Table of Contents
An ingredient is not a claim. It is a biological question.
Ingredient science begins where label reading stops.
A label can tell you what is in a product. It cannot tell you what that ingredient will do once biology gets involved.
That difference matters. Ingredient culture often treats familiar names as answers: collagen, niacinamide, polyphenols, peptides, ceramides, postbiotics, adaptogens, NAD+ precursors, antioxidants, botanicals. Once the name appears, the promise can start to feel almost automatic.
Biology is less impressed by names.
A compound can be chemically interesting and still weak in practice. A mechanism can be real and still too indirect to matter. A formulation can be clever and still not show a meaningful human outcome. A natural ingredient can be biologically active and still need safety context.
Ingredient Science is where those claims slow down long enough to become useful. The important question is not whether an ingredient is trendy, natural, ancient, advanced or clinically decorated. It is what the ingredient can realistically do after identity, dose, route, exposure, formulation, evidence and context are taken seriously (Dima et al., 2020; Guyatt et al., 2008; Higgins et al., 2024; Rein et al., 2013).
Some ingredient claims are well supported, useful and biologically meaningful. Others are plausible but incomplete, or marketed beyond what the evidence can carry. The goal is not to assume the claim is false. It is to understand what kind of claim the biology can actually support.
That means asking better questions: What is the compound? What form is it in? Where can it go? What dose or exposure matters? How is it delivered? What mechanism is plausible? What human evidence exists? Where does the claim become larger than the science?
Ingredient Science begins where label reading stops
Ingredient names are convenient. Biology is not.
A name on a label can hide many important differences: chemical form, extract standardization, molecular weight, concentration, purity, stability, delivery system, route of exposure and evidence quality. Two products can use the same ingredient name while asking very different biological questions (Bos & Meinardi, 2000; Dima et al., 2020; Prausnitz & Langer, 2008; Rein et al., 2013).
That does not make labels useless. Label reading is a starting point. It tells us what needs to be investigated. It does not tell us whether the ingredient reaches the right place, in the right form, at the right exposure, for a meaningful amount of time.
This is why ingredient science cannot stop at “contains X.”
A compound may have antioxidant chemistry in a lab, but that does not automatically mean it changes aging biology in a person. A botanical extract may have traditional use, but that does not define the active fraction, dose, safety profile or human outcome. A topical peptide or signaling ingredient may sound biologically sophisticated, but the relevant question is whether it reaches the target compartment and whether the outcome has been shown in people (Guyatt et al., 2008; Higgins et al., 2024; National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health [NCCIH], n.d.-a; Prausnitz & Langer, 2008).
The better question is not “Is this ingredient good?”
The better question is: what happens after the ingredient enters biology?
The core questions behind every ingredient claim
Before an ingredient claim can be taken seriously, it has to pass through a chain of questions. Not every article needs to answer all of them in the same depth. But the chain matters because weak claims often come from skipped steps (Dima et al., 2020; Guyatt et al., 2008; Higgins et al., 2024; Rein et al., 2013).
| Before believing an ingredient claim, ask this | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What is the ingredient, exactly? | Names can hide different chemical forms, extracts, fractions, molecular weights or delivery systems. |
| Can it reach the relevant place? | A mechanism needs exposure. Biology cannot respond to a compound that never reaches the relevant tissue or local target. |
| What dose or exposure was studied? | The amount on a label is not always the amount the body or tissue actually sees. |
| Is the route relevant? | Oral and topical ingredients ask different biological questions. Digestion is not skin penetration. Surface action is not systemic action. |
| Does formulation change the answer? | Stability, release and delivery can matter, but a delivery system does not prove a better outcome by itself. |
| What human evidence exists? | Human outcomes carry more practical weight than isolated mechanisms, animal studies or cell-culture findings. |
| Who needs caution? | Biological activity can include benefit, irritation, interaction or risk depending on dose, route, skin condition, medication use and life stage. |
This framework is not meant to make every ingredient sound doubtful. It is meant to make the right level of confidence possible.
