Wednesday, January 20, 2010

UPDATE: Granpowder Lumiere, Mineral Makeup Ingredient

Making Distinct Clarifications

I am publishing this weeks article ahead of schedule because I felt it was prudent to update some very important information on a past article I wrote that has some concerned as to its' content.

In the past couple of weeks my article titled: "Diamond Powder, The New Mineral Makeup Ingredient" has created quite the controversy for some. The actual name filed for under INCI is Polymethylsilsesquioxane/Benzimidazole Diamond Copolymer.

In my article I tried to be as clear and concise and remain unbiased as I could based on the information provided to me by the manufacturer and a link to a mineral makeup site sent to me by a concerned consumer and reader of my blog. For the most part it was a non issue with how it was represented based on that information, until I received a comment from a person using a pseudonym claiming to be a formulator also, advising me of not having my facts straight on the use of certain colorants.

I recently updated this original article referenced by dates in BOLD throughout its' content which can be viewed at the link below. You will also note the comments at the bottom of the article provided to me by the anonymous contact with my response.

As I will do and have always done in the past, if something new is brought to my attention I will update the original article to reflect my latest information.

Working Together With Grant Industries For A Fair Assessment

John Gormley, contacted me on 1/18/2010 by email expressing thanks for the updates since there was a growing concern by him and his company based on the controversy which was brewing.

After reading his email, I decided to place a phone call to John directly in order to work together to see if there was anything else I could do to clarify further on this Diamond Powder matter and to resolve the colorant issue once and for all.

The only thing John was actually more concerned over, more so than the colorants, was the breakdown of this ingredient which I have multiple times clarified. However, in always trying to see things from others perspective, I realized that my breakdown, as John explained which proved to have validity, may very well cause confusion for those less informed than that of a manufacturer and cosmetics formulator. Although he realized I explained the differences, it is the context by which some may seize on and spin it into their own explanation as to why something is "bad" and create an incorrect bias to the consumer.

Allow me to reiterate, I believe this ingredient is safe under the manufacturers recommended use of up to 5%, yet as to higher concentrations, on this I'll wait and see. Bismuth Oxychloride in the past caused very little problems for the consumer as it was only a minute amount at the bottom of a long ingredient list as well. And suppliers and manufacturers of this ingredient touted its' safety no matter what levels are used also. But once it became a 1st to 2nd ingredient in mineral makeup formulations, is only when we really began to see some serious skin health issues by women who have used mineral makeup containing this ingredient as is reflected in the comments section of that article. (Bismuth Oxychloride Complete Article)

However, make no mistake, silicone spheres or polymers are far easier on skin than BO since silicone spheres float over skin and fill in lines, while Bismuth Oxychloride is forced into the skin through the buffing action penetrating pores, causing irritation and creating cystic acne for many women.

I will typically not delete information, but only update it since I never want to be accused of censoring myself of any unintentional mistakes, or so my readers can also be privy to the original content and then the updates which can occur all the time on any article as new information becomes available, as in this case.

However, with that stated, after listening to John Gormley's concerns that this may cause negativity unnecessarily, and there are those that can and will take an article out of context instead of it as a whole, I decided to remove and replace the chemical component breakdown part of this article with a complete chemical explanation provided by Grant Industries. I would never want to be part of a smear campaign or an agenda by a watchdog group using my content taken out of context since this has been my complaint about these entities and some scientifically challenged bloggers for some time now...... Twisting things to meet a certain anti-ingredient campaign.

Keeping It Fair And Real

Out of fairness, my decision to err on the side of caution by removal of the portion in question was not done by any pressure exerted by the manufacturer as they did not ask me to do this. I made the call to them out of my own concern of unintentionally creating confusion based on information that can be misconstrued.

This is an ingredient that is not assessed yet by the CIR or any watchdog groups and is still under patent pending and waiting for INCI assignment. I also clearly state the jury is still out on this one and everyone needs to be on board with the same information. So this is why the complete removal of its' perceived chemical structure was the fair thing to do.

While we wait for things to unfold which can take years, then I believe the resolve is to not confuse anyone with a breakdown until we see how things do come to light over the increase in use of this ingredient within the industry and what and how the CSFC and EWG will break it down and review it...... Not put the cart before the horse so to speak! Time will tell, so I decided to not jump the gun on this one based on the connotation this ingredient name may infer. CIR is also a very important part of my updates as well as I give very little credence to the aforementioned two groups, yet they will make their assessment known eventually.

I asked Grant Industries to research the possibility of misinformation that may have been provided to the mineral makeup site that declares the colorants I listed in the article so this can also be resolved to the facts only. As it turns out, my list of the colorants are accurate and they provide two different versions with two different sets of colorants, such as those that would ship overseas with restrictions or where otherwise banned for use. They do not disclose both colorant lists on their website which I feel is unfortunate in terms of keeping the information clear and concise... this would go far in eliminating any further confusion to this ingredient. I have also updated the two highlighted colorants with links to the most current information so as consumers, we will be completely informed.

Furthermore, the only way to eliminate confusion to the consumer is for everyone to have their ducks in a row and I for one have decided not to contribute to that confusion through a chemical analysis breakdown in the meantime.

So I extend my apologies to Grant Industries and to you, my readers, as I know many of you have come to know me as a credible resource and rely on my information as getting to the crux of the matter. In this instance, we must allow for the completion of this ingredients application for INCI and then see how it goes from there. I will continue to keep things updated as they become available to me.

Stepping On Toes Occasionally

As in this case, those that will formulate with or manufacture any "favorite" ingredient are excited to introduce it and use it as an addition to improve their products and will see my information as a threat to their latest venture. Though this is never my intention to create controversy, it unfortunately can be the "nature of the beast" in bringing the latest and unbiased information out to the public.

Facts are facts, and as long as I investigate thoroughly and have the researched data to back it, I am comfortable with my findings and will not allow others to sway me or spin things to their liking, or let their false accusations or condescending remarks reduce my position when it comes to stating the truth. No matter the scenario, in some cases there still will be those that take offense to my assessment of whatever I am writing about and in a few cases make it personal on some level when it should be about accuracies of information provided. Furthermore, many of my articles are not just about the single ingredient I may address, but the industry as a whole, as I did in this article.

As I stated in the original article:

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.

UPDATED Response: 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 consumer 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.

However, if and when I do make a mistake, I will gladly make a prompt correction and publish the updated information as I have done with "Diamond Powder, The New Mineral Makeup Ingredient."

Thanks and Cheers to All!

Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape

No comments:

Post a Comment