Top 8 Safe Cosmetic Brands in the U.S. 2010 + 1 from Australia (Updated 3-3-10)

Discussion

104 Responses to “Top 8 Safe Cosmetic Brands in the U.S. 2010 + 1 from Australia (Updated 3-3-10)”

Heather, what is your opinion of the Jane Iredale line? Would you recommend it? Also, what’s you opinion of the Dr. Hauschka line?

Posted by Kim | January 11, 2012, 11:31 am

Reply to this comment
I’ve never worn sunscreen because I really cannot find one that does not break me out or contain questionable (in my view) ingredients. I prefer hats and sunglasses and staying out of the sun as much as possible. I am 57 and my skin is flawless. A few expression lines, but no wrinkles. I’ve just never been into the “tanning” thing. I do use LLA crystals mixed in distilled water every morning as a toner and some studies suggest vitamin c may protect the skin from ultraviolet rays. Or, so I’ve heard…

Posted by janicecaceres | November 8, 2011, 11:04 am

Reply to this comment
- Hi Janice, I have the same issue with my skin as do many of my clients. I always suggest the same thing, choose a nice organic/natural mineral powder and give your skin a light dusting with it. Not for coverage factor but for the sun protection factor! It feels light as air, wont clog your pores & give you adequate sun protection )
  
  Posted by Diana Roth | December 25, 2011, 8:22 am
  
  Reply to this comment
  - Thanks, I wondered how good the sun protection actually was on mineral powders. I use RMSbeauty and dust the t-zone with Larenim mineral foundation, around the “halo” area with a mineral luminizer, but wasn’t sure if that was enough, as the information seems to be mixed. This makes me feel better, as sometimes staying out of the sun is somewhat difficult…! (-:
    
    Posted by janicecaceres | December 27, 2011, 6:16 pm
- Hi Janice! The following products are top on the EWG’s safety list for mineral powders with sun protection. On their site they note : If you use makeup for SPF protection, you should know that many brands don’t give long-lasting, broad-spectrum protection. The EWG found only 20 products that they could recommend. They do not recommend loose powder forms which are very easily inhaled. http://breakingnews.ewg.org/2011sunscreen/best-sunscreens/best-makeup-with-spf/
  
  * Avene Tinted Compact in Sable/Beige, or Honey, SPF 50 by Eau thermale Avene by Pierre Fabre Group
  * Jane Iredale Pure Pressed Base, SPF 20
  * Jane Iredale HE Bronzer for Men, SPF 18
  * Physician’s Formula Powder Foundation, Natural Beige, SPF 50
  * Physician’s Formula Healthy Wear Pressed Bronzer, SPF 50
  
  Peace to you this holiday season!
  
  Posted by Heather | December 27, 2011, 8:04 pm
  
  Reply to this comment
  - Thank you, Heather. The problem with the EWG is that they list some ingredients as hazardous based on some pretty odd and questionable research. They are also wrong on quite a few things, such as actual ingredient listings–so something on their site is faulty, whether it is because they allow the companies to list their own ingredients or they just don’t check. I have other problems with them, as well, although they can be a useful tool if one is aware of their shortcomings. I’ve found doing my own research to be more beneficial, actually, and I’ve found nothing dangerous about most mineral foundation (sans nano tech, which my husband and I both feel is a technology in skincare just asking for trouble down the line–he is a research geneticist), as long as it is only pure non-nano or coated mineral and one does not breathe it in while applying. Just controversy about the effectiveness of sunscreen benefits. IMO, Physician’s Formula greenwashes- -a decent product, but, overall, the company is not exactly health conscious, and some of the companies who have NOT signed the compact, or “conformed” to what they deem necessary, or listed with EWG (I’ve used the tool to get my own product rating and, again, some of the results are highly questionable as to the research and ingredient use and testing) are still safe–just small or they have a good product and don’t feel it necessary.. Or European–such as Lavera, Sante, Logona, etc. Larenim–the one I use over my RMSbeauty when my skin is oilier than usual– is owned by the same company that owns Solaray (Neutraceuticals) whom I have trusted for years–it was my big seller when I owned a natural food store through the 80′s and 90′s (I’ve since retired). But, it is good to have sites such as this one, because so many people still don’t know about a lot of the hazards in what they are using, and EWG is a place to start building awareness. Thanks for your reply, it is appreciated.
    
    Posted by janicecaceres | December 28, 2011, 10:44 am
  - Thank you for your interesting and very informative comment! It is wonderful to receive feedback from women such as yourself who have had experience in the field. As you know from the disclaimer at the top of the page, I agree with what you have said about EWG. One only needs to look at the data gap percentages to realize how much information is missing. Again, as you say, it is a start for building awareness. The EWG is the first to say that more robust methods for measuring protection need to be developed.
    
