Hey everyone, Shauna and Amber here.

It’s been a minute since we’ve published a blog post, and honestly, it feels really good to be back in this space with you.

Over the last 11 years, we’ve watched the CBD and cannabis skincare world go through a lot of waves. We’ve seen brands launch quickly, make huge promises, attach big price tags to unnecessarily high milligram amounts, and then disappear just as quickly.

Through all of that, Color Up has stayed rooted in the same place: thoughtful formulation, professional treatment-room experience, and ingredient choices we can stand behind.

Lately, we’ve seen a skincare claim making its way around the internet:

“All foaming cleansers—no matter how gentle or plant-based— can negatively impact the skin’s lipid barrier and microbiome.”

We understand why this statement gets traction. Many clients have used foaming cleansers that left their skin feeling tight, dry, squeaky, hot, or reactive. As professionals, we have all seen the downstream effects of over-cleansing: impaired barrier function, increased transepidermal water loss (TEWL), dehydration, sensitivity, rebound oiliness, and inflammation-prone skin.

But the statement “all foam is bad” is not scientifically complete.

Foam is not a category of damage. Foam is a sensory and physical property created by surfactants. Whether a cleanser is harsh or gentle depends on the entire formulation system: the surfactant blend, surfactant concentration, pH, micelle behavior, contact time, rinse behavior, humectants, emollients, preservation system, and the condition of the skin being cleansed.

A foaming cleanser can be poorly designed. A cream cleanser can be poorly designed. A gel, balm, oil, milk, or micellar cleanser can be poorly designed.

The better professional question is not: Does it foam? It is: What is creating the foam, and how does the complete formula interact with the stratum corneum (the outermost layer of the epidermis)?

 

 

Why Some Foaming Cleansers Can Be Harsh

To understand the concern around foaming cleansers, we have to talk about surfactants.

Surfactants are amphiphilic molecules, meaning they have both a water-loving head and an oil-loving tail. This structure allows them to loosen and lift away sebum, sunscreen, makeup residue, sweat, particulate matter, and environmental debris so those materials can be rinsed from the skin.

The issue is that surfactants do not only interact with debris. Depending on the type and strength of the surfactant system, they can also interact with the skin’s proteins, natural moisturizing factor, and intercellular lipid matrix.

The surfactant systems most associated with barrier disruption tend to be:

High-foaming, high-detergency anionic systems

High-pH soap-based cleansers

Overly concentrated surfactant systems

Formulas without adequate pH control

Formulas lacking humectant or lipid-support ingredients

Cleansers used too frequently, too aggressively, or with hot water

Classic examples include strong sulfate systems such as Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, which is often used in dermatology research as an irritation model. SLES is typically milder than SLS, but depending on the formula, concentration, and supporting ingredients, sulfate-based cleansers can still be too aggressive for compromised or reactive facial skin.

Other surfactants that can be problematic in certain formulas include strong soap systems, high-pH fatty acid salts, some olefin sulfonate systems, and formulas where the cleansing phase is simply too strong for the intended skin type.

This is why professionals should be cautious with blanket statements. The issue is not foam by itself. The issue is surfactant behavior at the skin surface.

Monomers, Micelles, and Barrier Interaction

Once surfactants reach a certain concentration in water, they begin to organize into micelles. Micelles help solubilize oil-based debris so it can rinse away.

From a barrier perspective, the free surfactant monomer fraction matters. Smaller, more aggressive monomers can interact more readily with stratum corneum proteins and lipids. This can contribute to swelling, protein denaturation, lipid extraction, increased TEWL, and that familiar tight or squeaky feeling after cleansing.

Mixed surfactant systems can behave differently than single-surfactant systems and a well-designed blend can reduce the concentration of free monomers and create a milder cleansing profile. This is one reason formulators often combine amphoteric and nonionic surfactants rather than relying on one high-detergency surfactant alone.

That does not mean every amphoteric or nonionic cleanser is automatically gentle; concentration, pH, impurities, preservation, fragrance, and total formula architecture still matter.

The Surfactant System 

REMOVE Foaming Cleanser uses a sulfate-free surfactant system built around:

Cocamidopropyl Betaine
An amphoteric surfactant commonly used to support foam quality and reduce the harshness of cleansing systems.

Decyl Glucoside
A sugar-derived nonionic surfactant used in many mild cleanser systems.

This pairing is different from traditional sulfate-heavy foaming cleansers. It is designed to create a light, satisfying lather while keeping the cleansing system more balanced and appropriate for facial skin. The finished formula is also pH-balanced at 5.0, which places it within the skin’s naturally acidic range. That matters because high-pH cleansing can disturb barrier enzymes, lipid organization, and microbial balance more than acidic or near-physiologic systems.

