ÖKO-TEST’s recent evaluation of body lotions highlights that higher prices do not guarantee better quality. Among 44 analyzed products, certified natural cosmetics scored ‘very good’ or ‘good,’ while many conventional lotions contained harmful ingredients, raising health and environmental concerns. Notably, 25 affordable lotions outperformed pricier options. Some well-known brands, including Garnier and Nivea, received low ratings due to contaminants like mineral oils. The testing process assessed various harmful substances and environmental impacts of packaging.
Based on the findings from ÖKO-TEST, body lotions are frequently scrutinized for their quality and safety.
ÖKO-TEST conducts regular evaluations of body lotions, revealing that higher prices do not always equate to superior quality. This has been reaffirmed in the recent issue 12/2024, where experts analyzed a total of 44 body lotions, including 16 that are certified natural cosmetics.
All of the tested certified natural cosmetics received ratings of ‘very good’ or ‘good’. Conversely, several conventional products underperformed, exhibiting harmful ingredients such as critical fragrance compounds, mineral oils, and plastic materials in their formulations. It is advisable to avoid using these products on your skin.
Besides their often steep prices, these conventional lotions may pose risks to both health and the environment. The harmful substances can accumulate in human adipose tissue, potentially impacting liver function and increasing the likelihood of allergies and allergic reactions.
Positive News: Affordable Champions
Budget-friendly options can often outperform their pricier counterparts. The body lotion test highlighted an impressive 25 creams that earned ‘very good’ ratings, including several economical choices.
Some noteworthy winners in the certified natural cosmetics category include:
Among the conventional product winners, you will find:
For access to the complete test report detailing all winners and losers, a fee is required at ÖKO-TEST.
Grade 6: Concerning Ingredients in Popular Brands
From the 28 conventional creams evaluated, 12 received ‘very good’ ratings, with four more rated ‘good’ and one ‘satisfactory’. However, seven creams only achieved ‘sufficient’ scores due to the presence of questionable ingredients.
Four creams failed the assessment, with one body lotion receiving a ‘poor’ rating (Grade 5) and three others rated 6 (‘insufficient’). Notably, some prominent brands such as Garnier/L’Oréal, Biotherm, Rituals, and Beiersdorf (Nivea) were among the products that did not meet quality standards.
The findings indicated that, in addition to plastic components, the lab discovered MOAH, PEG/PEG derivatives, silicones, and synthetic polymers in these products.
Mineral oils represent the primary contaminants found in the human body. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has flagged ‘aromatic mineral oils’ (MOAH) as potentially carcinogenic and genotoxic, emphasizing that these residues should be absent from food and cosmetics, even in trace amounts. Such contamination can arise from harvesting machinery and packaging, particularly recycled paper packaging that may contain mineral oils from inks.
Understanding the ÖKO-TEST Evaluation Process
A laboratory assessed the creams for various fragrance substances, polycyclic and nitro musk compounds, as well as cashmeran. The lotions were also analyzed for formaldehyde/releasers and diethyl phthalate, with no adverse findings reported.
If paraffins or similar substances were indicated in the ingredients, the lotions underwent testing for aromatic mineral oil hydrocarbons (MOAH). Products containing hectorite were evaluated for heavy metals and other elements, yielding no significant results. For those declaring cyclopentasiloxanes, tests for cyclosiloxanes (D4-D9) were conducted, all of which passed. Furthermore, if chlorphenesin or chlorhexidine gluconate appeared in the ingredients, these were also subject to laboratory examination.
The environmental impact of plastic packaging was assessed for harmful PVC/PVCD/chlorinated compounds, again yielding no positive results. It was noted whether a product contained PEG/PEG derivatives or synthetic polymers. Manufacturers were questioned about the inclusion of recycled materials in their plastic packaging, and proof was requested as necessary. Additionally, environmental claims on the packaging were verified for adequate explanatory details.