It's our mission at Environmental Working Group to use the power of information to protect human health and the environment. EWG's Skin Deep database gives you practical solutions to protect yourself and your family from everyday exposures to chemicals. We launched Skin Deep in 2004 to create online safety profiles for cosmetics and personal care products. Our aim is to fill in where industry and government leave off. Companies are allowed to use almost any ingredient they wish. The U.S. government doesn't review the safety of products before they're sold. Our staff scientists compare the ingredients on personal care product labels and websites to information in nearly 60 toxicity and regulatory databases. Now in its eighth year, EWG's Skin Deep database provides you with easy-to-navigate safety ratings for a wide range of products and ingredients on the market. At about one million page views per month, EWG's Skin Deep is the world's largest personal care product safety guide.
Read more:
Skin Deep contains information and online safety assessments for:
81,269 products | 2,964 brands | 232,955,554 searches since 2004
Below we describe the data sources and the methodology we use to construct Skin Deep's linked databases of ingredients, products, brands, companies, hazards, testing availability, and regulatory status.
The core of Skin Deep is an electronic product database that contains ingredients in 81,269 products. EWG obtained detailed information on these products from online retailers, manufacturers, product packaging, and, to a lesser extent, through other methods described below. In most cases the information we obtain includes a brand name, product name, directions for use, warnings, ingredients, package/advertising text, and indications (cosmeceuticals).
| Source | Current Formulations (products sold since 2008) | -Old Formulations (products no longer sold or not found since 2008) |
|---|---|---|
| Label information in electronic format from a variety of online retailers | 2,843 | 37,988 |
| Ingredient information provided to FDA by companies as part of the Voluntary Cosmetics Registration Program (VCRP) | 89 | 5,736 |
| Label information provided to EWG from companies | 29,830 | 4,394 |
Every product added to Skin Deep is carefully reviewed by EWG staff to identify product type, product use and composition, target demographic, and special product claims.
Product type: EWG categorizes each product into one or more of 130 product categories (e.g., shampoo, toothpaste, deodorant). For ease of navigation, these product categories are organized into ten major product categories - sun protection, makeup, skin care, hair, eye care, nails, fragrance, babies & moms, oral care, and men's.
Product use/composition: EWG records information on how each product is typically used. Many hazards or safety recommendations associated with chemicals depend on a product's use and/or composition. For instance, chemicals that are hazardous when they are inhaled would be a concern for products that are sprayed or that are in powder form. For each product EWG records:
Target demographic: EWG compiles demographic information on the product's intended users, recording if the product is intended primarily for women or men, or if the product is marketed for use by people of color, teenagers, children (2 to 12), or infants (0 to 2). The demographic data are used to score ingredients with demographic restrictions (especially those which should be avoided by infants) and in specialized displays of product information.
Special product claims: For some product types EWG compiles information about claims made by manufacturers. For example, with each sunscreen product we store SPF claims, water resistance, and other sun protection claims.
Brand and company information: Skin Deep currently holds products sold under 2,964 brand names and manufactured by 2,053 companies. Skin Deep contains a brand and company database created by EWG researchers, built primarily through online research into each brand contained in Skin Deep.
Because animal testing is an issue of concern for many consumers, we also incorporate into Skin Deep information on company and brand stances on animal testing. Information on company positions on animal testing is obtained from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' (PETA) and Leaping Bunny's listings. We periodically update our Skin Deep database to reflect the most current PETA and Leaping Bunny listings.
Skin Deep currently contains information on 9,890 personal care product ingredients, culled from ingredient labels on products and from the scientific and industry literature on personal care products. We assign a standardized name to each ingredient in the Skin Deep database, generally taken as the International Nomenclature for Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) standard, with some exceptions where alternate names are more easily recognized by consumers. Each of these ingredient names is associated with a unique ingredient identification number in our database. The processing steps for ingredients are described below.
Skin Deep's ingredient database is constructed from the sources listed below :
Creating electronic ingredient lists from product labels. EWG parses (electronically separates) individual ingredients from the ingredient list on each product. The parsing tools we have designed do not yet take into account every variance in labeling and will likely never be able to account for the wide range of errors in spacing and delimiting found on ingredient labels. Because of these factors, EWG staff members carefully review parsed ingredient lists and manually correct ingredients that are not accurately separated, and routinely update the parsing program to improve accuracy prior to the manual review.
