What's the deal about Mineral oil and petrolatum?
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:40 am

SusieQ wrote:

This is so maddening to me. Mineral oil and petrolatum are considered to be the safest non irritating moisturizing ingredients ever found. They do not suffocate skin. Ladies you must read some of the cosmetic journal references on ingredients. These are the sources I always refer to when I question an ingredient.

You guys!!!!

This makes me so angry, sorry. I completely appreciate this effort, since there are a lot of ingredients out there scare people and that are completely anodyne. BUT mineral oil is not one of them. There is just as much independent online research proving quite the opposite of what SusieQ and Molly claim. The absoolute, unarguable truth is that mineral oil (i.e. parrafinum liquidum or petrolatum) IS a refined petrochemical. It is made in the VERY same crude oil refineries that give us our gasoline, our engine lubricants, and a lot of other 'hazardous' materials. When all those "hazardous" materials have been distilled through the refinery process, what's left is this "by-product." It is then "further refined" to comply with your country's acceptable human levels of hydrocarbons and polynuclear aromatic compounds, which are KNOWN CARCINOGENICS.

Now, we all know how the oil industry has lobbied the congress of my country to do all sorts of illegal things throughout the world; thus, it is in their best interest to maximize positive marketing and minimize negative repercussions in their production of mineral oil for the cosmetic industry.

For myself, it is the PROVEN lack of tight regulation on purity tests for mineral oil that makes me not want to use it:

Quote:

Purity Specifications
The most important purity test for petrolatum is the analytical procedure for PNA’s. Certain
condensed polynuclear aromatic compounds have been shown to cause cancer in animals and
humans. In the mid 1960’s, the FDA and others undertook extensive research programs to
develop a method that limited the PNA content of petrolatum and petroleum wax. The
Page 3
3
culmination of this work led to the test that is currently found in the CFR under petroleum wax,
21 CFR 172.886(b).
Based on the recovery of model PNA’s added to petroleum wax samples, Howard et al.
estimated that the total PNA’s “would be of the order of 0.6 ppm (excluding chrysenes and
triphenylene).”
4
Since the absorbance maxima for petrolatum in 21 CFR 172.880 (See Table 1)
are slightly higher than those for wax, the total PNA’s in petrolatum are around 1 ppm if the
absorbances are near the maxima.
Table 1
Petrolatum Listings in
Code of Federal Regulations
21 CFR 172.880 (Direct Addition to Food)
UV limits:
280 – 289 nm: 0.25 max
290 – 299 nm: 0.20 max
300 – 359 nm: 0.14 max
360 – 400 nm: 0.04 max
21 CFR 178.3700 (Food Contact)
UV limits: Same as above
21 CFR 573.720 (Animal Feed)
UV limits: Same as above
In this procedure PNA’s are extracted into a mixture of dimethyl sulfoxide and phosphoric acid.
After numerous washes the concentrated PNA’s are measured by UV absorption in isooctane.
This is the primary method for the analysis of total PNA’s as described in 21 CFR 172.886(b). If
the absorbances at this point in the procedure are below the limits set by 21 CFR 172.880, the
sample is considered a “pass.” We should point out that the 5
th
edition of the FCC, effective
January 1, 2004, references this same purity requirement for Petrolatum.
5
If the sample fails at
this point, 21 CFR 172.886(b) permits (in the secondary part of the method) additional “clean
up” to remove interfering compounds. Since this optional part of the procedure involves
numerous manipulations, reliable results may be difficult to obtain. It is industry practice to run
the primary part of the procedure only. If the sample does not pass, additional processing is
called for rather than additional testing. Using only the primary part of the procedure provides a
margin of safety in limiting the total PNA’s in the product. It also avoids exposure to benzene,
which is used in the secondary part of the test but not in the primary part. Benzene is known to
cause leukemia in humans so its use in routine lab procedures is avoided where possible.

and:

Quote:

