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.
The industry / Other evidence
In a field study of an optics store (154 shoppers, 22 days), a warm cinnamon scent was followed by more premium-brand purchases than peppermint: 11.4% vs 3.2% of purchases.
Weak evidence: One store, one author team, scent blocks of consecutive days (not randomized), premium rating by the owner, p near .05; no unscented control.
Source: Madzharov 2015, Journal of Marketing Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
In a campus store (1,127 transactions over seven weeks), about 37% of items bought were premium with a warm cinnamon scent, versus about 28% with peppermint and 31% with no scent (warm vs none only marginal, p = .07).
Weak evidence.
Caveats
One store, scent conditions in fixed consecutive blocks (confounded with calendar), manager-rated premium level, the effect vs no scent is marginal; cool scent never differed from no scent.
Source: Madzharov 2015, Journal of Marketing Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
Warm scent did not reliably raise total spending: store-wide dollar effects were non-significant in the optics store (p = .18) and marginal in the campus store (p = .09).
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Same non-randomized field designs; the overall spend effect is small and unstable, so the findings are about the mix of what is bought, not a proven sales lift. A later pre-registered counterbalanced store test (de Groot 2022, 6,781 transactions) also found only a very small registered spend gain for a product-congruent scent (d = 0.06).
Source: Madzharov 2015, Journal of Marketing Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The authors found scent changed behavior through perception and status motives rather than mood: warm and cool scents were rated equally pleasant (3.35 vs 3.11, p = .57), yet shoppers still bought differently.
Weak evidence: Mood was not measured in the field studies; mediation rests on a single-item crowd estimate and a self-rated 'respect' item in one store; pilot n = 38.
Source: Madzharov 2015, Journal of Marketing Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The 2018 revision changes group intake from the maximum to the mean reported composition, which the authors say removes an overestimate; no data on analytical variability are shown to support the change.
Weak evidence: Authors' reasoning only; the paper does not compare outcomes under the two methods. Industry-authored (FEMA).
Source: Cohen 2018, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The bacterial genotoxicity evidence on clove and cinnamon leaf oil is mixed (positive Ames and rec results in several studies), and the industry panel discounts the positives as non-standard while calling an unpublished 1983 contract Ames report on clove leaf oil 'the most valid' study.
Weak evidence: The panel's reasons (uncharacterized test samples, non-standard assays) are given and may be sound; the weighting is the panel's own and the key negative study is unpublished.
Source: Gooderham 2020, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The flavor trade association argues the Delaney Clause is 'antiquated science' that should be reformed, and it presents FDA's 2018 delisting of seven rodent-carcinogenic flavors, while also calling them safe at use levels, as proof.
Weak evidence: An advocacy position from FEMA authors in a review, not a finding; the petitioning NGOs and the statute's text take the opposite view.
Source: Hallagan 2020, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The authors suggest BAK use may have increased as manufacturers replaced methylisothiazolinone and formaldehyde releasers after the methylisothiazolinone allergy epidemic (peak in Australia about 2015, legislation from 2017), which could be part of why BAK allergy rose.
Weak evidence: Hypothesis only; timing fits but the paper provides no data on which products changed preservatives.
The industry / Other evidence
Two industry panels read the same unpublished 1978 rat study of methyl salicylate differently: the flavor panel reports no significant reproductive effect at 250 and 500 mg/kg/day, while the fragrance industry's review reports a litter-size decline at its lowest dose and could set no safe level.
Weak evidence: Neither panel published the study (an unpublished report to FEMA); our evidence base has seen only both summaries, so which reading is correct cannot be told.
Source: Guengerich 2026 (FEMA Expert Panel), Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The flavor panel's conclusion that benzyl compounds and several flavorings are 'not genotoxic' depends on setting aside positive results (in vitro comet assays, single-dose in vivo comet assays, a vanilla extract Ames result, ethyl vanillin in mouse lymphoma cells) as non-guideline or irrelevant, while negative guideline studies are counted.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
The panel gives specific methodological reasons for each (no historical controls, pH artifacts, single dose, different preparation); our evidence base does not independently re-judge them.
