Do You Trust The Companies With Whom You Do Business? Should You?

To some people this may seem like an unusual question to ask. But I think it is one of the most important questions you can ask today. So let’s dig into why this question even matters.

To other people, the answer may seem obvious — either “of course,” or “of course not, that’s why we have government regulation.” If only it were that simple. More specifically, I’m posing this question as it relates to companies that provide products that can affect your health, such as personal care or body care products. (Nutrition-related products would also fall into this category, but I’ll leave that topic for another day.)

The reason this question even needs to be raised is because if one applies a critical eye to the ingredients being used in many products today, such as we do in our part 1 and part 2 articles, it becomes clear that there are serious gaps in how some products are formulated. In some cases, companies may lack the depth of knowledge needed to fully understand the long-term implications of certain ingredients. In other cases, business priorities like cost, shelf life, and marketing can take precedence over a deeper evaluation of safety. In reality, it is likely that there is some of both going on. Contributing to this problem is the fact that some consumers simply don’t consider the long-term effects of certain ingredients, as long as there is a short-term perceived benefit.

With the increased prevalence of contract production facilities that can provide “off the shelf” formulas, anyone can start their own personal care product company, regardless of whether they have any education in chemistry or biology. After all, it is all about the marketing, right? Well, no. If a company is unintentionally exposing its customers to ingredients with known safety concerns and consumers begin to recognize that, they will likely lose trust in that business, and its model can quickly fall apart. Alternately, if a company is aware of those concerns and chooses to ignore them, and consumers catch on, that opens the door to serious reputational damage and potential legal consequences, in addition to the previously mentioned business implosion.

It is tremendously unfortunate that many contract production facilities have adopted certain ingredients as standard industry practice. Some of these ingredients have raised safety concerns in the scientific literature, particularly when it comes to long-term or repeated exposure. What is puzzling is that it would seem reasonable for at least some personnel involved in formulation to question whether all of these ingredients are truly necessary. But in many cases, established formulation practices are followed without much scrutiny. It often becomes a matter of being told that a specific ingredient must be added for stability or shelf life, and that guidance is accepted without fully exploring the broader implications. And when those questions are raised, they are not always given the attention they deserve.

In my professional observation, one contributing factor may be how disciplines are separated in education and industry. Personal care product formulation is often handled by chemists, whose training is understandably focused on chemical structure, stability, and performance. However, that training does not always overlap deeply with biology, human physiology, or long-term toxicological outcomes. When I was in school, chemistry and biology were largely treated as separate tracks, and not always tied together in a way that emphasized how chemical formulations interact with the human body over time. While this may have evolved in recent years, gaps in cross-disciplinary understanding can still exist. It seems that in some cases, this disconnect may contribute to formulations that meet technical requirements, but may not fully account for broader health considerations.

In either case, whether it is gaps in understanding or misaligned priorities, it raises concerns about how much trust consumers are placing in the safety of these products. The reality is that not all ingredients are well understood by the average person, and not all products are as straightforward as they appear. One of the simplest things a consumer can do is turn around a product and read the ingredients label. Does it list all the ingredients? Do you know what they all are? Do you know how they interact with the body over time? Most people do not have advanced training in organic chemistry or toxicology to interpret many of these labels. With that said, some consumers may simply not prioritize these concerns, and may accept potential trade-offs for short-term results. But it seems likely that many people are making those choices without fully realizing it, assuming that the products they are using have been more thoroughly evaluated than they actually have.

I believe that part of that blind spot stems from the fact that many consumers assume that the FDA and other regulatory agencies are actively “protecting” them; that harmful products would not be allowed on the market. In reality, the situation is more complex. The FDA’s authority and approach, particularly in areas like cosmetics and personal care products, is often more limited and reactive than many people realize.¹ There are also well-documented cases where products were approved or remained on the market despite emerging safety concerns. One example often cited is the fen-phen case, where fenfluramine was later linked to serious heart valve damage,² leading to significant harm and subsequent legal action.³ Another area of concern is the continued allowance of certain formaldehyde-releasing preservatives in personal care products. Formaldehyde itself has been classified as a known human carcinogen by organizations such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),⁴ following earlier classifications as a probable carcinogen by agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)⁵ and the World Health Organization (WHO).⁶ Despite this, ingredients that can release formaldehyde are still permitted in certain formulations under current regulatory frameworks.¹ These examples highlight that regulatory systems do not always function as a proactive safeguard, and that consumers cannot rely solely on oversight to evaluate product safety.

If I were inclined to self-torture, I could probably write an entire book about the many examples that have caused people to question how well the FDA serves the public. In lieu of that, Marie-Monique Robin, in her book Our Daily Poison: From Pesticides to Packaging, How Chemicals Have Contaminated the Food Chain and Are Making Us Sick, documents a number of troubling examples involving chemical exposure, regulation, and public health.⁷ The FDA publicly presents its mission as protecting public health,⁸ and it does have enforcement and investigative functions,⁹ but the existence of those functions does not mean every issue is identified early, or prevented before harm occurs. Regulatory systems are complex, and in many cases reactive rather than proactive. That reality alone should be enough to make it clear that blind trust in the system is not enough.

To someone unfamiliar with how these industries operate, these points may sound exaggerated at first. But there is a substantial body of publicly available information that raises legitimate questions about how products are evaluated and regulated over time. If the examples provided above are not convincing on their own, I would strongly encourage taking the time to look into the topic further. The information is out there, but it often requires a bit of effort to connect the dots.

If you’re not sure where to start, here’s a simple way to begin:

For those who are not sure where to start, a good first step is to look at sources that are not trying to sell you anything. Government websites such as the FDA, scientific databases like PubMed, and independent research organizations can provide useful information on specific ingredients and how they are evaluated. Even something as simple as looking up a single ingredient and adding the word “toxicity” or “safety” can begin to paint a clearer picture. It does take time, and it is not always easy to interpret, but even a basic understanding can go a long way in helping you make more informed decisions.

However, in the case of the personal care product industry, regulatory oversight is more limited than many people realize, particularly when it comes to pre-market approval of products and ingredients.¹⁰ This places a significant portion of responsibility on both industry and consumers to ensure that products are used and formulated appropriately. It also appears that both industry practices and consumer awareness have not always kept pace with that responsibility, although there have been encouraging signs of improvement in recent years as consumers become more informed and conscientious. Even so, products containing ingredients with known or debated safety concerns continue to be widely available for a variety of reasons discussed earlier. Meanwhile, many consumers are not entirely sure what to look for when evaluating a product. Third-party organizations such as the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the Non-GMO Project have stepped in to help fill that gap, but they remain the exception rather than the norm.
So where does that leave us? It leaves consumers in a position where they either need to research ingredients themselves—which can be time consuming, challenging, and sometimes frustrating—or find producers they believe they can trust.

One of our goals and guiding principles—in fact, one of the foundational reasons we started this company—was to provide products that we believe are safe, and to earn the trust of our customers through transparency and consistency. That means openly sharing information, providing full disclosure of ingredients, and being selective about what we choose to use. We spend a significant amount of time researching ingredients before they ever make it into a formulation, not just for how they perform, but for how they may interact with the body over time. Our goal is not just to create effective products, but to build trust by being clear, honest, and accountable in everything we do. If that approach resonates with you, then we hope to earn a place among the brands you choose to trust.

For Health,

Rob

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Cosmetics Laws & Regulations. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations
2. Connolly HM, Crary JL, McGoon MD, et al. Valvular Heart Disease Associated with Fenfluramine-Phentermine. New England Journal of Medicine. 1997;337:581–588.
3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Announces Withdrawal of Fenfluramine and Dexfenfluramine (Fen-Phen). 1997.
4. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert-Butoxypropan-2-ol. IARC Monographs, Volume 88.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Formaldehyde (CASRN 50-00-0) – IRIS Assessment.
6. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality: Selected Pollutants – Formaldehyde.
7. Robin MM. Our Daily Poison: From Pesticides to Packaging, How Chemicals Have Contaminated the Food Chain and Are Making Us Sick. New Press; 2014.
8. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. About FDA. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda
9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Criminal Investigations. https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/criminal-investigations
10. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Cosmetics Overview – FDA Authority. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/cosmetics-overview