8/22/2020 0 Comments range beauty true intentions hydrating foundation swatches & Review (villa, liquid sun, baked) + thoughts on "clean beauty"11/06/2020 update: today, I decided to use one of these for the first time in a while, and one of the shades had mold growth. This is the first time I have ever had a makeup product go bad, and I've had products for years and years: much longer than the couple of months that I've had these foundation samples. Range touts themselves as being paraben-free. As I explain in this post, the "clean beauty" movement has demonized parabens, an ingredient that has been proven to be safe and an effective preservative, but this is why scientific evidence-based -- and not pseudoscience trend-based -- cosmetic chemistry is so important.
Hi, everyone! I first heard about Range Beauty -- a relatively new indie makeup brand founded by Alicia Scott, a Black woman -- back in April when I got an ad for them on Instagram. Their tagline is "clean beauty for the forgotten shades" -- with their niche being catering to darker skin tones that are often overlooked by the beauty industry, particularly by "clean beauty" brands (more on my issues with "clean beauty" later in this review). The brand also describes itself as "100% cruelty-free, vegan, and never contains paraben, talc, sulfate, phthalates, or synthetic dyes and fragrances" in their product descriptions. Range's hero product is what I'll be focusing on today: the True Intentions Hydrating Foundation. I purchased samples of the foundation in the shades Villa, Liquid Sun, and Baked.
For reference: I have dry skin, and I would describe myself as somewhere around NC25-30 with strong warm, golden olive undertones. Historically, my favorite foundation is the Physician's Formula The Healthy Foundation in MW2.
Table of contents: the shades
The True Intentions Hydrating Foundation is $21 for a full size 1 oz bottle. The formula comes in 21 different shades, with the following shade depths (from lightest to deepest): "fair," "medium tan," "deep tan," "brown," "deep brown," "deeper brown." The various undertones are described as "warm yellow," "neutral," "peach," "cool blue," "olive," and "warm red." In the Shade Finder page, you can either look up shades by the undertone/depth or by a shade match from a different brand (Fenty, Maybelline Fit Me, Mac, and Nars). The shade range as a whole leans deeper, but I'm totally fine with that considering deeper skin tones usually have very few options relative to lighter skin tones.
However, I think it's weird that the lightest shade depth is called "fair." Usually, complexion shade ranges (from the very lightest shade to "medium tan") go: fair --> light --> medium --> medium tan. So, the naming of "fair" confused me when trying to shade match myself because I definitely don't have "fair" skin, but I know that I also don't have "medium tan" skin. Based on the "fair" shades themselves, it would be much more accurate to call that depth category "light" or "medium," and it would be less confusing to not have that gap in nomenclature between "fair" and "medium tan." On the product pages, I also would've liked for them to have actual photos of models wearing each different shade instead of just swatches on a few models, but I can at least understand it considering Range is still a relatively small brand. It's just not ideal, y'know?
I got the shades Villa, Liquid Sun, and Baked. The descriptions as per the Range site are:
âAs you can tell from the swatch photos, Villa is definitely the best match for me. I think shade depth-wise, it's about right. Undertone-wise, I think it's a little too peachy and not quite olive enough compared to my neck, which is a problem I've run into with pretty much every single foundation I've tried. However, because it's not a heavy, full coverage foundation, the shade difference between my face and neck really isn't too noticeable when it's actually blended out.
