Dysfunctional Skincare Ingredients 101

In the first post of this series, we covered what skincare ingredients are *supposed* to do — the humectants, emollients, preservatives, and actives that make a formula work. This post is about a different category: ingredients that work in the formula but may work against you biologically.

We're not talking about irritants or sensitizers here (that's a separate conversation). This is specifically about endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) — compounds that can interfere with the body's hormonal signaling, even at low doses. The research has been building for decades. Regulatory agencies in the EU have moved significantly on many of these. The U.S. has been slower, but the science isn't waiting.

Here's what the concern actually is, ingredient by ingredient.

What they are: A family of synthetic preservatives — methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben, butylparaben, and others — historically the most widely used preservatives in cosmetics.

The concern: Parabens are estrogen mimics. They bind to estrogen receptors in the body and can activate estrogenic responses, a property called xenoestrogenic activity. Longer-chain parabens (butyl- and propylparaben in particular) show the strongest activity. Multiple studies have demonstrated that all four major parabens — methyl, ethyl, propyl, and butyl — promote proliferation of estrogen-receptor-positive MCF-7 cells and bind to estrogen receptor isoforms, with estrogenic activity positively correlated with chain length (Yao et al., 2023; Nowak et al., 2018). Beyond direct receptor binding, parabens have also been shown to interfere with estrogen metabolism by inhibiting 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase enzymes, which regulate the conversion between active and inactive estrogen forms (Stettner et al., 2017). Research has detected intact paraben esters in human breast tissue, urine, and blood following topical application (Darbre, 2008). Paraben exposure has also been linked to disruption of the hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid axis, with associations observed between paraben exposure and altered thyroid-stimulating hormone levels (Michalowicz et al., 2023).

The EU has taken significant regulatory action based specifically on endocrine disruption concerns. Five parabens — isopropylparaben, isobutylparaben, phenylparaben, benzylparaben, and pentylparaben — are fully prohibited in EU cosmetics under Annex II of Regulation 1223/2009. The two most concerning long-chain variants, butylparaben and propylparaben, had their permitted concentration limit cut by 65% (from 0.4% down to 0.14%) and are banned entirely from leave-on products designed for the nappy area of children under three — a restriction the EU Commission stated was driven explicitly by their potential endocrine activity. While methylparaben and ethylparaben remain permitted at lower concentrations, the EU's regulatory trajectory on this ingredient family is clear.

In the U.S., the contrast is stark. The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) — the most significant expansion of FDA cosmetics authority since 1938 — explicitly identifies parabens among its list of "unaddressed ingredients." The FDA's current stated position is that it "does not currently have information showing that parabens as they are used in cosmetics have an effect on human health," a stance that sits in direct tension with the published peer-reviewed literature. MoCRA also does not compel the FDA to review or restrict any specific ingredients — it modernizes reporting, registration, and recall authority, but leaves ingredient safety decisions largely unchanged. The EWG has noted that the EU added 29 ingredients to its ban list in 2023 alone — nearly three times the total number of ingredients the FDA has ever banned. Some individual U.S. states have moved independently: 20 states have passed laws limiting certain substances in cosmetics, with parabens among the chemicals addressed in several of them, including California and Maryland. But at the federal level, there is no equivalent to the EU's regulatory action on parabens.

The bottom line: The concern is well-founded, supported by mechanistic evidence, and significant enough that the EU has taken legislative action — while the FDA has not. Importantly, the preservation problem parabens were solving is fully solvable without them. Effective alternatives with no EDC concerns include phenoxyethanol, ethylhexylglycerin, gluconolactone paired with sodium benzoate and calcium gluconate, and naturally derived systems such as Leuconostoc/Radish Root Ferment Filtrate. These systems have strong safety profiles and are well-validated in cosmetic formulation. Juventude products use these alternatives exclusively — the endocrine disruption risk associated with parabens is not a trade-off we're willing to make when better options exist.

What they are: A class of plasticizers most commonly found in skincare and personal care as a component of synthetic fragrance — typically not listed individually on the label, hidden under the single word "Fragrance" or "Parfum."

