_0.pdf">differentiated stem cells</a> may be used as well.
Australia already has in place a <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/ea28">code of practice</a> for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes. This requires research using animals to be licensed by an authority, usually associated with a university or government services. The committee evaluating applications has to be satisfied that the benefit to humans outweighs the harm to animals.
In the case of cosmetics, the harm to animals is often major and benefit to humans minor. However, my experience is that committees are likely to be persuaded that any government requirement for animal testing should be honored.
The proposed bill will save animals from the suffering often associated with testing. Although Australia&#8217;s cosmetic industry is not large by international standards, it is growing rapidly, particularly in <a href="https://www.austrade.gov.au/International/Buy/Australian-industry-capabilities/consumer-goods">body and hair products, cosmeceuticals, sunscreen, and anti-ageing products</a>.
Once this ban passes, it will be noted internationally. This, together with the increasing number of other countries banning all animal testing of cosmetics, suggests an international accord could be possible.
Over the past decade the international <a href="http://www.oie.int/">World Animal Health Organisation</a> — which primarily promotes animal disease control — has assumed responsibility for animal welfare standards worldwide. With 180 member states, it is in a good position to spearhead movement towards an international agreement. It already has a <a href="http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&amp;L=0&amp;htmfile=chapitre_aw_research_education.htm">Code of Practice for Use of Animals in Research and Education</a>, which recognizes that:
<blockquote>Animals should only be used when ethically justified and when no other alternative methods are available.</blockquote>
This Code includes &#8220;harm versus benefit&#8221; ethical review, similarly to the existing Australian system, but without the government imperative to encourage or require animal testing. This could be used to deny companies the opportunity to conduct animal trials with cosmetics in countries still using them.
Eventually, it is clear, cosmetics will not be tested on animals anywhere in the world. Australia&#8217;s new regulations will be a small but valuable step towards this future.

Rabbit in Research for Animal Testing

Health & Medicine

A bill proposed to the Australian House of Representatives would ban animal testing of industrial chemicals for use in cosmetics.

Australia Will Finally Ban Cosmetic Testing on Animals

The lives of lab animals will never be the same.

<h5>THE BREAKTHROUGH</h5>
Using a shape memory alloy, a 3D CAD model of a human finger, and a 3D printer, scientists were able to create what they dubbed the “perfect” robotic finger. This finger can perfectly mimic the range of movement and extensions of the human finger. It is also lightweight, strong, flexible, and exhibits dexterity, making it a strong candidate for applications in prosthetics.
The main manufacturing challenge at present is the extended cooling period required for the finger to return to a normal condition. To combat this, the team is initially exploring using the technology for underwater robotics to provide a natural cooling environment.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Hard Science

Inspired by both nature and biology, a scientist has designed a novel robotic finger that looks, feels and works like the real thing.

/Cosmetics

Future Society

L’Oreal Buys Augmented Reality Beauty App, Allowing Robots To Point Out Our Every Flaw

Health & Medicine

Australia Will Finally Ban Cosmetic Testing on Animals

Hard Science

Bio-inspired robotic finger looks, feels and works like the real thing

Load More