Olea Europaea (Olive) Oil
Olive oil, which our list names Olea Europaea (Olive) Oil, is rated 3 to 5 on our list, a range whose top puts it in the high band, and the number is traced: Fulton 1989 graded it 2, or 1 for the refined oil, and Morris and Kwan 1983 graded it 0.
Like every rating here, it is for the raw ingredient tested alone, and a label does not print how much of it a product holds.
Is olive oil comedogenic?
Olive Oil is rated 3–5 on the comedogenic scale: our list gives it a range from 3 to 5, and the band follows the 5 at the top. The rabbit-ear studies we have read give it less: Fulton 1989 gave it 2, or 1 for the refined oil; Morris and Kwan 1983 gave it 0. Our list's 5 is above all of them.
A heavy plant oil, the same one used in cooking, used in products for very dry skin.
- Comedogenic rating
- 3–5 out of 5 (a range on our list)
- Band
- High: Clear plugging in the rabbit-ear test. The first band to check in a leave-on product.
- Where the number comes from
- Traced to Fulton 1989 and Morris and Kwan 1983. The section on who rated it prints each grade.
- Composition
- Natural Oil / Vegetable Oils (High in oleic acid)
- Also written as
- Olive, Olea Europaea
What a 3–5 means in practice
A 4 or 5 is the top of the scale. In the rabbit-ear test, Fulton 1989 counted 4 to 5 as a clear positive: the ingredient plugged the follicles, and did so repeatably. A person's skin reacts less readily than a rabbit's ear, and a product holds far less of the ingredient than the test did, so treat this band as the first thing to check in anything that stays on your skin. It does not prove the ingredient will cause a breakout. A rinse-off product is on the skin for seconds.
Two things change what this number is worth. Ingredients are listed in descending order of concentration, so olive oil near the top of a label matters far more than olive oil at the bottom. And the rating describes the raw ingredient on its own. A 2006 review in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology found that a rating for a single ingredient does not reliably predict how a finished formula behaves on human skin. The full story of the scale is here.
Who rated it
Our list is one band above the research. Our list gives olive oil 3–5. Fulton 1989 gave it 2, or 1 for the refined oil; Morris and Kwan 1983 gave it 0. We report the list as it stands and show the papers beside it. Where the list and the research disagree.
Our list gives olive oil 3–5. These are the figures the published rabbit-ear studies we have read give it, as printed in each paper's table.
| Paper | Grade | Tested as |
|---|---|---|
| Fulton 1989 | Grade 2, or 1 for the refined oil | Tested as Olive oil |
| Morris and Kwan 1983 | Grade 0 | Tested as Olive Oil |
Ahn and colleagues 1985 reports moderate to severe comedogenicity in the rabbit ear canal, in an abstract that gives no 0 to 5 grade.
Our list's top figure, 5, is higher than anything in these papers.
Similar names, rated separately
These share a source with olive oil or carry it in their name, and each has its own rating on our list. The 3–5 on this page does not carry over to them, so check the exact name on the label.
Where olive oil comes up on this site
Fungal acne
Olive Oil matches rule 4, plant or animal oil or butter , on the fungal acne checker. A plant or animal oil, mostly triglycerides. The rule comes from lab studies of what Malassezia yeast can feed on, and it is not a verdict on any product.
Common questions
- Is olive oil comedogenic?
- Olive Oil is rated 3–5 on the comedogenic scale: our list gives it a range from 3 to 5, and the band follows the 5 at the top. The rabbit-ear studies we have read give it less: Fulton 1989 gave it 2, or 1 for the refined oil; Morris and Kwan 1983 gave it 0. Our list's 5 is above all of them.
- Is olive oil non comedogenic?
- No. Olive Oil is rated 3–5 on the comedogenic scale, which is the high band. That is the number on our list; the papers we read grade it lower (see Who rated it).
- What is olive oil's comedogenic rating?
- 3–5 out of 5 on our list. It is classed as Natural Oil / Vegetable Oils (High in oleic acid). The rabbit-ear studies we have read give it less: Fulton 1989 gave it 2, or 1 for the refined oil; Morris and Kwan 1983 gave it 0. Our list's 5 is above all of them.
Sources we checked this rating against
- Kligman AM, Kwong T. “An improved rabbit ear model for assessing comedogenic substances.” British Journal of Dermatology, June 1979;100(6):699–702. (opens in a new tab) The rabbit-ear assay behind published 0 to 5 comedogenicity grades.
- Fulton JE Jr. “Comedogenicity and irritancy of commonly used ingredients in skin care products.” Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, November/December 1989;40(6):321–333. (opens in a new tab) Rabbit ear. Each ingredient at 10 percent in propylene glycol unless stated, applied five days a week for two weeks, and graded 0 to 5 from the width of the follicles, measured by micrometer and under the microscope. The paper counts 0 to 1 as not significant, 2 to 3 as borderline and 4 to 5 as positive. Some grades depended on the supplier of the raw material, and some oils were also tested refined.
- Morris WE, Kwan SC. “Use of the rabbit ear model in evaluating the comedogenic potential of cosmetic ingredients.” Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, August 1983;34(5):215–225. (opens in a new tab) Rabbit ear canal, at the Revlon Research Center. Each material applied undiluted unless stated, once a day five days a week for 14 applications, and graded 0 to 5 by microscope only. The authors set out to recheck earlier results because investigators disagreed.
- Ahn HY, Myung KB, Hahm JH, Kook HI. “An experimental study on comedogenicity of several external contactants.” Korean Journal of Dermatology, October 1985;23(5):620–629. (opens in a new tab) Rabbit ear canal; in the abstract’s words, the materials were applied to one ear canal of rabbits "for 6 weekdays for 2 weeks". Read at abstract level: the full text is not online. The abstract sorts ingredients into none, mild, moderate and severe with no 0 to 5 grade, and lists propylene glycol under both none and moderate. Kligman 1996 says that putting test materials inside the ear canal gave false positives in his own 1972 study, because loose horny material collects in the follicles there.
- Draelos ZD, DiNardo JC. “A re-evaluation of the comedogenicity concept.” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, March 2006;54(3):507–512. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2005.11.1058 (opens in a new tab) Tested finished products on the backs of six people and concluded that “Finished products using comedogenic ingredients are not necessarily comedogenic.”