Don’t take our word for it. Here’s every fact on this site, with its evidence grade, its caveats, and a link to the source, so you can check us.
We start you on the strong ones: findings that have been replicated or come from one large, well-controlled study. Moderate and weak facts are here too, labeled for what they are. Use “Link to this fact” to share a single card.
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
This non-disclosure was legal: US law doesn't require household products to list ingredients, and lets 'fragrance' stand in for a whole undisclosed mixture.
Strong evidence: Regulatory analysis as of 2010 (pre-MoCRA).
Source: Steinemann 2011, Environmental Impact Assessment Review Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
When US EPA scientists built a database of chemicals in 8,921 consumer products from their safety data sheets, they could not record fragrance ingredients at all: more than 3,060 fragrance materials can legally be listed as 'trade secret' with no name, so those entries had to be thrown out.
Strong evidence: Document analysis of one US retailer's MSDSs (2012).
Source: Goldsmith 2014, Food and Chemical Toxicology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Product safety data sheets are written for workers, not shoppers, and only have to list hazardous ingredients present above 1% (0.1% for cancer-causing ones), a level most individual fragrance chemicals fall below.
Strong evidence: 'Most fragrance chemicals below 1%' is general formulation knowledge, not measured in this paper.
Source: Goldsmith 2014, Food and Chemical Toxicology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
A 2023 EU rule expands the list of fragrance allergens that must be named on cosmetic labels from 26 to about 80 entries (56 substances plus related forms), phasing in from 2026 to 2028, above set concentration limits.
Strong evidence: Only above threshold concentrations; cosmetics only.
Source: Sukakul 2024, Acta Dermato-Venereologica Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Since the 2022 MoCRA law, most cosmetic makers must list their products with the FDA; in its December 2025 report the FDA found PFAS ("forever chemicals") intentionally added to about 0.4% of listed US cosmetics (1,744 of 430,134), mostly eye and face makeup, and had too little data to judge the safety of 19 of the 25 most-used PFAS.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Manufacturer listings, not product testing; small businesses and drug-cosmetics do not list; corrected 2026-09-26 from 0.03%/no fragrances (EU KEMI figures). Independently corroborated 2026-09-27: Balan et al. 2024 (10.1021/acs.est.3c06539, California DTSC) estimated PFAS-containing-product prevalence from a different, non-federal dataset (Mintel Global New Product Database + EWG Skin Deep, ~65,000+ formulations) and found prevalence under 3% in every one of 16 product subcategories studied (range 0.00-2.68%), consistent with FDA's 0.41% aggregate figure. Both remain database/listing-based estimates, not chemical measurements, and the two studies measure slightly different things (an economy-wide aggregate vs. per-subcategory prevalence in 16 categories), so this is convergence of two independent large datasets rather than a replication of the identical statistic.
Source: FDA 2025, FDA report published under MoCRA §3506(b) (FDA website) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
In the US, "fragrance" can be listed as a single word because the mixture is protected as a trade secret, so the individual chemicals are rarely named on the label.
Strong evidence: Secondary statement in a narrative review, not a legal text. MoCRA (2022) directs FDA to require labeling of fragrance allergens, which will narrow this once the rule is issued.
Source: Pinkas 2017, Environmental Research Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
There are no federally enforceable US standards for volatile organic compounds in homes, schools, or other non-industrial indoor settings.
Strong evidence: Agency statement on an EPA guidance page; some states and voluntary programs (e.g. California's CDPH Section 01350 test method) set indoor VOC criteria for specific products.
Source: US EPA 2026 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Linalool and linalyl acetate are registered in the EU at over 1,000 metric tons a year each for fragrance use in home-care and air-care products; the study states its purpose as adding to the dataset for future hazard-classification decisions as the EU adds endocrine disruption to its classification rules.
Strong evidence: Registration tonnage and regulatory context as stated by the paper; dossier-building and scientific inquiry are not separable here.
Source: Hareng 2024, Archives of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
The US Microbead-Free Waters Act (2015) bans plastic microbeads only in rinse-off cosmetics, not in makeup that stays on the skin.
Strong evidence: Statement of US law as summarized in the review.
