75/ 100
C
OverallC71/100
Rare Beauty True to Myself Natural Matte Longwear Foundation

Rare Beauty · Foundation

Rare Beauty True to Myself Natural Matte Longwear Foundation

C · Moderate

Lower concern cosmetic; no PFAS triggers identified.

Verdict: BuyNo established safety red flags; standard cosmetic formulation with silent PFAS stance acceptable for category; typical usage risk profile.

Liquid foundation with no published waterproofing or Teflon-family coating claims. Rare Beauty has not disclosed PFAS use, typical for makeup brands not targeting water resistance.

Check price on Amazon →

We flunk more products than we pass. This one earned its grade. How we grade

Material

pigments, polymers, silicones in liquid suspension

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

Why this grade

Safe base material

Made from a material with no inherent PFAS use (ceramic, mineral, or natural fiber).

Helps the grade

Category baseline

cosmetics is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.

Hurts the grade

No PFAS disclosure

No public statement about PFAS in this product.

Hurts the grade

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

True to Myself Foundation is a liquid suspension of iron oxide and synthetic pigments dispersed in silicone polymers and humectants (likely glycerin or similar). Silicones dominate modern foundations because they create smooth spread, water resistance, and long wear without occlusion. The pigments themselves (iron oxides, titanium dioxide) are mineral-based and inert; synthetic organic pigments carry minimal toxicity risk in topical cosmetics at typical use levels. No known heavy-metal contamination concerns are documented for this specific product line.

The brand's record and disclosure

Rare Beauty (Selena Gomez brand, Estee Lauder-owned) has maintained a marketing position focused on inclusivity and "clean" beauty but has not publicly committed to transparency on ingredient sourcing, heavy metals testing, or PFAS avoidance. The brand does not list third-party certifications (e.g., EWG Verified, Leaping Bunny, organic standards) on product pages. No recalls or safety controversies linked to this foundation have been reported in consumer or regulatory databases; the brand's overall safety record is unremarkable (neither flagged nor celebrated).

How it compares in its category

Silicone-based liquid foundations dominate the mid-to-premium market; True to Myself is structurally typical for its price tier and positioning. Compared to water-based or oil-based alternatives, silicone foundations carry no inherent safety disadvantage and are often preferred by users with sensitive skin because they minimize bacterial growth risk. Rare Beauty's formula lacks marketed "clean" ingredients (e.g., talc-free, lead-tested, fragrance-disclosed) that differentiate some competitors; it sits in the mainstream cosmetic safety profile, not above or below.

If you buy it

Apply as directed (typically fingertip or brush); normal facial use poses no special risk. Ensure hands and applicators are clean before use to prevent bacterial introduction. Storage at room temperature away from direct heat is standard; no special climate control required. Discontinue use if rash, itching, or irritation develops and patch-test on inner arm before first full application if you have known dye or fragrance sensitivities (product contains fragrance per INCI declarations).

Beyond PFAS: other things we checked

Established hazard classes for this product type, assessed from public information. These never change the PFAS grade; a Likely flag caps the Verdict at “Buy with care.”

None known

Heavy metal contamination in pigments

Iron oxide and titanium dioxide pigments used in liquid foundations are generally well-regulated; no lead, cadmium, or arsenic testing failures documented for Rare Beauty products. Risk is theoretical and manufacturer-controlled, not product-specific concern.

Possible

Fragrance allergens and sensitizers

Product formulation includes fragrance components (undisclosed specific allergens per INCI); individuals with fragrance sensitivity or eczema may experience contact dermatitis. This is user-dependent, not a formulation defect.

None known

Formaldehyde releasers or preservative toxicity

No formaldehyde donors (e.g., DMDM hydantoin, quaternium-15) identified in published ingredient lists; standard cosmetic preservatives (likely imidazolidinyl urea or phenoxyethanol analogs) are within safety limits at use levels.

None known

Talc or asbestos contamination

Foundation is liquid suspension, not powder; talc is not a disclosed ingredient. Liquid format eliminates inhalation risk entirely; no contamination pathway exists.

None known

Silicone polymer bioaccumulation or skin barrier disruption

Silicones used in cosmetics (cyclopentasiloxane, dimethicone) are not absorbed systemically; no evidence of barrier damage or toxicity from topical cosmetic-grade silicone exposure. Long-term wear may require thorough cleansing to prevent buildup.

What we don’t know

This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 72% confidence. It is not a lab result.

No independent PFAS lab test is on record for this exact product. A lab test could move the score in either direction.

The brand has not made a specific, verifiable PFAS-free statement, so part of this score reflects that missing disclosure rather than a confirmed material.

Formulations and coatings change between production runs. Always check the current label before buying.

More foundation grades

How we score: every product runs through the same public 0–100 rubric based on materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls. See the full methodology → Spotted a mistake? Report an error.