The Demystifying Cosmetics Podcast

Before-and-after photos don't measure whether your skincare is working. 
They measure what already happened — weeks ago, at a biological level you can't see in a mirror.
Dr. Maria Feliva, Co-Founder & CEO of CheckGen, joins Jennifer Cookson on Demystifying Cosmetics to break down molecular-level skin testing, 
Why the industry's standard measurement tools miss what actually matters, and what retinol is doing to your skin cells in the first 30 days.
What you will learn in this episode:
— Why before-and-after photos are the wrong standard for measuring 
  skincare results
— How long skincare products actually take to work on a molecular level
— What retinol does to your skin cells in the first 30 days — 
  and why do results plateau after that
— Why UV-damaged skin responds less to any skincare product
— How over-layering products creates the sensitive skin you didn't have
— What the industry currently accepts as clinical testing — and 
  why it's not enough
— Whether "anti-aging" will still exist as a category in 5 years
Dr. Maria Feliva is Co-Founder and CEO of CheckGen, a molecular skin testing company working with skincare brands to evaluate product efficacy at a biological level. Based in Australia, CheckGen works 
with international brands.
Learn more at https://www.checkgen.com.au/
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Takeaways:
- What you see in a mirror is the output of biological changes that started 2-3 weeks earlier — the skin response happens long before it's visible
- Molecular changes from retinol begin within 30 days — after that the skin acclimatises and plateaus; this cannot be measured in 
  before-and-after photos
- Inflammatory markers are among the first proteins to shift with an 
  effective product — inflammation doesn't have to be visible to be present
- UV-damaged skin is in defence mode — it cannot use a topical product efficiently while managing excess UV stress
- Over-layering products stresses the skin barrier and can create sensitivity in skin that was previously not sensitive
- Customer surveys in industry testing are frequently guided — the questions are framed in a way that reduces the chance of a negative response
- Synergy between compounds in a formula can produce completely different cellular responses than any single active tested in 
  isolation

Skin barrier repair is one of the most used phrases in skincare — and one of the least understood. In this episode, cosmetic scientist and PhD researcher Ava Perkins uses the biology of premature infant skin to expose what the industry consistently gets wrong about barrier function, NMF, and what short-term hydration claims actually prove.
Jennifer Cookson sits down with Ava — whose background spans cosmetic formulation science, pharmaceutical biomembrane research, and science communication — to go deeper into skin biology than most cosmetic brands are willing to go.
What you will learn in this episode:
— Why do premature infant skin and aging skin face the same biological vulnerabilities
— Why measuring hydration over 24 or 48 hours tells you almost nothing about long-term barrier health
— What does desquamation downregulation in premature infants reveal about how skin actually matures
— Why the vernix caseosa — the skin's first moisturizer — is more significant than baby care brands acknowledge
— How diaper dermatitis forms, and why treating it is genuinely difficult
— What NMF components and tape stripping reveal that TEWL measurements often cannot
— Why most brands are oversimplifying what barrier repair actually means
Ava Perkins is a cosmetic scientist and PhD candidate in pharmaceutical and biomembrane sciences at the University of Cincinnati. Follow her at @ava.perki on Instagram.
Takeaways:
- Premature infant skin has a thinner stratum corneum, lower NMF, and downregulated desquamation — the body is prioritising becoming skin over repopulating it
- pH and NMF levels appear to play a significant role in whether premature infants develop conditions like atopic dermatitis — research ongoing
- The vernix caseosa functions as the skin's first moisturizer — companies like Aino have begun developing products that replicate its properties
- Short-term hydration endpoints (24 hours, 48 hours) have limited relevance to long-term barrier health
- Barrier repair is not a single mechanism — UV damage, overuse of actives, and environmental triggers all impair the barrier differently
- Tape stripping and NMF component analysis may be more consistent than TEWL for measuring barrier health in clinical contexts
- There are fewer than 10 cosmetic science degree programs in the United States

In this episode of Demystifying Cosmetics, Jennifer speaks with John Morgan, founder of Pelagic, about the invisible infrastructure behind beauty brands and why the supply chain may now be the biggest constraint on innovation, sustainability, and scale. From raw material sourcing and formulation flexibility to tariffs, oil volatility, redundancy, planning, and retailer pressure, this conversation breaks down the operating realities consumers never see, but that shape every product decision behind the scenes.
The episode explores what founders still get wrong about physical product timelines, why resilience is now a strategic advantage, how AI and fractional expertise are changing modern consumer operations, and why the next generation of beauty brands may be built by smaller, sharper teams with stronger systems. Jennifer and John also unpack extended producer responsibility, pricing pressure, inventory planning, and the growing gap between the products brands want to create and the supply chains they actually have to build within.
Learn more at https://www.pelagic.co/
Takeaways:
• Supply Chain Is Not a Back-End Function Anymore: John makes the case that sourcing, manufacturing, lead times, redundancy, and planning are now core strategic decisions that determine whether innovation can actually survive in the market.
• Founders Still Underestimate Physical Product Timelines: One of the clearest themes in the episode is that consumer goods do not move at software speed, and expecting supply chains to turn in days or weeks creates expensive mistakes.
• Redundancy Is Expensive but Necessary: Whether the risk comes from tariffs, freight, geopolitics, or raw material concentration, brands need approved alternatives and a regional strategy before disruption hits.
• AI Will Reward Leaner, Better-Structured Teams: John argues that the future consumer brand may be operated by fewer than 10 people, supported by experts, consultants, and properly structured AI systems.
• Inventory Planning Quietly Breaks Brands: High-growth beauty businesses often struggle not because demand is weak, but because they cannot get high-quality data fast enough to make good inventory decisions across SKUs, channels, and retailers.
• Beauty Is More Complex Than It Looks: Cosmetics operate with fashion-like competitive pressure, identity-driven purchasing, and strong margins, which makes the supply chain demands even more intense than many adjacent categories.

