Thursday, December 10, 2009

Diamond Powder, The New Mineral Makeup Ingredient

Is This Really The Next New Fangled Ingredient?

Polymethylsilsesquioxane/Benzimidazole Diamond that is certainly a mouthful!

I was recently asked by several customers about a new ingredient that is beginning to arrive on the mineral makeup scene and whether or not I would find it a benefit to my mineral makeup line?

Several companies are touting the benefit of how much younger one will look when using a mineral powder containing this ingredient. Some sell it as is, such as a mineral veil, repackaged under their own business label, and some sell it combined with other base powders for a complete makeup effect.

Polymethylsilsesquioxane/benzimidazole diamond copolymer may sound fairly new, however the composition in part of this miracle powder is not so new and is being used in many commercial brands of cosmetics and skincare applications across the board. Furthermore, they incorporate FD&C Dyes as their colorants for color correcting skin tones.

Grant Industries is the only company that makes this new polymer and has applied for a broad patent for their new version of this latest technology and they recently launched it this past summer. Their version is referred to as Granpowder Lumiere. In reviewing their information and the potential for sampling, I found the research interesting and informative.

From Their Website:

"While the particles were developed as a novel ingredient for cosmetics, a broad patent was filed by Grant Industries and Nanometics that also includes many industrial applications which would benefit from a durable, solid micronized particle with core photoluminescent properties" said John Gormley, a Technical Director at Grant Industries, Inc. PSQ is close to the silica family and is highly crosslinked and therefore generally stable to most chemical environments over a wide pH range. Since the diamond complex will not leech out of the system, the particles can be used for many materials applications, including optical coatings and plastics. The particles are ideal for use in liquid crystal displays, where the refractive index of the polymer meets critical optical requirements.

Update: 1/19/2010

I have removed the ingredient breakdown from a consumers' perspective in working with Grant Industries to allow them to present their innovative technology in regard to its' composition. I have also provided additional UPDATES throughout the article for clarification and removed remarks that may have been misconstrued. The link to the article update is Here to understand why the changes to this portion of my article took place.

The Chemical Composition Of This Ingredient Provided By Grant Industries

The name Polymethylsilsesquioxane/Benzimidazole/Diamond Copolymer may be long, but what does it mean? For starters, the fact that it is listed as copolymer with slashes in between the listed components implies all of these parts are reacted together and regardless of the name, cannot be pulled apart into any of the original elements (which are typically called monomers) without first destroying the polymer.

One might be tempted to try and break this name down and learn something about the chemistry behind the Benzimidazole/diamond copolymer portion, but in this case it would be pretty misleading as there is no free benzimidazole, benz, imidazole or even free diamond present in the final product.

Polymethylsilsesquioxane ~ is a spherical, fine particle silicone resin exhibiting a very narrow particle size distribution. Its lubricity, silky smooth feel and water repellency make it useful for color cosmetics and other skincare applications. This polymer part, in its purest form, is approved for certain food contact applications and all global cosmetic applications. This component makes up over 99.8% of the copolymer in Lumière and forms up nearly 100% of the surface chemistry of the particle. In short, we are providing something like a food-grade surface coating with a fluorescent core of something that is cemented into the middle of the particle. This means the “core” ingredients will never interact with skin as small molecules, thus maintaining a great safety profile of PSQ.
Benzimidazole ~ This chemical component represents a chemical linkage and is a six member ring attached to a five member ring with two nitrogen’s in it. Other linkages can be made to the diamond group or other groups at one or more positions along the ring structure. At no time was any benzene or other potentially toxic chemicals used to make this final copolymer. In fact we use only water as the solvent in our process. Similar ring structures like this one are found in proteins, amino acids, foods, flavors and fragrances and many consumer products like detergents and the optical brighteners that make your “whites look whiter”. The end story is while a portion of this material is closely related to glass and silica, another smaller portion (<0 .2=""> is synthetic in nature, specific in structure and engineered to be “inside” the glass-like particle to give a luminous appearance under UV light. It is not at all related to toxic intermediates regardless of the complexities imparted by the chemical naming process.

