Information and disclosure
We look for a complete, current ingredient list or relevant material information. Unexplained proprietary blends, incomplete fragrance disclosure and conflicting formulas reduce our confidence.
Hello Charlie ingredients standards
What we choose matters. What we say no to matters too.
We review products to help families spend less time decoding ingredient lists and marketing claims. Our standards consider the complete formula, how a product is used, who it is designed for and whether the brand provides enough information for an informed decision.
“An ingredient name alone rarely tells the whole story. Context, concentration and product use matter.”
Editorial standards—not a medical diagnosis or official regulatory assessment.
Whole-formula reviewwe do not judge a product from one marketing claim or one ingredient alone
Category-specific standardsbaby wash, toothpaste, sunscreen and cleaning products require different questions
Clear trade-offswe explain preferences and considerations without labelling every alternative unsafe
Our approach
A preference framework—not a universal “toxic” list.
Older versions of this policy used the language of a single banned-ingredients list. In practice, responsible product assessment is more nuanced. The same ingredient can have a different role and exposure profile in a rinse-off cleanser, a leave-on cream, a toothpaste, a household cleaner or a regulated therapeutic product.
We therefore apply category-specific preferences. Some substances or material choices sit outside our framework in most circumstances. Others are reviewed carefully according to concentration, product format, age group, frequency of use, exposure route, regulatory status and the quality of supplier disclosure.
We also distinguish between a hazard and the actual risk presented by a finished product. Dose, exposure and intended use matter. A product that aligns less closely with our preferences is not automatically unsafe or unlawful.
Our role is to make the reasoning visible, so families can choose according to their own needs, sensitivities and priorities.
Important: “Natural”, “organic”, “plant-based”, “vegan” and “chemical-free” are not substitutes for a full formula review. Natural ingredients can irritate or sensitise, while some synthetic ingredients can improve stability, preservation and product safety.
How we review a product
Three layers of review before a recommendation is made.
Ingredients are only one part of the decision. We also consider product use, transparency, materials, claims and the broader brand context.
Formula and product context
We consider why each ingredient is present, whether the product is rinse-off or leave-on, its intended age group, likely frequency of use and whether a simpler or more transparent option is available.
Claims, brand and practical fit
We compare the marketing with the evidence available, review relevant certifications and consider whether the product performs well enough to be a realistic choice for families.
How decisions are expressed
Not every ingredient fits into a simple yes-or-no box.
Clear and appropriately formulated
Products with good disclosure, purposeful ingredients, suitable preservation and fewer unnecessary additions tend to align more strongly with our preferences.
Acceptability depends on context
Some ingredients require closer review because suitability can depend on the concentration, age group, format, exposure route, sensitivities or quality of manufacturing controls.
Outside our preferred framework
We generally decline products when avoidable ingredients, insufficient disclosure, unsuitable material choices or unsupported claims create a meaningful concern for the intended use.
Category-specific standards
Different products need different questions.
We do not assess a wooden toy, a baby wash and a sunscreen under one identical checklist.
Baby and family skincare
We consider fragrance, allergens, preservatives, leave-on exposure, essential oils, formula complexity and suitability for the intended age group.
Toothpaste and oral care
Oral products require consideration of age, swallowing risk, abrasivity, flavouring, active ingredients and whether the product is cosmetic or therapeutically regulated.
Sunscreens and therapeutic goods
Many sunscreens and other health-related products are regulated therapeutic goods. We consider Australian regulatory status, active ingredients, directions, age suitability and formulation preferences.
Cleaning and household products
We review disclosure, fragrance, surfactants, preservatives, product concentration, intended use, ventilation and aquatic or environmental considerations where information is available.
Nappies and wipes
We consider lotion ingredients, fragrance, chlorine-related claims, absorbent materials, adhesives, certifications, transparency and fit-for-purpose performance.
Toys, feeding and food contact
For non-cosmetic goods, our focus shifts to materials, coatings, dyes, plasticisers, heavy metals, food-contact suitability, durability and relevant product-safety standards.
What we generally avoid or scrutinise
Ingredient and material groups that trigger a closer review.
This is not an exhaustive blacklist and does not mean every listed substance is prohibited in Australia or unsafe in every use. It explains the areas where our editorial preferences are more cautious.
Undisclosed fragrance, parfum and masking blends
We prefer fragrance-free products for babies, sensitive users and frequent leave-on use. Where fragrance is included, we look for clearer disclosure and consider the product category, exposure and intended audience.