Assigning unique chemical name and identification number to ingredients. Each ingredient is assigned a unique name and identification number within Skin Deep's ingredient database, in a multi-step process that involves resolving chemical synonyms and names that are misspelled or that do not follow standard industry naming conventions:
Additional data stored with a product's ingredient list: In the Skin Deep ingredient database EWG also stores information how each ingredient is used in each product - for instance, its status as an "active ingredient" in the product; its listing under "may contain," or "organic" under USDA standards; or its association with modifiers that indicate manufacturing methods, like USP for United States Pharmacopeia standards or NF for National Formulary standards.
EWG created a core, integrated database of chemical hazards, regulatory status, and study availability by pooling the data of nearly 60 databases and sources from government agencies, industry panels, academic institutions, or other credible bodies. Collectively, these data sources detail more than 1,535 unique chemical classifications. EWG uses these databases to assess potential health hazards and data gaps for cosmetic ingredients. Individual toxicity, regulatory, and study availability data sources we compiled are listed below.
Primary references - Known and probable carcinogens, reproductive and developmental toxicants
Secondary references - Known and probable carcinogens, reproductive and developmental toxicants
Other health endpoints (neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, etc.)
Restrictions and warnings on safe use of ingredients in cosmetics
Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics
Other resources relevant to consideration of human health risks
Availability of safety data
Human exposure factors
Study/assessment availability sources
Chemical nomenclature databases
We cross-linked the chemicals in our ingredient database with the compounds contained in the toxicity, regulatory, and study availability databases we compiled. These pairs form the basis for the hazard assessment ratings and data availability ratings shown in Skin Deep.
For an initial estimate of the chemical pairings between these two groups of databases, we linked together chemicals when names matched perfectly between data sources; when Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) numbers matched, when they were available from our in-house CAS database; or when strings of letters matched between ingredients.
This initial process created over 195,752 initial name pairings, which we reviewed manually. We rejected pairs when corresponding ingredient names were not, in fact, the same compound. For many pairings we conducted a detailed review of the validity of the match between an ingredient and a hazard category, storing data on hazards that apply only to a particular route of exposure, for instance, for use in the hazard scores we developed for ingredients.
Introduction. Skin Deep relies on a dual rating system to inform consumers about product safety:
Database processing for dual rating system. Both of Skin Deep's rating factors (hazards and data availability) are calculated from information drawn from the nearly 60 integrated toxicity, regulatory, and study availability databases. We divided these databases into 260 individual categories ranging from "known human carcinogen according to EPA" to "skin irritant identified by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel." We then mapped each of these categories into one of 205 "score categories" that are detailed in the table below. We ranked each score category according to a subjective assessment of its relative importance to public health or regulatory compliance, and then assigned a weight to each score category, also described in tables below.
The hazard score on Skin Deep is calculated in steps.
Major categories of concern and their weighting factors. We categorized every piece of toxicity and hazard information in our integrated database into one of 17 categories. We developed these categories based on our review of available data, and modeled them after a variety of toxicity classification systems developed by government, industry, and academic organizations. We assigned to each of these categories a weighting factor representing a judgment on their relative importance to and impact on human health. We assigned higher weighting factors to categories of health concern for which studies provide evidence for effects at low doses, for permanent effects stemming from exposures during development, for toxicity endpoints that tend to impact multiple biological systems in the body or to impair reproduction. These endpoints include cancer, reproductive and development effects, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and effects stemming from exposures to endocrine (hormone) disruptors. Organ systems that are more localized, such as gastrointestinal, kidney, respiratory, etc. are weighted in the mid-range. Toxic endpoints that measure adverse effects at the cellular level, which may or may not have implications for human health (such as mutations or biochemical changes) are weighted the least. This scoring system does not account for individual sensitivities or differences between the severities of different health endpoints within a particular category.