Some ingredients have strong practical value in defined contexts. Some are biologically plausible but not yet settled. Some are interesting as mechanisms but overclaimed as consumer benefits. Some are mostly marketing stories built around a fragment of science.
The difference is rarely in the name alone. It is in the path from molecule to meaning.
From molecule to meaning: the biology that changes the answer
Mechanism is where the story begins, not where it ends.
An ingredient becomes meaningful only when its identity, exposure, route, formulation, target and evidence line up well enough to support the claim being made. If one link is weak, the claim may still be interesting, but it needs to become smaller.
Identity and form
The first question is simple: what are we actually talking about?
A single ingredient name can refer to different forms of a compound, different extracts, different active fractions, different levels of purity or different molecular sizes. That matters because chemistry shapes solubility, stability, absorption, metabolism and biological target engagement (Dima et al., 2020; Rein et al., 2013; Stielow et al., 2023).
For botanicals, this is especially important. A plant name is not the same thing as a standardized extract. Traditional use can point toward biological interest, but it does not automatically define the active molecules, dose, product quality or safety context (NCCIH, n.d.-a; NCCIH, n.d.-b).
For peptides, postbiotics, lipids, vitamins and other bioactives, form can also change interpretation. The question is not just whether the ingredient is present. The question is what form is present, and whether that form is relevant to the claim.
Dose and exposure
Dose only becomes biologically meaningful when it becomes exposure.
For oral ingredients, exposure depends on what happens during digestion, release from the food or capsule matrix, absorption through the gut, metabolism by the intestine or liver, distribution through circulation and elimination from the body. For many oral bioactives, the molecule on the label may not be the same form that reaches circulation or interacts with tissue (Dima et al., 2020; Rein et al., 2013; Stielow et al., 2023).
For topical ingredients, exposure is local. The question is whether the ingredient stays on the surface, partitions into the stratum corneum, reaches the viable epidermis or, for more demanding claims, reaches a deeper target compartment. Many useful topical effects do not require systemic absorption. Hydration, barrier support or surface-level action can be biologically relevant without pretending to be whole-body transformation (Bos & Meinardi, 2000; Prausnitz & Langer, 2008).
More exposure is not automatically better. Higher exposure can sometimes make an effect more likely, but it can also change the risk profile. Bioavailability is not a marketing trophy. It is part of the biological question (Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, 2023; Geller et al., 2015; National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements [NIH ODS], 2023).
Route of delivery
Route changes the question.
An oral ingredient has to survive, or be transformed by, digestion, absorption and metabolism. A topical ingredient has to interact with the skin barrier. A local ingredient may act where it is applied. A systemic claim requires a different level of evidence than a local claim (Bos & Meinardi, 2000; Dima et al., 2020; Prausnitz & Langer, 2008; Rein et al., 2013).
This is where many ingredient claims become slippery.
A compound discussed in the context of oral metabolism cannot be assumed to behave the same way when applied to skin. A topical ingredient that improves surface hydration should not automatically be described as remodeling deeper tissue. A systemic supplement claim should not be borrowed from a cell study unless exposure and human outcomes support the jump.
The route does not make a claim true or false by itself. It tells us which biology has to be examined.
Formulation and stability
Formulation can change the biological question. It does not automatically answer it.
Some compounds are unstable. Some oxidize easily. Some dissolve poorly. Some need protection from light, heat, oxygen or digestion. Some need a vehicle that helps them remain usable on the skin or become available after oral intake (Rezagholizade-Shirvan et al., 2024).
That is why delivery systems can matter. Encapsulation, liposomes, micelles, nanoemulsions, fermentation-derived actives and other formulation strategies may improve stability, release, solubility, absorption or local delivery in specific contexts (Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, 2023; Rezagholizade-Shirvan et al., 2024).
But “advanced delivery” is not the same as proven benefit.
A formulation can increase exposure without proving a meaningful outcome. It can change pharmacokinetics without proving better health. It can improve stability without proving clinical superiority. It can also increase exposure in ways that change safety considerations (Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, 2023; Guyatt et al., 2008; Higgins et al., 2024).
