Walk down any skincare aisle or scroll through a beauty website, and you’ll see it everywhere: “non-comedogenic.” From moisturisers to sunscreens and even foundations, the term proudly claims its space on product labels. For anyone with acne-prone skin, it feels almost like a badge of safety, a green light telling us that this product is less likely to clog pores.
Many of us have been told or read somewhere that we should always choose non-comedogenic products if we want to avoid breakouts. Especially for those struggling with acne, it seems like a no-brainer. But here’s where it gets a little tricky: despite choosing non-comedogenic products, some people still experience breakouts. So, what gives?
What does ‘non-comedogenic’ actually mean?
The term “non-comedogenic” is meant to imply that a product is formulated in a way that is less likely to block pores. Comedones come in two types: open comedones (blackheads) and closed comedones (whiteheads). The idea is that using non-comedogenic products will reduce the chance of these forming.
However, here’s something not everyone realises: “non-comedogenic” is not a regulated term. That means there are no standardised criteria that companies must follow in order to use the label. What one brand considers non-comedogenic might still contain ingredients that could trigger breakouts for someone else. Essentially, while it’s a guideline, it’s not a guarantee.
Everyone’s skin is different
Just because something didn’t clog pores in one group of test subjects doesn’t mean it won’t cause problems for you. Skin type, sensitivity, hormonal balance, and even climate can all affect how your skin reacts to a product. What’s perfectly fine for someone with a dry or combination skin type might turn out to be a nightmare for someone with an oily skin type.
Even if a product is labelled non-comedogenic, it may still contain ingredients that are irritating or occlusive for certain individuals. For example, products might include silicones, certain alcohols, or natural oils that can trigger acne or sensitivity, even if they’re technically not comedogenic in the traditional sense1.
Testing for comedogenicity isn’t always reliable
Most comedogenic testing is done on animals or under conditions that don’t exactly mimic real-world use. Some tests are conducted on rabbit ears or human volunteers using highly concentrated versions of ingredients applied repeatedly in a short period of time2. That’s hardly the same as applying a thin layer of moisturiser once a day.
Additionally, many studies only test individual ingredients in isolation, not as part of a complete formulation. This matters because the way ingredients interact in a formula can change how they behave on the skin. So, even if each ingredient is considered non-comedogenic on its own, the final product might still cause clogged pores.
The role of other factors in breakouts
It’s also important to remember that acne isn’t caused solely by clogged pores. Hormones, diet, stress, bacteria, and inflammation all play a part. This means that even if your skincare is 100% non-comedogenic, you could still break out due to internal or environmental factors.
Another point to note: skincare is just one part of an overall acne skincare routine. Things like how often you wash your face, whether you double-cleanse to remove sunscreen and make-up, your pillowcase hygiene, and even your hairstyle can affect breakouts, too. Using non-comedogenic products helps, but it isn’t the be-all and end-all.
When it’s not just acne – skin conditions and misdirection
Sometimes, what looks like acne might actually be a different skin condition entirely, such as fungal acne, rosacea, or even eczema. That’s why persistent or unusual breakouts should be assessed by a skin dermatologist in Singapore. Trying to self-treat with over-the-counter non-comedogenic products might not help and, in some cases, might even make things worse.
For instance, individuals with eczema-prone skin may require a completely different approach, often involving barrier-repairing creams and a customised routine. In such cases, non-comedogenic labels mean little, and what’s really needed is a proper eczema treatment in Singapore guided by an experienced dermatologist.
So, should you still choose non-comedogenic products?
Absolutely, but with a pinch of realism. While non-comedogenic products can be beneficial for acne-prone individuals, they are not foolproof. It’s best to look at your skincare holistically. Read the full ingredients list, understand your skin’s needs, and don’t be afraid to experiment (cautiously) to find what works best for you.
Patch testing new products is also a smart move. Apply a small amount to a discreet area of your face for a few days and monitor your skin’s response. That way, you can potentially avoid a full-blown breakout before introducing a new product into your routine.
If you’re unsure where to start or you’ve tried everything under the sun to no avail, it might be time to speak to a professional. Whether it’s recurring acne, unexplained irritation, or a possible need for eczema treatment, consulting a certified dermatologist can give you clarity and a tailored solution.
Conclusion
The term “non-comedogenic” might offer a sense of safety, but it doesn’t guarantee a breakout-free experience. It’s only one piece of a larger skincare puzzle. Real skincare success comes from understanding your skin, being mindful of ingredient interactions, and sometimes, getting expert help.
For those seeking reliable advice and advanced care, Angeline Yong Dermatology offers cosmetic, surgical, and medical dermatology treatments in Singapore. Whether you’re dealing with acne, eczema, or simply want to fine-tune your skincare, Dr Angeline Yong and the team can guide you towards solutions that work for your skin.
References
Draelos, Z.D. (2011). Cosmetics and Dermatologic Problems and Solutions (3rd ed.). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.3109/9781841847412
Nguyen, S. H., Dang, T. P., & Maibach, H. I. (2007). Comedogenicity in rabbit: some cosmetic ingredients/vehicles. Cutaneous and ocular toxicology, 26(4), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/15569520701555383