I think the point is that we try to give readers the information that will help them make their own decision. I try very hard not to be a purist or a scaremonger. I would love it if we could only review, buy and use products that are 100% pure and effective, but the reality is that trade offs are necessary. Making those trade offs is a personal decision, so yes, sometimes I like a product DESPITE some of its ingredients.

Regarding the EWG, we do quote it often because its one of the few sources. But we always try to second source and when we do we often find that the EWG is quoting research that is way out of date. And both Copley and I have mentioned that they can be extreme, even slightly hysterical.

Our ingredients database covers nearly 1,000 ingredients and we try very hard to give balanced information. So in the case of DMDM we point out that it is “controversial” (ie not everyone agrees on how harmful it is) and the CIR (although they would, wouldn’t they) considers it safe.

Similarly, we have written extensively on butylene glycol and I don’t want to bore everyone by making every post a laundry list of repetitive explanations (that’s why we created the ingredients database). But since you raise it: Glycol’s have extremely wide variations in toxicity that match their many dirfferent uses. Ethylene glycol is very well known as automobile anti-freeze. It is toxic upon ingestion, causing direct toxicity to erythrocytes [red blood cells]. The very similar propylene glycol has none of the same toxicity associated with ethylene glycol. It is both a skin irritant and a sensitizer. You can read our research on PG here.

Butylene glycol (1,4-butanediol) is not toxic. There has been no documented organ-specific toxicity associated with 1,3-butanediol. Butanediol is also not a carcinogen. It is not a skin sensitizer, and is not considered a skin irritant. In undiluted form butylene glycol may irritate the eye and lining of the respiratory tract.

Having said all that, I genuinely appreciate your comment. It gave me pause for thought, which is a VERY good thing. Please don’t hesitate to keep me honest.

I have always been impressed by the thorough research you do, and all the new and exciting products you manage to review; which is what initially drew my to this blog. But lately you’ve become slightly inconsistent, when it comes to judging a product by its ingredients. I would call it biased. Because, as long as you personally like a product, it doesn’t really seem to matter whether or not they contain harmful substances.

With that said, I also have to add that I still find “Truth In Aging” to be an excellent resource, and am very grateful for all the great work you do – so keep it up!