One-swipe, unblended swatches on bare skin in natural, window-filtered light
Here are swatch comparisons of Villa to other complexion products that I have. From left to right/chin to ear (with official shade descriptions from the brand & how well I think they match me):
The Formula
No primer, no setting spray, set with pressed powder only under my eyes and around my nose; yes bronzer + blush + highlight
On the product listing, Range describes the True Intentions Hydrating Foundation as:
On my dry skin, I didn't find the formula to be necessarily particularly hydrating, just . . . comfortably not-drying (but still "hydrating" compared to most complexion products). I set with pressed powder under my eyes, around my nostrils, and on the bridge of my nose. This gave me only minimal transfer whenever I wiped my nose, on the nose pads of my glasses (a common problem I have with complexion products), etc. -- even in this hot summer heat. The staying power was better/the transfer was less than I typically get whenever I use concealer around those areas that are prone to transfer. I know one of Range's big talking points is being eczema and acne-friendly. I myself don't have eczema, nor do I have easily irritated skin, so that's not really something I can really speak much on. But, for what it's worth, I didn't have any issues with irritation or any other adverse reactions. I tried using a beauty sponge (NYX Complete Control Blending Sponge) and a dense foundation brush (Real Techniques Expert Face Brush). Using the brush was kinda cakey, so I preferred using a sponge; this is the norm for all foundations I've tried. I used my finger to scoop the foundation out of the sample tub, dabbed the foundation all over my face, and then blended it out with a sponge. With this, I was able to get a really beautiful lightweight, skin-like finish. It didn't emphasize texture and wasn't cakey, which I definitely enjoyed. In the above photos, I was able to get a sheer enough application that it still showed some of my skin's natural texture, which is my personal preference. With a sponge application, about 8 hours later, there was a little smudging around the bridge of my nose where the nose pads of my glasses sit (which always happens, but no more than usual). Other than that, there were no weird issues with texture, cakeyness, or anything like that. (With a dense foundation brush, I did have even worse texture/cakeyness than I did at application.)
issues with "clean beauty""Beauty products need to be more diverse and less toxic. We keep it clean with our ingredients and utilize botanicals in our makeup and take care of your skin while you wear. People of color are exposed to twice the amount of toxic beauty products with few clean alternatives."
A little about my background: I'm certainly not a dermatologist, cosmetic chemist, endocrinologist, etc . . . I am simply an undergraduate university student majoring in pre-pharmacy who likes makeup and did a research project about clean beauty for a pharmacy class.
âAs a whole, I really don't like the term "clean" or "(non)toxic beauty." I haven't looked into the specific botanical extracts (calendula, cornflower, and chamomile) that are in the foundation, but I will just make a positive assumption and assume these are perfectly valid ingredients to not irritate eczema/acne. Thus, I think it would be totally valid if Range described their products as being hypoallergenic, sensitive skin-friendly, non-comedogenic, skincare-infused, etc. And, it is true that the makeup industry -- but "clean beauty" brands especially -- are very bad with releasing products that actually work on deeper skin tones. However, "botanicals," "less toxic?" These sorts of buzzwords that "clean beauty" brands love to use -- I wouldn't necessarily say they're an accurate nor helpful description. A "toxin" is a pretty broad term; it just generally means any substance that can lead to harmful health effects, like cancer or even death. Technically, of course, anything is "toxic" at a high enough concentration; you can die from drinking too much water. However, I really don't like how "toxic," "non-toxic," "chemical," "natural," "synthetic" -- anti-science buzzwords like that -- are weaponized, thrown around in marketing, and used to drum up fear in general society, but especially in the beauty industry with "clean beauty." "Botanicals"
Again, I will make the assumption that the botanicals that are in the True Intentions Hydrating Foundation are legitimately good for your skin. Regardless, that type of marketing in the industry in general really isn't my favorite. Something being plant-derived doesn't give it any inherently good or bad characteristics for your skin/body, but if you're touting your product containing botanicals as a good thing, then you're capitalizing off of and encouraging the growing ideology that "natural/plant = intrinsically good" and "synthetic/chemical = intrinsically bad."
