Clarisonic didn’t break any new ground with their Deep Pore Daily Cleanser. What promises to be gentle and “deep cleaning” is actually just a decent but flawed water-soluble cleanser for oily to combination skin, handicapped by an excessive amount of fragrant ingredients and amount of product for the price. See More Info for the details on why fragrance is such a problem in skin care.
Oddly, Clarisonic chose to highlight the lack of sulfates in this formula (which is erroneous, as there isn’t any research demonstrating sulfates as inherently harsh or bad), but then loaded the Deep Pore Daily Cleanser with multiple potent irritants, from added perfume to peppermint and a variety of citrus extracts. Given the long-established research showing such ingredients to be a problem for skin, it’s a mystery move by Clarisonic.
No matter their reasoning, what’s good about this cleanser is easily replaced by dozens of better options that cost less. See our top recommendations from other brands in Best Cleansers.
Note: Despite the “paraben free” label, there isn’t anything wrong with parabens as preservatives in cosmetics. They have a substantial, decades-long (and global) safety record for use in both food and cosmetics. For more information on parabens in cosmetics, see our article on the topic.
- Non-drying cleansing agents.
- Expensive for the amount of product.
- Excessively fragranced.
- Contains multiple irritants, from peppermint to several forms of citrus extract.
- Cannot “deep clean” skin as promised.
Irritation from Fragrance: Daily use of products that contain a high amount of fragrance, whether the fragrant ingredients are synthetic or natural, causes chronic irritation that can damage healthy collagen production, lead to or worsen dryness, and impair your skin's ability to heal. Fragrance-free is the best way to go for all skin types. If fragrance in your skin-care products is important to you, it should be a very low amount to minimize the risk to your skin. (Sources: Inflammation Research, December 2008, pages 558–563; Skin Pharmacology and Physiology, June 2008, pages 124–135, and November-December 2000, pages 358–371; Journal of Investigative Dermatology, April 2008, pages 15–19; Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, March 2008, pages 78–82; Mechanisms of Ageing and Development, January 2007, pages 92–105; and British Journal of Dermatology, December 2005, pages S13–S22).