The fragrance facts, graded

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

Since 1997 companies can bring a new food chemical to market through a voluntary 'GRAS notice' to FDA; more than 60% of 191 chemicals notified this way had no published feeding study, even though the regulation says a GRAS decision must rest on published studies.

Moderate evidence: Published-literature database only; some notices cite unpublished company studies, which this count does not capture.

Source: Neltner et al. 2013, Reprod Toxicol, Reproductive Toxicology Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

In a review of 327 FDA GRAS notices, just 1% assigned the chemical a 'Concern Level' (FDA's tool for deciding how much testing is needed), and only 37% reported reproductive toxicity results.

Moderate evidence: Text-search of notice documents for key terms; a notice could use different wording.

Source: Neltner et al. 2013, Reprod Toxicol, Reproductive Toxicology Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

A 2013 review by Pew Charitable Trusts staff matched 28 of the 35 suggestions FDA's own 1970s-80s expert committee (SCOGS) made for testing food chemicals to concerns that scientists raised at 2011 workshops, whose organizers had not read the SCOGS report.

Moderate evidence: Authors' own judgment of what counts as a match and as 'unresolved'; Pew-funded and co-convened the workshops; no independent rater; shows process gaps, not harm from any chemical.

Source: Maffini 2013, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

In 1995 FDA exempted food-contact chemicals expected to be below 0.5 parts per billion in the diet from additive regulation (unless a carcinogen is suspected) and asks only for genotoxicity tests up to 50 ppb; the Pew review says the 0.5 ppb value came from cancer potency data and does not consider hormonal or behavioral effects.

Moderate evidence.

Source: Maffini 2013, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products

At the time (2013) the EU limited MI in cosmetics to 100 ppm, yet there was no relevant legislation for MI in paint, and a cited repeat-open-application test found 64% of MI-allergic patients reacted at 50 ppm.

Moderate evidence: The 64% at 50 ppm figure is from the same group's earlier study (ref. 20), not new data here; law described as of 2013 and has since changed.

Source: Lundov 2013, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies

New York State's health department recommended in 2013 that average outdoor-air perc stay below 30 micrograms per cubic meter (down from 100) and still estimated about one extra cancer per 100,000 people exposed continuously at that level, a 2016 review reports.

Moderate evidence.

Source: Troynikov 2016, Journal of Environmental Management Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

FEMA's panel says it first ranked 265 natural flavor complexes as GRAS in 1965 on 'long history of safe use' plus low expected exposure, and is only now re-evaluating more than 250 of them with a composition-based method.

Moderate evidence: The panel's own account; re-evaluation outcomes are in later papers, and some NFCs may be in both counts. Industry-authored (FEMA).

Source: Cohen 2018, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

Under the 2018 procedure, if people already eat more of the plant itself than comes from the added flavor (for coriander oil, about 2.5 times more), concern about the oil's unidentified constituents is dropped.

Moderate evidence: Uses USDA import data and a 0.6% oil yield; assumes the same compounds at the same dose in spice and concentrated oil act alike. Industry-authored (FEMA).

Source: Cohen 2018, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

In 2018 the flavor industry's panel removed synthetic methyl eugenol from its GRAS list and the FDA revoked its authorization as an added flavoring, yet the same panel in 2020 affirms oils that naturally contain it, because the intake from the natural oil is low.

Moderate evidence.

Source: Gooderham 2020, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

The flavor industry's safety panel is a trade-association body: eight authors are FEMA Expert Panel members and four work for the contractor that manages FEMA, and the work was paid for by flavor and essential-oil trade groups; 'GRAS' for flavorings is a US food-law status the industry panel itself can grant.

Moderate evidence: The paper describes conflict-of-interest procedures on the FEMA website; this paper does not show the decisions were wrong, only that they are not independent.

Source: Gooderham 2020, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

Under FDA policy a flavor's GRAS status applies only to the designated use (its function in food, the food categories, and the use levels), not to the substance itself, so a flavor judged GRAS as a flavoring is not GRAS for a different use such as sweetening.

Moderate evidence: Industry-authored summary of FDA policy, which it quotes at length; enforcement is described as selective (FDA often comments only on the technical effect).

Source: Hallagan 2020, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

FDA declined a request to require companies to keep a public registry of GRAS substances, so the searchable library of FEMA GRAS flavors (since 2016) exists because FEMA built it, not because the law requires one.

