04/10/2026
When it comes to ingredients, people often point to Europe as having “better” regulations than the US, but like most things, that’s an oversimplification.
The EU does take a more precautionary approach (better safe than sorry), but it’s not a perfect system. Instead of thinking EU = good and US = bad, it’s more helpful to understand the different frameworks they use, especially hazard vs risk.
A hazard is something that can cause harm. A risk is the likelihood that harm actually occurs based on exposure.
The EU leans on a hazard-based approach, meaning if a substance is known or suspected to be harmful, it can be restricted or phased out, even if evidence isn’t absolute or typical exposure is low. This reflects the precautionary principle, and is why people generally say that their regulations are more protective. The goal is to remove harmful substances ✨before✨ they pose a risk rather than waiting for harm to be proven.
In the US, regulators use a risk-based approach, focusing on whether exposure levels are likely to cause harm. But because chemicals are so widespread, exposure can come from dozens or even hundreds of sources, making it very difficult to measure accurately. This means risk assessments rarely paint a complete picture.
This is why we end up regulating after harm has already been identified - a little “innocent until proven guilty” approach. While our chemical policy here had been updated (the biggest one was the end of 2016), and new chemicals generally require some degree of safety data, and older ones are being reevaluated, this process is slow. Very, very slow.
Currently, there are proposed changes to TSCA, our primary law regulating chemicals, that would allow more dangerous chemicals to be used, among some other not-so-good stuff. I’ll do a separate post on that, though!
I know policy stuff can be kind of boring, but it helps us better understand the “Europe does it better!” claims!
Was this a helpful breakdown? LMK in the comments!