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Because PTFE is a polymer, the EU's REACH law never required companies to register it or submit safety data, and a planned change to cover polymers was postponed.
Strong evidence: Describes EU law only; the EU universal PFAS restriction proposal may change this.
Source: Jomaa 2024, Journal of the Netherlands Society of Toxicology (JNST) Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Industry source
In 1994 a scientist at the fragrance industry's own research institute wrote that no country required fragrance ingredients to be approved, safety-tested for consumer use, or listed on product labels, and called this "of great benefit to the industry".
Strong evidence: Describes 1994; EU labeling of 26 (now more) allergens and US MoCRA came later.
Source: Ford 1994 (RIFM) Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
In 2000, EU cosmetics could declare an entire fragrance as the single word 'parfum'; the EU committee noted dermatologists' estimate that up to 2% of people have perfume allergy, against industry's claim that the true figure was 'far lower'. The EDEN population-based patch-test study (Diepgen 2015; n=3,119 patch-tested across 5 European countries) directly confirmed the dermatologists' estimate: 1.9% (95% CI 1.5-2.5) clinically relevant fragrance contact allergy, and 1.8-2.6% for fragrance mix I alone.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
EDEN is the largest general-population patch-test study of fragrance allergy to date and a large, well-controlled multi-country primary (not a single-lab or single-cohort study), which is why this moves to strong. Note EDEN was itself funded by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM), the fragrance industry's own body — the industry-funded study still confirmed the higher, consumer-relevant estimate over the industry's own 'far lower' claim.
Source: SCCNFP 2000 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Since the 2022 Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act, cosmetic companies must send the FDA any report they receive of a serious reaction to their product, including serious and persistent rashes, within 15 business days, and the FDA can now order a recall.
Strong evidence: Statute text (FFDCA §§604-605, 611); 'serious' threshold excludes most transient reactions; enforcement from 2023-12-29.
Source: MoCRA 2022 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
US cosmetics still need no FDA approval before sale: the company itself must keep records showing the product is safe, and the law says "minor and transient reactions" do not make a product unsafe.
Strong evidence: Statute §608; substantiation judged by 'qualified experts', no required tests, no inhalation requirement.
Source: MoCRA 2022 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The 2022 US cosmetics law does not cover air fresheners, cleaning products, or laundry products at all.
Strong evidence: MoCRA amends the FFDCA cosmetics chapter only; household products fall under CPSC/EPA law.
Source: MoCRA 2022 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Until 2023 EU labels only had to name 26 fragrance allergens (above 10 ppm in leave-on and 100 ppm in rinse-off products); every other fragrance ingredient could be hidden under 'parfum'.
Strong evidence: EU Regulation 2023/1545 expanded the list; say 'until 2023' or name the new list.
Source: Pastor-Nieto 2021, Current Treatment Options in Allergy Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
In the EU, chemical mixtures containing a skin sensitizer must carry the warning 'May produce an allergic reaction' (EUH208), but cosmetics are exempt from that warning and from CLP hazard symbols.
Strong evidence: Legal analysis as of 2016 (CLP Art. 1(5), Annex II 2.8); cosmetics do have to name listed allergens in the ingredient list.
Source: Klaschka 2016, Environmental Sciences Europe Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
In the EU, tampons and pads are not cosmetics: as of 2020 only general product-safety law applied, so manufacturers could add fragrance allergens without restriction or labeling, signaling scent only with words like "fresh".
Strong evidence: Legal status as of 2020 (GPSD 2001/95/EC, since replaced by GPSR 2023/988); no product-level exposure data.
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
The US FDA has no directive at all regulating the use of the word 'hypoallergenic' on a cosmetic product, and in a 2015 survey the products so labeled had the highest contact-allergen rate (88.2%) of any of four marketing terms tested (hypoallergenic, dermatologist recommended, fragrance free, paraben free).
Strong evidence: The regulatory point (no FDA directive) is a stated fact, not itself a measured statistic; the 88.2% figure is from a single-region convenience sample of 135 products.
Source: Hamann 2015, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
No EU or Belgian law requires fragrance ingredients in topical medicines to be named on the label, or restricts which fragrance chemicals they may contain, unlike cosmetics, where the EU has required disclosure of major fragrance allergens since 2005.
