Women are spending more on their looks than health to the tune of £108 a year

Beauty obsession: British women are more concerned with their appearance than their health, a survey found

British women spend more money on their looks than they do on their health, a study revealed yesterday.

The typical woman forks out an average of £336 a year on hair products, make-up and fake tan in a bid to look young, but just £228 on vitamins and gym membership.

And while three quarters enjoy spending cash on looking their best, just 41 per cent like heading to the shops for health supplements and nutritional food.

The statistics emerged in a study of women aged between 18 and 65 who were quizzed on their spending habits and attitudes when faced with choosing between image or health.

Yesterday, a spokesman for healthcare provider Benenden Healthcare Society, which commissioned the report, said: ‘It would be wrong to say that these results come as a surprise, as so many of us are guilty of taking shortcuts to ensure we look good – often at the expense of our health.

‘There’s a real danger that British women are becoming too focused on what they look like and forgetting to look after their inner health.

‘They become obsessed with the latest beauty trends and maintaining a perfect look, but in the end it’s just a mirage and they’re not caring enough for what’s going on inside their bodies.

‘Women can be slim and look good, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re healthy. Having a balanced lifestyle should be a priority to everyone.’

The study of 3,000 women found four in ten were more worried about their appearance than their health. And six in ten would prefer to live life to the full and ‘embrace life’s excesses’ rather than worry about ‘being squeaky clean’.

Low priority: Women admitted spending more on cosmetic products than exercise and healthy eating

The extreme lengths women have gone to in order to keep trim at the expense of their health were also exposed.

Nearly 19 per cent admitted to crash-dieting and one in 20 have resorted to laxatives to lose weight.

A worrying 3 per cent admitted to taking up smoking to shed a few pounds and 14 per cent have turned to diet pills.

Four per cent said they ended up suffering from an eating disorder to look their best for a night out.

But eight in ten would be encouraged to continue their bad habits if they received a compliment, and one in five would ‘do anything’ to get into a size eight pair of jeans.

The 'auto-cutie' effect: Men are so distracted by attractive newsreaders they can't remember the headlines

It won't come as much of a surprise to women, but men are distracted by attractive newsreaders.

In fact, the more attractive a female newsreader is, the less likely male viewers are to remember what she had been saying, according to a new study.

The research follows heavy criticism in recent years that many television newsreaders are simply overpaid 'auto-cuties' lacking in journalistic experience.

BBC newsreader Emma Crosby: The more attractive a female anchor is, the less likely male viewers are to remember what she had been saying, a study claims

The strategy of hiring attractive women to read the headlines boosts ratings figures, it is claimed.

But the flip side of this is many male viewers won't remember the news they have just been informed about.

Writing in the journal Communication Research, Indiana University students Maria Elizabeth Grabe and Lelia Samson staged two versions of their own news broadcast.

Both versions featured the same 24-year-old female newsreader. In the first, she wore a tight-fitting dark blue jacket, a skirt that 'accentuated her waist-to-hip ratio', bright red lipstick and a necklace.

In the second, the dressed in a shapeless and loose-fitting dark blue jacket and skirt, wore no lipstick or a necklace.

In both segments, she read local news and was filmed in a 'medium-long shot' revealing the top half of her body including her upper thighs.

Oh la la! It's doubtful many Frenchmen remember the headlines after watching Melissa Theuriau

Four hundred volunteers were then randomly asked to watch one of the versions and then filled out questionnaires revealing what they thought about the presenter.

Included were four multiple-choice questions about her appearance and ten about the news she had been reading.

Women remembered more about what the 'sexy' newsreader had been saying, than her less made-up counterpart.

Men, on the other hand, recalled 'significantly more information watching the unsexualised anchor deliver news than her sexualised version'.

The researchers concluded that we find it easier to process information visually, and that men's brains are overwhelmed when presented with sexual imagery, although they didn't study how women would react when confronted with an attractive male newsreader.

Last year, newsreader Katie Derham fiercely defended the role of newsreaders following criticism that they were 'auto-cuties'.

She said: 'With rolling news coverage nowadays you have to be on air constantly -and it is the overpaid airheads in the nice suits who have to hold everything together.

'We do have to think on our feet and we do have to have journalistic training, and professionalism, and common sense - because otherwise the product would be c*** and we would be taken off-air.'

'You're not going out dressed like that!' Mum's clothes are an embarrassment for a third of girls

Daughters are used to being chastised by mum over what they wear.

But it seems the tables have turned. Mothers are facing growing criticism about their fashion sense, with up to a third branded an embarrassment.

While a fifth of young women consider their mothers to be fashionable, a quarter say they dress too young.

Like mother, like daughter: Lourdes (left) and her mother Madonna (right) often dress more like sisters

One in four believes their mother wears clothes that are simply too revealing, and more than two thirds claim never to want to dress like them.

Less than a third think their mother dresses appropriately, with many claiming she shops in the wrong stores or simply tries to copy young fashions.

Liverpool was named as the city where older women try the hardest to appear young, followed by Newcastle and Birmingham.

One critical daughter, Charlotte Appleyard, moaned that her 49-year-old mother, Diana, wears tight tops and black leggings with ­platform shoes.

The 17-year-old, from Argyll, Scotland, said: ‘I don’t see why she can’t invest in some nice, anonymous navy blue linen trousers and a white V-neck long-sleeved top like other mothers.

‘Or an “age appropriate” dress which might make her look glamorous, instead of silly.

‘She’s trying to cling on to her youth and she hasn’t got the figure for it.’ But Mrs Appleyard, 48, did not care: ‘It’s a balance between dressing fashionably and looking like a dog’s dinner.’

Dressing young: Jerry Hall and Carol Vorderman have both been accused of wearing age-inappropriate outfits

Celebrity mums seem to be leading the trend. It has been said that Madonna, 53, and daughter Lourdes, 13, look more like sisters when they go out together.

Jerry Hall, meanwhile, was accused of dressing too young after appearing in the same outfit as daughter Lizzy Jagger when they opened the Harrods sale.

Miss Hall, 54, and Miss Jagger, 26, both wore knee-length black dresses and coats and the same bright red lipstick. TV presenter Carol Vorderman was upstaged by daughter Katie King, 19, at a charity function in London last year.

