Fragrance free
Fragrance free is the more useful of the two, and it is worth understanding what it does and does not exclude.
In ordinary usage it means that nothing has been added to the formulation for the purpose of giving it a scent. That is a real and checkable statement about intent, and it is meaningful because fragrance materials are a well recognised cause of allergic contact dermatitis, which is why certain fragrance allergens must be declared individually on cosmetic labels in Great Britain rather than being hidden inside the word parfum.
What it does not mean is that the product has no smell. Ingredients smell. Plant oils smell strongly. A product can be entirely fragrance free and still be recognisably scented by its own materials.
It also does not mean that the product contains nothing that could cause you a reaction. Fragrance is one common cause of contact allergy among many, and preservatives and plant extracts are others.
Unscented is a different word
This is the trap and it is worth stating flatly.
Unscented describes the finished product's smell, not its ingredients. A product can be unscented because it contains a masking fragrance added specifically to cover the smell of its own ingredients. That is a fragrance material, and someone avoiding fragrance for a good reason has just applied one.
Fragrance free is a statement about what went in. Unscented is a statement about what comes out. If you are avoiding fragrance, the first is the one that matters, and the ingredient list is more reliable than either.
Hypoallergenic
Hypoallergenic sounds like a category with a threshold behind it. It is not.
The word indicates that a manufacturer regards the product as less likely to cause an allergic reaction, typically because ingredients associated with allergy have been avoided. There is no fixed, defined standard specifying what must be excluded or what testing must be performed for the word to be used.
That is not a scandal and it does not mean the word is meaningless. A company that has taken the trouble to exclude common sensitisers has probably produced something less likely to cause a problem than one that has not. What it is not is a guarantee, a certification, or information about you specifically.
The deciding fact is that allergy is individual. A person allergic to a particular preservative will react to a product containing it regardless of what the front of the pack says. No label can know your history.
| Term | What it generally means | What it does not mean |
|---|---|---|
| Fragrance free | Nothing added for the purpose of scent | That the product has no smell, or that nothing in it can cause a reaction |
| Unscented | The finished product does not smell | That no fragrance material is present, since masking fragrance is a fragrance |
| Hypoallergenic | The maker regards it as less likely to cause allergy | That a defined standard or threshold has been met |
| Dermatologically tested | Some testing involving skin was done | What was tested, on how many, or with what result |
| For sensitive skin | A marketing description | That sensitive skin is a defined clinical category |
| Clinically proven | A claim subject to the advertising codes | Anything at all, until you know proven to do what |
Ordering framework written by this publication from general skin physiology. It is not a measurement, it is not taken from any study, and no number in it is a reading.
The other reassuring words
Dermatologically tested. This indicates that some form of testing involving skin has been carried out. It does not specify what, on how many people, to what standard, or with what result. It is not a claim that dermatologists recommend the product.
Suitable for sensitive skin. Sensitive skin is not a defined clinical category with diagnostic criteria; it is a description people give of their own experience. A claim of suitability for it is a marketing statement rather than a technical one.
Non comedogenic. This concerns tendency to block follicles rather than allergy or barrier function, it is assessed by varied methods, and it is not directly relevant to most of what this publication discusses.
Clinically proven. Ask, proven to do what, in whom, compared with what, and published where. In cosmetic advertising, claims are subject to the advertising codes and can be challenged, which is a genuinely useful fact.
Where this actually matters for outdoor skin
Two situations make label reading more than an academic exercise.
The first is a compromised barrier. A layer that has been thinned by cold, wind, salt and washing lets more of what you apply reach living tissue. Ingredients that are inert on intact skin can sting or irritate on skin that is not, and repeated exposure of compromised skin to a sensitiser is one route by which allergies develop. The plainer the preparation while skin is bad, the better.
The second is a recurring rash at a fixed site. When a mark appears in the same place every winter, people usually blame the kit, and usually correctly, because it is mechanical. Sometimes it is what is in the kit, on the kit, or applied under it. Distinguishing those is a job for a clinician with patch testing, not for a website.
Who to complain to
If you believe a cosmetic claim is misleading, that is not a matter of opinion with no remedy. Advertising in the United Kingdom is subject to the advertising codes, and the Advertising Standards Authority takes complaints about advertising claims. Cosmetic product safety and compliance in Great Britain sits with the relevant enforcement regime, and the Office for Product Safety and Standards publishes guidance on it.
We mention this because scepticism about labels usually stops at scepticism. There are places to take it.