What is mineral makeup (and what isn’t)?

Posted on Wednesday, at • 218 views

Please pardon the gaps...

The site is in mid-migration now (manual migration of over 7,000 entries, so there's a lot to be done.) The entry stubs are created for older content, but for the most part, the actual content isn't there quite yet. I am working on it. Unfortunately I have no ETA. But feel free to link to any page! When the content does get populated, the URL will stay the same.

What is mineral makeup (and what isn’t)?

In the past six years, “mineral makeup” has exploded…or, at least, the perception of it has. As more people have tried mineral makeup, more companies have started marketing it…or, at least, they've started selling something that they call “mineral makeup”.

People use mineral makeup for a variety of reasons: fewer adverse chemical reactions; less long-term chemical exposure; better performance than traditional cosmetics; avoiding companies and products that use animal testing; buying and using only (or primarily) vegan items…the list goes on. I personally tried mineral makeup because I wanted makeup that didn't feel heavy or greasy, that didn't clog my pores, and that didn't go bad in a year or two. The fact that I found makeup that cost the same or, in many cases, less than “traditional” makeup was icing on the cake. (I personally don't have any chronic illnesses or intense chemical sensitivities, I don't follow a vegan lifestyle or philosophy, and while I prefer companies to use alternatives to animal testing where viable alternatives exist, I don't make that a factor in whether or not a buy makeup.) Now that more companies are getting into the “mineral makeup” business, people need to know a few things before they buy that huge jar of Whatchamacallit from BigNameCompany.

There is no standard legal definition for “mineral makeup”
Most people probably tried mineral makeup because they saw some infomercials touting makeup that was so safe, so gentle, so natural…that you could even sleep in it and not be adversely affected. Bare Escentuals' mineral makeup foundations don't contain any parabens or preservatives. They popularized the term “mineral makeup”, and other companies jumped on the bandwagon soon enough. But…stop and look at the ingredients. CoverGirl's TruBlend, which is loosely marketed as mineral makeup, contains talc, two different parabens, and fatty acids (zinc stearate). The first two ingredients are items which are known to cause cancer when regularly put in direct contact with large areas of skin…so putting it all over your face and neck every day is not the best idea in the world. The fourth ingredient I've listed, zinc stearate, is a fatty acid. Don't let the word “acid” scare you as much as the word “fatty” - cosmetics that contain any “fatty” ingredients will effectively have an expiration date, as these products can more readily become breeding grounds for bacteria. If you began using mineral makeup to have makeup that would have a much longer shelf life and not harbor bacteria, this should cause you some concern.

Something billed as “straight from the earth”...isn't automatically better for you
I recall years ago, when a housemate was preparing to hike the Appalachian Trail. He subscribed to a backpacking magazine; and one month the back cover showed a lovely mountain stream with a large rock in the middle…and a wolf peeing atop said rock. The implication being: lupine urine is in “fresh clean spring water”. (It was an ad for a small charcoal-filtration system…and yes, it was a very effective ad.) Minerals “straight from the earth” have traces of things you may really not want on your skin…even if it's not wolf pee. And since most cosmetic companies source their mica et al from companies that lab-produce and -coat the stuff, their finished products cannot be “straight from the earth” - even if they don't contain any industrial-grade or organic substances.

And speaking of “organic”...

Something billed as “organic”, “natural”, “wild-harvested”, or even “all-natural”...it isn't automatically better for you
A lot of vendors - big and small - have “natural” or “organic” products or even lines. However, as of September 2010, there is no US federal guideline for the use of these terms when related to cosmetics. (There is for food - but not for cosmetics.) Many “natural”-labeled products from Sephora contain an ingredient called lauroyl lysine, an amino acid derived from fatty acids in coconuts. This ingredient has given some people a severe negative skin reaction - often, people with chemical sensitivities or chronic conditions. Since these are the same persons who often look for cosmetics with as few ingredients as possible, specifically to avoid these negative reactions, this means that they may as well shop anywhere - since they have to do just as much research for soi disant “natural” or “organic” lines as they do for any cosmetic product. Keep in mind that carmine, a dye created from crushed insects, is “organic” - but people who follow a vegan lifestyle most emphatically do not want to use any product that contains carmine.


So what’s the answer? How do you avoid using makeup that you don’t want to use?

Increased regulation? Not necessarily. That sets up rules that will eventually be bent, twisted, and disregarded – or people will follow the letter of the law, and disregard its spirit. When the US government set guidelines for “organic” farming, they specifically allowed the use of certain pesticides and growth agents that many consumers had been avoiding by buying “organic” produce from their local farmers’ markets. In addition, the US government introduced costly and cumbersome guidelines for qualifying to legally market ones’ goods as “organic”. Currently, when you go to a grocery store such as Safeway, you can find an “organic” food section…but your personal definition of organic probably doesn’t quite match with the federal government’s definition. You may be paying extra money for food that’s ostensibly produced and harvested in a healthier manner…when that may not actually be what’s happening. Meanwhile, your local farmer who may plant, grow, and harvest their crop personally, using minimal automation and no inorganic substances, cannot legally call their products “organic” unless they go through several additional tests, rounds of certification, and reams of paperwork. And let’s leave aside the fact that this increased regulation means higher costs to the farmers, more tax money needed to maintain the regulatory apparatus, and of course lawyers to deal with any infractions. All of these costs get passed on to the consumer — and those increased costs don’t always mean that the food is healthier, or more nutritious. It just means that it has more “merit badges”. (Another aside to note: the US government and / or commercial interests are very very skilled at neurolinguistics. That’s the manipulation of language. The US government tried hard to get the public to accept radiation as a good thing by calling it “sunshine units” — because yes, the sun is a nuclear reaction, it does give off radiation, and that radiation is not just beneficial but necessary for life on this planet. But our atmosphere actually screens out quite a lot of what the sun puts out, so that what reaches the planetary surface is a tiny fraction of what Sol sends forth. So calling nuclear radiation “sunshine units” was both a deliberate play on general scientific ignorance and a sloppy attempt at quelling panic.)

