Is cocoa butter comedogenic?

In Fulton’s rabbit-ear test, cocoa butter scored 4 out of 5 for comedogenicity, and 0 out of 5 for irritation. On Fulton’s own scale, 0–1 is not significant, 2–3 borderline, and 4–5 positive.

These grades come from rabbit ears: the ingredient applied daily, five days a week for two weeks, usually diluted to 10% in propylene glycol. The grade also shifts with the vehicle and the raw-material source, so one number isn’t the whole story.

SourceFulton JE Jr. Comedogenicity and irritancy of commonly used ingredients in skin care products. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1989;40(6):321-333.

Cocoa butter is sold for stretch marks, so it has actually been tested. Two double-blind trials in pregnant women compared it with a plain cream:

• 300 women using a 25% cocoa butter cream from 12 to 15 weeks of pregnancy: 44% got stretch marks, against 55% with the placebo, a difference that wasn’t statistically significant.
• 210 women using a cocoa butter lotion with vitamin E: 45.1% against 48.8%. No benefit.

Cleveland Clinic dermatologist John Anthony sums it up: cocoa butter “has not been shown to prevent stretch marks or even reduce their overall appearance.” He adds that stretch marks fade on their own over time.

SourcesMoore J, Kelsberg G, Safranek S. Do any topical agents help prevent or reduce stretch marks? J Fam Pract. 2012;61(12):757-758.Cleveland Clinic: Cocoa Butter Won’t Help Stretch Marks, but These Options Can (dermatologist John Anthony, MD, February 2023).

Cleveland Clinic dermatologist Alok Vij calls cocoa butter excellent for dry skin and chapped lips: its fatty acids hold water in. The FDA lists cocoa butter, at 50 to 100%, as an approved active ingredient in over-the-counter skin protectants.

The same article warns that it can make acne flare, especially if you’re prone to breakouts, and suggests a spot test first.

SourcesCleveland Clinic: The Health Benefits of Cocoa Butter (dermatologist Alok Vij, MD, December 2023).FDA over-the-counter skin protectant rule, 21 CFR 347.10 (eCFR).

A human-skin model found the rabbit ear more sensitive than human skin: weak rabbit comedogens were judged probably safe, except perhaps for acne-prone people. When finished products were patch-tested on acne-prone backs, products containing comedogenic ingredients were not necessarily comedogenic.

Comedogenic risk also depends on concentration. Ingredients that clog pores when applied neat showed no effect at the under-15% levels typical of face products, and you cannot tell from an ingredient list whether a product will cause acne — only testing the finished product can.

SourcesMills OH Jr, Kligman AM. A human model for assessing comedogenic substances. Arch Dermatol. 1982;118(11):903-905 (abstract).Draelos ZD, DiNardo JC. A re-evaluation of the comedogenicity concept. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54(3):507-512 (abstract).Kligman AM. Petrolatum is not comedogenic in rabbits or humans: a critical reappraisal of the rabbit ear assay and the concept of 'acne cosmetica'. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1996;47(1):41-48.

The AAD tells acne-prone people to look for products labeled “non-comedogenic” or “won’t clog pores.” But “non-comedogenic” has no FDA definition, so a brand can use the label without any standard test behind it. The honest takeaway: a single comedogenicity number — high or low — is a weak guide. If a product breaks you out, that is the real test.

SourcesAmerican Academy of Dermatology: Acne: Tips for managing.Starzyk T, Aust N, Schur N, Miller R. Comedogenicity in cosmeceuticals: a review of clinical relevance, regulatory gaps, and future directions. JAAD Reviews. 2025;6:78-83 (open access).U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Cosmetics Labeling Claims.