That means that ratings are not permanent, so check back often.
SKIN DEEP COSMETICS DATA BASE FREE
Also, I have not seen any studies that show that grapefruit seed extract is now free of possible contaminants such as benzalkonium chloride, triclosan, or methylparaben. That is to say, methylchloroisothiazolinone and benzisothiazolinone are still allergens and sensitizers. Now, Citrus Paradisi has a rating of 1-3 depending on its use.Īs far as I know, the scientific data on the toxicity of these ingredients has not changed. The chemicals themselves haven’t changed only the database has changed.Īnother example is Citrus Paradisi (Grapefruit) seed extract, which the EWG used to rate 6. Now, methylchloroisothiazolinone and benzisothiazolinone are back to 6. Then, for a period, methylchloroisothiazolinone had a rating of 2-5 and benzisothiazolinone had a rating of 3-6. To demonstrate, such preservatives as methylchloroisothiazolinone and benzisothiazolinone used to have ratings of 6 and 6-7 respectively (with 10 as most toxic).
SKIN DEEP COSMETICS DATA BASE SKIN
Skin Deep database changes its ratingsĪnother point I consider worth covering is the fact that the EWG cosmetics database has been changing its ratings lately. I understand that they are constantly monitoring and upgrading the Skin Deep Database, but it’s not infallible. In all likelihood, it’s simply because the EWG has chosen to undertake a gargantuan task and a mistake was made. Thus, it’s unclear why the EWG chooses to diminish it. In this case, the Canadian government doesn’t note that Dog Rose Hips Oil poses any threat to human health or the environment. The DSL contains both harmful chemicals and chemicals deemed to be safe. In other words, the DSL is a list of chemicals that have been investigated by the Canadian government. Dog Rose Hips Oil is, in fact, on Canada’s Domestic Substances List (DSL), an inventory of over 28,000 chemicals, but has no restrictions. So, I searched the Environment Canada Domestic Substance List but found no evidence of that. In my experience, there have been instances when I did not see sufficient reasoning for the EWG rating in the referenced sources.įor example, the EWG states that the Environment Canada Domestic Substance List has ranked Rosa Canina (Dog Rose) Hips Oil as expected to be toxic and harmful. This is what I do before making my final judgment about an ingredient.
Oftentimes, my opinion about an ingredient or product type is different from that expressed in the Skin Deep Database, and I believe it is ok, for the following reasons.Ī product rating should first make you ask the question, “What is the basis for this rating?” Instead of just looking at the given rating as the ultimate truth, choose to check the literature upon which the EWG cosmetics database forms its opinions and formulate your own opinion. They include but are not limited to, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Panel reports, medical studies in the National Library of Medicine, European Union Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety reports, and reporting from European Chemicals Agency. In other words, the ratings are a result of an understanding of the various scientific sources that I use, too. The first point I would like to stress is that the EWG database ratings are a reflection of an opinion, not an indisputable truth. The EWG cosmetics database expresses an opinion Nevertheless, it has its limitations, and I believe that knowing them can help you understand how products and ingredients get their ratings. And, its Skin Deep Database is a good way to estimate the safety of products you consider buying. It is dedicated to making sure humans live healthier lives and to protecting the environment. To begin with, the Skin Deep Database powered by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a US non-profit organization.
The lowest EWG Skin Deep hazard may not reflect ingredient Safety.The EWG Verified Program Accepts Phenoxyethanol.The EWG rating system does not distinguish between organic and nonorganic ingredients.The EWG cosmetics database expresses an opinion.
0 kommentar(er)