"Fragrance" is the skincare industry's version of special sauce. Under U.S. law — specifically the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act — fragrance formulas are classified as trade secrets, meaning brands are under no obligation to disclose what's inside them. The result: a single word on an ingredient list can legally conceal up to 3,163 individual chemical ingredients, according to EWG's analysis of the International Fragrance Association's own disclosed ingredient database. Consumers reading a label have no way of knowing whether the fragrance in their moisturizer contains 3 ingredients or 30 — or whether any of them are phthalates.

The concern: Phthalates — particularly diethyl phthalate (DEP) and dibutyl phthalate (DBP) — are among the most extensively studied endocrine disruptors. They are anti-androgenic, meaning they interfere with testosterone signaling. Prenatal phthalate exposure has been associated with reduced anogenital distance in male infants — a marker of reproductive development disruption — in multiple independent studies (Swan et al., 2005; Safe Cosmetics, citing multiple sources). In adults, associations with reduced sperm quality, altered thyroid function, and metabolic disruption have been documented, and phthalate metabolites have been found in nearly 100% of people tested in U.S. biomonitoring surveys (Hou et al., 2021; EPA Biomonitoring Data). The European Commission has classified DBP and DEHP as endocrine disruptors and reproductive toxicants; the EPA has identified DEHP as a probable human carcinogen. Because they're embedded in fragrance formulations, consumers have essentially no way to know if a product contains them — unless the brand explicitly formulates without them.

The bottom line: Fragrance itself isn't the enemy — phthalate-containing fragrance is the problem, and the two are not the same thing. A product that lists "Fragrance" on its label and also carries a "Phthalate-Free" or "Paraben-Free" claim is making a legally accountable statement. Truth in advertising laws require that such claims be substantiated and accurate — a brand cannot lawfully claim to be phthalate-free while using a fragrance blend that contains them. Two Juventude products contain fragrance. Both are phthalate-free and paraben-free. When we say that, it means something.

What it is: A chemical UV filter used in sunscreens and some SPF-containing skincare and cosmetics.

The concern: Oxybenzone is a photoestrogen — it absorbs UV radiation and in doing so can act as an estrogen mimic. It is one of the most readily absorbed sunscreen filters. A 2017 systematic review of 23 studies found evidence linking oxybenzone exposure to reproductive harms, and a 2023 review of 254 studies concluded that oxybenzone has endocrine-disrupting properties at doses typical of sunscreen use, with North Americans showing urinary concentrations 10–20 times higher than European and Asian populations (Roca et al., 2023; EWG, citing Ghazipura et al., 2017). In animal studies, developmental exposures to oxybenzone have altered mammary gland morphology and reduced cell proliferation in both male and female mice (Santamaria et al., 2019). A 2025 review of 75 epidemiological studies found that benzophenone derivatives including oxybenzone are associated with reduced testosterone levels in adolescent males, altered thyroid hormones in pregnant women, and associations with delayed pubertal development (Manea et al., 2025). The CDC has found oxybenzone in the urine of approximately 97% of Americans tested. The EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety concluded in 2021 that oxybenzone at the previously permitted 6% concentration in sunscreens was not safe for consumers. It has also demonstrated significant coral reef toxicity, which led to its ban in Hawaii and several other jurisdictions.

The bottom line: Effective broad-spectrum UV protection is achievable without oxybenzone — mineral filters (zinc oxide, titanium dioxide) and newer EU-approved organic filters offer legitimate alternatives.

What it is: A synthetic antimicrobial agent used in soaps, toothpastes, deodorants, and some skincare products marketed as antibacterial.

The concern: Triclosan disrupts thyroid hormone signaling by interfering with thyroid hormone transport and metabolism. A 2022 systematic review of 17 human studies found that multiple studies identified a negative association between triclosan levels and triiodothyronine and thyroxine, with a positive association with thyroid-stimulating hormone (Homburg et al., 2022). Animal studies have also shown estrogenic and androgenic activity — including amplification of estrogen action in vivo even when triclosan alone lacked direct uterotrophic effects (Stoker et al., 2010). A Korean national health survey found a positive association between triclosan exposure and thyroid-stimulating hormone concentrations in females (Kim et al., 2019). Beyond endocrine concerns, triclosan contributes to antimicrobial resistance — a serious public health issue independent of its hormonal effects. The FDA banned triclosan from consumer antiseptic wash products in 2016, but it remains permissible in other product categories.