Diamond Copolymer ~ This is not a separate component from the ingredient title as they are linked together as part of the copolymer. This is unique to Grant Industries and they claim it is real diamond powder encapsulated copolymer, which in essence is just another term for producing a silicone which assists with flow, and is a polymer chain made up of 2 or more monomers. This is what supposedly gives the high level of soft focus effect in the makeup with a light refraction of diamonds.

FD&C Dyes ~ These are formulated from Chemical and Petroleum processes and Coal Tars, and some have shown to have many complications in different forms. The FDA has not determined them to be hazardous and most are approved safe for food and cosmetic use.

Two Colorants Disliked By The European Union
UPDATE 1/19/2010 Links provided to latest information on these two colorants.
FD&C Red 40 has been linked to being carcinogenic and has shown to cause reproductive issues and tumors when tested on lab animals by the the National Cancer Institute. It has also been related to increasing ADD/ADHD symptoms and some have had allergic reactions. Once made from coal tars, it is now primarily made from petroleum.

The European Union and the UK made a move this year, 2009, to disallow it in products since they believe it is also linked to hyperactivity in children. It is already banned in Japan, France, Austria, Belgium, Norway, Switzerland and Sweden. Its' synonym is Allura Red, and the main concern is its' use in lip products where minute amounts can be ingested. Check your labels for this red colorant on any cosmetic product you may purchase.

Yellow No 5 has been linked to allergic reactions and skin sensitivities such as itching and skin patch discolorations, and is mainly linked to those allergic to aspirin. Asthmatic conditions became prevalent in those that ingested this whether in the form of a lip color, food color or vitamin supplement.
UPDATE 1/14/10: It has been pointed out to me by a commenter, who wished to remain anonymous, of this blog post which their comments are below along with my followup, that these two colorants are not used in this powder. Unfortunately these colorants are listed on the website of the repackager, which I noted in my article, creating possibly some confusion for my readers. Furthermore this commenter told me "I should get my facts straight". To which I reply, I received a letter from John Gormley shortly after this was published and he never took issue as to the colorants I named and appreciated my kind assessment of this ingredient. He only wished to clarify precisely that this ingredient was in no way related to the chemical breakdown above (now removed) which I stipulate to later in this article anyway as it is primarily from a consumer perspective. Upon clarification, John was satisfied with language as written. To quote John Gormley from the paragraph above "While the particles were developed as a novel ingredient for cosmetics", the emphasis on "novel". This was originally intentioned as something fun and unique. This ingredient has yet to be assessed by CIR (Cosmetic Ingredient Review) and is further explained later in the article!

In speaking with John Gormley, I felt I was reaching the best resource for my information and with him not refuting the possible inaccurate colorant list, then there is no reason for me to determine anything other than what information I can track. If you can't rely on the source of this ingredient then how as consumers can we rely on any information we receive? This only serves to make our jobs as cosmetic formulators all the more difficult. I placed the facts as they were provided to me through my questions to John Gormley.

Please realize, that those that make an argument for any ingredient, will have their own reasoning behind the use of the ingredient and their interpretation as to safety, yet without completed assessed data. So this commenter has her strong "like" for this ingredient so she finds herself defending it (unnecessarily) while at the same time deciding to educate me on formulations of ingredients through the use of disparaging remarks....fine, but my only advice is to also be sure of her facts before accusing me of misinformation since she was not part of the phone conversations or the email exchanges between John and myself....... Especially coming from a place of hiding her identity! I believe in transparency so I wish she had owned her statements without exclusion under the excuse of impropriety! My firm belief: if you can't put your name on it, then don't say it!