Why “Gentle” Still Requires the Whole Formula

A cleanser is not just its surfactants. Color Up's foaming cleanser also includes:

Vegetable glycerin for humectant support

Aloe Barbadensis for hydration and skin comfort

Hemp seed oil for lightweight plant lipid support

Jojoba oil for a soft, sebum-like emollient feel

Glyceryl Oleate Citrate and Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride from CreamMaker ANIO, a PEG-free, vegetable-derived refatting and emulsifying system

These ingredients do not make a rinse-off cleanser behave like a leave-on moisturizer. That would be an overclaim. But they can meaningfully influence slip, cushion, rinse feel, and post-cleanse comfort.

This is the difference between a cleanser that simply removes, and a cleanser that is formulated to remove while minimizing the feeling of depletion.

A Note on Preservation and Salicylic Acid

Water-containing cleansers require preservation. REMOVE uses a preservative system that includes Benzyl Alcohol, Salicylic Acid, and Sorbic Acid.

For professionals, the salicylic acid point matters. In this context, salicylic acid should not be framed as the star exfoliating active. It is part of the preservation and pH-support system in a rinse-off formula.

At higher levels, lower pH, and especially in leave-on products, salicylic acid can act as a keratolytic. In this cleanser, the more accurate positioning is that it is present at a low functional level within the preservation system.

The Cutaneous Endocannabinoid System: Why CBD Belongs in This Conversation

Now let’s get into the part of the formula that is still least understood in professional skincare: cannabinoids.

The skin has its own functional endocannabinoid system, often called the cutaneous endocannabinoid system or cECS.

This system is involved in maintaining skin homeostasis. It helps regulate processes connected to:

Keratinocyte proliferation and differentiation

Sebocyte activity and lipid production

Sensory signaling, including itch and discomfort pathways

Immune signaling

Inflammatory balance

Barrier maintenance and repair signaling

The major endogenous cannabinoids include anandamide and 2-arachidonoylglycerol, often shortened to 2-AG. These interact with cannabinoid receptors and related pathways throughout the skin.

Cannabinoid receptors and related signaling targets have been identified in multiple skin structures and cell types, including:

Keratinocytes

Sebocytes

Cutaneous nerve fibers

Mast cells

Macrophages

Hair follicles

Eccrine glands

Fibroblasts

The two best-known cannabinoid receptors are CB1 and CB2, but CBD’s activity is not limited to those receptors. In fact, CBD has relatively low direct affinity for CB1 and CB2 compared with THC. Its skin relevance appears to involve a broader network, including TRPV1, PPAR-gamma, adenosine signaling, oxidative stress pathways, and inflammatory mediators.

That is one reason CBD is so interesting in topical formulation: it is not simply a “cannabinoid receptor ingredient.” It behaves more like a multi-pathway modulator.

CB1, CB2, TRPV1, and PPAR-Gamma in Skin

For professionals, it helps to separate these targets.

CB1 is commonly associated with neural signaling and sensory pathways. In skin, CB1 has been observed in nerve fibers, keratinocytes, sebaceous structures, and other cutaneous compartments. This makes it relevant to sensory reactivity, neurogenic inflammation, and the way skin perceives discomfort.

CB2 is often discussed in relation to immune regulation. In skin, CB2 signaling is associated with immune cells, sebocytes, keratinocytes, and inflammatory modulation.

TRPV1 is a sensory ion channel involved in heat, stinging, burning, and discomfort signaling. CBD can interact with TRPV1 in a way that may initially activate and then desensitize the channel, which is one proposed explanation for its potential role in skin comfort.

PPAR-gamma is a nuclear receptor involved in lipid metabolism, differentiation, inflammatory regulation, and sebocyte biology. CBD has been shown in preclinical models to influence PPAR-gamma-related pathways, which may help explain its relevance in sebaceous and barrier-related research.

This does not mean CBD is a treatment claim. It means CBD has biologically plausible skin-relevant mechanisms that go beyond trend marketing.

CBD, Sebocytes, and Reactive Facial Skin

One of the most cited studies on CBD and skin examined human sebocytes. In that model, CBD helped normalize excessive lipid synthesis under pro-acne-like conditions and showed anti-inflammatory effects in sebocyte cultures.

That finding is important, but it should be interpreted carefully.

It does not mean a rinse-off CBD cleanser treats acne. It does not mean every CBD product is automatically sebostatic. It does not mean higher CBD percentages are always better.

What it does suggest is that CBD has legitimate skin-relevant activity worth respecting, especially in formulas designed for facial skin, reactive skin, and professional care environments.