“Fragrance”, “parfum”, “aroma” or a proprietary essential-oil blend can represent multiple components that are not individually shown on the consumer label. Natural fragrance is not automatically non-sensitising.
Examples we scrutinise: parfum, fragrance, aroma, unspecified masking fragrance, undisclosed essential-oil blends.
Formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing preservatives
We generally avoid intentionally added formaldehyde and commonly recognised formaldehyde-releasing preservatives in baby, family skincare and personal care products when suitable alternatives are available.
Examples: DMDM hydantoin, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, quaternium-15, bronopol (2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol) and sodium hydroxymethylglycinate.
Isothiazolinone preservatives
We take a cautious approach to methylisothiazolinone and methylchloroisothiazolinone, particularly in leave-on products and products intended for babies or sensitive skin. Product type and current regulatory restrictions matter.
Examples: methylisothiazolinone (MI or MIT), methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI or CMIT), and the MCI/MI combination.
Phthalates and poorly disclosed plasticisers
We generally prefer products and materials that avoid intentionally added phthalates, especially in children’s products, food-contact items and fragrance systems. We also look for meaningful material disclosure rather than a broad “BPA-free” claim alone.
Examples: DEHP, DBP, BBP, DINP and other restricted or higher-concern phthalates, depending on product type and jurisdiction.
Bisphenols, PVC and heavy metals in children’s products
For feeding products, toys and items likely to be mouthed, we prefer materials with clear food-contact or product-safety information and avoid intentionally added lead, cadmium and unsuitable bisphenol or PVC-based material choices where better alternatives are available.
Examples we consider: BPA, BPS and related bisphenols; PVC and its plasticisers; lead and cadmium in paints, coatings or materials.
PFAS and unnecessary fluorinated treatments
We prefer products without intentionally added PFAS or broad fluorinated stain-, grease- or water-resistant treatments where the function is not necessary and an appropriate alternative exists.
PFAS is a large chemical family, so meaningful supplier disclosure and product-specific information are important.
Unnecessary antibacterial agents and persistent antimicrobials
We question whether an antibacterial claim or antimicrobial ingredient is needed for the intended use. We generally avoid triclosan in everyday personal-care and household products and scrutinise quaternary ammonium compounds according to product type and exposure.
Examples: triclosan, triclocarban, benzalkonium chloride and benzethonium chloride where their use is not clearly justified.
Ethoxylated ingredients and manufacturing impurities
Ethoxylated ingredients are not automatically rejected solely because of their names. However, the manufacturing process can create impurities such as 1,4-dioxane or ethylene oxide if purification and quality controls are inadequate. We therefore consider supplier transparency, product type and certification or testing information where available.
Names that can indicate ethoxylation: PEG compounds, ceteareth, laureth, oleth, myreth, polysorbates and ingredients ending in “-eth”. These names trigger review rather than an automatic safety verdict.
Nitrosamine-related formulation concerns
We scrutinise formulations containing certain ethanolamines or ingredients that may create nitrosamine-related concerns under unsuitable manufacturing or formulation conditions.
Examples: DEA, cocamide DEA, lauramide DEA and combinations of amines with nitrosating agents. TEA and MEA are reviewed in context rather than automatically treated as equivalent in every product.
Certain UV filters, hair dyes and specialised actives
Ingredients used as UV filters, hair colourants, skin-lightening agents or other specialised actives are reviewed according to the current Australian regulatory framework, concentration, product claims and intended use.
Examples receiving closer review: oxybenzone (benzophenone-3), hydroquinone, p-phenylenediamine (PPD) and retinoid derivatives. This page does not replace product-specific medical or regulatory advice.
Unnecessary colour, flavour and decorative additives
We prefer simpler formulations for babies and sensitive users. Colour, flavour, shimmer and decorative additives are reviewed according to their purpose and the product category rather than rejected solely because they are synthetic.
Examples: synthetic colours, lakes, unnecessary flavour systems, glitter or decorative particulates in products intended for young children.
Ingredients we assess in context
“Contains” does not always mean “reject”.
A number of commonly debated ingredients cannot be responsibly assessed from their name alone. We may accept, rate with considerations or decline a product depending on the formula and intended use.
- Preservatives: a properly preserved water-based product can be safer than an inadequately preserved “preservative-free” formula.
- Phenoxyethanol, benzyl alcohol, sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate: reviewed according to concentration, format, age group and full formula.
- Parabens: not treated as one identical group; specific substances, permitted use and available alternatives require separate consideration.
- SLS, SLES and cocamidopropyl betaine: cleansing strength, impurities, rinse-off use and sensitivity considerations matter.
- Propylene glycol, petrolatum and silicones: origin alone does not determine finished-product safety or suitability.
- Essential oils: natural origin does not remove sensitisation, concentration or age-suitability considerations.
- Aluminium compounds: reviewed according to the specific compound, product type and use rather than broad internet claims.
What we say no to
Fear-based claims are not part of our standard.
The strongest ingredients policy is not the one with the longest blacklist. It is the one that explains decisions accurately, acknowledges uncertainty and avoids making claims larger than the evidence.
- We do not describe products as “chemical-free”; everything is made of chemicals.
- We do not claim that natural automatically means safe, gentle or non-allergenic.
- We do not treat one ingredient as proof that an entire product is good or bad.
- We do not call every product outside our preferences toxic or unlawful.
- We do not promise that every stocked product will suit every allergy, sensitivity or family.
Formula changes and ongoing review
Ingredient standards are not a one-time checklist.
Brands reformulate, labels change and new evidence or regulatory guidance emerges. We update our assessment when meaningful new information becomes available.
1
We request current information
We prefer full ingredient lists, current packaging details and supporting information from the brand or Australian supplier.
2
We compare the current formula
Where a product has changed, we review the new formulation rather than relying indefinitely on an older label or recommendation.
3
We update our editorial position
A product may remain preferred, move to a recommendation with considerations or no longer fit our current range.
4
We state what we could verify
Our Cheat Sheets identify formula-check dates and verification status where applicable, because transparency includes acknowledging incomplete information.
Regulatory and reference sources
Where we look for context.
No single database answers every product question. Depending on the category, we may consult Australian regulation, ingredient databases, supplier documents, product labels and recognised certification standards.
AICIS
Australian information on cosmetic ingredients and industrial-chemical obligations.
Therapeutic Goods Administration
Guidance on the distinction between cosmetics and regulated therapeutic goods.
ACCC Product Safety
Australian consumer-product and cosmetics ingredient-labelling requirements.
European Commission CosIng
An official reference database for cosmetic ingredients and EU regulatory annexes.
Ingredients FAQ
Common questions about our standards.
Our answers reflect Hello Charlie’s editorial preferences and are designed to help families understand our approach.
Does Hello Charlie guarantee that every product is non-toxic?
No retailer can responsibly guarantee that every product will be suitable for every person or circumstance. We assess products against our own category-specific preferences and available information. Individual allergies, sensitivities, medical conditions and use patterns still matter.
Why not publish one permanent banned-ingredients list?
Product use, concentration, exposure, age group and regulation differ across categories. A fixed universal blacklist can become outdated and can also imply that every unlisted ingredient is automatically preferred. We instead publish the groups that trigger avoidance or closer review and explain where context matters.
Are all preservatives bad?
No. Water-based products need an effective preservation system to control microbial growth. We assess the preservative, concentration, complete formula, packaging, expected use and intended age group. “Preservative-free” is not automatically safer.
Does organic or natural certification guarantee a perfect formula?
No. Certifications can provide valuable information about sourcing, processing or permitted ingredients, but they do not guarantee that a product will suit every sensitivity or align perfectly with all of Hello Charlie’s preferences.
Can formulas change after Hello Charlie has reviewed a product?
Yes. Manufacturers can reformulate or update suppliers and packaging. We review meaningful changes when they come to our attention, but customers should also check the current product label, especially when managing an allergy or known sensitivity.
Is this page medical or regulatory advice?
No. It explains Hello Charlie’s editorial and stocking preferences. Seek advice from a qualified health professional for medical questions and from the relevant regulator or a regulatory specialist for legal or compliance advice.
Important disclaimer
Hello Charlie’s ingredient standards are editorial preferences based on the information available to us, including product labels, supplier information, formulation choices, transparency and suitability for everyday family use. They are not official safety classifications, regulatory approvals, toxicology assessments or medical advice.
An ingredient or product that sits outside our preferred framework is not automatically unsafe, illegal or unsuitable for every family. Product safety and suitability depend on the complete formulation, concentration, exposure, intended use, individual sensitivities and compliance with applicable Australian requirements. Always follow the current product label and seek professional advice where appropriate.
Policy consolidated and editorially reviewed: July 2026.