As to my responsibility to any mistakes made, in keeping with creating good will, I wish to share my sincerest apologies to Grant Industries for any failure on my part of providing the actual colorant list or the possibility I may have caused confusion for the consumer in taking a closer look at this ingredient through a chemical breakdown. I made no deliberate intent to mislead my readers as I provided a link above directly to the page for further analysis by my readers. Also, following this controversy of concern over colorants, I decided to call John Gormley for further clarification and in fact, the two colorants in question are used in the Granpowder Lumiere since they produce more than one version apparently. The version listed at the link above is only one version of this unique powder. It is my belief that the use of these particular colorants in some of their powders do not belong in mineral cosmetics and that as the manufacturer of this ingredient, I'd hoped they would have taken this into consideration as being relevant to today's standards.....but this is only my personal opinion and the consensus of many consumers and one that John seemed to share as I address later in this article.

I also wish to apologize to all of my readers if I created any unintentional confusion since I know many have come to rely on me as an accurate resource. Hopefully this latest update has clarified matters and I will continue to strive to doing the very best research by standards which can only be achieved when utilizing information, whether it be accurate or inaccurate, as provided by the manufacturers.

Safety Concerns

Like all ingredients on the market, they come with an MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) and this always shows manufacturing safety data for extensive exposure in manufacturing which in and by itself does not alarm me as a cosmetic formulator. What does concern me, is the fact that a couple of these mineral makeup companies are selling this ingredient as is, uncut or diluted in it's purest form. To date there is insignificant data as to the safety of this particular compound with no outsourced MSDS data. The ingredient manufacturer is required to provide their own to formulators, but I prefer safety data from numerous sources since manufacturers will provide their own evidence. There is no other testing to prevent bias which I have personally experienced as in the case with Bismuth Oxychloride manufacturers....Plus the research is not extensive enough in a push to get it to market.

UPDATE 1/19/2010 But remember MSDS is an assessment based on hazard and not risk, hence why it must be made available to employees of any facility which manufactures. The consumer by definition is not exposed to a hazard so risk is very low as with many cosmetic ingredients.

Specifications are always outlined on maximum percentage used in a cosmetic formula for safety reasons for the end user. The companies that are using this mixed in a formulation appear to be doing so at the recommended dosage based on a breakdown of the ingredient list, and this ingredient used in this context is probably more than safe.

Unfortunately, others whom are repackaging and don't actually formulate their own colors or cosmetics, are placing the consumer at risk since the customer is placing trust in a business that sells mineral cosmetics. A true formulator would possess this knowledge of reselling uncut ingredients in their full strength and realize it is not in the best interest of the customer and could prove to be a liability. Furthermore, if the FD&C listing of colorants is accurate on this mineral makeup site then they are also exposing customers to questionable petroleum processes and coal tar derivatives that have been shown harmful by researchers and scientists alike. There is also the fact that RED 40 is banned in the countries named above with others to follow, and if they ship internationally to any of these locations then they are in violation of their laws.

I located MSDS for the breakdown of the ingredients which comprise this overall ingredient and they stipulate the same under manufacturing conditions....blah, blah, know the "may cause" or "may be irritating" or "may blowup" (just kidding to a point, reference would actually be "flashpoint") I think I have explained these results to death in previous articles.

In Speaking With John Gormley

I decided to place a phone call to Grant Industries in regard to this new ingredient and posed the questions about its' composition breakdown as laid out above.

I found our conversation to be thorough, informative and extremely enlightening. He extended me professional courtesy and was very friendly in dealing with some difficult questions I asked.

Apparently, John is one of the main inventors of this new ingredient and is instrumental on retaining a patent. Basically to paraphrase here, he informed me the entire name for this ingredient is actually how it is applied for in INCI (International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients) and it is a Copolymer of the entire chain of ingredients in a single form. There is no individual breakdown of this ingredient as I have done here. He further explained that this name is actually the abbreviated version and it is a much longer descriptive. Unfortunately, a name can be misinterpreted as it has similar connotations of other chemicals on the market as was pointed out to him by others in the industry. He continued to explain that through this encapsulation within the polymer, since it is completely encased, then there is no physical safety issue to the consumer or fear of it being absorbed by the skin.

