News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The only skin care that works? science video response (2020). Parent comment

Re:The only skin care that works? science video response (2020) by css on Monday August 23, 2021 @03:47PM (#28281006)
I searched for a ton of products I use on this site and found no results–I find EWG[0] to have a much better dataset.

[0]: https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The only skin care that works? science video response (2020) by mlok on Monday August 23, 2021 @07:21PM (#28283314)
Thank you, I did not know EWG.

It looks like the US part of Open Beauty Facts is still lacking (618 products in the USA, whereas there are 16500 products in France). Here visitors add products infos and images which are then free for all to use (open licence). I guess in the long run it can make a difference. This project is quite young.

https://world.openbeautyfacts.org/who-we-are

https://world.openbeautyfacts.org/faq

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The only skin care that works? science video response (2020) by tablespoonsruby on Monday August 23, 2021 @05:59PM (#28282517)
EWG is a source of misinformation: https://www.theecowell.com/blog/a-case-against-the-ewg
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The only skin care that works? science video response (2020) by css on Monday August 23, 2021 @06:04PM (#28282567)
This article cherry-picks a few items and discussed how EWG interprets the ingredient safety. It does not follow that all of EWG is misinformation; dismissing the useful database of ingredients, animal testing statuses, and other data is itself misinformation.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The only skin care that works? science video response (2020) by tablespoonsruby on Monday August 23, 2021 @07:50PM (#28283524)
There's plenty more criticism out there:

https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/05/25/dear-ewg-why-real-scien... https://chemistscorner.com/3-reasons-the-ewg-is-dubious-reso...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The only skin care that works? science video response (2020) by css on Tuesday August 24, 2021 @12:18AM (#28285053)
Again, disagreeing with their risk assessment is one thing, but pretending the database itself is misinformation is dishonest.
[ Parent | on HN ]