Are there clinical studies on baking soda as a cosmetic exfoliant and its safety profile?

1. What the evidence base actually looks like: sparse clinical trials, lots of anecdote

A systematic body of randomized controlled trials testing baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) as a dedicated cosmetic exfoliant is not presented in the supplied reporting; a clinicaltrials.gov record exists in the search results but the snippet provides no outcomes or published results to confirm a completed, peer‑reviewed trial of baking soda for exfoliation ^[2]. Most of the accessible literature cited by consumer and health outlets treats baking soda as a home remedy with anecdotal reports of benefit rather than as an ingredient supported by multiple independent clinical studies ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Regulatory and safety context: cosmetics are lightly regulated premarket

The Environmental Working Group notes that cosmetics and personal care products in the U.S. are not required to undergo premarket safety testing, a regulatory reality that limits the existence of mandated clinical safety trials for ingredients like baking soda unless a company elects to perform them ^[1]. FDA guidance documents that discuss product intent include illustrative examples of mechanical exfoliants, underscoring that regulators focus on labeling and claims rather than pre‑approval of routine cosmetic ingredients ^[3].

3. What dermatology and consumer health reporting say about safety risks

Dermatology‑oriented reporting and expert commentary converge around plausible harms from using baking soda topically: neutralizing the skin’s acid mantle and disrupting the moisture barrier, which can increase irritation or sensitivity after repeated use ^[6]. Journalistic health coverage echoes clinicians’ concerns that mechanical scrubs like baking soda can be overly abrasive and may worsen uneven tone or cause irritation, even while acknowledging that it does physically exfoliate and remove oil ^{[7] [4]}.

4. Industry testing vs. independent science: who’s producing the data?

Commercial clinical testing firms and in‑house industry trials can and do generate safety and efficacy data for cosmetic claims, but those studies may be commissioned by manufacturers and are not the same as independent, peer‑reviewed research ^[8]. The dermcollective piece cites FDA and Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) assessments that have deemed baking soda safe for cosmetic uses, but CIR has an industry role that observers sometimes flag as a potential source of bias and is not equivalent to a consensus of independent clinical trials ^[6].

5. Practical guidance emerging from the available reporting

Consumer health outlets and dermatologists recommend caution: if baking soda is used as a scrub or mask, short contact time (wash off immediately) and avoiding repeated, aggressive use are common practical precautions to reduce risk of barrier disruption and irritation ^{[4] [7]}. Some safety commentators explicitly classify baking soda as a skin irritant under certain conditions and recommend gentler, formulated physical or chemical exfoliants for routine use ^{[9] [6]}.

6. Bottom line — what can be concluded, and what remains unknown

The supplied reporting indicates that while baking soda does function as a mechanical exfoliant and is widely discussed online, there is a lack of readily available, robust independent clinical trials published in the sources provided to definitively characterize its safety profile for repeated cosmetic use; regulatory structures and industry testing can fill some gaps but also limit publicly accessible, impartial data ^{[2] [1] [8]}. Where experts disagree, the consensus in the available reporting favors caution due to documented risks to skin pH and barrier integrity ^{[6] [7] [9]}.