When I inquired further about the use of artificial dyes and the concern for safety in this regard, he again explained they are all fused together in the polymer making them safe. Since I am aware that polymers are long chains of monomers, then this would be a way to infuse it as one very long ingredient name and I find no basis to disagree on his points. He did however, concede to the confusion about the context of this ingredient and how it may be broken down and perceived by the consumer or makeup manufacturer based on the name similarities.

How will Campaign For Safe Cosmetics See It?

Eventually the watchdog groups such as Environmental Working Group and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics will render an analysis of this ingredient. There will come a time these entities will have a field day with the composition of this very confusing new ingredient brought to market. Based on past behavior, indicates future behavior, and it won't matter to them that colors are encapsulated, if they have a rating on FD&C colorants (and they do) then they will be sure to incorporate that rating separately into their ingredient profile.

As a formulator it was easy to understand as he explained it. However, I did point out that though he claims this ingredient is not meant to be broken down and is a complete chain of monomers to make a single indentifiable ingredient, the EWG and the self appointed consumer protection agency for bad things in our cosmetics, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics will draw their own conclusions. It is literally ingredients such as this one which make our jobs tougher at further educating consumers and rebuffing the attacks by CFSC. Most of their information is Black and White and they view most ingredients as harmful to some level.

Will they be correct in their assessments? In most cases....NO! As many of my readership already knows this group cherry picks information and scrutinizes ingredients unfairly with (eventually refuted) biased reporting containing large data gaps on most every ingredient they dislike.

However, with that addressed, I would also add, that even though the information is new to the industry which occurs with anything going under a patent, there is little to no real information about this ingredient except what is provided by the manufacturer.

Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily! In fact they may be actually providing an outstanding product for revolutionizing the makeup industry.

John did provide me with recommended ratios for formulation and it should remain under 5% to total formula. Apparently this gives a slight fluorescent effect to the skin for giving a beautiful luminous glow to the face and holds up very well outdoors in natural light. However, he warned about using it out in nightclubs in a higher ratio such as in a finishing veils, as some are selling this, since it can make the face appear whitish or with the colorants can get a black light effect. This could be really cool and fun for makeup application for the younger set, but a big no no for us older gals. Steering clear of this in the form of a finishing powder is best since we don't need Halloween year round!

Product Liability To Formulators

He also stated it was up to the formulator purchasing Polymethylsilsesquioxane/Benzimidazole Diamond Copolymer to have knowledge about the colorants and what countries ban them, and that they are in no way responsible for how it is distributed or for purposes of a specific use by these cosmetic manufacturers. He advised me until such time as the issue could be resolved with better answers to this concern on colorants, if I decided to try the powder in my formulas, to stick with just the white and add my own Iron oxides. The colorants were an idea for making the powders a bit fun along with some subtle color correction for problematic or aging skin and were advised by the color ingredient distributor as being safe. However, he recently learned of the controversy over these colorants and was not something he preferred either. Not sure if there is a plan in the works to revamp those with the questionable FD&C Dyes.

On one major point he addressed! We as manufacturers are responsible for what we place in our products for resale, and it is up to us to be cognizant of everything we utilize in our formulas....Safety, FDA Certification and Approval. And for those that ignore compliance for making a safe product, then they are in the line of fire with what makes the Campaigns argument strong and our jobs more difficult for convincing Congress of our intentions of producing safer consumer products than the large manufacturers. We must not forget the ongoing revision of the FDA Globalization Act of 2009 we are still facing.

There are currently many mineral makeup companies actively participating in using Artificial Dyes and Lakes in their products, due in part because they purchase the ready made products this way and repackage, and then there are those that simply wish to for a more vibrant effect...say in blush, lip colors or eye shadows.

Wolf In Sheep's Clothing!

Now with the Skin Deep Data Base and the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics, (not mutually exclusive) many of those that signed the compact are shown as being in "Non-Compliance" according to them, and this emblem is now politely plastered on every participating members page.

For those that did provide a list of products, most are still in non-compliance because they fall under CFSC's prohibited or restricted ingredients list or have not met minimum requirements.

