Mineral makeup has become a sizzling hot topic these days
garnering an amazing amount of attention as if some miracle of
cosmetics has been created. Infomercials glorify its
attributes demonstrating magic results with a swift brushed-on
application, 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 being created, or simply jumping on
the mineral makeup bandwagon launching their own versions to
try and catch the consumer's eye. This is an example of a
typical letter I've been receiving in droves about
mineral makeup products:
Dear Paula,
I’ve been hearing more and more about mineral
makeup and how superior it is to normal makeup
formulations. Aside from the standard, “It’s all pure and
natural and no dangerous synthetic chemicals are used” claims,
mineral makeup supposedly can block UV rays, provide total yet
natural-looking coverage, is suited for even the most
sensitive of skin types, won’t clog pores or worsen acne, and
somehow can even improve your skin. Are any of these
statements founded? Is mineral makeup really that much better
than the best non-mineral makeup a drugstore or cosmetics
counter can offer, or is this just hype?
None of this is surprising given the litany of claims being
asserted for this type of foundation, including the conviction
that mineral makeup is equal to, or better than, a skin-care
product (it isn’t, but I’ll get to that later). Somewhere
along the way, savvy marketing executives created a term for a
rather standard product category and elevated it to a cult
status.
When all is said and done, mineral makeup is truly nothing
all that revolutionary or failsafe. By any name, technically
speaking mineral makeup is simply a type of powder foundation.
If you wear a light layer it is a finishing powder or you can
put on a little more and 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 used in many mineral makeup products are
not 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 standard
powders, and talc, most assuredly, is a natural mineral. But
the clamor over “mineral makeup” argues that the minerals
being utilized in those special products are unique, natural,
and far better for skin.
Sifting through the miasma of ads and infomercials makes
figuring all this out a dusty issue. Thankfully, this is one
topic in the world of cosmetics that is easy to clear up.
It Isn’t All Natural
More than any other makeup product, mineral
makeup’s claims revolve around what it doesn’t contain. Those
selling mineral makeup warn 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.” According to most every catalog and
website selling mineral makeup I’ve seen, they all want you to
believe theirs is the ideal product containing only the good
and none of the “bad,” while simultaneously being the perfect
choice for every skin type and skin care problem or concern.
Of course, the appeal of these products being all “natural”
and therefore organic and healthy for skin is hard for the
consumer to ignore.
As is true of most cosmetic advertising there is
some truth amid lots of overblown hyperbole. Mineral makeup
can be an option as a foundation or a powder over more typical
liquid foundation. But looking at the facts instead of the
hype, there is very little reality amid the exaggerations,
misleading information, and of late, what can only be called
intentional fabrications.
Here is what you need to know: Of the more
popular mineral makeup lines—such as Youngblood, Bare
Escentuals,and Jane Iredale—whether in pressed or loose powder
form, mineral makeups tend to contain the same basic
ingredients, which are bismuth oxychloride, mica, titanium
dioxide,and zinc oxide. Depending on the company, you may see
the addition of minor ingredients (such as boron nitride),
which contribute to the product’s texture or application. Some
companies include antioxidants but these extras make up a tiny
amount of the product and can’t remain stable in the packaging
or even suspended very well in a powder, meaning they are
added for clever marketing claims because they can’t help your
skin in this format.
Before we go any further, it is best to
eliminate the most erroneous of the claims being made about
mineral makeups. You may have heard something akin to this
information I found in an online beauty article: “many people
have turned to using makeup if it contains pure minerals.
These [mineral] makeups differ from others in that they are
made up entirely of minerals, and have no chemicals or
preservatives.” I know many women believe this, but there
isn’t one word of truth in that comment. It is troubling that
marketing, rumor, and bad reporting can alter fact. First, any
ingredient in a cosmetic, by definition, is a chemical. Even
water is a chemical in a cosmetic formulation. Chemical should
not be a scary word!
Definitions aside, from an ingredient
standpoint, there is nothing all natural about the ingredients
in mineral makeup. For example, the standard primary
ingredient in most mineral makeups is bismuth oxychloride,
which is not found in nature and isn’t better for skin than
talc. In fact, in many ways talc is a far more natural,
unadulterated, pure ingredient than bismuth oxychloride.
