Mineral oils in cleanser

[Vanilla Pod]

Is mineral oil in cleansers etc really a no no ?,
found out today that my cleanser from Algologie has mineral oil and thought a brand like this would not have this ?

 

[Martin Duffy]

Depends really on the quality of the mineral oil. A high-end cosmetic product will hopefully be using cosmetic grade mineral oil, which is very pure, without contaminants & with virtually no comedogenic properties. A cheaper product will often contain a cheaper grade of mineral oil, thus increasing the likelihood of it being irritant & commedogenic. You get what you pay for as they say!!!

 

[shedunlop]

Yes I agree with Martin, there is a lot of confusion over mineral oils but a good cosmetic quality is fine to use.

 

[nailzoo]

Cosmetic grade Petrol ???????????

I would much rather use a botanical oil, than refined Petrol (which is what mineral oil is).

Mineral Oil content is an excuse for using a cheap alternative to quite readily available botanicals.

The molecular structure of Mineral Oil (which is quite large), only sits on the surface.

Think about it ....... would you like to use Petrol on your skin (no matter how refined), or a natural plant extract?

We are in the beauty industry, we are not mechanics doing a grease and oil change.

I'm amazed at very expensive cuticle oils containing mineral oils (which don't penetrate the skin or nailplate), no matter how many flower petals and a pretty bottle .......not mentioning brand names, that are basically a large percentage of Baby Oil available for a buck a gallon.

They are a blatant rip-off preying on the ignorance of the technician, then passed on by that ignorant technician to an even more ignorant client.

How they can even get away with calling refined Petrol "Baby Oil" is beyond me ......... and it's a disgrace.

 

[Martin Duffy]

The molecular structure of Mineral Oil (which is quite large), only sits on the surface.

Think about it ....... would you like to use Petrol on your skin (no matter how refined), or a natural plant extract?

As we're talking about a cleanser to cleanse the surface of the skin here, the issue of it sitting on the surface is irrelevant, it will be in the formula as a solvent & to bind the ingredients together to make it lotion like, not for any skin penetrating properties. In point of fact, cosmetic grade mineral oil does penetrate the skin, albeit slowly, and this partial occlusive property of the oil thereby aids reduction of TEWL. On a related point, there are no credible scientific studies proving that cosmetic mineral oil is comedogenic. Technical papers published in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology and the Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists have clearly shown that white USP mineral oil does not block skin pores.

Perhaps it's also worth bearing in mind that petroleum is a natural ingredient derived from the earth, and once it is refined to cosmetic or pharmaceutical grade it has no resemblance to the original petroleum. The half-informed scaremongering about cosmetic grade mineral oil, linking it tenuously as though it were the very same as the crude petrol that you put in your tank, is on par with the nonsense spouted about parabens, formaldehydes & their ilk.

 

[nailzoo]

nonsense spouted about parabens, formaldehydes & their ilk.

So what is nonsense? please explain what you classify as ilk?

No matter what you think ...... most people would prefer to wash, cleanse their skin with a botanical from a plant nourished by the earth, water and sun, rather than a derivative of fossilised dead animals and plant matter buried beneath the ground for centuries, before being brought to the surface as some black earth sputum we call petroleum, petrol, diesel, turpentine, crude oil, black coal, (or as in the Beverly Hillbillies would say) ...."Texas Tea", refined, then sold as a cosmetic to very cheaply replace, shall we say a slightly more expensive, but more beneficial and far more luxurious sounding botanical product.

Perhaps it's up to the educated individual to make a choice.

But no one seems to want to tell the client what Mineral Oil really is, or what it's made from.

Just one of the rules I go by, if you wouldn't eat it, then don't put it on your face........ But that's just me.

Don't Decleor pride themselves on no mineral oil and no preservatives, as do many other premium brands? Why even mention this, if these things are not important.....? and in fact a vital selling point that sets these products apart from other brands.

 

[Martin Duffy]

So what is nonsense? Perhaps it's up to the educated individual to make a choice.

Just one of the rules I go by, if you wouldn't eat it, then don't put it on your face........ But that's just me.