The bottom line: The antibacterial benefit in leave-on skincare products is dubious; the potential systemic effects are not. Effective alternatives exist that provide antimicrobial activity without endocrine disruption concerns. Ethylhexylglycerin is a well-tolerated multifunctional ingredient that inhibits microbial growth while also functioning as a skin conditioner. Caprylyl glycol, derived from caprylic acid, provides broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity and is commonly used in combination with other preservation-boosting ingredients. Bisabolol, a naturally derived compound from chamomile, has demonstrated antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties. Totarol, extracted from the heartwood of the Totara tree, is a potent natural antimicrobial with a strong safety profile. None of these carry triclosan's endocrine disruption profile, and all are in active use in well-formulated products — including ours.

A note on naming: BHA in this context refers to butylated hydroxyanisole, a synthetic antioxidant preservative — not beta hydroxy acid (salicylic acid), which shares the abbreviation and is an entirely different ingredient.

What it is: A lipid-soluble synthetic antioxidant used to prevent rancidity in products containing fats and oils.

The concern: Butylated hydroxyanisole has demonstrated both estrogenic and anti-androgenic activity in laboratory studies. In vitro studies indicate weak binding affinity to the human androgen receptor, and in vivo rodent studies have shown effects on reproductive function including delayed sexual maturation, shortened estrous cycle, lower mating rates, and reduced sperm motility at higher doses (Ionescu et al., 2015). The European Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety has flagged BHA as a substance with potential endocrine-disrupting properties and opened a formal safety review. BHA is also classified as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer), and it appears on California's Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. It is also a known allergen and contact sensitizer.

The bottom line: The endocrine disruption concern is credible and supported by the European Commission's own regulatory process. The good news is that the function BHA serves — protecting oils and fats from oxidative rancidity — is achievable with ingredients that carry none of these concerns. Tocopherol (vitamin E) is the most well-validated natural alternative, with a strong safety profile and additional skin benefits. Rosemary extract (Rosmarinus officinalis) contains rosmarinic acid and carnosic acid, both of which provide effective antioxidant protection in oil-containing formulas. Both are used in well-formulated products and in ours.

What it is: A close structural relative of BHA, BHT is another synthetic antioxidant used to prevent oxidative rancidity in products containing fats and oils. The two are often used together and frequently discussed as a pair, but they are distinct compounds with different evidence profiles.

The concern: The endocrine disruption picture for BHT is less settled than for BHA, and it's worth being accurate about that. The UK's Scientific Advisory Group on Cosmetic Safety reviewed the available evidence and concluded it was insufficient to classify BHT as endocrine active. The CIR Expert Panel reaffirmed its safety assessment for cosmetic use in 2023. However, France's ANSES has flagged BHT as a suspected endocrine disruptor based on observed thyroid hormone changes in rodent studies, proposing that BHT may induce cytochrome P450 enzymes that accelerate thyroid hormone breakdown — a mechanism that, while not conclusively established, is biologically plausible. The EU SCCS lists BHT on its watch list of substances with potential endocrine-disrupting properties under ongoing review. Separate from the endocrine question, BHT has also been associated with liver and kidney toxicity in animal feeding studies, and with liver and lung tumor development at high doses — findings reviewed by the CIR Panel and noted, though not considered disqualifying at cosmetic use concentrations.

The bottom line: BHT occupies a genuine grey zone — not as clearly problematic as BHA, but not fully exonerated either. The thyroid disruption hypothesis is under active regulatory review in Europe, and the cumulative exposure argument applies here as it does elsewhere: even ingredients with modest individual concern contribute to a broader hormonal load when layered across multiple daily products. Given that effective natural alternatives exist — tocopherol and rosemary extract perform the same antioxidant function with no comparable concerns — using BHT is a trade-off that doesn't need to be made.

What they are: UV-absorbing compounds used to protect product formulas (and sometimes skin) from UV degradation. Found in packaging materials and some cosmetics as a stabilizer.