Bismuth oxychloride is manufactured by combining bismuth, a
by-product of lead and copper metal refining (dregs of
smelting if you will) mixed with chloride (a compound from
chlorine), and water. Its use in cosmetics is due to its
distinct shimmery, pearlescent appearance and its fine white
powder texture that adheres well to skin.
On the downside, bismuth oxychloride is heavier
than talc and can look cakey on skin. For some people, the
bismuth and chloride combination can be irritating. All the
claims revolving around how mineral makeups are better for
skin are marketing hype to the max. But I’ll explain more
about this a bit further on.
What about the other ingredients in mineral
makeups? There are several that show up regularly in most of
them, including such mineral lines as Monave, Larenim,
Baresense, Sheer Cover by Leeza Gibbons, Glominerals, Pur
Minerals, Emani, Colorflo, Youngblood, Skin Alison Raffaele,
Aromaleigh, Colorscience, Neutrogena, L’Oreal, Jane Iredale,
Bare Escentuals, and Everyday Minerals. These ingredients
include the following along with an explanation of their
effect and usefulness.
Titanium dioxide and zinc
oxide: The presence of titanium dioxide and/or zinc
oxide often serves as the sunscreen in many mineral makeups.
At the same time, these ingredients provide enhanced coverage
and a matte finish. Keep in mind that even when these proven
mineral sunscreens are listed in the formula, it is still
imperative to check that one or both of them are listed as
active ingredients and the product is rated with an SPF 15 or
greater. Simply having titanium dioxide or zinc oxide in the
formula is not a guarantee of sun protection. Without an SPF
rating resulting from FDA-mandated sunscreen tests, you won’t
know just how much protection you’re getting, and that’s
dangerous for the health of your skin.
Although these two minerals are ideal sunscreen
agents for those with sensitive skin (zinc oxide is the
primary ingredient found in diaper rash ointments) or
conditions such as rosacea, their occlusive nature can
contribute to clogged pores. This isn’t new information, yet
it doesn’t stop companies selling mineral makeup from
advertising their product as being ideal for those suffering
from acne or breakouts, with some companies actually
stating their mineral makeup helps cure it (an absolute
falsehood with no published research showing this to be
true)!
Mineral makeup powders tend to contain a 25%
concentration of titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide. Liquid
foundations or lotions with SPF 15 using only titanium dioxide
and/or zinc oxide as the sunscreen active ingredients tend to
contain a much smaller concentration of these pigments. The
amount of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide in mineral makeups
create the coverage and opaque quality of the powder, allowing
more coverage than the usual talc-based powders. However, if
you have determined that liquid foundations with titanium
dioxide or zinc oxide exacerbate your breakouts, it is quite
possible that a mineral makeup containing an even larger
concentration of those ingredients will have the same, if not
a more pronounced, effect.
What is true is when mineral makeup companies
speak of the non-irritating nature of titanium dioxide and
zinc oxide. Neither is known for causing an irritant response
or sensitizing reaction on skin (Sources: Cosmetics &
Toiletries, October 2003, pages 73–78; and Cutis,
September 2004, pages 13–16 and 32–34).
Bismuth oxychloride: A little
more information about this ingredient is warranted because it
is the common thread that shows up in almost every mineral
makeup product being sold. It’s a grayish-white, inorganic
powder with a natural metallic shine. The binding properties
of bismuth oxychloride are what give the mineral makeups
containing it their smoothness and texture. Its thicker
texture demands more careful application, which is why most
mineral makeup companies recommend special flat-cut, dense
powder brushes to work the product into the skin. This method
of application also provides considerable coverage and helps
ensure longer wear.
Bismuth in and of itself seldom occurs in
nature. Instead, it is manufactured synthetically. The
International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary and Handbook
, Eleventh Edition, 2006, lists bismuth oxychloride as a
synthetic. So much for mineral makeup being the natural
solution to applying foundation and creating a flawless
face!