Source: Guengerich 2026 (FEMA Expert Panel), Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG's 2006 annual report listed its donors only in dollar bands (top band $250,000 or more: Hewlett, Joyce, Luce, and Park Foundations plus one anonymous donor), and no chemical, fragrance, or cosmetics company is evident in the list.
Weak evidence: Bands not amounts; anonymous donors are undisclosed; one year only; EWG is an advocacy group with its own agenda, so 'no industry money' is not the same as 'unbiased'.
Source: EWG 2006 Annual Report, EWG annual report (PDF) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The flavor panel says US per-capita intake of isoeugenol as a flavoring is 0.00002 mg/kg/day, about 3.75 million times below the lowest NTP dose; its own text also says an intake under 0.1 mg/kg/day is 'six orders of magnitude' lower, which is only about 750-fold against the same dose.
Weak evidence: Derivation of 0.00002 is not shown; the 'six orders' line may be a typo; flavor intake only, no skin or fragrance exposure.
Source: Smith et al. 2009 (FEMA Expert Panel), GRAS Flavoring Substances 24, Food Technology 63(6), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The chairman of the FEMA flavor panel in 2009, R.L. Smith, is also an author on two RIFM Expert Panel papers, so one toxicologist has served on both the flavor and the fragrance industry's safety panels.
Weak evidence: Authorship overlap only; our evidence base has no appointment or funding records and this does not by itself show bias.
Source: Smith et al. 2009 (FEMA Expert Panel), GRAS Flavoring Substances 24, Food Technology 63(6), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Review of other studies
EWG counted 35 of the 91 ingredients in the tested fragrances as not assessed by the industry panels CIR, IFRA, or RIFM (66% of the secret chemicals versus 19% of those on labels).
Weak evidence.
Caveats
'Assessed' was judged from public sources only (RIFM's study list is not public); the report gives IFRA's count as 27 of 91 in one place and 22 of 91 in another, and 35 unassessed splits 11 plus 25 (=36).
Source: Sarantis et al. 2010 (Not So Sexy, Canadian edition) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The dye trade is still active: distributors were found for most of 60 listed hazardous dyes, up to 44 for some, mostly in China and India, including two IARC-suspected carcinogens.
Weak evidence: Rough lookchem.com search; shows availability, not use in textiles.
Source: Danish EPA 2014, Survey of Chemical Substances in Consumer Products No. 129 Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The homeopathic and anthroposophic medicines market in the EU was worth more than EUR 1 billion in 2015, growing about 6% a year and about 7% of the EU non-prescription market, with the five largest companies holding about 70% of the sector.
Weak evidence: Figures originate from the homeopathy industry trade group ECHAMP and are not independently verified in the Statement.
Source: EASAC 2017, EASAC Statement (September 2017) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The ProPublica Form 990 summary for EWG's nonprofit lists revenue, expenses, and top salaries but no donors or contributions, so who funds EWG cannot be read from it.
Weak evidence: The linked Form 990 documents may show grants and revenue lines; this capture did not include them.
Source: ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, EWG Form 990 filings, ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer (web page) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG Verified is a license-based program: approved companies sign a licensing agreement, must have every licensed product listed in Skin Deep, and need EWG's advance approval of how the mark is used. The criteria document states no fee.
Weak evidence: The fee, the number of licensees and the revenue to EWG are not in this document; EWG is both rater and licensor.
Source: EWG 2026, EWG program criteria (PDF) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG Verified checks are mostly company-submitted paperwork (signed concentration statements, certificates of analysis, GMP documents), with a reserved right to random product testing for undisclosed ingredients; the document reports no test results.
Weak evidence: Audit frequency and results are not published in this document.
Source: EWG 2026, EWG program criteria (PDF) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
A consulting-firm official who convenes GRAS expert panels told GAO the panelists were not asked to complete financial disclosure statements or give information on their financial investments, though he was confident of their independence.