For those I did find in compliance is further confusing since many of the companies contained ingredients that fall under the campaigns restricted or prohibited ingredient list with every box checked. They literally possessed ratings that are moderate to high range. This should prove that their rating system makes no sense and is clearly a politically charged one. It really doesn't matter if you strive to have safe ingredients in your products because the campaign lists just about every ingredient in skincare as a potential to cause harm.

This entity now disparages the many independent companies that supported their cause thinking their efforts were noble, yet their actions today speak volumes as to their true agenda. What they have done to collect signatures was basically nothing more than Astroturfing. Their true agenda shines brightly as we all learned last year that their behavior is a strong indicator as a major opponent of Indie manufacturers in petitioning congress to act on creating unfair FDA legislation which will put many formulators of your favorite skincare products out of business if they get their way.

I am confident they will use this disinformation based on their made up set of rules and cherry picked data, nothing in regard to true FDA regulations or actual scientific research as is provided by CTFA or CIR, to further their argument with congress in the ongoing writing of the FDA Globalization Act of 2009.....I am very glad I withdrew my support last year....but that is another story for another time. I know one thing is for sure, many of those companies now wish they had not signed on and want their names removed, and removal is not as simple, as they are learning the hard way. I will elaborate more on this subject at a later date!

MSDS On This Ingredient

Unfortunately, the final down side to this....I requested the MSDS for this ingredient and at the present time Grant Industries was unable to provide me with a complete sheet. The only portion I received was for the Polymethylsilsesquioxane. Once the INCI is assigned for the full name, this will hopefully be remedied, however, this is in a large way making my point about dissecting this ingredient into pieces parts when the company themselves presents the data in a dissected context. What is interesting though, the FDA has already assigned it an ingredient index number before the Personal Care Products Council (formerly CTFA) has provided the INCI resource for registering it in a product as a complete name..... so go figure. As with anything new to market, the details will need some refinement and everyone getting on board with the same information. For now, it is a confusing scenario, not only for me, but for the less informed consumer.

Nothing New Really

Bottom line, spherical silicone has been used in many makeup and skincare applications for years and is not unique to this derivative. They have been shown to be safe. The diamond powder component is the only part of this ingredient that is really quite different. However one drawback is, I cannot find that these separate components have been reviewed by the CIR (Cosmetics Ingredient Review) or at In fact there isn't even anything found in the skin deep data base which I find very unusual considering they have Polymethylsilsesquioxane listed in close to 300 products.....makes you think doesn't it!

When an ingredient is perceived to have great value for a company yet I cannot find substantial information on safety and efficacy of said ingredient, then said ingredient, though novel for being first to have it in your makeup line, may only become an albatross later on as new data and discovery become evident. I always play the wait and see game and time will tell in regard to this innovative Diamond Powder.

Even though John Gormleys' explanation was thorough and informative, I also determined this would be a formulators nightmare for trying to explain it's premise and /or ingredient ramifications as in depth as he did, or to try and convince the consumer it is completely safe especially when the name has the connotation of other suspect ingredients. It will be interesting to see how CFSC and the Skin Deep Data Base determine its' safety.

I already spend 25% of my time educating and informing my customers to the use of certain ingredients to date. I can ill afford to take on one more on a daily basis until such time as it is all made simple and clear as a unique and safe ingredient according to everyone in the cosmetic industry. I particularly want to see the assessment with the CIR for any ingredient I decide to incorporate into my formulas. This could take years before any real actual studies can or will be done let alone have conclusive results.

Known Examples Of Comparisons That Work Similarly

For instance, we use Methicone which encapsulates our Mica in little spherical silicone for a soft focus and will also temporarily fill lines to give the appearance of looking younger.

Our use of Boron Nitride, also has a similar effect of blurring lines and giving a youthful appearance.

The added mineral Titanium Dioxide has light refraction brightness similar to diamonds.

