By Lisa Petrison
Quite often, I have heard people state that they had put aside or thrown away their MAC products since deciding to focus more on using “clean beauty” products.
As it turns out, though, quite a few MAC products actually contain fewer problematic ingredients than many products from so-called “clean” companies, and I have personally continued to do well with them.
Other MAC products contain more problematic ingredients and have not worked out for me, on the other hand.
The MAC site states, “Let’s be clear, MAC is devoted to creating products using safe, good-for-skin ingredients. MAC products are formulated without phthalates, parabens, formaldehyde donors, SLS, hydroquinone, triclosan, D&C yellow #11, ethanolamines, PABA.”
MAC is known as being a cosmetic company providing an array of rich colors, and most of its products include synthetic coloring agents that are considered to be at least moderately problematic by the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
A few products contain especially problematic coloring agents – aluminum powder and black #2 (aka carbon black) – that would eliminate them from qualifying for any definition of “clean beauty” that I have seen.
The other coloring agents in the products also are often used by companies touting themselves as offering “clean beauty” and that are sold as “clean” by retailers such as Credo and Sephora, however.
Some MAC products include other ingredients that many people try to avoid and that do not qualify as “clean” by at least some standards.
These include synthetic fragrance, talc, chemical sunscreens, retinyl palmitate, petrolatum, PEG’s, cyclic silicones, BHT, unspecified flavor, vanillin, and various preservatives.
Still, there are many MAC products that would qualify as being “clean” by various standards and that I feel okay about using on at least an occasional basis myself.
This article provides details on the MAC products that I have tried, in terms of their ingredients as well as my experiences with them.
Discussions of the composition of a few other popular MAC products that I have yet to try are included as well.
The next section contains affiliate links. Living Clean in a Dirty World may receive a commission if readers click on these links and then purchase products. Living Clean in a Dirty World also may accept product review samples but receives no other compensation from companies mentioned on this website.
Bullet Lipsticks
MAC is especially well-known for its bullet lipsticks, which are available in a variety of formulas as well as shades.
While some of the lipstick formulas are better than others, I have found all of these lipsticks to be acceptable for at least occasional wear, in terms of both how I have experienced them as well as the ingredient lists.
MAC Amplified Lipstick – $21
Living Clean Rating: 9 out of 10
Performance Rating: 
(5 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: 
(4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “An ultra-creamy lipstick formula with a smooth glide, bold colour payoff, full coverage and a semi-lustrous finish.”
This lipstick contains synthetic coloring agents, synthetic Vitamin E, titanium dioxide, and vanillin.
I have done fine with this lipstick and like the creamy formula.
Meets Criteria: Credo Clean, Clean at Sephora, EU Compliant
EWG Product Rating: 4 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 (7), Yellow #6 (7), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Yellow #5 (6), Red #28 (5), Red #30 (5), Red #33 (4), Tocopheryl Acetate (3), Titanium Dioxide (3). Also contains Vanillin.
First 5 Ingredients: Castor Seed Oil, Diisostearyl Malate, Trioctyldodecyl Citrate, Lanolin Oil, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride.
Fragrance Ingredients: Vanillin
Silicone Level: None
MAC Cremesheen Lipstick – $21
Living Clean Rating: 9 out of 10
Performance Rating: (5 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A creamy, balmy lipstick formula with a comforting feel, medium buildable coverage and a semi-glossy finish.”
This lipstick contains cetyl lactate, which is a softening agent that is stated by EWG to be of mild concern due to “use restrictions.”
It also contains synthetic colors, synthetic vitamin E, vanillin and titanium dioxide.
I have enjoyed using this lipstick and not found it to be problematic for me.
Meets Criteria: Credo Clean, Clean at Sephora, EU Compliant
EWG Product Rating: 3 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 (7), Yellow #6 (7), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Yellow #5 (6), Red #21 (5), Red #28 (5), Red #30 (5), Cetyl Lactate (4), Red #33 (4), Tocopheryl Acetate (3), Titanium Dioxide (3). Also contains Vanillin.
First 5 Ingredients: Pentaerythrityl Tetraisostearate, Bis-Diglyceryl Polyacyladipate-2, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Oleic/Linoleic/Linolenic Polyglycerides, Candelilla Wax.
Fragrance Ingredients: Vanillin.
Silicone Level: None
MAC Frost Lipstick – $21
Living Clean Rating: 9 out of 10
Performance Rating: (5 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A lipstick formula with smooth, medium buildable coverage, high pearl and a semi-lustrous finish.”
This lipstick includes synthetic colors, titanium dioxide and vanillin.
I have not had any problems with this lipstick and have enjoyed using it.
EWG Ingredients Rating: 3 (yellow)
Meets Criteria: Credo Clean, Clean at Sephora, EU Compliant
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 (7), Yellow #6 (7), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Red #40 (6), Yellow #5 (6), Yellow #5 (6), Red #21 (5), Red #28 (5), Red #30 (5), Red #33 (4), Titanium Dioxide (3). Also contains Vanillin.
First 5 Ingredients: Castor Seed Oil, Trioctyldodecyl Citrate, Glyceryl Triacetyl Hydroxystearate, Jojoba Seed Oil, Candelilla Wax.
Fragrance Ingredients: Vanillin
Silicone Level: None
MAC Love Me Lipstick – $24
Living Clean Rating: 8 out of 10
Performance Rating: (5 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: 
(3 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A weightless argan oil infused lipstick that delivers an instant hit of powerful colour and all-day moisture in a luxurious satin-soft finish.”
This lipstick includes BHT, which is a fat preservative that I find to be mildly concerning when used in lip products.
However, I have felt okay about using this lipstick and really like the texture of it.
It also includes synthetic coloring agents, synthetic vitamin E, and vanillin.
EWG Ingredient Rating: 6 (yellow)
Meets Criteria: Clean at Sephora (maybe), EU Compliant
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 (7), Yellow #6 (7), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Yellow #5 (6), Red #21 (5), Red #27 (5), Red #28 (5), Red #30 (5), Red #22 (5), Red #33 (4), Tocopheryl Acetate (3), BHT (3). Also contains Vanillin.
First 5 Ingredients: Polybutene, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Polyethylene, Microcrystalline Wax, Tocopheryl Acetate.
Fragrance Ingredients: Vanillin.
Silicone Level: None
Lustreglass Sheer-Shine Lipstick – $24
Living Clean Rating: 8 out of 10
Performance Rating: (5 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (3 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A lightweight and raspberry seed and organic extra-virgin olive oil infused lipstick that delivers sheer and shiny colour with a long-wearing, lustrous finish.”
Copy goes here
Meets Criteria: EU Compliant
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 (7), Yellow #6 (7), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Yellow #5 (6), Red #21 (5), Red #27 (5), Red #28 (5), Red #30 (5), Red #21 (5), Red #28 (5), Phenoxyethanol (4), Red #33 (4), Tocopheryl Acetate (3), Titanium Dioxide (3), PEG-10 Phytosterol (3). Also contains Vanillin.
