Silk Naturals

So I was just browsing the Skindeep database, as I do, being a geek to check out cosmetic ingredients of potential purchases, and I found that silica, which I have been using in blur, has a hazard rating of 7/10! Maybe that is because it is dangerous to use when it can aerosolize in industrial quantities (I used to use silica when I was working as a scientist, and we had to wear dust masks, gloves etc. - speaking of which, I don't know why I worry about cosmetic ingredients, because my work as a chemist is way more likely to kill me, lol ) but I was pretty surprised to see that one of the ingredients Karen is OK with has such a high hazard rating.
Karen, I would love to hear your feedback on this, as I know you usually read about the ingredients that you use extensively.

Hi Lily. Being a (fellow) scientist, I'm surprised that during your search for info, you didn't find that this is one of the most frequently discussed topics with regard to mineral skincare. As you will be very well aware, not all silica is alike. Ask any geologist! It makes up about a quarter of the entire Earth's crust. Yes, there are some kinds that have been shown to have caused health problems after (usually) long-term exposure, for example in workplaces. However the silica used in mineral cosmetics is very safe. It's way too early in the morning for a satisfyingly fact-stuffed answer, but it'd just take a moment to google-up details.

I worry when folks ask very good and sensible questions like these because unfortunately some folks can quickly jump to the wrong conclusion or take half-truths and represent them as cold hard facts (if you've ever tried to explain OCM to someone who fell foul of bad advice, you'll know what I mean about the dangers of "internet facts" ) But it is equally very helpful to re-clarify facts when concerns such as these arise.

Karen will be able to give you specific info. Given how well such things are regulated, no doubt she'll have particle size and all sorts of info to help put your mind at ease. Meanwhile, rest assured. Karen's would never ever to go to such lengths to research and then produce high quality products and then release something "7/10 hazardous". Holding her accountable as a consumer is good. But, ye know...

lilychemgirl wrote: but I was pretty surprised to see that one of the ingredients Karen is OK with has such a high hazard rating.

The highest respect to you, and sincere best of intent in saying this knowing how volatile the written word is in forums and all such things from which misunderstandings can arise, but that statement is also a little surprising given your obvious intellect and experience in Chemistry to know just how very variable a mineral like silica is and how closely regulated a cosmetic producing company is.

Hi Cupcake
I have to admit, I didn't research this fully myself, although the studies quoted in skindeep did relate to cosmetic usage rather than industrial , but I have the utmost respect for and faith in Karen, which is why I asked the question here first. I am sure that she has researched this, but like in my earlier question about the shelf life of silk, that info isn't available in any public forum, and I think it would be good if it were, even just the forum.
I have spilled a drink on my keyboard, lol, so everything I write requires lots of editing, lol, so I will leave it at that!. My intention was not to cause trouble.

pLEASE ESCuse caps, my comp is having issues! Some googling suggests that crystalline silica is the problem, the amorphous forms in cosmetics are OK
I think it is good for people who may be wondering to have that info out there
Cheers,
L1ily

Absolutely, it's great to have the correct info in circulation and I'm glad you asked. It seems that a lot of people take to mineral cosmetics because of sensitivities to 'conventional' cosmetics, so it's imperative to have accurate info accessible. I'm also aware that when writing a post such as the one I just wrote, one has to walk on eggshells as sometimes you'll cross paths with folks who don't take kindly to a gentle nudge in the right direction. I'm not the most tactful or gracious before the morning caffeine kicks in.

I have a bit of a love/hate thing with the Skin Deep database. It's wonderful that they're making information easily accessible to regular folks, but they have a bit of an "EVERYBODY PANIC" mentality sometimes. Because of my academic training I have pretty brutal, exacting standards for research. I ask really annoying questions, and when I read a journal article I'm not just skimming the abstract- I'm at one of the Cornell libraries reading the whole article, and looking at some really nit-picky things like did you use a Chi Square or an ANOVA when you ran your statistics (and what kind of ANOVA)- if you used a Chi Square did you do a follow-up test, and which one was it etc. If you used a rat I want to know what kind of rat because that can make a pretty big difference sometimes and the list goes on and on. And if someone tells me that something is perfectly safe I always think of thalidomide. If you or I had turned in a paper drawing some of the conclusions that EWG does, and cited some of the sources that they site we would have been laughed out of class.

The rating for silica on the EWG site has a big range- from 1 to 7. No, you don't want to inhale a lot of it- or any rock dust- or really anything that isn't air. Chances are most people are ingesting much more silica from just brushing their teeth than they do from wearing makeup, but I still brush my teeth every day. I've always wondered why EWG doesn't panic over water- you don't want that in your lungs either, and my guess is that water kills far more people than silica does. I know that sounds snarky, but they just bug me sometimes...spend enough time on that site and you'll never leave your house again- or you'll want to run screaming from it- off-gassing carpets are terrifying, and who knows what's in the wall board. It's great to be an informed consumer, but all of the research can leave you paralyzed sometimes KWIM?

We do wear masks and gloves when we're handling the makeup. That's just basic sanitation and lab safety procedures. We handle pounds and pounds of it, and that just keeps everyone safe.

Is silica safe to breathe in large quantities? No- nothing is. Is it safe to use in minute amounts every day? Logic tells me that it's fine. You're not eating it, it's not being absorbed into your skin, and your body has all sorts of natural defenses to air born "pollutants" so the likelihood that it's going to actually get into your lungs in enough quantity to do something is very very slim.

In real terms, if you have very dry skin you probably don't want to use products really heavy on silica cos it may dry you out more (you'd notice). But other than that, the amount and type you find in cosmetics is usually fine.

Wow, Great information ladies! Thank you very much! I feel so much better knowing we have a bunch of scientists here

karen wrote: like did you use a Chi Square or an ANOVA when you ran your statistics (and what kind of ANOVA)- if you used a Chi Square did you do a follow-up test, and which one was it etc. If you used a rat I want to know what kind of rat because that can make a pretty big difference sometimes and the list goes on and on. And if someone tells me that something is perfectly safe I always think of thalidomide. .

I love it when you talk nerdy.

karen wrote: like did you use a Chi Square or an ANOVA when you ran your statistics (and what kind of ANOVA)- if you used a Chi Square did you do a follow-up test, and which one was it etc. If you used a rat I want to know what kind of rat because that can make a pretty big difference sometimes and the list goes on and on. And if someone tells me that something is perfectly safe I always think of thalidomide. .

zeebs wrote: love it when you talk nerdy.

Lol. I feel the same way about skindeep, you kind of have to take most of it with a grain of salt. I do trust you though Karen, and as you said, we probably end up ingesting a lot more silica in toothpaste etc.