Moderate evidence: Reported from FDA's preamble and FEMA's own account; other companies' private GRAS conclusions are not covered by FEMA's library.

Source: Hallagan 2020, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

The EU requires a 'contains formaldehyde' label only above 0.05% (500 ppm) free formaldehyde, yet EU scientific advisers (SCCS, 2021) said that threshold does not protect formaldehyde-allergic consumers and proposed 10 ppm; sensitized patients have reacted at about 30 ppm.

Moderate evidence: The 30 ppm reaction level is from one cited study (ref 79); the 10 ppm figure is an SCCS proposal, not law.

Source: Goossens 2022, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

The authors note that the US FDA still allows phthalates in food packaging, and that Europe has banned DBP and DEHP in cosmetics but the FDA has not used its authority to limit them in the US.

Moderate evidence: Regulatory description as of the 2021 paper, from the authors' own summary; check current rules.

Source: Trasande, Liu & Bao 2022, Environmental Pollution Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

'GRAS' for these flavorings is an affirmation by an industry trade group's panel, not an FDA approval; the paper says its determinations rest on the 1958 Food Additives Amendment and on constituent data supplied by industry in a 'call for data'.

Moderate evidence: The paper does not discuss whether FDA reviewed these specific determinations; GRAS status is also legally recognized, so this is about who decided, not legal validity.

Source: Guengerich 2026 (FEMA Expert Panel), Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

Methyl eugenol, which the flavor industry's panel later removed from its GRAS list, was already on the first published 1965 list (FEMA 2475) with average maximum use of 10 to 13 ppm in beverages, candy, and baked goods, on 8 survey replies.

Moderate evidence: The 1965 listing was by use level and common use; later withdrawal dates conflict (2015 vs 2018).

Source: Hall & Oser 1965 (FEMA GRAS 3), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

Calamus and calamus oil (FEMA 2226 and 2227), later removed from FEMA GRAS and prohibited by FDA in food, were on the first published 1965 flavor list, which shows that listing on common use did not guarantee later safety.

Moderate evidence: Withdrawal is documented in the 2009 FEMA account, not in the 1965 paper; OCR numbers.

Source: Hall & Oser 1965 (FEMA GRAS 3), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

FALCPA ordered a report and inspections on allergen cross-contact and "may contain" labels, but did not require precautionary labels or limit cross-contact (Secs. 204-205).

Moderate evidence: Based on the 2004 text; later FDA actions were not checked.

Source: FALCPA, Pub. L. 108-282 Title II (2004), Public Law 108-282, Title II, 118 Stat. 905 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

The flavor panel's own article states that two large flavor families (alpha,beta-unsaturated aldehydes and alpha-ketoenols such as maltol and furaneol) are mutagenic in standard bacterial tests and clastogenic in cell tests, and keeps them GRAS because food intake is far below doses with no effect in animals.

Moderate evidence: Industry panel's weight-of-evidence judgment; in vitro and cell results, not human data; no independent review of the panel's reasons.

Source: Smith et al. 2009 (FEMA Expert Panel), GRAS Flavoring Substances 24, Food Technology 63(6), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

The 2009 FEMA GRAS list raised citral use levels to 7,000 ppm usual and 10,000 ppm maximum in chewing gum and 950/1,000 ppm in hard candy, versus 133/178 ppm in baked goods.

Moderate evidence: Industry-reported averages; citral is a fragrance allergen but this table concerns eating only.

Source: Smith et al. 2009 (FEMA Expert Panel), GRAS Flavoring Substances 24, Food Technology 63(6), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

In 2010 Canada's Cosmetic Regulations let companies lump intentional fragrance ingredients under 'parfum', required no pre-market safety testing, and allowed the ingredient list to reach Health Canada up to 10 days after a product was on sale.

Moderate evidence: Description by an advocacy report of the 2004 regulations; Canada has since added named-allergen disclosure.

Source: Sarantis et al. 2010 (Not So Sexy, Canadian edition) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

For loose food and food packed at the buyer's request, EU law makes allergen information mandatory (Art. 44(1)(a)) but lets each Member State decide how it is provided, citing evidence that most food-allergy incidents trace to non-prepacked food (recital 48).

