Quote:
Originally Posted by lotusindigo
Right. As savvy as this man might be in the cosmetics industry, I don't see how he can compare the ingredients lists of most REAL mineral foundations to the ingredients of most liquid foundations. The ingredients list of a mineral foundation looks like a sentence. The ingredients list of a liquid foundation looks like a PARAGRAPH. Same with most powders on the market. Lines and lines of fillers, many of which are irritants/cloggers. The author of that article doesn't even mention that difference, which tells me that he's not bothering to look at things under an objective light. He does however mention that the less product you have on your skin... the better. But somehow he doesn't see the contradiction between his admission that less product is better... and his claim that you'd get the same benefit from traditional makeup that you'd get from MMU. Because if less is better, then how can he say that having all those irritants and fillers is just as good as NOT having them?
|
Totally agree. I was thinking the same thing as I read the article. In addition, it seems that he has two rants going. One the marketing campaign for minerals and two the mineral make up itself. I disagree with his analysis/comparison of mineral to liquid but I agree with the campaign part, though, that's business.