Wayne Goss The Luxury Cream Foundation

As an emollient, it helps trap moisture in the skin. It is considered an occlusive.

Hectorite is a rare, white clay mineral.

According to perfume manufacturers, this ingredient is almost odorless but has a mild fruity, wine and plum scent. It can be used to mask the scent of other ingredients.

This ingredient can be plant-sourced or synthetic; it can naturally be found in cabbage and white wine.

As a co-emulsifier, its "head" and "tail" sit at the oil-water interface. But overall, the short C8 tail and not being water soluble means it doesn't really have the muscle to emulsify a formula on its own. That's why you'll often see it paired with a primary emulsifier like Cetearyl Glucoside.

Interestingly, Glyceryl Caprylate acts as a preservative booster. This is because its fatty-acid backbone disrupts microbial lipid membranes. It shows excellent activity against bacteria and yeast but is weaker against mold.

Typical concentrations range from 0.5-1% and this ingredient is generally non-irritating.

Because this ingredient has a C8 fatty acid chain, it is outside the range that the Malassezia yeast metabolizes (making it fungal acne safe).

The glycerin side attracts and binds water to support skin hydration and the undeclyenic acid side adds a bit of broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity.

Undecylenic acid inhibits the formation of fungal biofilm and the branching filaments that let fungi spread.

Typical use concentrations range from 0.1-5%, but it is generally used on the lower end and paired with other mild preservative boosters like caprylyl glycol.

On the fungal acne front:

This ingredient is described in the patent literature as a Malassezia-active ingredient used to treat an excess of Malassezia on the skin (Malassezia is actually a yeast and not fungal).

Though it leans anti-fungal, the leftover Malassezia yeast may feed on the Undecylenic Acid portion of this ingredient. Just know this ingredient may not be a trigger for everyone.

The unique structure of silica enhances the spreadability and adds smoothness, making it a great texture enhancer.

It is also used as an active carrier, emulsifier, and mattifier due to its ability to absorb excess oil.

In some products, tiny microneedles called spicules are made from silica or hydrolyzed sponge. When you rub them in, they lightly polish away dead skin layers and enhance the penetration of active ingredients.

Ci 77891 is commonly found in sunscreens due to its ability to block UV rays.

Synthetically created Ci 77491 is considered safer than those naturally found. This is because the synthetically created version may contain less impurities. Iron oxides are generally non-toxic and non-allergenic.

Synthetically created CI 77492 is considered safer than those naturally found. This is because the synthetically created version may contain less impurities. Iron oxides are generally non-toxic and non-allergenic.

This dye is commonly found in makeup because it imparts a vivid color. Some types of this dye change color based on pH level and interaction with moisture:

Your skin has a natural pH of around 4.5 - 5.5.

According to the FDA, CI 45410 is not permitted for use in eye products.

Red 27 is a flourescein dye and commonly used as a fluorescent tracer in medicine.

This ingredient is common in foundations, lipsticks, and blushes. This color is described as brown/orangey red.

It has many secondary names such as Red 6 and Red 7. According to a manufacturer, Red 6 usually contains aluminum.

Some people may experience allergies from this dye, especially asthmatics and those with an aspirin intolerance.

This ingredient can be found in makeup, sun care, and skincare.

Because this ingredient is a regulated cosmetic colorant, its purity, manufacturing standards, and allowed uses are defined by cosmetic regulations in major markets.

This dye is commonly used in foods, approved by both the FDA and EFSA.

Similar to Red 27, this dye changes color based on pH and moisture levels.

This dye is colorless when dry but turns pink between pH levels 0.0 to ~3.0.

In the US, this ingredient can only be used if it meets strict FDA specifications. Certain versions even require batch-by-batch certification after extensive safety evaluation.

In the European Union, this ingredient is permitted as a colorant and classified as a "nanomaterial" based on its particle size (meaning it requires deeper assessment).

The EU Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has reviewed nano-sized carbon black specifically and concluded that it does not pose a risk to human health when used in cosmetic products applied to healthy, intact skin and formulated to avoid inhalation.

Studies support this regulatory stance. Laboratory studies on nano-carbon black show potential for cytotoxicity and inflammatory effects in immune cells; it is important to highlight these findings are based on in vitro (not done on a living organism) testing or inhalation scenarios rather than normal topical cosmetic use.

Occupational studies involving industrial workers exposed to airborne carbon black have not shown a clear link between cumulative exposure and cancer risk. These findings are not directly applicable to cosmetics; cosmetic formulations bind pigments within creams, gels, and liquids that are not inhaled.

Overall, evidence shows that this ingredient is safe under regulatory guidelines and purity standards, especially when formulated to avoid airborne exposure.

Even with regulatory approval and a long history of use, some consumers might prefer to avoid ingredients that are petroleum-derived or that fall under the “nanomaterial” category.

Choosing whether to use CI 77266 isn’t necessarily about safety alone; it can also be about personal philosophy, comfort level with synthetic versus natural ingredients, and how much weight you place on ongoing research and regulatory oversight.

