The following are commonly used ingredients:

1. Mineral Oil
This is one of the most widely used ingredients in North American cosmetics today. While it occurs naturally, it is a non-renewable resource and we prefer to formulate our products with sustainable ingredients. The greatest concern about mineral oil use in cosmetics is contamination. In its purest, refined form, mineral oil has not shown to be harmful (or beneficial for that matter!), BUT it is rarely found in highly refined form in tested skin care products. As a matter of fact, a 2007 study by the Environmental Working Group examining 15,000 products, showed a 1,4-dioxane contamination rate of 22%. Of those, 57% of baby soaps, 34% of all body lotions and 97% of hair relaxers were contaminated with the known carcinogenic (cancer causing) chemical. According to its statistics, the EWG also reports that 80% of cosmetic and skin care products in the US contain at least 1 of 24 impurities that have been linked to cancer. Purification processes are costly and while the impurities could be removed, most companies opt for cheaper methods. The FDA does not inspect ingredients, so contamination is typically not revealed until an independent study is conducted and even then, companies are not forced to change their methods. In the European Union, where ingredients are inspected regularly and have to meet high standards, contamination concerns were enough to restrict mineral oil in skin care products. Contamination is also responsible for reports of allergic reactions, Contact Dermatitis and clogged pores. When mineral oil is used in formulations containing pore clogging substances, especially leave on products, it has shown to magnify the comedogenic effect, leading to break-outs and blackheads. Our verdict? Considering this product has no proven benefits, it's not worth taking the likely risk of contamination, especially when applied to the face and to babies and given the multitude of higher quality oils available to skin care formulators.

2. Petroleum Jelly
We have talked to countless women who use Vaseline. Tyra Banks even distributed it to her entire audience during an episode of the Tyra Banks Show.
One concern, specifically with Vaseline brand products is that the company conducts animal testing. Furthermore, Petrolatum has also been banned by the EU, unless it meets very specific purification standards, and is listed as a probable human carcinogen in their Dangerous Substances Directive. Much like Mineral Oil, the primary concern is not the substance in its pure form, but consistent findings of contamination.
Petrolatum is found in one of every 14 products on the market (7.1 percent of the products assessed by EWG), including 15 percent of all lipsticks and 40 percent of all baby lotions and oils. The FDA restricts petrolatum in food to no more than 10 parts per million, and requires petrolatum used in food packaging or drugs to meet impurity restrictions for PAHs (21 CFR 178, 21 CFR 172.880). In skin care, however, there are no restrictions. A Columbia University study links the petrolatum impurity PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) to breast cancer. In the study, researchers found that the breast tissue of women with breast cancer was 2.6 times more likely to contain elevated levels of PAHs bound to DNA (called DNA adducts) than the breast tissue of women without breast cancer (Rundle et al. 2000). The National Toxicology Programs finds that some PAHs are reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens, and the State of California lists a number of PAHs as carcinogens in its Proposition 65 program (NTP 2002, OEHHA 2004). Our verdict? Considering that, even in its purest form, petroleum jelly does not provide nourishment to the skin, we don't see any reason to use the product at all and risk using contaminated products. There are safer alternatives, not tested on animals, if a moisture barrier is needed (bees- and plant waxes, honey etc)!

3. Sodium Lauryl (Laureth) Sulfate
According to the European Journal of Dermatology, September-October 2001, pages 416-419 and the American Journal of Contact Dermatitis, March 2001, pages 28–32, SLS is a potent skin irritant in concentrations as little as 2%. We have found studies on SLS dating back as far as 1945, but very few recent ones. The CIR (Cosmetic Ingredient Review) termed SLS a Human Eye Irritant after a 2006 assessment. A 2002 RTECS-Toxicologist study found SLS to be a primary skin irritant and cause of Contact Dermatitis. Several older studies point to positive mutation results in lab animals at moderate to high doses. Sodium Laureth Sulfate, in addition to being a skin irritant, has shown 1,4-dioxane (a known human carcinogen) contamination. Our verdict? Considering the multitude of commercial beauty products containing SLS, it appears highly plausible that irritating levels of the substance can be reached quite easily. Using skin irritants in skin care products lacks logic.

4. Isopropyl Alcohol 
The European Union classifies Isopropyl alcohol as an Irritant and several studies support findings of eye and skin irritation. Additionally, sense organ effects have been observed in lab animals at very low doses in a 1946 study published in the American Journal of Ophthalmology. In higher concentrations, Isopropyl Alcohol is a known neurotoxin. Longterm exposure effects and effects on the human fetus have not been studied and are unknown. Our verdict? Much like the previous ingredients, adding known skin irritants to skin care products is questionable, especially in anti-itch/rash formulations. If alcohol is used as a preservative, there are much safer alternatives on the market. Additionally, early studies raise concerns about this ingredient that need further attention before declaring it acceptable for skin care use.