Weak evidence: A single unnamed interviewee, reported by GAO; practice at other firms may differ.
Source: GAO 2010, GAO-10-246 Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG linked companies' ingredient disclosure to 'pressure from customers and the threat of federal regulation', saying that is why most cleaning makers list at least some ingredients.
Weak evidence: EWG's explanation of company motives, not tested; no regulatory history is given.
Source: EWG press release, Sept. 10, 2012, EWG press release (web page) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG states it accepts no programmatic funding from food, household-cleaning, or personal-care companies, no funding for corporate-sponsored research, and no payment of any kind for inclusion or scoring in Skin Deep, Guide to Healthy Cleaning, or Food Scores.
Weak evidence: This is a policy statement by EWG itself; 'programmatic funding' is not defined and no audit of compliance is on the page.
Source: EWG Funding & Reports page, 2026, EWG website (web page) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG says 81 cents of every dollar it spends goes to programs, but the program lines in its own 2024 expense chart add up to about 78% of expenses.
Weak evidence: Computed by this evidence base from the chart's categories; EWG may define 'program' differently or use another year.
Source: EWG Funding & Reports page, 2026, EWG website (web page) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG says it has no funding from the organic industry, and describes a 2013-2018 partnership with the Organic Voices Action Fund on GMO labeling as a campaign partnership with another nonprofit.
Weak evidence: Self-statement; the financial terms of that partnership are not given.
Source: EWG Funding & Reports page, 2026, EWG website (web page) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
At its March 2015 meeting a CIR panelist said the Panel does not consider carcinogen-containing ingredients safe in products, so polysorbates enhancing a carcinogen 'wouldn't be an issue'; other participants noted known carcinogens, including formaldehyde, still occur in some cosmetics.
Weak evidence: Transcript of oral discussion, not a finding; the final wording of the Discussion was left to editorial comment.
Source: CIR 2015 draft Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
Volunteer buyers who filled in a questionnaire reported spending about EUR 17.52 under the laundry scent vs EUR 13.60 with no added scent and EUR 14.06 with a citrus scent, about 29% more than no scent.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Self-reported spending by buyers who agreed to answer; recruitment method changed after week 6; effect is much larger than in the register (d about 0.3 vs 0.06) and p = .035 to .124 when outliers are kept.
The industry / Other evidence
A citrus scent, chosen as a cleanliness cue unrelated to clothes, did not raise spending in the second-hand store, while a fresh-laundry scent did, so a scent that fits the product may matter more than one that merely smells clean.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Exploratory comparison; citrus was not pre-tested for cleanliness association; the 'utilitarian value' mechanism is the authors' interpretation, and the store-evaluation mediation was null.
The industry / Other evidence
Most shoppers (269 of 316 respondents, 85%) said they noticed no particular smell, and the spending difference held in that group, so people may be steered by a diffused scent without knowing it.
Weak evidence: Self-reported awareness asked after purchase; the group who noticed (n = 39) was too small to compare; no air concentration was measured.
The industry / Other evidence
Fresh-laundry scent did not change shoppers' mood, store ratings, product ratings or the smell's rated pleasantness, even though spending was higher, which argues against a simple 'pleasant scent' explanation.
Weak evidence: Store ratings were near ceiling (about 8.2 of 10); one store; null results of a study powered for the spending outcome.
The industry / Other evidence
"Clean" has no regulatory definition: 64% of brands put "clean" language on their website landing page and most listed the ingredients they exclude, but in an 18-product sample the language did not track EWG score.
Weak evidence: Eighteen products chosen to span scores; a market scan of brand pages in 2023; the paper's own table has small count mismatches with the text.
Source: Madrid Larrañaga 2026, Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology Link to this fact
The industry / Review of other studies
Small efficacy studies suggest products can be preserved well below the legal maximum: quaternium-15 at 0.10% in a three-preservative system (1/5 of the EU limit) and diazolidinyl urea at 0.05% in a cream (1/10 of the limit); the review found only three such studies.
