Are D&C Red dyes comedogenic?
Short answer
Reported concern: Reported concernThe 1984 rabbit ear assay reports that all of the D&C Red dyes tested to that point produced comedones, attributing this to their coal tar derivation, and these dyes are recorded here as a reported concern at animal-model evidence level on that basis. The finding was made about the family rather than by measuring each dye, so no individual figure follows from it. Two further limits matter here more than on most records: the model is reported to overreact relative to human testing, and colour additives are often present at very low levels or not present in your shade at all.
Recorded as D&C Red No. 6 · dataset record dc-red-6 · reviewed 2026-08-06
What the evidence actually is
The material was applied to animal skin — in this dataset, a rabbit ear assay. It is a screening model, and the human-assay literature reports that it overreacts to comedogenic materials relative to human testing.
What the sources report
The cited rabbit ear assay states that all of the D&C Red dyes tested to that point were comedogenic, attributing this to their coal tar derivation.
What this does not cover
Colour additives are frequently present at very low levels and are commonly declared in a 'may contain' or '+/-' section, which means the dye may not be present in the specific shade you own. The finding is from an animal model reported to overreact, and no finished-product conclusion follows from it.
Why people ask about D&C Red dyes
Colour additives are the part of an ingredient list people find hardest to check. A lipstick or blush can carry several D&C Red numbers, the numbering looks like a code rather than a name, and the same shade family appears under different numbers across brands. Anyone who has read that coal tar dyes clog pores then has to work out which of the numbers on their own label the claim applies to, which is where this question usually starts.
Where the circulating rating for D&C Red dyes comes from
Lists in circulation typically publish a figure per dye number, which is more granular than the source those figures come from. Fulton's 1984 rabbit ear work grouped the D&C Reds and reported them together, so a per-number rating is an inference rather than a reading. What gets dropped alongside it is the labelling reality: the FDA's cosmetics labelling summary notes that colour additives are among the exceptions to descending-order ingredient listing, so label position tells you nothing about how much is present, and colour additives commonly appear in a shade-range declaration for a whole product line rather than the shade in the tube. On top of that sits the human-assay literature reporting that this animal model overreacts.
Names D&C Red dyes appears under
This page covers the D&C Red dyes that carry the same family finding in this dataset: D&C Red No. 6, 7, 9, 17, 21, 27, 30, 33 and 36. They are also written as D and C Red, D&C Red 6, Red 7 and so on, and appear under colour index numbers such as CI 45380:2 for Red 21 and Pigment Red 57 for Red 6. Each has its own record in the checker, so scanning a full ingredient list still resolves the specific number. Note also that these are frequently declared in a 'may contain' or '+/-' list, which covers a product line rather than the individual shade, so a number appearing there may not be in the item you own.
Recognised in this dataset as D&C Red No. 6, and through the recorded aliases d and c red no. 6, d&c red 6, red 6, pigment red 57. Matching is exact: there is no fuzzy matching anywhere in this tool, so a name not listed here is reported as unrecognised rather than guessed at.
Questions about d&c red dyes
Is D&C Red 7 comedogenic, specifically?
The cited source did not test the dyes one at a time. It reported that the D&C Red dyes tested were comedogenic as a group and attributed it to their shared derivation, so what exists for Red 7 is the family finding rather than a measurement of that dye. This project records it that way rather than assigning it a number the source did not produce.
What does 'may contain' mean on a lipstick label?
It is a shade-range declaration: one label serves an entire product line, listing every colour additive used across the shades rather than the ones in the tube you bought. Seeing a dye there does not establish it is present in your shade, which is a real limit on reading any comedogenicity claim off a colour additive list.
Why is there one page for nine dyes?
Because that is the level the evidence exists at. The source grouped them, and all nine records here carry the same summary and the same limitations, differing only in naming. Publishing nine pages that repeat one finding would say the same thing nine times while implying each dye had been assessed separately.
Sources cited on this page
These are the sources attached to this record. Nothing on this page is drawn from anything else.
Comedogenicity of current therapeutic products, cosmetics, and ingredients in the rabbit ear
Fulton JE Jr, Pay SR, Fulton JE 3rd. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 1984. Peer-reviewed. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(84)80050-x
Rabbit ear assay. This is the historical origin of most ingredient-level comedogenicity lists in circulation today. The assay is a screening model in animal skin, not a measurement of how a finished cosmetic behaves on a human face. Later work (see src-baek-2016) reports that this model overreacts relative to human testing.
Analysis of comedone, sebum and porphyrin on the face and body for comedogenicity assay
Baek JH, Ahn SM, Choi KM, Jung MK, Shin MK, Koh JS. Skin Research and Technology, 2016. Peer-reviewed. doi:10.1111/srt.12244
Human comedogenicity assay methodology study in 66 volunteers. States that the rabbit ear model can replace human testing for screening purposes but that a number of studies have pointed out its disadvantage of overreacting to comedogenic materials. This is the citation behind every 'animal-model evidence may overstate the result' limitation in this dataset.
Summary of Cosmetics Labeling Requirements
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2026. Regulator.
Cited for how ingredient declarations are ordered. Ingredients are generally listed in descending order of predominance, with exceptions including ingredients present at one percent or less and colour additives, which is why label position cannot be read as a concentration.
Record reviewed 2026-08-06 by pore-checker prototype dataset compilation (not clinically reviewed).