Actually, bismuth is chemically similar to
arsenic. That is more shocking than significant, but that kind
of fact is similar to what mineral makeup companies use to
make you scared of 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, the arsenic association 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 they can twist factual
information to make other cosmetic company ingredients sound
harmful.
Unlike titanium dioxide or zinc oxide, bismuth
oxychloride can cause slight 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 due to 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 selling mineral makeup often speak of
the talc used in other pressed and loose powders as being
harmful and carcinogenic, but the research doesn’t support
this hysteria in the least. Although there is epidemiological
evidence that frequent use of pure talc over the female
genital area may increase the risk of ovarian cancer (Sources:
International Journal of Cancer, November 2004, pages
458–464; and Anticancer Research , March–April 2003,
pages 1955–1960) this evidence does not prove a direct link.
Further research has shown this epidemiological evidence to be
questionable. A comprehensive review of several studies in
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (August 2002,
pages 40–50) stated 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, filler material is inaccurate because talc serves
as 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.
Mica: is a mineral silicate with a
crystalline shine. It is used as pigment in most mineral
makeups (as well as in many eyeshadows, blushes, and powders
in general) to add a luminescent shine to the product’s
finish. Mica comprises a group of crystallized minerals that
naturally occur in thin, separated sheets. It is available in
a variety of colors from pale green to black, and is also
available colorless. Compared to bismuth oxychloride, titanium
dioxide, and zinc oxide, mica has a nearly weightless and
noticeably silky texture. Some women–particularly those with
oily skin–may not like the shine mica imparts because it makes
oily areas look shinier. And for those with noticeable
wrinkles it can make skin look more wrinkled than it really
is. In the long run this is only an esthetic issue which makes
mica a benign addition to any makeup, “mineral” or
otherwise.
Application: Pore Perfect or Poor
Performer?
Most mineral makeups provide opaque coverage (this can be
blended to within light to medium coverage range), yet the
claim is they do so while looking extremely natural, like a
second skin or better than your own skin, which appears to be
the case in pictures and on TV infomercials (and just like
every other makeup application created for advertising). 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 any dry patches on the skin because these
mineral powders—many of which claim to be moisturizing which
is just ludicrous given the properties of all powder
materials, which are absorbent not moisturizing—exacerbate
dryness and flaking.
For those with oily skin, mineral makeup can pool in pores
and look thick and layered just like any powder can. Generally
speaking, mineral makeup is best for normal to slightly oily
skin (meaning no signs of dryness and little to no problem
oily areas).
Mineral Makeup as Skin Care?
There is no research anywhere proving that
mineral makeup is inherently better for skin than other types
of foundation. You’ll find lots of individual opinions and
subjective information about this concept, but that’s true of
any cosmetic, especially if you frequent beauty message boards
and chat rooms. Looking at the facts, it is understandable
that some people may like mineral makeups and others wouldn’t,
but when it comes to claims of fighting acne, moisturizing or
cellular repair, that is stretching things to the breaking
point.
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 a common active ingredient in diaper rash ointments), 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 can facilitate 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 containing
enough zinc oxide to obtain a decent SPF rating.
Mineral makeup is often recommended for those
with rosacea, and for good reason. Most mineral makeup not
only provides enough coverage to successfully camouflage the
redness from this skin disorder but also contains only a
handful of ingredients. Given the hyper sensitive nature of
skin struggling with rosacea, the fewer ingredients in a
cosmetic product, the better it is for skin regardless of the
product. An added bonus: almost all mineral makeups are
fragrance- and preservative-free, a rare occurrence in the
world of cosmetics, but a real plus for those dealing with
rosacea.
Many women may have success with using powder as
a foundation, and mineral makeup is included in this category.
Mineral makeup, especially those rated with an SPF 15 or
greater, can be a three-in-one product
(foundation/powder/sunscreen) that can be somewhat easy to
apply once you get the knack for it.
One word of warning: as is true for any product
with an SPF rating, in order to get the right amount of
thorough protection, liberal application is essential, which
means a sheer light layer of mineral makeup won’t work for
protecting your skin from the sun.