Weak evidence: Only two relevant studies, one by the review's own author group, single formulations; shows possibility, not that marketed products are over preserved.
The industry / Other evidence
A manufacturer's sales-based surveillance counted 9 physician-visit skin complaints across more than 10 million behentrimonium chloride lotion units shipped (0.69 per million), which it calls consistent with a non-irritating product.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Counts only complaints that involved a physician visit, so mild irritation is invisible; most data are from 2009-2011; self-reported to the company that sells the product; the 3.4 ppm FDA benchmark is cited without detail.
Source: Cameron 2013, Toxicology in Vitro Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
Scent mattered little to sunscreen reviewers: about 13% of 325 top-voted comments praised a nice smell, 4% praised no smell, and 6% complained about a bad smell.
Weak evidence: Scent was coded as a feel-and-look feature, not a safety issue; no comment was coded as fragrance irritation or allergy.
The industry / Other evidence
In a 2006 reply, vom Saal and Hughes said 100% of animal studies showing low-dose BPA effects were government-funded and 100% of chemical-corporation-funded studies found none, and that the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis report disputing low-dose effects was funded by the American Plastics Council and reviewed only 19 studies.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
The authors' own tally, restated without new data; they say 'over 125 experiments' while the 2005 review counted 115; the authors are academic advocates for the low-dose view (declared no competing financial interests).
Source: EHP letters 2006, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
Two employees of cosmetic and fragrance trade associations (the U.S. Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association and Europe's Colipa) published a 2006 letter calling the finding that prenatal phthalate exposure shortens boys' anogenital distance biologically implausible and unproven.
Weak evidence: Industry-association opinion with a back-of-envelope dose comparison, not data; Swan et al. replied point by point.
Source: EHP letters 2006, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
Tobacco-industry scientists writing a standard smoke-chemistry reference call the validity of the widely cited Hoffmann list of 'tumorigenic agents' into question and describe extrapolation from single compounds to the whole smoke mixture as controversial; that is the industry authors' position, not a finding.
Weak evidence: R.J. Reynolds authors; no data in the chapter to settle it.
Source: Rodgman & Perfetti 2013 Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Review of other studies
Major retailers have pledged to cut phthalates, for example Sephora aiming to reduce 8 phthalates by 50% over 3 years, and CVS, Walmart, Rite Aid and Loblaw working toward elimination in beauty and personal care products, which the authors cite as proof that elimination is feasible.
Weak evidence: Pledges as reported by the authors in 2020 from company announcements; delivery not verified here.
Source: Engel 2021, American Journal of Public Health Link to this fact
The industry / Animal study
Replacement plasticizers sold as safer than phthalates (DINCH, DEHA, ATBC) have almost no human thyroid data; the one human study found a DINCH metabolite tied to higher T3, and the rest is fish gene expression and computer docking.
Weak evidence: One cross-sectional Swedish cohort; fish and docking results are not human findings.
Source: Gorini 2025, Toxics Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Journalism
As of 2010, the US FTC's Green Guides on environmental marketing claims had not been updated since 1998.
Weak evidence: Outdated: the Green Guides were revised in 2012 (and an update was proposed in 2022); do not use as a current fact.
Source: Dahl 2010, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Fewer than 20% of the roughly 3,000 high-production-volume (HPV) chemicals in the US have been tested for potential to cause developmental neurotoxicity.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Sealey 2016 relays this figure faithfully from Landrigan 2010, but Landrigan 2010's own citation to Goldman 1998 (Environ Health Perspect), now read directly in this evidence base (src-1998-chemicals-childrens-environment-risks), is not supported: Goldman 1998 contains no '20%' statistic and no developmental-neurotoxicity-specific testing figure. Its actual EDF-sourced figures (71% no basic toxicity data at all, 63% not tested for carcinogenicity, <50% tested for any chronic toxicity) describe different, broader endpoints.