5. Propylene Glycol (PG)
The EWG has posted the following statement regarding PG on its site: "PG is practically non-toxic when taken orally, i.e. added to food. However, it has been found to provoke skin irritation and sensitization in humans as low as 2% concentration, while the industry review panel recommends cosmetics can contain up to 50% of the substance."
We have seen PG as the primary ingredient in some natural products, highly defended by the companies that use it. The National Library of Medicine has classified Propylene Glycol as a skin irritant. An array of studies suggest broad systemic toxicity (click here for a complete list of these studies ) and one 1983 RTECS-Pediatrics study suggests metabolic changes (infant).  PG is a penetration enhancer, meaning it alters the skin structure to allow other chemicals to penetrate deeper. This should be of concern when other questionable substances are contained in a product. Our verdict? PG should be avoided, especially on sensitive skin and when skin conditions are present. We (yet again) feel that this substance should undergo more intensive safety testing; we have come across too many studies that have raised a multitude of concerns.

6. Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) 
Same as Sodium Laureth Sulfate above. Beware of Polyethylene Glycol when listed on the label as follows:  PEG-20 CETOSTEARYL ALCOHOL // PEG-20 CETYL/STEARYL ETHER // POLYETHYLENE GLYCOL 1000 CETYL/STEARYL ETHER // POLYOXYETHYLENE (20) CETYL/STEARYL ETHER
This form of PEG has been declared unsafe for use on damaged or injured skin by the CIR. This substance has also shown sense organ effects in lab animals at low doses. Our verdict? See our verdict for SLS and be VERY careful about the type of PEG in your skin care or avoid it completely.

7. Parabens (Methyl, Propyl, Butyl and Ethyl Parabens)
Parabens are the most widely used preservatives in US skin care and cosmetic products. They have not been assessed for safety. Parabens are also used as food additives, again with limited or no toxicity information available, according to the FDA. The argument most widely used by manufacturers in favor of parabens is that they protect consumers by preventing contamination, bacterial growth etc in skin care formulations. Additionally, manufacturers defend the safety of parabens when used in concentrations of 1% or less.
We find these arguments debatable on several levels. First, consumers should be made aware that skin care products and cosmetics are not to be used indefinitely. When your lotion has been sitting on your bathroom counter for two years, parabens or not, it is no longer suitable for application to your skin. It seems then that parabens are extending shelf life to give retailers more time to sell their products. You might buy a moisturizer that was manufactured 6 months ago and has been sitting on a store shelf. This is not acceptable by our standards. Additionally, many low grade skin care products contain water as the primary ingredient. Water based products are more likely to develop bacterial growth. They also offer little benefit to the skin. Choosing products with high quality ingredients often means choosing self preserving products. Microbial testing has confirmed shelf life of over 1 year in most of our naturally preserved products. Appropriate packaging and sound handling instructions can also help prevent contamination. Finally, while a 1% paraben content in one given product may indeed not have any adverse effects, most consumers use a lot more than just one product every day. (Shampoo, Conditioner, soap, shaving cream, lotion, moisturizer, toner, make-up etc), so the paraben concentration applied to your body increases substantially.
The Environmental Working Group ranks parabens from moderately to highly hazardous, quoting studies that have shown endocrine and reproductive disruption.
While many manufacturers insist that these effects are weak, it is again the widespread use and consequently the cummulative effect that concerns us. Parabens have been found in cancerous breast tissue, though further studies are needed to establish a link. The finding does confirm that what we put onto or skin ends up in our bodies. 
Click here for a list of paraben related studies. Our verdict? Far too questionable of an ingredient to be so widely used without studies to prove its safety. There are plenty of paraben free products on the market as an alternative. Make it a safety practice to read labels! 

8. Fragrance (Parfum) 
The EWG lists fragrance as a high hazard substance for several reasons. First, the identity of constituents is unknown, in other words, the term fragrance disguises various ingredients, in some cases a hundred or more. These chemicals cannot be analyzed or assessed for safety and may pose contamination concerns.
Secondly, the SCCNFP (The Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products Intended for Consumers) classified Fragrance as a known human immune system toxicant in 1999. An earlier 1986 USHR (Committee on Science and Technology) report showed moderate evidence of human neurotoxicity. Finally, Fragrance is suspected to be the number one cause of allergies resulting from topical application of skin care products. (So why is it added to so many baby products???)
Our verdict? If you don't know what it is, steer clear. Just one quick note for clarification. We came across a certified organic French cleanser that listed Fragrance on the ingredient label. The company's laboratory clarified for us that, in that case, Fragrance referred to a proprietary blend of essential oils and that the constituents of the Fragrance had to be disclosed to the organic certifying body in order to obtain certification. It would have been less confusing had the company called it a proprietary blend of organic essential oils. This case was an exception. The majority of fragrance used in commercial skin care products will consist of unknown synthetic substances. If you have ever experienced a Victoria's Secret or Bodyworks headache upon entering the store, chances are it was the mixture of artificial fragrances in the air!