If you’re currently using mineral makeup and
love the results, that’s great. The goal of this report is to
present the positive and negative points of this type of
makeup, and to allow my readers to make an informed decision
as whether or not it’s the right type of foundation for them
(perhaps one that is less messy, or less drying, or less
iridescent, or less cakey, which are all part of the problems
you can encounter with mineral makeup).
This report wouldn’t be complete without a
listing of the major mineral makeup brands and their key
products. The following list indicates the pros and cons of
each company’s mineral makeup foundations along with notes on
which ones I have found to be a cut above the rest when
compared to the competition in this category.
NOTE: All of the mineral makeups listed in this
report are fragrance-free.
Bare Escentuals
Bare Escentuals bareMinerals Foundation SPF 15
($25)
Pros: Broad-spectrum sun
protection from 25% titanium dioxide; mica-based formula has a
lighter texture than those
based on bismuth oxychloride;
Plenty of good shades for fair to medium skin tones; widely
available at Sephora stores or
the company’s own
boutiques.
Cons: Shiny finish that appears
sparkling on skin; can look heavy and be more difficult to
blend than standard talc-based
powder foundations;
absorbent nature of the titanium dioxide and bismuth
oxychloride can make skin feel uncomfortably dry by the end of
the day; may pool into pores and change color on persons with
very oily skin or oily areas; shades for dark skin tones are
available but the titanium dioxide content causes them to
appear or turn ash.
Bare Escentuals RareMinerals Skin Revival
Treatment ($60)
Pros:
Very absorbent for those with oily skin; available in a small
but good range of shades plus a colorless option; mica base
has a lighter texture than mineral powders with bismuth
oxychloride as the main ingredient.
Cons:
Expensive; no proof that the Jurassic Virgin Soil (the
company’s fancy claim for what amounts to dirt) can improve
skin in the prodigious manner claimed; can cause dryness due
to the absorbent nature of almost all of the ingredients; as a
nighttime treatment, this is akin to wearing makeup to bed,
which is never a good idea.
Bare Escentuals Multi-Tasking Minerals
($18)
Pros: Less shiny finish
compared to the bareMinerals Foundation SPF 15 above; the
Summer Bisque and Honey Bisque shades have 20% zinc oxide as
an active ingredient, rating SPF 20; may be used as eyeshadow
base or concealer.
Cons: Same as listed
above for the bareMinerals Foundation SPF 15.
Bare Escentuals RareMinerals Skin Revival
Treatment deserves a bit more explanation because the
list of claims for this pricy product sounds like Nirvana for
the skin, only better. For all intents and purposes the
showcased ingredient in this product is dirt. (“Dirt” is my
term, Bare Escentuals uses “Jurassic, virgin soil,” but by any
name, soil is just another term for dirt, although soil sounds
less, well, dirty). I do have to admit that seeing dirt
advertised as skin care is a first.
RareMinerals is supposed to contain 72 organic “macro” and
“micro” minerals (though there aren’t 72 minerals listed on
the ingredient label–just Organic Soil Mineral Concentrate–so
you have to take their word that these 72 minerals are present
in this “Virgin” dirt. But given they aren’t listed they would
only be present in trace amounts of less than .001 or they
would legally have to be included on the label). According to
the company, this mixture, along with the other ingredients,
will produce firmer, smoother, and brighter skin while at the
same time prompting exfoliation and reducing pore size.
Essentially, this is being sold as a one size fits all
“skin-care” product, “feeding” skin with everything it needs
to look its best and function optimally. That part is truly
over-the-top because first and foremost, this powder-based
product isn’t moisturizing in the least (minerals aren’t
moisturizing, if anything they absorb oil). Its mica (meaning
shiny) base and the inclusion of other absorbent minerals
prevent the waterbinding agents in the product from having
much, if any, benefit for skin. Actually, the formula isn’t
too far removed from the original bareMinerals Foundation SPF
15 only this one is a far more expensive version that doesn’t
even include sunscreen. Obviously rare doesn’t mean better.
Both are loose powders that go on smoothly and impart a
radiant glow to skin, the latter the result of shiny pieces of
mica.