The part that is nonsense is going by the scaremongering websites & half-baked ideas of those trying to push their "organic" products rather than solid research; the self-same nonsense that makes people worry about UV lamps in nail treatments causing cancer & so forth.

Crude oil, regardless of how you describe it is as natural as any other earth-derived substance; just because the source of something doesn't sound palatable to your ears it doesn't mean it isn't beneficial, benign or safe. Take table salt for example, just because it's composed of sodium and chloride it doesn't mean it's caustic like chloride, or that it's like the stuff used by some in swimming pools, it's a completely different compound with none of the harmful properties of its components.

As for the wouldn't eat it part, I'd wager you wouldn't put the majority of the ingredients found in your products in your mouth, and as there is a huge difference between what can be absorbed through the skin & what can be ingested I don't think it's a very well-reasoned comparison to make anyway. Interestingly, mineral oil on the other hand does exist in food grade & is used in the food industry, albeit in small quantities due to its laxative effect.

 

[daisyl]

The part that is nonsense is going by the scaremongering websites & half-baked ideas of those trying to push their "organic" products rather than solid research; the self-same nonsense that makes people worry about UV lamps in nail treatments causing cancer & so forth.

Crude oil, regardless of how you describe it is as natural as any other earth-derived substance; just because the source of something doesn't sound palatable to your ears it doesn't mean it isn't beneficial, benign or safe. Take table salt for example, just because it's composed of sodium and chloride it doesn't mean it's caustic like chloride, or that it's like the stuff used by some in swimming pools, it's a completely different compound with none of the harmful properties of its components.

As for the wouldn't eat it part, I'd wager you wouldn't put the majority of the ingredients found in your products in your mouth, and as there is a huge difference between what can be absorbed through the skin & what can be ingested I don't think it's a very well-reasoned comparison to make anyway. Interestingly, mineral oil on the other hand does exist in food grade & is used in the food industry, albeit in small quantities due to its laxative effect.

Couldn't agree more. Martin, at least you base your posts and comments from recognisable sources and keep things in perspective. Whilst we can disagree on some aspects of skin health (botanicals being one) your posts are always of a professional nature with reasoned debate rather than spouting off at a tangent in an attempt to sound vaguely clever!

Interestingly - whilst botanicals are banded about as being 'natural' (and many other products - organic is a word often crops up) - I think it important to remember what is naturally found in the skin - plants aint one of them! So when using words such as 'natural', 'chemical free' - doesn't really mean a thing concerning skin health.

 

[Martin Duffy]

Couldn't agree more. Martin, at least you base your posts and comments from recognisable sources and keep things in perspective. Whilst we can disagree on some aspects of skin health (botanicals being one) your posts are always of a professional nature with reasoned debate rather than spouting off at a tangent in an attempt to sound vaguely clever!

Thank-you Daisyl! Although I don't pretend to know all there is to know about skin & product ingredients, I do try to keep myself informed as much as possible with the most up-to-date information.

As you know I use Decleor, whose USP is that it is mainly plant-based, and although like other high-end ranges they are on a reformulation drive to remove mineral oils, parabens etc, I reason this is more due to market-demand than any scientific concern about the risk of the ingredients being used!

 

[Suze1968]

[The half-informed scaremongering about cosmetic grade mineral oil, linking it tenuously as though it were the very same as the crude petrol that you put in your tank, is on par with the nonsense spouted about parabens, formaldehydes & their ilk.

[/QUOTE]



I have absolutely no wish to enter an argument or debate about this but wanted to say that I am surprised to see a comment like this. I'm certainly no expert myself (as a 10 years' qualified Solicitor prior to qualification as a therapist my specialist area, other than massage, is employers' and public liability law and not scientific research!). However this area does fascinate me and my reading does tend to support that the issue of paraben safety is far from conclusive. I am sure you have read these papers already, Martin, and probably have some of your own to consider and ponder over, but I have cut and pasted below part of some notes that I made following my own reading around ths subject.

