Dear Paula, 

I just purchased your book and have read the section on Mineral Makeup.  I currently use Bare Minerals Foundation from Bare Escentuals, and when reading the section on mineral makeup, I became concerned about the foundation I use. I contacted bare minerals to find out about bismuth.  Below is their reply.  Can you help me understand the difference between what you said and what they said? 

My question to Bare Escentuals was:

I was reading in several sources that mineral makeup has an ingredient in it, as a replacement to talc.  According to sources, bismuth oxychloride is a skin irritant.  Why has it been chosen to use instead of talc?  Your Web site says mineral foundation does not have any irritants. 

The response from Bare Escentuals was:

I am terribly sorry to see that you are concerned about the purity of our bareMinerals, and I can certainly address your concerns. The Bismuth Oxychloride that we use in our products is a mineral form called Bismoclite. This mineral grows near granite-bearing pegmatites, and is harvested for use in our SPF 15 Foundation All-Over Face Colors, blush and much more. Talc has been shown to be an irritant, and does act to clog the pores in many cosmetic products. Our bareMinerals are non-comedogenic and they are milled to a size that cannot be absorbed into your pores or skin. Each batch of our bareMinerals goes through microbiological testing, and we do extensive studies both independently and through the FDA to be certain that our products are consistent and of the highest quality. 

Nancy, via email

Dear Nancy,

I am happy to help you interpret their response compared with what I wrote in my book. First, their opening statement doesn’t make sense because you weren’t asking about the purity of their product. Luckily, they got to the point of your question immediately afterward. Unfortunately, what they stated still didn’t answer your question. Instead, it reiterated the “pure and natural” stance Bare Escentuals has become known for and ignores the fact that regardless of where or how bismuth is sourced, the process that turns it into bismuth oxychloride is anything but natural (if the ingredient was bismoclite it would be listed as such on the ingredient label). Bismuth oxychloride is not purer or safer for skin than talc (which is also a mineral) and there’s no substantiated research refuting this fact. Actually, talc is more natural than bismuth oxychloride, talc is talc in nature or in a cosmetic product, though it is refined for use in cosmetics.

Bismoclite is indeed found near granite-bearing pegmatities (a coarse variety of granite), and is known for its tetragon (four-sided) crystalline structure. It is this crystalline structure that is suspected to be the reason why some women find mineral makeup with bismuth oxychloride irritating (an itchy sensation may occur). In contrast to bismuth oxychloride, talc is a smoother earth mineral.

There is no evidence anywhere that talc clogs pores or is an irritant when used in facial cosmetics. Bare Escentuals should have supported those comments but they didn’t—a fact that’s true for most cosmetic companies. They expect consumers to believe whatever they tell them and leave it at that. A quick search of any medical or scientific database shows no studies about talc clogging pores exist.

As for the non-comedogenic claim, there is no research proving bismuth oxychloride or any other ingredient in the bareMinerals foundation won’t clog pores. If anything, mineral makeup such as theirs stands a higher chance of clogging pores because the ingredients it contains are naturally occlusive—that’s why you can achieve more coverage from a loose powder “mineral” foundation than you can from a talc-based loose powder.

Because the bareMinerals foundation contains a sunscreen and lists an SPF rating, Bare Escentuals followed FDA regulations and did the requisite sunscreen testing. That testing does not ensure any company’s products are “of the highest quality”—the FDA doesn’t rate products or offer a standardized quality test so cosmetic companies can make a superiority claim. If the product passes SPF testing, it passes, regardless of what else it does or doesn’t contain (or whether the product is good for skin beyond providing sun protection).

Actually, even though companies go through mandatory sunscreen testing for any product they wish to label with an SPF rating, that testing still only details UVB protection. That’s why it is critical to make sure the active ingredients in any sunscreen you’re considering contain one more of the UVA-protecting ingredients I discuss. Those include titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, avobenzone, Mexoryl SX (ecamsule), or Tinosorb. The bareMinerals loose powder foundation contains titanium dioxide, which is great (though it contains so much titanium dioxide that the non-comedogenic claim is incredibly suspect).

The bottom line is that mineral makeup isn’t the preferred choice for most people—it doesn’t hold any special or desirable attributes that other type of foundations lack. Its biggest plus is that it typically contains few ingredients, which is generally preferred for those with sensitive skin, including those with rosacea. If you enjoy the results from the bareMinerals foundation and are not experiencing any problems using it, by all means continue. What’s most important is that you now have an accurate take on why mineral makeup isn’t automatically the best choice for everyone, despite claims to the contrary.