Makeup is highly individual, and personal preference plays an important role in deciding what feels right for you.

In the EU, both of these colors must be labeled as 'CI 77510'.

Synthetically created Ci 77489 is considered safer than those naturally found. This is because the synthetically created version may contain less impurities. Iron oxides are generally non-toxic and non-allergenic.

A note on EU vs US ingredient lists:
The EU typically uses CI numbers for colorants when applicable, such as this ingredient. In the US, iron oxides are regulated as color additives and "iron oxides" is the most commonly used name in US cosmetic practice.

Here's a myth worth busting: mineral filters are usually described as working by "reflecting" or "bouncing" UV off your skin.

That's mostly not true: when researchers actually measured it, ZO and Titanium Dioxide reflect only about 4-5% of UV (less than SPF 2 worth of protection).

The vast majority of the work (~95%) is done by absorption, similar to chemical UV filters. ZO is a semiconductor that absorbs UV photos through its energy band gap.

So the old "physical blocker vs. chemical absorber" framing is really an oversimplification.

Zinc Oxide is one of the most effective broad-spectrum UV filters out there. It protects across UVB, UVA2, and UVA1 with a flat, even absorption curve across the whole UVA-UVB range.

That uniform UVA coverage is its standout feature; titanium dioxide skews more toward UVB as its particle size drops so ZO gives more consistent and extended UVA protection.

It's also very photostable. As an inorganic oxide, ZO doesn't break down in sunlight the way some organic filters can, so it holds up over a day of wear.

This ingredient is gentle and soothing, making it go-to for sunscreens aimed at sensitive skin, rosacea, or ecezma-prone skin, babies, and children.

It's also unlikely to cause the "eye sting" that some sunscreen ingredients are known for, and regulatory agencies broadly consider it non-toxic and safe for topical use.

Beyond sun protection, ZO is also a recognized OTC skin protectant. It forms a breathable barrier that shields skin from moisture and irritation while supporting healing. This is why you'll see it as a classic active in diaper rash creams.

The only downside to ZO is that it can leave a visible white cast, especially on deeper skin tones. This is the main reason mineral sunscreens have historically felt less cosmetically elegant than chemical or hybrid formulas.

Zinc Oxide comes in both non-nano and nano forms. The dividing line is 100nm and anything under is classified as a nanomaterial by the EU.

The nano version scatters less visible light which cuts down white case and gives a lighter, more wearable texture.

Another thing worth understanding about formulation:

Uncoated ZO has some inherent photocatalytic activity. This just means it can generate reactive oxygen species under UV. It's exactly why cosmetic-grade ZO is almost always surface-coated; this coating suppresses that reactivity and improves how the powder disperses and feels.

A well-formulated coated ZO largely sidesteps this issue.

Zinc Oxide is commonly used anywhere from 10% up to the regulatory maximum in sunscreens (25%).

Mineral-only broad-spectrum products often land in the 15-25% range to hit higher SPF and UVA values. Keep in mind SPF performance depends heavily on particle size, dispersion, and the rest of the formula, and not just the percentage.

As an OTC skin protectant like diaper creams, ZO typically runs higher at roughly 10-40%.

This ingredient is generally easy to work with and doesn't photodegrade.

The only thing to know is that uncoated ZO can be a bit reactive in a formula.

Under UV, it can break down sensitive ingredients like other actives or UV filters. This is another reason coated versions are standard. ZO can also react with very acidic ingredients or throw off stability of some creams. A good formula will get around this with the right coatings and dispersion.

The EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety has concluded that ZO nanoparticles "can be considered to not pose any risk of adverse effects in humans after application on healthy, intact or sunburnt skin".

You might hear that ZO is "toxic"; this is because an in-vitro (test tube) study suggested micronized ZO had potential phototoxicity. In vivo (human) investigations have disputed this and the results have come back reassuring.

So does ZO penetrate skin? The short answer is no, not in any way that matters.

The most relevant evidence comes from real-world human studies: in one, volunteers applied ZO nanoparticle sunscreen hourly for six hours and daily for five days. The advanced imaging showed the particles stayed on the surface and never reached the living epidermis, and no cellular toxicity was found.

Other in-vivo and ex-vivo work agree; ZO nanoparticles don't cross the stratum corneum, even on flexed, massaged, or barrier-impaired skin.

A small amount of solubilized zinc ions can dissolve off the particles and enter the upper skin. But the quantities are tiny compared to the zinc already naturally present in your body, and studies haven't found this to cause local toxicity.

The sunscreen bans you've heard of (like Hawaii's) are aimed at two chemical filters, Oxybenzone and Octinoxate. ZO itself it not banned and is often recommended instead.

So far, there's no solid evidence that any form of ZO harms reefs. It is an ongoing and active area of study, and worth keeping an eye on.

If you're traveling somewhere with these rules, a non-nano mineral sunscreen is the safe bet.