The ESK blog
June 2026 Science Wrap Up
26 June 2026
Written by Dr. Ginni Mansberg
It’s the end of June. Winter has set in in the Southern Hemisphere, but summer has arrived in the UK, USA and for our Northern ESK family members. The change of season can be really tricky for skin. Dryness, redness, itching and sensitivity can all flare. If that’s you, please reach out and let’s see if we can help! This month I presented in Sydney at the Australian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons Non Surgical Symposium on skin of colour, rosacea and pigmentation. It’s an area I have been getting more and more interested in, and Dr Kai Rajeswaran in the UK (a fabulous aesthetic doctor and ESK KOL) and I have been doing more and more presentations on it. Let us know if you want more content in this space? Meanwhile, here is this month’s science wrap with some super interesting reading!
Choosing non-comedogenic skincare for people with acne
Here’s a fun one for anyone who has ever stood in Priceline squinting at a “NON-COMEDOGENIC!!!” label like it’s a legally binding promise from the skincare gods.
A review in the dermatology journal JAAD Reviews basically says… the science behind “non-comedogenic” labels is a bit shakier than most people realise.
The term “comedogenic” refers to ingredients that can clog pores and contribute to blackheads, whiteheads and acne. The problem is that there’s currently no regulated definition of “non-comedogenic”, and companies can use the label without standardised testing.
Much of the original research came from a famous “rabbit ear assay” developed in the 1970s, where ingredients were tested on rabbit ears because they form microcomedones (or blocked ears) quickly. But later studies showed rabbit skin is much more sensitive than human skin, meaning some ingredients labelled “pore-clogging” in rabbits may be perfectly fine for many humans.
The review also highlights something dermatologists have known for years: skin is deeply individual. A product that breaks one person out may be completely fine for someone else. Concentration matters. Formulation matters. Your skin barrier matters. Hormones matter.
So on the one hand, please don't panic over ingredient checker apps or TikTok “pore-clogging” lists. They can be useful guides, but they’re not gospel. Your own skin’s behaviour over time is still one of the best clinical tests we have. On the other hand, the data we have from those old 1970s tests is still the best we have. I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, and this is why (in the absence of anything better) it is the data we use when labelling our products!
Shop ESK Acne Collection
Acne-prone/Oily kit
Acne shows up when your skin responds with inflammation to an excess of the C Acnes bacteria. Excess oil production and an irregular skin cell turnover combine to block pores in the skin creating the conditions where the bacteria flourish. Designing a skincare regimen with this in mind is the first step to helping get your skin under control.
This kit is designed for oilier, acne-prone skin. Using ingredients with strong scientific evidence, it helps maintain a balanced skin surface, supports an even-looking skin tone, and helps improve appearance and texture. The formulation also supports hydration without feeling heavy or greasy.
Science matters and this study is rubbish
I always report on studies I find interesting and tend to skip past less “robust” science. But I thought I’d show you one I’m dismissive of and explain why. A small industry-funded study in the Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology tested whether a fancy “advanced antioxidant serum” - a proprietary blend of 10 ingredients - protected skin from UV damage better than an encapsulated vitamin C serum.
And here is why - as a doctor - I am sceptical about this study: this was tiny. Just 15 women completed the study, mostly Fitzpatrick II–III (fair) skin types, average age 49. Follow-up was also incredibly short, basically 4 days of product application followed by UV exposure and biopsy analysis the next day.
The control arm included untreated UV-exposed skin treated with an encapsulated vitamin C serum. They were not forthcoming about the formulation, concentration or pH of this serum - and we know many on the market are useless. Outcomes were measured quite rigorously: researchers looked at redness (erythema), took biopsies, and measured markers of UV damage including thymine dimers, p53 activation, inflammatory cells and MMP-9.
The antioxidant serum “won” comfortably, showing less redness and lower levels of several UV-damage biomarkers. But… this is where we need a large handful of sunscreen-flavoured salt. The study was sponsored by the product manufacturer (L’Oréal/Skinbetter Science), and the comparator serum seemed surprisingly underwhelming.
Still, there is a useful takeaway: combination antioxidant systems may offer broader protection than single antioxidants alone for a single episode of sun exposure. Then again, with a combination of 10 being tested, it’s hard to say which ones! But this study absolutely does not prove these products prevent skin aging or skin cancer long term. And it doesn’t negate the need for SPF.
Shop ESK Vitamin C
C Forte
C Forte Morning Serum is packed with 16% L-ascorbic acid, the purest form of Vitamin C, combined with vitamin E and ferulic acid for maximum results. Vitamin C (Ascorbic Acid) is an anti-oxidant helping neutralise free radicals (associated with exposure to the sun). The result? A brighter, firmer, plumper looking skin with fewer fine lines apparent and a more even skin tone. Formulated at the ideal pH (2.5-3.5) and housed in airless, opaque packaging, C Forte ensures stability and effectiveness, delivering radiant skin with every use.
Featuring;
- Evidence based ingredients and formulations for superior efficacy.
- Potent skin brightening ingredients
- A plumper, more hydrated and even toned skin.
Note: C Forte can exacerbate acne and may be too strong for irritable skin.
Supplements for post-menopausal skin - solid maybe
Okay, so collagen supplements are absolutely everywhere right now, and I am asked about these constantly. Well, this month a narrative review in the journal Dermatology & Therapy rounded up 23 clinical trials from 2020–2025 looking at oral collagen in women aged 30–65+. The results were fairly consistent in terms of improvements in hydration, elasticity and wrinkle depth across multiple placebo-controlled trials, with dosages mostly ranging from 2.5g to 10g daily over 8–12 weeks. The studies were better for post-menopausal women.
Worth noting, though, that a narrative review is a lower tier of evidence than a systematic review or meta-analysis, meaning the authors selected studies without a fully standardised methodology. And if you dig into the individual trials, industry sponsorship pops up fairly consistently, which can introduce bias even in well-designed studies.
So: interesting, directionally encouraging, but not quite the slam-dunk the headlines will make it sound. The curcumin and glutathione evidence is even thinner. Only a handful of qualifying trials exist for each. As always, we'll keep watching for the stronger independent data before we get too excited and splash the cash around.