Questions On Organic Mineral-Based Makeup
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 03.18.06
Our reader Tamiko asks "It seems that every mineral makeup company has switched to micronized ingredients, making it somewhat fashionable. I would love to use this health conscientious company like Organic Makeup and have my family switch over to non-micronized mineral makeup, but they do not have a wide range of colors. Any advice"? At TreeHugger we don't give health advice. But we can help you construct a mental model to advise yourself. Start with the concept of "organic" minerals. A concentrated uranium ore right out of the bowels of the earth would be organic right? Bottom line: in mineral comparisons the term organic has little meaning. The term "micronized" refers to particle sizes in the micrometer range. We need to differentiate micro- from nano-sized mineral particles.
The much smaller nano-scale particles exist in nature; but we are not generally exposed to them much as they quickly disperse or coalesce. If, for example, you had a jar of nano-sized mineral particles and inverted the jar at waist height, very little of it would make it to the floor below. If spilled in a small room this would be a sure way to expose your lungs and eyes. Not be a good idea, because initial research indicates that the smallest of nano-scale range particles may be able to cross the blood brain barrier. Micro-sized particles do not have this biological mobilty. They will not penetrate the skin and enter the blood stream.
Generally speaking, the purpose of face makeup is to present a smooth and pleasant feeling surface that reflects light in a desireable way. Not necessarily in a naturalistic way -- take face glitter as the unnatural extreme -- but in a way that is attention getting and pleasing to those whom the wearer wants to be noticed by. One quality that few wish to display is a greasy look. This is where the particle function comes in: presenting a smooth, evenly light dispersing, non-greasy surface.
Envision two very different shaped objects, both made of the same mineral material: one an angular surfaced, jagged particle, like a grain of sand in shape; the other a round smooth grain, like a ball bearing in shape. Keeping their respective shapes intact, we'll use our imagination to scale them down to micrometer size. Which shaped particles at micro scale would have the smoothest texture and which the best light reflecting characteristics? This is just the sort of question that a makeup formulators start with when blending materials. We can ony guess that its probably a combination of the two plus some bits of bat wing and eye of newt that make the products marketable.
For the final piece of our model we need to consider particle size distribution. Ever try to unclump some sugar that has hardened in the sugar bowl? Pretty soon you have some nice fine sugar in the bottom of the bowl and large clumps siting atop the fines. Its the same thing when you "micronize" a mineral for makeup. The bulk of it would be in a narrow band of micro-size range, while the rest would be either a "super micro" or "sub-micro" class of particle.
Take home messages:
* Organic does not equate necessarily to low hazard when it comes to minerals.
* Particle size distribution of inorganic minerals can be "wide," or be "narrow".
* Particle shape, size, density, and composition all figure into hazard potential.
* Nano-scale particles exist in nature and to varying extent in traditional manmade products.
* Regardless of average particle size, avoid putting on your skin any minerals which have exhibited high toxicity in an occupational exposure setting. You can evaluate this yourself by looking at material safety data sheets (MSDS) for the individual constituents of your makeup.
* If your sink and vanity area end up dusted with makeup, you are likely respiring these same particles. Even if toxicity is very low, dust can be an irritant. This is something to consider regardless of whether the ingredients are synthetic or "organic".
By Analogy: -- The hazard of tobacco in a cigarette is relatively constant, but exposure is zero until you light one. Health risk is cumulative: the more you light them, the higher the risk. In addition to all the take home points listed, risk of a potentially hazardous mineral dust depends upon how often you wear the makeup, how much of your face and neck you cover, how long you leave it on, how effectively you remove it, and so on.
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- An Organic Cash Crop in the Galapagos?
- How to Go Green: Beers
- Knocking Your Socks Off With Five Eco-Friendly Choices
- Eco-Tools Makeup Brushes for Your Eco-Friendly Makeup
i personally feel that make-up and all things with which we 'enhance' ourselves are small drops in the larger deterioration of our planet and selves. all those chemicals that flow into our water (organic, bio-degradable or not) have an influence on our environment: i.e. the water we drink, the air we breathe and the strength we feel within ourselves. besides that, these factories use water to produce, test on animals, polute the air, make more waste (i have yet to see a re-usable lipstick holder), and are of no environmental profit to our planet or selves.
my advice: dump the make-up, the colourants, etc. be satisfied with what God gave you and realise your own beauty and potential, and while your at it you might save a few elements of our beautiful planet.
The discussion of risks and opportunities of nanosize materials should not be mislead by personal beliefs ("what God gave you"). When you think about the medical potential biodegradable nanospheres for drug delivery you might take a different attitude if the drug in question could help you or your children. Also high performance polymers with higher scratch and UV resistance may help to reduce the amount of coating/paint required as coatings could be thinner and painting will be necessary less often.
Of course there are risks that need to be attributed.