In this episode of Demystifying Cosmetics, Jennifer speaks with Gloria Lu, cosmetic chemist and co-founder of Chemist Confessions, about how skincare ingredient trends actually move through the beauty industry, and why some ingredients keep resurfacing while others burn hot and fade fast. From niacinamide and hyaluronic acid to peptides, ceramides, bakuchiol, growth factors, and exosomes, they unpack what separates real topical potential from hype-driven storytelling.
The conversation explores why ingredient cycles often begin in adjacent categories like therapeutics or in-office aesthetics before entering skincare, how early mechanistic data gets overstretched in marketing, and what brands and consumers should really look for when deciding whether a trending ingredient is worth attention. Gloria also breaks down the difference between in vitro promise and topical in vivo proof, why peptide marketing has become so murky, and how consumer expectations should be balanced against actual evidence.
Learn more at https://chemistconfessions.com/
Takeaways:
• Ingredient Trends Often Start Outside Topical Skincare: Gloria explains how many skincare trends begin in adjacent spaces like medicine, therapeutics, supplements, or aesthetics before migrating into topical beauty.
• Niacinamide and Hyaluronic Acid Keep Returning Because the Story Is Flexible: Some ingredients survive trend cycles because they are easy to formulate, easy to communicate, and can attach themselves to multiple consumer concerns.
• Peptides Are Legitimate but Increasingly Difficult to Decode: While some peptides have real scientific backing, the category has become so broad and commercialized that both consumers and chemists have to look much closer at the actual material, sourcing, and studies.
• In Vitro Data Is Not Enough for Strong Topical Claims: One of the clearest points in the episode is that early-stage mechanistic or cell-culture testing should not be mistaken for meaningful proof of topical skincare performance.
• Ceramides Became Easier to Market Once Formulation Barriers Fell: The episode explores how improved supplier systems, blends, and lower formulation barriers helped ceramides move from technically valuable to commercially mainstream.
• Exosomes and Growth Factors Sit at the Edge of Science, Hype, and Consumer Fascination: Jennifer and Gloria discuss why regenerative-sounding categories remain commercially attractive even when the evidence, regulation, and consumer understanding are still evolving.
• Consumers Need a Better Framework for Vetting New Ingredients: Gloria closes the episode with a practical way to assess trending ingredients by looking for topical in vivo testing, realistic use conditions, and a clear reason to believe.

In this episode of Demystifying Cosmetics, Jennifer speaks with Kailey Bradt — chemical engineer and CEO of Sonsie — about what sustainability actually looks like when you move beyond marketing claims and into the real constraints of formulation, sourcing, packaging, cost, and consumer education. Together, they unpack why “natural” is not always more sustainable, how biotech is changing what’s possible in beauty, and why transparency has to go deeper than front-of-pack language.
The conversation also explores Sonsie’s “minimalist but efficacious” philosophy, why consumers do not need 40 ingredients in a face cream, how over-layering familiar actives like niacinamide can create irritation, and why product education may be one of the most overlooked costs in sustainable beauty. It’s a grounded discussion on performance, skin health, planetary health, and the tradeoffs brands still have to navigate behind the scenes.
Learn more at https://sonsieskin.com/

Takeaways:
Sustainability Has to Survive Real Product Development: Kailey breaks down the gap between sustainability marketing and the actual realities of sourcing, manufacturing, formulation performance, and cost.

“Minimalist but Efficacious” Is a Supply Chain Decision Too: Sonsie’s philosophy is not just about fewer steps for the consumer. It is also about reducing unnecessary complexity in formulas, sourcing fundamental ingredients better, and minimizing both skin irritation and environmental impact.

More Ingredients Do Not Automatically Mean Better Skincare: One of the clearest points in the episode is that brands do not need 40 ingredients in a face cream just to make a formula feel advanced or harder to copy.

Transparency Matters Most When It Changes Usage: Kailey explains why Sonsie shares active percentages and why ingredients like niacinamide, while effective, can become irritating when they appear across too many products in a routine.

The Industry Still Undervalues Product Education: Better packaging and better ingredients only go so far if consumers are not taught why they matter, how to dispose of them correctly, or what makes them worth paying for.

“Natural” Is Not a Shortcut to Sustainability: The episode pushes back on one of beauty’s biggest myths by showing how land use, water use, waste, seasonality, and life cycle analysis can make a synthetic analog the better environmental choice.