While the 50-year-old relied on fake diamonds and a tight-fitting dress for attention, her daughter shone in a short silver dress.

Retailer Mark Pearson, chairman of discount website MyVoucherCodes.co.uk, commissioned the survey and suggested shopping together could help.

‘Perhaps daughters should help their mum find clothing that suits her, rather than feel embarrassed,’ he said.

Why ARE women's breasts getting bigger? The answers may disturb you... (21+)

Britain’s amplest bosoms heaved a ­collective sigh of relief last week when ­Bravissimo, a lingerie label for larger sized breasts, announced the arrival of the L-cup to its range.

The company says customers ­squeezing themselves into a KK-cup — a size launched two years ago to meet increasing demand — have been campaigning for larger bras ever since.

And although an L-cup remains far larger than the national average, there can be no doubt that when a High Street chain sees reason to ­supply it, demand is growing — and so, it would seem, are our breasts.

Big issue: The average breast size in the UK is increasing as more of us learn that a larger cup size and a smaller back could give us greater comfort

For women such as 21-year-old Terri Smith, from Stourbridge, West ­Midlands, who wears an uncomfortable KK-cup, the L-cup could provide welcome relief from the daily agony that comes from ­forcing herself into ill-fitting underwear.

‘Every woman knows how ­uncomfortable the wrong size bra can be,’ she says. ‘The wires dig in, the straps leave angry red marks on your ribs and your shoulders, and your breasts spill over the top. None of your clothes fit properly. But when your breasts are this big and heavy, it’s unbearable.’

L-cup breasts weigh approximately a stone. Since Terri was a ­teenager, she has sought out specialist lingerie and suffered almost constant physical discomfort as a result of carrying such a heavy load.

As a size 10/12 everywhere else, she believes her true bra size is a 30L, but until now has struggled to find them.

According to Bravissimo, there are many more women of Terri’s ­extraordinary dimensions out there. But it says this unprecedented demand for the L-cup can be explained, in part, by the fact that for years women have worn bras that were too big in the back and too small in the cup.

As more of us grasp the idea that a larger cup size and a less ­generous back-measurement could give us greater comfort and better shape beneath our clothes, we are buying ­bigger sizes than ever before.

But, according to Bravissimo’s ­estimates, at least 60 per cent of women wearing a C-cup should be wearing a D-cup — or larger. And it says the average British bra size is closer to a 34E than the 36C we are led to believe.

But we don’t owe our e­xpanding bustlines to modern fitting techniques alone.

Back in the Fifties, the ­average woman wore a B-cup — a full size smaller than today’s larger size. It’s clear that our dimensions have shifted, but why?

Generous proportions: For women such as Terri Smith, 21, the new L-cup could provide welcome relief

Fat is the first answer most experts will give. Professor Michael Baum, an expert in breast cancer, says: ‘Fat is laid down on breasts as much as thighs or bottoms. We are experiencing an obesity ­epidemic, so the increase in women’s measurements isn’t that surprising.’

But this is only part of the story. After all, women such as Terri do not appear to be ­carrying much excess fat ­elsewhere on their bodies. As Terri says: ‘The rest of my body is quite slim. Yet throughout my teens my boobs went up a couple of cup sizes every year.’

Anna Prince, from Bravissimo, agrees: ‘There is a total misconception that it’s ­unusual to be big-boobed and small-bodied. We’ve been ­contacted by more than two million women since we started in 1995, the vast majority of whom are small in the body and big in the bust.’

So, what’s going on? Why are the nation’s breasts getting bigger?

Dr Marilyn Glenville, a nutritionist ­specialising in women’s health and hormones, says: ‘It’s clear that we’re not just talking about fat, but increased levels of breast ­tissue, too.

‘So we have to look at what stimulates breast tissue growth — and that’s oestrogen, the female sex hormone. ­Oestrogen is what changes our body shape during puberty.’

The link between increased oestrogen levels and bigger breasts is so clear that there are even ‘breast-enhancing’ ­supplements on the market — such as Perfect C Breast Enhancer capsules — containing ingredients such as fennel seed and fenugreek, which are said to have oestrogenic properties.

Dr Glenville says: ‘It makes sense to look at the ways in which our exposure to all types of oestrogen — the hormone our own bodies produce and oestrogenic chemicals we come into contact with — has changed over the years.’

‘Girls today reach puberty earlier than ever before, and are going on to have fewer ­children and breastfeeding for less time. As a result, we have far more periods than our ancestors would have had and we are exposed to more monthly surges of oestrogen, which stimulates ovulation.’

In addition, today’s young women were born to the first ­generation of women on the contraceptive Pill. Early versions of the Pill contained far higher dosages of synthetic ­oestrogen than they do today, and little is known about the long-term impact of this increased hormone exposure on future generations.

So, could the ­changing shape of our breasts indicate an increased sensitivity to oestrogen?

Dr Glenville says: ‘Pregnancy and breastfeeding have a ­protective effect against breast cancer because they control the hormones which stimulate the growth of new cells in breasts.

‘But with more women today putting off pregnancy until later in life and having fewer children, they experience many more monthly cycles than previous generations did, and are exposed to more oestrogen.

'Girls today reach puberty earlier than ever and are going on to have fewer ­children. As a result, we have more periods so we are exposed to more surges of oestrogen'

‘I’m certain that if you looked at photographs of Victorian women, who on average had five or six children, you’d find them comparatively flat-chested.’

But, of course, that is far from the only difference between women’s lives then and now.

HRT also tops up depleting oestrogen levels in menopausal women, who — like women on the Pill — often go up a cup-size or two when they begin a course of treatment.

But it’s not just women on the Pill or HRT whose ­oestrogen levels, and cup-size, might have increased as a result.

In 2002, research published by the Environment Agency showed that an ‘exquisitely potent’ form of oestrogen — which is believed to have entered the rivers through the urine of Pill and HRT-users — was responsible for changing the sex of half of all the male fish in British lowland rivers, and could be contaminating the water supply.

Now, it has been suggested that the influence of these xenoestrogens (literally ‘foreign ­oestrogens’) could be responsible for the rapid decline in male sperm count and fertility.

‘We can’t assume these ­pollutants have no effect on us,’ says Dr Glenville. ‘There are many questions still to be answered, but if xenoestrogens are potentially responsible for declining male fertility, they are potentially affecting women, too — and the proof could be in our bras.’