Strong evidence: Regulatory statement as described in a 2009 paper; check current EU medicines regulation for any changes since.
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
A systematic comparison of occupational exposure limits from 18 countries and agencies found that only 25 of 1,341 chemicals studied have a limit set by every agency, and more than a third of the chemicals are regulated by only one of the 18.
Strong evidence: Workplace limits only, not consumer or indoor-air limits. A single (if large and systematic) comparative study; the paper does not analyze why the differences exist.
Source: Schenk et al. 2008, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
In the EU and UK, any cosmetic claim – including 'fragrance-free,' 'unscented,' 'free from X' or 'hypoallergenic' – is legally required to meet six common criteria (legal compliance, truthfulness, evidential support, honesty, fairness, and informed decision-making) and must be backed by evidence the company holds on file, under a binding, directly applicable EU regulation in force since 2013.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The regulation sets these six generic criteria but does not itself specify what evidence threshold applies to any particular claim wording; that level of detail sits in separate, unacquired Commission and industry guidance.
Source: Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The EU regulation that governs cosmetic claims deliberately declines to define the terms 'free from,' 'hypoallergenic,' 'fragrance-free,' or 'unscented' – it states outright that the common criteria are not meant to define or specify permitted or forbidden claim wording, leaving that to case-by-case enforcement and separate guidance.
Strong evidence: Read from the regulation's own Recital 7 and confirmed by the absence of any of these terms anywhere in its text.
Source: Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Under US regulations, fragrance and flavor ingredients in a cosmetic can be listed simply as "Fragrance" or "Flavor" on the label, because the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act cannot be used to force a company to disclose trade secrets, and fragrance/flavor formulas are the cosmetic components FDA itself identifies as most likely to qualify.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
This is the legal rule itself, quoted from FDA's own page (captured 2026-09-27); it says nothing about how many or which chemicals this hides in practice (see Steinemann/Dodson/Goldsmith measurements for that).
Source: FDA 2026 (Fragrances in Cosmetics) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
FDA names laundry detergents, fabric softeners, dryer sheets, and room and carpet fresheners as fragranced products that fall under the Consumer Product Safety Commission rather than FDA cosmetics regulation.
Strong evidence: Statement of jurisdiction only; says nothing about what CPSC does or does not require of these products.
Source: FDA 2026 (Fragrances in Cosmetics) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Starting April 12, 2026, Canadian cosmetics must individually name 24 specific fragrance allergens (expanding to 81 by August 2026 for new products and August 2028 for existing products) when present above 0.001% in leave-on products or 0.01% in rinse-off products — a named, dated, threshold-based mandate the parallel US MoCRA fragrance-allergen provision (FFDCA section 609(b)) still lacks.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The allergen list and thresholds are incorporated by reference from the EU's Annex III list, so Canada's implementation tracks the EU rather than being independently derived; it covers only named allergens, not the rest of any fragrance mixture. The MoCRA comparison is based on the statute's own text (no confirmed final rule as of this evidence base's last check) and FDA's own current consumer page, which as of the same 2026-09-27 capture date states FDA lacks cosmetic allergen-labeling authority and does not mention MoCRA at all.
Source: Health Canada 2026 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Canada requires cosmetic fragrance ingredients to be declared as 'parfum' (the word 'fragrance' alone is not acceptable), but does not require disclosure of the fragrance mixture's non-allergen constituents.
Strong evidence: A labeling-word requirement, not a composition disclosure requirement; a full fragrance ingredient list is legally optional, not mandatory, in Canada.
Source: Health Canada 2026 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
NEA enters into a paid, annually renewed license agreement with a brand/manufacturer to allow use of the Seal logo once a product is accepted; renewal depends on the manufacturer's own attestation that the formula has not changed, and any formula change requires restarting the application with new clinical testing.
Strong evidence: No fee amount is disclosed on this page; ongoing compliance between renewals relies on manufacturer self-report, not NEA-initiated re-testing.
