The Glow Formulation Index.
Glow's editorial ingredient transparency layer. A four-grade rubric. A 40-ingredient watch list, public and revisable. The standard against which every product reviewed on Glow is also assessed for what's actually in it.
Why this exists.
Most beauty publications review what a product does. Most ingredient apps — Yuka, Think Dirty, EWG Skin Deep — review what's in it. Both are useful. Neither is sufficient on its own.
A 9.5/10 sunscreen with phenoxyethanol at 0.4% is not a 4/10 product just because phenoxyethanol exists in it. A clean-rated lipstick that doesn't survive a coffee is not a good lipstick because the ingredient list is short. The reader needs both signals — the editorial verdict, and the formulation transparency — and they need them in the same place, with the same publication accountable for both.
The Glow Formulation Index is the second signal. Every brand review on Glow now publishes the editorial verdict (the score) and the formulation grade (the Index) side by side. They do not override each other. They are two different questions, with two different answers, calibrated against the same product.
The four-grade rubric.
Every reviewed product is assigned a single Index grade based on the worst-flagged ingredient on the watch list relative to its concentration in the product, where stated, or its assumed typical concentration where not stated.
The grade is informational, not the verdict. A product can carry a Grade C Index and still earn a 9.0 editorial score, if the formulation works for the user the product was designed for. The Grade is a transparency layer. The reader decides if they care.
How this is different from Yuka, EWG, INCI Decoder.
Scans barcodes, scores 0–100 per product. Highly accessible but methodologically blunt — flags ingredients in isolation, not in formulation context. Phenoxyethanol at 0.4% (well within the EU 1% safe limit) gets flagged red. Salicylic acid (the only acne treatment with twenty years of clinical evidence) gets flagged red. Useful as a triage tool, insufficient as an editorial standard.
Comprehensive ingredient database scored 1–10 by hazard. Underlying data is peer-reviewed. Methodology has been criticised for over-weighting in-vitro studies and ignoring concentration thresholds. Useful for ingredient-level research, not for product-level verdicts.
The most pharmacologically rigorous of the three. Editorial commentary on each ingredient by a working chemist. Excellent reference. No product-level scoring — entirely ingredient-by-ingredient.
Built for editorial use, not consumer-app use. Concentration-aware. Product-category-aware (a fragrance ingredient at 1% in body lotion is not the same flag as 1% in eye cream). Updated quarterly by Glow's senior editor with public revision history. Sits beside the editorial verdict, never overrides it.
The watch list · v1.0
Forty ingredients tracked in v1.0. The full machine-readable JSON is at /data/glow-formulation-index.json — CC-BY-4.0 licensed. Cite Glow when reusing.
| Ingredient | Category | Concern | Editorial verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phenoxyethanol | Preservative | Low | Safe within EU/TGA limit |
| Parabens (methyl-, ethyl-, propyl-) | Preservative | Low | Safe within EU/TGA limit |
| Butyl/isobutyl parabens | Preservative | High | Banned EU since 2014 |
| Sulfates (SLS, SLES) | Surfactant | Moderate | Flag for sensitive skin |
| Silicones (dimethicone, cyclopentasiloxane) | Emollient | None | Performance neutral |
| Fragrance / Parfum | Sensory | Moderate | Flag for sensitive skin |
| Denatured alcohol | Solvent | Moderate | Flag for dry/mature skin |
| Mineral oil | Occlusive | Low | Performance neutral (cosmetic-grade) |
| Octocrylene | SPF filter | Moderate | Safe within limit |
| Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3) | SPF filter | High | Flag — endocrine concern |
| Avobenzone | SPF filter | Low | Safe with stabiliser |
| Mexoryl 400 / Tinosorb S | SPF filter | None | Editorial preferred |
| Zinc oxide | SPF filter | None | Editorial preferred |
| Titanium dioxide | SPF filter | None | Editorial preferred |
| Retinol & retinoid esters | Active | Contraindication | Pregnancy contraindication |
| Salicylic acid (BHA) | Active | Contraindication | Pregnancy precaution |
| Glycolic acid (AHA) | Active | Low | Safe with SPF |
| Hydroquinone | Active | High | Prescription only AU |
| Formaldehyde / releasers | Preservative | High | Flag — editorial avoid |
| Triclosan | Antibacterial | High | Banned EU 2017 |
| Phthalates (DEP, DEHP, DBP) | Plasticiser | High | Flag — undisclosed in fragrance |
| Niacinamide | Active | None | Editorial preferred |
| Hyaluronic acid | Hydrator | None | Safe |
| Ceramides | Barrier | None | Editorial preferred |
| Squalane | Emollient | None | Safe |
| Vitamin C / L-Ascorbic Acid | Active | None | Editorial preferred |
| Vitamin E / Tocopherol | Antioxidant | None | Safe |
| Coconut oil | Occlusive | Low | Flag for acne-prone |
| Lanolin | Emollient | Low | Flag for sensitive |
| Talc | Powder | Moderate | Safe with asbestos-free certification |
| Aluminium salts (deodorant) | Antiperspirant | Moderate | Performance vs concern trade-off |
| BHA / BHT (preservatives) | Preservative | Low | Safe within limit |
| Fragrance allergens (limonene, linalool, etc) | Sensory | Moderate | Flag for sensitive skin |
| Essential oils | Sensory | Moderate | Flag for sensitive skin |
| Witch hazel | Astringent | Low | Flag if alcohol-extracted |
| Benzoyl peroxide | Active | Low | Safe — drying |
| Resorcinol | Active | High | Flag — endocrine concern |
| Synthetic dyes (CI numbers) | Colour | Low | Safe within approval |
| PEGs (polyethylene glycols) | Emulsifier | Low | Safe |
The editorial firewall.
Five rules govern how the Index is maintained:
- The Index does not override the verdict. The Glow editorial score is the primary review output. The Index sits beside it as informational transparency.
- No brand can pay to influence its own grade. Same firewall as the editorial review. Brand outreach about an Index grade is documented and ignored.
- Public revision history. The watch list JSON is versioned. Any change to an ingredient's classification is announced in the next Glow Edit newsletter with the editorial reasoning.
- Quarterly review by senior editor. Hannah Pham (senior editor, no commercial ties) reviews every flagged ingredient against latest published research each quarter. Disagreements are documented in the changelog.
- Open licence. The watch-list JSON is CC-BY-4.0. Other publications, retailers, and brands may use it, with credit to Glow. The data is the moat; sharing it expands the moat.
Appeals and corrections.
If a brand believes a product has been mis-graded, the appeals process is:
- Email [email protected] with the brand, product, current Index grade, and the specific concern with reasoning.
- If the appeal is on factual grounds (e.g. concentration data not previously disclosed), the senior editor reviews within ten business days and updates the Index if the data warrants it.
- If the appeal is on methodological grounds (the brand believes the watch list is wrong), the appeal is added to the next quarterly methodology review, with the brand named in the changelog.
- No financial relationship is ever offered, accepted, or implied as part of an appeal. The appeal process is editorial.
The list of 40 is just the beginning.
v1.0 covers the most-asked ingredients across skincare, SPF, hair, and wellness. v2.0 (target October 2026) adds 60 more ingredients across colour cosmetics, hair-care, body-care and ingestibles. The watch list is open-source — submit additions or corrections at [email protected].
Download the v1.0 JSON →