Double cleansing: does the extra wash help you or just the industry?

Lead

The idea of "double cleansing" – using an oil‑based cleanser followed by a water‑based wash – has become a staple of many skincare routines. Yet the practice is not universally embraced, and recent letters to The Guardian raise doubts about its real value for skin health and its impact on water use and personal cost.

What double cleansing actually is

Double cleansing started in Japanese beauty routines, where the first step removes oil‑soluble impurities (make‑up, sunscreen, sebum) with a balm or oil cleanser. The second step, usually a foaming or gel cleanser, removes any residue left behind and leaves the skin feeling clean. The logic is that oil‑based products can dissolve greasy substances that water alone cannot, while the second wash ensures no oily film remains.

Why the practice has taken hold

The rise of double cleansing coincides with an explosion of specialised skincare products and a marketing narrative that more steps equal better results. Influencers and beauty brands frequently tout the method as essential for preventing break‑outs and maintaining a clear complexion. The trade‑off here is that consumers are encouraged to purchase two products per cleansing session, often at a premium price.

The environmental angle – letters from the UK

Three recent letters to The Guardian highlight a different perspective. Judith Russenberger points out that the UK is projected to face a 5 billion‑litre‑a‑day shortfall in public water supplies by 2055, with an additional 1 billion‑litre‑a‑day deficit for the wider economy. She argues that showering only once a week, and washing daily with a simple bowl of water, dramatically reduces water use while keeping her skin healthy.

Alan Craw echoes the concern, noting that his two‑to‑three‑minute showers use far less hot water than longer, product‑laden routines. He also mentions the environmental impact of cleanser runoff, which can contain surfactants that are not biodegradable.

Dr Lynda Morgan sums it up succinctly: "No benefit to you, but loads more money for the manufacturers of beauty products." The letters collectively suggest that the perceived skin benefits of double cleansing may be outweighed by the cost to the planet and the wallet.

Comparing the approaches

The table shows that each additional cleansing step adds time, product use and water consumption. While the exact litre figures vary with the showerhead and personal habits, the relative increase is clear.

What could go wrong – gaps in the evidence

The letters raise valid concerns, but they also leave several questions unanswered:

• Skin‑type specificity – The writers all report healthy skin without double cleansing, but they do not address whether people with oily or acne‑prone skin might experience different outcomes.
• Long‑term skin health – No data are provided on whether regular double cleansing could affect the skin barrier over years, positively or negatively.
• Quantifying runoff impact – While the letters note that cleanser runoff is not "environmentally friendly," they do not supply measurements of pollutant load or evidence of ecological harm at typical household concentrations.
• Economic analysis – The claim that double cleansing costs consumers more is intuitive, but the letters do not break down price differences or consider bulk‑buying versus premium products.

These gaps mean that, while the anecdotal evidence is compelling, broader scientific research is needed to confirm whether the practice offers measurable skin benefits that outweigh its environmental and financial costs.

Who stands to gain and who might lose

• Manufacturers and retailers – The primary beneficiaries of double cleansing are brands that sell oil‑based balms and foaming cleansers. The practice creates a perception of a required two‑step routine, encouraging repeat purchases.
• Consumers seeking convenience – For people who enjoy a short, single‑step shower, double cleansing adds time and expense, which may be seen as a loss.
• Environmental stakeholders – Increased water use and chemical runoff potentially harm water treatment systems and aquatic ecosystems, especially as the UK approaches the projected water shortfall.
• People with specific skin concerns – Those with persistent makeup, sunscreen or heavy pollution exposure may find the extra step helpful, but the letters do not provide evidence that the benefit exceeds the cost.

Practical steps you can try this week

1. Audit your routine – Write down every product you use in the shower and the time spent. Identify any steps that feel redundant.
2. Try a single, gentle cleanser – Replace the oil‑cleanser and foaming cleanser with a mild, pH‑balanced wash for a week. Note any changes in skin feel or break‑outs.
3. Measure water use – Turn off the tap while lathering and only run it to rinse. You may shave a few litres off each shower.
4. Consider a rinse‑only day – On days you don’t need a full wash, use a bowl of lukewarm water to rinse the face and body. This mirrors the approach highlighted by the letters.
5. Reflect on cost – Calculate how much you spend on cleanser products per month. Compare that to the price of a single, multi‑purpose cleanser.

By experimenting with these changes, you can see whether the extra step truly adds value for your skin, and you’ll also contribute to the broader effort to conserve water.

Sources

• Double cleansing benefits the beauty industry, not consumers | Letters – The Guardian