Skip to Mainhow-we-choose

How We Choose Our Ingredients

We’ve spent decades building and refining a comprehensive, science-based review process so we can understand each ingredient’s potential impacts before considering it for use in our products.

A glass pipette dips into a clear flask containing pink liquid, surrounded by various colored liquids in blurred laboratory beakers.
We’re passionate about researching the ingredients we choose and being transparent about those choices.

Each ingredient we use in our products undergoes a rigorous screening process to understand potential impacts on humans and the environment. We review all elements of this process regularly to make sure it reflects the latest science.

We’re committed to being transparent about our process and the ingredients we use so consumers can be confident in the choices they make for their families.

The cornerstone of our ingredient selection is our Greenlist™ process

Created in 2001, the Greenlist™ process is grounded in a rigorous, ongoing effort to collect best-in-class external data and use it to make the best possible choices for our products.

A scientist in a lab coat writes a chemical formula on a transparent board, surrounded by shelves with scientific equipment in a laboratory setting.

Science-based evaluation across four key concerns

The Greenlist™ process includes an external and comprehensive assessment of each ingredient’s potential impacts. If an ingredient is flagged, it undergoes further assessment to determine if there is any amount that can safely be used in our products. Here are the key concerns we evaluate.

A shield symbol featuring a cross is centered, representing health or medical protection, with no additional context or background elements.

Chronic (long-term) health effects

The first step is determining whether any credible data indicates the ingredient has the potential to cause longer-term health effects. Flags would include being carcinogenic, having reproductive or developmental impacts, mutagenicity and being an endocrine disruptor. Our data sources include California Proposition 65 and the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, to name a few.

A planet, depicted with simple lines representing continents, is framed by an overlapping outline of a leaf, symbolizing environmental consciousness and sustainability. The background is plain.

Chronic environmental effects

This step evaluates whether an ingredient may stick around in the environment, build up in living things or is toxic to marine and freshwater life. Our data sources include the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) and ECHA’s Substances of Very High Concern list, to name a few. We also screen for the ability of a material to persist, bioaccumulate and be toxic in the enivronment (PBT). Any indication of being a PBT will cause an ingredient to be flagged.

A black exclamation mark inside a white triangle outlined in black, signifying a warning or caution symbol. The triangle has rounded corners and appears on a plain white background.

Acute (short-term) health and environmental effects

This step looks at the potential for an ingredient to produce short-term effects like skin irritation, toxicity to aquatic or terrestrial life, or the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the air. Our data sources include the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) , the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s TOXNET and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development guidelines, among many others.

A hand releases small, round particles downward in a simple, minimalist design, indicating a motion of sprinkling or dispersing, against a plain background.

Allergenicity

Finally, we use a science-based, externally validated process for identifying any potential skin allergens. Our list includes more than 350 potential skin allergens we identified after extensive analysis of data from public and industry sources, including the European Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety.

“Science shines a clear light on the impacts of ingredients, how those impacts can be moderated, and when the best choice is to not use something at all.”

Fisk Johnson

Chairman and CEO