Think about it: poison ivy is all-natural, organic, and plant-derived, but I bet you wouldn't want poison ivy botanicals in your makeup and on your skin. Plus, keep in mind that even though there's the connotation of "chemical" = "synthetic," everything is made of chemicals! Water is a chemical, plants are made of chemicals, you are made of chemicals . . . âFurthermore, botanical extracts as a whole, but especially essential oils, actually lead to higher rates of allergenicity, contact dermatitis, and photosensitivity compared to other commonly used "non-clean" cosmetic preservatives that botanicals are sometimes replacing; essential oils also tend to be more fragile in terms of chemical stability, which is a problem for the proper preservation of products (research article on essential oils in cosmetics, dermatology editorial). Preservatives are absolutely necessary in makeup to make sure you don't get bacterial or fungal growth in your stuff, which can cause adverse health reactions -- such as an eye ulcer in an extreme case (Pseudomonas corneal ulcer). I've seen way too many pictures of products from RMS -- a popular anti-science "clean beauty" brand that also has issues with race -- with mold growing in them. This is obviously very counter-intuitive to the "these products are good for you and your skin!" ethos that many clean beauty brands, including Range Beauty, make. âMy mind immediately goes to the Bite Beauty Changemaker Foundation. After Bite rebranded to become even more of a "clean beauty" brand that they already were, they released that foundation. They market it as a "clean" foundation in the official description, but it contains the essential oils linalool and limonene; just anecdotally speaking, I heard a large number of people in reviews complain that this foundation gave them a reaction, with many of them pointing to these essential oils. But of course, always keep in mind that allergens and sensitivity are ultimately a person-to-person basis (just some things are more likely to have allergies to than others). They're still not straight-up dangerous to use at the concentrations that are in makeup -- but neither are the ingredients commonly demonized by clean beauty brands . . . "Sulfate & paraben free"
On Range's homepage, underneath the header, they have graphics denoting some of their main marketing points. One of them says "sulfate & paraben free."
For sulfates, I'm kind of side-eyeing that Range includes this. Sulfates in cosmetics, the most common ones being sodium dodecyl/lauryl sulfate (SLS) and sodium laureth sulfate (SLES), are used to make a liquid foam up. Think cleansers, shampoos, soaps, etc. Range Beauty has liquid foundations, loose setting powders, a liquid primer, loose powder eyeshadows/highlighters, and a liquid body illuminator: nothing that foams, nothing that would even have sulfates in the first place. That's like if you were a baker, and one of your main selling points was that your cupcakes are cheeseburger-free. Like, yeah, that's technically true, but why would any bakery's cupcakes have cheeseburgers in them in the first place? Plus, sulfates are not really something that you need to even be super worried about for health reasons. Just like with any ingredient, there is always the potentiality for irritation or allergenicity, but scientific evidence doesn't support sulfates being common allergens, being carcinogens, being toxic, etc. in the capacity that they are used in cosmetics (research article on sulfates).
Parabens -- the most common type of preservative used in makeup -- are possibly the most demonized ingredient in the world of "clean beauty." Parabens are incredibly nonallergic compared to botanicals, which can make them better for sensitive skin than common "clean" preservatives. Parabens were even named the American Contact Dermatitis Society's 2019 nonallergen of the year (dermatology editorial).
But, because they're ~chemicals~ and ~not natural~, they fall prey to anti-chemical fear-mongering. The biggest concerns are that they could disrupt estrogen activity or cause cancer, especially with accumulated exposure over time. These fears mainly stem from a study where really high concentrations of parabens (much, much higher than the amount used in cosmetics) were injected directly into rat uteri, and parabens bonded to estrogen receptors, along with parabens being found in tissue samples from breast tumors (concerns over parabens). Both of those claims have been heavily disputed by the scientific community. When the most common types of parabens were reexamined, there was only ever weak disruption at very, very high concentrations (again, much, much higher than what you would actually see in your makeup); in fact, the effects were all comparable or significantly weaker than the effects of the ~natural~ hormone estradiol (yes, "natural!" Isn't that ironic?). There was also no definite evidence indicating they can cause cancer (reassessment of the safety of parabens). I don't think aggregate exposure is something to be overly concerned about, either. You're not constantly injecting high concentrations of parabens straight into your body; you're applying makeup on top of your epidermis. Parabens are used in cosmetics at a very low concentration (~0.01%-0.5%), then an even smaller amount actually gets into your body because the dermal penetration of parabens is also very low. Parabens are then metabolized quickly, so they're not generally not staying in your body for long before exiting your body via your excretory system (study on aggregate exposure of parabens). Cruelty-free?
Something quite ironic is that though most "clean beauty" brands tout themselves being cruelty-free (meaning finished products are not tested on animals, nor do their suppliers test ingredients on animals), the "clean beauty" movement has directly lead to more, and unnecessary, animal testing. Something I undeniably noticed when looking through scientific journals for my project was that even though these various chemicals have previously been studied, tested, and approved for use, all of these new concerns of the safety of them has lead researchers to reassess said safety -- part of which includes animal testing, only for these studies to reach the same conclusion as before that these chemicals are still safe.