The concern: Benzophenone and its derivatives (benzophenone-1, -2, -3, etc.) are estrogen mimics with demonstrated estrogenic activity in cell-based assays. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies benzophenone as a possible human carcinogen. It has been detected in food (via packaging migration) as well as in personal care products. The EU has moved to restrict several benzophenone derivatives in cosmetics.

The bottom line: Benzophenone serves two distinct functions — as a UV filter in sunscreens, and as a UV stabilizer in non-SPF formulas to protect ingredients from photodegradation. Both are solvable without it. For UV protection, mineral filters (zinc oxide and titanium dioxide) provide broad-spectrum coverage with no EDC concerns. Newer organic filters approved in the EU — Tinosorb S and Tinosorb M — also offer strong safety profiles, though they are not yet FDA-approved. For formula stabilization, tocopherol (vitamin E) and ferulic acid are effective photo-stabilizers with well-established safety records, and ferulic acid in particular is known to synergize with vitamin C and vitamin E to enhance their stability and efficacy.

The most elegant solution to photodegradation, however, isn't a chemical one — it's packaging. Juventude products are bottled with formula protection as a deliberate design consideration. Dark amber glass shields light-sensitive ingredients from UV and visible light degradation. White opaque glass blocks light while maintaining product visibility. Closed plastic formats with a push-down dispensing top minimize air and light exposure at the point of use. This isn't incidental — it's a formulation and packaging philosophy that removes the need for benzophenone-based stabilizers entirely. Smart packaging means we don't need to compensate with a chemical that carries endocrine disruption concerns.

What they are: A broad class of synthetic fluorinated compounds used in cosmetics — particularly in long-wear foundations, waterproof mascaras, and some sunscreens — for their water- and oil-repellent properties.

The concern: PFAS are called "forever chemicals" because they don't break down in the body or the environment. They accumulate in tissue over time. A comprehensive review of the toxicological literature found associations between PFAS exposure and altered immune and thyroid function, liver disease, lipid and insulin dysregulation, kidney disease, adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes, and cancer (Evich et al., 2022). Multiple studies have confirmed that PFAS can bind to nuclear receptors including estrogen receptors, androgen receptors, and thyroid hormone receptors, disrupting steroidogenesis (Knutsen et al., 2021). A USC Keck School of Medicine study using biomonitoring data from two cohorts found that exposure to a mixture of PFAS — as virtually all people carry — altered thyroid hormone function and disrupted lipid and amino acid metabolism, with effects consistent across populations with different baseline exposure levels (Goodrich et al., 2024). The Endocrine Society and the FDA are actively reviewing PFAS in cosmetics. Several states have already moved to ban them.

The bottom line: PFAS don't have a single INCI name — they're identified by the presence of "fluoro-" or "perfluoro-" in the ingredient name. Relatively easy to scan for and easy to avoid formulating with.

One thing that gets lost in ingredient-by-ingredient analysis is cumulative exposure. Each product might contain levels of a given EDC that fall below regulatory thresholds for concern. But the average person uses multiple products daily — cleanser, toner, serum, moisturizer, SPF, makeup — often with overlapping ingredients. The body doesn't evaluate each product separately. This is the "cocktail effect," and it's a growing area of regulatory focus that current safety assessments don't fully address

Navigating the endocrine disruptor landscape isn't simple — it requires staying current with evolving science, being willing to use more expensive or complex alternatives, and making deliberate choices at every formulation stage.

We don't use parabens, phthalates, or phthalate-containing fragrance. We don't use triclosan, BHA, or BHT as antioxidant preservatives — tocopherol and rosemary extract do that job instead. We don't use benzophenone-based stabilizers — our packaging is designed to protect formulas from photodegradation so we don't need them. We don't use PFAS. These aren't marketing positions — they're formulation commitments that reflect what the science actually supports.

When we use fragrance, it's phthalate-free and paraben-free. That distinction matters, and it's one we think is worth being explicit about.