First 5 Ingredients: Diisostearyl Malate, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Castor Seed Oil, Hydrogenated Polydecene, Bis-Diglyceryl Polyacyladipate-2.
Fragrance Ingredients: Vanillin.
Silicone Level: None
MAC Matte Lipsticks – $21
Living Clean Rating: 9 out of 10
Performance Rating: (5 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A creamy rich lipstick formula with high colour payoff in a no-shine matte finish.”
These popular MAC lipsticks include synthetic coloring agents, as well as a small amount of silicone and vanillin.
I have enjoyed using these lipsticks, especially if I use a lip primer, lip liner and touch of gloss along with them.
I have not found them to be problematic for me.
Meets Criteria: Credo Clean, Clean at Sephora, EU Compliant
EWG Product Rating: 4 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 (7), Yellow #6 (7), Yellow #10 (7), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Yellow #5 (6), Red #21 (5), Red #28 (5), Red #30 (5), Red #33 (4), Titanium Dioxide (3). Also contains Phenyl Trimethicone, Vanillin.
First 5 Ingredients: Octyldodecanol, Castor Seed Oil, Silica, Tricaprylyl Citrate, Ozokerite.
Fragrance Ingredients: Vanillin.
Silicone Level: Low
MAC Powder Kiss Lipstick – $24
Living Clean Rating: 7 out of 10
Performance Rating: (4 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (3 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A weightless moisture-matte lipstick that delivers a blur of soft-focus colour.”
These lipsticks include non-specified flavor and sodium saccharin, along with synthetic coloring agents and some silicone.
I would have guessed that the flavor would be a problem for me, but I have found the flavor in these particular lipsticks to be acceptable.
I do like the texture of these lipsticks as well.
Meets Criteria: Credo Clean, Clean at Sephora, EU Compliant
EWG Product Rating: 4 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 (7), Yellow #6 (7), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Yellow #5 (6), Red #21 (5), Red #28 (5), Red #30 (5), Flavor (4), Orange #5 (4), Red #33 (4), Dimethicone (3), Titanium Dioxide (3). Also contains Sodium Saccharin, Nano Silica Simethyl Silylate, Dimethicone Crosspolymer.
First 5 Ingredients: Dimethicone, Tridecyl Trimellitate, Polyethylene, Phenyl Trimethicone, Dimethicone Crosspolymer, HDI/Trimethylol Hexyllactone Crosspolymer.
Fragrance Ingredients: Flavor, Sodium Saccharin.
Silicone Level: High
MAC Retro Matte Lipstick – $21
Living Clean Rating: 9 out of 10
Performance Rating: (5 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A long-wearing lipstick formula with intense colour payoff and a completely matte finish.”
This formula is used primarily for MAC’s popular Ruby Woo lipstick, though a few other shades also are available.
It includes glyceryl monoesters, which add texture and which EWG states are of particular concern only when used in products that are used around the eyes or inhaled.
Synthetic coloring agents, silicone, titanium dioxide and vanillin also are included.
I have not found this lipstick to feel or taste problematic to me, but (apparently due to the kaolin clay used as the third ingredient) it does tend to be quite drying to my lips.
I would not want to wear it very frequently even over a lip primer, therefore.
Meets Criteria: Credo Clean, Clean at Sephora, EU Compliant
EWG Product Rating: 4 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Yellow #6 (7), Yellow #10 (7), Blue #1 (7), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Yellow #5 (6), Red #28 (5), Red #30 (5), Orange #5 (4), Dimethicone (3), Glyceryl Linoleate (3), Glyceryl Linolenate (3), Titanium Dioxide (3). Also contains Vanillin.
First 5 Ingredients: Dimethicone, Isoeicosane, Kaolin, Ceresin, Paraffin.
Fragrance Ingredients: Vanillin
Silicone Level: High
MAC Satin Lipstick – $21
Living Clean Rating: 9 out of 10
Performance Rating: (5 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A creamy lipstick formula with a soft cushiony feel, medium-to-full buildable coverage and a satin finish.”
These lipsticks are similar to the MAC Matte lipsticks in terms of how they perform and have felt okay for me.
They include synthetic colorings and vanillin.
Meets Criteria: Credo Clean, Clean at Sephora, EU Compliant
EWG Ingredient Rating: 6 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 (7), Yellow #6 (7), Yellow #10 (7), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Yellow #5 (6), Red #21 (5), Red #28 (5), Red #30 (5), Red #33 (4), Titanium Dioxide (3). Also contains Vanillin.
First 5 Ingredients: Castor Seed Oil, Trioctyldodecyl Citrate, Glyceryl Triacetyl Hydroxystearate, Candelilla Wax, Octyldodecanol.
Fragrance Ingredients: Vanillin
Silicone Level: None
Other Lip Products
This section discusses most of MAC’s other lip products.
The MAC Lip Conditioner includes several especially problematic ingredients (including synthetic fragrance, retinyl palmitate and petroleum) and therefore has been omitted from further discussion.
MAC Powder Kiss Velvet Blur Slim Stick – $27
Living Clean Rating: 8 out of 10
Performance Rating: (5 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (3 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A moisture-infused lipstick that provides 12 hours of on-trend, mega-bold colour and ultra-weightless wear in a single, velvet-soft swipe.”
These recently released lipsticks contain sodium hyaluronate (a hydrator) as well as a small amount of kaolin clay.
They provide a lightweight matte look that is not too drying to the lips and that I really like.
Like the MAC Powder Kiss bullet lipsticks, they contain the fat preservative BHT, but substitute vanillin for the “flavor.”
Synthetic colors, silicone and titanium dioxide also are included.
Meets Criteria: Clean at Sephora (maybe), EU Compliant
EWG Ingredient Rating: 6 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 Lake (7), Yellow #5 (6), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Red #21 (5), Red #30 (5), Dimethicone (3), BHT (3), Titanium Dioxide (3). Also contains Vanillin.
First 5 Ingredients: Dimethicone, Hydrogenated Polyisobutene, Cetearyl Ethylhexanoate, Dicalcium Phosphate, Microcrystalline Wax.
Fragrance Ingredients: Vanillin
Silicone Level: High
MAC Powder Kiss Liquid Lipcolour – $26
Living Clean Rating: 9 out of 10
Performance Rating: (5 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A liquid lip colour with a whipped, mousse-like texture that delivers soft-focus moisture-matte, comfortable colour with ten hours of hydration.”
Although I have not had much luck with most liquid lipsticks from any brands, these liquid lipcolours have been an exception.
They have felt okay for me and also look nice on my lips.
Problematic ingredients include synthetic colors, silicones, synthetic Vitamin E, titanium dioxide, and vanillin.
Meets Criteria: Credo Clean, Clean at Sephora, EU Compliant
EWG Product Rating: 4 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 Lake (7), Yellow #6 (7), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Yellow #5 (6), Red #22 Lake (5), Red #28 Lake (5), Red #33 Lake (4), Dimethicone (3), Tocopheryl Acetate (3), Titanium Dioxide (3), Also contains Dimethicone Crosspolymer. Also contains Vanillin.
