Clinique · Concealer
Clinique Beyond Perfecting Foundation + Concealer, CN 02 Breeze - 1.0 oz/30 ml for Dry Combination to Combination Oily S
Lower concern; liquid foundation not a typical PFAS vector.
Clinique makes no PFAS claims for this foundation. Liquid cosmetics are not high-risk product categories for PFAS; no public lab data available. Brand transparency on PFAS absent.
Shop Clinique on Amazon →Material
pigments, silicones, water, polymers
Brand disclosure
Brand is silent on PFAS
Lab data
No public lab test
Why this grade
Safe base material
Made from a material with no inherent PFAS use (ceramic, mineral, or natural fiber).
Category baseline
cosmetics is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.
No PFAS disclosure
No public statement about PFAS in this product.
The full breakdown
What it's made of and why it matters
Clinique Beyond Perfecting is a liquid foundation-concealer hybrid based on water, silicones (cyclomethicone, dimethicone), and iron oxide pigments plus polymers for adhesion and wear. Silicones are inert and well-tolerated; iron oxides are non-toxic colorants approved in cosmetics globally. The formula is designed for combination skin with a focus on long wear and blendability, not occlusive coverage, so ingredient load is moderate compared to full-coverage concealers.
The brand's record and disclosure
Clinique (Estee Lauder Companies) provides ingredient lists on packaging and website but does not publish third-party safety test results or independent certifications like Clean Beauty or EWG verification. The brand has no documented recalls or regulatory action specific to this product line. Estee Lauder has faced scrutiny on transparency regarding PFAS in cosmetics generally, but Clinique has not disclosed PFAS use or phaseout commitments publicly for this product.
How it compares in its category
Liquid foundations are among the lower-risk cosmetic products because they avoid talc and rarely contain heavy metal-laden mineral pigments in concentrations that trigger concern. This product uses synthetic iron oxides rather than mineral pigments, placing it in the safer tier. Compared to powder concealers or cream sticks, liquid formulas have less risk of azo dye offgassing and formaldehyde-releasing preservatives, though preservative systems should always be checked for sensitive skin.
If you buy it
Store at room temperature away from direct sunlight; silicone-based products are stable and unlikely to degrade or leach over typical shelf life (12-24 months). Discontinue if you develop rash, itching, or persistent irritation; patch test on inner arm first if you have sensitive skin or fragrance allergies. Do not heat the bottle or use near flame. Replace if the formula separates, smells off, or develops visible mold after opening.
Beyond PFAS: other things we checked
Established hazard classes for this product type, assessed from public information. These never change the PFAS grade; a Likely flag caps the Verdict at “Buy with care.”
Fragrance allergens / undisclosed fragrance components
Clinique Beyond Perfecting contains fragrance listed generically on label; individual components are not disclosed. Risk is low for most users but formaldehyde-releasing fragrance preservatives or high-volatility essential oils may trigger contact dermatitis in sensitive individuals.
Heavy metals in pigments (lead, cadmium, chromium)
No recalls or regulatory findings for heavy metal contamination in Clinique foundations. Iron oxides used here are synthetic and subject to cosmetic colorant limits under FDA and EU regulations; residual contamination would be rare.
Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives
Liquid foundations require preservatives to prevent bacterial and fungal growth. Clinique does not disclose preservative system publicly; DMDM hydantoin or imidazolidinyl urea (formaldehyde releasers) are still used in some Estee Lauder products, though modern alternatives exist.
Talc contamination or asbestos risk
This is a liquid foundation, not a powder; no talc is used. Asbestos risk is not applicable.
1,4-dioxane as manufacturing byproduct
Silicone and polymer-based cosmetics can contain trace 1,4-dioxane as a byproduct of ethoxylation during synthesis. No specific testing for this product is publicly available; risk is generally low in finished cosmetics but not ruled out without independent verification.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 72% confidence. It is not a lab result.
No independent PFAS lab test is on record for this exact product. A lab test could move the score in either direction.
The brand has not made a specific, verifiable PFAS-free statement, so part of this score reflects that missing disclosure rather than a confirmed material.
Formulations and coatings change between production runs. Always check the current label before buying.
More concealer grades
How we score: every product runs through the same public 0–100 rubric based on materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls. See the full methodology → Spotted a mistake? Report an error.