Basically, "all natural" does not exist in makeup. Based on processing procedures, FDA requirements, etc, "natural" cannot exist. Any brand that claims to be an all natural (or mostly natural) line is lying. It's advertising hype. The reason being is that many raw materials have to be synthesized and put into binders in order to be tolerated by the face. Many of these ingredients are toxic, if not fatal, without this processing. The binders also help the product perform with the rest of the ingredients in the molecule chain of the final product. You also must add preservatives, or the product simply won't last.

The only way to get "natural" as you're describing, would have to start at the source: during mining and harvesting. Change the procedures to capture the material, change how those materials are transported, then find a way to make the raw ingredient safe for human use, get it to somehow mix well with other ingredients to do the job you need it to do, and find a way to make it last on a store shelf - without binders, preservatives, and procressing that takes out what is "natural" about that ingredient. To do this from the source would be ridiculously expensive, and there is no market for the end product.

The term "mineral" is also advertising hype, since all makeup is mineral based. Generally, though, the companies using the term will tend to put reflective ingredients in their foundations and powders - which for everyday wear is lovely. But it's horrible for flash pictures. An artist cannot carry everything, so s/he needs to concentrate on what will deliver no matter the medium. If a celebrity is doing a red carpet event, she can't have reflective makeup on. If there are any flash cameras shooting, she will look terrible in the resulting photographs. So we as artists have to really investigate a "mineral" line to be sure that it will perform the way we need - just as we would any other line.

As to skin irritants, this is largely an individual problem. There are a few ingredients, like bismuth, that are widely used that are also widely known irritants. Otherwise, what works on me may not work on you. And vice versa. Some companies, like MAC, are becoming known as being highly irritating, because they are adding more fillers and presevatives to their makeup (since EL bought them), which for the artist means that the line is losing it's ability to perform. It is no longer an artist's line because of this.

If you want "natural", the best you can do is fight for companies to use less fillers, less widely known irritants, and as few preservatives as they can get away with while still having a sustainable product that is safe for human use.

This is not a makeup artist issue, however. We are way too small of a niche market for makeup lines to care. The consumer is who they will listen to. When they chose to listen, a few companies will then contact us to play with their new line and offer feedback.

So, for now, there are no makeup artists with all natural makeup in their kits. And it will be many years, if ever, before that's true.

Remy, you had no right to publish any part of a private email exchange without first showing journalistic integrity:  namely, asking permission.

Mary wrote:
for all of the idiot artists like myself....

Please explain what green makeup is.

"Green" as the buzzword being thrown around to mean environmentally concious cannot exist in cosmetics.

That statement, however, is just my opinion.

Our industry is right up there with professional Hummer SUV driving in energy sucking and resource sapping.

Is "green" a commitment to natural? Well, the natural question has already been fully and concisely answered in this thread.
Is "green" a commitment to less packaging? There are several lines that have been moving toward recycled/recyclable packaging (Lush, Aveda, and Body Shop come to mind). Is that enough?
Is "green" a commitment to less resources used? Impossible. Everything from the manufacture of cosmetics to the sale of cosmetics to the usage of cosmetics suck up precious electricity, water, petroleum....

In my personal life, when it comes to the 12$ "green" face wash over the 1.99$ tube from Walgreens... I'm more concerned with the green in my wallet.

In professional life, I find I just really don't care. I'm already reading by the dim light of an "equivalent" CFL, flushing my toilet twice to get "it" to go down, and fighting with my boy about the pile of recycling that builds through the week. Me and my 90 MPG vehicle are done making concessions.

RemyC wrote:
Dear Constance, you have a 90MPG vehicle?

Hellz yeah! I'm a scooter kid!!

Even my winter car, a '93 Saturn, gets 30mpg on the highway. I tweaked that baby myself!

But as far as making it a "green" decision..... Gas is almost 4 bucks a gallon here. A fill up on the scooter costs about 5.50$ and runs me through a good 3 weeks.

Its all about the green in the wallet. How did Chicago switch over to CFL's? By giving them away. Why did window sealing kits fly off the shelves this winter? Because heating gas is creeping up there in cost too.

Until being a champion for our earth comes with some financial benefits, I don't see it happening. For the first financial year ever, our industry did not see "the lipstick effect". We're going to feel the recession hard too in a few months (unless some of us already are!). Aveda's "green" hairspray or whatever can Kenra sent me for free? You know the answer to this already. CFC's AHOY!

Mary wrote:
"Our industry is right up there with professional Hummer SUV driving in energy sucking and resource sapping."



