It depends on which lanolin. Plain lanolin graded 0 to 1 in Fulton's 1989 rabbit-ear survey, but acetylated lanolin alcohol and PEG-16 lanolin both graded 4, and the 1972 paper that coined acne cosmetica named lanolin as comedogenic [1][2]. 'Lanolin' on a label can mean ingredients with very different grades.
Key takeaways
- Anhydrous lanolin and lanolin oil graded 0 to 1, and lanolin alcohol 0 to 2, with results depending on the source of the raw material [1].
- Acetylated lanolin alcohol graded 4, but Fulton traced that to a cetyl acetate additive, not the lanolin. Acetylated lanolin itself graded 0 [1].
- PEG-16 lanolin graded 4, and Fulton suspected non-lanolin additives [1].
- The 1972 acne cosmetica paper listed lanolin among comedogenic ingredients in rabbit ears [2].
- A rabbit test of 6% hydroxylated lanolin was non-comedogenic, and a human trial product containing lanolin showed no adverse effects [4].
- Lanolin allergy is a separate question from pore-clogging [6].
What is lanolin?
Lanolin is a wax derived from the sebaceous glands of sheep. The raw material from wool is also called wool wax, wool fat, wool grease or Adeps lanae [7]. On labels it appears as Lanolin and as many modified versions, such as Lanolin Oil, Lanolin Alcohol, Acetylated Lanolin and PEG-75 Lanolin.

That range is the heart of the question. These are different ingredients, and the research grades them differently.
What did Fulton grade in the lanolin family?
| Ingredient | Comedogenic grade | Note |
| Anhydrous lanolin | 0 to 1 | Depends on source [1] |
| Lanolin oil | 0 to 1 | Depends on source [1] |
| Lanolin alcohol | 0 to 2 | Depends on source [1] |
| Lanolin wax | 1 | [1] |
| Acetylated lanolin | 0 | [1] |
| Acetylated lanolin alcohol | 4 | Comedogenic and irritating [1] |
| Laneth-10 | 2 | Moderately ethoxylated [1] |
| PPG-12 PEG-65 lanolin oil | 2 | [1] |
| PEG-75 lanolin | 0 | Highly ethoxylated [1] |
| PEG-16 lanolin | 4 | Comedogenic and irritating [1] |
The grades are from a 0 to 5 rabbit-ear scale, where Fulton read 0 to 1 as not significant, 2 to 3 as borderline and 4 to 5 as positive [1].
Why do the grades differ so much?
Fulton gave three explanations [1]:
- Modification changes the result. Classic anhydrous lanolins were less comedogenic than moderately ethoxylated derivatives such as laneth-10. Highly ethoxylated derivatives with an HLB above 12, such as PEG-75 lanolin, were more water-soluble, non-comedogenic and non-irritating.
- Additives can be the culprit. Acetylated lanolin alcohols were comedogenic and irritating because of the cetyl acetate additive, not the acetylated lanolin. PEG-16 lanolin was quite comedogenic and irritating, perhaps because of the non-lanolin additives ceteth-16, oleth-16 and steareth-16.
- Source matters. Anhydrous lanolin, lanolin oil and lanolin alcohol carry ranges because results depend on the source of the raw material.

Some summaries list acetylated lanolin at 4 to 5, but Fulton's own table puts that grade on acetylated lanolin alcohol and gives acetylated lanolin a 0 [1][3]. A shared word on the label does not mean a shared result.
What did other research find?
| Source | Finding |
| Kligman and Mills 1972 | Lanolin was among the common ingredients that were comedogenic in rabbit ears, along with petrolatum, certain vegetable oils, butyl stearate, lauryl alcohol and oleic acid [2] |
| Fulton 1989 | Plain lanolins graded 0 to 2, depending on source [1] |
| Cosmetic Ingredient Review (2024 report) | A rabbit-ear assay of 6% hydroxylated lanolin in cottonseed oil was non-comedogenic. A human trial of a product containing lanolin, concentration not reported, found no adverse effects in 14 subjects [4][5] |
| JAAD Reviews 2025 | Lists acetylated lanolin at 4 to 5 in the rabbit ear, noting wool-wax derivatives gave strong responses in rabbits [3] |
The 1972 and 1989 results look opposed, but the sample, the source and the vehicle differed. Fulton specifically noted that results depend on the raw material source [1]. Neither is a test of your moisturizer.