The strongest formulation claim is not “this technology is better.” It is “this formulation changes a specific biological step, and the evidence shows why that step matters.”
Biological target and pathway relevance
Before an ingredient can do anything useful, it has to matter to the pathway being discussed.
A mechanism can be real and still too far from the practical claim. Antioxidant activity in a test tube does not automatically become anti-aging benefit. An inflammatory marker shift does not automatically become meaningful symptom improvement. A collagen-related mechanism does not automatically become visible skin change. A mitochondrial signal does not automatically become better energy, resilience or longevity (Guyatt et al., 2008; Higgins et al., 2024).
This does not make mechanisms unimportant. It puts them in their proper place.
Mechanisms help explain why an ingredient might be worth studying. They help identify targets, pathways and plausible biological effects. They also help identify where marketing gets ahead of the evidence.
A good ingredient claim needs a target that makes sense for the outcome. A stronger ingredient claim also needs exposure and human evidence that match the claim.
Human evidence and outcome relevance
Human evidence is where a plausible story starts becoming a practical claim.
Different evidence answers different questions. A cell study can suggest a mechanism. An animal study can explore biology under controlled conditions. A pharmacokinetic study can show whether a compound or metabolite appears in circulation. A topical penetration study can show local access. A randomized trial can test whether a defined ingredient, dose, population and outcome changes in people (Guyatt et al., 2008; Higgins et al., 2024).
Those are not interchangeable.
A biomarker is not automatically a functional outcome. Better absorption is not automatically a clinical improvement. A statistically significant change is not automatically meaningful to the reader. A study using one dose, one formulation or one population cannot automatically be stretched across every product and every person (Guyatt et al., 2008; Higgins et al., 2024).
This is the difference between interesting science and a useful claim.
An ingredient can be worth discussing before it is proven. But the closer a claim gets to “this helps people,” the more human outcome evidence matters.
Safety and context
Safety is not a separate disclaimer added at the end. It is part of the biology.
If an ingredient is biologically active, context matters. Dose, route, concentration, product quality, skin condition, medications, pregnancy, surgery, chronic illness and the practice of stacking several products can all change the answer (Geller et al., 2015; NCCIH, n.d.-b; NIH ODS, 2023; U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA], 2022, 2024).
Natural does not mean safe. Traditional does not mean proven. Concentrated does not mean better. Gentle on one person’s skin does not mean gentle on compromised or irritation-prone skin (NCCIH, n.d.-a; NCCIH, n.d.-b; NIH ODS, 2023).
This is not a reason to dismiss natural ingredients, botanicals, supplements or topical actives. It is a reason to interpret them like real biological inputs.
Biology does not separate possible benefit from possible risk as neatly as marketing does. Exposure can create effects. Effects need context.
What this hub follows
Ingredient Science is not an ingredient dictionary. It is a map of biological questions.
The territories below are not separate silos. They are entry points into the same method: identify the ingredient, follow the route, examine the mechanism, weigh the evidence and keep the claim proportional.
Bioactive compounds and molecular mechanisms
This territory follows compounds through the pathways that make them biologically interesting.
That may include polyphenols, peptides, vitamins, minerals, lipids, amino acid derivatives, redox-active compounds and other molecules discussed because they interact with signaling, structure, metabolism, barrier biology or cellular stress responses.
The key word is not “bioactive.” Bioactive only means biologically active. It does not automatically mean useful, safe or clinically meaningful (Guyatt et al., 2008; Higgins et al., 2024).
Botanical extracts, adaptogens and traditional bioactives
Plant-derived ingredients can be biologically fascinating. They can also be over-romanticized.
A botanical claim needs more than a plant story. It needs identity, standardization, dose, route, mechanism, safety context and human evidence proportional to the claim. Traditional use can be a signal worth investigating, but it is not proof (NCCIH, n.d.-a; NCCIH, n.d.-b).
This territory keeps curiosity and discipline together. Natural compounds can matter. They still have to pass through biology.