So how do we avoid these surplus hormones? The answer is, we can’t. And it may come as a surprise to know that they are found in everyday items.

‘Pesticides, plastics and ­cosmetics are my main concerns,’ warns Dr Glenville.

For instance, a xenoestrogen called Bisphenol A (or BPA) is widely used in the ­manufacture of tinned food, drinks cans, plastic bottles, glass jars, ­electronic equipment and till receipts — to name but a few items.

You are what you drink: Two-thirds of the milk we consume comes from pregnant cows, meaning we are absorbing more oestrogen

Although the European Food Safety Agency maintains that BPA doesn’t pose a risk to the public, many scientists ­consider it to be a potentially harmful ‘hormone disruptor’, and several of the world’s ­leading food manufacturers are putting timetables in place to remove it from all of their products. Heinz insists it’s at ‘an advanced stage’ of removing the chemical from its UK baby food range.

But, until now, our exposure to it has gone ­virtually unchecked.

‘The same goes for ­xenoestrogens in the ­deodorants, make-up and moisturisers we use,’ says Dr Glenville.

‘We apply them to our skin and often directly on to the breast. Our skin absorbs those chemicals readily. It is not inconceivable that those chemicals stimulate growth in breast tissue.’

But we’re not just covering ourselves with oestrogen, we’re drinking more of it, too.

The introduction of intensive dairy farming methods to ­maximise production means that about two-thirds of the milk we consume comes from pregnant cows. To ensure that a dairy cow has a steady ­supply of milk, she is almost constantly pregnant.

But taking milk from a pregnant cow, especially d­uring the last few weeks of her pregnancy, raises questions about the high levels of oestrogen and other hormones in milk — and how they might affect those who consume milk every day.

‘It’s not just about exposure to oestrogens, but how our bodies cope with them,’ says Dr Glenville. ‘It’s possible that increased alcohol intake impairs the liver’s ability to help us metabolise and excrete excess hormones.

WHO KNEW?

As many as 80 per cent of women are wearing the wrong bra size

‘We also live more sedentary lifestyles these days, which may mean we metabolise these hormones less quickly.

‘Hormones that aren’t ­efficiently excreted can ­re-­circulate in the body and the cumulative effect of this may be a build-up of oestrogens, which — over a long period — could alter our natural body shape. It’s something we should take notice of.

‘After all, developing very large breasts can have all sorts of health and wellbeing implications — and forces a lot of women to consider breast-reduction surgery.’

Big breasts can affect posture, causing chronic back pain and leaving permanent indentations on shoulders where bra straps cut in.

Health problems can be ­emotional as well as physical — some women are left very self-conscious by their large chest and the undue attention this attracts, which is why they have turned to professionals such as Dr Puneet Gupta of The Private Clinic of Harley Street.

Due to an increase in women inquiring about breast reduction operations — each year around 10,000 women pay up to £5,000 for private operations — he is ­pioneering a new kind of ­reduction surgery called Micro­lipo, which reduces the risk of breast damage associated with older surgical techniques.

‘Like all forms of surgery, breast reduction is now more widely known about and more affordable than it was,’ he says.

‘There have always been women who have disproportionately large breasts, compared to their frame. But they are more likely to seek help now. The women I see are usually sick of the physical and psychological discomfort.’

Many other women, ­however, such as Terri Smith, learn to adapt their lives rather than go under the knife. Terri was forced to give up her job as a hairdresser because her breasts gave her such terrible backache.

And Claire Smedley, a 28-year-old model and mum-of-three from Derbyshire, can think of several ways in which her L-cup breasts have impacted her life and her health.

‘Although I’ve learned to love them in recent years, I resented them for a long time,’ she says. ‘As a teenager I didn’t have the confidence to carry them off, and I was constantly dealing with unwanted attention from men.

‘Even now, because my breasts are so large, strangers will grab and touch me when I’m out, sometimes in front of my ­children.

‘They think I’ve put them on display — that I’m asking for it — when, of course, there’s little I can do to hide them.

‘Women are wary of me, because they see my figure as overtly, perhaps threateningly, sexual. I’m automatically ­considered a tart.’

When Claire was pregnant, and her chest ballooned even more, the weight of her bump and breasts combined put her body under enormous strain, causing heart palpitations.

‘It’s not as if it’s easy to stay fit when you’re this size,’ she says. ‘Any form of aerobic exercise is agony and sports bras are hard to find.

‘I’ve thought about breast reduction, but the fear of something going wrong stops me going ahead. As I get older, if I suffer from back pain I will reconsider, though.’

So until scientists unravel the mysteries of our growing assets, more and more women will still suffer the pinch of underwear that just doesn’t come up to (ample) size.

Why mice are being gassed so YOU can look younger

Most people thought animal tests for cosmetics had been banned - don't be fooled...

When Jenny Brown agreed to go ­undercover to investigate the testing of a rival to Botox on animals, she knew it might be unpleasant, but nothing had prepared her for this: highly trained lab technicians kneeling on the floor while they tried to break the necks of mice with a ballpoint pen.

Even worse, having to watch as those technicians botched the job — and broke the creatures’ backs instead. Jenny’s secret filming of the operation shows the mice still alive and writhing in agony with broken spines. It also shows others being ­poisoned with deadly injections and, if they survived, being gassed to death by the hundred.

‘It was horrible, and I couldn’t do anything except record what was ­happening,’ recalls Jenny. ‘When you’re in such a situation, you have to switch off, to go into your own little world. But I was very shaken.’

Lethal: A new alternative to Botox is being tested on mice

Thank goodness, you may think, that Jenny’s operation was conducted a long, long time ago. It must have been — because in Britain the use of cosmetic testing on animals was banned in 1998. Across Europe, ­similar bans came into force in 2003. It’s an old issue, a done deal.

Except that it isn’t. Jenny’s ­experience occurred just over a year ago and, because of a series of loopholes, political wrangling and confused European legislation, the number of animals due to die in the name of human vanity is set to increase by ­millions in the very near future.

According to the European Cosmetics Association, five billion cosmetic products are bought by 380 million consumers across Europe each year. EU legislation requires that each product sold is safe to humans.

For decades, this safety was ­determined by subjecting animals to painful tests — putting cosmetics and chemicals into their eyes, making them ingest the ingredients or rubbing them on the animals’ skin to test for ­irritation and the growth of cancers.

