Dasique Mood Glow Lipstick

The EU inventory of cosmetics has no use restrictions on this ingredient and it is considered well-tolerated.

This ingredient may not be fungal acne safe because it is derived from isostearic acid.

This ingredient may not be fungal acne safe because research has shown that the Malassezia species can grow in the presence of fatty acid esters with chain lengths above C12 (and this one is C18).

While it does have a comedogenic rating of 4, the comedogenic rating scale was developed from rabbit ear models which has limited clinical relevance to human skin. Studies also show that comedogenic ingredients cannot predict how the overall formula will behave on human skin.

It is considered non-comedogenic and vegan-friendly.

It has a well-established safety record by the CIR Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety.

This ingredient is generally safe for use in cosmetics with one nuance: some grades of candelilla wax can naturally contain benzyl alcohol at concentrations high enough to require declaration under EU labeling rules. This isn't a concern for most people but relevant for those with fragrance sensitivities.

Candelilla wax contains fatty acids (mainly C31) and wax esters that can be used by the Malassezia yeast, so this ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

You might see Euphorbia Cerifera "Cera" instead of "wax". This is because some brands, databases, or labels use it interchangeably; they're the same ingredient.

Ci 77891 is commonly found in sunscreens due to its ability to block UV rays.

Fun fact: This wax has the highest melting point of all natural waxes and low solubility.

Preclinical research has found that topical avocado oil increased collagen synthesis and reduced inflammation during wound healing, giving it some skin-repairing credibility.

The unsaponifiable fraction of the oil is also interesting: studies on avocado unsaponifiables showed that it helped skin produce more collagen and other structural compounds that support healing.

The CIR Expert Panel has found this ingredient to be non-irritating in formulations.

It's a great ingredient for dry or compromised skin. Just know it may not be fungal acne safe. This is because the oleic acid content falls within the range that Malassezia can use as a food source.

As an emollient, it softens and hydrates skin by forming a thin barrier that locks in moisture.

Clinical studies have found it to be non-irritating and non-sensitizing. The CIR Expert Panel has evaluated the available safety data and concluded it is safe for topical use.

Because of the oleic acid content, this ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

Other major parts of Rose Oil include citronellol and geraniol. Both of these are known EU allergens and cause contact-allergies.

The downsides of this ingredient outweight the positives.

In a 24 hour occlusive patch test on 56 subjects, 10% sorbitan isostearate was completely non-irritating. Most formulas use less than 10%.

Because it's a fatty acid ester, it may not be fungal acne safe since the Malassezia yeast can utilize it as a nutrient source.

In practice, that translates to a long shelf life and a consistently elegant skin feel.

While there is an assumption Caprylic Triglyceride can clog pores due to it being derived from coconut oil, there is no research supporting this. Just patch test if you have concerns.

Fractionated coconut oil and MCT Oil are both listed as Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride according to INCI. This is because INCI names are based on the ingredient’s final chemical composition and not its marketing name or source.

This ingredient is treated as the gold standard fungal acne safe oil. Even though it is coconut derived, the problematic lauric acid is stripped out.

This leaves just caprylic (C8) and capric (C10) acid. These chain lengths actually trend antifungal; a 2020 study found caprylic acid was enough to disrupt Malassezia furfur cell membrane, with a caprylic acid derivative damaging membrane structures at concentrations as low as 0.2%.

Depending on the concentration, it can drastically change the texture of a product from pasty solid (like lipstick) to sprayable liquid.

The CIR Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety has concluded this ingredient to be safe in cosmetics. The highest reported use concentration is 14.2% in lipsticks.

One thing worth noting: a controlled study found this ingredient applied under occlusion to acne-prone subjects increased microcomedones. Just keep in mind this was under occlusive conditions and don't reflect how most products are used day-to-day.

For most people, this is a well-tolerated and lightweight ingredient.

This ingredient may not be fungal acne safe because it is a fatty acid ester.

This ingredient is generally considered non-toxic, non-irritating, and has low absorption potential.

You might have heard that this ingredient clogs pores. This reputation comes from the older rabbit ear studies which are more sensitive than human skin to clogging.

Dermatologist Dr. Zoe Draelos has also confirmed in a peer-reviewed paper that products containing comedogenic ingredients are not necessarily comedogenic themselves.

A small subset of people (~2%) may experience contact sensitivity so patch testing is a reasonable idea if you have reactive skin.