| Category | Weighting factor | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Cancer | 1.0 | linked to cancer in government, industry, or academic studies or assessments. |
| Developmental/reproductive toxicity | 1.0 | linked to developmental and reproductive toxicity, a broad class of health effects that can range from infertility and reproductive organ cancers to birth defects and developmental delays for children. |
| Endocrine disruption | 1.0 | the body's natural hormones, the chemicals that carry messages across the body to manage growth, tissue repair, and reproduction. |
| Allergies/immunotoxicity | 1.0 | linked to immunotoxicity, or harm to the immune system, a class of health problems that manifest as allergic reactions or an impaired capacity to fight disease and repair damaged tissues in the body. |
| Miscellaneous | 1.0 | Includes toxicity endpoints that didn't fit in another category, efficacy scores (scores that might counteract toxicity scores), and scores for unidentified ingredients. |
| Neurotoxicity | 1.0 | linked to neurotoxicity, or harm to the brain and nervous system, a class of health problems that can range from subtle developmental delays to chronic nerve degeneration diseases. |
| Use restrictions | 0.9 | prohibited for use in cosmetics, or subject to concentration, use, or manufacturing method restrictions, according to industry safety guidelines and government requirements and guidance from the U.S., E.U., Japan, and Canada. |
| Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive) | 0.5 | linked to toxicity of one or more biological systems in the body (cardiovascular, stomach and digestive trace, respiratory system, etc.) through laboratory studies or studies of people. |
| Biochemical or cellular level changes | 0.3 | the ability to affect the body at a cellular or biochemical level that may have larger, but poorly understood health implications. |
| Multiple, additive exposure sources | 0.3 | also found as contaminants in tap water and food, as ingredients in other kinds of consumer products, or in people in biomonitoring studies that measure chemicals in blood, urine, and other fluids and tissues. |
| Mutations | 0.3 | linked to both cancer and developmental defects. Includes government, industry, or academic assays, studies and assessments. |
| Persistence and bioaccumulation | 0.3 | persistent and/or bioaccumulative, resisting normal chemical breakdown in the environment; building up in wildlife, the food chain, and people; and lingering in body tissues for years or even decades after exposure. |
| Ecotoxicology | 0.2 | linked to toxicity of wildlife that may include fish, wildlife, plants, or other wild organisms. |
| Occupational hazards | 0.2 | linked to hazards for workers exposed on the job, including acute dangers from chemical handling, or longer term health effects from routine occupational exposures. |
| Irritation (skin, eyes, or lungs) | 0.1 | linked to irritation of the skin, eyes, or lungs according to government assessments, industry reviews, and peer-reviewed studies. |
| Enhanced skin absorption | 0.0 | an enhanced capacity to absorb through this skin by virtue of chemical properties like penetration enhancing abilities or small particle size (including nanoparticles), or by virtue of where it is applied on the body (on infant skin, lips, or damaged skin). |
| Decreased skin absorption | 0.0 | an decreased capacity to absorb through this skin by virtue of chemical properties like penetration enhancing abilities or large particle size (including nanoparticles), or by virtue of where it is applied on the body (on infant skin, lips, or damaged skin). |
| Data gaps | 0.0 | linked to data gaps that constitute the absence of basic toxicity studies and safety assessments in Skin Deep's core databases, or that reflect findings of data deficiencies in government or industry assessments. |
| Contamination concerns | 0.1 for ingredients 0.01 for products |
may be contaminated with toxic impurities, many of which are linked to cancer, according to government and cosmetic industry ingredient safety assessments or peer-reviewed studies. |
We assigned numeric hazard scores for each scoring category based on professional judgment of the relative importance of each with respect to potential health concerns. These scores were informed by a number of factors, including the weight of the evidence associated with each scoring category (e.g. whether the chemical categorization is derived from a full government assessment or from a single peer-reviewed study), and by other hazard classification systems, such as the Nordic Substances Database.
For most types of hazards, we assign scores as a function of the lowest known harmful dose where that information is available, the weight of the evidence (limited, moderate, and strong evidence), and the source of the data (individual study; literature review, industry review panel, or major government study; and comprehensive government assessment). We use the scores shown below in our calculations of final hazard (concern) scores for ingredients and products, as described in subsequent sections. The tables below detail the hazard scoring system.
