A polemic in response to Sharma et al. (ibid., 593-594, 18-26, 2017.).The authors state that the genotoxicity reported for the trans 2-ethylhexyl-4-methoxycinnamate (EHMC) as DNA breaks in the comet assay by Sharma et al.(2017) is not in agreement with the absence of genotoxicity and photo-genotoxicity of this compound as a cosmetic ingredient,reported previously by European regulatory agencies.The authors also state that the article under discussion has not provided a fair evaluation of literature data on EHMC genotoxic potential,but a one-sided data review.In conclusion,the authors found that EHMC has no genotoxic potential in the GreenScreen HC assay confirming previous results (Struweetal.,2007; SCC,2000) and they suggest that Sharma et al.(2017) re-evaluate their results and comet assay parameters to explain such discrepancy both in terms of genotoxicity and cytotoxicity results.The authors are employees of Nestle Skin Health, and financial support for this work was provided by Nestle Skin Health.