Sugar-derived squalane: why it’s better, but not for your skin

Squalane is very closely related to a molecule our bodies produce on their own: human sebum contains squalene, which is almost identical, and for decades the industry obtained it from the livers of deep-sea sharks. Today it is obtained from olives, amaranth, and increasingly by fermenting cane sugars with selected yeasts.

The biotechnological route is the best of the three, and I say that without hesitation. But not because it does anything different to your skin: the final molecule is the same. It is better because of the supply chain, consistent purity, and the sharks. These are serious reasons. They simply are not cosmetic reasons, and presenting them as such confuses people.

Cover image generated with the support of artificial intelligence.

[INDICE:h2]

Squalene and squalane are not the same word

The difference is one letter, and it changes everything. Squalene is the unsaturated form: it has double bonds, and it is what our bodies produce and what we find in sebum. Squalane is the same molecule after a hydrogenation process that removes those double bonds.

Why do this? Because double bonds are where a molecule oxidizes. Squalene goes rancid quickly and could not be used in a cream that needs to remain stable for thirty months. Saturated squalane is practically unaffected by oxygen.

And this opens a digression concerning oily skin

The squalene in our sebum really does oxidize, on our faces, especially under UV radiation. The products of that oxidation have long been studied for their role in the formation of comedones and follicular inflammation: the problem is not sebum itself, but oxidized sebum.

It is a detail that overturns a widespread assumption. People with oily skin tend to fight the amount of sebum with increasingly aggressive cleansers, risking a damaged barrier and production that rebounds worse than before. The more interesting variable, instead, is the state that sebum is in.

By the same logic, an antioxidant applied in the morning, under sunscreen, makes sense: not to "dry out" anything, but to reduce the oxidative stress to which the skin's surface is exposed during the day.

«An ingredient's origin tells you who you are as a company. It does not tell you what will happen on the face of the person who buys it.»

The three sources, and what really changes

Shark

This is the historical source, obtained from the livers of deep-sea species particularly rich in this lipid. These animals reproduce slowly and live in waters that are difficult to monitor. Today, the most concrete problem is not even whether its presence is disclosed: it is traceability along long supply chains, in which the raw material passes through several intermediaries before reaching the person who formulates the product.

Plant-based

The most widely used source in Europe is obtained from processing olive oil, particularly from refining by-products. It is a good solution, with one practical limitation: it depends on a harvest. Crop year, yield, and quality fluctuate, and the final degree of purity can vary from batch to batch.

Fermentation-derived

It starts with sugars, typically from sugar cane, which are fermented by selected yeasts until a precursor is obtained, then hydrogenated into squalane. The advantage is entirely industrial and real: very high and consistent purity, independence from the seasons, no animals involved, and a short, verifiable chain.

On skin, I repeat, the result is the same: a lightweight, well-tolerated emollient that spreads without greasiness and supports the skin barrier. If you read that sugar-derived squalane hydrates more, that sentence describes the production process, not your skin.

The paradox that interests me

There is something instructive about this story. Fermentation-derived squalane is the most technological ingredient of the three: it involves selected microorganisms, bioreactors, and catalytic hydrogenation. Ten years ago, a supply chain like this would have been hidden because the public associated "laboratory" with "suspicion."

Today it is exactly the opposite: fermentation is put on the front page, while plant extract has ceased to be a guarantee in itself. I am pleased by this change because it is heading in the right direction. But it happened for narrative reasons, not because people suddenly understood chemistry, and it is the exact opposite of the chemophobia I wrote about in the summer.

A preference built on a story can be dismantled with another story. Only one built on a criterion lasts.

What I look at when choosing a source

In my work, the origin of a raw material matters considerably, but for different reasons from those discussed in educational content.

1. Is the degree of purity declared and consistent between batches? This is the variable that determines whether the January cream will be the same as the July one.
2. Is the supply chain verifiable, or does it stop with an intermediary who offers only verbal assurances?
3. Are there residues from the process or the original source that could be relevant for reactive skin?
4. Will availability hold up over time? Reformulating a product because a raw material has disappeared is the fastest way to lose the trust of someone who had found a product that worked well for them.

It is the same reasoning I described in how I choose active ingredients: the question is never whether an ingredient is good in the abstract.

How to read it on the label

In the INCI list, it appears as Squalane, and the INCI alone does not say where it comes from: the molecule is identical, so the name is identical. The source, if provided, appears in the product description or the company's communications.

What you can legitimately ask is that it be disclosed. A company that has chosen a plant-based or fermentation-derived supply chain has no reason to keep it quiet, which is why it is worth asking.

If you want to verify it without spending an afternoon comparing websites, at the pharmacies and parapharmacies that distribute LeLang, you can have the INCI of what you are already using read to you by someone who knows how to distinguish technical information from a selling point. It is the kind of question that can be resolved at the counter in two minutes.

What I really think

I think it is good news and should be presented for what it is. We have found a way to produce an excellent emollient without fishing for deep-sea sharks and without depending on a harvest: it is real progress, the kind that does not happen every year in cosmetics.

It did not need to be inflated with a promise of superior performance. Because when the promise is not fulfilled (and it is not fulfilled, since the molecule is the same), the person who bought it does not conclude, "marketing exaggerated." They conclude that the ingredient does not work. And so a sound industrial choice ends up paying the price for a wrong sentence.