Non-comedogenic: what it means
Non-comedogenic means not expected to clog pores. A comedo is a blocked pore, the blackhead or whitehead that acne starts from, so a non-comedogenic product is one its maker says will not cause them. In the United States there is no official definition of the word and no test a product has to pass to print it.
The label is a claim. The ingredient list is the evidence you can check, and the pore clogging ingredient checker reads it against 285 ingredients with a published rating, naming the source of each one.
Who decides a product is non-comedogenic
The maker. The FDA keeps no list of approved or accepted cosmetic claims, and a label only has to be truthful and not misleading (FDA, cosmetics labeling claims). So there is no FDA standard for non-comedogenic to meet, and no shared test behind the word. The label does not say whether the product was tested, or how.
That does not make the word useless. The American Academy of Dermatology tells people with acne-prone or oily skin to look for non-comedogenic or "won't clog pores" on a sunscreen (AAD). It is a reasonable first filter. It is not a guarantee.
Where the word comes from: the 0 to 5 scale
In the 1970s and 1980s dermatologists rated cosmetic ingredients by applying them to the inside of a rabbit's ear and counting the plugged follicles (Kligman and Kwong, 1979; Fulton and colleagues, 1984). The result was a 0 to 5 scale, and 0 is non-comedogenic. On this site the bands read:
| Rating | What it means here | On our list |
|---|---|---|
| 0 Non-comedogenic | No increase in follicle plugging in the rabbit-ear test. | 1 |
| 1–2 Low risk | Little plugging in the rabbit-ear test. Fulton 1989 counts 0 to 1 as not significant and 2 as borderline. | 52 |
| 3 Moderate risk | Borderline plugging in the rabbit-ear test. Worth a look in a leave-on product. | 59 |
| 4–5 High risk | Clear plugging in the rabbit-ear test. The first band to check in a leave-on product. | 173 |
The list counts each ingredient by its highest published rating, which is why so few sit at 0. 3 of the 285 were rated 0 by at least one source, and only 1 has no higher rating from another. Ingredients that were never rated, such as water and glycerin, are not on the list at all, and not being on the list means unrated, which is different from a 0. 173 entries sit in the 4 to 5 band.
What a 3 means, and why sources disagree, is on what comedogenic means.
What non-comedogenic cannot promise
- Rabbit ears are not faces. The rabbit ear was known to overstate the risk, which is why a human back-skin test was published in 1982 (Mills and Kligman, 1982). A 2006 review found animal results did not reliably predict human reactions (Draelos and DiNardo, 2006).
- Ingredients are not products. The same 2006 review says a single ingredient's rating does not establish how a finished product behaves. Concentration and the rest of the formula change the result.
- Amount matters. Ingredients are listed in descending order of amount, apart from those at 1 percent or less (FDA labeling guide). A high rating in first place and the same rating in last place are different things.
- It is about pores only. Non-comedogenic says nothing about irritation, allergy or fungal acne, which has its own checker.
Non-comedogenic by product type
Each guide reads the ingredient lists of the products people search for and names every rated ingredient in them. Non-comedogenic makeup covers foundation, concealer and primer together.
Common questions
What does non-comedogenic mean?
It means a product or ingredient is not expected to cause comedones, the blackheads and whiteheads that form when a pore is blocked. On a label it is the maker’s claim that the product will not clog pores.
Is non-comedogenic regulated?
Not in the United States. The FDA keeps no list of approved cosmetic claims and has no definition of non-comedogenic for a brand to meet. A label only has to be truthful and not misleading, so how a maker decides a product qualifies is up to the maker.
Is non-comedogenic the same as oil-free?
No. Oil-free describes what is left out of a formula. Non-comedogenic describes an expected result. An oil-free product can contain an ingredient with a high comedogenic rating, and some oils carry low ratings.
Does non-comedogenic mean it will not cause acne?
No. Comedogenic ratings come mostly from rabbit-ear testing in the 1970s and 1980s, and a 2006 review found those results did not reliably predict what happened on human skin. A non-comedogenic product can still break someone out, and an ingredient rated 4 can be harmless at a tiny concentration.
How can I tell if a product is non-comedogenic?
Read the ingredient list rather than the front of the pack. Paste it into a pore clogging ingredient checker, which flags each ingredient with a published comedogenic rating, and pay most attention to high ratings near the top of the list, where the amounts are largest.
Sources used on this page
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Cosmetics Labeling Claims”. (opens in a new tab) States that the FDA does not keep a list of approved or accepted cosmetic claims; a label must simply be truthful and not misleading. There is no FDA definition of “non-comedogenic” for a brand to meet.
- American Academy of Dermatology, “How do I know if I’m using the right sunscreen?”. (opens in a new tab) For acne-prone and oily skin: look for the words “non-comedogenic” or “won’t clog pores”.
- 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 that produced most of the 0–5 numbers still quoted today.
- Fulton JE Jr, Pay SR, Fulton JE 3rd. “Comedogenicity of current therapeutic products, cosmetics, and ingredients in the rabbit ear.” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, January 1984;10(1):96–105. (opens in a new tab) The published ingredient-by-ingredient ratings that most comedogenic lists, including this one, trace back to.
- Mills OH Jr, Kligman AM. “A human model for assessing comedogenic substances.” Archives of Dermatology, November 1982;118(11):903–905. (opens in a new tab) The human back-skin model, developed because the rabbit ear was known to overstate the risk.
- 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) Found that animal-model results did not reliably predict what happened on human skin, and that a rating for a single ingredient does not tell you how a finished product will behave.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Cosmetics Labeling Guide”. (opens in a new tab) Ingredients must be listed in descending order of predominance; those at 1 percent or less may follow in any order, and colour additives may be listed last in any order.