This seems rather silly but it would be logical. You could say that one rating is the starting point so any ingredient that has a zero data will get a one rating. Maybe they think Palm Glycerides sounds natural so it gets a one rating with no data, but then how would you explain the one rating based on no data of HYDROXYETHYL ACRYLATE/ SODIUM ACRYLOYLDIMETHYL TAURATE COPOLYMER? There is certainly nothing natural about an acrylic polymer. They admit that this rating is based on no data. However, this does not seem to affect the way they rate ingredients.įor example, how can an ingredient like HYDROGENATED PALM GLYCERIDES get a one rating? A one rating is the most safe you can score so they give it a one. This is understandable since ratings based on single studies are much weaker than ratings based on lots of studies.

One of the “improvements” recently added to the Skin Deep Database was an additional rating of the quality of data supporting the safety rating. If a product was this dangerous how could the EWG possibly encourage people to buy it? Safety Ratings Based on Nothing But if you click on the picture they’ll be happy to have you buy the product through their affiliate program. A 9 rating is one of the most dangerous product that can be found in the Skin Deep Database (according to them). Here is the Roc Retinol Moisturizer with a rating of 9.

After all, why would they put an affiliate link to a product they rate as the worst of the worst? Unfortunately, the EWG seems more concerned about their Amazon Affiliate sales than they do about consumer safety. We participate in an Amazon Affiliate program on this site. This is a good deal for websites because if a consumer goes to Amazon and makes a purchase the website owner gets a small % of the sale (somewhere between 2 and 4%). One of the ways the EWG makes money is by participating in affiliate programs, specifically the Amazon Affiliate program and the Google affiliate program. I also criticized them for profiting off of what they consider “dangerous” products. I find it encouraging that they have fixed anything. But they still list Polyparaben as a synonym for Propylparaben but that is a minor mistake.

They used to have a listing for a fictional compound POLYPARABEN. They have fixed at least one flaw that I pointed out in a previous blog post 3 reasons why the ( EWG is a dubious source). The EWG gets a lot of criticism for flaws in their database, but I have to give them credit where credit is due.

Download ewg skincare database