The scores we assign for these hazard categories range from a maximum of 100 for chemicals known to be toxic to humans in a given category as determined by a definitive government assessment, to 20 for chemicals showing limited evidence for toxicity in a non-academic review, down to 0 for chemicals determined not likely to be human toxicants.
| Hazard score category | Data source | Hazard Score |
| Known human toxicant | Government assessment | 100 |
| Possible human toxicant | Government assessment | 55 |
| Limited evidence of human toxicity | Government assessment | 30 |
| Strong evidence for human toxicity | Literature review, industrial panel, or major government study | 55 |
| Moderate evidence for human toxicity | Literature review, industrial panel, or major government study | 30 |
| Limited evidence for human toxicity | Literature review, industrial panel, or major government study | 20 |
| One or more animal studies show effects at very low doses | Individual scientific or peer-reviewed study | 30 |
| One or more animal studies show effects at low doses | Individual scientific or peer-reviewed study | 20 |
| One or more animal studies show effects at moderate doses | Individual scientific or peer-reviewed study | 10 |
| One or more animal studies show effects at high doses | Individual scientific or peer-reviewed study | 5 |
| Not likely to be a human toxicant | Government assessment, literature review, industrial panel, or major government study | 0 |
We assign scores for mutation data essentially the same as for other hazard classifications (as in Table 2), but make modifications to account for the unique range of tests available to define mutation, as shown in this table. Scores we assign for mutation range from 100 for a known mutagen as determined by a definitive government assessment, to 10 for ingredients for which one or more studies on micro-organisms show positive mutation results, to 0 for ingredients determined not likely to be mutagens in humans based on a definitive government review.
| Hazard score category | Data source | Hazard Score |
| Known mutagen | Government assessment | 100 |
| Possible mutagen | Government assessment | 55 |
| Strong evidence for mutagenity in human cells | Literature review, industrial panel, or major government study | 55 |
| Moderate evidence for mutagenity in human cells | Literature review, industrial panel, or major government study | 30 |
| Limited evidence of mutagenity in human cells | Government assessment | 30 |
| One or more studies on mammalian cells show positive mutation results | Individual scientific or peer-reviewed study | 30 |
| Limited evidence of mutagenity in human cells | Literature review, industrial panel, or major government study | 20 |
| One or more studies on non-mammalian cells show positive mutation results | Individual scientific or peer-reviewed study | 20 |
| One or more studies on micro-organisms show positive mutation results | Individual scientific or peer-reviewed study | 10 |
| Not likely to be a mutagen | Government assessment, literature review, industrial panel, or major government study | 0 |
We assign scores for biochemical and cellular level changes, where the human health impact may be unclear. The framework is essentially the same as for other hazard classifications (as in Table 2) with some modifications to account for the unique range of tests available to define biochemical changes and because more significant reviews generally are undertaken only on concrete human health effects. Scores we assign for biochemical and cellular level changes range from 100 for a reactive oxygen species that are beginning to be linked up to definitive health effects to 5 for ingredients for high-dose studies showing biochemical changes.
| Hazard score category | Data source | Hazard Score |
| Produces excess reactive oxygen species that can interfere with cellular signaling, cause mutations, lead to cell death and may be implicated in cardiovascular disease. | Individual scientific or peer-reviewed study | 100 |
| Interferes with gene expresion | Individual scientific or peer-reviewed study | 30 |
| One or more animal studies show effects at very low doses where the human health implications are not yet well understood | Individual scientific or peer-reviewed study | 30 |
| One or more animal studies show effects at low doses where the human health implications are not yet well understood | Individual scientific or peer-reviewed study | 20 |
| One or more animal studies show effects at moderate doses where the human health implications are not yet well understood | Individual scientific or peer-reviewed study | 10 |
| One or more animal studies show effects at high doses where the human health implications are not yet well understood | Individual scientific or peer-reviewed study | 5 |
A scoring framework implemented in the 2007 update of Skin Deep accounts for detailed toxicity study findings. These findings are reviewed by EWG staff, and are drawn from the open scientific literature and from a government database containing over 6000 peer-reviewed references.