Since this ingredient is an ester of myristic acid (a C14 fatty acid), it falls within the carbon chain range that is known to feed Malassezia. This ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

This ingredient is sourced from plant-based oils like soybean or rapeseed.

Clinical studies found no signs of irritation from this ingredient.

Since Isostearic Acid is an 18-carbon fatty acid, it is in the range that Malassezia can feed on. This ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

You might have seen sources that this ingredient is comedogenic. This is because the original comedogenic tests (on rabbit ears, which are more sensitive than human skin) tested

The Kligman/Fulton rabbit ear papers actually tested the ester, Isopropyl Isostearate and not Isostearic acid itself. There has been no comedogenic testing done on this ingredient, but it may be worth patch testing if you have acne-prone skin.

It plays well with most ingredients and is typically used at 0.1-1%. However, concentrations up to 50% have been reported in moisturizers.

Depending on the source of this ingredient, lecithin may not be fungal acne safe. This is because some sources of lecithin come from soybean oil, which may feed the malassezia yeast that causes fungal acne.

We recommend reaching out to the brand you are purchasing from to inquire about the source of their lecithin.

Typical concentrations range from 0.1-3%.

This ingredient is mild and non-irritating in nature.

Because it is derived from ricinoleic acid, this ingredient may not be fungal acne safe. Ricinoleic acid is an unsaturated fatty acid that the Malassezia yeast can metabolize.

Studies show this ingredient to be safe for cosmetics. When it is undiluted, it can cause skin irritation. (It is always diluted in skincare and makeup). This ingredient is water-soluble.

Propylene Carbonate is created from propylene glycol and carbonic acid.

Topically applied tocopherol has been shown to protect against UV damage by ramping up the skin's own natural defense enzymes.

It also acts as a skin conditioning agent; some studies show that regular topical use can improve the skin's water-binding capacity over 2-4 weeks.

This ingredient is especially loved for being a team player. When combined with Vitamin C, the photoprotective effect of both ingredients roughly doubles and the combo also helps reduce UV-induced DNA damage.

This ingredient has some brightening potential but it's more of a prevention ingredient than spot-fader. Cell studies show it can slow down melanin production but it's worth noting that it's not the most powerful brightener out there.

In formulations, it also serves as a stabilizer that helps protect other oxidation-prone ingredients from degrading.

Concentrations usually range from 0.1-1% in most leave-on products.

As an antioxidant, it helps fight free-radical molecules. Free-radical molecules are capable of damaging our cells and other genetic material. Thus, antioxidants may reduce the signs of aging.

This ingredient is oil-soluble.

This ingredient can be found in makeup, sun care, and skincare.

The FDA requires batch-to-batch certification for this ingredient that is held to a pretty rigorous standard. That means the CI 17200 in your cosmetics has been tested and approved before it ever reaches you.

Contact allergy to cosmetic-grade dyes used at low concentrations are uncommon but has been documented before.

This ingredient also goes by the name D&C RED NO. 33.

CI 17200 has a comedogenic rating of 1 and an irritancy rating of 2 on a scale of 0-5. This is based on peer-reviewed research from the man who invented the comedogenic scale.

A 1 on the comedogenic scale is about as low as it gets without being a flat zero, and makes sense for CI 17200.

It's a water-soluble dye used at very small concentrations (typically 0.001-0.1%), so it dissolves into the water phase of a formula rather than sitting on your skin the way an oil or wax would.

The irritancy rating of 2 reflects that, like most synthetic dyes, there's a small possibility of mild irritation ( particularly for people with existing dye sensitivities).

For the vast majority of people, it's a non-issue at typical use levels.

It's also worth keeping in mind that comedogenic and irritancy ratings are tested on individual ingredients, not finished formulas. The final product's formulation, concentration, and other ingredients all play a role in how something actually behaves on your skin.

Just so you know, the FDA ban on Red Dye No. 3 refers to CI 45430, not this ingredient. CI 45430 and CI 17200 are different chemical compounds with distinct safety and regulatory histories.

It's also worth noting that Red No. 3 (CI 45430) was already banned from cosmetics back in 1990, so the 2025 action just extended the ban to food and oral drugs. CI 17200 was never part of any of this.

Synthetically created Ci 77491 is considered safer than those naturally found. This is because the synthetically created version may contain less impurities. Iron oxides are generally non-toxic and non-allergenic.

Synthetically created CI 77492 is considered safer than those naturally found. This is because the synthetically created version may contain less impurities. Iron oxides are generally non-toxic and non-allergenic.