Recent Regulatory Activity
Over the past decade mineral oils and petroleum waxes have come under greater scrutiny from
regulators, particularly those in Europe. Petrolatum is implicated because it can be considered a
combination of mineral oil and wax. The concern was raised because it was shown that very
small portions of the hydrocarbons were absorbed by a particular strain of rat, Fisher 344, during
feeding studies. The hydrocarbons accumulated in the liver and mesenteric lymph nodes of the
Fisher rats and resulted in the normal immune response that any foreign body would cause.
Absorption was found in other animals but not to the extent found in the Fisher rat. All of the
animals were able to clear the oil from their systems over time when it was eliminated from their
diets.
After reviewing these data regulators at the FDA have not changed the food status of petrolatum
or of petroleum wax and mineral oil. European regulators have limited the food contact of
mineral oils and waxes and therefore petrolatum.
8
Microcrystalline wax and high viscosity
mineral oils, the two major components of petrolatum, were rated as having the least effect on
the animals by JECFA
9
(Joint Expert Committee of the World Health Organization and the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) and by the European Union’s (EU)
Scientific Committee on Food.
10
These views are reflected in new regulations with higher
Allowable Daily Intakes (ADI’s) for high molecular weight mineral oils and microcrystalline
wax. It is important to point out that after years of animal feeding studies there is no evidence
that these materials have been implicated as carcinogens. A review of this work was presented at
the 2002 NPRA meeting in Houston.
11

I don't care that after "year of testing" these residual materials in mineral oil are not considered carcinogenic--I'm sure it is not causing cancer all over the place. The thing that turns me off completely to mineral oil is the details about its refinery process--in order to get it to be something that is cosmetically viable, they add all sorts of chemicals to an already hazardous material in order to 'neutralize' it--and being the oil industry--it is in their best interests to do the least possible amount of work in order to make it viable for human consumption, as the above regulatory process shows. It might be good for barrier repair, but I'd much rather but a botanical oil on my face, sorry! I am basically suspicious of any cosmetic company that uses mineral oil, since knowing this fact, I wonder about the integrity of their other ingredients. The bottom line is: mineral oil is in so many commercial products because historically, the oil industry found a way to market its leftover by-products to them. I assure you that the cosmetic industry didn't run up to the crude oil refineries to ask what they had to offer.

--avalange

free skin care · Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:55 pm

I don't know why some people are so resistant to the idea that we put mineral oil, petrolatum, and vaseline on our faces FIRST of all because the petrochemical industry wants us to, and SECOND of all because the petrochemical industry's waste product (i.e. mineral oil) happens to be, with regulatory and grade processing, an ingredient that gives SLIP and consistency to your commercial products.

We have CHOICES and I choose to be an informed consumer--it's one of the only reasons I can think of to praise our neo-liberal capitalist society. I don't want to be b*tchy at all, but several people who have 'touted' mineral oil and mineral-oil heavy commercial products on this forum and others actually say that they have the typical skin problems associated with using MO-heavy products--clogged pores, congested skin, acne, milia, etc. I used to have horrible whiteheads and dry skin when I used Clinique, Olay, Neutrogena. Since I've switched to nonMO-based products, my skin is glowing, soft, healthy and beautiful. I get the occasional zit maybe 2x per year.

I used an Estee Lauder TM this summer ONCE and it broke me out, like Lisey. The primary ingredient is mineral oil. Fact is, some people react to it, others don't.

And comparing Salt, a natural resource, and MO, a by-product of the crude oil refinery process, is like comparing apples and, well, merde!

Of COURSE we hope that our cosmetic companies use the finest grade possible mineral oil, but as of yet there are no "grades" to speak of, so how can you be sure? The article I quoted (from a scientific source, by the way) stated that the FDA chooses not to regulate the process (lobbying, anyone???). Rather than being the "safest, best" ingredient on the market, it is the CHEAPEST ingredient to fill up your products.

That said, I have nothing against using a cleansing-type product with mineral oil if necessary, nor a barrier-type product if necessary that contains it. It can be effective for many uses, but I would not recommend it long term, and there are other, much better ingredients out there that do the same thing. For myself, I'm lucky, the decision is pretty much made for me--it just breaks me out.

Sorry to rant, but you cannot just ignore the evidence and bend reality out of shape.

--avalange

Automatic Message

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.