The recommendation to wear this at night is just shocking
to me. Be forewarned that sleeping with this product on your
face will result in makeup stains on your pillowcase, and
leaving this stuff on overnight would most likely be drying
and irritating. Minerals–even plain talc, chalk or soil of any
kind–on the skin aren’t soothing in the least and needs to be
washed off, not worn to bed, and this product is no exception.
Getting back to the mineral claims, is there anything to them?
Does this “pure mineral concentrate” hold the secret to
revitalized, youthful skin? Regardless of the purity of the
soil, minerals can’t be absorbed by skin (they are just too
big) so any effect would be entirely superficial. Moreover,
there hasn’t been much research on topical application of
minerals, but we do know that whether they are applied
topically or ingested, minerals depend on other factors (most
notably coenzymes) to work, and even when that happens the
benefits aren’t all that exciting (Sources:
Cosmeceuticals, Elsner & Maiback, 2000, pages
29–30; and International Journal of Cosmetic Science
, 1997, page 105). There is no substantiated research proving
that minerals–whether concentrated or not–exfoliate skin or
have any effect on pore size. Any perceived reduction in pore
size from using this product is solely from its reflective
quality and natural opacity, the same as any other powder
foundation. It can work to temporarily fill in large pores,
but when washed off, any potential benefit is washed away at
the same time.
You may be wondering about the vitamin C
(ascorbic acid) in this product. According to the chemists I
spoke with, ascorbic acid tends to remain stable in an
anhydrous product, which this powder certainly qualifies as.
How much of the vitamin C reaches the skin is a question,
however, not to mention whether or not RareMinerals uses an
effective amount or if it can absorb past the powder and into
the skin. The bottom line is that although RareMinerals may be
unique in terms of its extraction process and its use of
virgin soil, those elements won’t translate into skin care.
It’s just another form of powder, and a rather expensive one
at that.
Colorscience
Colorscience Retractable Foundation
Brush SPF 20 ($55; $36 for
refills)
Pros: Blends smoothly, has
less drag on skin than many other mineral foundations;
includes a built-in, goat hair brush for convenient
application with minimal mess; uses additional cosmetic
pigments for a greater array of skin-realistic colors; proven
to be water-resistant (as is most mineral makeup but
Colorscience did the appropriate FDA-sanctioned testing to
make this claim); uses titanium dioxide and zinc oxide as
active ingredients.
Cons: Same as most mineral
makeups: can look thick or heavy on skin, has a dry finish,
and imparts shine, which isn’t the best for those with oily
skin; the darker shades, while strongly pigmented, tend to
leave a silvery-white sheen that can look a bit ashen;
definitely a mineral makeup to sample because many of the
shades for fair to medium skin tend to turn slightly pink or
peach.
Glominerals
Glominerals GloLoose Base
($37)
Pros: A finely-milled,
silky powder that blends beautifully and has a lighter texture
than most mineral makeups; soft matte finish with subtle,
non-sparkling glow; provides medium coverage while allowing
natural skin tone to show through, resulting in a mineral
makeup that looks more natural; several neutral shades for
fair to medium skin tones; one to try if you have normal to
dry skin.
Cons: Does not list active
ingredients so no SPF rating (though it does contain titanium
dioxide and zinc oxide); no shades for dark skin tones; avoid
the Beige shades–all are too pink; application can be
messy.
Jane
Be Pure Mineral Makeup
($6.99)
Pros: Silky texture
blends well; relatively easy to apply thanks to built-in soft
sponge applicator; small but good selection of neutral shades;
minimal shine.
Cons: No sunscreen; may be
too sheer for some; removing sponge to apply product with a
brush or different sponge results in a thick, chalky-looking
finish; bismuth oxychloride can make this feel uncomfortably
dry over time.
Be Pure Mineral Powder
($6.99)
Pros: Lightweight, almost
airy texture looks attractive on skin and blends well; subtle
shine; not as drying as many mineral
makeups.
Cons: No sunscreen; component
falls apart almost immediately; brush feels terrible on skin;
cap cannot be replaced after use without causing the brush to
splay; bronze shade can look ashen.