'The mice were checked at regular intervals, and after a few days most were dead, having suffered terribly from increasing paralysis and ­eventual suffocation'

However, under pressure from organisations such as the British Union for the Abolition of ­Vivisection (BUAV) and the RSPCA, bans were introduced and the cosmetics industry moved towards finding alternative testing methods, including manipulation of cells in test tubes and even the ­application of products to human skin grown in the lab.

The 2003 ban introduced by the EU, an amendment to the European ­Cosmetics Directive of 1976, made it ­illegal to test finished products on ­animals. This was beefed up further when, in 2009, the EU also banned cosmetic animal testing on ingredients. That, then, should have been that.

But, as Jenny found, animals are still suffering in the name of cosmetics.

In the case she exposed for the BUAV, they were being used legally in the testing of a licensed medical product that could then be prescribed ‘off-label’ — not for the purpose for which it was licensed — as a cosmetic wrinkle treatment.

During nine months undercover at Wickham Laboratories in Hampshire, the 27-year-old animal welfare worker — whose identity we have disguised — discovered that batches of the ­botulinum toxin produced by Ipsen Biopharm, a pharmaceutical company operating in 40 countries, were regularly tested on mice.

Called Dysport, the highly toxic ­botulinum product is used medically in the treatment of facial distortions in stroke victims or to suppress ­excessive drooling and sweating.

It paralyses muscles, preventing the distortions for up to eight months.

However, an unknown proportion of Dysport is used off-label for cosmetic purposes, like Botox, to smooth out facial wrinkles.

First, though, it is tested on mice using a protocol invented in the Twenties called the LD50 test — where LD stands for Lethal Dose.

This involves injecting the toxin into the mice until more than 50 per cent of them are dead, which demonstrates that the ­botulinum toxin is potent.

Testing Dysport involves injecting the toxin into the mice until more than 50 per cent of them are dead, which demonstrates that the ­botulinum toxin is potent

‘The mice were checked at regular intervals, and after a few days most were dead, having suffered terribly from increasing paralysis and ­eventual suffocation,’ says Jenny.

‘Mice that were not expected to ­survive until the next check were ­supposed to be humanely killed. This was done by putting them on the floor and breaking their neck with a pen. But sometimes the ­workers got it wrong and broke the mouse’s back instead.

‘The ones who survived the test were later put in a gas chamber and killed by carbon dioxide poisoning.

‘It’s disgusting Dysport is used to enhance someone’s vanity. I doubt many women would want to use it if they knew how much suffering it caused.

'And this isn’t a single set of tests to get a product licensed. It’s quality control that ­happens week in, week out.

‘I thought this was a thing of the past. I suspect most other people think that, too.’

Ipsen Biopharm says it is required by law to use the LD50 test, but when I asked what proportion of Dysport was used for cosmetic ­ ­purposes I got no reply.

A Home Office report into the BUAV investigation concluded that Wickham’s tests were conducted for medical, not cosmetic purposes but added: ‘It is nevertheless ­recognised that off-label use of a duly ­authorised medicine is permitted under EU and UK legislation.’ Wickham ­Laboratories says it has now improved its lab practices.

But this isn’t the only hole in the protection that is supposed to be afforded animals. There is another, caused by confusing and messy European law.

'Mice that weren't expected to ­survive were ­supposed to be humanely killed. This was done by putting them on the floor and breaking their neck with a pen. But sometimes the ­workers got it wrong and broke the mouse’s back instead'

As we saw earlier, the European Cosmetics Directive forbids testing on animals — but another piece of legislation has been brought in that requires it on non-cosmetic products such as household detergents. It’s called Reach (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals).

It came into effect in 2007 and is intended to ensure that all chemicals used by industry — some of which have never been tested — are safe. In most cases this will involve testing on animals.

This new ruling affects some ethical cosmetics companies because their products may contain the same ingredients as household goods and pharmaceuticals, and their suppliers — who had promised not to test on animals — have been ordered to do so under Reach.

‘We were told by one of our suppliers that they’d had to test sodium borate on animals, so we have had to remove it from our products,’ said Andrew Butler, campaigns director of the cosmetics outlet Lush, which rejects animal testing.

‘It’s crazy — sodium borate has been used safely in cold creams for 100 years. Why should animals have to die to test it today?

‘We are concerned that this is just the beginning. We don’t know what perfectly innocent ingredient our suppliers will be forced to test on animals next.’

The RSPCA has estimated that Reach testing will kill at least eight million animals, but others argue the figure could be as high as 50 million when unborn foetuses are taken into account. Earlier this month, even more depressing news began to filter out of Europe.

The last stage of the Cosmetics Directive, due to be introduced in 2013 and banning the sale in Europe of any cosmetics tested on animals anywhere in the world, is likely to be delayed for at least four years.

The cosmetics industry, which still tests on animals outside the EU, has told the European Commission that it has yet to find enough safe alternatives to animals testing. This means testing on animals will ­continue primarily in the U.S., Japan and China. If the ban had gone ahead, consumers could have been sure that what they were buying on the High Street had not been tested on animals.

But as things stand, they can’t really be sure — in spite of claims made on product labels.

Misleading: The phrase 'This product has not been tested on animals' may well be true. But it doesn't mean the ingredients in the product haven't

It is difficult to accuse individual manufacturers of misleading ­labelling, because all their testing is secret, but animal welfare ­organisations have long been ­critical of the things they say.

For example: ‘This product has not been tested on animals’ may well be true. But it doesn’t mean the ingredients in the product haven’t, possibly in some laboratory outside the EU.

This is something that even the cosmetics industry admits. ‘Many of the claims that products are not tested on animals are ­narrow interpretations at best,’ says Dr Chris Flower, director-general of the Cosmetic, ­Toiletry and Perfumery Association. ‘Some of the ­others you could drive a coach and horses through.’

‘Take China, for example. If you want to sell your products there, the Chinese authorities will test your products on animals. You then say in Europe that your product isn’t tested on animals — but someone finds out that it has been in China. This is why some of the large companies are reluctant to give that assurance.’

All of which makes it ­difficult for ethical consumers to be sure of what they are buying.
For example, Procter & Gamble, one of the world’s biggest cosmetics producers, including Herbal Essences, Max Factor and Wella, says it would never dream of testing on animals anywhere in Europe.

However, P&G research papers submitted to the EU Scientific Committee on ­Consumer Products seem to ­contradict this image. It is true that its ‘finished’ cosmetic ­products haven’t been tested on animals, but there has certainly been testing of potential ingredients in the U.S.

For example, a number of studies dated as recently as 2005 detail the fatal effects of force-feeding orange dye to rats. After the rats died, they were cut open and their organs were found, not surprisingly, to have turned orange.

Similarly, another report for Wella details the effects of red dye, while in 2004 researchers told how they force-fed 100 pregnant female rats with butylparaben, a cosmetic ­preservative, for two weeks. Afterwards, they killed the rats and examined their foetuses for abnormalities.

When I asked the company how its ethical animal-testing claims could be reconciled with these reports, it referred me back to Dr Chris Flower.

He explained that the chemicals involved had been in use for years, but needed to be re-tested because of fresh safety concerns. This was required by the European Commission.

‘There were no recognised non-animal tests, so P&G — which was testing on behalf of the industry — had no choice but to test on ­animals,’ he said.

So how can you be sure that your cosmetics truly have been produced without causing animal suffering? Well, it is very difficult, not least because at some point in history virtually every ingredient has been tested on animals.

However, the BUAV has set up a scheme under which retailers and manufacturers adopt a fixed cut-off date, after which they can guarantee that no animal testing has taken place using their ingredients.

The BUAV advises on how this can be done and audits the production chain for the retailer. Called the Leaping Bunny Program (leapingbunny.org), this accepts that ­animals may have suffered in the past, but they will not suffer in the future at any stage in the production of a cosmetic.

In the meantime, there are those such as Lush’s Andrew Butler who are beginning to ask why the big cosmetics companies need to test new ingredients anyway.

‘There are thousands of ingredients already out there,’ he says. ‘There are more than you could ever combine or experiment with in a lifetime. But the big cosmetic companies just want to put that magic word “new” on the box to improve their sales.

‘The next time you see that, ask yourself whether you really need to buy it. I mean, you can only get your hair so clean, can’t you?’

Why most women can only dream of perfect jeans: Two-thirds can't find pair that fit

Snug fit: In a recent survey two thirds of women say they have never found the perfect pair of jeans

Skinny, boot-cut, flared, high-waisted, straight-leg, slim-fit ... on the face of it, there should be a pair of jeans for every shape and size.

But it seems that finding a pair that fit is the Holy Grail for frustrated women shoppers.

According to a survey, two thirds of women admit they have never found the
perfect pair of jeans and a third dread going shopping for them.

But men do not have the same problem – just a third found it difficult to find a good fit and only one in six hate shopping for them.

A fifth of shoppers are willing to spend more than £100 on the perfect pair, and once they find them, they are reluctant to let go – 80 per cent admitted they wear them until they fall apart.

The survey, carried out by consumer research analysts Mintel, will come as no surprise to the army of women who set out in search of the ultimate pair of jeans every weekend.

Tamara Sender, clothing analyst at Mintel, said: ‘Jeans are a staple item in everyone’s wardrobe so it is little wonder we spend so much time finding the perfect pair.

‘But it can be incredibly frustrating and there can be a million different problems with the fit, whether they are too baggy, too high, too short or too tight.

For women this is particularly difficult. They are three times as likely to be influenced by fashion and look for this season’s style, rather than what suits their body shape.

‘Skinny jeans have made the task harder because they need to be snug-fitting but comfortable.’

The survey of 1,752 consumers found that women over 55 will compromise style for comfort and seek out jeans with Lycra or more stretch.

Curvy: Actress Jennifer Love Hewitt recently admitted that she struggles to find jeans that fit her figure

Men, meanwhile, are more likely to look for designer labels and a hard-wearing fabric.
Retailers have launched various ranges over the years to help women find jeans that fit. In 2009, Asda created in-between sizes of 11, 13 and 15.

And last year Levi’s launched the new Curve ID jeans after researching more than 60,000 female body shapes worldwide.

The idea is that you can choose a pair which suits your leg length, waist size and now a third dimension shape.

Actress Jennifer Love Hewitt recently admitted she struggles to find jeans that fit her curvaceous derriere.

She said: ‘For me, it’s hard because I have a bubble butt, and a small waist, so they always have to be tailored in the waist or they fit too tight. Jeans are the most impossible find when you go shopping.’

Thin thighs in 30 days

Think nothing can be done about cellulite and stubborn saddlebags? A proven formula to iron out the creases is back - and it's better than before...

Banish saddlebags: Through specific toning exercises and the right diet, you can shape up in just a month

Are your jeans feeling uncomfortably tight after Christmas? Would you do pretty much anything to get rid of your cellulite?

Unfortunately, when women pile on the pounds, it tends to sit stubbornly on our hips, bottom and thighs.

But the good news is that there is something you can do about those unwanted lumps and bumps. How does dramatic inch-loss in less than a month sound?

Wendy Stehling, author of Thin Thighs In 30 Days — which sold more than 2.5 million copies in the 1980s — has updated it for today’s woman.

Though the basic programme remains true to the highly effective original, a handful of new exercises and the introduction of interval training in the Walk Out section will blast away cellulite more efficiently than ever before.

Follow Wendy’s expert advice and your thighs should feel sleeker and slimmer within days.

‘Because of our female ­physiology, wobbly, cellulite-ridden thighs, saddle bags of fat on hips and a dimpled, droopy bottom are the bane of most women’s lives,’ says Wendy.

‘In my experience, however, we can eliminate some of that unwanted fat and firm up things quite dramatically in a relatively short time with a focused diet and exercise.

‘You don’t need to eat exotic foods, buy expensive miracle creams or even invest in a gym membership to see results. All you have to do is commit to my simple, proven, three-step ­programme for 30 days.’

STEP ONE: THE WALK OFF

Get perfect pins: It's a walk in the park

One of the very best ways to slim your thighs and improve your general health and well-being is to get out and walk — briskly and regularly.

It doesn’t sound ­innovative, but did you know that with the right pace and route, walking can burn off more than 300 calories an hour?

And when you use the correct technique, walking regularly really can tone bottom and thigh muscles incredibly quickly.