Fermented, postbiotic and microbiome-active ingredients
Microbiome language is everywhere, but “supports the microbiome” is often too vague to be useful.
Microbiome-active ingredients need more precise questions. Are we talking about microbial metabolites? Barrier interaction? Immune signaling? Skin microbiome ecology? Gut microbial transformation? Topical application or oral intake? Human outcomes or early mechanism?
Fermented and postbiotic ingredients may be interesting because they connect molecules, microbes, barriers and immune signals. The claim still needs to say what is being affected, where, and with what level of evidence (Guyatt et al., 2008; Higgins et al., 2024).
Formulation, delivery and bioavailability
This territory focuses on the path between ingredient and exposure.
Bioavailability, bioaccessibility, topical penetration, encapsulation, release, solubility, stability and delivery systems can all shape whether a molecule has a realistic chance to matter. This is where ingredient science becomes more than label reading (Dima et al., 2020; Rein et al., 2013; Rezagholizade-Shirvan et al., 2024).
The key principle is simple: delivery can change the question. It does not automatically win the argument (Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, 2023; Guyatt et al., 2008).
Topical and barrier-active ingredients
Topical ingredients often act locally, and local action can be meaningful.
Some ingredients support hydration, surface feel, barrier function or the stratum corneum. Others are discussed through irritation, sensitization, microbiome interaction, pigmentation, collagen signaling or environmental stress. These are not the same claim (Bos & Meinardi, 2000; FDA, 2025; Prausnitz & Langer, 2008).
A barrier-support claim does not require the same evidence as a deep remodeling claim. A surface effect should not be dressed up as systemic biology. A topical ingredient deserves to be evaluated according to the layer, target and outcome being discussed.
Nutraceuticals and systemic bioactives
Oral bioactives raise systemic questions.
They have to pass through digestion, absorption, metabolism, distribution and safety context before a health claim becomes plausible. The same ingredient can look impressive in a biochemical pathway and still have limited practical effect if exposure is weak, the active metabolite is unclear, or the human outcome evidence does not match the claim (Dima et al., 2020; FDA, 2022, 2024; NIH ODS, 2023; Rein et al., 2013).
This territory includes nutrients, concentrated compounds and supplement-adjacent ingredients when the ingredient itself is the central question.
Emerging ingredient technologies and bioactive systems
Emerging does not mean false. It also does not mean proven.
Exosomes and vesicles, peptide systems, novel encapsulation, fermentation-derived actives, advanced delivery formats and other bioactive technologies deserve careful evaluation. The point is not to dismiss them early or celebrate them too quickly.
The more advanced the claim sounds, the more important the basic questions become: What is the system? What is being delivered? Where does it go? What evidence shows exposure? What evidence shows human outcomes? What safety context is known? (Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, 2023; Guyatt et al., 2008; Higgins et al., 2024; Rezagholizade-Shirvan et al., 2024).
How Ingredient Science connects to the other hubs
Ingredients do not stay neatly inside one category. A compound can matter because it interacts with barriers, metabolism, immune signaling, mitochondrial function, collagen turnover, cellular stress or aging biology.
The subject of the piece determines the hub.
| When the main question is… | The primary home is usually… |
|---|---|
| What is this ingredient, compound, extract, bioactive or delivery system, and what can it realistically do? | Ingredient Science |
| How does a barrier, skin condition, gut interface, mucosal surface, microbiome or immune-environment interaction work? | Barrier, Immunity, and Environmental Health |
| How does energy metabolism, inflammation, mitochondria, glucose regulation, recovery or physiological adaptation work? | Metabolism, Energy, and Resilience |
| How does biological aging, resilience loss, senescence, inflammaging, mitochondrial aging or healthspan biology work? | Aging and Longevity Biology |
Barrier, Immunity, and Environmental Health
Ingredients connect here when they affect the skin barrier, gut barrier, mucosal surfaces, microbiome, irritation, sensitization, immune tolerance, inflammatory signaling or environmental reactivity.