What does the evidence not show?
- Face data. The human trial tested a lanolin-containing product, but it did not isolate lanolin, and its concentration was not reported [4][5].
- A safe amount. Fulton tested at 10% in propylene glycol and was not convinced that lower concentrations are safe [1].
- How a finished product behaves. A 2006 study found that finished products using comedogenic ingredients are not necessarily comedogenic [8].
- Safe versus non-comedogenic. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel has repeatedly concluded that lanolin and its derived ingredients are safe as currently used [6][7]. That is a toxicity conclusion, not a pore-clogging one.
One separate note: lanolin allergy is a different issue. The panel calls lanolin a weak sensitizer with very low prevalence in the general population [6]. If you have a history of cosmetic allergies, talk to a dermatologist.
What can you do about it?
| Name on the label | What it is | Fulton grade |
| Lanolin | Wool wax | 0 to 1 (anhydrous) |
| Lanolin Alcohol | Wool wax alcohols | 0 to 2 |
| Acetylated Lanolin Alcohol | Modified, with cetyl acetate | 4 |
| PEG-16 Lanolin | Ethoxylated lanolin | 4 |
| PEG-75 Lanolin | Highly ethoxylated lanolin | 0 |
- Check your products. Paste an ingredient list into the Klenzera scanner to see which lanolin-family ingredients appear.
- Read the exact name. See How to Read an Ingredient List for Acne-Prone Skin for naming traps.
- Weigh position, then test. See Does Ingredient Order Matter? and How to Know If a Product Will Clog Your Pores.
Frequently asked questions
Is lanolin comedogenic?
It depends on the version. Plain lanolins graded 0 to 2 in Fulton's survey, while acetylated lanolin alcohol and PEG-16 lanolin graded 4 [1].
Is acetylated lanolin the same as acetylated lanolin alcohol?
No. In Fulton's table, acetylated lanolin graded 0 and acetylated lanolin alcohol graded 4 [1].
Why did a 1972 paper call lanolin comedogenic?
That paper tested creams in rabbit ears and named lanolin among the common comedogenic ingredients [2]. Later work graded plain lanolins lower, and Fulton noted that raw material source changes the result [1].
Is lanolin safe?
A safety panel concluded that lanolin and lanolin-derived ingredients are safe as currently used in cosmetics [6][7]. Safe in that sense is not the same as non-comedogenic.
When should I see a dermatologist?
If breakouts are painful, cystic, scarring, persistent or suddenly worse, or if you suspect an allergic reaction, talk to a dermatologist or doctor.
The bottom line
There is no single answer for lanolin, because the word covers ingredients graded from 0 to 4. Read the exact name on the label, weigh its position, and let your own skin decide.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not dermatological diagnosis, medical treatment, or clinical advice. Talk to a licensed dermatologist about medical concerns.
Related reading: Comedogenic Ingredients List | How to Read an Ingredient List for Acne-Prone Skin | Are Comedogenic Ratings Reliable? | Are Shea Butter and Cocoa Butter Comedogenic?
References
- Fulton JE Jr. Comedogenicity and irritancy of commonly used ingredients in skin care products. J Soc Cosmet Chem. 1989;40:321-333.
- Kligman AM, Mills OH Jr. Acne cosmetica. Arch Dermatol. 1972;106(6):843-850.
- Comedogenicity in cosmeceuticals: a review of clinical relevance, regulatory gaps, and future directions. JAAD Reviews. 2025.
- Cosmetic Ingredient Review. Amended safety assessment of lanolin-derived ingredients as used in cosmetics (tentative report). 2024. cir-safety.org/sites/default/files/Lanolin_0.pdf
- Waranuch N, Wisutthathum S, Tuanthai S, et al. Safety assessment on comedogenicity of dermatological products containing d-alpha tocopheryl acetate in Asian subjects: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2021;23:100834.
- Cosmetics & Toiletries. Ingredient profile: lanolin and plant-based alternatives for natural moisturization. cosmeticsandtoiletries.com
- Cosmetics Info. Lanolin. cosmeticsinfo.org/ingredient/lanolin/
- Draelos ZD, DiNardo JC. A re-evaluation of the comedogenicity concept. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54(3):507-512. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2005.11.1058