To get the dramatic results that the Thin Thighs In 30 Days programme promises, you need to walk one to three miles, six days a week — ­follow the weekly walking ‘prescriptions’ in the 4-Week Fitness Plan box (below).

You also need to perform the ­simple — but hugely effective — Work Off exercise routine after each walk.

Walk off wobbly thighs

• Decide on the routes you are going to walk. You need to map out a selection of 1½, 2, 2½ and 3-mile courses. To quickly work out suitable routes, go to mapmywalk.com. Key in your proposed walk on a map of your local area and the site will ­calculate the distance for you.
  
• Alternatively, first drive or walk around your ­proposed route and use your car’s mileometer, or — if you’re on foot — a pedometer to ­measure ­distance. Include hills and inclines in your workout when you can for their extra fitness and toning benefits.
  
• Set aside at least 45 minutes (ideally an hour) every day for your Walk Off, but do remember you must include a rest day each week (I recommend Mondays). You can walk to work, pop out at lunchtime for a brisk stroll — whatever suits. Walking on a treadmill counts, too.
  
• Always walk in a pair of good-quality walking or running shoes that leave plenty of room for your toes.
  
• Walk at the pace that is right for you. If you’re already pretty fit, alternate jogging and walking to boost your routine.
• Stretch your muscles thoroughly before and after exercising.
  

Quicken your pace

LUMPS AND BUMPS

70 per cent of cellulite is caused by lifestyle; 30 per cent is genetic

Posture is important. Keep your shoulders back and your chin held high — look straight ahead.
Walk naturally, but faster than you typically do, allowing your arms to swing.

This is not a casual amble around the shops, so step up your pace ­several notches. Lengthening your stride will tone your inner and outer thighs more efficiently.

If your legs become stiff during your walk or you become short of breath, slow down.

If you become dizzy, stop immediately and regain your equilibrium. If you haven’t exercised in a while, you may struggle at first, but don’t give up.

Just take things steady until you build up enough strength and ­stamina to up your pace a little.

STEP TWO: THE WORK OFF

1. THIGH RAISE: Lying face down, raise your legs —from just above your knees — so your feet are a
few inches off the ground (above top). Bend your knees, keeping them off the ground, and hold that position (above bottom). Start with five ­seconds and gradually work up to 15 seconds. Slowly unbend your knees and, with control, lower your straight legs to the ground, then repeat

2. BYE BYE TO YOUR INNER THIGHS: Sit on the floor with your back straight, knees bent and legs wide apart.
Place your left arm directly over your left knee, using your right hand to support yourself by your hip ­(pictured left). While sitting straight, move your right foot to your left hand and hold for five seconds to start. Begin with five reps, then repeat on the other side

3. KICK-KICK: Sit straight, on the floor, with your right knee bent and left leg straight out (above, top). Lift up your left leg so that your foot is at least 6in off the ground (above, bottom). Hold for five seconds to start, then, with control, lower leg. Repeat on the other side

4. PONY KICK: Get down on your elbows and knees (above, top). Keeping your back flat, slowly raise your left thigh to about 45 degrees, with your knee bent and pointing your heel up to the ­ceiling (above, bottom). Hold for five seconds. Lower leg and repeat five times or more — before repeating ­exercise and same number of repetitions with your right leg

5. BALLET THIGH: Holding on to a railing or the back of a chair, stand with both feet facing forward. With your chin up, move your right leg back with the toe touching the floor (left). Then raise your right leg back at an angle (not straight back) — lead with your heel, until your heel is 12in off the ground (right). Hold for five seconds, then lower leg and repeat. Start with five repetitions and work up to 20 or more. Repeat on the other side

6. THIGH CHAIR: Stand about a foot away from a wall with your feet straight ahead. Slide your body down the wall, until you are sitting with your thighs perpendicular to the surface (pictured). Hold this position for between 30 seconds and two minutes

YOUR FOUR-WEEK FITNESS PLAN

WEEK ONE
Every day (except Monday): Walk for at least one mile at a brisk pace. On days when you have extra energy, add a hill to your walk or introduce ­interval training: walk at a fast pace for 30 seconds to one minute. Then slow to a brisk pace for 30 seconds to one minute. Repeat for as long as you comfortably can.

Follow each of your walks this week with this Work Off routine (outlined above). Repeat exercises one to four five times on each leg. Hold Ballet Thigh for five to ten seconds and repeat five to 20 times (do as many repetitions as you can comfortably manage). Hold Thigh Chair for 30 seconds to two minutes.

WEEK TWO
Apart from on Monday, walk a minimum of 1½ miles every day this week.
Interval train on Tuesday (alternating fast and brisk paces for 30-second to one-minute intervals) and walk up a hill five times in addition to your walk on Friday.

After each walk, perform five repetitions of the Thigh Raise, eight repetitions of exercises two to four on each leg and hold Ballet Thigh and Thigh Chair positions for as long as you can.

WEEK THREE
Walk a minimum 1½ miles on Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday. Walk two miles (including one-minute interval training) on ­Tuesday. On Friday, walk 1½ miles and walk up a hill five times. Walk 2½ miles on Sunday.

After each walk, do the Thigh Raise five times. Repeat exercises two to four up to ten times on each leg. Hold Ballet Thigh and Thigh Chair for as long as possible.

WEEK FOUR
Walk a minimum two miles on Wednesday, ­Thursday and Saturday. Walk 2½ miles (including one-minute interval training) on Tuesday. On Friday, walk two miles, and walk up a hill seven times. Walk three miles on Sunday.

After your walks, repeat Thigh Raise eight times. Repeat exercises two to four up to 15 times on each leg. Hold Ballet Thigh and Thigh Chair for as long as possible.

STEP THREE: THE WEIGHT OFF

TOP TIPS

Tried-and-tested tips to help reduce
your calorie intake:

1. Weigh yourself every week.
2. Eat when you are hungry. Never come to the table starving — you’ll just over-eat.
3. DRINK plenty of water and stay hydrated. Water can help you feel ­satisfied and full.
4. Always sit down to eat — and enjoy your food!
5. Pick one food that is calorie-dense that you splurge on regularly (mine was desserts) — and stop eating it.
6. Check with your doctor before you begin any diet. Never eat fewer than 1,500 calories a day without being monitored by a physician.
7. Treat food labels with caution. Check serving sizes to see how many there are in the container — you might be eating four servings and not even know it!

