ABOUT

Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.

DONATE TO EWG TODAY

We need you to help protect your health and environment!  Please donate $5 to EWG today.

GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS

Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.

Get EWG widgets & blog badges.

ENVIROBLOG TO YOU

 Enviroblog in your Reader

ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL

Delivered by FeedBurner

Kid-Safe Chemicals Act YouTube
Environmental Working Group's Facebook Page

Twitter

    Not-so-smart phones are high in radiation: What about yours?

    US Senate Investigates Chemicals in People

    4 steps to drinking safer water

    3,163 ingredients hide behind the word "fragrance"

    SEARCH ENVIROBLOG

    FIND PAST POSTS

    FEATURED

    Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?

    Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure

    So what products CAN we use?

    Infant formula: How to choose it & use it

    EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series

    EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure

    Let's talk some serious shop about TSCA reform

    EWG on TV

    Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill

    Toxic Tub?

    Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water

    Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen

    BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics

    Ask EWG

    What can I do about fluoride in my water?

    What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?

    What is "fragrance"?

    Which infant formula is best?

    Are stainless steel water bottles safe?

    Is mineral-based makeup safer?

    Ask EWG Archives

    Top Blog Award

    Top  blogs award

    PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS

    Breast Cancer Fund

    The Daily Green

    Eco Child's Play

    Environmental Defense Fund

    Green Moms Carnival

    Grist

    Healthy Child, Healthy World

    Huffington Post Green

    NRDC's Switchboard

    Organic.org

    Safer States

    TreeHugger

    TALK TO US

    Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.

    « Extinguishing Deca: A toxic flame retardant may flicker out | Main | Epigenetics hits the mainstream »

    Cosmetics Safety Series - Part 2: Mind the (data) gap

    By Lisa Frack

    January 7, 2010

    By Travis Mitchell, EWG Press Intern

    Now that that you've taken our cosmetics safety quiz (you have, right?), you're ready to hear about THE DATA GAP. It's like this:

    We think consumers deserve to know that the products and ingredients they use every day have been tested for safety.

    Unfortunately, a lack of industry regulation has left customers in the dark about the safety of many of their personal care products.

    mind the gap.jpgConsider this: out of the 10,500 (!) unique ingredients found in our cosmetics, about 20 percent have been tested or analyzed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In fact, the FDA has no authority or systematic process to review most cosmetic ingredients. This "data gap," as we call it, is a serious concern for consumers. Given that the average adult uses about 126 different chemicals a day in personal care products alone, it's important to recognize that the missing information and unknown implications of these ingredients mean potential health risks for consumers.

    Thankfully, EWG's Skin Deep database picks up where industry and government leave off.

    Along with assigning a hazard score (from 1 to 10) to each of the 53,000 (and growing) products and roughly 9,000 ingredients, EWG's product database also includes another number: the percent of ingredients for which there is no safety data, aka "the data gap." The higher this percentage, the less is known about the ingredients. While we can't fill this data gap, EWG can highlight the known facts, empowering consumers to make better choices with known hazard information.

    Keep in mind that EWG doesn't consider the "data gap" when assigning the hazard levels of personal care products in Skin Deep. In fact, the two scores are separate from one another. So assessing a product based on hazard score alone doesn't give you a complete picture.

    It's also important to realize that just because an ingredient is labeled as "natural" doesn't mean it's been tested for health effects. Ingredients such as pine, rosemary and sage are examples of ingredients with a Skin Deep rating of zero - with no safety data available.

    So the next time you're using Skin Deep to find safer products, take a look at the amount of information available - and not available - on each ingredient and choose products with lower hazards scores and lower data gaps. That way you're making decisions based on data, not data gaps.

    This is part of our "Not in My Cosmetics" series. You can catch the 1st one right here.

    « Extinguishing Deca: A toxic flame retardant may flicker out |