"The research paper “Concentrations of Parabens in Human Breast Tumours” by Phillipa Darbre (lead researcher, Reading University) et al, which appeared in the Journal of Applied Toxicology, 24, 5-13 (2004) considered that further studies of the effects of parabens were necessary which “should enable assessment to be made of the impact of these weakly oestrogenic parabens on human health, and whether paraben accumulation from currently permitted levels in cosmetics, foods and pharmaceuticals remains acceptable.” Also of interest is the article by the editor Phillip Harvey, toxicologist, in the same edition which agreed that further research was necessary. An update by the same authors in 2008 concludes that “With the continued use of parabens in the majority of bodycare cosmetics, there is a need to carry out detailed evaluation of the potential for parabens, together with other oestrogenic and genotoxicco-formulants of bodycare cosmetics, to increase female breast cancer incidence, to interfere with male reproductive functions and to influence development of malignant melanoma which has also recently been shown to be influenced by oestrogenic stimulation.” (JAT 28(5):561-78, July 2008).

The finding of traces of parabens in breast cancer tissue by the researchers does not mean that the parabens necessarily caused the cancer, or caused the cancerous cells to grow . I understand that the study did not indentify what other risk factors the women may have been exposed to which means that the findings will have to be confirmed in larger studies before conclusions can be drawn about a possible role of parabens in breast cancer and I believe that the UK government amongst others is carrying out its own research as a result.

But clearly this is far from saying that there is no link! Even though it is not possible to link parabens directly with tumours based on the current studies, it is also equally not possible to say parabens are safe since their long-term health effects of exposure are essentially unknown. "From this research i.e. the 2004 study with Darbre] it is not possible to say whether parabens actually caused these tumours, but they may certainly be associated with the overall rise in breast cancer cases. Given that breast cancer is a large killer of women and a very high percentage of young women use underarm deodorants, I think we should be carrying out properly funded, further investigations into parabens and where they are found in the body." (Phillip Harvey)."


There may of course be research in the future that proves conclusively there is no link, and therefore it is fair enough to state it is “not proven” – but “nonsense”? As matters presently stand a bold statement such as that is plainly wrong and there is definitely something to be said for advising our more cautious clients of the precautionary principle.

All this vehement denial calls to mind the publication of an article “Cancer by the Carton” in the U.S. Readers Digest 1952. Within 2 years of publication the tobacco industry faced its first litigation. The Court accepted the proposition that there was no conclusive evidence that smoking cigarettes caused cancer and was the first in a series of around 300 consecutive successful wins at court for the US tobacco industry. As recently as the 1960s and early 1970s people in the UK happily and ignorantly smoked their cigarettes. Are parabens the new cigarettes? Quite frankly I do not yet know – but significantly, neither do you.

 

[Martin Duffy]

I have no wish to take this thread off of its topic, which is mineral oils in products, especially as we did the parabens in cosmetics to death quite some time ago. However, just briefly, the studies done were 'preliminary' studies & not conclusive, the amount of parabens mentioned in the studies far exceed that used in normal skincare products, no studies have shown that parabens are found in higher concentration in breast tumor samples than in any other type of human body tissue, neither has it ever been established that parabens were the cause of the breast tumors. Further to this, studies have shown that parabens applied to the skin have no cumulative effect after 36 hours of application. In point of fact, there are very few deoderants that actually do contain parabens anyway!

Thus based on the weight of all the evidence I have ever come across & the advice of most authorities on the subject, rather than a very small number of studies of highly questionable relevance, I have to come to the conclusion that the likelihood of risk is pretty much nil. You may find p329 of Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles & Practice by Leslie Baumann of interest, as well as the following link:

Parabens - Safe and Non Toxic says Chemical Industry?

 

[Suze1968]

All I am saying is that it is critical to distinguish fact from opinion. We all have opinions and are entitled to them but opinions should not and must not be touted as fact - and in my opinion that is a point worth making !!!

 

[Martin Duffy]

All I am saying is that it is critical to distinguish fact from opinion. We all have opinions and are entitled to them but opinions should not and must not be touted as fact - and in my opinion that is a point worth making !!!