What would make you think that cosmetics and hummers are sapping equal resources?

That statement was obvious hyperbole but I stand by the sentiment.

This is a rather wasteful industry. Its just the way it goes.
Some of it is essential, like keeping sanitary with disposables and using one-time-use paper products.
Some of it is useless like certian celebs that fly their stylists half way across the globe then chase them out in a huff.
Even the consumers that just toss product after product out because they're blindly grabbing whatever off of the Walgreens shelves instead of investing in a consultation.... Wasteful.

And the production....
Mary, of all people on this board you know what goes into the manufacture of cosmetics. Every product we buy contributes to the lights that stay on in those factories, the paper that gets binned, the emissions spewing out of the semi trucks that deliver both the raw materials and the finished products.
And the raw materials themselves.... I'm sure the petroleum in our lipsticks are a negligable drain compared to what we pour into our tanks but petrol is petrol and we shouldn't lose sight of that. Even the seemingly "better" choice of beeswax could be wiping out an entire species.

I had brought up a point about Green Room in a PM. Unless I'm mistaken, and I wouldn't be sad to find that I am, it is being produced in the same way as the core Smashbox line. Does planting a tree offset the environmental hardships caused by Smashbox's production, transportation, marketing, et al? I doubt it. In that case, the idea of being "green" is just buying into marketing hype buzzword.

Constance The Artist wrote:
I had brought up a point about Green Room in a PM. Unless I'm mistaken, and I wouldn't be sad to find that I am, it is being produced in the same way as the core Smashbox line. Does planting a tree offset the environmental hardships caused by Smashbox's production, transportation, marketing, et al? I doubt it. In that case, the idea of being "green" is just buying into marketing hype buzzword.

This is a huge point for me...  "Going Green" is a marketing ploy.  And jumping on the band wagon just cause a company is suddenly calling it's product "green" or "natural" doesn't make it so.  Actually researching and finding out what companies do and don't do, what their ingredients contain or don't contain, how they are produced, etc. all factor into it.

For example:  Burt's Bees products... aren't they proportedly "all natural"?  But you can hardly call them "organic" in the food-production sense of the term, and I very much doubt their production or distribution methods are "green" (whatever that means... who's defining these terms anyway?)

Cynthia ORourke wrote:
I haven't yet looked at the link and don't want to enter into the fray of publishing someone's words without permission... but I do think this is an important discussion to have in this industry.

As others have said, our lively hood and value demands that we use products that perform.  And that cannot always be "natural" products (whatever that means) but there are other ways to reduce/reuse/recycle and make our footprints smaller. 

For example:  I use WAY less disposables now that I used to.  I rarely use sponges to apply makeup anymore.  I use brushes that are cleaned and sanitized between clients.  I use less disposable spoolies, using a brush to apply mascara instead.  I used to use disposable plastic backed paper placemats (like they have at nail salons) to keep my work space sanitary and to protect the work surface.  I now use a handtowel that I wash and reuse.  I use to throw out velour powderpuffs after each client.  Now I wash and sanitize them and reuse them several times before they need to be trashed.  At the end of the day my garbage bag has used cotton balls, a couple of qtips, and some tissues.  Before I was producing way more garbage. 

Packaging:  Over packaging drives me crazy.  Opening X product and finding out that half the box is pure packaging with no product is insanely wasteful.  Buying in bulk and depotting, or rebottling items for our kits is not only easier on our backs, but is probably the smarter way to be a consumer.  But we also need to demand, not just as an industry, but as general consumers that wasteful packaging be eliminated.  Recycling of packaging should also be the norm.  Didn't/Doesn't MAC accept back used packaging for recycling?  EVERYONE should do that and these recycling programs should be marketed, well known and easy to do.

What else?  As makeup artist there is not a whole lot we can do about the formulations of product, but what can we do to reduce our impact on the world?

totally agree with you! great stuff

RemyC wrote:
Michelle is free to ask me to remove her name from our website. She did not ask for that. I am glad she posted the entire content of her email exchange with me, which I will link to this thread from her name since it is now public domain.

I have communicated with Michelle in private about this. There is such a thing as "fair use" in journalism, where one can use small portions of an exchange without permission. There still is something called freedom of the press in America. Imagine if we all had to ask everytime we mentioned someone's name or opinion!

I certainly meant no disrespect, and I think in this case, some was taken, simply by virtue of the touchy nature of the subject.

Remy, you took the quote out of context for your article, and your email to me was less than polite, and also accuses me of something that is not true.  Furthermore, you never once informed me that I was being interviewed, let alone going to be quoted in an article - an article, by the way, that completely misses the point.  You also did not retroactively ask permission.

