Article by: Perry Romanowski

The EWG gets a lot of criticism for flaws in their database, but I have to give them credit where credit is due. 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). They used to have a listing for a fictional compound POLYPARABEN and they have since removed it. They still list Polyparaben as a synonym for Propylparaben but that is a minor mistake. I find it encouraging that they have fixed anything. EWG-hazard

Profit over Safety

I also criticized them for profiting off of what they consider “dangerous” products. And they still do that. One of the ways the EWG makes money is by participating in affiliate programs, specifically the Amazon Affiliate program. 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%). We participate in an Amazon Affiliate program on this site.

Unfortunately, the EWG seems more concerned about their Amazon Affiliate sales than they do about consumer safety. After all, why would they put an affiliate link to a product they rate as the worst of the worst?

Here is the Aveeno Active Naturals Radiant Tinted Moisturizer with a rating of 10. A 10 rating is the most dangerous product that can be found in the Skin Deep Database (according to them). But if you click on the picture they’ll be happy to have you buy the product through their affiliate program. If a product was this dangerous how could the EWG possibly encourage people to buy it?

Ratings Based on Nothing

One of the “improvements” recently added to the Skin Deep Database was an additional rating of the quality of data supporting the safety rating. This is understandable since ratings based on single studies are much weaker than ratings based on lots of studies. However, this does not seem to affect the way they rate ingredients.

For example, how can an ingredient like HYDROGENATED PALM GLYCERIDES get a Zero rating? A zero rating is the most safe you can score. They admit that this rating is based on no data. What is it based on? I have no idea.

Maybe they think Palm Glycerides sounds natural so it gets a zero rating with no data but then how would you explain the zero rating based on no data of HYDROXYETHYL ACRYLATE/ SODIUM ACRYLOYLDIMETHYL TAURATE COPOLYMER? There is certainly nothing natural about an acrylic polymer.

You could say that zero is the starting point so any ingredient that has a zero data will get a zero rating. This seems rather silly but it would be logical. Of course, this is not the case. Consider these examples…

PEG-150 DISTEARATE – Rating 3, no data


PEG-2 SOYAMINE – Rating 5, no data


Without any data, how did these ingredients get a rating?

Naive Ratings

Another criticism of the EWG database is that the ratings demonstrate a lack of understanding of the raw materials they are rating. For example, they list SODIUM COCOYL SULFATE and give it a zero rating with zero data. They also have a listing of SODIUM LAURYL SULFATE and give it a 1-2 rating with a “fair” amount of data. This makes no sense.

Anyone who knows chemistry knows that Sodium Cocoyl Sulfate is essentially the same thing as Sodium Lauryl Sulfate. Here’s a good explanation why.

So how is it that two chemicals which are essentially identical have different ratings? All the fair amount of data that is available for Sodium Lauryl Sulfate is equally applicable to Sodium Cocoyl Sulfate!

If any knowledgable chemist was involved in making the database, this problem of naivety could be avoided.

Is there anything else?

There are some good things about the EWG Skin Deep Database. I do like that you can look up ingredients and compare them to different products on the market. This is quite handy for a formulator. And if a person is allergic to any specific ingredient it’s especially helpful to know what you can avoid.

However, the hazard ratings and collected science is mostly rubbish and not worth paying attention to. If you want a more reliable database consider looking at the Cosmetic Ingredient Review. This one is actually collated by toxicologists and other people with science backgrounds. And if you want one produced by the EU, this cosmetic ingredient database will be more helpful.



  1. ksa

    huge problems with EWG – always will be and it’s a SHAME the public sees this as the ultimate resource for skin and food safety. when you dig in, some of their research data on ingredients bears no resemblence to the ingredient they are rating nor why and dates back to 1950…or earlier. they rate ingredients but do not question how much is used in a product, huge part of any decent rating system, kind of a DUH there, and the manufacturer’s put in their own ingredient lists! there are so many problems with this system can’t even list them here. it’s a crap system that i wish someone had the funding to take down.

  2. Pingback:Chemical-free Products – Tiberius Organics

  3. Jessie

    Do you happen to know if EWG considers exposure in their ratings? e.g. if there is evidence of toxicity by inhalation for a certain chemical but the chemical is only used in skin creams, do they take this into account?

    1. Perry Romanowski

      No, they do not consider exposure in their ratings. This is a major flaw in the database and ratings system.

  4. Diane

    Thank you, Perry, for this enlightening and informative article! Good to know it’s not just me…. I, too, found errors on Skin Deep and called it to their attention, and they have still never been fixed or addressed. For example, they rate pure petroleum jelly as a “1,” but when you look at its one ingredient, it is rated a “4”! I never understood that math…. They also show a number of shampoos from one organic company as containing Retinol, which they rate a 9, but I could find no proof that any of these products contained any Retinol (and why would shampoo need Retinol??), and when I asked about this discrepancy, I never heard back. I found another product (a deodorant) on Skin Deep whose ingredients list matched the list shown on Amazon exactly, but the labeling on the physical product itself was different, and included an ingredient that Skin Deep itself considered toxic. An honest mistake, perhaps, but when added up, I would think at the very least, one would have to take anything they say with a big grain of salt! (And I also always wondered how ratings labeled “None” for data could have ratings! Pure intuition? Blind faith? Who knows!) I must admit, though, that I have naively referred people to Skin Deep, even recently, but thanks to you, I will now recommend these other sources you cite as good places to check. Thanks much! 🙂

  5. Pingback:EWG: A Beginner’s Guide (Part 2) | Le Pampered Pig Blog

  6. Pingback:A Guide to Surviving as a Vampire in the Summer - Rachel Goes

  7. Pingback:Useful resources, or – where do I find information on ingredients? – Lucy's choice

  8. Pingback:Toxic Ingredients Found in Cosmetics | You Glow Gal

  9. Lisa

    Thank you for the clarification Perry. Brilliant information.

  10. Pingback:You are what you… | bluestocking2013

    1. Perry Romanowski

      Yes, that’s a good source for information.

  11. Pingback:Chemical-Free Products | Tiberius OrganicsTiberius Organics

  12. Amy

    I could write a whole blog post about why their sunscreen report is total BS. I know people who threw out perfectly good (and expensive) sunscreen after reading that report!

  13. Sherry

    What has always baffled me is that I know there has to be $$$ involved for someone to go through all that trouble and bs-ing. But does bs-ing /really/ pay that well?

  14. Pingback:A Day At The Tower Of London | beautifulwithbrains.com

  15. Angie

    do you know of a good website that lists properties of common ingredients in cosmetics (what it does, whether its a humectant, or emulisifer, ph, etc)? like for example i get conflicting info about beeswax and I’m tired of running into place with poor info or use scare tactics

  16. Laura

    Thanks Perry. I’ve recently attended the Organic Monitor Sustainabilty Conference and during a panel discussion, EWG Skin deep was invited to be a part of the panel. What I found interesting is that unlike the rest of the panel members who were cosmetic formulators and chemists, EWG was represented by a lawyer! To me that said it all.
    I find it disheartening the EWGs pockets are so deep that they’ve somehow scared the industry to giving in to using less than safe preservatives. Scares me

    1. Perry Romanowski

      Yes, that is unfortunate that the EWG is populated with many more lawyers than scientists.

      1. Barbara

        Thanks for a very informative post – I’ve been dubious about EWG since they have mouthed off about the dangers of vitamin A and sunscreen and it’s good to get some verification.

  17. Pingback:3 reasons the EWG is dubious resource

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *