My take:

Some cosmetics are not good to use too close to the eyes because they contain certain ingredients which may cause a problem if they migrate into the eye. Otherwise, there should be no difference.

Good question.

My Take:

I fell very lucky in that I have actually worked for different cosmetic companies on a corporate level and had access to the labs, compounders and chemists. I spent a lot of time talking to them and I never heard a single one of them say that they consider the cost of the ingredient when formulating a product. Their concern is to develop a good product and let the market price be determined by the company. Is cost an important factor? Yes, of course. But, I usually find that this is not a primary concern. Remember we are dealing with unit cost. One product may have an ingredient which may cost more or less but, that unit cost difference is actually pennies.

Yes, there can be differences, but not because the formulator doesn't care if the ingredient is comedogenic. The primary concern is the function and compatability of the ingredient with the other ingredients. It's true that there are less oil glands on the body, there there are still glands. Not careing if an ingredient is comedogenic runs the risk of outbreaks on the body.

tsunamino.....How about the breast cream (Bust Beauty by Clarins) that is suppose to firm the girls? I do use eye cream and face cream. If the face cream isn't good enough for my neck, TOO BAD! I refuse to buy a different lotion for each part of the body. Eye area is the exception. It is even debatable if a special cream for the eyes are needed, but since eyes play such a special roll in expressions, I'll play it safe.