Source: NEA 2026 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
US cosmetics law lets a manufacturer declare an entire fragrance mixture as the single word "fragrance" (21 CFR 701.3(a); FDCA), with no requirement to name individual fragrance ingredients, while EU law (as of the Directive's Seventh Amendment) required 26 specific fragrance allergens to be named by name above small concentration thresholds (0.01% rinse-off / 0.001% leave-on).
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The EU side is now out of date: the allergen list expanded from 26 to 56 under Regulation 2023/1545. The US side is largely unchanged, though MoCRA (2022) added a not-yet-confirmed-final allergen-labeling mandate (FFDCA §609(b)).
Source: Reebs 2011 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
As of 2010-11 the EU banned or restricted over 1,000 cosmetic ingredients (Cosmetics Directive Annex II) plus a general ban on ingredients known or suspected of being carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic; the US federal list of specifically banned cosmetic ingredients numbered about fifteen, with no positive list and no general CMR ban.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The US count is confirmed still accurate: MoCRA (2022) added no ingredient bans at all. The EU count from 2010-11 is likely a substantial understatement of the EU's current banned-ingredient list after subsequent CLP/CMR reclassification rounds; not independently verified against a current primary count in this evidence base.
Source: Reebs 2011 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Before 2022, US federal cosmetics law had no mandatory facility registration, no mandatory adverse-event reporting duty, and no FDA recall power for cosmetics; safety was self-substantiated by manufacturers with only reactive (post-market) FDA enforcement.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Superseded by MoCRA (2022), which added mandatory registration/listing, a 15-business-day serious-adverse-event reporting duty, and mandatory-recall authority. Do not describe this as the current state of US law.
Source: Reebs 2011 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The US 1996 Food Quality Protection Act requires EPA to add an extra 10-fold safety factor on top of the traditional 10-fold uncertainty factor when assessing pesticide risks, specifically to account for prenatal or postnatal developmental toxicity in children, unless child-specific data justify a smaller factor.
Strong evidence: This is a description of the law's requirement, not a claim that the added safety factor has eliminated risk for any specific chemical.
Source: Goldman 1998, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
As of 1998, EPA and other bodies had classified about 165 pesticide active or inert ingredients as known, probable, or possible human carcinogens; most uses of the known and probable-with-limited-evidence groups had already been canceled, but dozens of possible/probable carcinogens still had active food and other uses pending a new 10-year tolerance-review schedule.
Strong evidence: A regulatory-status snapshot as of 1998; classifications and permitted uses have changed substantially since (not reconciled against current EPA status by this ingest).
Source: Goldman 1998, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Under the US Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, cosmetic products and ingredients, including hair products, require no FDA premarket approval, and the FDA does not regulate an ingredient unless evidence suggests it harms human health or the environment.
Strong evidence: This is a description of the regulatory framework, not a finding specific to this study.
Source: McDonald 2018, Environmental Health Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
As of July 2020, the EU's REACH regulation requires PFOA contamination in manufactured products to be kept below 25 parts per billion, and PFOA-related compounds below 1,000 parts per billion.
Strong evidence: States the regulatory threshold as described by the study authors in 2020; consult the current REACH/POPs regulation text directly for any later revision to these limits.
Source: Oshima et al. 2020, Scientific Reports Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Since 2005 the EU has required cosmetic and detergent products to name 26 specific fragrance chemicals on the label if present above 10 ppm in leave-on products or 100 ppm in rinse-off products; every other fragrance ingredient can still be hidden under the single word "parfum" or "fragrance".
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Settled EU statutory requirement as of the review's writing (2020); does not cover the many countries without an equivalent rule, and the EU later expanded the list to 56 substances (2023/1545, tracked elsewhere in our evidence base).
Source: de Groot 2020, Dermatitis 31(1):13-35, Dermatitis® Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The EU's 2018 endocrine disruptor policy Communication states that endocrine disruptors are regulated completely differently depending on the law: under pesticide and biocide rules, once a substance is proven to be an endocrine disruptor it can in principle no longer be authorized at all, with very limited exceptions, but under the EU's main chemicals law (REACH) and under cosmetics, toys, and food-contact-material rules, an identified endocrine disruptor is instead assessed case by case and can still be allowed at a managed exposure level.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The Commission itself calls this inconsistency an open question, not a settled policy failure, and says a 'Fitness Check' (not yet published as of this 2018 document) will examine whether it needs to change.