A barrier-active ingredient may belong in Ingredient Science when the ingredient is the subject. A condition-centered article about barrier dysfunction, sensitive skin, eczema, acne, gut permeability or environmental exposure may belong in Barrier, Immunity, and Environmental Health.
The difference is the main biological question.
Metabolism, Energy, and Resilience
Ingredients connect here when they are discussed through mitochondrial function, glucose metabolism, oxidative stress, inflammatory tone, nutrient sensing, exercise adaptation, recovery or physiological resilience.
If the ingredient is the subject, Ingredient Science can examine the compound and the evidence behind its claim. If the article is really about metabolic flexibility, fatigue biology, sleep, exercise adaptation or systemic inflammation, the dominant mechanism belongs in Metabolism, Energy, and Resilience.
Aging and Longevity Biology
Ingredients often enter longevity territory through collagen turnover, NAD+ biology, mitochondrial aging, senescence, inflammaging, autophagy, proteostasis or healthspan claims.
This is where claim discipline matters most. A compound can be interesting for aging biology without being a rejuvenation tool. A biomarker can move without proving healthspan. A mechanism can be plausible without showing functional benefit in people (Guyatt et al., 2008; Higgins et al., 2024).
Ingredient Science can evaluate longevity-adjacent compounds. Aging and Longevity Biology asks the broader question of how aging mechanisms develop, interact and shape resilience over time.
How evidence is weighed here
Different evidence answers different questions. Treating all “science” as the same is one of the easiest ways to inflate an ingredient claim (Guyatt et al., 2008; Higgins et al., 2024).
| Evidence type | Question it helps answer | What it does not prove by itself |
|---|---|---|
| Cell or mechanistic study | Why might this ingredient matter biologically? | That it produces a meaningful human benefit. |
| Animal or preclinical study | What pathways or effects might be worth investigating? | That the same effect occurs in people using consumer products. |
| Pharmacokinetic or penetration study | Does the compound, metabolite or topical ingredient reach a relevant biological space? | That exposure changes a meaningful outcome. |
| Formulation or stability study | Does the delivery system change stability, release, solubility or exposure? | That the product produces better real-world results. |
| Human trial | Does a defined ingredient, dose, population and outcome change in people? | That all forms, doses, products and populations will respond the same way. |
| Systematic review | What does the broader human evidence suggest? | That every individual study or product claim is equally strong. |
| Safety or adverse event data | Who might need caution, and where might exposure create risk? | Absolute safety across all users, doses and contexts. |
This is not about dismissing early science. Early science can be valuable. It can show why a compound is worth studying, where a mechanism might fit, or why a marketing claim is getting ahead of itself.
The key is to keep the weight of the claim matched to the weight of the evidence.
Mechanism can make an ingredient worth discussing. Exposure data can make a mechanism more plausible. Human outcome evidence can make a practical claim stronger. Safety evidence keeps biological activity in context.
Explore Ingredient Science through these paths
This hub grows through pieces that treat ingredients as biological questions, not as label decorations.
Mechanism explainers
These pieces clarify the biological ideas behind ingredient claims: bioavailability, dose, route, target relevance, antioxidant overreach, inflammation claims, formulation science and evidence hierarchy.
Ingredient deep dives
These pieces examine specific compounds, ingredient families or bioactive systems through mechanism, exposure, human evidence and claim limits.
Formulation and delivery
These pieces look at how stability, encapsulation, release, topical penetration and oral bioavailability change the biological question.
Safety and claim discipline
These pieces keep ingredient interpretation grounded in real-world context: product quality, interactions, stacking, concentration, irritation, formulation claims and the difference between “studied” and meaningful.
Cross-hub ingredient stories
Some ingredients are best understood through the mechanisms they connect: barrier function, immune signaling, oxidative stress, metabolic resilience, microbiome activity, inflammaging and aging biology.
Selected scientific sources behind this framework
This hub page is based on broad principles from bioavailability research, skin penetration and transdermal delivery science, supplement and cosmetic safety guidance, formulation science and evidence-quality methods. It is not a full evidence review of every ingredient category listed above.