Jane
Iredale
Jane Iredale Amazing Base
Loose Minerals SPF 20
($42)
Pros: Uses titanium dioxide and
zinc oxide as active ingredients; finish is absorbent while
looking lighter than most
other loose mineral makeups;
beautiful range of 15 shades.
Cons: Colors
demand careful testing as many go on either lighter or darker
than they appear; can look heavier and be more difficult to
blend than standard talc-based powder foundations; absorbent
nature of the titanium dioxide and bismuth oxychloride can
make skin feel uncomfortably dry by the end of the day; may
pool into pores and change color on persons with very oily
skin or oily areas.
Jane Iredale PurePressed
Pressed Minerals SPF 18
($48)
Pros: Convenient, less
messy application than loose mineral makeup; strong matte
finish without an overly thick appearance; sunscreen is a
blend of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide; global shades are
non-ashy options for dark skin tones (and Jane Iredale is the
only company I’ve reviewed that offers convincing mineral
makeup shades for women of color).
Cons:
Not the best for those with normal to dry skin due to its very
absorbent nature; does not look good over pronounced
wrinkles.
Laura
Mercier
Mineral Powder SPF 15
($35)
Pros: Excellent sun
protection with 20% zinc oxide; enviably silky texture from
finely-milled ingredients; finishes matte with a subtle, not
sparkling, glow; blends better than any mineral makeup I have
tested; thoughtful packaging makes this loose powder
foundation less messy to apply and transport; every shade is
recommended.
Cons: Same potential
drawbacks as most mineral makeup; can look and feel too dry
over dry or flaky skin; can look thick and eventually pool
into large pores on very oily areas; limited shade
selection.
L’Oreal
L’Oreal
Bare Naturale Powdered Mineral Foundation SPF 19
($14.99)
Pros: Features titanium
dioxide and zinc oxide as active ingredients; uses talc and a
lower amount of bismuth oxychloride for a less shiny finish
which is a nice change from the typical iridescence found in
most “mineral” makeups; built-in, dense brush is well-suited
for applying this type of makeup and helps minimize
mess.
Cons: Not nearly as lightweight as
the magazine ads imply; the amount of titanium dioxide and
zinc oxide lends a heavy, opaque finish that is difficult to
soften (and applying this sheer negates its sun
protection).
Monave
Monave
Loose Mineral Foundation ($25; $2.50 for
sample-size jars)
Pros: Offers
samples of every shade for a nominal fee; very absorbent
finish keeps oil in check for hours; full coverage for serious
discolorations; minimal shine on the light to medium
shades.
Cons: So concentrated that even a
sheer application produces opaque coverage that looks dry and
chalky; difficult to blend; brags about its full-spectrum
sunscreen but does not list active ingredients nor an SPF
rating; shades darken or lighten when applied, which makes
finding the best match more of a challenge; the darker shades
have a strong shimmer finish that makes the face look too
glow-y.
Neutrogena
Neutrogena Mineral Sheers Mineral Powder
Foundation
($11.99)
Pros: Packaging includes a
built-in brush which makes for minimal mess; application
method allows for sheer coverage; layers well for additional
coverage; small but good selection of shades.
Cons: Despite the convenience, the
included brush isn’t nearly as nice as brushes sold separately
with the softness and density needed to apply this type of
product; no sunscreen; tends to make oily areas look flaky and
flat before the end of the day; no shades for dark skin tones
unless you want lots of sparkles.
philosophy
philosophy the supernatural powder airbrushed
canvas SPF 15
($35)
Pros: Sunscreen active is
zinc oxide; built-in sponge applicator makes for a convenient,
minimally messy application; sponge may be removed and washed
to keep it sanitary; long-wearing matte finish suitable for
keeping very oily skin in check; sheer to light
coverage.
Cons: Contains more bismuth
oxychloride than most mineral makeups, thus can be more drying
to skin; finish is more sparkling than shiny, which isn’t the
best for daytime wear; attempting to build meaningful coverage
results in a heavy look that doesn’t wear as well over dry or
oily areas.