Source: EU Commission 2018 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
As of November 2018, EU rules for cosmetics, toys, and food-contact materials contained no provisions specific to endocrine disruptors at all; those chemicals were covered only by each law's general safety requirements.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Individual endocrine-linked ingredients (certain parabens, one UV filter, bisphenol A) are still restricted or banned in cosmetics, toys, and food-contact materials product by product, not through an endocrine-disruptor-specific rule.
Source: EU Commission 2018 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
In 1992, the U.S. Department of Justice held that whether multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) or "environmental illness" counts as a disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (and, by the same analysis, the ADA) is decided case by case, not by diagnosis alone: the test is whether the person's impairment substantially limits a major life activity, given their particular circumstances.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
This is DOJ's own legal position as the federal Section 504 coordinating agency, not a scientific finding about MCS; it takes no position on causation or prevalence, only on the legal disability test.
Source: DOJ 1992 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
In 2007, EPA and CPSC both denied citizen petitions (Sierra Club, National Center for Healthy Housing, Alliance for Healthy Homes, NRDC) asking for air freshener ingredient testing and labeling, and there is still no federal requirement that air fresheners disclose their ingredients on the label.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
EPA denied on evidentiary/legal grounds (petitioners had not proven an 'unreasonable risk' as TSCA defines it), not on a finding that the products are safe; EPA states this explicitly.
Source: EPA 2007 (72 FR 72886) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
CPSC refused to even open a docket on the 2007 air-freshener petition because it did not name the specific toxic constituents and their concentrations, the exposure mechanism, or the resulting illness for each product — a documentation standard that is very difficult for an outside petitioner to meet when manufacturers are not required to disclose full ingredient formulas.
Strong evidence: This is CPSC's own stated reasoning, quoted directly in the EPA notice; it does not by itself prove the standard is unmeetable in every case, only that it defeated this petition.
Source: EPA 2007, quoting CPSC's Nov. 2007 letter Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
EPA treated the fact that 70% of US homes use air fresheners as evidence that consumers place significant value on the product, and stated that this kind of market-value benefit is legally cognizable under TSCA regardless of whether the product has any public-health value.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
This is EPA's stated interpretation of TSCA's cost-benefit requirement (15 U.S.C. 2605(c)(1)), not an empirical finding; it shows how a regulatory statute can weigh market popularity as a counterweight to health-risk petitions even absent any health benefit.
Source: EPA 2007 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
In its own 2019 consultation paper preceding the 2020 cosmetics labeling Standard, the ACCC stated that fragrances and flavors in a cosmetic product must be disclosed, but do not need to include the ingredient composition of the fragrance or flavor — the generic-word loophole predates the 2020 Standard and was already the settled Australian position under the 1991 Regulations.
Strong evidence: Primary text quoted directly from the ACCC's own drafting-stage document.
Source: ACCC 2019 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Under Australian law (cl. 7(8) of the Consumer Goods (Cosmetics) Information Standard 2020), a cosmetic product's fragrance can be listed on the label simply as "fragrance", "fragrances", "parfum" or "parfums", with no legal requirement to name the individual fragrance ingredients.
Strong evidence: Primary legal text quoted directly; this is the binding rule, not a compliance study of how often companies actually use the generic word versus listing ingredients.
Source: Consumer Goods (Cosmetics) Information Standard 2020 (Cth) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Australia's cosmetics-labeling law contains no fragrance-allergen list, threshold, or disclosure requirement of any kind, unlike the EU/UK (Regulation (EU) 2023/1545) or Canada's 2026 mandatory allergen list.
Strong evidence: Based on a full read of the instrument's text; confirms an absence rather than a stated policy choice explained in the text itself.
Source: Consumer Goods (Cosmetics) Information Standard 2020 (Cth) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Under New Zealand law (Schedule 1, cl. 1(2)(e) of the Cosmetic Products Group Standard 2020), a cosmetic product's fragrance can be labeled simply as "fragrance", "fragrances", "parfum" or "parfums", with no legal requirement to name the individual fragrance ingredients — wording essentially identical to Australia's rule (for fragrance ingredients other than the named allergens).