Until you actually make an attempt to become a makeup artist, you cannot understand our issues.  Your intentions might be good, but your methods are disturbing and completely missing the mark.  Since you have not seen fit to respond appropriately to this issue, this is a very public request that you not only remove my name, but you remove my quote.  Find your "devil's advocate" somewhere else.

Cynthia ORourke wrote:
I haven't yet looked at the link and don't want to enter into the fray of publishing someone's words without permission... but I do think this is an important discussion to have in this industry.

As others have said, our lively hood and value demands that we use products that perform.  And that cannot always be "natural" products (whatever that means) but there are other ways to reduce/reuse/recycle and make our footprints smaller. 

For example:  I use WAY less disposables now that I used to.  I rarely use sponges to apply makeup anymore.  I use brushes that are cleaned and sanitized between clients.  I use less disposable spoolies, using a brush to apply mascara instead.  I used to use disposable plastic backed paper placemats (like they have at nail salons) to keep my work space sanitary and to protect the work surface.  I now use a handtowel that I wash and reuse.  I use to throw out velour powderpuffs after each client.  Now I wash and sanitize them and reuse them several times before they need to be trashed.  At the end of the day my garbage bag has used cotton balls, a couple of qtips, and some tissues.  Before I was producing way more garbage. 

Packaging:  Over packaging drives me crazy.  Opening X product and finding out that half the box is pure packaging with no product is insanely wasteful.  Buying in bulk and depotting, or rebottling items for our kits is not only easier on our backs, but is probably the smarter way to be a consumer.  But we also need to demand, not just as an industry, but as general consumers that wasteful packaging be eliminated.  Recycling of packaging should also be the norm.  Didn't/Doesn't MAC accept back used packaging for recycling?  EVERYONE should do that and these recycling programs should be marketed, well known and easy to do.

What else?  As makeup artist there is not a whole lot we can do about the formulations of product, but what can we do to reduce our impact on the world?

Cynthia hit the nail on the head. If you want to be  "green" Artist I think this is more the direction you need to be taking. Produce less waste.

I am sure people that are truely living "green" are not even buying cosmetics anyway. You would have to make your own from scratch from berries and stuff and sort of thing. I know ive seen many recipies for facials and wantnot that are all made from foods found in the pantry. Now these would be for a one time only use of course.

And I agree with the overpackaging ...its just wastefull..we dont walk around with the boxes in our bags. I know Stila using 100% recycled paper for there packaging with no wasteed space. and I'm not 100% sure but I think smashbox does as well. I think all lines should do this it would be a step in the right direction.

And does anyone know what really happened with the back to mac stuff? i'm not sure it gets recycled I think they just dispose of it properly.

Another point to bring up is brushes! the handles are made of wood arent they?? so do we need "green" brushes now as well? I mean whats worse using wood? or using plastic made in a factory producing pollutents??

I think there are more important things to go after then cosmetics. we're just a tiny fish in a big pond.

EmElle Makeup and Hair wrote:
this is a very public request that you not only remove my name, but you remove my quote.  Find your "devil's advocate" somewhere else.

Your name and quote has been removed from the GreenMUA page.

>I think there are more important things to go after then cosmetics. we're just a tiny fish in a big pond.

Cosmetics are part of an entire movement to green the fashion industry. Why isolate it to make an exception?

Your points about the brushes are also well taken. Wood can be sustainable, and so can plastic. It's all in the care these companies take in using the proper raw materials in their manufacture.

Again, my intent was to "start" something here, the fact that we're all here debating this shows how important we think it is. No, I am NOT a make-up artist... I'm an environmental activist who uses fashion as a vehicle for green change, because fashion sets trends.

Keep the green tips coming, this page is being viewed by industry professionals. The creative and innovative ideas taken from this thread could be applied in practice.

RemyC wrote:
>who's defining these terms anyway?
>what process would a cosmetic company need to change to be considered green?

These are all the questions fully answered in Stacy Malkan's book Not Just A Pretty Face...

So we must all buy a book to answer these questions?  You can't summarize for us?  Not a good way to sell a book, or an agenda.

RemyC wrote:
>what makes Makeup your mission?

Why Makeup my mission? Because nobody else was doing it. Someone had to.

But you are not qualified to.  You simply do not understand the issues. 

Besides, if you have a series of links to those folks/companies who are allegedly already going "green", then clearly the statement that "nobody else was doing it" is incorrect.  But because you don't know enough about our industry, you can't know if any of those folks/companies are heading in the right direction.