We assign hazard scores to each recorded lowest toxic dose according to weighting factors used in the Nordic Substances Database classification system, as shown in Table 5. No attempt was made to evaluate the length of time or dosing regimen (such as differentiating between chronic and sub-chronic studies) for repeat doses or accounting for route of exposure. In cases of acute studies where the LOEL (Lowest Observed Effect Level) instead of the LD50 (Lowest Dose producing 50% mortality of test animals) was reported, the doses were multiplied by a factor of 10 to estimate the LD50.
| Potency | Acute Studies1 (LD50 - mg/kg of body mass) | Repeat Dose Studies2 (LOAEL - mg/kg day of body mass) |
| Very highly toxic - very low dose | <25 | <2.5 |
| Highly toxic - low dose | 25<=Dose<200 | 2.5<=Dose<20 |
| Moderately toxic - moderate dose | 200<=Dose<2000 | 20<=Dose<200 |
| Low toxicity - high dose | Dose>=2000 | Dose>=200 |
1. LD50 refers to the chemical dose at which 50% of the animals died.
2. LOAEL is the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level which is the lowest dose of a chemical at which a harmful effect is observed in a lab animal.
| Potency | Occupational 8 hr TLVs and PELs (mg/m3) |
| Very highly toxic - very low dose | <3.47 |
| Highly toxic - low dose | 3.47<=Dose<27.9 |
| Moderately toxic - moderate dose | 27.9<=Dose<279 |
| Low toxicity - High dose | >=279 |
Note: We derived the occupations exposure factors shown above by converting the animal study doses define potency in the Nordic Substances Database (see Table 6) into equivalent concentrations in workplace air assuming a 70 kg male, 15 breathes/minute, 0.7 liters/breathe over an 8-hour workday.
Scores in this category range from a maximum of 100 for a violation of a ban to 1 for caustic chemicals used as a pH balancer in a specific product.
| Finding | Data source | Hazard Score |
| Banned or found unsafe for use in cosmetics | Government assessment | 100 |
| Violations of restrictions and safety warnings | Government assessment | 90 |
| Not safe in cosmetics for specific use | Literature review, industrial panel, or major government study | 40 |
| Safe use with an industry determined concentration limit | Literature review, industrial panel, or major government study | 25 |
| Safe use with specific consumer instructions | Literature review, industrial panel, or major government study | 10 |
| Safe use as a pH adjuster | Literature review, industrial panel, or major government study | 1 |
| Approved for use | Government assessment, literature review, industrial panel, or major government study | 0 |
Many chemicals persist in the environment and bioaccumulate in people and the environment. EWG has compiled listings of persistent, bioaccumulative compounds from authoritative bodies, for compounds considered potentially hazardous to humans or the environment.
For the hazard score category titled "Ingredients not fully identified," we assign a score of 100, flagging ingredients with unknown identity, such as fragrance and unidentified essential oils.
| Finding | Level of finding | Hazard Score |
| Persistent, bioaccumulative in wildlife and humans | Government assessment | 100 |
| Persistent, bioaccumulative in wildlife | Government assessment | 50 |
| Finding | Level of finding | Hazard Score |
| Used in food or as an additive with limited or no toxicity information available | Government assessment | 100 |
| Contaminant in tap water | Government assessment | 100 |
| In other consumer products besides personal care products | Government assessment | 50 |
| High production volume chemical | Government assessment | 50 |
| Environmental releases by industry | Government assessment | 50 |
| Used as an inert ingredient in pesticides | Government assessment | 50 |
| Designated as safe for use in food | Government assessment | 0 |
Adjusting hazard scores for skin absorption potential: In the penultimate step for deriving product and ingredient hazard scores, we adjust preliminary scores to account for increased potential for an ingredient to penetrate the skin. We account for the potential enhanced absorption of a product stemming from the presence of penetration enhancing ingredients, and known or potential nano-scale ingredients (NanoWerk 2007).