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Primary legal text quoted directly. The captured PDF carries a diagonal "DRAFT" watermark on every page despite its internal file title matching EPA's own published "CLEAN" filename; content is self-consistent and matches other sources' citations of this standard, but the watermark itself was not independently resolved. Current consolidated text (in force 1 Jan 2026) revokes the NZ override (Sch 1 cond. 1(6) '[Revoked]'), so 24 of the classic 26 allergens listed in Schedule 5 must now be named above 0.001%/0.01% on a plain reading; other fragrance ingredients can still be labeled 'fragrance'. Textual reading, not confirmed by EPA guidance. See src-2026-nz-epa-cosmetic-products-group-standard-consolidated-current.
Source: Cosmetic Products Group Standard 2020 (NZ, HSR002552) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
New Zealand's 2020 cosmetics standard requires nanomaterial ingredients to be labeled with the word "nano" in brackets and notified to the EPA, a disclosure requirement Australia's contemporaneous 2020 cosmetics standard does not have.
Strong evidence: Primary legal text quoted directly (cl. 1(10) and Part 2 cl. 6).
Source: Cosmetic Products Group Standard 2020 (NZ, HSR002552) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The cosmetics industry's 2021 safety review of benzophenone-3 (oxybenzone) explicitly covers only its use as a light stabilizer/product-protectant at up to 0.5% concentration — not its use as an active sunscreen ingredient at up to 6%, which is regulated separately by the FDA under 21 CFR 352 and was not included in this safety review's concentration-of-use survey.
Strong evidence: Quoted directly from the industry panel's own report; do not read this report's 'safe' conclusion as covering benzophenone-3's sunscreen-active use.
Source: CIR 2021 Benzophenones Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
US federal regulation (21 CFR 352.10) permits oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) as a sunscreen active ingredient at up to 6 percent.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Directly quoted from the codified text ("(l) Oxybenzone up to 6 percent"); the whole Part carries its own indefinite-stay notice since 2003-2004, so treat this as the codified ceiling, not necessarily FDA's current live enforcement position.
Source: 21 CFR 352.10 (2023 ed.) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
21 CFR 352.10 lists 16 permitted OTC sunscreen active ingredients, each with its own maximum concentration: PABA 15%, avobenzone 3%, cinoxate 3%, dioxybenzone 3%, homosalate 15%, menthyl anthranilate 5%, octocrylene 10%, octyl methoxycinnamate 7.5%, octyl salicylate 5%, oxybenzone 6%, padimate O 8%, phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid 4%, sulisobenzone 10%, titanium dioxide 25%, trolamine salicylate 12%, and zinc oxide 25%.
Strong evidence: Two paragraph letters, (d) and (g), are reserved (no ingredient assigned).
Source: 21 CFR 352.10 (2023 ed.) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
A 2002 FDA amendment renamed four sunscreen actives to their now-standard names (menthyl anthranilate to meradimate, octyl methoxycinnamate to octinoxate, octyl salicylate to octisalate, phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid to ensulizole) at unchanged concentration limits, but that amendment was itself stayed before its effective date and never took legal effect.
Strong evidence: The pre-2002 names remain the technically operative ones in the 2023 codification even though the newer names are now standard industry usage.
Source: 21 CFR 352.10 (2023 ed.) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The entire FDA sunscreen active-ingredient monograph (21 CFR Part 352) has carried an indefinite stay since an effective-date note dated June 4, 2003/2004, as printed in the CFR's own 2023 edition.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The captured text states only the stay itself; it does not mention the 2019 proposed rule or the 2020 CARES Act OTC monograph reform that are understood (from outside this document) to now govern the monograph's actual reassessment.
Source: 21 CFR Part 352 (2023 ed.) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Under FDA's sunscreen combination rule, each active ingredient in a combination sunscreen must independently contribute a minimum SPF of at least 2, and the finished product's minimum labeled SPF must be at least the number of combined actives multiplied by 2.
Strong evidence: Applies only to combinations of actives named in the specific sub-lists cross-referenced in 352.20(a).
