After patch testing, patients with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) may need to replace personal care products (PCPs) with allergen-free alternatives. When shopping for new products, patients may encounter store-brand (generic) PCPs claiming to be comparable to, but less expensive than, name-brand competitors. There is sparse research examining store-brand PCPs. We investigated differences in the price and allergenicity of store-brand PCPs and comparable name-brand products.
In May 2020, searches were performed in 4 US retailer websites (Amazon, Walmart, Target, CVS) for store-brand PCPs in 5 categories (moisturizers, sunscreens, shampoos, face washes, body washes). Within each category, we included the first 5 products whose label/description featured a comparison statement (e.g., “Compare to…”) referencing a specific name-brand product (identical vehicles only). Store-brand and name-brand product pairs were analyzed according to unit price and North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2015–2016 screening series allergens.1 Analyses were performed in SAS v.9.4 (Cary, NC) using Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Pearson correlation coefficient, with α=0.05.
The final sample comprised 93 store-brand and 93 comparable name-brand products. Unit price was significantly lower for store-brands compared to name-brands (P<0.0001) but did not differ between retailers. At least one allergen was found in 99% of store-brand and 98% of name-brand products, most commonly fragrance, cocamidopropyl betaine, and parabens in both groups (Table 1); significant differences between retailers were detected only for paraben mix (P<0.001) and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI; P=0.02). Parabens were less commonly found in 3 of the 4 retailers’ products compared to their respective name-brands. For MCI/MI, the difference was largely driven by Walmart (36% store-brand vs. 12% name-brand). No significant relationship was found between price and number of allergens (r=−0.13, P=0.07).
Table 1.
Allergens in store-brand and name-brand personal care products.
| Retailer | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Rank | Amazon | CVS | Target | Walmart | |||||||
| Allergen | Store Brand (n=93) | Name Brand (n=93) | Store Brand (n=21) |
Name Brand (n=21) |
Store Brand (n=25) |
Name Brand (n=25) |
Store Brand (n=22) |
Name Brand (n=22) |
Store Brand (n=25) |
Name Brand (n=25) |
P value |
| Fragrance mix | 1 | 1 | 18 (85.7) | 19 (90.5) | 18 (72.0) | 19 (76.0) | 15 (68.2) | 14 (63.6) | 22 (88.0) | 21 (84.0) | 0.13 |
| Cocamidopropyl betaine | 2 | 3 | 11 (52.4) | 10 (47.6) | 12 (48.0) | 11 (44.0) | 9 (40.9) | 8 (36.4) | 12 (48.0) | 14 (56.0) | 0.42 |
| Paraben mix | 3 | 2 | 3 (14.2) | 12 (57.1) | 21 (84.0) | 9 (36.0) | 16 (72.7) | 17 (77.3) | 3 (12.0) | 13 (52.0) | <0.001 |
| Tocopherol | 4 | 4 | 6 (28.6) | 7 (33.3) | 5 (20.0) | 8 (32.0) | 10 (45.5) | 9 (40.9) | 8 (32.0) | 8 (32.0) | 0.10 |
| MCI/MI | 5 | 6 | 6 (28.6) | 5 (23.8) | 3 (12.0) | 3 (12.0) | 4 (18.2) | 4 (18.2) | 9 (36.0) | 3 (12.0) | 0.02 |
| Compositae mix | 6 | 7 | 3 (14.3) | 2 (9.5) | 6 (24.0) | 7 (28.0) | 4 (18.2) | 0 (0.0) | 6 (24.0) | 5 (20.0) | 0.32 |
| Propylene glycol | 7 | 5 | 4 (19.0) | 6 (28.6) | 6 (24.0) | 5 (20.0) | 4 (18.2) | 3 (13.6) | 4 (16.0) | 6 (24.0) | 0.30 |
| DMDM hydantoin | 8 | 8 | 5 (24.8) | 5 (23.8) | 3 (12.0) | 2 (8.0) | 5 (22.7) | 2 (9.1) | 1 (4.0) | 3 (12.0) | 0.36 |
| Benzophenone-3 | 9 | 9 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (16.0) | 2 (8.0) | 2 (9.1) | 3 (13.6) | 5 (20.0) | 4 (16.0) | 0.20 |
| Iodopropynyl butylcarbamate | 10 | 10 | 2 (9.5) | 2 (9.5) | 3 (12.0) | 2 (8.0) | 2 (9.1) | 2 (9.1) | 1 (4.0) | 3 (12.0) | 0.32 |
Data are presented as n (%) unless specified otherwise.
DMDM, dimethyloldimethyl; MCI/MI, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone
Here, parabens were generally less common in store-brand than name-brand products. Parabens are ideal preservatives posing low risk for ACD (1% patch-test positivity, 1994–2016);2 nonetheless, consumer concerns about paraben toxicity are prevalent, despite evidence supporting their safety.3 This perception could drive some manufacturers to formulate products using more allergenic preservatives, such as MCI/MI and MI (7.3% and 13.4% positivity, respectively, 2015–2016).2
This study has several limitations: (1) Included PCPs represent a snapshot in time from limited categories. Although the search strategy attempted to encompass diverse products and retailers, a single convenience sample may not be representative of the US market. (2) The accuracy of ingredients lists from retailer websites could not be verified; manufacturers can change ingredients at any time. (3) Comparison statements may fluctuate with consumer demand. (4) During the COVID-19 pandemic, product availability and price may have been affected by supply-chain interruptions.
To facilitate allergen avoidance, patients with ACD should consult a comprehensive, regularly updated safe-products database, such as the American Contact Dermatitis Society’s Contact Allergen Management Program (CAMP). Our findings emphasize the need to include a breadth of store-brand and name-brand PCPs in CAMP and other databases to promote economic inclusivity. They also support counseling patients to never assume allergenic equivalence between store-brand and name-brand PCPs. We do not suggest these findings be used to guide empiric “hypoallergenic”/“hyporeactive” product selection before patch testing.4
Funding sources:
This work was supported by grants UL1TR001855 and UL1TR000130 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) of the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Conflicts of interest:
BLA has served as a research investigator and/or scientific advisor to AbbVie and Skin Research Institute, LLC, and is chair of the ACDS CAMP Strategic Planning and Industry Support Committee.
REFERENCES
- 1.DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Zug KA, et al. North American contact dermatitis group patch test results: 2015–2016. Dermatitis. 2018;29(6):297–309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Atwater AR, Petty AJ, Liu B, et al. Contact dermatitis associated with preservatives: Retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1994 through 2016. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 2021;84(4):965–976. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Fransway AF, Fransway PJ, Belsito DV, Yiannias JA. Paraben toxicology. Dermatitis. 2019;30(1):32–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Scheman A, Rakowski E-M. Hyporeactive products 2015: an adjunct in the treatment of contact dermatitis and other chronic eczemas. Dermatitis. 2015;26(6):293–295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]