You are here: Home / Information / The Top 5 Myths About Mineral Oil:: Part 1

The Top 5 Myths About Mineral Oil:: Part 1

Posted by on November 18, 2010 · 29 Comments 

We often see the advice that people should avoid mineral oil at all costs. This idea is propagated by numerous “natural” companies. Well, this advice is just bogus. It’s not based on any scientific studies. Mineral oil is a perfectly fine ingredient and has been used in cosmetics for over 100 years.

Here are the top 5 Myths that companies tell people to make them afraid of mineral oil. In part 2, we look at why “natural” companies would be trying to scare you.

Mineral Oil Myths

1. Mineral oil is contaminated with carcinogens.
While it’s true that some petroleum derivatives contain carcinogenic materials (like some polycyclic aromatic compounds) the mineral oil that is used in the cosmetic and pharmaceutical industry is highly refined and purified. It’s purity is even regulated by the US FDA and other international regulatory agencies. There is absolutely no evidence that cosmetic grade mineral oil causes cancer. And there has been plenty of testing done to ensure that fact. We could find no published reports in any of the dermatological or medical journals indicating a link between mineral oil and any forms of cancer.

2. Mineral oil dries the skin and causes premature aging.
Mineral oil works as a barrier between the skin and the air. It acts as an occlusive agent which prevents water from naturally leaving your body through your skin. It will not dry out your skin or cause premature aging. Quite the contrary. It will provide moisturization.

3. Mineral oil robs the skin of vitamins.
Since many vitamins are oil based, people assume that mineral oil will pull them out of your skin. There is no legitimate scientific evidence that this is true. Mineral oil has no effect on the vitamin levels in your skin.

4. Mineral oil prevents absorption of collagen from collagen moisturizers.
Collagen in your skin lotions and moisturizers is too big to actually penetrate your skin. Therefore, mineral oil will have no effect on whether the collagen gets absorbed or not.

5. Mineral oil causes acne.
In some people, mineral oil can exacerbate acne problems. However, most people will not experience any problems.

So, if it is not for safety concerns, why would companies be telling you to avoid mineral oil? We’ll look at that in part 2 of our series.

Print FriendlyPrint Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!

More about the author:  Perry received his B.S. in Chemistry from DePaul University. He has written and edited numerous articles and books, teaches SCC continuing education classes in cosmetic science, and is the primary author at ChemistsCorner.com a website dedicated to training current and future cosmetic scientists. Read more from this author

Related posts:

  1. Myths About Mineral Oil:: Part 2
  2. Mineral Oil
  3. Natural or Not: The Story of a Mineral Oil Molecule

Filed under Information · Tagged with , , , , , , ,

  • Regfmcd

    Thank you for demystifying.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The Top 5 Myths About Mineral Oil:: Part 1 | Personal Care Truth or Scare -- Topsy.com

  • http://flavordesigns.com Franziska San Pedro

    Hi Perry,
    maybe you’re right, maybe you’re not. But why not use botanicals in the first place? Why use mineral oil instead? There are a lot of contradictory opinions, as for me, I use what makes sense and use something that is as little processed as possible. Same with food!
    Another point is that we are running out of resources and the hunt for mineral oil is causing wars -in history it was once gold, salt then it was sugar. Today it is mineral oils, why fuel the fire when we have alternatives?

    I appreciate your research though and a well written post and happy Thanksgiving,
    Franziska
    @Flavor Designs

    • Dene Godfrey

      Sorry, Franziska, but there is no “maybe you’re not”. Perry IS right when he states that there is no evidence. This lack of evidence does not stop people making adverse claims, however. I would like to step in and respond to your question “why not use botanicals”? It all very well for people to want to “save the planet” by using apparently renewable sources, and I am totally in favour of this in principle. The problem lies in the fact that it is simply not possible to transfer the source of all cosmetic ingredients to botanicals, for more than just technical reasons. The major reason is food. Eating is much more important than smearing cosmetics on our bodies. There is already an issue with the use of vast tracts of land being used to grow crops to produce biodiesil. What do you think would happen if further land was devoted to crops for cosmetic ingredients? Less food. Fact. Using only botanicals in cosmetics will not save the planet, it will result in more starvation for those who are already struggling to get sufficient food, and higher prices for those who CAN get food. Given that the most important aspect of a cosmetic is its safety, there is nothing to be gained from using botanicals. If you want to help save the planet, stop using cosmetics of any type – it’s the logical ultimate conclusion to the argument. They are not essential.

      • http://twitter.com/chemistscorner Chemists Corner

        Couldn’t have said it any better myself Dene.

        If safety & resources are people’s main concern, they should stop using cosmetics.

        Perry, 44

        • Dene Godfrey

          I know you couldn’t have Perry! But, if I am honest (and I always try to be), it was either you or Doug Schoon that originally made that same statement in a LinkedIn discussion some months ago – I am merely repeating it, because it is so true!

      • http://twitter.com/chemistscorner Chemists Corner

        Couldn’t have said it any better myself Dene.

        If safety & resources are people’s main concern, they should stop using cosmetics.

        Perry, 44

      • Anonymous

        Apparently mineral oil comes at a very cheap price too…..donno how much true but still…….just a question that do the chemicals in the cosmetics really get absorbed by the skin and create deposits in form of toxins coz I have read so much of contradictory notions that it is really boggling on what to use and what not…..or the principle of eating and applying on skin are different coz you definitely would not eat toxins….

        • Dene Godfrey

          I hope this answers your question:

          From the web site of the American Academy of Dermatology:

          “Uninjured skin is an excellent barrier to most substances found in cosmetics and skin care products.”

          Professor Mike Cork, Head of Academic Unit of Dermatology Research Dept. of Infection and Inflammation, Faculty of Medicine The University of Sheffield, UK:

          “The normal skin barrier provides protection for the body against the penetration of irritants and allergens from the environment and the loss of water out through the skin. Without this very effective skin barrier humans and other land animals would die from dehydration within a day”

          Professor Jonathan Hadgraft, Professor of Biophysical Chemistry, The School of Pharmacy, The University of London, UK:

          “The skin possesses an outer layer which is a very impressive barrier. It is about one sixth the thickness of a piece of paper but stops us losing excessive water. This is because of its unique structure.
          Absorption is variable depending on:
          the skin site and its condition,
          the properties of the active applied,
          the product in which the active is applied.

          For the great majority of materials the percent of dose absorbed is around 1-2%
          For some it is less than 0.1%
          For some, very few, it is 10-20%

          The barrier properties of the skin and the resulting low absorption into the skin are a major problem in the topical treatment of skin conditions and diseases. The majority of compounds that have potential to affect the biology of the skin are rarely delivered in amounts to allow them to realise that potential. “

          • Anonymous

            so technically the cosmetics are simply sitting on the top of the skin. Then, are the prescription ingredients like retin-A and salicylic acid containing products of the same grade or they do have enough of concentration of the ingredients which show some changes in the skin structure. I had read somewhere that while grading the cosmetics, tests are done to ensure that they do not change the structure of the skin. If any product does that, it has to be called a drug. Accordingly, the anti-aging and other kinds of treatments do not do anything to the skin.

          • Dene62

            I am hoping that someone else will step in and answer your question, as this is outside my area of expertise – which is the main reason I used quotes from others above!

          • http://twitter.com/chemistscorner Chemists Corner

            Prescription skin products have a higher level of the active ingredient. They don’t generally have a “purer” grade.

            It’s true that if an anti-aging product actually had a demonstrable effect on skin metabolism, it would be acting as a drug and thus would be classified as such (at least in the US).

            That’s why, for example, companies claim their products “enhance collage production” instead of saying “increases collagen production.”

    • http://twitter.com/chemistscorner Chemists Corner

      One reason that mineral oil is used is because when it comes to skin moisturizing, it has a superior effect over botanicals. It just works better.

    • http://twitter.com/chemistscorner Chemists Corner

      One reason that mineral oil is used is because when it comes to skin moisturizing, it has a superior effect over botanicals. It just works better.

    • Philippe Papadimitriou

      Mineral Oil may be replaced by other compounds (synthetic and natural) to give the same texture, but maybe not the same efficacy (in terms of water retention).

      But the real question is not “why is mineral oil not replaced?”, but rather “why should it be replaced?”.

      I’ll let Perry post his second part for the answer, but according to what he tells you above in his article -and many other scientific reasons-, it is NOT because of human safety issues.

  • Susanne J

    Thanks for your post. Have a question: Do you know anything about developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after Mineral Oil exposure?

    • http://twitter.com/chemistscorner Chemists Corner

      There was some research done in 2005 that showed a potential link to occupational exposure of mineral oil (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/513269).

      But this was motor oil and hydraulic fluid, not cosmetic grade mineral oil. I could find no other published studies linking mineral oil to arthritis. The study above also had some significant limitations

      “Study limitations include retrospective collection of exposure data, possible recall bias, potential confounding from smoking, and relatively small number of men exposed to mineral oil.”

      More research is definitely required to determine whether there is any link between arthritis and use of mineral oil containing cosmetics.

      • Susanne J

        TY

  • Anonymous

    would it be possible for you to shed light on the process of derivation of mineral oil and the purification process……it understand it is a byproduct during the derivation of other products from petroleum…..how so ever much you refine this it would still remain a petroleum byproduct….right?? i have used the petroleum jelly and have seen the effect in my skin…it darkened over time and started looking mature……in a matter of months in my teenage……stopped it and saw the reversal so will this be attributed to not suiting the skin type coz mine is a dry skin rather extremely dry at that time which should be improving if we go by the explanation of what an oil does….i do use oils on my skin and they work pretty well so its not that i go by non-oil cosmetic standards……
    though i definitely will refute the other claims as regarding carcinogens and other potential diseases…..i am sure it does go purification process before getting converted into a cosmetic grade mineral oil and some integrity has to be maintained even if you want to save the bucks….it can worsen acne for oily skin but that happens with any oil and completely dependent on specific skin…..robbing skin of vitamins……guess it can not rob something which is provided from inside to the skin…..and regarding the collagen theory that really is another variation of clogging the pores….
    i think the main reason why everyone is suddenly afraid of petroleum products is cause they are petroleum derivatives not coz of other reasons and the aging and other things are true even if there are no evidences……guess experiences of various people does count…….