In REMOVE, CBD isolate is included as part of the skin-conditioning profile. Because it is isolate-based, the cannabinoid profile is more controlled than a broad-spectrum or full-spectrum extract.

Why Cannabinoid Profile Matters

Not all cannabis-derived ingredients behave the same way.

A product may contain:

CBD isolate

Broad-spectrum hemp extract

Full-spectrum hemp extract

Hemp seed oil

Hemp flower extract

THC-containing extract

Minor cannabinoids

Terpene-rich aromatic fractions

These are not interchangeable.

Hemp seed oil is primarily a lipid ingredient. It is not a meaningful source of cannabinoids unless cannabinoids are added separately.

CBD isolate is a purified cannabinoid input, allowing the formulator to control the cannabinoid profile more precisely.

Full-spectrum extracts may include CBD, minor cannabinoids, terpenes, and legally compliant trace THC depending on the source and testing.

For body products, balms, and certain professional applications, broader cannabinoid profiles may be desirable. But facial skin is often more reactive, more sebaceous, more neurovascular, and more frequently exposed to active treatment protocols.

This is where formulation philosophy matters.

Color Up’s choice to use CBD isolate in REMOVE is not about claiming that THC is “bad.” It is about controlling the cannabinoid profile in a facial cleanser intended for skin that may be sensitive, post-treatment, or professionally managed.

THC, CB1, and Why We Stay Precise

THC is a partial agonist at CB1 and CB2 receptors and has a very different pharmacologic profile than CBD. Because CB1 is involved in sensory and neurovascular signaling, it is reasonable to be cautious about THC-rich or broader cannabinoid profiles in highly reactive facial products.

However, we should not overstate this.

We cannot say THC universally causes flushing, irritation, or oil imbalance in topical facial products because the evidence is more complex than that. What we can say is that THC and CBD are pharmacologically different, and that a CBD-isolate approach gives a formulator more control when the goal is a calm, cosmetically elegant facial cleanser.

From Color Up’s treatment-room experience, CBD-only facial formulas have been the better fit for the type of reactive facial skin we often see in professional care. That is an observation, not a controlled clinical trial, and we think it is important to name the difference.

Why This Sets REMOVE Apart From Ordinary Foaming Cleansers

Most foaming cleansers on the market focus on one thing: cleanse effectively and rinse clean. Some do that well. Some overdo it.

REMOVE was built around a different question:

Can we create a foaming cleanser that respects cleanser chemistry, professional barrier concerns, and the skin’s cannabinoid signaling environment at the same time?

That is why the formula combines:

A sulfate-free amphoteric/nonionic surfactant system

Finished pH of 5.0

Humectant support

Lipid and refatting support

PEG-free CreamMaker ANIO

CBD isolate

A preservation system appropriate for a water-based cleanser

Again, no single ingredient makes a cleanser gentle. Not CBD. Not aloe. Not glycerin. Not a glucoside. Not the absence of sulfates. It's the complete system that matters.

Professional Takeaway and Final Thoughts

The bottom line is this:

Not all foaming cleansers are automatically barrier-damaging, however poorly designed foaming cleansers absolutely can be, and that's the distinction we're making.

When assessing a foaming cleanser, ask:

Is it soap-based or synthetic-detergent based?

What surfactants are creating the foam?

Is the system sulfate-heavy, amphoteric, nonionic, amino-acid based, glucoside-based, or blended?

What is the finished pH?

Does the cleanser include humectants or emollient/refatting support?

Is the preservative system appropriate for the pH and product type?

Are fragrance or essential oil components appropriate for the intended user?

Is the formula designed for normal, oily, compromised, post-treatment, or reactive skin?

Are any cannabinoid claims grounded in chemistry rather than milligram marketing?

The internet loves simple rules. Skin does not. “All foam is bad” is an oversimplification, and a more accurate statement is this: Cleanser performance is determined by the complete formula, the skin condition, and the way the product is used.

That is the conversation worth having.

Our REMOVE Foaming Cleanser is one example of how a foaming cleanser can be formulated with a more nuanced approach: sulfate-free surfactants, acidic pH, humectant and lipid support, PEG-free refatting chemistry, and a controlled CBD-isolate cannabinoid profile.

Precise chemistry deserves a better conversation.

If you learned something here, keep exploring the Color Up blog and stay tuned for new conversations every week.

We're so excited to be back at it!

Sending you love,

Shauna and Amber

Sources Used For Science Check

Cutaneous ECS overview: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2757311/
CBD sebocyte study: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4151231/
Cannabinoid signaling in skin: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6429381/
Topical CBD review: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12467061/
Surfactant mixtures and barrier properties: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3069307/
Cleansing and barrier integrity: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3425021/