First 5 Ingredients: Dimethicone, Dimethicone Crosspolymer, Isononyl Isononanoate, Polyglyceryl-2 Triisostearate, Diisostearyl Malate, Tribehenin.
Fragrance Ingredients: Vanillin
Silicone Level: High
MAC Love Me Liquid Lipcolour – $26
Living Clean Rating: 5 out of 10
Performance Rating: 
(2 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (3 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A hydrating argan oil- and shea butter-infused, rich and creamy liquid lip colour with a satin finish that wears for 12 hours.”
This product includes a variety of problematic ingredients, including unspecified flavor, saccharin, petrolatum, various synthetic colors, synthetic vitamin E and titanium dioxide.
I have found this product to feel objectionable enough to me that it is totally unusable.
Meets Criteria: None
EWG Ingredient Rating: 8 (red)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Yellow #6 (7), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Yellow #6 (6), Red #21 (5), Red #28 (5), Red #30 (5), Petrolatum (4), Flavor (4), Phenoxyethanol (4), Blue #1 (4), Red #33 (4), Tocopheryl Acetate (3), Titanium Dioxide (3). Also contains Saccharin, Methicone.
First 5 Ingredients: Petrolatum, Octyldodecanol, Isohexadecane, Synthetic Beeswax, Kaolin.
Fragrance Ingredients: Flavor, Saccharin.
Silicone Level: Moderate
MAC Retro Matte Liquid Lipcolour – $24
Living Clean Rating: 5 out of 10
Performance Rating: (2 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (3 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A liquid lipstick that provides a rush of pigment-soaked colour in a velvety, mattest matte finish.”
This product contains unspecified flavor, petrolatum, cyclic silicones, synthetic colors, and titanium dioxide.
Glyceryl behenate/eicosadioate (which is listed in the EWG database as not being backed by any safety evidence) also is included.
I have found this lip product to feel highly objectionable to me and thus have been unwilling to use it.
Meets Criteria: None
EWG Ingredient Rating: 8 (red)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 Lake (7), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Yellow #6 (7), Yellow #5 (6), Red #28 (5), Red #30 (5), Red #22 (5), Red #30 (5), Red #33 (4), Petrolatum (4), Flavor (4), Dimethicone (3), Cyclopentasiloxane (3), Titanium Dioxide (3). Also contains Trimethylsilosiloxate, Cyclohexasiloxane, Beeswax, Glyceryl Behenate/Eicosadioate, Carmine.
First 5 Ingredients: Dimethicone, Trimethylsiloxysilicate, Polybutene, Petrolatum, Cyclohexasiloxane.
Fragrance Ingredients: Flavor
Silicone Level: High
MAC Lipglass – $21
Living Clean Rating: 8 out of 10
Performance Rating: (4 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A gloss in a wide colour range that can create a gloss-like finish or subtle sheen.”
This is a very thick, shiny, sticky lip gloss and therefore something that I personally do not enjoy putting on my lips.
However, I don’t have any particular problem with how it tastes or feels for me.
It contains synthetic colors, phenoxyethanol (a preservative), synthetic vitamin E, titanium dioxide, and vanillin.
Meets Criteria: Credo Clean, Clean at Sephora, EU Compliant
EWG Product Rating: 3/4 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 (7), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Yellow #5 (6), Red #21 (5), Red #28 (5), Red #30 (5), Phenoxyethanol (4), Red #33 (4), Tocopheryl Acetate (3), Titanium Dioxide (3). Also contains Vanillin, Carmine.
First 5 Ingredients: Hydrogenated Polyisobutene, Jojoba Seed Oil, Octyldodecanol, Carnauba Wax, Tocopheryl Acetate.
Fragrance Ingredients: Vanillin.
Silicone Level: None
MAC Lipglass Clear – $21
Living Clean Rating: 7 out of 10
Performance Rating: (3 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A unique clear lip gloss that can create a glass-like finish or a subtle sheen.”
This clean lip gloss is even thicker and shinier than the regular MAC Lipglass products.
There also are many complaints in the user reviews that this product cannot be carried around because the tube has the tendency to come open and leak.
However, it does not seem objectionable to me from a taste or irritation perspective.
EWG Ingredient Rating: 4 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Phenoxyethanol (4), Tocopheryl Acetate (3).
First 5 Ingredients: Hydrogenated Polyisobutene, Jojoba Seed Oil, Tocopheryl Acetate, Phenoxyethanol.
Processed Fragrances: None
Silicone Ingredients: None
MAC Glow Play Lip Balm – $20
Living Clean Rating: 5 out of 10
Performance Rating: (2 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (3 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A nourishing lip balm that combines colour + care for a tinted shine with good-for-your-lips ingredients.”
This product contains unspecified flavor, various synthetic colors, and titanium dioxide.
I liked the look of this product, but I found the taste to be objectionable enough that I have no desire to use it.
Meets Criteria: Credo Clean, Clean at Sephora, EU Compliant
EWG Ingredients Rating: 7 (red)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 (7), Yellow #6 (7), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Yellow #5 (6), Red #21 (5), Red #27 (5), Red #28 (5), Red #30 (5), Red #21 (5), Red #27 (5), Red #28 (5), Red #30 (5), Red #22 (5), Red #33 (4), Flavor (4), Titanium Dioxide (3).
First 5 Ingredients: Diisostearyl Malate, Hydrogenated Polyisobutene, Vp/Hexadecene Copolymer, Octyldodecyl Stearoyl Stearate, Polyethylene.
Fragrance Ingredients: Flavor
Silicone Level: None
MAC Lip Pencil – $21
Living Clean Rating: 9 out of 10
Performance Rating: (5 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A pencil in a wide range of colours designed for shaping, lining or filling in lips.”
I have found this to be a very nice lip pencil that has worked well for me.
I have not had any problems with the taste or irritation issues.
It contains synthetic colors, silicones, titanium dioxide and citric acid.
Meets Criteria: Credo Clean, Clean at Sephora, EU Compliant
EWG Product Rating: 3 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 (7), Yellow #6 (7), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Yellow #5 (6), Red #21 (5), Red #30 (5), Red #28 (5), Titanium Dioxide (3). (Also contains Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil, Divinyldimethicone/Dimethicone Crosspolymer, C20-24 Alkyl Dimethicone, Citric Acid.)
First 5 Ingredients: Mica, Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil, Hydrogenated Palm Kernel Glycerides, Magnesium Silicate, Hydrogenated Polyisobutene.
Fragrance Ingredients: None
Silicone Level: Moderate
MAC Prep + Prime Lip – $21
Living Clean Rating: 9 out of 10
Performance Rating: (5 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A colour-free lipstick base that adds light moisture, smoothes and refines.”
This is one of my favorite makeup items, since it provides a nice base for any lipsticks that I may wear that have more of a matte finish.
It contains a cyclic silicone, meaning that it could be contaminated with solvent chemicals and thus is not eligible for sale through Credo or Clean at Sephora.
EWG rates cyclic silicones as only mildly problematic, however.