In combination these ingredients create a fantastic mineral makeup for achieving the same end result making this individual ingredient no better than any other and is completely redundant to a single formulation. Now as a replacement for these ingredients then it can be a shortcut to be sure, however I don't have information on how it would work for different skin types like Boron Nitride does. I personally don't see the need to fix something if it it isn't broken and it is not something that is going to be used all by itself anyway, or at least it shouldn't be for the reasons I stated earlier.

The Real Question At Hand

Is it safe?........Based on what we know about ingredients currently being used on the market, I believe in the context by which it was explained to me and the method of use, it is very safe as polymers and silicones go. It will be interesting to see how things play out as more and more in the beauty industry incorporate it into their formulas. The jury is still out on this one with conclusion yet to unfold.

For me, this is not an ingredient I plan to incorporate into my mineral makeup formulas, as most of you know me that read my blog and use our products...if I can't pronounce it or the chemical chain of how it is formed is too long to comprehend, then why would I expect my customers to do the same.

Update 1/19/2010: There are those that have expressed to me in an email, this ingredient can easily be called Lumiere, and this explanation is a "cop out" and just being populist .....

But hey, the reality is, I can't put it on my label that way can I? those that profess a level of expertise yet professional courtesy becomes lost by making such a comment, should also be cognizant of FDA Labeling Regulations. Trade names are not allowed whereby the customer is going to read the very long chemical INCI name on a product label as required by law. So this comment is counterproductive and served no other purpose other than to be condescending in tone when dealing with the facts of this article.

I'll be keeping my eye on this one, as time will tell to be sure!

Have a great weekend everyone! Christmas is close at hand!

Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


  1. First I have to say that I do appreciate your straightforward and open approach to your blogging- I do find it quite refreshing. As a mineral makeup formulator myself, as well as someone who is currently in development of products containing the Grant Lumiere products you talk about here, I do feel I need to clarify a few points you made.

    As for what other companies are doing with their formularies, I cannot comment on that. What I can comment on is the discussions I had with the lead cosmetic chemist at Grant who informed me that while the recommended usage rate is 5-10% the product is SAFE when used undiluted, or uncut. Basically, as he explained it to me, using 5-10% is all that is needed to achieve the maximum benefit, but for those who want to use it at higher concentrations (including uncut) it is in fact, perfectly safe. His comment was that he didn't understand why anyone would want to use more than necessary, but they could safely do so if they so desired.
    (Note, as my conversations were not intended to be published, I do not feel comfortable disclosing this person's name without permission on a public site such as this, but am happy to privately so you can verify my source).

    The other issue I have with your blog is the information you presented regarding the use of FD&C Dyes in several of the Lumiere products. While yes, dyes are used in several of them, you talk extensively about the questionable safety of FD&C Red 40 and Yellow 5, even explaining how they are in fact banned in other countries. While I don't disagree with your statements about these two dyes (honestly, I don't know anything about them as I don't use dyes), I am not understanding how they are relevant here.

    Per the information I received from Grant about the Lumiere products, and also according to the Grant website, neither Red 40 nor Yellow 5 are included in ANY of the Lumiere products. According to the website, both Red 17 and Yellow 11 are used in several Lumiere products, but not the ones you mentioned.

    In order to make sure I wasn't missing anything, I did in fact email my Grant rep to verify which dyes were used, and he confirmed that it is Red 17 and Yellow 11 that are used. I don't know what source you used to obtain your data, but it is completely inaccurate. Reporting on the unsafe nature of ingredients not even used in the Lumiere products is well; I don’t think I even need to explain why this is wrong. Simply put, your entire section titled ‘Two Colorants Disliked by the European Union’ does not belong in this article. While the safety issues you state about these colorants are true, they are also irrelevant as they are not used in the Lumiere products that you discuss throughout the rest of your article.