  • http://twitter.com/magicalstephie magicalstephie

    I was recently told by an Arbonne rep that mineral oil prevents vitamins and things from being absorbed into the skin (unlike the myth that it leaches out). They also said that mineral oil prevents toxins from escaping from the skin and prevents you skin from “breathing.” I haven’t heard these before. Are these true?

    • http://twitter.com/chemistscorner Chemists Corner

      With the exception of retinoids, vitamins in your cosmetic skin products are not absorbed by the skin and have little to no benefit. Prescription strength wrinkle treatments are the only ones scientifically proven to work on wrinkles. The cosmetic brands that include ingredients like Vitamin E, Vitamin C or others should not be expected to have any added effect on wrinkles versus the standard cream alone. So, whether it is true or not the mineral oil blocks absorption is irrelevant.

      Mineral oil also does not prevent toxins from escaping from the skin. First, there is not an appreciable amount of toxins that leave the body via the skin. That’s what the liver and kidneys are for! Second, materials that leave the skin are a result of dead skin being exfoliated. Mineral oil, cetyl alcohol, silicones, parabens, and all the other ingredients that are in your skin lotion, eventually get removed from your skin when the outer layers get removed.

      As far as skin “breathing”, we do not breath through our skin and mineral oil will not suffocate skin.

      Perry, 44

      • http://www.sterlingminerals.com/ Katherine

        I am so glad you are writing this series of articles.

        You know it is interesting Perry that you mention the breathing part, because I have used this description when describing my products.

        However, I know full well skin does not breathe, but I believe, at least for me, it is more about ingredients not being occlusive or causing blockage on skin, of which this euphemism is being used for, not the skin literally takes in air.

        So in this context this may be why this term is used widely throughout the skincare and makeup industry.

        • http://twitter.com/chemistscorner Chemists Corner

          Thanks for the comments Katherine. I do realize that many marketers are speaking metaphorically when saying skin “breathes”. Unfortunately, the metaphor is lost on some and there are plenty of people who actually believe we literally breathe through our skin. These are usually the same people who believe that 60 – 100% of what you put on your skin gets absorbed into your body. So troubling.

          Perry, 44

          • http://www.sterlingminerals.com/ Katherine

            Thanks Perry and I know what you mean, this too bothers me. Oh and by the way thanks for using the correct term. My brain goes “blip” more and more these days….you know what they so delicately call “senior moment”, instead of senile, now that’s a euphemism. ;~) “Metaphorically” was what I was trying to remember, but out pops euphemism. DUH!

      • Anonymous

        so even the products which advocate anti-aging and anti-oxidant benefits are basically not delivering anything to the skin?

        • http://twitter.com/chemistscorner Chemists Corner

          Anti-aging products have a moisturizing effect but for the most part, that’s it. The only placebo controlled human topical use study I’ve ever seen that demonstrates an effective ingredient for anti-aging is Vitamin A. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17515510

          Other ingredients that are advertised as being anti-aging usually support their claims by demonstrating an effect in-vitro on human cell lines. But just because something shows an effect in the lab does not mean you’ll see an effect in a lotion.

          I’m skeptical that any other anti-aging skin ingredient (except sunscreens & AHAs) will have any noticeable effect on aged skin. Of course, other people may respectfully disagree. I could change my mind too if I saw any scientifically controlled evidence.

          The other problem is this…If an anti-aging product delivered an “active” ingredient to the skin cells & it affected the body’s metabolism, the product would no longer be a cosmetic. It would be a drug.

          So, anti-aging products either don’t do anything (more than a typical cosmetic) or they are mis-branded, illegal drugs.

          Perry, 44

    • Dene Godfrey

      From my personal experience of engaging with Arbonne reps in LinkedIn discussions, it seems that many of them (but not all) have a big thing about mineral oil. I have no idea if this “anti-mineral oil” stance is actually promoted or encouraged by the company in an official manner but, as a general observation, most reps for MLM businesses like Arbonne have little or no scientific background and don’t really understand what they are saying – in some cases simply making it up as they go along. I certainly don’t believe that ALL reps are behaving in this manner, but I would recommend checking any “facts” given out by these people as best you can – as you have done here!

  • Pingback: Late Night Links | Lazy Beautiful

  • Pingback: Myths About Mineral Oil:: Part 2 | Personal Care Truth or Scare