The fact that I have done well with this product and don’t intuitively feel that it is problematic makes me want to keep using it.
It has a slight vanillin flavor, but it has not been as noticeable to me as it is with some of the MAC lipsticks.
Meets Criteria: EU Compliant
EWG Product Rating: 1 (green)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Cyclopentasiloxane (3). Also contains Vanillin.
First 5 Ingredients: Cyclopentasiloxane, Paraffin, Polybutene, Ozokerite, Tocopherol.
Fragrance Ingredients: Vanillin.
Silicone Level: High
MAC Lip Scrubtious
Performance Rating: Not Rated
Ingredients Rating: (3 / 5)
A description of this product reads, “A sugar-based exfoliator that gently buffs away dry and flaky skin.”
The lip exfoliator contains non-specified flavor as well as petrolatum, phenoxyethanol (a preservative) and tocopheryl acetate.
Rather pointlessly since it is not actually a makeup product, the Candied Nectar shade contains two synthetic colors.
I have not tried this product.
Meets Criteria: EU Compliant
EWG Ingredient Rating: 6 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Yellow #6 (7), Red #33 (4), Petrolatum (4), Flavor (4), Phenoxyethanol (4), Tocoopheryl Acetate (3).
First 5 Ingredients: Sucrose, Petrolatum, Jojoba Seed Oil, Shea Butter, Water, Grape Seed Oil
Fragrance Ingredients: Flavor
Silicone Level: None
Eye Products
The eyes are a particularly sensitive area, with irritation or infections arising from the use of problematic problems having the potential of compromising vision.
I therefore tend to be especially careful to immediately discontinue the use of products that are irritating to my eyes and encourage other people to do the same.
Unfortunately, a number of MAC eye products mention that they contain aluminum powder (rated as a 9 out of 10 on EWG’s hazard scale) or black #2 (also known as carbon black and rated as 10 out of 10 by EWG) on their ingredient lists.
While at first I believed that the amount of aluminum absorbed through the use of eye makeup might be trivial compared to the amount of aluminum exposure that people tend to get from other sources, the fact that my eyes consistently become quite irritated when exposed to products containing aluminum has caused me to think that this actually is a problematic substance.
Carbon black has enough safety data compiled that my guess would be that this would be one of the first ingredients removed from the market if the government had any interest at all in regulating the chemical industry.
I therefore can’t suggest that either of those substances is okay for those who are interested in adopting cleaner beauty products.
Note that while many MAC products list one or both of these ingredients as possibly being included, in a lot of cases they are mentioned on the “may contain” list.
Because MAC does not provide separate ingredient lists for each shade, it is possible with some products that only certain shades contain the problematic ingredients.
In theory, it is the policy of Estee Lauder (which owns MAC) to provide specific ingredients about each shade if they receive a written request.
However, this is a rather detailed process, since they will only provide the information about a few shades at a time (rather than for all the shades in a line); since it takes days or weeks to get an answer back; and since sometimes they never get back with an answer.
While I have managed to gather what I think is useful information on some MAC products (such as some of the shades of the MAC Paint Pots), there are a number of others that are questionable.
Products that contain aluminum powder or carbon black even on the “may contain” part of the ingredient list thus have been omitted from this discussion, unless I have been able to verify that certain shades do not actually contain either of those ingredients.
Those who like a particular MAC shade and want to find out which specific ingredients it actually contains possibly may be able to determine that by writing to Estee Lauder/MAC at consumercare-us@gcc.maccosmetics.com.
MAC Pro Longwear Paint Pot – $25
Living Clean Rating: 9 out of 10
Performance Rating: (5 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A long-wearing, blendable eye primer and/or cream shadow that can be worn alone or with other products and lasts for 24 hours.”
I have periodically used a few shades of the MAC Paint Pots, either on their own or as a base for other eye shadows, and have not had problems with them.
Unfortunately, aluminum powder is listed on the ingredient list in the “may contain” section for these products.
I therefore wrote to MAC and asked if the shades that I had been using as well as a few additional shades contained aluminum powder.
MAC eventually wrote back stating that none of these shades – which included Painterly, Bare Study, Groundwork, Vintage Selection, Layin Low, Soft Ochre, Contemplative State, Born to Beam, and Bougie – contain aluminum powder.
The products may contain a variety of other synthetic colors, as well as silicones, synthetic vitamin E and titanium dioxide, however.
I do like these products and so am glad to be able to feel okay about continuing to use them.
Meets Criteria: Credo Clean, Clean at Sephora, EU Compliant
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 (7), Yellow #5 (6), Chromium Oxide Greens (5), Ferric Ammonium Ferrocyanide (4), Ferric Ferrocyanide (4), Dimethicone (3), Tocopheryl Acetate (3), Titanium Dioxide (3), Ultramarines (3). Also contains Dimethicone Silylate, Triethoxycaprylylsilane, Carmine.
First 5 Ingredients: Isododecane, Calcium Sodium Borosilicate, Dimethicone, Polyethylene, Hydrogenated Polyisobutene.
Fragrance Ingredients: None
Silicone Level: High
MAC Eye Shadows – $21+
Living Clean Rating: 7 out of 10
Performance Rating: (5 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (2 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A highly pigmented powder that applies evenly and blends well.”
The main issue with the regular MAC powder eye shadows is that they are based on talc, which is often contaminated with asbestos.
Asbestos is well-established as causing lung disease when inhaled, and some successful court cases have argued that talcum powder used in large quantities on the body may have been sufficient to cause disease.
Another successful case asserted that using talcum powder in the groin area caused uterine cancer.
The HBO Max documentary series Not So Pretty suggested that a mesothelioma case may have resulted from a child playing with an inexpensive talc-based eyeshadow palette that generated a lot of fallout, with particles thus being breathed in on a regular basis.
So far, the idea that talc can cause problems even if not breathed in or used in the groin area has seemed to be the focus of little concern.
While some “clean” brands have suggested that testing talc for asbestos contamination may resolve the problem, others (such as the “Not So Pretty” documentary) suggest that testing standards are too lax to be trusted.
Estee Lauder has told me in the past that they use cosmetic grade talc but do not test it for asbestos contamination.
Personally, my feeling about talc is that while I would not want to use talcum powder or talc-based finishing powders, the amount of talc that I am likely to be inhaling through my continued use of MAC powder eyeshadows seems like it is likely to be miniscule.
I have not noticed that these eyeshadows have any noticeable fallout at all, and I am using them only occasionally.
In addition, especially in the past, I think that there was an argument that could be made that talc-free eyeshadows did not have very good performance and that the colors in the MAC products were usual and nice enough that it might be worth using them to get a specific look.
The fact that MAC allows makeup artists and consumers to create their own eyeshadow palettes with the colors of their choosing is another reason for people to want to keep using these products.
More recently, a number of other companies – such as MOB Beauty (started by some of the key people who originally founded MAC), Jones Road, Lisa Eldridge and Jane Iredale – have started to sell what I consider to be very high-performing shadows that do not contain talc.