  2. Lastly, you make a point of talking about how two unsafe ingredients can be combined to create one new safe product (lye + squalane = castile soap), and you also mention how several other ingredients do much the same thing as the Grant Lumiere claim to do. You even go so far as to say you "don't see the need to fix something if it isn't broken". Well how do you know what is and isn't broken? As a formulator myself, I can attest to the fact that of the options you mentioned (Boron Nitride, Methicone Mica, Titanium Dioxide), none offer all the same properties and qualities that the Lumiere products do. Most importantly, in my opinion, none of them come close to matching the line blurring, ‘soft focus’ quality found in Lumiere. While you may not see the need for such an ingredient in your product line, there are many formulators – and customers- who are looking for something new as the traditional ingredients do not work for them.

    While Titanium Dioxide may have a similar refractive index (RI) as diamonds, anyone who has seen and/or touched these two powders knows that similar RI or not, they could not be more different. When comparing one of the most whitening, chalky feeling, clumping, sticky ingredients (Titanium Dioxide) to one that has unbelievable smooth, feather light soft feel, doesn’t clump but instead aids in lubricity and glide, not to mention is relatively sheer (Lumiere), the fact that the RI is similar suddenly becomes irrelevant from the formulating standpoint. I would consider it a fair statement that no formulator, when looking for an ingredient with a high refractive index, is going to reach for Titanium Dioxide.

    One last note that I feel should be pointed out is that while the Grant Lumiere products contain a “diamond co-polymer” they do not contain actual diamond powder. I point this out as Grant does in fact have 100% Diamond Powder available as well as a PSQ-Diamond Powder – both of which do have real diamonds in them, so by referring to the Lumiere products as “Diamond Powder” you are essentially confusing one product for another. This is misleading to the reader as you imply it is the “Diamond Powder” that you take issue with, when in fact it is the diamond copolymer that is found in Lumiere – and Lumiere is the product you were discussing.

    While I do admire your honest, open approach, and do overall find your information to be correct, this is one time you do need to be careful about comparing apples to oranges. You cannot make the argument that this product is "not so new" and then follow it up with saying you are waiting for more studies to be done on its safety. Either it is something new or it’s something that’s been around for a while- but it can’t be both. Again, I appreciate your reporting on things that consumers do need to know (LOVE your blog post on parabens), but please be careful about the 'facts' you present.

    Just today I read a blog that used your article here as its source for reporting that banned colorants are being used in the Grant products – a statement that is completely false – because the blogger relied on your statements as being accurate. Should she have checked her facts more carefully? Maybe. But since you are a trusted name in the mineral makeup business, why would she doubt you?

    So please, keep up the open approach, but be sure to get your facts straight before you do.


  3. Thank you for your comment, however let me clarify that I am always concerned by those that make their comments under a veil of anonymity. Why do you not state who you are as owner or formulator of the company you are involved in?

    Credibility is very important to me and I am out there in the forefront of every article I post.

    Why do you not name your source as to who you work with at Grant Industries? I openly remarked on my phone conversation with John Gormley. This is a bone of contention with me when others wish to make a point but won't divulge their identity. I dealt with a similar instance in my blog on Bismuth Oxychloride.

    Now to address your concerns...If you look closely and reread my post, I am remarking on the colorants with the formulators website that has these two colorants listed as part of the ingredient profile. I also remarked that if these were correct on their site then there in lies the problem. Hence my concern about those claiming to formulate their own products but don't actually. It is their misinformation that creates a problem, yet I will not out a company for their mistakes since I feel it is unprofessional and my goal is to educate my consumers, not tear down another business to do it.

    I will concede that colorants on Grant Industries is also different yet when I discussed my concerns with John and he also read my article and wrote to me, he made no clarification as to the colorant issue or to infer that my information was comes down to these inaccuracies that confuse consumers along with myself.

    When an ingredient is new to market it has no background for issues which may arise. Information provided by the creator is hardly a testimonial to it's safety as we are learning from other ingredients being lambasted as in the case of parabens. You obviously recognize the controversy over these ingredients and it has been ongoing for years. My article also centers around the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and FD&C colorants are disliked by this entity as many are derived from coal tars. And why anyone would want these in a mineral cosmetic is beyond me. But since I have located two different set of colorant descriptions, one by Grant and one by the reseller with no challenge from John, then how am I to determine fact from fiction or at the very least how is the consumer. I relied on the clearest resource, the creator himself.