Pürminerals
Pürminerals 4-in-1 Pressed Mineral
Makeup SPF 15
($24.50)
Pros: Sole active
ingredient is titanium dioxide; mica- and boron nitride-based
formula is dry but unusually silky; smooth application that
blends better than most mineral makeup; soft glow finish makes
skin look dimensional rather than sparkly; shades for fair to
dark skin; sheer to medium coverage that doesn’t look thick;
good for all but very dry skin; doubles as a setting powder
over liquid foundation.
Cons: Despite
the name, this product more closely resembles a really good
pressed powder than a standard mineral foundation; can still
look and feel slightly dry and wild exaggerate dry patches of
skin.
Pürminerals Mineral Loose Translucent
Foundation
($21.50)
Pros: Dry, silky texture
is ideal for oily skin assuming you’re OK with a soft shine
finish; silica contributes to its absorbent finish without
feeling heavy or looking thick on skin; unlikely to pool in
pores or turn color on oily skin.
Cons: No
sunscreen; only one shade and it’s not translucent enough for
tan to dark skin tones; coverage is too sheer to successfully
diminish redness as claimed.
Sheer Cover
Sheer Cover
Pressed Mineral Foundation ($30; $19.95 member
price)
Pros: Beautifully soft, silky
texture blends better than most mineral makeup, be it pressed
or loose; sheer to medium coverage whose finish feels matte
but leaves a soft glow; does not look thick or powdery; small
but outstanding shade selection.
Cons:
Formula is closer to a pressed powder foundation, though
that’s a plus for some; no sunscreen; no shades for very dark
skin.
Sheer Cover Mineral Foundation
($26.95; $16.95 member
price)
Pros: Finely-milled powder
makes the drying minerals (titanium dioxide and bismuth
oxychloride) apply less opaquely; natural matte (in feel)
finish that remains absorbent without being chalky; eight
mostly neutral shades (avoid Almond and
Nude).
Cons: No active ingredients listed,
thus no SPF rating; despite the finely-milled texture it can
still be overly drying and turn color over oily areas; very
sparkly finish; powder brushes that accompany the Sheer Cover
Intro Kit are inferior.
Skin Alison Raffaele
Skin
Alison Raffaele Mineral Powder Foundation
($29.50)
Pros: Very simple
formula is suitable for sensitive or rosacea-afflicted skin;
mica base contributes to a lighter-than usual texture; sheer
to medium coverage, with zinc oxide supplying some opacity and
a dry finish; very neutral shade
range.
Cons: No sunscreen actives listed,
no SPF rating; can be too drying for normal to dry skin;
slightly shiny finish may not please those with oily skin; the
darkest shade looks ash; no shades for very dark skin.
Urban Decay
Urban Decay Surreal Skin Mineral
Makeup ($28)
Pros: Built-in sponge
applicator minimizes mess and allows for quick application;
otherwise, shares the same positive traits as the Bare
Escentuals bareMinerals Foundation SPF 15 above, minus the
sunscreen; small shade selection but all of them are
good.
Cons: Same as Bare Escentuals
bareMinerals Foundation SPF 15 above; no active ingredients
listed, thus no SPF rating; no shades for dark skin tones.
Youngblood
Youngblood Mineral Cosmetics
Natural Loose Mineral Foundation
($34.95)
Pros: Same as Bare
Escentuals bareMinerals SPF 15 Foundation above, minus the
sunscreen.
Cons: Same as Bare Escentuals
bareMinerals SPF 15 Foundation above except Youngblood did
better with their darker shades; no active sunscreen
ingredients so no SPF rating.
Youngblood Mineral Cosmetics Mineral Compact
Foundation
($37.50)
Pros: Dry texture has a
lightweight but very absorbent matte (in feel) finish for oily
to very oily skin (assuming you don’t mind a slightly shiny
look); provides sheer coverage that doesn’t look pasty; almost
every shade is neutral (avoid Rose Beige) and has options for
fair to tan skin tones.
Cons: Powder
contains rice starch, which may contribute to blemishes
because food-based ingredients can feed the bacteria that
cause acne; not recommended for anyone with any degree of dry
skin.