I therefore think that the argument that high-performance shadows require the use of talc carries a lot less weight and that it would be nice if MAC were to consider reformulating its own eyeshadows in accordance with that.
This would lead me to continue to expand my MAC collection of eyeshadows, rather than to instead buy from other brands.
However, I do not feel that I have had any problems with the MAC eyeshadows that I already own and so am not planning to get rid of them just because they contain talc.
They also have the potential of containing some other synthetic colors, as well as phenoxyethanol and synthetic Vitamin E.
Meets Criteria: None
EWG Ingredient Rating: 7 (red)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Talc (8), Blue #1 (7), Red #40 (6), Yellow #5 (6), Chromium Oxide Greens (5), Ferric Ferrocyanide (4), Chromium Hydroxide Green (4), Phenoxyethanol (4), Ultramarines (3), Tocopheryl Acetate (3). Also contains Carmine.
First 5 Ingredients: Talc, Zinc Stearate, Octyldodecyl Stearoyl Stearate, Isostearyl Neopentanoate, Tocopheryl Acetate.
Fragrance Ingredients: None
Silicone Level: None
MAC Eye Kohl – $21
Performance Rating: Not Rated
Ingredients Rating: 
(1 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “An eye liner with rich colour and a silky smooth, matte/pearl finish.”
MAC offers a couple of different eyeliners, all of which include aluminum powder on the “may contain” list.
I did once buy one of these particular eyeliners (in a shade that has since been discontinued) and felt that I did okay with it.
One good thing about these MAC eyeliners is that compared to other sharpenable eyeliners, these do not contain any cottonseed oil (which is routinely contaminated with glyphosate and other pesticides).
I did once try to get information from MAC/Estee Lauder about which shades did and did not contain aluminum powder, but all I got that time was a lecture on why aluminum powder was safe (basically just stating that it had a “long history” of use in the cosmetics industry).
I would still be interested in finding out which of these eye pencils contain aluminum powder, since I liked the pencil that I tried enough that I would be inclined to try others if I knew they were free of it.
The eye pencils do contain some additional synthetic colorings that may be irritating or of general concern for some people, though.
EWG Problem Ingredients: Aluminum Powder (9), Blue #1 (7), Yellow #5 (6), Chromium Oxide Greens (5), Chromium Hydroxide Green (4), Ferric Ferrocyanide (4), Ultramarines (3), Titanium Dioxide (3).
First 5 Ingredients: Hydrogenated Coco-Glycerides, Triethylhexanoin, Beeswax, Castor Seed Oil, Dipentaerythrityl Hexahydroxystearate/Hexastearate/Hexarosinate.
Fragrance Ingredients: None
Silicone Level: None
MAC LiquidLast 24-Hour Waterproof Liner – $23
Performance Rating: Not Rated
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A liner that combines long-lasting wear with a precision line.”
This liquid eyeliner contains a number of synthetic coloring agents, as well as some silicone and titanium dioxide.
Otherwise the ingredient list looks pretty clean to me, to the point that I might give it a try if I were inclined to use liquid eyeliners.
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 Lake (7), Yellow #5 (6), Chromium Oxide Greens (5), Chromium Hydroxide Green (4), Ferric Ammonium Ferrocyanide (4), Ferric Ferrocyanide (4), Phenoxyethanol (4), Ultramarines (3), Dimethicone (3), Titanium Dioxide (3),
First 5 Ingredients: Isododecane, Trimethylsiloxysilicate, Dimethicone, Calcium Aluminum Borosilicate, Disteardimonium Hectorite.
Fragrance Ingredients: None
Silicone Level: High
MAC Prep + Prime 24-Hour Extend Eye Base – $27
Performance Rating: Not Rated
Ingredients Rating: (3 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A shadow primer specially formulated to prolong the look of your eye makeup.”
This eyelid primer contains talc, which is considered to be only moderately problematic by EWG when it is in a cream formula since any asbestos contamination thus cannot be breathed into the lungs.
The talc as well as the PEG (which could be contaminated with solvent chemicals) would make it ineligible for sale at Credo or as Clean at Sephora.
The product also contains silicones, synthetic Vitamin E and titanium dioxide.
I have not tried this product because it does not seem that it would cover the darkness on my eyelids (which is the main reason I wear eyelid priimer) and also because I am a little worried that it would be irritating for my extremely sensitive eyelids.
However, for those who have oilier eyelids (which can make shadows more apt to crease or wear off quickly), I would not necessarily suggest that it would be mandatory to stop using this product if it was working well and not being irritating, just for “clean beauty” reasons.
Meets Criteria: None
EWG Ingredients Rating: 5 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Talc (5), Dimethicone (3), Tocopheryl acetate (3), PEG-40 Stearate (3), Titanium dioxide (3). Also contains Dimethicone Silylate.
First 5 Ingredients: Dimethicone, Isododecane, Talc, Dimethicone Silylate, Trihydroxystearin.
Fragrance Ingredients: None
Silicone Level: High
MAC Brow Set – $20
Performance Rating: Not Yet Rated
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A brush-on gel that strokes brows into shape while adding shine and style.”
This is a clear brow gel that is intended to add structure and shine to the brows.
Although alcohol is listed as the second ingredient, the ingredient list is clean according to EWG standards.
I don’t use clear brow gels due to my eyebrows being very sparse and so have not tried this product.
Meets Criteria: Credo, Clean at Sephora, EU Compliant
EWG Ingredient Rating: 2 (green)
EWG Problem Ingredients: None. Contains Alcohol Denat.
First 5 Ingredients: Water, Alcohol Denat., Vp/Va Copolymer, Butylene Glycol, Caprylyl Glycol, Hexylene Glycol.
Fragrance Ingredients: None
Silicone Level: None
Face Products
Many of MAC’s face products contain either chemical sunscreen (such as octinoxate) or synthetic fragrance.
In addition, most of their powder products (such as foundation, blush, bronzer or highlighter) contain talc.
I have omitted those products from this discussion unless I have had a chance to try them myself.
MAC Pro Longwear Concealer – $28
Living Clean Rating: 9 out of 10
Performance Rating: (5 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A liquid concealer that provides full matte coverage for up to 24 hours.”
This concealer is listed as containing a variety of synthetic colors, as well as dimethicone and synthetic vitamin E.
No other ingredients considered to be problematic by EWG are mentioned.
Despite the fact that I have quite sensitive skin and especially sensitive eyelids, I have been able to use this as both an undereye concealer and as an eyelid primer without experiencing any irritation at all.
The MAC makeup artist suggested that I purchase a shade that was more pink than my skin in order to color correct under my eyes, and that has been a strategy that has worked well for me.
I do suggest being aware that selecting a shade from MAC can be very confusing because of their definition of warm (W shades) being more pink and cool shades (C) being more yellow.
Visiting a MAC counter and getting help in shade matching when using the product for the first day may be a good idea.