EmElle Makeup and Hair wrote:
then clearly the statement that "nobody else was doing it" is incorrect.

Because nobody else was initiating a debate in your community. Perhaps this is something you could have done yourself a year ago. Why didn't you?

I am not selling a book. I am only suggesting your read it. Because the issues are too complex to tackle in such a forum. My goal here was not to "debate" the validity of my mission or conviction, but to find like minded souls wanting to share how and what they can do or are doing to take their profession in a greener direction.

Your only intent seems to be contentious. My question to you is why such resistance?

Ashley Readings wrote:
Woah. Way to go Jackie Chan.

He's also kind of a pop singing sensation in a great deal of Asia.

I LOVE Jackie Chan.

RemyC wrote:
Because nobody else was initiating a debate in your community. Perhaps this is something you could have done yourself a year ago. Why didn't you?

We have discussed "mineral makeup" for years, and have found that as a general concept it is both hype, and the product lines not useful for what we do.  The lines know how to reach us and get us to drive sales in their direction.  If they really and truly want to go green, AND still make a product that is useful to us, the companies will do this.  They have not, and are too busy making many $$$millions off consumers to notice.

We will not give up the products that perform for "greener" products if those products do not perform.  You clearly have zero understanding of our industry.  But the consumer need not care about our industry, since their issues are different from ours.  You are preaching to the wrong people.

RemyC wrote:
I am not selling a book. I am only suggesting your read it. Because the issues are too complex to tackle in such a forum. My goal here was not to "debate" the validity of my mission or conviction, but to find like minded souls wanting to share how and what they can do or are doing to take their profession in a greener direction.

What this says to me is that you too don't understand the issues well enough to even summarize.  If you're going to sell an agenda, you can continue the politician approach as you have done so far - answering in generalizations while saying nothing - OR you can choose to actually answer some questions if this mission really is THAT important to you.

RemyC wrote:
Your only intent seems to be contentious. My question to you is why such resistance?

My resistance is simply in the fact that you are not qualified to have this discussion in any sense that is helpful to the MAKEUP ARTIST.  Go find the right audience.

EmElle Makeup and Hair wrote:
you can choose to actually answer some questions if this mission really is THAT important to you.

Start asking the right questions, rather than put into question my reason or qualifications for being here, different from yours they may be, in fact perhaps exactly what the doctor ordered, I might take on the challenge. It's true, I don't have your day to day experience. But again, that is not why I started this thread. I'm looking for others, more qualified than I, to inspire solutions.

If you don't see the problem, no solutions will come to you.

RemyC wrote:
I'm looking for others, more qualified than I, to inspire solutions.

I offered solutions in our email exchange last August.  I told you specifically where your mission to go green needs to start.  None of the companies you have linked to are following that.  Some companies may be "greener" than others, but they are not "green".  Since you have refused to even acknowledge the real issues to go green, and instead think there is some magic wand that can be waved, you are missing the target entirely.

RemyC wrote:
Start asking the right questions

Mary asked you questions.  You referred to a book.  You're heading this campaign.  We're not going to do your work for you.  Come to us educated, and answer the questions posed.

RemyC wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, is the only answer I can give you. If I was so far off the mark as you would like to make it seem, then why are so many of your colleagues contacting me privately to lend their support to our campaign? Perhaps your aggressivity towards me here is chasing many of them away from this thread.

Some are, and some aren't.  That is their perogative.  I'm certain you can at least agree to that.

I'm sure some folks have expressed a desire to go green.  However, their desires may be based on a limited definition of "going green".  They may also not fully understand "performance" issues in makeup, in part because maybe they are new or are not doing makeup for photography, film, HD, theater, and other entertainment mediums.  I too am getting contacted privately to discuss this in greater detail.

I've never once said that this isn't a good idea.  But, your mission must be an educated one, and the final results must remain safe for human use.  Just because your heart is in the right place doesn't mean that your plan is.  My "aggressivity" partially stems from this fact.  The rest of it stems from your lack of being honest from the beginning as to your plans for our discussion, and your improper use of my statements to you.  Instead of apologizing or even requesting permission, you insulted me, and made incorrect accusations in your email to me this morning.  This is not the way to make friends, and makes me question the rest of your tactics in this green movement.

Going green should be done safely, and with less impact on the environment that current methods allow.  For MAKEUP ARTISTS (not "muas") to go green, we must also have a product that will perform under various conditions, as needed for our versatile client base.  So far, these things are not happening.  When they do, I will consider switching products.