| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Thu May 31, 2007 11:34 am  |
My recent visit to a Chanel counter at a Lord & Taylors department store and this is what the Chanel representative told me:
"Did you know that liquid foundation is a 'chemical' sunblock and that it doesn't matter if it contains SPF. It will still give your skin the sun protection it needs."
Huh? Is this true? |
_________________
56, Very Fair Skin, Oily with Mild Breakouts, Blonde, Blue Eyes, Irish/German Descent |
|
|
|
|
Thu May 31, 2007 12:11 pm |
| I'm not sure if that's true or not, but a MAC rep told me the same thing. She said she could't figure it out, but her face wasn't tan after using hte foundation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu May 31, 2007 12:21 pm |
| IMO I think the foundation would probably offer a very small amount of protection because it is a covering, but certainly not the protection really needed if you don't want the effects of the sun to harm your skin. We all have different needs, but I want good protection from both UVA/UVB, not just protection from tanning. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu May 31, 2007 1:14 pm |
Sounds fishy to me  , but check the ingred. Maybe she is counting a small amount of Titanium Oxide as an SPF. My derm always tells me to use sunblock under any makeup, no matter what the claims. |
_________________
✪ My go-to products: MyFawnie.BigCartel.com ✪ |
|
|
|
|
Thu May 31, 2007 1:35 pm |
| puglove wrote: |
| I'm not sure if that's true or not, but a MAC rep told me the same thing. She said she could't figure it out, but her face wasn't tan after using hte foundation. |
Exactly my case. I've been using liquid foundation most of my adult life and indeed I don't tan! Not even a little. It's true to all liquid foundations I've tried.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu May 31, 2007 2:59 pm |
Most foundations contain titanium dioxide for opacity as well as a variety of iron oxides for color. Both of these are finely ground minerals that function in the same way that a physical sunblock would - in fact, titanium dioxide is one of the two possible active ingredients in physical sunblocks (the other being zinc oxide, which is also sometimes found in foundations). It is thus correct that you would receive *some* coverage from using a liquid foundation. However, the coverage may not be even or thick enough to provide a sufficient SPF level. You should always use a daily moisturizer with sunscreen or a separate facial sunscreen for adequate UV ray protection. Exposure long-term can lead to age spots and wrinkles, not just tans and burns. Feel free to PM me if you want more info about selecting a sunblock, as it's one of my pet areas.  |
_________________
32, fair hair/eyes/skin, always a mix of dry/oily/sensitive/acne/clogged pores. But I keep getting compliments on my skin, so something must be working! Beauty blog at http://heliotro.pe; online dating coaching at http://theheartographer.com |
|
|
|
|
Thu May 31, 2007 11:11 pm |
| I agree with what ginnielizz has said. If the product is not labled with SPF, you shouldn't take the salespersons' words that it can provides sun protection. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:29 am |
| A minimum of spf15 is recommended so even if the makeup has zinc oxide or titanium dioxide,the amounts may be too little to give sigificant protection imo. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:32 am |
| I think they are just trying to sell you the item. If the product does have it, they would post it since the value of the product will go up. But, it doesn't meaning... there is no SPF... |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:54 am |
Some of the answers here are spot on. The TiO2 and perhaps even ZnO (if it is in the formula) are sunscreen active materials. They would be in the foundation mainly to adjust the shade and color of the foundation. To perform that function they only need to add a percent or two. This would only supply you with about an SPF factor of 2 or 4 (roughly speaking).
Now there IS a reason why they haven't put an SPF factor on the foundation or touted it as a "sunscreen" on the label. The extra testing and regulations that they would have to follow becomes hugely more complicated for a "sunscreen" cosmetic vs. a regular foundation. The sunscreen actives would have to be listed with loading levels in the formula. The product would have to go through extensive sunscreen testing to determine the actual SPF value on human skin. All of this takes time and a whole lot of MONEY...
So, they are taking the easy way out (cheating) and are telling the counter sales force to tell people that it has a sunscreen active ingredient in it and therefore will provide some sunscreen protection. This is true, but it's also a cheating way of going about it.
John |
_________________
President and Chief Formulator for "Never Over The Hill Cosmetics" |
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:00 am |
| John, Some of the powder mineral make-up manufacturers claim that the MMU powder is a natural sunscreen. Is this true or are they just using the same excuses? |
_________________
Early 50s, blonde hair (natural) with red streaks (mid-life crisis), blue eyes, fair skin, small pores, very dry skin, some pigmentation (thanks to growing up in Miami), starting to see fine lines. Love my NuFace and Quasar SP and the CPs and Retin A are working as well. |
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:17 am |
Well Racecargirl (love that name), they are probably using the same "loophole" method of verbal advertisement. If you look at the list of ingredients in that product and it has titanium dioxide or zinc oxide, then it does have some sunscreen active ingredients in it. The load level is probably pretty low, and therefore the SPF level would be pretty low if tested.