Meets Criteria: Credo Clean, Clean at Sephora, EU Compliant
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 (7), Yellow #5 (6), Chromium Oxide Greens (5), Chromium Hydroxide Green (4), Ferric Ammonium Ferrocyanide (4), Ferric Ferrocyanide (4), Dimethicone (3), Tocopheryl Acetate (3), Titanium Dioxide (3), Ultramarines (3). Also contains Dimethicone Silylate, Triethoxycaprylylsilane, Carmine.
First 5 Ingredients: Isododecane, Calcium Sodium Borosilicate, Dimethicone, Polyethylene, Hydrogenated Polyisobutene.
Fragrance Ingredients: None
Silicone Level: High
MAC Studio Fix 24-Hour Smooth Wear Concealer – $26
Performance Rating: Not Yet Rated
Ingredients Rating: (3 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A lightweight liquid concealer with a wand applicator that offers 24-hour wear with medium-to-full buildable coverage and a natural matte finish.”
This product does not list any synthetic colors on the ingredients list, but the cyclic silicone and the laureth-7 would both make it ineligible to be sold at Credo.
The product also includes two preservatives; synthetic Vitamin E, titanium dioxide, and several other silicones.
While this product may still work out for many people, I suspect that some of these ingredients (especially the laureth-7 and the chlorphenesin) may not be very good for my own skin.
Hopefully eventually when I am at a MAC counter I can give it a try, though.
Meets Criteria: EU Compliant
EWG Product Rating: 3 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Phenoxyethanol (4), Laureth-7 (3), Cyclopentasiloxane (3), PEG/PPG-18/18 Dimethicone (3), Chlorphenesin (3), Dimethicone (3), Titanium Dioxide (3), Tocopheryl Acetate (3). Also contains Trimethylsiloxysilicate, Phenyl Trimethicone, Dimethicone Crosspolymer, Methicone.
First 5 Ingredients: Cyclopentasiloxane, Water, Trimethylsiloxysilicate, Butylene Glycol, PEG/PPG-18/18 Dimethicone, Sorbitan Sesquioleate.
Fragrance Ingredients: None
Silicone Level: High
MAC Studio Fix Conceal & Correct Palette – $37
Performance Rating: Not Rated
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A palette with four concealers and two corrector shades to match any skin tone.”
This palette is intended for professional makeup use, which is why it includes a variety of shades.
Several different palettes are available, in shades from light to dark.
The products seem to be pretty clean according to conventional criteria, with only the synthetic colors, synthetic vitamin E, and titanium dioxide having much potential of being problematic.
MAC does not offer the product in these palettes individually, but the palettes are reasonably enough priced that it could be worth buying a whole palette just to get the proper concealer and corrector shades.
I may end up doing that at some point myself.
Meets Criteria: Credo Clean, Clean at Sephora, EU Compliant
EWG Ingredient Rating: 6 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 Lake (7), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Yellow #5 (6), Red #28 (5), Red #30 (5), Red #33 (4), Chromium Hydroxide Greens (4), Ultramarines (3), Tocopheryl Acetate (3), Titanium Dioxide (3). Also contains Dipentaerythrityl Hexahydroxystearate/Hexastearate/Hexarosinate (not rated by EWG).
First 5 Ingredients: Octyldodecanol, Dipentaerythrityl Hexahydroxystearate/Hexastearate/Hexarosinate, Synthetic Beeswax, Polyethylene, Silica.
Fragrance Ingredients: None
Silicone Level: Low
MAC Studio Radiance Face and Body – $39
Living Clean Rating: 8 out of 10
Performance Rating: (5 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (3 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “An ultra-light, waterproof foundation that provides a sheer buildable veil of coverage with a natural, radiant glow.”
This lightweight waterproof foundation includes several ingredients with the potential to be irritating, including some processed natural fragrance (orange oil, fusanus spicatus wood oil, and farnesol); some emulsifiers (triethanolamine and polysorbate-20); and two preservatives (chlorphenesin and phenoxyethanol).
Other potentially problematic ingredients include several kinds of silicones; talc; and synthetic vitamin E.
Despite all this, I have been able to wear this product without my quite sensitive skin being irritated by it at all.
Of course, many other people may have problems with it.
But still, the product does not contain any synthetic fragrance or other “no-go” ingredients and could be worth trying on in the store.
It offers light coverage and a pretty finish.
The reason that I have not purchased it myself is because I found it to be unusually difficult to remove from my skin.
Even after using an oil-based cleanser and a physical exfoliant, I felt like some of the product remained on my face for a few days.
I don’t think that having a permanent silicone coating on my face would be good for my skin quality at all, and so I definitely would not want to wear this product very often.
However, if for some reason I wanted a light coverage foundation that was totally waterproof, this might be a good one to choose.
Meets Criteria: EU Compliant
EWG Ingredient Rating: 6 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Talc (5), Orange Oil (5), Triethanolamine (5), Farnesol (4), Phenoxyethanol (4), Dimethicone (3), Tocopheryl Acetate (3), Polysorbate-20 (3), Chlorphenesin (3), Titanium Dioxide (3). Also contains Phenyl Trimethicone, Trimethylsiloxysilicate, and Fusanus Spicatus Wood Oil.
First 5 Ingredients: Water, Dimethicone, Hydrogenated Polyisobutene, Butylene Glycol, Vp/Hexadecene Copolymer, Stearic Acid.
Fragrance Ingredients: Orange Oil, Farnesol, Fusanus Spicatus Wood Oil.
Silicone Level: High
MAC Pro Longwear Nourishing Waterproof Foundation – $41
Performance Rating: Not Yet Rated
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A waterproof formula that lasts for 36 hours with medium-to-full buildable coverage and a satin finish.”
This waterproof foundation is high in silicone and also includes a few other potentially problematic ingredients (including laureth-7 and phenoxyethanol).
Several of the silicones are listed as PEG’s.
It provides more coverage than the MAC Studio Radiance Face & Body one described above, but otherwise seems to me that it might be fairly similar.
Since I concluded from trying on that foundation that I don’t really want a foundation that is waterproof since it is too hard to remove, I have yet to try this particular product.
Meets Criteria: EU Compliant
EWG Product Rating: 4 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Phenoxyethanol (4), Dimethicone (3), Lauryl PEG-9 Polydimethylsiloxyethyl Dimethicone (3), Tocopheryl Acetate (3), PEG-10 Dimethicone (3), Laureth-7 (3), Dimethicone PEG 10/15 Crosspolymer (3), Titanium Dioxide (3).
First 5 Ingredients: Water, Dimethicone, Methyl Trimethicone, Dimethicone Silylate, Butylene Glycol, Neopentyl Glycol Diheptanoate.
Fragrance Ingredients: None
Silicone Level: High
MAC Studio Fix Tech Cream-To-Powder Foundation – $40
Performance Rating: Not Rated
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A lightweight, sweat- and humidity-resistant foundation in a transformative texture that provides medium buildable coverage with a natural matte finish.”
This foundation contains several kinds of silicone, including some with PEG’s (which would make it ineligible to be sold at Credo or as Clean at Sephora).
It also contains polysorbate-80 (an emulsifier that is not allowed in products sold at Credo), phenoxyethanol, and titanium dioxide.