I would argue that there are no 'facts' in science anyway, only measurements & assumptions. The closest we can come to a fact (to quote a scientist) is when something has "been determined so many times by different researchers and different techniques that we can treat a narrow range of values by consensus as if they were absolute facts. An example would be considering the boiling point of methanol at 1 atm to be 65C within one degree of accuracy. For most purposes that will suffice, as long as we understand the source of our confidence.”

Thus I would suggest that the idea that parabens, as used in cosmetics, are safe is far from a mere opinion, and much closer to fact.

 

[Spa Therapist]

Hi, this may seem like a simple question compared to all that's being discussed, but I've always been taught that mineral oil doesn't penetrate the skin... Yet we use a very cheap mineral oil for basic massage (Elemis oils for Elemis massages) and quite often if my client has particularly dry skin the oil will just soak right in and I'll have to re-apply... So it must penetrate, right?

 

[Suze1968]

I would argue that there are no 'facts' in science anyway, only measurements & assumptions. The closest we can come to a fact (to quote a scientist) is when something has "been determined so many times by different researchers and different techniques that we can treat a narrow range of values by consensus as if they were absolute facts. An example would be considering the boiling point of methanol at 1 atm to be 65C within one degree of accuracy. For most purposes that will suffice, as long as we understand the source of our confidence.”

Thus I would suggest that the idea that parabens, as used in cosmetics, are safe is far from a mere opinion, and much closer to fact.

Yes that's right Martin, just like the many scientists who contributed to developing a massive body of authority relied on by the courts back in the day who said, with confidence, that smoking was not harmful.

 

[Martin Duffy]

Yes that's right Martin, just like the many scientists who contributed to developing a massive body of authority relied on by the courts back in the day who said, with confidence, that smoking was not harmful.

Besides there being a huge difference between science & the peer review processes etc between 1960 & 2010 (especially as much of the body of evidence you are talking about wasn't independent but provided & paid for by the cigarette companies themselves, which is not the case with parabens), there is also a big difference between something ingested orally & applied to the skin, especially when parabens have been demonstrated not to accumulate in the body over a 36 hour period. We are also talking about a massive difference in quantity of ingredient.

I'm sorry but beyond that I'm not going to get into discussions of conspiracy theories, I'd rather keep it on track & utilise the overwhelming existing body of (mostly independent) evidence rather than a single preliminary inconclusive study.

 

[Martin Duffy]

Hi, this may seem like a simple question compared to all that's being discussed, but I've always been taught that mineral oil doesn't penetrate the skin... Yet we use a very cheap mineral oil for basic massage (Elemis oils for Elemis massages) and quite often if my client has particularly dry skin the oil will just soak right in and I'll have to re-apply... So it must penetrate, right?

At least this gets us back on topic!! A small quantitiy of mineral oil does penetrate the skin eventually, just very very slowly, and if you have a client with dry skin & combine it with the increased absorption you get from massage, some of it will be going into the upper layers of the epidermis. It's actually for that reason quite a good ingredient for dry skin, combined with other things, as it forms an occlusive layer preventing loss of water from the skin.

 

[Vanilla Pod]

Thank you Martin and Spa therapist, never knew i would start so much chaos

 

[weezie]

Apparently the inventor of Vaseline Robert Chesebrough who incidentally lived to 101 ate a tea spoon of the stuff everyday. :lol: So he was happy to eat it and put it on his face!

 

[nailzoo]

Apparently the inventor of Vaseline Robert Chesebrough who incidentally lived to 101 ate a tea spoon of the stuff everyday. :lol: So he was happy to eat it and put it on his face!

Yes, everyone should eat vaseline on toast for breakfast.....

weezie, you can try it first then let us know how good it is

If you/anyone thinks it's good enough, then use it, don't dispute it or argue, just use it.

I prefer not to ..... that's my decision/preference and my prerogative, you guys can do whatever you want ...... and you do, just like I do, .......

only I get bombarded when I give my opinion, yet apparently anyone else's is completely acceptable, no matter how hypocritical.