ÖKO-TEST’s recent evaluation of 44 body lotions reveals that higher prices do not guarantee better quality. All tested certified natural lotions received ‘very good’ or ‘good’ ratings, while some conventional products contained harmful ingredients, prompting concerns over health risks. Surprisingly, many affordable options outperformed pricier brands. The analysis highlighted troubling substances in several popular creams, with notable brands like Garnier and Nivea facing criticism. The testing methodology included thorough checks for harmful compounds and environmental impact.
Discoveries from the ÖKO-TEST Evaluation*
ÖKO-TEST consistently evaluates body lotions, revealing that a higher price tag doesn’t always guarantee superior quality. The latest findings in issue 12/2024 reaffirm this notion, as experts analyzed 44 different body lotions, including 16 that are certified natural cosmetics.
Every certified natural body lotion tested received ratings of ‘very good’ or ‘good’. In stark contrast, some conventional lotions fell short, containing harmful fragrance ingredients, mineral oils, and plastic components. Consequently, it’s advisable to avoid using these products on your skin.
Beyond their often steep prices, conventional lotions pose risks to both health and the environment. The substances they contain can accumulate in body fat, potentially harming the liver and triggering allergies or allergic reactions.
Exciting News: Budget-Friendly Champions
Surprisingly, lower-priced options often outperform their expensive counterparts. This trend is highlighted by the body lotion test results, where an impressive 25 creams earned the ‘very good’ rating, with several affordable options among the winners.
Noteworthy winners in the certified natural cosmetics category include:
Meanwhile, among conventional products, the following stood out as winners:
Access the comprehensive test report detailing all the winners and underperformers for a fee through ÖKO-TEST.
Grade 6: Concerning Ingredients in Popular Brands
Out of 28 conventional creams evaluated, 12 achieved a ‘very good’ score. Four others were rated ‘good’, while one received a ‘satisfactory’ mark. Unfortunately, seven creams were marked ‘sufficient’ due to the presence of concerning substances.
Four creams failed the evaluation, with one body lotion scoring ‘poor’ (grade 5) and three receiving a grade of 6 (‘insufficient’). Notable brands among the underperformers include Garnier/L’Oréal, Biotherm, Rituals, and Beiersdorf (Nivea).
The main points of criticism include the presence of plastic compounds, with the laboratory detecting MOAH, PEG/PEG derivatives, silicones, and synthetic polymers.
Mineral oils represent a significant contaminant in the human body. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) categorizes ‘aromatic mineral oils’ (MOAH) as potentially carcinogenic and genotoxic, which is why these residues should be absent from both food and cosmetics, even in trace amounts. Contamination can arise from machinery used during harvesting and processing, or from packaging—especially recycled paper that may hold mineral oils from printing inks.
Understanding the ÖKO-TEST Methodology
A laboratory meticulously examined the creams for specific fragrance substances, including polycyclic and nitro musk compounds, along with cashmeran. The lotions were also tested for formaldehyde/release agents and diethyl phthalate, yielding no negative findings.
If paraffins or similar ingredients were listed, the lotions underwent further analysis for aromatic mineral oil hydrocarbons (MOAH). Products containing hectorite were scrutinized for heavy metals and other elements, with no significant results. Creams declaring cyclopentasiloxanes were tested for cyclosiloxanes (D4-D9), which passed without issue. Additionally, if chlorphenesin or chlorhexidine gluconate were included in the ingredients, they were also analyzed in the lab.
The plastic packaging was assessed for environmentally harmful PVC/PVDC/chlorinated compounds, with no positive results found. The presence of PEG/PEG derivatives or synthetic polymers was noted, and manufacturers were queried about the proportion of recycled materials used in the packaging, requesting proof where necessary. Claims regarding environmental benefits on the packaging were evaluated for adequate supporting information.