It's like the non-science based EWG wrote the article for them.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fda-needs-more-power-to-regulate-toxic-chemicals-in-cosmetics/
They repeat typical, misleading claims...
1. "The result is that several chemicals with realistic chances of causing toxic effects can be found in everything from shampoo to toothpaste. " - What is a 'realistic chance of causing a toxic effect'?
2. "research indicates it (formaldehyde) can be dangerous at the levels found in cosmetics" - What research is this?
3. "Other risky substances include phthalates, parabens..." - How are parabens risky? They've been demonstrated time and time again to be safe.
4. "At exposures typical of cosmetic users, several of these chemicals have been linked to cancer, impaired reproductive ability and compromised neurodevelopment in children." - Utter bullshit. Where is the evidence?
5. "chemical hair straighteners and skin lighteners, which disproportionately expose them to high doses of phthalates, parabens, mercury and other toxic substances" - Really? BS. You don't use a higher level of parabens in these products. And who puts Mercury in products? Ridiculous!!
6. "(EU) which has banned more than 1,300 chemicals from personal health or cosmetic products" - EU and US products are not different. Banning 1300 or 13,000 chemicals makes no difference.
This shouldn't be surprising. In looking over the history of articles from Scientific American, they have regularly published BS like this about the cosmetic industry. Too bad.