A reasonable question is: where does this information come from? Credo’s ingredient evaluations may be informed by peer-reviewed research, regulatory assessments, hazard classifications, scientific consensus reports, industry data, and/or information provided by other stakeholders such as toxicological scientists and NGOs. The Credo Standard® itself has evolved over more than a decade. It did not emerge from a single study, database, or regulatory framework. It has developed through ongoing review, expert input, and as new information becomes available, continuously refined.

The challenge is that science rarely provides the answers in black and white. Different organizations can review the same evidence and reach different conclusions. Take parabens as an example, they have been used as preservatives in cosmetics for decades and remain permitted in many parts of the world¹. At the same time, certain parabens have demonstrated endocrine activity in laboratory studies². These findings have contributed to differing policy responses with some organizations restricting or prohibiting certain parabens, while others concluding they are safe under specified use conditions and continue to evaluate new scientific evidence as it emerges¹. Situations like this are common in ingredient evaluation.

In developing the Credo Standard®, rather than looking for a single study or authority to provide the answer, we look at the broader body of information and ask what conclusions can reasonably be supported by the available evidence. In doing so we also consider how widespread exposure may be, how serious a potential concern could be, and whether viable alternatives are available.

There will always be questions that haven't been fully answered and areas where evidence continues to evolve. At Credo, uncertainty is not something we ignore, instead it is part of the evaluation itself. We consider what is known and what remains uncertain. Sometimes uncertainty supports continued monitoring. Sometimes it contributes to a decision to take a more precautionary approach. Either way, we think it's important to be honest about what we know and what we don't know.

For us, precaution does not mean assuming an ingredient is harmful until proven otherwise. Nor does it mean making decisions based on fear. It means recognizing that scientific understanding, regulatory action, and marketplace innovation do not always move at the same pace. History provides plenty of examples where questions on chemical safety were raised long before consensus emerged (e.g., asbestos, lead). It also provides examples where early concerns were ultimately not supported by the weight of evidence (e.g., saccharin and bladder tumors)³. The challenge is deciding how to act while that process is still unfolding, especially in an industry that is underregulated and heavily used. When credible evidence suggests a potential concern, exposure is widespread or repeated, and viable alternatives exist, Credo may choose to take a more precautionary approach than current regulations require acknowledging that scientific uncertainty and differing interpretations of the evidence may remain. That does not mean an ingredient has been proven unsafe. It means we believe uncertainty is one factor worth considering when making decisions about products people use every day.

Another question we hear often is: if an ingredient is legal, why does Credo restrict it? The short answer is that regulations and retailer standards serve different purposes. Regulators oversee entire markets and operate within legal frameworks established by governments. Credo is a retailer with a voluntary standard. That gives us the ability to make decisions that reflect our own priorities around health, safety, transparency, sustainability, and consumer trust. Sometimes our position aligns closely with existing regulations. Sometimes it goes beyond them. When it does, we believe it's important to explain why and we do that through our Ingredient Library you can find here.