    From their site: “Standard methods are needed to assess UVA protection.
    These methods were selected as an interim method for informing present day consumer choices. More robust in-vivo methods should be developed for measuring UVA protection. The American Academy of Dermatologists recommends an in-vivo method, such as persistent pigment darkening, or immediate pigment darkening (AAD 2002). However, the development and standardization of new methods is the responsibility of FDA and cosmetic companies, and should include a comparable metric that is relevant to human health. The cosmetics industry first raised this issue in 1996 (CTFA/NDMA 1996), and 14 years later, consumers still have no basis to know if a product adequately products from UVA rays.”
    
    Also of note on their site: “Friends of the Earth asked sunscreen manufacturers whether they use nanoparticles, and defined those as zinc or titanium particles less than 100 nm. Only 9 companies are listed as not using nanoparticles (FOE 2009)…We assume the following manufacturers use zinc oxide particles with a mean size > 100nm: Alba Botanica, Allergan, Avalon Organics, Black Opal, Blistex/M.D. Forte, Bullfrog, Tatoo Goo, Lavera Schwarzkopf & Henkel, Soleo Organics, Badger, EcoLani, Gaia, Kabana, Lotus Moon, Mexitan and Miessence — based on claims made on their website or claims made to Friends of the Earth (FOE 2009).”
    
    Best,
    Heather
    
    Posted by Heather | December 28, 2011, 11:50 am
  - Thanks, Heather. I believe DeVita also has a non-nano sunscreen, as well, which many people love. Too heavy for myself, but it has gotten some great review from people who cannot ordinarily wear sunscreen or who are wary of the nano particles in most of them. In the meanwhile, I may look silly with my hat and sunglasses year round (thankfully–I guess–we live in an area with 8 to 9 months of winter and very little sun during that time) but I certainly feel safer! My best, Janice
    
    Posted by janicecaceres | December 28, 2011, 12:06 pm
- Badger Balm and Ava Anderson Non Toxic are great!
  
  Posted by Nancy | December 31, 2011, 9:00 pm
  
  Reply to this comment
Please let us know WHERE we can buy these products in California.

Health Shops, Wholefoods, Sprouts, Vitamin Shoppe??

Thanks!

Posted by Des | October 9, 2011, 6:36 pm

Reply to this comment
Can you help me find the least expensive brand? I noticed on the EWG site that hydrogenated lecithin is rated a 2, yet this is injected to cause brain lesions in multiple sclerosis studies.

Posted by Amanda | October 6, 2011, 3:11 pm

Reply to this comment
Hello Heather! I am so glad I found this blog which such a fantastic list of safe make up. I stop wearing make-up long ago, then became concerned about the toxins and chemicals in them that cause allergic reactions. I was so paranoid about putting anything on my face and body that wasn’t completely natural, but even some natural products would give me allergies. I have used and tried and tossed so many different brands of skin care I won’t even remember, but I kept looking after I turned 30, because I started noticing the fine lines around my eyes, for a natural product that will help keep my skin looking younger; then some months ago, I finally found my DREAM skin care system. If you haven’t heard about HAVVN DNA skin care, it is the best out there! It is 100% natural, 100% toxic free, no animal testing. The company is so transparent about their ingredients and they are all listed in the website. Please check it out and e-mail for a free sample! http://www.myhavvn.com/havvn-dna

Posted by Maricela | September 22, 2011, 10:13 pm

Reply to this comment
Hi!

Great job on putting this together. I learned a lot. I was wondering, I have rosacea for about 6 years now. Is there some special tip you can give me on this? My skin doesn’t seem to handle anything. I will take the info and look for something just right for me, any tips are welcome…

Posted by rosacea dieet | September 15, 2011, 7:19 am

Reply to this comment
Hi. there. I would like to kow if you have any idea of a safe facil cream to use? thanks Linda

Posted by Linda | September 14, 2011, 4:24 pm

Reply to this comment
- Hi Linda! For a safe daytime facial sunscreen + moisturizer I recommend Marie Veronique Organics Creme de Jour, SPF 30, no nanoparticles.
  See more here http://blog.nurturenatureproject.com/2010/02/21/16-top-safe-and-effective-spf-skincare-and-makeup-products-ewg-recommended/
  
  Posted by Heather | September 14, 2011, 5:06 pm
  
  Reply to this comment
What is your affiliation with Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Act 2011?

Posted by Marnie | July 11, 2011, 11:52 pm

Reply to this comment
- Nurture Nature Project is not affiliated with Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Act 2011.
  
  Posted by Heather | July 12, 2011, 10:53 am
  
  Reply to this comment
I am from Australia. I sent an email to Coastal Classic Creations asking if it was possible to get samples sent via standard post, rather than their usual postal option which was going to cost over $30 (just for some cheap samples). I probably would have become a die-hard user, but I never even got a response to my email. Real shame that their level of commitment to ethical products doesn’t extend to basic courtesy.

Posted by Bo | May 16, 2011, 9:40 pm

Reply to this comment