741 Views
micho
Oily/Resilient
EWG is not a reliable source and never has been. Which is ironic because we're on a platform that uses the EWG ingredient ranking system.
I think a good way to put this into perspective is this, for chemical sunscreens there's not a lot of human data and that's a good thing.
Because a lot of the chemical sunscreen filters available in North America have been around for decades (1970s) and there hasn't been millions of people dying from using them.
A lot of data that comes from chemical filters are from animal testing and studies and while we are animals, we can't really compare these studies to how it'll affect us as humans and our health. Also for a lot of these studies were data is gathered they literally feed animals high % of these UV filters which is basically never found in sunscreens.
In the end, it's easy to get swept up with articles and TikTok influencers telling you something is bad and evil. People deliberately make catchy headlines and want to drum up attention. Take with a grain of salt and don't freak out over "issues" like this.
14
0
Gelly10
Dry/Sensitive
yeah, EWG is terrible, yet Picky uses it which is ridiculous. I’m not a specialist or anything, but following skin chemists on instagram has really opened my eyes to the science behind things. I absolutely hate that the “clean beauty” craze has vilified so many safe products and that your average person thinks they’re smarter than the cosmetic scientists that make these formulations -_-
Parabens are fine, and I’m sure homosalate is fine too. I would stick to following cosmetic chemists like @labmuffinbeautyscience and others like her for your information.
6
0
Ruthieandskincare
Dry/Resilient
By the mere fact your government body approves it for personal use already points out to its safety.
EWG is not a very good source for unbiase opinion either they are pretty much notorious in the science community for bias and nitpicking of studied data.
I honestly will not take any opinion sourced from EWG.
6
0
mochiface
Dry/Sensitive
Is this like the paraben issue again? Firstly, how did they test the ingredient? Did they simulate how it is used realistically? Again, the dosage and mode of and intake/application is a big factor before considering something harmful. Remember when paraben was labeled unsafe because they fed a very high dosage of it to rats when in real life application, paraben is just less than 1% of the product formulation and we apply it topically.
As said earlier by others, EWG is not a good source so I won't dig deeper into that.
The skin is also semipermeable and it is good at keeping things out. Remember that we use moisturizer to keep moisture in because we are constantly experiencing transepidermal water loss which means that even the water that our skin absorbs eventually evaporates which also means that the water did not make it to our bloodstream. The level of penetration of an ingredient depends on the size of its molecule or when a product is formulated with penetration enhancers. For example, retinol gets absorbed into the dermis to give you those long term anti-aging effects while emollients and occlusive have big molecular sizes so most of the time, they just sit on the stratum corneum to prevent transepidermal water loss.
There is a lot more to say here but I'll just suggest that we'll just read peer-reviewed articles when we have time. Watch LabMuffin on YouTube too since she's very helpful and always links the studies that she's referring to.
5
0
Bazz
Dry/Resilient
it’s safe to use from every regulators from the EU, FDA and etc2.
As long you don’t swallow it in large amount it , should be fine. That is basically advice for every skincare product.
If you don’t like it for whatever reasons, there will be someone or some manufacturer selling something else for you.
2
0
