Skinredientspore-clogging ingredient checker

Ingredient ratings / Beeswax

Is beeswax comedogenic? What the pore-clogging tests found

By Skinredients · Checked against the sources 2026-10-16

Beeswax graded 0 to 2 out of 5 for pore clogging, with no irritation, when tested at 10% in Fulton's 1989 rabbit-ear survey. Fulton thought wax molecules were too large to enter pores. He put the variation down to some commercial beeswax lots being more reactive than others, suggesting contaminants rather than the wax itself.

Label name
Beeswax
Also listed as
cera alba, bees wax, white beeswax, yellow beeswax
Comedogenic grade
0–2 / 5 · Borderline (2–3) or reported positive
Tests
  • Fulton 1989: comedogenic 0–2/5, irritancy 0/5 — rabbit ear, 10% in propylene glycol

What the tests found

Beeswax has one published grade, from James Fulton’s 1989 rabbit-ear survey [1]. At the survey’s usual 10% dilution in propylene glycol (method), the wax graded 0-2 for follicular keratosis (pore clogging) and 0 for irritation. The asterisk on that entry means “results depend on source of raw material.” On Fulton’s scale, 0-1 is not significant and 2-3 is borderline.

Fulton’s discussion explains both the low grade and the spread. In his synopsis, he concludes that “the longer chain lipids, i.e., waxes, appear too large to produce a reaction.” In the waxes section, he writes that their hydrocarbon chains “appear too long to penetrate unless the wax is modified.” He then addresses beeswax directly: “In the case of beeswaxes and jojoba oils, some commercial preparations are more comedogenic than others. This suggests more contaminants or irritants in some of the preparations” [1].

His own data support the “modified wax” point. Jojoba oil, which he lists among the waxes, graded 0-2 like beeswax. Sulfated jojoba oil graded 3 for clogging and 2 for irritation [1].

Where the evidence is weaker

  • A single source. Beeswax does not appear in Morris & Kwan’s 1983 study or in Kligman’s 1996 reassessment, so no second lab has graded it.
  • The samples are unknown. Fulton does not say which beeswax samples gave 0 and which gave 2. He also does not say whether white or yellow wax was tested, or name a supplier.
  • Concentration gap. The 10% test is below the levels used in lipsticks and mascara (see below).
  • Rabbit vs. human. A 0-2 is a weak result in a model that tends to over-read human skin [2] (why).
  • No human data. We found no human pore-clogging study on beeswax itself.

Contamination comes up again in the 2025 Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) re-evaluation, though for a different effect. The Expert Panel reviewed case reports of reactions linked to propolis contamination in beeswax. It stated that “specifically for Beeswax, impurities such as propolis should be avoided.” It also asked industry to minimize heavy metals and pesticide residues [3]. That concern is allergy, not pore clogging. Still, it supports Fulton’s point that commercial lots of beeswax are not all alike.

Where it shows up, and how much

According to CIR’s 2025 re-evaluation summary, which draws on a 2022 industry survey and FDA registration data [3]:

  • Number of products: 1,758 formulations in 2023 voluntary registration data. FDA’s 2024 registration and listing data show 8,872.
  • Overall concentrations: maximum concentrations in 2022 ranged from 0.00015% to 35%.
  • Highest uses by product type:
    • mascara: 11.4-35%
    • lipsticks and lip glosses: 2-12.2%
    • body and hand products: 1.5-12%
    • eyebrow pencils: 7.8-9.8%
    • face and neck products: 2-8.6%
  • Change since 2003: beeswax was then reported at up to 56% in lipsticks.

The panel first assessed beeswax in 1984, with candelilla, carnauba and Japan waxes. It reaffirmed that conclusion in 2005 and again in 2025.

If you want to avoid it

Other waxes in the same Fulton survey (same 10% method) graded the same or lower:

  • Ceresin: 0
  • Emulsifying wax NF: 0, though Fulton notes its irritation varies with its cetearyl alcohol content
  • Candelilla wax: 1
  • Carnauba wax: 1
  • Lanolin wax: 1

All of these are single-lab rabbit grades, so treat them as guides rather than verdicts. A wax listed near the end of an ingredient list is generally present in a small amount.

Sources

  1. Fulton JE Jr. Comedogenicity and irritancy of commonly used ingredients in skin care products. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1989;40(6):321-333. Synopsis, Table I (p. 325) and discussion p. 327. https://library.scconline.org/v040n06/13
  2. Mills OH Jr, Kligman AM. A human model for assessing comedogenic substances. Arch Dermatol. 1982;118(11):903-905. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7138047/
  3. Cosmetic Ingredient Review. Beeswax, Copernicia Cerifera (Carnauba) Wax, Euphorbia Cerifera (Candelilla) Wax, and Rhus Succedanea Fruit Wax: re-evaluation summary, June 10, 2025 (report not reopened). https://cir-reports.cir-safety.org/view-attachment?id=f961384a-2830-1e23-a706-d3211f799790

Comedogenic grades describe single raw materials tested in a lab, usually on rabbit ears. They are a guide for acne-prone skin, not a prediction for any product or person, and this page is not medical advice. How the scale works.