Okay, I have made a lot of use of the skin deep database in the last few years. But I've finally become exasperated by what seem to be a couple of quirks:
(1) Ingredients and their risks are apparently entered into the database manually without cross-checking to make sure the claimed risks are consistent. For example, I just compared two Lavera sunscreens (a family one and a baby one). Both contain titanium dioxide, but the family sunscreen says that titanium dioxide is a potential carcinogen and the baby sunscreen doesn't. It's the same titanium dioxide (I have previously checked with Lavera on this -- all their sunscreens contain non-micronized TiO2). Is it or isn't it a potential carcinogen?
(2) And this is a big one, especially in the light of complaint number (1) .... the health risks of ingredients do not seem to factor in their uses. So, to return to the Lavera sunscreen, the baby version scores as "Moderate risk" but by far the most concerning ingredient is ethanol. The risk score for ethanol is based on its neurotoxicity, liver toxicty, evidence of reproductive harm, etc.... But surely these are primarily issues with DRINKING alcohol???
Sure, a certain amount may be absorbed through the skin. But does this really make the Lavera baby sunscreen significantly less safe than the CA Baby, which they rate the best -- but which contains micronized rather than non-micronized TiO2, which is why I'm looking at Lavera in the first place!!
:
Anyway, I still think it's a great resource. I'm just pointing out these quirks to maybe encourage people to pay attention to the details of the scoring, rather than just adopting EWG's "safest"-rated products, in order to make the best and most informed choices.
(1) Ingredients and their risks are apparently entered into the database manually without cross-checking to make sure the claimed risks are consistent. For example, I just compared two Lavera sunscreens (a family one and a baby one). Both contain titanium dioxide, but the family sunscreen says that titanium dioxide is a potential carcinogen and the baby sunscreen doesn't. It's the same titanium dioxide (I have previously checked with Lavera on this -- all their sunscreens contain non-micronized TiO2). Is it or isn't it a potential carcinogen?
(2) And this is a big one, especially in the light of complaint number (1) .... the health risks of ingredients do not seem to factor in their uses. So, to return to the Lavera sunscreen, the baby version scores as "Moderate risk" but by far the most concerning ingredient is ethanol. The risk score for ethanol is based on its neurotoxicity, liver toxicty, evidence of reproductive harm, etc.... But surely these are primarily issues with DRINKING alcohol???
Sure, a certain amount may be absorbed through the skin. But does this really make the Lavera baby sunscreen significantly less safe than the CA Baby, which they rate the best -- but which contains micronized rather than non-micronized TiO2, which is why I'm looking at Lavera in the first place!!
:Anyway, I still think it's a great resource. I'm just pointing out these quirks to maybe encourage people to pay attention to the details of the scoring, rather than just adopting EWG's "safest"-rated products, in order to make the best and most informed choices.
: Very annoying.
