Tamper evidence
Updated
Tamper evidence in skincare does a slightly different job from most categories, because the thing it reassures about is also a genuine safety mechanism.
What it is for here
Partly the obvious: showing that nobody has opened the product between you and the customer. Partly something more practical, which is that an intact seal is evidence the product has not been exposed to air and hands before the customer got to it.
A returned and resold jar is not only a trust problem. It is an unpreserved-product problem.
What counts
A shrink or stretch band over the closure. An induction membrane bonded to the container land, which is a genuine hermetic barrier as well as evidence. A breakaway ring on the closure. A cellophane overwrap on a carton.
A sticker that peels cleanly is not tamper evidence, and neither is a tight lid.
Where it interacts with preservation
An induction seal is the one that does double duty: it is evidence and it is a moisture and oxygen barrier, which matters for exactly the products whose preservation margin is thin.
It also constrains the pack. Induction needs a compatible liner, a flat clean land, and a sealing unit, and the container rim must be wiped before capping or the bond simply will not form.
An airless pack is inherently tamper evident in a practical sense, since the mechanism cannot be opened and reassembled without it being obvious.
Deciding
For direct sales at markets, a band is sufficient and expected. For online, a customer receiving a jar from a stranger looks for reassurance a retailer has trained them to expect.
For wholesale and retail, expect to be asked by name on a vendor form, and expect no discretion from whoever is receiving the delivery.
Decide before ordering containers. Induction constrains the closure and the liner, and retrofitting it usually means re-buying both.