Is mineral oil comedogenic?

In Fulton’s rabbit-ear test, mineral oil scored 0 to 2 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.

The American Academy of Dermatology lists mineral oil among the ingredients that help soothe dry skin, alongside petrolatum, lanolin, jojoba oil, shea butter and glycerin, and says ointments and creams work better than lotions for dry skin.

The FDA goes further: mineral oil is an approved active ingredient in over-the-counter skin protectants, at 50 to 100% (or 30 to 35% when combined with colloidal oatmeal). Products that use it this way can say they temporarily protect chapped or cracked skin.

SourcesAmerican Academy of Dermatology: Dermatologists’ top tips for relieving dry skin (updated January 2026).FDA over-the-counter skin protectant rule, 21 CFR 347.10 (eCFR).

Mineral oil still turns up on old comedogenic lists. In a 2005 paper in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, Joseph DiNardo argued that industrial-grade mineral oil may be comedogenic but cosmetic-grade mineral oil is not, and that it should come off those lists. The publisher’s news release doesn’t describe his methods, so treat it as one author’s conclusion.

Its close relative petrolatum (petroleum jelly) scored 0 in Fulton’s 1984 rabbit-ear tables.

SourcesEurekAlert! news release (Blackwell Publishing, May 2005) on DiNardo JC, “Is mineral oil comedogenic?”, J Cosmet Dermatol.Fulton JE Jr, Pay SR, Fulton JE 3rd. Comedogenicity of current therapeutic products, cosmetics, and ingredients in the rabbit ear. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1984;10(1):96-105.

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.