Source: Sealey 2016 (citing Landrigan 2010), Environment International Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
Musk ambrette, banned in the EU for years, was still detected in the blood of 2 of 100 young Austrians tested, and testing the specific lotion and perfume one of them used did not find musk ambrette in the product itself, so the source of the banned chemical could not be pinned down.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
N=2; the tested products were negative for musk ambrette, so contamination, an unlisted supply-chain source, or a different untested product cannot be distinguished; no source identified.
Source: Hutter 2009, Science of the Total Environment Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
A leading pediatric environmental-health review states that fewer than 20% of the roughly 3,000 high-production-volume industrial chemicals in the US have been tested for potential to cause developmental neurotoxicity.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Landrigan 2010 attributes this figure to Goldman 1998 (Environ Health Perspect), now read directly in this evidence base (src-1998-chemicals-childrens-environment-risks): Goldman 1998 contains no '20%' statistic and no developmental-neurotoxicity-specific testing figure. Its actual EDF-sourced figures (71% no basic toxicity data at all, 63% not tested for carcinogenicity, <50% tested for any chronic toxicity) describe different, broader endpoints. The citation does not support the specific number or endpoint claimed.
Source: Landrigan 2010, Current Opinion in Pediatrics Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Allergy UK's product-endorsement page does not disclose who pays for testing or endorsement; it sits under a business-facing URL and ends in a manufacturer submission form, consistent with (but not confirmation of) a manufacturer-initiated, fee-based process.
Weak evidence: Fee/payer structure is inferred from page layout, not stated by the source; do not cite this page for a fee claim.
Source: Allergy UK 2026 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
No law requires manufacturers of scented candles to prove the safety of their products before releasing them onto the market in the US or EU, per the authors.
Weak evidence: General regulatory claim by the review authors, not independently verified against current statute text in this ingest.
Source: Adamowicz 2019, Cancer Prevention Research Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Scented-candle manufacturers should be required to disclose indoor-pollution and health risks on labels or packaging under new labeling and packaging laws.
Weak evidence: A policy recommendation with no current legal requirement cited; no such disclosure law exists today per this source.
Source: Nazir et al. 2024, Annals of Medicine & Surgery Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The FEMA panel gives data from inhalation, intravenous, and intraperitoneal routes less weight than dietary data, and calls corn-oil gavage an 'inferior protocol'; yet its pulegone NOAEL of 20 mg/kg/day and the isophorone cancer data it dismisses both come from gavage studies.
Weak evidence: Observation from the paper's own text; the panel's stated reason is that gavage and corn oil raise peak levels and add stress.
Source: Adams 1996, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
A trial of openly labeled placebo pills in IBS shows that a placebo response does not require deceiving the patient, which bears on the ethics of prescribing placebos; the authors state replication is essential before clinical use.
Weak evidence: Ethical argument rests on one pilot of 80 people for one condition; shows feasibility with informed consent, not safety or benefit in routine care.
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
In the EU, free formaldehyde in cosmetics is capped at 0.2% (0.1% in oral hygiene products) and products with formaldehyde or releasers must carry a 'contains formaldehyde' warning above 0.05%, whereas the authors say the US has no specific norms.
Weak evidence: Regulatory statement from a 2011 discussion citing a 1986 directive; rules have changed since (see the Goossens 2022 page) and the US statement is not checked here.
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The European Council for Classical Homeopathy's 2009 report calling homeopathy 'safe to use' included only about a third of the case reports and series that the 2012 review located.
Weak evidence: Authors' own comparison, not independently checked; the ECCH report is a trade-body document.
Source: Posadzki, Alotaibi & Ernst 2012, Int J Clin Pract, International Journal of Clinical Practice Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Companies are not required to tell FDA when they decide an additive is GRAS; Pew authors estimated in 2011, from interviews with industry consultants, that about 1,000 food substances were on the market on such determinations never reported to FDA (floor about 500, possibly several times more).
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Checked against the 2011 primary (Neltner et al. 2011, pp. 354, 365): the 1,000 is an interview-based estimate, not an audit or census; the Pew authors advocate mandatory notification; the figure excludes FEMA's 2,702 flavor decisions, which also lack formal FDA review.