What about simply avoiding all chemicals? First off…everything is a chemical, and in the wrong combinations, anything can be deadly. Too much water will drown a living being; too much water will dilute a substance to the point where it has no effect. Even “avoid any acids” won’t help: not all acids found in cosmetics are harmful, and some are actually beneficial. Even avoiding “inorganic chemicals” won’t completely protect you from harmful effects, especially if you have sensitive skin. Besides, fewer people have a reaction to mica…and mica is most definitely inorganic. Most cosmetic-grade mica in use today is actually lab-created, so it doesn’t even count as a “natural” ingredient any more.

Find a reputable database, and avoid any chemical it says is bad? On the surface, this sounds like a wonderful plan. But which database do you use? How do you know that their definition of “harmful” is the same as yours? And what happens when a chemical has no recorded long-term test results, or is beneficial when used one way but is harmful when used another way, or in combination with certain ingredients? This same principle applies when reading blog reviews and recommendations: if you cannot use products that contain carmine but a particular blogger recommends products that have that ingredient, you may end up buying something you can’t use if you don’t read over the ingredients yourself. Alternately, what if a blogger strongly advocates not using a company’s products because they contain an ingredient that causes bad reactions for that blogger, but doesn’t cause you any discomfort or health problems? What one person or organization calls “bad” or “harmful” may not be universally “bad” or “harmful”.

There is no permanent answer, other than the same answer for most problems: critical thinking. You have to know what you want from a product, and what traits or effects you want to avoid…and then you have to look at what’s really being communicated. If a product or company uses a lot of key phrases, or has a certain look to their website and packaging…that’s all branding. It doesn’t guarantee that their products will be a good fit for you, or that they’ll even work the way you want them to work. A few examples:

Benefit — a 1950s “retro” look, calling up the modern impression of that era: optimism, innocence, a nation that had been on the winning side through two major world conflicts and was surging ahead on scientific, military, and economic advancement. Never mind the fact that women were still largely discouraged from working outside the home, women pursuing college degrees was still fairly rare, there were still “black” and “white” businesses in many parts of the US.

Bare Escentuals — pink and brown branding, softer lines, and many mentions of “pure minerals straight from the earth”. They sell themselves as a naturalistic color palette with wide appeal, a healthful product and utterly “pure” or unprocessed. Let’s go back to that wolf-pee advert again and think about everything meant by “straight from the earth”…including all the random microbes you find in your average handful of dirt. That doesn’t even go into their foundations that won’t work for women of color, and don’t even provide a good match for many Caucasian women (like yours truly.)

Urban Decay — a gritty look and feel, definitely slanted for the urban audience. From names to colors to packaging, this line doesn’t exclude women who want a more natural look, but it doesn’t focus on them. I personally don’t know how I feel about using products with color names like “smog”, “mildew”, “snatch”, or “yeyo” (slang term for cocaine); and I’m not exactly wild about products that objectify people like Urban Decay’s “Pocket Rockets” — but that’s my personal preference; and again, the names and the packaging appeal to a specific audience with a specific mindset.

A company’s branding doesn’t guarantee the nature of their products, though it may be an indicator. It doesn’t even guarantee that all of their products will work for you. Many of Bare Escentuals’ products contain bismuth oxychloride, which mildly irritates the skin on my face and neck. However, their eyeshadows that do contain bismuth oxychloride haven’t caused this irritation on my lids, so while I won’t touch their foundation or mineral veils, I’ll gladly use their eyeshadows. Aromaleigh made many products that were closer to a generally-accepted definition of mineral makeup, but they also sold the Rocks! Sonic eye and cheek colors, which were specifically marked as a hybrid product: like some products by MAC, some products by Make Up For Ever, and most theatrical-grade makeup, these hybrid products contained ingredients like polyester-3 (for blacklight-reactivity) and lakes (for more vivid colors), which are generally not found or expected in anything billing itself as “mineral makeup”. Urban Decay marks which of their products are vegan, but not every product is — and for a given product (such as eyeshadow), only certain shades may qualify as “vegan”. Benefit’s cream shadows do provide a good base, but some of the colors spread and adhere better than others (at least for me.)

But, you might say, I thought that by buying mineral makeup I’d automatically be getting healthier products!! Well…yes and no. Yes, in that most products marketed as “mineral makeup” contain fewer ingredients, and contain fewer substances like talc or parabens. However, with cosmetic manufacturers constantly looking for ways to improve their products — and with no set legal definition of “mineral makeup” — what works this month may not work next month. Past a certain point, it’s up to the consumer to read the ingredients and to understand what they’re buying. And sadly, it is not safe to gravivate toward anything labeled as “mineral” or “organic” or even “all natural” makeup and assume that it’s healthful in all respects — or for a particular individual — or even that it truly is what you’re looking for.

Note: for a further exploration of what is meant by “organic” (primarily related to foods, but touches on makeup) head over to Le Gothique. We didn't plan to post these posts on our respective blogs, on the same day. It just happened…

Like this entry? Check these out:


or look at other entries tagged with

Comments

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.