    This is also why I state until everyone is on board with the same accurate information everything is open to interpretation.

    In regard to the Diamond Powder, this is the description that was provided to me by John Gormley and he states it is a diamond complex encased in copolymer and will not leech out of the PSQ surface. I ask you to refer to their own photo provided off the website as they describe it as a diamond core. However, I consistently refer to it as a Copolymer throughout the article and now we are debating semantics.

    And I absolutely can have it both ways in regard to the breakdown of this ingredient. Please reread the context by which I make this statement. Only the first part of this ingredient has been used in many products, but when it is being applied for under a new patent and INCI name, this makes it a new ingredient and in this context there is no actual real data as to the safety and efficacy other than what is provided by the company. If you had paid closer attention rather than coming from a place of passion and what seems to be some anger, I was very clear that as a whole and in the context it was explained to me by John Gormley, I believed this ingredient to be very safe.

  4. However, again I'll refer back to my article on Bismuth Oxychloride, a company's chemist wrote to me and made the argument how safe it was, yet I have studies and other links showing the problems with this ingredient. Companies that manufacture their own ingredients can be considered suspect until further data and research can be presented by other outside sources, and this is the argument I make in regard the CFSC and they will be watching. Those that manufacture Bismuth Oxychloride also make a strong argument as to its’ safety, however you cannot remove the facts at hand as more and more women come forward complaining of the damage it caused including information from the skin deep data base and CFSC.

    Now as to performance of the ingredient in comparison to the ones' I listed. Again I stated when used in combination.... I broke down their components and properties as an individual ingredient. My mineral makeup products have superior texture after formulation and are so silky they literally float onto the skin.

    Though it is clear you have a passion for your new ingredient, however, to make comments that certain things I wrote about had no place in my article, I can assure you they all have relevance and I treated this ingredient without bias. I clearly state the jury is still out and you have a personal opinion as to texture and feel of this ingredient which you are so entitled. Again Boron Nitride variations offer oil control and many different slips available since they are not a one size fits all. My formulas are about providing performance for different skin types and not just create a slip or blurred effect which this is all this ingredient was designed for.

    My customers want more than just a pretty face..they want healing, sun protection, repair and coverage.

    In regard to the blogger who quoted me, yes I agree she should have checked her own facts as I also do, however, what more could she have done when the facts I stated were either not corrected by John, overlooked or given accurately by the manufacturer. Perhaps your issue should be with the other reseller for inaccurate information since Grant Industries is the provider of Gran Lumiere Diamond Copolymer. Maybe her rep misinformed her and she took it at face value. Maybe there is confusion over at Grant with reps and employees not sure of accurate colorant lists. And though all your points are duly noted, unfortunately this is the problem of making snap accusations or disparaging remarks without having all of your facts in line with what could be many different scenarios, all of which were certainly not deliberate or with malice. As to how the incorrect information may have been attained....well this will perhaps remain a mystery, other than the obvious I stated above...don't you agree?

    Perhaps, if you are actually another mineral makeup formulator, sending me a private email as to your concerns would have shown a level of professional courtesy similar to John Gormleys response I received. I would have acknowledged any mistake I may have made and corrected it as I have done now. However, this is the forum you chose and I will never be accused of censoring a comment.

    However, thank you for making a point on clarification as to the colorants as I am pleased that they are not using the colorants stated by this other reseller. I still believe FD&C's have no place in mineral cosmetics...period! The colorless powder is probably quite exceptional.

    I have shown you the courtesy of publishing your anonymous post, however, I will not in the future unless you state for what company you work for or own since it seems to have the connotation of a cosmetic ingredient manufacturer rather than a formulator.

    I wish you luck with your new ingredient, however I stand by my stance on introducing something to market without further scientific data other than what is provided by the manufacturer, all for the benefit of being first in the industry to offer it. This is novel at best!

  5. I have updated this article for my readers for clarification on 1/14/10. Located at the colorant section of this article!

    Thanks to everyone!