There is a good article about the risks of nanosize materials at: Google Groups
==== author's response follows =====
I absolutely agree with your comment. However, because makeup has no biological function at all (save perhaps as a sunscreen or to increase the likelihood of producing offspring), the risk benefit tradeoff is easier to see as potentially dangerous for society. I am reminded of detergent advertizers in the 1980's touting "enzymes" as the latest thing being added to the formulation. By touting "nano" in a makup just to get some market spin, formulators are suggesting to me a thoughtlessness that increases the potential for hazardous exposure. We should keep in mind that drug regulations "grandfather" in a myriad of substances that were never properly studied to characterize hazards in the first place. Example to illustrate, consider shellac, which is made of beetle larvae excrement (http://www.shellacepc.com/faq.html). Somehow, FDA has long permited it to be used to coat vegetables like cucumbers because it is "GRAS" (generally recognized as safe). Can you imagine how the public would respond today if a company sought permission to coat veggies with insect waste? No way. But to make it "nano" and use it in anything you want is "OK" so to speak.
"Bottom line: in mineral comparisons the term organic has little meaning."
While it is true that the term organic as in organically grown has nothing to do with inorganic mined or lab synthesized minerals, that is not what organic certified companies are referring to with their makeup and skincare. All mineral makeup is made in labs now as that's the only kind of purified minerals that are allowed by the FDA in cosmetics. They used to use mined minerals but there was too much risk of contamination from heavy metals etc. So anyways, while there are many mineral makeup companies out there that use nothing but minerals in their cosmetics, making "organic" a mute point, there are others who add other ingredients to them as well.
The Canadian Organic Makeup Company as well as the Australian Miessence Company both add other ingredients to their cosmetics. These other ingredients are what are certified "organic".
Their concealer for instance has the ingredients:
"organic castor oil
kaolin clay
organic palm oil
organic cornstarch
candellila wax
organic shea butter
organic tea tree essential oil
non-gmo tocopherol
mineral pigments:
iron oxides
titanium dioxide"
The organic only applies to ingredients that are plants and grown, cultivated.
Anyways, as far as "nano" no mineral cosmetic is being advertised or claimed as having "nano" particles in them. Only micronized. Micronized particles can be nano size or they can not be and be much larger. Nano is anything under
As far as serving a biological function, clothes often don't serve that function as well anymore. There are many products in our lifestyles that serve no biological function or are not needed for survival. Do you give them all up? Mineral makeup is certainly a step up in the Green direction, as they are basically inert (the reg. size), unlike all the chemicals.
"Bottom line: in mineral comparisons the term organic has little meaning."
While it is true that the term organic as in organically grown has nothing to do with inorganic mined or lab synthesized minerals, that is not what organic certified companies are referring to with their makeup and skincare. All mineral makeup is made in labs now as that's the only kind of purified minerals that are allowed by the FDA in cosmetics. They used to use mined minerals but there was too much risk of contamination from heavy metals etc. So anyways, while there are many mineral makeup companies out there that use nothing but minerals in their cosmetics, making "organic" a mute point, there are others who add other ingredients to them as well.
The Canadian Organic Makeup Company as well as the Australian Miessence Company both add other ingredients to their cosmetics. These other ingredients are what are certified "organic".
Their concealer for instance has the ingredients:
"organic castor oil
kaolin clay
organic palm oil
organic cornstarch
candellila wax
organic shea butter
organic tea tree essential oil
non-gmo tocopherol
mineral pigments:
iron oxides
titanium dioxide"
The organic only applies to ingredients that are plants and grown, cultivated.
Anyways, as far as "nano" no mineral cosmetic is being advertised or claimed as having "nano" particles in them. Only micronized. Micronized particles can be nano size or they can not be and be much larger. Nano is anything under 100nm. I have heard from several makeup companies that their micronized minerals are about 150nm. Good or bad I don't know. I know there is a lot of concern about the environmental pollution of man made nano particles. They don't know what it will do to the environment, just like GMO's. It's just overall a big mess.
As far as serving a biological function, clothes often don't serve that function as well anymore. There are many products in our lifestyles that serve no biological function or are not needed for survival. Do you give them all up? Mineral makeup is certainly a step up in the Green direction, as they are basically inert (the reg. size), unlike all the chemicals.
As the owner of a small, indie mineral makeup company, I also wanted to agree with the thought that "organic" means nothing in the world of 100 PURE mineral makeup. Organic means living, while 100% pure mineral makeup is made up only of minerals, which are not "living."
Just a thought from a manufacturer.
V. Blink
http://www.lushbrush.com
I can completely understand your frustration about micronized minerals. I don't normally like to post in blogs because I'm afraid someone will think I'm just trying to "sell". However, I ran into your article when I was researching how to explain the "inorganic" factor of mineral makeup to our customers. We offer a huge selection of colors in our Loose Mineral Makeup and non of our ingredients are micronized. Our website is www.terrafirmacosmetics.com. I hope this helps. Thanks!