Key sources behind the framework include reviews on bioavailability and bioaccessibility of bioactive compounds, foundational work on skin penetration and transdermal delivery, regulatory and institutional guidance from FDA, NIH Office of Dietary Supplements and NCCIH, and evidence-assessment frameworks such as Cochrane and GRADE (Bos & Meinardi, 2000; Dima et al., 2020; FDA, 2022, 2024, 2025; Guyatt et al., 2008; Higgins et al., 2024; NCCIH, n.d.-a, n.d.-b; NIH ODS, 2023; Prausnitz & Langer, 2008; Rein et al., 2013; Rezagholizade-Shirvan et al., 2024).
The practical takeaway
An ingredient is a starting point, not an answer.
Some ingredients matter. Some might matter. Some are interesting but early. Some are mostly marketing stories with a mechanism attached.
The difference is not in the name alone. It is in the biological path: identity, route, exposure, formulation, target relevance, human evidence and context.
That is the reflex this hub is built to strengthen.
Before believing the claim, follow the molecule.
References
Bos, J. D., & Meinardi, M. M. H. M. (2000). The 500 Dalton rule for the skin penetration of chemical compounds and drugs. Experimental Dermatology, 9(3), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0625.2000.009003165.x
Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. (2023). Discussion paper on novel formulations of supplement compounds designed to increase oral bioavailability. UK Food Standards Agency. https://cot.food.gov.uk/Discussion%20Paper%20on%20Novel%20Formulations%20of%20Supplement%20Compounds%20Designed%20to%20Increase%20Oral%20Bioavailability
Dima, C., Assadpour, E., Dima, S., & Jafari, S. M. (2020). Bioavailability and bioaccessibility of food bioactive compounds; overview and assessment by in vitro methods. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 19(6), 2862–2884. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12623
Geller, A. I., Shehab, N., Weidle, N. J., Lovegrove, M. C., Wolpert, B. J., Timbo, B. B., Mozersky, R. P., & Budnitz, D. S. (2015). Emergency department visits for adverse events related to dietary supplements. New England Journal of Medicine, 373(16), 1531–1540. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1504267
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., Schünemann, H. J., & GRADE Working Group. (2008). GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, 336(7650), 924–926. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., et al. (Eds.). (2024). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 6.5, updated August 2024). Cochrane. https://www.cochrane.org/handbook
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. (n.d.-a). Natural doesn’t necessarily mean safer, or better. https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/know-science/natural-doesnt-mean-better
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. (n.d.-b). Herb-drug interactions. https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/providers/digest/herb-drug-interactions
National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements. (2023). Dietary supplements: What you need to know. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/WYNTK-Consumer/
Prausnitz, M. R., & Langer, R. (2008). Transdermal drug delivery. Nature Biotechnology, 26(11), 1261–1268. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1504
Rein, M. J., Renouf, M., Cruz-Hernandez, C., Actis-Goretta, L., Thakkar, S. K., & da Silva Pinto, M. (2013). Bioavailability of bioactive food compounds: A challenging journey to bioefficacy. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 75(3), 588–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04425.x
Rezagholizade-Shirvan, A., Soltani, M., Shokri, S., Radfar, R., Arab, M., & Shamloo, E. (2024). Bioactive compound encapsulation: Characteristics, applications in food systems, and implications for human health. Food Chemistry: X, 24, 101953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2024.101953
Stielow, M., Witczyńska, A., Kubryń, N., Fijałkowski, Ł., Nowaczyk, J., & Nowaczyk, A. (2023). The bioavailability of drugs: The current state of knowledge. Molecules, 28(24), 8038. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28248038
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2022). FDA 101: Dietary supplements. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/fda-101-dietary-supplements
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Questions and answers on dietary supplements. https://www.fda.gov/food/information-consumers-using-dietary-supplements/questions-and-answers-dietary-supplements
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2025). FDA authority over cosmetics: How cosmetics are not FDA-approved, but are FDA-regulated. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/fda-authority-over-cosmetics-how-cosmetics-are-not-fda-approved-are-fda-regulated