The diet part of the Thin Thighs In 30 Days regime is incredibly simple: you need to count calories.
That’s right, straight-forward calorie counting. No eating only a single food group, no crash diets or weird recipes to follow.

According to a 2009 study by Frank Sachs, Harvard School of Public Health professor of cardiovascular disease ­prevention: ‘Weight loss depends on cutting calories rather than any specific diet. ­People can lose weight eating the food they like to eat just by eating less.’

So despite what other diets would have you believe, it really is that simple. Eat the right number of ­calories and you will lose weight.

The Weight Off diet is designed to help you drop up to half a stone in 30 days.

If you have more than a dress size to lose, you are best finding long-term ­support in a diet programme.

So how many calories should you be eating? Once you start following the Thin Thighs Work Off and Walk Off programmes, if you eat the right amount of calories to maintain the weight you’d like to be (see chart below), you should lose weight.

So, if you are 39 and would like to weigh 9st, you need to eat 1,900 calories a day. This is because active, strong ­muscles need more calories to keep them ticking over than inactive ones do.

If you are fit and your muscles are toned, you’ll be burning substantially more energy than an unfit, inactive person — even if you’re just sitting on the settee.

It’s easy to keep track of the amount of calories you are eating each day. All you have to do is tot up the number of ­calories on the nutrition labels of the foods you are eating.

But do remember that though a ­calorie is a calorie, whether it is in ice cream or vegetables, foods that are packed with lean protein (such as grilled chicken, nuts, fish, low-fat dairy products and lean red meat) and low in fat, added sugar and rich in fibre (such as ­vegetables, fruit and wholegrain carbohydrates) will fill you up for longer.

And they will help to keep you healthier than a diet of cakes, crisps and chocolate.

Mini-injections could dissolve the double chin forever

A wobbly chin is the bane of overweight men and women everywhere.

But now scientists say they have developed the first drug that targets the fat deposits which are so visible.

The treatment called ATX-101 is administered through a series of 40 to 70 mini-injections and works by dissolving small volumes of fat cells.

Wobbly chin? A German drug firm say a series of mini-injections could yield noticeable results after 16 weeks. (Posed by model)

Early tests of the drug, developed by German pharmaceutical firm Bayer, have found it to be 'safe and tolerable.'

A spokesman said: 'This minimally invasive procedure, done with little or no anaesthetic, has the promise to yield consistent and meaningful results.'

Current treatments all involve surgical procedures such as liposuction.

The procedure, which has been likened to having a tattoo, is aimed at 'reducing localised fat under the chin'.

The company say the drug should yield noticeable results after around 16 weeks.

Scientists will now trial the drug on 720 people at 64 centres around Europe, including the UK.

If all goes well Bayer plan to launch it in Europe, Asia and Latin America in 2014.

The company has estimated ATX-101 could generated £207million in annual sales.

Professor Dr Jean Paul Ortonne, who has worked on the clinical trial said: 'There is a huge demand for a safe, effective and approved injectable treatment for localised fat reduction.'

Baby blues: It takes 18 months for a new mother to 'feel like a woman again'

Overwhelming: A lack of routine amid the chaos of a new baby drains a mother's confidence along with extreme tiredness and hours spent feeding

As the dirty nappies pile up and a good night’s sleep seems a distant memory, it is easy for a new mother to think life will never be the same again.

But it will happen – even if it does take an average of 18 months, according to a poll of thousands of ­British women.

That’s 547 days, for any parents desperately counting down the time on their calendar, before new ­mothers are able to ‘feel like a woman again’.

During that one and a half year period, however, sleepless nights, loss of independence and weight worries all contribute to a crisis of confidence.

More than two thirds of those questioned admitted to feeling ‘saggy’, ‘fat’ and ‘unattractive’ in the months after giving birth.

Six out of ten claimed their confidence took a real knock when they realised their old clothes didn’t fit.

And a quarter of the 3,000 women said they felt they were competing with other mothers – including celebrities – to lose weight quickly after birth.

Unsurprisingly, 64 per cent of those polled for fashion website A Beautiful Mummy claimed a lack of routine in the early months meant they struggled to make it through the day.

Around a third blamed breastfeeding for limiting what they could wear and 39 per cent felt unattractive in every outfit they put on.

Others struggled to adjust to the loss of ‘me time’, with 63 per cent saying they let themselves go by failing to take care of their hair, make-up or clothes.

Siobhan Freegard, of the Netmums parenting advice website, said that while 18 months might be the average figure, many women will take longer.

‘New mothers go through phases,’ she said. ‘The first is the dressing-gown phase. Then you get to the phase where you have managed clean hair. Clean hair and make-up is another phase.

‘As your child gets to between two and a half and three, you suddenly find you are able to co-ordinate clothes, make-up and earrings. Earrings and fresh lipstick is a sign you have come out the other side. But this doesn’t mean you are not happy during that time,’ she stressed. ‘It just means you have different priorities.’

Child birth: Women take 547 days to get their confidence back - and often feel saggy, fat and unattractive

The change in priorities also meant that nine in ten new mothers polled said work no longer seemed as important after they gave birth, and 79 per cent didn’t want to leave their baby to go back. Many also feared they would no longer excel in their job.

For those who did take the plunge, it tended to take at least ten months to feel part of the gang again when returning to work after maternity leave.

Claire Burns, managing director of A Beautiful Mummy, said: ‘Mums have a different set of responsibilities after having a baby.

‘With the new arrival comes a wealth of responsibility, endless sleepless nights, feeds every couple of hours and numerous nappy changes.

‘It is no wonder that new mums find it harder to take care of themselves as they come to terms with their new role – at the end of the day this new baby is the centre of their world.’

Mrs Burns added: ‘It’s really hard for women to feel sexy, chic and stylish after just having given birth.

‘Your body isn’t what it was – you’re too small for maternity clothes and too big for your normal wardrobe.

‘This just makes mums feel incredibly unattractive and uncomfortable in their own skin – and can be one of the reasons why mums don’t want to socialise in the days and months after having a baby.’

Secret of youth? Old friends can help make us look years younger

They may think that picking girls more than 30 years their junior helps them stay young.