For nano-scale and potentially nano-scale ingredients, the ingredient scores are scaled as in Equation 3 with scaling factors of 1.5 and 1.25, respectively. The overall product scores are not adjusted. In cases where the skin absorption potential is lowered, we also scale downwards for the individual ingredients. Scores are multiplied for 0.5 for reduced or limited absorption, and 0.25 where the ingredient has been shown not to absorb into intact skin. Only for ingredients shown not to absorb into intact, damaged, infant, and thinner skin, is the factor reduced to 0.
Hazard scores are reflected as bars at the top of each ingredient, product, brand, and company page. These bars represent the relative hazard rating for that ingredient or ingredient list. Using the general hazard category scores described above, the bars are filled in from left to right with a score of 0 on the left and the maximum on the right (described below). Each page in the Skin Deep online database includes a bar for overall hazard; cancer; developmental/reproductive toxicity; allergies/immunotoxicity; and use restrictions.
Ingredient Pages
The maximum value for each bar is 100. For example, a "known human carcinogen" is assigned a 100 for the cancer category while a "probable human carcinogen" is given a much lower score (55). (See more about the scoring above.) Other concerns are separated into three categories:
Product Pages
The calculation of category scores is the sum of the maximum value for its ingredients + the average of the other ingredients. For "cancer" and "developmental/reproductive toxicity", the bars are scaled from 0 to 100. For "use restrictions" and "allergies/immunotoxicity", the bars are scaled from 0 to 150. Other concerns are listed only if the score is >15. The bar is then scaled based on the number of other concerns that are listed with a scale from 0 to 15 possible extra concerns.
Company and Brand Pages
Hazard category scores for companies and brands are taken as the average value for ingredients used by the brand/company. Category bars displayed in Skin Deep are scaled from 0 to 100. Other concerns are listed only if the average score is >15. The bar is scaled based on the number of other concerns that are listed, with a scale from 0 to 15 possible extra concerns.
New to the April 2011 release of Skin Deep is a data availability rating that gives site users a measure of the availability of safety data for any particular ingredient or product. The data availability rating - none, limited, fair, good or robust - is a combination of two factors: the scope of ingredient safety data contained in Skin Deep, and the number of studies available in the open scientific literature. The rating reflects how much scientists know - or don't know - about an ingredient. Not all cosmetics chemicals have been thoroughly studied. Some may rank low for hazards but only because little research has been done. The lower the data availability, the less we know. We recommend that consumers buy products with lower hazard ratings AND at least "fair" data availability.
Products - Data Availability rating
The data availability rating for products is the average of the data availability ratings of individual ingredients contained in the product.
Ingredients - Data Availability rating
The data availability rating for each ingredient considers the scope of ingredient safety data contained in Skin Deep. To reflect data availability for ingredients with relatively little information in Skin Deep, we also account for the number of studies available in the open scientific literature. In these cases, 50 percent of the data availability rating for an individual ingredient is based on the scope of Skin Deep information. The remaining 50 percent reflects the number of studies listed for that ingredient in the government's PubMed scientific research index (www.pubmed.gov).
Breakdown of the PubMed and Skin Deep portions of the Data Availability rating
Ingredient studies in PubMed
The method EWG uses to calculate an ingredient's data availability rating takes into account the number of ingredient studies contained in the government's index of peer-reviewed scientific journals (www.pubmed.gov). EWG determines the total study count returned by PubMed by searching the site's index for the ingredient name and all of its synonyms listed in Skin Deep. This factor constitutes up to 50% of the final data availability rating for an ingredient, with a numeric rating assigned as follows:
| Ingredient studies contained in PubMed | Data availability for PubMed portion of data availability rating |
| 0 or 1 study | 0 |
| 2 - 100 studies | 1 |
| > 100 studies | 2 |
| > 1,000 studies | 3 |
| > 10,000 studies | 4 |
Ingredient studies in Skin Deep
Another portion of the data availability rating reflects the quantity of ingredient studies in Skin Deep. This portion accounts for the significance of the health concern (reflected by the health hazard category weight from Table 1), and the data robustness for each piece of information in Skin Deep (weighted as listed in Table 11 below).
