This page explains how WithoutWith content is researched, written, reviewed and corrected, and how the site's commercial relationships work. It is the standard every article on this site is held to.
How articles are researched
Every ingredient article starts from primary material: the ingredient's function and typical uses, its INCI naming, and how regulators describe it. We consult publications from bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and established reference databases such as the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep. Research findings are reported in proportion: a single in-vitro study is described as a single in-vitro study, and a formal regulatory restriction is described as one. Where the evidence is mixed or evolving, the article says so plainly.
What we never publish
- Invented studies, statistics, product ratings, test results or prices.
- Medical claims that an ingredient causes or prevents a disease, or personal medical advice of any kind.
- Fake testimonials, fake expert credentials, or claims of hands-on product testing that did not happen.
- Paid placements: no brand can pay to be included in, or excluded from, any article or guide.
Health framing rules
WithoutWith explains why people avoid an ingredient and what the research and regulators say — it does not tell readers an ingredient is safe or dangerous for them personally. Ingredient explainers carry a disclaimer that the content is educational and not medical advice. Readers with allergies, conditions or concerns are directed to their own clinicians.
Affiliate links and advertising
Some guides contain affiliate links to retailers. If you buy through one, the retailer may pay us a commission at no extra cost to you. Links are added after an article's product selections are made, on the basis of the article's stated ingredient rule, and affiliate relationships never change which products are included. Display advertising will be clearly advertising; advertisers have no influence over editorial content. This model is what keeps the site free to read.
Corrections
If an article contains an error — a wrong date, a misdescribed regulation, an outdated formulation — we correct the article and update its "Last updated" date. Significant corrections are noted at the foot of the article. To report a possible error, email contact@withoutwith.com or use the contact page; correction reports are reviewed ahead of other mail.
Updates
Ingredient science and regulation move. Hub pages and popular explainers are reviewed periodically, and any article may be updated when a regulator changes position or a cited source is superseded.
How we assess an ingredient: the evidence levels
Not every reason to avoid — or to seek — an ingredient carries the same weight, and our explainers say which level applies rather than letting a precautionary debate sound like a settled ban. We use four levels:
- Level 1 — Regulatory action. A regulator has banned, restricted or set binding limits on the ingredient, in at least one major market. Example pattern: a preservative whose permitted concentration was lowered after allergy data accumulated.
- Level 2 — Documented clinical or environmental evidence. Peer-reviewed research or official assessments document a real effect — a recognised contact allergen, a substance measured in waterways — even where regulators have not (yet) acted.
- Level 3 — Precautionary debate. A plausible mechanism or early findings are under active study, and reasonable experts disagree. Much of the endocrine discussion sits here, and our explainers keep it here: described as unresolved, in both directions.
- Level 4 — Preference and fit. No safety question at all: an ingredient some people skip because of skin feel, hair behaviour, animal-derived origin, or personal values. Preference is a legitimate reason; it just is not a safety claim, and we never dress it up as one.
Benefit ingredients are graded with the same honesty: a well-documented function (a UV filter's measured protection, a humectant's water-binding) is stated differently from a fashionable claim resting on a single small study.
How guide selections are checked
Before a guide is published, each named product's current published ingredient list is checked against the guide's rule, and the check is repeated when the guide is reviewed. Formulations change without announcement, so guides carry their check date in spirit — the "Last updated" date — and every guide tells readers to re-run the rule on the bottle in front of them. If a product is reformulated out of its guide, it is removed at the next review; if you spot one first, the corrections route below is the fastest fix.
Corrections log
Corrections come in two kinds. Minor corrections — a typo, a broken link, a label name updated by a brand — are made silently and the article's date moves. Significant corrections — anything that changes what an article says about an ingredient, a regulation or a product — are noted at the foot of the corrected article with the date and a plain description of what changed. We keep those notes because a site that asks you to trust its reading of labels should be able to show its own corrections history on request.
Review cycle
Hub pages and the most-read explainers are reviewed on a rolling cycle, and any page is reviewed out of cycle when a regulator it cites changes position, a cited source is superseded, or a reader's correction is upheld. Reviews re-check sources, label names and — for guides — product formulations, in that order.