Mineral makeup is such a sizzling, overly hyped, hot topic that it deserves its own section. Everyone wants to know if it is really the miracle answer for skin. Infomercials glorify its attributes, demonstrating magic results with a swift, brushed-on applications, and there are online chat rooms dedicated to the topic. With all this buzz it’s no wonder that cosmetics companies of all sizes are creating their own versions as they jump on the mineral makeup bandwagon.
When all is said and done, mineral makeup is truly nothing all that revolutionary or even fail-safe. The claims are so inane it’s plain that they are nothing more than fabrication and lies. It is nothing less than bizarre that they have garnered so much attention from the consumer. Because, by any name, “mineral makeup” is simply a type of powder foundation. If you wear a light layer it is a finishing powder; if you put a little more on it works more like a layer of foundation, providing light to medium coverage. In essence, mineral makeup is merely loose or pressed powder created from a blend of “powdery” substances.
While the minerals in many mineral makeup products are not the standard run of the mill, it is important to know that most pressed powders, whether they are called mineral makeup or not, are made of minerals. Talc is the primary ingredient in most standard powders, and talc, most assuredly, is as natural a mineral as you can get. However, the clamor over “mineral makeup” argues that the minerals being used in those special products are unique, natural, and far better for skin, and that is absolutely not the case!
The claims for mineral makeup, more than for any other makeup product, revolve around what it does not contain, rather than what it does. The companies that sell mineral makeup often warn consumers about how other companies’ loose or pressed powders are tainted by the presence of talc (even though it’s a natural earth mineral), fragrance, fillers, and “harsh chemical dyes,” and that is also not true. According to most of the catalogs and Web sites selling mineral makeup I’ve seen, they all want you to believe that theirs is the ideal product, and that it contains only the good and none of the “bad,” while simultaneously being the perfect choice for every skin type and skin-care problem or concern.
Here is what you need to know: Of the more popular mineral makeup lines—such as Bare Escentuals, Jane Iredale, Monave, Larenim, Baresense, Sheer Cover, Glominerals, Pur Minerals, Emani, Colorflo, Skin Alison Raffaele, Aromaleigh, Colorscience, Neutrogena, L’Oreal, and Everyday Minerals, and whether their powder is pressed or loose powder— almost all of them tend to contain the same basic ingredients: bismuth oxychloride, mica, titanium dioxide, and zinc oxide.
The standard primary ingredient in most mineral makeups is bismuth oxychloride, which is not found in nature and is not any better for skin than talc. In fact, talc is natural, and in many ways a far more unadulterated and pure ingredient than bismuth oxychloride. Bismuth oxychloride is manufactured by combining bismuth (which rarely occurs in its elemental form in nature), obtained as a by-product of lead and copper metal refining (dregs of the smelting process if you will), with chloride (a compound of chlorine) and water. And the International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary and Handbook (11th Edition, 2006) lists bismuth oxychloride as a synthetic ingredient. It’s used in cosmetics because it has a distinct shimmery, pearlescent appearance and a fine, white powder texture that adheres well to skin. On the downside, bismuth oxychloride is heavier than talc and can look cakey on skin. And for some people, the bismuth and chloride combination can be irritating.
Bismuth itself is a metallic element chemically similar to poisonous arsenic. That is more shocking than it is significant, but it’s also the kind of fact that mineral makeup companies use to scare you about the ingredients in other powders not deemed “mineral makeup.” Just like cosmetic-grade mineral oil is not related to the crude petroleum from which it originates, neither is bismuth oxychloride identical to bismuth, and therefore, its association to arsenic is irrelevant. So the bismuth oxychloride used in cosmetics is indeed non-toxic. This is just a good example of how skewed a company’s definition of “natural”
can be, and how companies twist factual information to make other cosmetics companies’ ingredients sound harmful.
