Best non toxic lip matte dupes for Nars Dolce Vita please

[fsadeli]

Looking for matte and similar shade to Dolce Vita that are non toxic 

[WinglessOne]

@fsadeli  I'm also wondering what specific ingredient(s) you want to avoid, since I doubt there's anything truly toxic in the NARS Dolce Vita lipstick. 

In addition to NARS Velvet Matte Lipstick Pencil Dolce Vita which is probably the best match, maybe tarte Lippie Lingerie Matte Lip Tint Whisper is close? Or perhaps tarte Tarteist™ Quick Dry Matte Lip Paint Rose ? 

[Nahnom]

Hi,

[WinglessOne]

Hi @Nahnom ! I also love to learn about ingredients, as my entire skincare routine is ingredient-driven due to my specific skin issues. I have a few thoughts: 

1. Cyclopentasiloxane isn't toxic to humans. The issue brought up in Europe has more to do with cyclotetrasiloxane, and making sure manufacturers use as pure a form of cyclopentasiloxane possible to avoid the issue. Plus, there's still a European allowance of cyclopentasiloxane of less than 0.1%. 

2. Ah, parabens, perhaps the most unfairly demonized family of ingredients. One of the studies (the 1998 Rutledge study) frequently cited as proof of parabens affecting hormones involved injecting rats with parabens, instead of applying parabens topically to rats' skin. Also, based on that study's data, our own naturally estradiol is MUCH stronger than parabens. The other frequently cited study (the 2004 Darbre study) used to prove parabens cause cancer was faulty for several reasons, such as having no control group. I've actually read that study and even I—someone without a chemistry background—can see the glaring problems with it. I'll track down and read the Jurewicz study you mentioned, but I suspect it might be similar to 2 other earlier studies that found traces of parabens in urine, which isn't a strong case for claiming parabens disrupt the female reproduction system. 

3. As you noted, BHT hasn't been proven carcinogenic. 

I appreciate that you choose to avoid these ingredients. But I'm not willing to label them as toxic. I haven't seen nearly enough proof of toxicity. Granted, I'm not a doctor or chemist, so I occasionally field feedback from folks who work professionally in those fields. Last time I asked I did a round of "so, changed your mind yet about parabens," the answer was a resounding "nope." 

It's possible that could change of course, given enough clinical study and research. That's true of any ingredient, including those some folks consider "clean" (whatever that really is) today. When government health agency statements against an ingredient include lots of "may," "might," and "possibly," I know that means they're erring on the side of conservative caution without adequate proof to definitively call the ingredient dangerous. 

EDIT: be very careful about using the EWG as a reliable source for anything. Their rating system makes no sense and doesn't seem to be science-driven. It also appears they rate "dangerous" ingredients as safe or less dangerous when listed for products by brands they prefer—and I suspect those brands support the EWG in some way (monetary or otherwise). 

[Nahnom]

Well that's good for you. I'm just giving my opinion and a possible explanation as to why the original poster wanted a non-toxic dupe. 

Everyone has their own opinions based off the research and experiences with skin products. 

[WinglessOne]

@Nahnom  Hey, make sure you tag folks in your replies so they’ll get notifications. Otherwise people might miss your replies. I know the BIC notifications feature is glitchy (again) right now, but it’s still a good habit to get into. 

Of course everyone has their own opinions about skincare. And since everyone’s skin is different, many of us have tailored our routines to include and exclude specific ingredients we know our skin reacts badly to. And that’s okay! 🙂 

It’s just that you presented some info as fact, not opinion, by stating that those particular ingredients are toxic. I felt obligated to explain those ingredients have not been proven toxic. I shared my explanations not just for you, but also for the person who started this thread, to perhaps help them make informed decisions. If a third person jumped into this discussion with more info based on their own research (not just reading the abstract of a clinical study, which I suspect the EWG does) and disagreed with one or both of us, that’d also be okay. Different perspectives and fact-sharing are partly what science thrives on, after all. So do communities in general, like BIC. 

I’m glad you don’t actually use the EWG’s site. I was being very nice in my description of them. 😂 In my opinion, no one should ever use the EWG as a resource. Not even folks who are into “clean beauty” (which I’m definitely not—but I’ll spare folks my usual rant about “clean”). And I’ve yet to meet a dermatologist or chemist who doesn’t feel the same. 

[Nahnom]

m

[fsadeli]

thank you for your reply! Nothing in particular, but probably the one without paraben, phenoxytanol or mica that I saw on their ingredients. Looking for the one that I can use everyday without worry. The tarte list that you mentioned aren't available in Sephora? 

[missjeanie]

@fsadeli Is there a specific ingredient you're looking to avoid?  I'm not sure what you mean by 'non-toxic'.   I believe NARS does make this shade in the Velvet matte lip pencils if you were looking for something more matte than the lip balm or sheer lipstick.