Concluding thoughts
Range Beauty doesn't need to greenwash with "clean beauty." They have an excellent shade range and a great foundation formula that I really like the finish and wear of. I so appreciate that they actually sell samples of every single one of their foundation shades. I really, truly believe in their mission of creating products that will actually work for people with skin tones that are underserved by the makeup industry. I remember the founder Alicia excitedly talking about how deep their future bronzer line will go, which is such a genuine need in the makeup world.
But, as someone is going to school to eventually become a healthcare professional, "clean beauty"/anti-science buzzwords/fear-mongering over things that are "chemicals" is just so off-putting to me, and it turns me off from a brand. The term "clean" isn't a regulated term; the FDA -- or any government agency to the best of my knowledge -- doesn't regulate this specific term, and unlike with "cruelty-free," there are no third parties that are accepted industry-wide that give "clean" certificates to makeup brands. The closest we have to do that is the Environmental Working Group, which is widely criticized for fear-based marketing not backed by actual science; the EWG actually is mostly funded by "the very shopping companies its shopping recommendations help" -- an incredible conflict of interest in their (pseudo)science (criticism of the EWG). "Clean," ultimately, is just a marketing scheme. I'd love to see Range Beauty not fall back on the whole "clean" claim. This sort of greenwashing is something that's just generally not beneficial to our society, and it's not something that Range Beauty needs to rely on when it's a brand that can stand tall on its own. Thanks for reading!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
about @glowyminoI have dry skin and very dry and textured lips. I also have a medium-light skintone (somewhere in the realm of NC25-30) with strong warm yellow/olive undertones. I have a tendency to prefer a glowy, lightweight base and color cosmetics in shades of a warm undertone. Read more about me in the about page! Archives
May 2024
CategoriesPost TagsAll 40s Fashion 50s Fashion 60s Fashion 70s Fashion 90s Fashion Academia Fashion Accessories Acure Adept Cosmetics Adventure Style Ana Luisa @ap_archives BAIT Footwear Beauty Industry Becca Cosmetics Blazers Blend Bunny Cosmetics Blouses Blush Bottoms Bronzer Brow Gel Brow Pencil Brows Burt's Bees Button-ups Catkin Cirque Colors "clean Beauty" Clionadh Cocokind Collectif Colourpop Concealer Content Creation Corduroy Pants Cosrx Cottagecore Cruelty Free Beauty Cuticula Dandy Lion Cosmetics @deerestdiary.makeup @definitely_not_kayleeeeee Depop Devinah Cosmetics Different Dimension Dresses Edwardian Fashion Elf Cosmetics @ellessentially_ Em Cosmetics @ethanmwong Ethereal Lacquer Eyeliner Eyeshadow Face Primer Fashion Fashion Sustainability Favorites Femme Fatale Flower Beauty Foundation Fourth Ray Beauty Goodwill Guides Hair Highlighter Hobbitcore Indie Makeup Indie Nail Polish INNBeauty Jumpsuits KBShimmer Kotn KVD Beauty @lil_jo__ Lip Gloss Lip Liner Lipstick Looxi Beauty Low Buy Lumen Nails Mainstream Nail Polish Makeup Makeup And Feminism Makeup Brushes Mascara Mehron Meta @mgetsdressed Milani Mutually Creative Nailcare Nail Polish NBM @noopur_makeup Not Perfect Linen NYX Cosmetics One/Size Organization Orly Outerwear Pahlish Peach & Lily Penelope Luz Personal Style Phytosurgence Polish Pickup Poshmark Powder Princesscore Pur Cosmetics Quixotic Polish Rael Beauty Range Beauty @ratboar Real Techniques Reviews Secondhand Fashion Selsun Blue Shine By SD Cosmetics Shoes Shorts Simply Posh Cosmetics Skincare Skirts Storybook Summer Fridays Swatches Sweaters Sydney Grace @tastefulcringe Terra Moons Cosmetics @tesschung TheBalm The Body Shop The Inkey List The Ordinary Thrifted Fashion Top Coat Tops Tower28 Trousers Unique Vintage Urban Decay Victorian Fashion Vintage Fashion Vivien Of Holloway Vixen By Micheline Pitt @watermelonflesh Youthforia Youth To The People |