But parading alongside such fresh-faced beauties actually makes the likes of Ronnie Wood and Hugh Hefner look older than they are, scientists have revealed.

When one person is much younger than those around them, observers are more likely to exaggerate the age gap, they say.

Age gap: Ana Araujo is 32 years younger than partner Ronnie Wood

Researchers discovered a person’s perceived age varies depending on who they are with. The untrained eye will pick out the face of someone who is clearly a different age to the rest of the group and exaggerate the gap.

So if they are a few years older they will be perceived as a lot older and if they are slightly younger they will be perceived as much younger, said the study – bad news for celebrities such as 62-year-old Wood, whose girlfriend Ana Araujo is 32 years his junior, and Bernie Ecclestone, 80, whose new love is almost 50 years younger than him.

Researchers carried out tests to see how people estimate the age of others.

If they see a person on their own or in a group where everyone is a similar age then most observers are generally able to estimate that person’s age.

However, if most of a group are old and one person is young, those trying to guess the individual’s age are ‘consistently wrong’ said the research.

In one test, volunteers were shown photos of elderly people followed by one of a middle-aged person and asked to guess that person’s age. Most estimated it as ‘substantially younger’ than it was.

The study, by scientists from Jena University in Germany and reported in the journal Vision Research, said: ‘The founder of the Playboy magazine might be surprised by these findings.

‘He prefers to surround himself with young women, not knowing that they make him look much older.’

Bullied 16-year-old weighing 23-stone becomes one of the youngest to have gastric band surgery in the UK

Severely obese: Jen Hogarth underwent surgery after doctors warned the 23-stone 16-year-old she could die before she was 20 if she continued her eating habits

A 23-stone teenager who needed a respirator to help her breathe at night has become one of the youngest people in the UK to have been given gastric surgery.

Bullied Jen Hogarth, from North Tyneside, underwent the successful gastric bypass operation after becoming terrified she may die without taking drastic action.

Tipping the scales at 23 stone (146kgs) and with a BMI of more than 50, the severely obese 16-year-old had been warned by doctors that she may be struck down by a heart attack before she turns 20 if nothing was done.

But now Miss Hogarth is now looking forward to a healthier future, having already lost five stone.

The surgery involved slicing a section of her stomach in order to make a small pouch, which was then reconnected to the lower intestine, which restricted the amount of food she can eat.

The teenager had to travel to Sheffield from the north-east for the operation because gastric bypass surgery is not yet available to under 18s in her region.

Having adjusted to her new eating routine, she said: 'I feel great, like I've been given a new life. I can't wait to get into college and make everyone proud.

'I'm no longer the kind of girl who hides away. I'm just as good a person as everyone else, I always was, but it's taken until now to make me see that.'

Miss Hogarth told how she has been over-eating from an early age, much of it resulting from being bullied at school.

Problem: Obesity rates among children in the North East are significantly higher than the national average with 20 per cent of 11-year olds in the region being classed as obese

Time to change? Surgeon Bruce Jaffray, based at the city's Royal Victoria Infirmary (pictured), had a team ready to open a specialist children's weight loss unit offering gastric surgery two years ago, but failed to get the green light

She said: 'It was depressed and as soon as I got home I would just eat more.'

As she went for the operation in October Miss Hogarth weighed 23 stone, despite efforts to lose weight herself, and she had also begun to develop diabetes.

Miss Hogarth has received criticism from people who claim she's opted for a 'quick-fix', but bariatric (weight loss) surgeon at Sunderland Royal Hospital Peter Small said: 'Surgery is the last resort.

'It is an aid to somebody making lifestyle changes and sticking to them. If they don't make them the surgery won't work.'

Obesity rates among children in the North East are significantly higher than the national average with 20 per cent of 11-year olds in the region being classed as obese.

While gastric bypass operations are not available to under 18s in the North at the moment, a group of doctors from Newcastle want this to change.

The clinicians led by surgeon Bruce Jaffray, who is based at the city's Royal Victoria Infirmary (RVI), have said they had a team ready to open a specialist children's weight loss unit offering gastric surgery two years ago, but failed to get the green light from the primary care trust.

Health commissioners argue the money is better spent on prevention.

Professor Sue Milner of NHS North of Tyne said: 'At this point in time we don't think there is sufficient need in the region to invest in a specialist service because of course, we only have a limited amount of funds.'

How most size 12 women still believe they are too fat

Lorraine Kelly: Star has said she is 'happy being a size 12'

A woman who slips confidently into a size 12 dress may be the envy of her larger friends, but the chances are she still hates what she sees in the mirror.

Research shows that just one in 17 women of a healthy weight consider themselves to be slim.

For the study, which provides a disturbing insight into the self-esteem of British women, more than 2,000 volunteers were polled about their attitudes to their weight.

Among the questions was one in which they were asked to look in the mirror and pick one of 12 adjectives to describe how they felt or looked.

They were also asked to give details of their height and weight to work out whether they were too large for their height or sat within healthy limits.

Among those women whose weight was judged to be just right, only 13 per cent were happy with what they saw in the mirror.

And a mere 6 per cent – or one in 17 – with a healthy body mass index (BMI) described themselves as slim.

Some 17 per cent of women of a healthy weight described themselves as ‘fat’ and almost as many said they felt ‘down’ when they looked in the mirror, the research carried out by diet company Slimming World found.

Men, however, showed much more body confidence, with just 6 per cent of those of a healthy weight believing themselves to be fat.

As it depends on height, a healthy BMI can encompass women from clothing size six to 16.

Radiant in red: Television star Holly Willoughby, 29, is a size 12

Pam Spurr, a psychologist who discusses body image in her book How To Be A Happy Human, said many women are not satisfied unless they are ‘supermodel thin’.

She said: ‘My own research found many women are overly preoccupied by thinking they are half a stone overweight.

‘And it is not just their own high standards. They think that others are looking at them and thinking they are overweight and have lumps and bumps. They believe our culture expects them to be thin like a supermodel.’

Slimming World managing director Caryl Richards said: ‘Women worry much more than men about what people think and they hate how they look and feel. Buying clothes and getting dressed to go out becomes a major anxiety.’

The company’s poll also found the obese struggle with their emotions in at least five everyday situations, from looking in the mirror and at holiday snaps, to seeing old friends, trying clothes on in a shop, and getting dressed for a night out.