Paula’s Choice BHA Liquid: the US name, UK formula and two pore footnotes

The US page names the Skin Perfecting liquid and displays a full 4 fl oz size and a 1 fl oz travel size. A ten-count pad option appears nearby. That neighboring format should not turn the liquid into a pad review. The page identifies an advertised item, while the sizes help define which offer is being discussed. US product record.

This review does not use the retained price or subscription figures as current transaction terms. They were not freshly checked for that purpose. A product name and a supply offer answer different questions, as the supply-term guide explains.

The UK record identifies a 2% salicylic-acid toner and provides the complete declaration marked il402v1. Its listed base includes water, methylpropanediol, butylene glycol, polysorbate 20, Camellia Oleifera extract, sodium hydroxide and tetrasodium EDTA alongside salicylic acid. Those names establish what that market’s page declares; they are not our measurements of a bottle. UK formula record. The UK toner wording is therefore retained alongside the US liquid wording. A difference in the consumer-facing format name is worth recording, but it does not by itself prove that the two preparations are chemically identical or different.

The examined US material did not supply a complete ingredient panel. Filling that gap with the UK list would create a stronger US formula claim than the available record supports. The version-and-label guide addresses this kind of incomplete match.

For pore appearance and oiliness, the US footnote describes clinical testing with 32 subjects over four weeks. The UK footnote describes 32 subjects over three weeks. The shared group size does not resolve the differing periods. Neither page, in the examined material, explains why they differ. Both statements therefore remain visible rather than being reduced to one supposedly universal result. US footnote. UK footnote. Even the apparently matching group of 32 needs this qualification. A reader cannot tell from the two summaries whether the two pages describe one study differently, different observations or another reporting choice. The page text does not settle that question.

This matters before any comparison of products begins. A result summary needs an endpoint and a period, not just a favorable headline. The Clinique gel review provides another place to examine how a named result is tied to its own record.

The UK page separates a 33-subject, one-week blackhead and whitehead account from its 29-subject appearance and barrier accounts. The US page also distinguishes its pore/oil claim from a 29-subject barrier claim. These are not all descriptions of one participant group or one measured outcome. The US broader one-week advertising combines clinical and self-assessment language. US claim context. UK endpoint details. The barrier footnote also does not give a period that can automatically be supplied from the pore footnote. Leaving that field open is more accurate than carrying a nearby number into an unrelated claim.

A barrier statement cannot quietly become proof of a pore result. Likewise, a participant’s assessment is different from an independently inspected full report. Recruitment details, a complete comparator account and the underlying studies were not available in the material read for this review.

A separate UK FAQ describes smoother, clearer and more glowing appearance after 48 hours and says results vary. That answer is another manufacturer representation. It does not replace the three-week pore-study footnote or explain the four-week US version. Keeping its wording in the FAQ column prevents a short appearance statement from becoming the period assigned to every advertised effect. UK FAQ context.

None of these periods is offered here as a personal schedule. The point is documentary: a headline, a footnote and a FAQ may discuss different outcomes even when they appear under the same familiar product name.

The UK declaration tells us which ingredients the brand lists for that toner. It cannot establish the legal or clinical meaning of every sentence about its effects. FDA explains that cosmetic claims must be truthful and not misleading, and that disease-treatment or body-function purposes bring separate drug requirements. This framework distinguishes kinds of claims; it does not decide this product’s individual compliance. UK declaration. FDA claim context.

Matching a headline percentage alone also leaves the base and format open. The two-percent comparison helps keep those fields apart without awarding a clinical score for a familiar number.

The strongest available description is a set of separate findings: a US liquid identity, a complete UK declaration and market-specific result summaries whose pore-study periods differ. Nothing in those findings identifies a reader’s physical container or confirms that every regional package has the same base. The unresolved period difference deserves to stay unresolved. US identity. UK declaration.

For another product-record comparison, the La Roche-Posay cleanser review follows a manufacturer page alongside dated labels. That is a comparison of reading questions, not a claim that either product gives a better personal result.