NONCOMEDOGENIC IS BEST FOR ACNE PRONED SKIN… RIGHT?
If you are someone who classifies themselves as having acne-prone skin, you are likely to come across a term, non-comedogenic products. It’s become a common claim sought out by those hoping to curb breakouts because it measures reduction… right? But we explore here what does comedogenicity truly mean, where did the term originate, and why is it crucial to understand?
THE TRAILBLAZER OF THE COMEDOGENIC SCALE
Comedogenicity refers to the potential of a substance to cause comedones, which are the blemishes that arise when pores are clogged. These can be either opened with an oxidized oil cap (blackheads) or closed (whiteheads). The term originates from the word "comedo," a type of acne lesion that forms when oil and dead skin cells fester within follicles.
A well-known dermatologist Dr. Albert Kligman researched modes of measuring pore-clogging activities in the 70s and 80s. He, and dermatologist Otto Mills, according to a study reported by MJS Publishing, used the rabbit ear model to test various ingredients’ ability to produce comedones “by visual scoring on a 4-point rating scale (score 0-3) with the aid of a stereomicroscope.” This led to the development of the comedogenic scale, which rates the comedogenic potential of various substances ranging from 0-5. Zero has the least likelihood to clog and five is the most likely to clog. Kligman’s scale is shown below:
- 0 – Non-comedogenic (do not clog pores)
- 1 – Fairly low comedogenic (very low chance of clogging pores)
- 2 – Moderately low comedogenic (may clog pores for some but be fine for most)
- 3 – Moderately comedogenic (will clog acne-prone/oily skin type)
- 4 – Fairly high comedogenic (will clog pores for almost all skin types)
- 5 – Highly comedogenic (will clog pores)
NO STANDARDIZED METHOD
The comprehensive issue with comedogenicity testing lies in its methodology. Many studies fail to mimic real-world application conditions or take into consideration a regime of products.
It can also support animal testing, many of the first tests were conducted on rabbit ears. Now there is an alternative with human subjects, but you should ideally ask the brands making this claim to clarify their test methods. If you are wondering why the bunnies? It was due to their high sensitivity rate, but also their similarity with human skin to produce comedones. According to Acne.org, scientists would use highly concentrated ingredients in the rabbit ear assay (REA), to determine whether a reaction occurred. They also point out that scientists would assess comedone production by using three methods: a visual inspection (counting the number of comedones visible to the naked eye), a whole mount (viewing a skin sample at the microscopic level), and a histological inspection (treating it with chemicals that provide color to specific regions of the comedone).
Not only was this extremely inhumane, but also wildly inaccurate. Human skin and rabbit skin share similarities, but there are ingredients that potentially cause greater irritation to rabbits due to their higher sensitivity rate. Additionally, skincare products are a blend of ingredients (typically at low concentrations) that impact the effect that they may have on human skin. For example, oils rated at a 5 in their 100% purest form could only be a 1 in their 10% diluted form. Moreover, the inclusion of multiple ingredients in formulations complicates the prediction of comedogenicity, as interactions between ingredients can alter their effects on the skin. As a company, DEW MIGHTY is both vegan AND cruelty-free, click HERE.
Another flaw is the variability in individual skin types. What clogs pores in one person might not have the same effect on another. Factors such as skin type, genetic predisposition, environmental influences, and even diet or activity level can all impact how a person’s skin responds to different ingredients.
“NON-COMEDOGENIC” CLAIMS FOR BEAUTY
The beauty industry often markets products as noncomedogenic to attract consumers with acne-prone or sensitive skin. However, the lack of standardized testing means that these claims are often misleading.
The FDA has stated that “The law does not require cosmetic labeling to have FDA approval before cosmetic products go on the market, and FDA does not have a list of approved or accepted claims for cosmetics,” meaning that any product can be labeled as noncomedogenic without having evidence or proper standardization methods to support this claim.
The first company to showcase a noncomedogenic label on its products was Neutrogena. Neutrogena’s first product to claim noncomedogenic properties was the Facial Cleansing Bar. Introduced in the 1960s, this transparent glycerin bar soap was marketed for its gentle, non-irritating formula (meant to be suitable for acne sufferers). The claim that it did not clog pores was a key selling point for the brand. But think about this. Are soaps developed to clean or to leave something behind? If you test most soaps we would likely see 99% of them fulfill the noncomedogenic claim because it cleanses the skin removing dirt and oils. Leaving this on the skin for long periods would be relatively difficult to clog pores. Sounds a bit misleading doesn’t it?
INGREDIENTS VS FORMULAS VS REGIMES
The study in 1984 that started the identification of comedogenic ingredients can be found in the National Library of Medicine and is interpreted into a simple chart by Acne.com. This is the information most consumers are referring to when they are choosing products and turning over the ingredeint label. We describe in depth how ingredient labelling is wildly varying in another blog, called DECODING & WRITING COSMETIC LABELS, so keep in mind labels without background knowledge of dosage, supplier, or purity only gives you a fraction of information. They are also a marketing tool and usually meant to be misleading.
TRANSPARENCY MATTERS
You may be thinking, “What about DEW MIGHTY? Are their ingredients good for my oily or acnre-proned skin?” We sure are! Our formulas are balanced to focus on healthy skin barrier which also will help normalize oily skin, the LUCID cleanser with enzymes detoxes pores to avoid clogging, and our actives contained especially in BLOOM and NOVA help to keep skin supple and freshly renewed. Avoiding the common acne issues like oil oxidation, oil overproduction, and old skin cells clogging pores are most important to prevent whiteheads and blackheads.
While the comedogenicity scale was once an innovative concept, its limitations and inaccuracies make it largely unreliable in today's context. The scale's failure to account for real-world application conditions, its reliance on animal testing, its lack of standardization, and its neglect of the complex interactions between ingredients undermine its credibility. Furthermore, the variability in individual skin regimes and use of skincare products means that what may be noncomedogenic for one person could cause breakouts in another.
Great additional reads
“Acnegenicity Testing in Rabbits”
https://www.medicaljournals.se/acta/content_files/files/pdf/65/4/65282286.pdf
“What Is Comedogenicity, and What Ingredients Are Comedogenic? The Full Story”
“Cosmetic Labeling Claims”
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-labeling/cosmetics-labeling-claims
“What Noncomedogenic Means in Skin Care Products”
https://www.healthline.com/health/beauty-skin-care/non-comedogenic#_noHeaderPrefixedContent
“Comedogenicity of current therapeutic products, cosmetics, and ingredients in the rabbit ear”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6229554/
Collab: Sophia Gutierrez