Source: 21 CFR 352.20 (2023 ed.) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
FDA's standard reference sunscreen for validating SPF testing laboratories is an 8-percent homosalate preparation with a defined mean SPF of 4.47 (standard deviation 1.279).
Strong evidence: A laboratory-validation standard, not a claim about homosalate's real-world sun protection performance at that concentration in a finished product.
Source: 21 CFR 352.70 (2023 ed.) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The US allows up to 6% oxybenzone in sunscreens (21 CFR 352.10), while the EU now limits it to 2.2% in body products, with 6% still allowed in face, hand and lip products (Regulation (EU) 2022/1176).
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Different scopes: the US 6% applies to sunscreen generally and the monograph is stayed; the EU 2.2% applies to body products including sprays, with 6% still allowed in face, hand and lip products.
Source: 21 CFR Part 352 (2023 ed.) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
As of the Spring 2025 Unified Agenda, FDA's MoCRA-mandated fragrance-allergen labeling rule (RIN 0910-AI90) was still in "Proposed Rule Stage" with no CFR citation, about ten months past its statutory June 29, 2024 deadline for a proposed rule, and FDA's own projected date for issuing that proposed rule was May 2026.
Strong evidence: Government regulatory-tracking record, not itself a finding; a later edition (captured same batch) shows this self-projected date later slipped further to November 2026.
Source: Unified Agenda, RIN 0910-AI90, Spring 2025 edition, accessed 2026-09-28 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
FDA's own MoCRA overview page lists "Fragrance allergen labeling requirements" as one of three regulations MoCRA requires FDA to write, but gives it no date, docket link, RIN, or status of any kind, unlike the adjacent talc-asbestos testing-methods mandate on the same page, which links to a dated proposed rule (December 2024) and its later withdrawal (November 2025), and the PFAS report mandate, which links to a report FDA actually published (December 29, 2025).
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The page's silence on the fragrance-allergen rule does not by itself prove the rule is stalled; its actual tracked status (Proposed Rule Stage, deadline missed, target slipping) comes from FDA's separate Unified Agenda entries, not this page.
Source: FDA MoCRA overview page, accessed 2026-09-28 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Great Britain keeps its own, separately amended copy of the EU cosmetics regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009) rather than automatically following the EU's current text, confirmed by UK-specific post-Brexit insertions such as Article 5A on Northern Ireland-established responsible persons.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Confirmed directly from legislation.gov.uk's official contents page (accessed 2026-09-28). This page's table of contents does not itself show whether the fragrance-allergen Annex III specifically has been updated; that is checked instead via UK SI 2026/109.
Source: legislation.gov.uk, Reg. (EC) No 1223/2009 (GB-retained) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
New Zealand's cosmetics Schedule 5 names the EU's classic 26 fragrance allergens individually, by CAS number, with the same 0.001% (leave-on) / 0.01% (rinse-off) disclosure thresholds the EU uses — but a New Zealand-specific override note then explicitly permits every one of those named substances (plus benzyl alcohol and two restricted musks) to be declared on the label only generically, as "fragrance" or "parfum," instead of by name.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Verified by reading the full Schedule 5 table and its override note directly in this consolidated (pre-1-January-2026) text. The current (post-2026) version has now been read (src-2026-nz-epa-cosmetic-products-group-standard-consolidated-current): it retains Schedule 5's named-allergen list at the same thresholds (24 of the original 26 entries) but has revoked the override clause this claim describes (Sch. 1, condition 1(6), now "[Revoked]"), with no replacement found. This claim accurately describes the pre-2026 text only; see the current-text page and C355's extension for the current status.
Source: Cosmetic Products Group Standard 2020 (NZ, HSR002552, consolidated to 2025) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
A cosmetic product's fragrance-allergen labeling can legally differ between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland automatically continues to track EU cosmetics rules under the Windsor Framework (Annex 2's general alignment mechanism for placing manufactured goods on the market) while Great Britain runs its own, separately updated regime.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Official UK government statutory guidance, updated 29 June 2026, checked directly (accessed 2026-09-28). States the general EU-alignment mechanism for NI, not a specific confirmation that any one EU amendment (such as Regulation 2023/1545) has by name reached NI.
Source: OPSS 2026 (GB/NI guidance) Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.