To calculate the score for each ingredient:
Final data availability rating
The final rating for the data rating is either the Skin Deep rating or the average of the Skin Deep rating and the PubMed rating -- whichever is higher. Values are rounded to produce integer values (with values >0 and <0.5 being assigned a 1 to ensure that a "no data" rating is reserved for cases where no data at all has been identified, in Skin Deep data sources or the open scientific literature. The value 0 is assigned the text "none", 1 => "limited", 2 => "fair", 3 => "good", and 4 => "robust."
Product data ratings are simply an average of the data ratings of the ingredients. The rounded values are used to assign text in the same fashion as ingredients. Values greater than 0 but less than 0.5 are assigned a value of 1 for "limited" data.
| Database | Data availability |
| European Union - Classification & Labelling | 1-2 |
| Amer Conf of Gov't Industrial Hygienists - Carcinogens | 2-4 |
| FDA Food Additive Status | 0-3 |
| Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics | 0-3 |
| U.S. - Ingredients Prohibited and Restricted in Cosmetics by FDA Regulations | 3-4 |
| FDA Ingredients with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Concern | 1-2 |
| Canada - Prohibited and Restricted Cosmetics Ingredients | 3-4 |
| CHE Toxicant and Disease Database | 1-2 |
| Cosmetic Ingredient Review Assessments | 0-4 |
| FDA Color Additive Status | 1-2 |
| EPA Clean Water Act - Priority Pollutants | 3 |
| EPA Water Disinfection By-Products Carcinogenicity | 1-3 |
| FDA Everything Added to Food | 1-2 |
| Environment Canada Domestic Substance List | 1-2 |
| Illinois EPA Chemicals Associated with Endocrine System | 2-4 |
| EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) | 1-4 |
| European Union - Banned or Restricted in Cosmetics | 3-4 |
| European Commission on Endocrine Disruption | 1-3 |
| EU Banned and Restricted Fragrances | 4 |
| European Union - Water Framework Directive | 2 |
| EWG Assessment of Open Scientific Literature | 1 |
| PCPC International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary and Handbook | 2-4 |
| IFRA Fragrance Ingredient List | 1 |
| EPA Hazardous Air Pollutants | 2 |
| FDA Dietary Supplement Concerns | 2 |
| National Library of Medicine HazMap | 0-2 |
| Int'l Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) - Carcinogens | 2-4 |
| International Fragrance Association Codes & Standards | 2-3 |
| Impurities - Open Scientific Literature | 1 |
| EPA Categorized List of Inert Pesticide Ingredients | 2 |
| Japan's Standards for Cosmetics | 2-3 |
| Nanomaterial Database | 0 |
| Chemicals known to be neurotoxic to humans | 2 |
| NIOSH Occupational Carcinogens | 3 |
| NTP Report on Carcinogens, 11th Edition | 3-4 |
| NTP - Tumor Induction in Mammary Gland | 3 |
| NTP - Risks to Human Reproduction | 4 |
| Our Stolen Future Endocrine Disruptors | 2 |
| Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants | 4 |
| Canada PBTs - Accelerated Reduction/Elimination of Toxics (ARET) | 2-4 |
| EU PTBs - PRIO database & Secondary PRIO database | 3-4 |
| Great Lakes BTS (Binational Toxics Strategy) PBTs | 3-4 |
| OSPAR PBTs - Substances of Possible Concern | 3-4 |
| Emerging PBTs from peer-reviewed literature | 1 |
| EPA PBTs - Waste Minimization Program (RCRA) | 4 |
| United Nations Environment Programme/POPs Treaty | 3-4 |
| EPA Toxic Release Inventory PBTs | 4 |
| Open scientific literature | 1 |
| California EPA Proposition 65 | 4 |
| Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances | 1 |
| Scorecard.org Toxicity Information | 1-2 |
| Silent Spring's Mammary Carcinogens Reviews Database | 3 |
Currently, nine ingredients are considered innocuous by EWG and are assigned a hazard score of 0 with robust data availability. These ingredients are Avena Sativa (Oat) Kernel Meal, Blue Green Algae, Cellulose, Colloidal Oatmeal, Honey, Sea Salt, Sodium Chloride, Sucrose, and Water.