But beyond any individual ingredient, our position is this: even where an ingredient is legally permitted, even where its per-use concentration falls below a regulatory threshold, we don't want to add to the cumulative load. The cocktail effect is real. The average person applies multiple products daily, and the body doesn't evaluate each one in isolation. Choosing cheaper or more convenient ingredients that carry known or suspected EDC concerns — when effective alternatives exist — isn't a trade-off we're willing to make. The goal is products that perform without asking your endocrine system to absorb the cost.

Formulation choices are only meaningful if the finished product actually performs the way it's supposed to — and we don't take that on faith.

Every Juventude product is tested monthly by independent, third-party laboratories. Each round of testing evaluates two things: overall product pH (to confirm formula stability and ensure the product is performing within its intended range) and the absence of pathogens (to confirm microbial safety). This isn't a one-time certification at launch — it's an ongoing process, month after month, across every product in the line.

Third-party testing matters because it removes us from the equation. We're not evaluating our own formulas. An independent lab is.

All Juventude products are also manufactured in a Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certified facility. GMP certification means the manufacturing environment, processes, equipment, and quality controls meet the standards required for consistent, safe production. It's the same standard applied to pharmaceuticals and regulated health products — and it's what ensures that what's on the label is what's in the bottle, batch after batch.

Choosing cleaner ingredients is the starting point. Rigorous, independent verification is how we stand behind it.

References & Further Reading

Parabens

Yao, H., et al. (2023). Studying paraben-induced estrogen receptor- and steroid hormone-related endocrine disruption effects via multi-level approaches. Science of the Total Environment, 862, 160780. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36702264/

Nowak, K., et al. (2018). Parabens and their effects on the endocrine system. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, 474, 238–251. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29596967/

Darbre, P.D., & Harvey, P.W. (2008). Paraben esters: review of recent studies of endocrine toxicity, absorption, esterase and human exposure, and discussion of potential human health risks. Journal of Applied Toxicology, 28(5), 561–578. https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.1358

Stettner, N., et al. (2017). Interference of paraben compounds with estrogen metabolism by inhibition of 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenases. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 18(9), 2007. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5618656/

Michalowicz, J., et al. (2023). Environmental endocrinology: Parabens hazardous effects on hypothalamic–pituitary–thyroid axis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 24(20), 15246. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/24/20/15246

European Commission. (2014). Commission Regulation (EU) No 1004/2014 of 18 September 2014 amending Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products — restricting butylparaben and propylparaben on endocrine disruption grounds. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R1004

European Commission. (2014). Commission Regulation (EU) No 358/2014 — full prohibition of isopropylparaben, isobutylparaben, phenylparaben, benzylparaben, and pentylparaben in cosmetics (Annex II). Referenced via Cosmeservice regulatory summary: https://cosmeservice.com/news/parabens-safety-rules-2025/

Sheikh, H.Z., & FDA Congressional Research Service. (2023). FDA Regulation of Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Under the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) — parabens identified as "unaddressed ingredients." https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47826

Environmental Working Group. (2023). Reforming federal cosmetics law: What is the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act? — EU vs. U.S. regulatory gap analysis. https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2023/12/reforming-federal-cosmetics-law-what-modernization-cosmetics-regulation

Phthalates

Hou, J., et al. (2021). Phthalates and their impacts on human health. Healthcare, 9(5), 603. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8157593/

Swan, S.H., et al. (2005). Decrease in anogenital distance among male infants with prenatal phthalate exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(8), 1056–1061. [Referenced via Safe Cosmetics and Endocrine Society literature reviews.]

European Commission classification of DBP and DEHP as reproductive toxicants and endocrine disruptors. Summary via Safe Cosmetics: https://www.safecosmetics.org/chemicals/phthalates/

Romero-Franco, M., et al. (2021). Phthalate esters in different types of cosmetic products: a five-year quality control survey. Environment International, 2024. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11510284/

Environmental Working Group. 3,163 ingredients hide behind the word "fragrance." Analysis of International Fragrance Association disclosed ingredient database. https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/3163-ingredients-hide-behind-word-fragrance

U.S. FDA. Fragrances in Cosmetics — fragrance as trade secret under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/fragrances-cosmetics

Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3)

Roca, M., et al. (2023). Benzophenone-3: comprehensive review of the toxicological and human evidence with meta-analysis of human biomonitoring studies. Environment International, 172, 107739. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412023000120

Manea, A., et al. (2025). Endocrine and reproductive health considerations of sunscreen UV filters: insights from a comprehensive review 2014–2024. PMC. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12317922/

Santamaria, C.G., et al. (2019). Exposure to low doses of oxybenzone during perinatal development alters mammary gland morphology in male and female mice. Reproductive Toxicology, 89, 40–50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0890623819300127

DiNardo, J.C., & Downs, C.A. (2018). Dermatological and environmental toxicological impact of the sunscreen ingredient oxybenzone/benzophenone-3. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 17(1), 15–19. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29086472/

CDC National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (oxybenzone biomonitoring data). Summary via EWG: https://www.ewg.org/research/cdc-americans-carry-body-burden-toxic-sunscreen-chemical

Triclosan

Homburg, M., et al. (2022). The influence of triclosan on the thyroid hormone system in humans — a systematic review. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 13, 883827. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2022.883827/full

Kim, J., et al. (2019). Relationship between triclosan exposure and thyroid hormones: the Second Korean National Environmental Health Survey (2012–2014). Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 31, e26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6779949/

Stoker, T.E., Gibson, E.K., & Zorrilla, L.M. (2010). Triclosan exposure modulates estrogen-dependent responses in the female Wistar rat. Toxicological Sciences, 117(1), 45–53. [Referenced in multiple reviews including Kim et al., 2019.]

BHA (Butylated Hydroxyanisole)

Ionescu, J.G., et al. (2015). Endocrine disrupting effects of butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA). Clujul Medical, 88(3), 413–418. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4462476/

European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). Scientific advice on the safety of butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) as a substance with potential endocrine-disrupting properties. https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/502956f3-471d-4e2d-899f-08aa4511bb90_en

National Toxicology Program (NTP) classification of BHA as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B). Referenced via California EPA Proposition 65 list.

BHT (Butylated Hydroxytoluene)

UK Scientific Advisory Group on Cosmetic Safety (SAGCS). (2023). Final opinion on butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) — insufficient evidence to classify as endocrine active. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/651547ed7c2c4a001395e14d/sag-cs-opinion-11-butylated-hydroxytoluene-in-cosmetic-products.pdf

Burnett, C., et al. (2023). BHT — Butylated Hydroxytoluene: CIR Expert Panel safety re-assessment. International Journal of Toxicology, 42(3_suppl), 17S–19S. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37751543/

Chrisler, W.B., et al. (2022). A New Approach Methodology (NAM) based assessment of butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) for endocrine disruption potential — review of ANSES hypothesis on thyroid disruption via CYP450 induction. PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36161505/

Environmental Working Group. (2025). Despite health harm concerns, BHA and BHT remain in food and cosmetics — liver/kidney toxicity findings summary. https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2025/04/despite-health-harm-concerns-bha-and-bht-remain-food-and-cosmetics

PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances)

Evich, M.G., et al. (2022). Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance toxicity and human health review: current state of knowledge and strategies for informing future research. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 41(12), 2926–2953. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7906952/

Knutsen, H.K., et al. (2021). Endocrine disruptor potential of short- and long-chain perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) — a synthesis of current knowledge with proposal of molecular mechanism. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22(5), 2329. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7926449/

Goodrich, J.A., et al. (2024). Exposure to a combination of PFAS disrupts lipid and amino acid metabolism and alters thyroid hormone function. Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California. https://keck.usc.edu/news/keck-school-of-medicine-study-finds-forever-chemicals-disrupt-key-biological-processes/

Endocrine Society & IPEN. (2024). Endocrine-disrupting chemicals in PFAS, plastics, and pesticides: latest science and global health implications. https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2024/latest-science-shows-endocrine-disrupting-chemicals-in-pose-health-threats-globally

General / Background

Endocrine Society. PFAS chemicals: EDCs contaminating our water and food supply. https://www.endocrine.org/topics/edc/what-edcs-are/common-edcs/pfas

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). Endocrine disruptors overview and ongoing research. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine