you're reading...
Product Reviews

Kate Somerville True Lash Lash Enhancing Eye Makeup Remover

Kate Somerville True Lash Lash Enhancing Eye Makeup Remover: ($35 for 1.7 oz) 

Positives: At first glance, the ingredient list looks more like one for a well-formulated toner rather than one for an eye makeup remover. However, on closer inspection, there are some mild detergents squeezed into there like isohexadecane and polysorbate 20. Other than those two ingredients, none of the others function much like a traditional detergent. However, Vaseline (or petrolatum) is a well-known makeup remover and that’s definitely not a typical detergent (it’s an emollient), so the other emollient ingredients may function similarly. I can’t tell if this product will actually remove long-lasting and waterproof mascara/products like Kate Somerville claims; you’ll have to try that yourself.

Now as I was saying, this product can definitely be mistaken for a well-formulated toner because it contains silicones (caprylyl methicone),  and high to moderate amounts of emollients (glycerin, evening primose oil, avocado oil), and a variety of excellent water-binding agents (sodium PCA, urea, sodium hyaluronate, and many others). On top of that, it contains moderate amounts of several good anti-inflammatories (aloe and chamomile extracts) as well as a few well-chosen antioxidants (green tea and rose hip oil).

Neutrals: As to the “creating visibly fuller lashes” claim, surprisingly this could be true. The active ingredient, myristoyl pentapeptide-17, has been included in several (pending) patents as an alternative to the famous Latisse. However, because it is relatively new and does not have a lot (or any) independent, peer-reviewed research, only time will tell if this product is actually good for the lashes, and what side effects may exist. So that’s it, it has potential, but isn’t the gold standard that is Latisse.

So now the question is, even if this ingredient is effective (which is unproven), how effective can it really be, being that it’s in a type of cleanser that’s only in contact with the skin for a very short period of time? Well the formulation does includes a few film-forming agents like polyquaternium-51 that will coat any surface that this product touches, which in this case, would be your lashes and eye area. The additional layer coating your lashes may allow for product penetration. However, because of the wiping motions (with a cotton pad/round/square) that you would typically employ with these types of removers, that coat (along with the active ingredients) could be partially or completely wiped away before the they can do anything. Not to mention, depending on the order of your routine, if you wash off your face makeup afterwards, the water and cleanser that you use could further dilute and/or remove this “coating.” I’d stick with Latisse, mascara, and/or false eyelashes if you want actual results.

There is also a tiny amount of fragrance, but it doesn’t really matter since this is a cleanser.

Negatives: There is a moderate amount of eyebright extract, which in vitro, has shown to be quite cytotoxic. However, in real life it probably won’t penetrate deeply enough to cause significant damage. But why risk it when it has no beneficial properties for the skin?

Packaging: This is housed in a tube, which is great and convenient.

Overall: I reiterate, I was quite shocked when I saw this ingredient list, because I expected something more along the lines of Somerville’s wildly popular, but poorly formulated ExfoliKate. Depending on how well this sits and soaks into the skin, I’d say that this product would be better positioned as a toner, because God knows that Kate needs a good toner in her line, and this one could be it, albeit an expensive option, but nonetheless a good one. You don’t need to spend this much ($35 for 1.7 ounces) for a good toner or cleanser. With all of that in mind, combined with the fact that I don’t know how well this removes makeup, I would cautiously recommend this as a cleanser. As a toner? Maybe a bit more enthusiastically… Maybe.


PS = [[[PIS – [(NI1 x MHS1)]] x WIC] + [TPS x WPC]] x 100%

PS = [[[8.5/10 – [(1/10 x 2/3)]] x 2/3] + [3/3 x 1/3]] x 100%

PS = [[[25.5/30 – 2/30] x 2/3] + 3/9] x 100%

PS = [[23.5/30 x 2/3] + 3/9] x 100%

PS = [47/90 + 30/90] x 100%

PS = 77/90 x 100%

PS = .856 x 100%

PS = 85.6%

AS = B

Check the Product Review Rubric for a full explanation on how I rate products.


Water (Aqua), Caprylyl Methicone, Glycerin, Propandiol, Polysorbate 20, Disodium Cocoamphodipropionate, Sodium PCA, Trehalose, Polyquaternium-51, Sodium Hyaluronate, Myristoyl Pentapeptide-17, Camellia Oleifera Leaf Extract, Camellia Sinensis Leaf Extract, Chamomilla Recutita (Matricaria) Extract, Euphrasia Officinalis Extract, Oenothera Biennis (Evening Primrose) Oil, Persea Gratissima (Avocado) Oil, Rosa Canina Fruit Oil, Urea, Triacetin, Sodium Hydroxide, Citric Acid, Acrylates/ C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate Crosspolymer, Disodium EDTA, Ethylhexylglycerin, Phenoxyethanol, Fragrance (Parfum).

About John

The Triple Helixian is an unbiased science and research-based site that attempts to clarify and elucidate questions about skin care, while aspiring to be the most thorough and complete source of information.


No comments yet.

I have something to say too...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Make a Donation Button
Finish Line Flag

Pick a topic, and go!

A Trip Back in Time

Save Money Shopping

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 805 other subscribers

© 2014 The Triple Helixian.

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited.

%d bloggers like this: