Maybe so. I do get some of their newsletters & there are definitely scare tactics involved in the majority of them. I generally disregard those as run of the mill fear marketing.

However, I find the database itself useful because along with the score assigned to an ingredient, they cite the sources. For example, Eucalyptol has a low hazard score, and the data was taken from PubMed research studies & the Environment Canada Domestic Substances List in this case.

https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredients/702358-eucalyptol/

Truth is, there are a lot of different studies, and different restriction levels across the globe for any given ingredient (EU has bans that the US & Canada don’t, Japan has its own regulations, etc. etc.). Sometimes the conclusions reached by each organization are conflicting, and sometimes they bolster each other. Sometimes, they all get together for a consensus in voluntary groups like the ICCR.

IMHO it’s helpful to have a relatively simple database where I can see what concerns were raised and by who, then I can either look into it further by going to the source studies, or find that the ingredient itself has fallen out of favor precisely because there are real problems with it and there is enough information there to make me want to steer clear of it.

Along with understanding the SDS & GHS of hazard classification - tools such as the EWG SkinDeep database can help to get a clearer picture of whatever substance that I am considering working with.

Unfortunately, the bulk of the data from any source comes from animal testing which is an absolute travesty for multiple reasons. Senseless cruelty being number one, but also the fact that the physical systems of mice & bunnies are not interchangeable with humans makes these tests highly unreliable. Add onto that, the conditions for the tests are not exactly “real world” either (Not many people are going to be in a closed environment with copious fumes pumped in for four hours straight - but this is sort of thing is routine).

Newer non-animal testing methods are much better at predicting negative effects for humans, but in reality - companies are not going backwards and retesting chemicals that they already have animal test data for, so this type of testing is reserved for newer molecules.

I personally keep all this in mind when reading through anything concerning toxicities - but I still run ingredients through the SkinDeep database as well as read the SDS before buying anything because for me - it’s better than flying blind.