No. 1 Purity Cleansing Balm
5.1 fl. oz. for $55
Last Updated:04.22.2013
Jar Packaging:No
Tested on animals:No
Review Overview

This absurdly overpriced cleansing oil (it doesn’t really have a balm-like texture) would be an OK option for dry skin if it did not contain fragrant plant oils, fragrance chemicals (such as the potent irritant eugenol), and clove flower extract. None of these are protective for skin; instead, they get in the way of what should be a gentle yet effective cleansing experience. Those curious to try cleansing oils that emulsify with water and transform to a milky texture that can be rinsed without much trouble should consider the options from DHC or L’Occitane instead, or just buy some almond oil (the first ingredient in this product), you’ll save money and take far better care of your dry skin.


Introducing... No.1 Purity Cleansing Balm, a luxurious silky rose infused cleansing balm. When applied with water the balm transforms into a rich milk and leaves skin purified, calm and glowing. Gently yet thoroughly melts away dirt and make up (including waterproof mascara). Nourishes skin, improves brow and lash shine and manageability. Protects the skin’s defence barrier against everyday environmental stress, free radicals and pollution.


Prunus Amygdalus Dulcis Oil (Sweet Almond), Glycerin (Source Coconut Oil), Cetearyl Ethylhexanoate (Source Coconut Oil), Glyceryl Stearate (Source Coconut Oil), Capric/Caprylic Triglycerides (Source Coconut Oil), Glyceryl Dibehenate (Source Rape Seed Oil), Olea Europaea Fruit Oil (Olive), Tribehenin (Source Rape Seed Oil), Glyceryl Behenate (Source Rape Seed Oil), Coco Glucoside (Source Corn), Butyrospermum Parkii Nut Butter (Shea), Rosa Centifolia Flower Extract, Cymbopogon Martini Oil (Palmarosa), Eugenia Caryophyllus Flower Extract (Clove), Viola Odorata Leaf Extract (Violet), Anthemis Nobilis Flower Oil (Chamomile), Citronellol, Geraniol, Eugenol, Linalool, Rosa Canina Fruit Oil (Rose Hip), Oryzanol (Source Rice), Lecithin (Source Soybean), Benzyl Alcohol (Source Essential Oil), Water, Inulin (Source Wheat), Alpha Glucan Oligosaccharide (Source Wheat), Tocopherol (Vitamin E)

Brand Overview

Ren At-A-Glance

Strengths: Good toner; some worthwhile moisturizers and masks (but not the anti-acne formula); a bounty of products for dry to very dry skin; some products contain especially high amounts of known antioxidants.

Weaknesses: Expensive; repetitive formulas that aren't nearly as natural as they're made out to be; several products contain irritants with no established benefit for skin; very irritating products for those with acne; no skin-lightening options; unappealing products for oily skin.

Hailing from the United Kingdom, the Ren line was developed by two businessmen who are, according to company information, "evangelical" about skin care. The story goes that Robert Calcraft and Anthony Buck were former consultants who began researching the skin-care market after Buck's wife began having adverse reactions to every skin-care product she used while pregnant. Apparently neither man believed that there was a line out there that offered consumers high-tech products that were "totally clean" and "completely effective," and so, voilá, a new skin-care line was born.

We wish we could write that these men were really onto something for all women, not just Buck's wife, but that's simply not the case. First of all, their assessment of the cosmetics industry is bizarre, because in truth there are indeed many cosmetic lines offering "clean" and "effective" products ("clean," by Ren's definition, are products that don't contain problematic ingredients). Second, which lines did Ren's founders check out to determine that there was a missing link? An even better question is: What criteria were they using, because almost all of their products are either poorly formulated or contain irritating ingredients?

Calcraft and Buck apparently worked with a cosmetic pharmacologist; although that sounds impressive, a cosmetic pharmacologist works with drugs designed to improve mental ability in healthy individuals, not with skin-care formulations. All of this back story is nothing more than proof that the people behind this line really didn't do their homework, and the consumer who buys these products will be the poorer (both skin health- and money-wise) because of it.

It still shocks us when we review a line that's laden with products claiming to improve wrinkles and other signs of aging skin, and yet there's limited options for sun protection. Few researchers question how critical daily sun protection is to preserving the health and appearance of skin. Many of Ren's products contain antioxidants, and several have high amounts of green tea oil. But all the green tea in Japan isn't capable of protecting skin from environmental damage, which of course includes sunlight.

More so than many other lines that eschew certain ingredients for their alleged (and, sometimes, proven) negative effects when present in skin-care products, Ren loves to point out everything they don't use. This is a line for those who love to see the word "No" followed by a long list of chemical-sounding names that can seem scary to the uninformed. A consumer may have no idea what a polyquaternium is, but because of lines like Ren, the message is clear that it's not desirable. Ren doesn't provide any documentation supporting their ban on certain ingredients, which is typical of lines whose marketing angle relies on perpetuating the myth that synthetic ingredients are evil and that natural is the only truly safe way to go.

It would be great if Ren's "do not use" list benefited consumers, but it doesn't. Frustratingly, many of the ingredients Ren opts to use instead of synthetics are proven irritants for skin. Bergamot, peppermint, tangerine, and arnica are indeed natural ingredients, but each has its share of problems for skin. We could go on, but you get our point: Ren is really nothing more than an overly fragranced, fear-mongering, natural "me too" line using the same tired plant-based ingredient angle as countless other brands. The difference is that many of those other brands have a product assortment that, either from a price or formulary perspective, is much better than this one.

For more information about Ren, now owned by Unilever, call (732) 553-1185 or visit www.renskincare.com.

About the Experts

The new Beautypedia Team proudly and unequivocally maintains the commitment to help you find the best products possible for your skin. We do this by relentlessly pursuing and relying on published scientific research so you will have unbiased information on what works and what doesn't-and the sneaky ways you could be making your skin worse, not better!

The Beautypedia Team reviews all products using the same research, criteria, and objectivity, whether the product being reviewed is from Paula's Choice or another brand.

Member Comments
Summary of Member Comments
Sort by:
Stings eyes

I bought this because I felt it would be less messy than an oil cleanser-I hated it. No matter how tightly I closed my eyes it still stung them when I took my makeup off. What's the point of cleansing with oil if you can't use it on mascara? That's the hardest thing to get off. Shu Umera's cleansing oils don't sting. Plus this was extremely pricey. A waste of money.

Reviewed by
Ruth M
Enter a title for your review
First Name, Last Initial
Email Address
How would you rate this product on the following:
500 characters left

Terms of Use

585632-IIS4 v1.0.0.431 10/4/2015 10:32:52 AM