I have not tried this product.
Meets Criteria: EU Compliant
EWG Ingredients Rating: 5 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Phenoxyethanol (4), Dimethicone (3), Lauryl PEG-9 Polydimethylsiloxyethyl Dimethicone (3), Polysorbate-80 (3), Dimethicone PEG 10/15 Crosspolymer (3), Titanium Dioxide (3).
First 5 Ingredients: Water, Dimethicone, Synthetic Wax, Triethylhexanoin, Trimethylsiloxysilicate, Lauryl Peg-9 Polydimethylsiloxyethyl Dimethicone
Fragrance Ingredients: None
Silicone Level: High
MAC Full Coverage Foundation – $40
Performance Rating: Not Rated
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A foundation that’s both water-resistant and long-lasting with opaque coverage.”
This foundation includes a variety of synthetic coloring agents that EWG considers to be problematic, along with synthetic Vitamin E and titanium dioxide.
In addition, the product contains dipentaerythrityl hexahydroxystearate/hexastearate/hexarosinate, an emulsifier and viscosity adjuster that is not listed on the EWG database.
While I suspect that this foundation might emphasize my wrinkles and not be appropriate for me, it could be worth trying by those who are looking for a higher-coverage product.
Meets Criteria: Credo, Clean at Sephora, EU Compliant
EWG Ingredients Rating: 5 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 (7), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Yellow #5 (6), Red #28 (5), Red #30 (5), Chromium Oxide Greens (5), Red #33 (4), Ultramarines (3), Tocopheryl Acetate (3), Titanium Dioxide (3).
First 5 Ingredients: Octyldodecanol, Dipentaerythrityl Hexahydroxystearate/Hexastearate/Hexarosinate, Synthetic Beeswax, Polyethylene, Silica.
Fragrance Ingredients: None
Silicone Level: None
MAC Extra Dimension Blush – $33
Living Clean Rating: 8 out of 10
Performance Rating: (5 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (3 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A blush delivering a polished look that reflects light and leaves a smooth second-skin finish.”
The MAC Extra Dimension blushes and highlighters are the only powder cheek products that do not include talc that MAC appears to offer.
This blush does include a PEG as well as polysorbate-80, both of which would make it ineligible to be sold at Credo.
A variety of synthetic colors as well as titanium dioxide also are included.
I have this product in the shade Just A Pinch and have not found it to be irritating to my face.
It is on the shiny side and functions more as a colored highlighter than a straight blush for me.
Meets Criteria: EU Compliant
EWG Ingredients Rating: 6 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 (7), Yellow #6 (7), Red #6 (6), Red #7 (6), Chromium Hydroxide Greens (5), Red #28 (5), Red #30 (5), Yellow #5 (6), Chromium Hydroxide Green (4), Ferric Ammonium Ferrocyanide (4), Ultramarines (3), C12-20 Acid PEG-8 Ester (3), Polysorbate-80 (3), Titanium Dioxide (3).
First 5 Ingredients: Mica, Cetearyl Ethylhexanoate, C12-20 Acid Peg-8 Ester, Hdi/Trimethylol Hexyllactone Crosspolymer, Squalane.
Fragrance Ingredients: None.
Silicone Level: None
MAC Extra Dimension Skinfinish – $40
Living Clean Rating: 8 out of 10
Performance Rating: (5 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (3 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “Extra Dimension Skinfinish adds the perfect glow to skin. The liquid-powder highlighter, with prismatic reflections, is designed to sculpt and highlight your face, leaving a luminous, well-defined finish. The creamy powder formula lasts up to ten hours.”
This is a quite shiny powder highlighter that has not seemed to cause any irritation to my skin.
Like the MAC Extra Dimension blush, it contains a PEG and polysorbate-80, both of which would make it ineligible to be sold at Credo.
A few synthetic colors as well as some titanium dioxide also are listed as possibly included.
Meets Criteria: EU Compliant
EWG Ingredients Rating: 5 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 Lake (8), Yellow #5 (6), C12-20 Acid PEG-8 Ester (3), Polysorbate-80 (3), Titanium Dioxide (3), Ultramarines (3).
First 5 Ingredients: Mica, Cetearyl Ethylhexanoate, C12-20 Acid Peg-8 Ester, Hdi/Trimethylol Hexyllactone Crosspolymer, Squalane.
Fragrance Ingredients: None
Silicone Level: None
MAC Prep + Prime Highlighter
Performance Rating: Not Rated
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A pen-style highlighter that efficiently brings a soft, sheer wash of colour to the skin.”
This product contains several ingredients that would make it ineligible to be sold at Credo, including a cyclic silicone; several PEG dimethicones; and laureth-7.
A number of synthetic colors as well as phenoxyethanol (a preservative) and titanium dioxide also are included.
I have not tried this product.
Meets Criteria: EU Compliant
EWG Ingredient Rating: 6 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Blue #1 (7), Blue #1 Lake (7), Yellow #5 (6), Chromium Oxide Greens (5), Ferric Ferrocyanide (4), Chromium Hydroxide Green (4), Phenoxyethanol (4), Ultramarines (3), Cyclopentasiloxane (3), Dimethicone (3), PEG-10 Dimethicone (3), BIS-PEG/PPG-14/14 Dimethicone (3), Cetyl PEG/PPG-10/1 Dimethicone (3), Laureth-7 (3), Titanium Dioxide (3),
Meets Criteria: EU Compliant
First 5 Ingredients: Water, Cyclopentasiloxane, Polydecene, Butylene Glycol, Sodium Chloride, Dimethicone.
Fragrance Ingredients: None
Silicone Level: High
MAC Strobe Cream – $36
Living Clean Rating: 6 out of 10
Performance Rating: (4 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (2 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A radiant moisturizer that boosts the look of dull skin and illuminates with iridescent particles.”
This product contains unspecified and presumably synthetic fragrance, which I avoid in cosmetic products.
It also contains a few ingredients that would make it ineligible to be sold at Credo, including steareth-10 and polysorbate-80.
A synthetic color, some preservatives (phenoxyethanol and sodium metabisulfate), some dimethicone, synthetic Vitamin E, and titanium dioxide also are included.
I have a sample of this product and have not found it to be irritating to my skin.
I don’t feel that I like it enough to keep using it, though.
Meets Criteria: Clean at Sephora, EU Compliant
EWG Product Rating: 5 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Fragrance (8), Red #4 (4), Phenoxyethanol (4), Sodium Metabisulfate (4), Steareth-10 (3), Dimethicone (3), Tocopheryl Acetate (3), Polysorbate-80 (3), Titanium Dioxide (3). Also contains Trisiloxane.
First 5 Ingredients: Dimethicone, Butylene Glycol, Cetyl Ricinoleate, Glyceryl Distearate, Trisiloxane
Fragrance Ingredients: Fragrance
Silicone Level: High
Prep + Prime Natural Radiance – $43
Performance Rating: Not Rated
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A silky gel emulsion, rich in ingredients, that hydrates and creates a smooth canvas for foundation or powder application. It’s our best primer to achieve radiant, glowy skin. Illuminating pearlescent powders reflect optic radiance. M∙A∙C Prep Prime Natural Radiance is now available in two shades: Radiant Yellow and Radiant Pink to accommodate a range of skin tones. The formula disappears upon application, resulting in a beautiful glow.”