I have to be honest, a LOT of companies do this. The company that I work for has a demonstration product called "Natural Lip Protectant Lip Balm". It is a great product with jojoba esters, macadamia oil, beeswax, AND sunscreen actives like octylmethoxycinnamate, titanium dioxide, etc. We do not put "sunscreen" anywhere on the label. We have not tested this product for SPF factor (testing costs are HUGELY expensive). However, when we hand them out we do mention that the stick will provide sunscreen protection on the lips. It is a cheap way of getting around the rules...and believe me the RULES in cosmetic manufacturing are getting worse and worse every day.
Soon, the REACH program in Europe will be law. This may cause the elimination of large amounts of raw materials currently in use. It may cause whole cosmetic formulas to disappear or at the very least be reformulated. In the worst case, it may cause some manufacturers to quit because the cost of testing EVERY SINGLE RAW MATERIAL THAT YOU SUPPLY ANYWHERE IN EUROPE will be prohibitive to business.
I long for the good old days.
John |
_________________
President and Chief Formulator for "Never Over The Hill Cosmetics" |
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:20 am |
Hi John. Thanks for the reply. From an accounting point of view it sounds like the companies that will comply with the new regs in Europe will have to increase their overhead, therefore pasing the costs on to the consumers.  |
_________________
Early 50s, blonde hair (natural) with red streaks (mid-life crisis), blue eyes, fair skin, small pores, very dry skin, some pigmentation (thanks to growing up in Miami), starting to see fine lines. Love my NuFace and Quasar SP and the CPs and Retin A are working as well. |
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:28 am |
| The MMU companies I'm purchaed from do provide the amount of protection..some even go up to SPF 20. They must have been tested or else it would not have been on the label. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:34 am |
Yep, here is what I see happening:
1) Cost to the consumer will definitely go up.
2) Some cosmetic formulas as you know them now will either change, or disappear completely.
3) Some small cosmetic companies that you may like may fold up and go under.
4) New cosmetics will be rare, and will not come out very often if at all. There will be a lot of "me too" cosmetics since if one company paid all the price for all the ingredients, other small companies will ride that wave and make copycats.
5) I'll look for a way to retire early....ha ha haaa...
There are other things that are going to hurt us too, such as the requirement of big cosmetic houses that all suppliers must meet GMP regulations. GMP regulations, in my opinion, are a bunch of "feel good", yet totally unnecessary, rules causing manufacturers to "clean up" their operations. Let me tell you, most of us are very clean to begin with. But these GMP rules are just going to be outrageous and expensive. For instance, if I'm making a blend I have to wear a lab coat, hair net, face mask and latex gloves at all times. If I touch my face, I have to change the gloves. If I go to the bathroom, I have to change everything. If I cough I have to change the face mask and gloves. If I sneeze, I have to change the face mask and gloves. With every one of those bodily functions, I am required to go to the sink and wash my hands for a minimum of two minutes. If I go to eat, I have to change everything. Multiply all of those things over an 8 hour day, and I will probably spend at least one hour changing all the extraneous "personal protective equipment" (what am I protecting myself against, I'm making cosmetics for gosh sakes!). The cost of all of those gloves, face masks, hair nets, and lab coats over time will be enormous.
And that is just one example...
I'm venting here, but this is stuff the general public is just not aware of.
Google:
"REACH" cosmetics
"GMP" cosmetics
and just take a look at the mind baffling rules that we will try to have to follow.
John |
_________________
President and Chief Formulator for "Never Over The Hill Cosmetics" |
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:05 am |
I have always, always used a liquid foundation....for the past few years I've gone back and forth between Prescriptives and Bobbi Brown. Up until recently, I didn't use a sunblock...I now use one because I am outdoors working every day. Unfortunately, even with the use of the liquid foundations and more recently used sunblock, I now have a lot of hyperpigmentation.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:56 am |
| I just bought some MMU that claims to have SPF 15 protection. I haven't yet tried it though. I don't know the difference between chemical or physical sunblock. Which is better? Confused! |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:53 pm |
| John C. Hill wrote: |
Yep, here is what I see happening:
4) New cosmetics will be rare, and will not come out very often if at all. |
Hi John, its very interesting to hear from an industry insider. Thanks for sharing all that with us.
Regarding your prediction #4, I am not sure what to think - would that be bad or good? Every year we are overwhelmed with new products new lines that claim can do the same or better job. If it truly works better, why do they still try to sell you the old ones? My guess is a lot of "new" products are merely a modification to the old formula, adding a fancy named ingredient, write up advertising tone and call it a revolution. I would much prefer see a well formulated cosmetic line rather than a thousand products. |
|
|
|
|
| Sun Oct 12, 2025 11:35 pm |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
