Methodology
Every guide on Everyday Materials follows the same research and writing process. This page documents that process so you can evaluate the work on its merits.
How topics are selected
Topics come from three sources: (1) direct reader questions, (2) materials that appear in common consumer products where safety claims are contested or confusing, and (3) emerging chemicals of regulatory interest — the EPA’s TSCA work plan, ECHA’s SVHC candidate list, Proposition 65 listings. Topics are prioritized by how often real people need to make decisions about them and how confusing the existing information landscape is.
Source hierarchy
Not all sources are equal. Guides prioritize in this order:
Tier 1 — Primary research and official regulatory documents. Peer-reviewed studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, government agency technical reports (EPA, FDA, CDC, WHO, EFSA, ECHA, NIOSH), and the testing standards they reference.
Tier 2 — Secondary synthesis from authoritative bodies. Position statements from established medical and scientific organizations (American Academy of Pediatrics, ACS, Consumer Reports independent testing), regulatory fact sheets, well-cited review articles.
Tier 3 — Reliable journalism. Investigative reporting from outlets with demonstrated science-reporting track records, when they’re citing Tier 1 sources I can verify independently.
Blog posts, industry marketing, and single-study claims without replication are not accepted as evidence. Industry-funded research is cited only when it’s the available evidence — and the funding source is always disclosed.
How verdicts are assigned
Each guide lands on one of three verdicts:
Safe — The weight of current evidence supports normal, common-sense use. No credible mechanism of harm at realistic exposure levels. Any narrow conditions under which the material should still be avoided are specified (e.g., kidney-impaired individuals, extreme temperatures).
Caution — Evidence suggests harm is possible under specific conditions (heat, acidity, damage, prolonged exposure). The material is usable if those conditions are avoided. Guides specify what to do and not do.
Avoid — Either clear evidence of harm at realistic exposure levels, or a recognized regulatory action (ban, restriction, SVHC listing) that supports removal from normal use. Alternatives are always provided.
These verdicts reflect research weight, not personal risk tolerance. A “Caution” rating means be thoughtful, not this will hurt you.
Update policy
Guides are reviewed on a rolling basis when a new peer-reviewed study or meta-analysis is published, a regulatory body issues new guidance, a reader flags a missed source, or twelve months have passed since the last review. Each guide displays its publish date and most recent review date. Substantive changes are logged in a visible change note on the guide.
Conflicts of interest
Everyday Materials earns commissions on qualifying Amazon purchases made through links in the “Better Alternatives” section of guides. These affiliate relationships do not influence which products are recommended — recommendations are selected before affiliate availability is checked, and products without affiliate options are included when they’re the right call. No sponsored content, no brand partnerships, no paid placements.
Limitations
This site is not medical advice. It does not substitute for consultation with a physician, toxicologist, or other credentialed professional regarding your specific situation. Guides cover material safety at the population level based on published research — individual risk factors (pregnancy, pre-existing conditions, occupational exposure, children) may warrant different thresholds than the general guidance here.
Corrections
If you find an error — a misquoted source, an outdated study, a missed update, a logical mistake — email myeverydaymaterials@gmail.com with specifics. Every correction submitted is acted on. Substantive corrections are logged with a dated changelog on the guide.
Maintained by Melecio. About →