9. Talc / Talcum Powder
Talc is a known human respiratory toxicant (CHE Toxicant and Disease Database) and strong factor in the development of pleural disease and pneumoconiosis.
This is especially disturbing when considering that talc is still the primary ingredient in many baby (Johnson's ) and face powders (Dermablend, Neutrogena, Color Me Beautiful, Physician's Formula, Maybelline, Arbonne, Elizabeth Arden, Almay, L'Oreal, Cover Girl and many more !) While inhaling small particles, which can end up embedding in lung tissue, is never a good idea, talc is particularly irritating. Our verdict? Never apply powder in a manner that facilitates inhalation. Organic Corn Starch and Organic Arrowroot Powder are much safer alternatives to talc.

10. Lanolin
Lanolin is an animal by-product, produced by the oil glands of sheep and extracted from their wool. The National Library of Medicine HazMap states that Lanolin may cause sensitization by skin contact with allergic reactions in skin. It also classifies the substance as a known human immune system toxicant. The CIR reported strong evidence of Lanolin as a human skin toxicant. Lanolin is primarily used in lipsticks, balm and glosses, but also in moisturizers, foudations, hair conditioners and styling gel and in pain relievers. Our verdict? Evidence of lanolin as an allergen is sufficient to avoid the substance. Not to mention the possibility of pesticide and other synthetic chemical contamination.

11. Diazolidinyl Urea/Imidazolidinyl Urea (also DMDM Hydantoin)
These are the second most commonly used cosmetic preservatives after Parabens. The following statement can be found on EWG's Skin Deep database:
'This ingredient may be derived from animals. Excreted from urine and other bodily fluids. In deodorants, ammoniated dentrifices, mouthwashes, hair colorings, hand creams, lotions, shampoos, etc....' There is a synthetic alternative, however, the source is not typically disclosed on the ingredient label.
These preservatives are known human immune system toxicants and the CIR reports strong evidence as human skin irritants, stating that they are sensitizers and can instigate immune system response that can include itching, burning, scaling, hives and blistering of the skin. Still, they allow the substance with certain concentratiom limits. Our verdict? Aside from the fact that it is undisclosed whether the substance is derived from animals or a synthetic source, it is too harsh of a skin care ingredient. Again, we need to remember that we may be using several products containing these preservatives each day and the cummulative effect may result in a reaction.

12. Diethanolamide (DEA), Triethanolamine (TEA) and/or Monoethanolamine (MEA)
These are usually listed on ingredient labels with the compound being neutralized. So look for names like Cocamide DEA or MEA, Lauramide DEA, TEA Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, etc. Neither DEA nor TEA is carcinogenic. However, if these substances contain nitrites (as a preservative or contaminant), chemical reactions can occur, which lead to the formation of nitrosamines. Nitrosamine contamination poses the greatest concern for DEA, TEA and MEA. FDA studies report 27 out of 29 cosmetic products containing high levels of Nitroso-Diethanolamine. "Repeated skin applications have resulted in a major increase in liver and kidney cancers," states Dr. Samuel Epstein of the National Toxicology Program. Our verdict? If a manufacturer is unable to purify a substance to a level that ensures consumer safety, it should not end up in skin care products. Statistics repeatedly show that purification standards are simply not up to par in the US and why would they be, if manufactureres are not held responsible? 
 
13. Artificial Colors labeled FD&C (Food, Drug or Cosmetics) or D&C (Drugs or Cosmetics)
This designation will be followed by a color and then a number. Some examples are FD&C Red No. 6, D&C Green No. 6, or FD&C Blue No. 1. 
PETA points out that these color pigments can be derived from animal, plant or synthetic sources. The source does not have to be disclosed on the ingredient label. Some colors are more hazardous than others. Widely used FD&C and D&C colors are coaltar derivatives, which are consistently tested on animals due to their known neurotoxic and carcinogenic properties. Our verdict? Animal testing, known neurotoxicity and cancer causing potential make these an unacceptable ingredient in our opinion. Especially because there are safe, cruelty free alternatives, like grapes, beets, alkanet, carrots, chlorophyl, saffron and annatto, for example.

14. Hydroquinone
This ingredient is not as widely used as the ones we have mentioned above, however, since the demand for skin lighteners has risen, so has the use of Hydroquinone.
The substance can be found in OTC drugs, moisturizers and lighteners (La Roche, Carol Cole, PCA, Ultra Glow etc), hair color (Just For Men, recently criticised for using lead in its products, too) and we even found it in one around-eye cream (Murad-click for details!) The ingredient ranks a 10 on EWG's hazard scale, the most hazardous ranking possible.
It is a known skin toxicant, a known human immune system toxicant, a strongly suspected human neurotoxin, a known human respiratory toxicant, AND it is an ecotoxin, meaning it poses a hazard to wildlife and the environment. Our verdict? DON'T use products containing Hydroquinone. Common sense should tell any consumer that a substance that can bleach your skin can't possibly be safe, but for this particular ingredient, a multitude of studies can back up the claim of toxicity.
 
PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH !

In the US, cosmetic safety is unregulated and you are the only one who can make an educated decision for yourself and your family. We cause our bodies stress all the time, more often the bad than the good kind. We shouldn't burden it with substances it cannot process. Feed your skin what's natural, what it recognizes, what it can absorb and process. To research specific ingredients, please visit www.cosmeticsdatabase.org.