This non-silicone primer contains a number of different moisturizers and other ingredients that may have beneficial effects on skin quality.
A few of these – including salicylic acid, urea, potassium hydroxide, and acacia senegal gum – may have some potential to be irritating to some people’s skin, however.
The product also includes some synthetic colors; phenoxyethanol (a preservative); synthetic Vitamin E; and titanium dioxide.
I have not yet tried this product.
Meets Criteria: Credo, Clean at Sephora, EU Compliant
EWG Ingredients Rating: 6 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Yellow #6 (7), Yellow #5 (6), Potassium Hydroxide (5), Phenoxyethanol (4), Tocopheryl Acetate (3), Acacia Senegal Gum (3), Urea (3), Salicylic Acid (3), Titanium Dioxide (3).
First 5 Ingredients: Water, Glycerin, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Hydrogenated Polyisobutene, Propanediol, Tridecyl Trimellitate.
Fragrance Ingredients: Tangerine Peel Extract
Silicone Level: None
Prep + Prime Skin – $36
Living Clean Rating: Not Yet Rated
Performance Rating: Not Yet Rated
Ingredients Rating: (4 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A lightweight gel lotion that evens out skin redness and tone while adding radiance.”
I tried this primer once at a MAC counter, and my skin seemed to do fine with it.
It does contain a few problematic ingredients, including some silicones (including a cyclic silicone and a PEG silicone); polysorbate-20 (an emulsifier); phenoxyethanol a preservative); synthetic Vitamin E; and titanium dioxide.
While I do not feel that I need any more primers that contain silicone in my life, this one seems like it could be one to consider for those who are looking to purchase one.
Meets Criteria: EU Compliant
EWG Ingredient Rating: 4 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Phenoxyethanol (4), Cyclopentasiloxane (3), Dimethicone (3), Tocopheryl Acetate (3), Polysorbate-20 (3), PEG/PPG-18/18 Dimethicone (3), Titanium Dioxide (3)
First 5 Ingredients: Water, Cyclopentasiloxane, Dimethicone, Polysilicone-11, Tocopheryl Acetate, Sodium Hyaluronate.
Fragrance Ingredients: None
Silicone Level: High
MAC Prep + Prime Fix+ – $31
Living Clean Rating: 4 out of 10
Performance Rating: (2 / 5)
Ingredients Rating: (2 / 5)
The description of this product reads, “A lightweight water mist that gently soothes and refreshes skin and finishes makeup.”
This product includes a light and apparently synthetic fragrance, along with a few other mildly problematic ingredients.
Personally, I have always been trying for a natural look and have never seen the point in using a setting spray on my own face.
I tried a sample of this one and found it to be very mildly irritating to my own skin, presumably due to the inclusion of the fragrance.
However, compared to many of the other setting sprays that I have tried, this one actually has better ingredients and was less annoying to my skin.
It therefore may be that for those people who really want to use a setting spray, this one may not necessarily be the worst choice out there.
Meets Criteria: EU Compliant
EWG Product Rating: 5 (yellow)
EWG Problem Ingredients: Fragrance (8), Phenoxyethanol (4), Tocopheryl acetate (3), PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil (3).
First 5 Ingredients: Water, Glycerin, Butylene Glycol, Cucumber Fruit Extract, Matricaria Extract, Camellia Sinensis Leaf Extract.
Fragrance Ingredients: Cucumber Fruit Extract, Matricaria Extract, Camellia Sinensis Leaf Extract, Fragrance.
Silicone Ingredients: None
About This Website
The Living Clean in a Dirty World shopping website is designed to provide guidance to those seeking out products that are relatively low in toxicity and that provide generally positive user experiences.
Although the skincare and makeup sections have a particular focus on products appropriate for women who are in their 40’s or beyond, the information provided may be useful for other people as well.
The products are curated by Lisa Petrison, who has been focused on helping people to improve their health by avoiding toxicity since 2008 and who heads the Paradigm Change organization.
Her Living Clean in a Dirty World blog site discusses a variety of topics of relevance to those who are working to pursue a more natural lifestyle with less exposure to harmful toxicity.
Lisa is the author of several books, including A Beginner’s Guide to Mold Avoidance (co-written with Erik Johnson).
She also runs the Paradigm Change website (focusing on issues related to toxic mold illness) and the Mold Avoiders Facebook group (designed for the discussion of all topics of interest to those pursuing the mold avoidance approach described in the “Beginner’s Guide” book).
Lisa was born in August 1964 and has yet to try cosmetic surgery, Botox or other cosmetic treatments requiring interactions with a physician, or beauty products containing retinoids.
In her former life, Lisa worked as a business school professor, as a marketing consultant to a variety of large companies, and as a reporter covering the advertising industry.
She holds a Ph.D. in marketing and social psychology from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University as well as B.S./M.S. degrees from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern.
Lisa would like to extend a special note of appreciation to Ellen Kleiman-Redden for her help in trying out products and discussing issues related to this project.
She also would like to thank the many members of the Mold Avoiders community who have shared suggestions of products to be included here.
A Note From Lisa
Products that I have tried or researched and that I have not found to be acceptable from a toxicity standpoint have been omitted entirely from the discussions on this website.
However, since a goal of this project is to introduce people to a range of options in terms of price and functionality, some products discussed on this site include ingredients that may not be appropriate for everyone.
It’s my hope that all individuals making their way to this site will find at least a few options from each product category that meet all of their own needs and wants from a variety of perspectives.
The vast majority of cosmetics marketers now offer affiliate programs in which Internet content creators may earn commissions if people who are referred to the companies’ sites by clicking on links end up making purchases.
I participate in quite a few individual affiliate programs as well as in the Sovrn/Viglinks program (which automatically converts regular links into revenue-generating links).
Links on this page that may result in affiliate income may include – but are not necessarily limited to – those from the following companies: Amazon, Aveda, Beautycounter, Chantecaille, Charlotte Tilbury, Credo, Fenty, Glossier, Huda, Ilia, Jane Iredale, Koh Gen Do, MAC, Mineral Fusion, Neutrogena, Pharmaca, Rare Beauty, Sephora, Tarte, The Ordinary, Ulta, and Undone Beauty.
Reader comments about products discussed on this website are very welcome.
Thoughts may be shared either by posting them in the comments section at the bottom of this page or by sending them directly to me at the following email address:
info at paradigmchange dot me
Companies that would like to offer me complimentary products to try out may contact me at this address as well.
Individuals who are seeking out less-toxic products or who are interested in pursuing a cleaner and healthier lifestyle may want to sign up to receive occasional email newsletters from Living Clean in a Dirty World.
Thanks very much for visiting the Living Clean shopping site!
Links on this page are in orange (no underlining).