Source: Neltner et al. 2013, JAMA Intern Med, JAMA Internal Medicine Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Flavorings in alcoholic drinks do not have to be individually declared on the label, and anaphylaxis to coriander used as a 'natural' flavoring in beer has been reported.
Weak evidence: One case report; labeling rules differ by country and the review does not cite the regulation itself.
Source: Skypala 2019, Frontiers in Immunology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The authors argue regulators set BPA's 50 µg/kg/day reference dose from 1980s tests at a few very high doses and never verified it at low doses, ignoring inverted-U (nonmonotonic) responses.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Advocacy position, disputed in our evidence base by the industry-funded Lamb 2014 critique of non-monotonic claims; EU and EFSA later lowered BPA limits, but this paper does not show that.
Source: vom Saal & Hughes 2005, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
No US program requires VOC emission testing of cleaning products: EPA Safer Choice certifies fragrance-free products but, per the authors, does not require or disclose emission testing, and the chamber data show hundreds of emitted chemicals missing from labels and industry databases.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
EWG-authored (advocacy nonprofit that ranks cleaners and licenses EWG VERIFIED to cleaner makers); Skyline Foundation grant; unblinded; The authors' characterization of Safer Choice (2016 reference); not independently checked against current program rules.
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
MHRA's homeopathy regime can be used to remove dangerous claims: the Government said the regulator has taken homeopathic products promoted for malaria prevention and cancer treatment off the market.
Weak evidence: Government assertion with no product names, dates or counts.
Source: UK Department of Health, Government Response to the Science and Technology Committee report 'Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy', Cm 7914 (July 2010), Command Paper Cm 7914 (July 2010) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
EWG calls the lack of public safety information on chemicals in everyday products 'a major failing of the nation's outdated chemical policy' and says manufacturers and government 'largely leave consumers in the dark' about cleaning-product contents.
Weak evidence: Advocacy-organization position in 2012, with no data or citation in this piece.
Source: Andrews, EWG, 2012 (web page) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
EWG reports that in its analysis only 21% of products marketed to Black women were rated low hazard, versus 27% of products without demographic marketing.
Weak evidence: Advocacy-NGO self-analysis; no test statistic given; score is label-based and does not see fragrance constituents.
Source: EWG 2025 (Friedman & Huang), EWG news (web page) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
EPA accepted 2006 occupational inhalation margins of 95 (medical mopping) and 84 (wood preservation) as not of concern because of 'conservative' assumptions, while margins of 76 (toddler lawn) and 26 to 50 required mitigation.
Weak evidence: Agency judgment on a case-by-case basis; the document is internally inconsistent about which near-100 values are tolerated.
Source: EPA RED 2006 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Pew Health Group authors estimated about 1,000 further food substances in the US were marketed on manufacturers' own GRAS decisions never reported to FDA, with the true number 'unlikely to be lower than 500' but possibly 'several times larger'.
Weak evidence: Interview-based estimate, not an audit or census; not independently checkable; Pew is a funder-advocate for mandatory notification; 2011 data.
Source: Neltner et al. 2011, Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The EU safe-intake limit for polysorbates went from 10 mg/kg a day (older EU committee, SCF) to 25 mg/kg a day (JECFA, then EFSA 2015); the difference comes from which animal study was used, not from new human data.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
The SCF figure rests on a 90-day polysorbate 60 study (no-effect level 1,460 mg/kg bw/day, safety factor not stated in the opinion); JECFA and EFSA used a lifetime rat study of polysorbate 80 (2,500 mg/kg bw/day, factor 100). Japan's Food Safety Commission also used 10. Do not imply the higher limit is unjustified.
Source: EFSA Panel (2015), abstract only, EFSA Journal Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
California testing found perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene in some wet cleaners' wash and rinse water, at times high enough to classify it as hazardous waste, probably from spotting agents or a perc machine on site; an Illinois study found none.
Weak evidence: Two older state studies relayed second-hand, mixed results, and spotting agents were not tested in the Illinois study.
Source: SCDHS 2018 Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.