It is interesting to note that bismuth oxychloride can cause skin irritation (Source: www. sciencelab. com/xMSDS-Bismuth_oxychloride-9923103). Although talc has the same potential for slight irritation, bismuth oxychloride is more likely to cause an allergic contact dermatitis because of its pearlescent nature (Source: www. emedicine. com/derm/topic502. htm). This is more of a concern when bismuth oxychloride is the main ingredient in a cosmetic, as it is for many mineral makeups.
Companies that sell mineral makeup (that is, mineral makeup that does not contain talc) often claim that the talc other companies use in their pressed and loose powders is harmful and carcinogenic. Let me assure you that there is absolutely no research to support that hysteria—far from it. A comprehensive review of several studies in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (August 2002, pages 40-50) notes that “Talc is not genotoxic, is not carcinogenic when injected into ovaries of rats. There is no credible evidence of a cancer risk from inhalation of cosmetic talc by humans.”
Dismissing talc as a cheap, inelegant, less desirable, or filler material is inaccurate because talc is in fact the essential backbone for a number of the most luxurious-feeling powders from dozens of lines ranging from L’Oreal to Chanel. The best among those powders have a softness and virtually seamless finish on the skin that most mineral makeup lines should envy. The higher grades of talc are not “filler” materials, they are essential to creating a powder’s gossamer texture and skin-like finish.
Some mineral makeup powders contain a 25% concentration of titanium dioxide and/ or zinc oxide for sunscreen protection, and that’s great because these are excellent nonirritating sunscreen ingredients. (Sources: Cutis, September 2004, pages 13-16 and 32-34; and Cosmetics & Toiletries, October 2003, pages 73-78.)
Most, but definitely not all, mineral makeups provide opaque coverage (which can be blended to achieve light to medium coverage), yet the claim is that they do so while looking extremely natural, like a second skin or better than your own skin. This does appear to be the case in pictures and on TV infomercials (just like every other makeup application created for advertising), but in real life that is not what you will actually see. These powders (most of which are tricky to blend because they tend to “grab” onto skin and don’t glide very well once they are in place) can be applied sheer, but the very nature of their ingredients results in a textured application that can look powdery and “made-up” on the skin. This is especially true if you have patches of dry skin because these mineral powders exacerbate dryness and flaking, despite the fact that many claim to be moisturizing, which is just ludicrous given the properties of all powder materials, which are absorbent, not moisturizing.
For those with oily skin, mineral makeup can pool in pores and look thick and layered just like any powder. Generally speaking, mineral makeup is best for normal to slightly oily skin (meaning no signs of dryness and little to no problem oily areas).
Most of the skin-care attributes ascribed to mineral makeup are due to some tangential research about zinc oxide. There is no question that zinc oxide has healing properties for skin (it is FDA-approved as a skin protectant, and is a common active ingredient in ointments to treat diaper rash), but those healing properties have to do with skin whose barrier has been compromised, such as with wounds, ulcers, or rashes. In those cases, zinc oxide facilitates healing (Source: Wound Repair and Regeneration, January/February 2007, pages 2-16). But those studies don’t use other minerals, such as mica or bismuth oxychloride, or have anything to do with healthy, intact skin. Zinc oxide is definitely a great sunscreen ingredient and protects skin from both UVA and UVB sun damage, with minimal to no risk of irritation, and that has immense value. But that can be said of any product that contains enough zinc oxide to earn a decent SPF rating.
Mineral makeup is often recommended for those with rosacea, but the irritation potential from bismuth oxychloride is something to pay attention to. Many women may have success using powder as a foundation, and mineral makeup is included in this category. Mineral makeup, especially those rated SPF 15 or greater, can be a three-in-one product (founda – tion/powder/sunscreen) that can be somewhat easy to apply once you get the knack of it, but it is not a slam-dunk or panacea for all skin types.
One word of warning: As is true for any product with an SPF rating, to get the right amount to ensure thorough protection, liberal application is essential. And that means a sheer, light layer of mineral makeup, no matter its SPF rating, won’t provide your skin with enough protection from the sun.