Moderate evidence: Recital 48 is the legislator's stated premise, not a measured figure in the regulation; national rules were not reviewed.

Source: EU Reg 1169/2011 (OJ L 304) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Government agency

EU Regulation 1169/2011 makes "may contain" (unintentional allergen presence) statements voluntary and requires them not to mislead (Art. 36(2)-(3)(a)); the text sets no allergen threshold and no mandatory cross-contact warning.

Moderate evidence: The capture does not show whether the Commission later adopted implementing acts under Art. 36(3)(a); absence of a threshold is as of the 2011 text.

Source: EU Reg 1169/2011 (OJ L 304) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

Two flavors the panel had delisted (2-methyl-5-vinylpyrazine in 1984, 2-hexyl-4-acetoxytetrahydrofuran in 1970) were restored to GRAS in 2010 after the industry supplied missing metabolism and ester-hydrolysis data, under their original FEMA numbers.

Moderate evidence: Panel's own account; the data themselves are not printed in the paper.

Source: FEMA GRAS 25 (2011), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

In 2014 the Danish EPA said disperse dyes, which can cause allergy and cancer, were not regulated by REACH or other legislation; limits came from voluntary labels (Oeko-Tex, EU Ecolabel) and company restricted-substance lists.

Moderate evidence: Agency's 2014 statement about Denmark/EU; the regulatory position may have changed, and the report notes REACH does restrict azo dyes that release 22 listed amines (30 mg/kg).

Source: Danish EPA 2014, Survey of Chemical Substances in Consumer Products No. 129 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

Companies had no legal duty to know or disclose which dyes were used in clothes, so buyers relied on negative lists and labels rather than on dye information.

Moderate evidence: Applies to the 2012-13 Danish and EU situation as described by the agency; REACH Article 33 does require passing on candidate-list substances above 0.1% w/w.

Source: Danish EPA 2014, Survey of Chemical Substances in Consumer Products No. 129 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

Before 2016 the FTC had 'rarely challenged' misleading claims for homeopathic products, and FDA's 1988 Compliance Policy Guide let marketers sell OTC homeopathic products without demonstrating efficacy.

Moderate evidence: The FTC's own description of its enforcement history and of the FDA policy; not independently counted.

Source: FTC 2016 OTC homeopathic enforcement policy statement, Federal Register 81(239):90122-90123 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

As of 2017, FDA treated homeopathic preparations as drugs but exempted them from new drug applications, expiration-dating GMP rules, and finished-product identity and strength testing, and allowed OTC sales without demonstrated safety or efficacy (per the article's list and 1988 guidance).

Moderate evidence: Journalist's summary of FDA policy as of April 2017; later FDA guidance (2019, 2022) changed the framework.

Source: AVMA 2017 (JAVMA News) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

EU labeling rules normally require an ingredient list with quantities, but homeopathic products are exempt: they carry the scientific name of the stock material and the degree of dilution, so a buyer may not realize there is no, or only a minuscule amount of, active ingredient.

Moderate evidence: Policy statement by an evidence-advocacy body; the labeling exception is described, not quoted from the regulation text.

Source: EASAC 2017, EASAC Statement (September 2017) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

EU organic farming rules (Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008, Article 24) direct organic farmers to use homeopathic products in preference to antibiotics and other evidence-based veterinary treatments, which EASAC calls an error given the lack of rigorous evidence.

Moderate evidence: EASAC's reading of the regulation; antibiotics may be used afterward if the remedy fails, so the risk is delay and spread of infection, which EASAC notes. Does not apply to people.

Source: EASAC 2017, EASAC Statement (September 2017) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

FDA said three of the firm's products (HBP Relief, Cholestop, IBS Relief) were misbranded because their claims to treat high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and irritable bowel syndrome are for conditions needing a practitioner, so they should be prescription-only and labeled 'Rx only'.

Moderate evidence: Regulator's allegation in a warning letter; the firm's later response and the 25 June 2018 close-out are not in the capture.

Source: FDA warning letter 521717, 7 Sep 2017, FDA warning letter (MARCS-CMS 521717), 7 September 2017 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

The RCVS describes homeopathy as 'complementary rather than alternative' to treatments with an evidence base, and approved the statement with 'the overwhelming majority of Council members' (no vote count given).

Moderate evidence: Wording from the statement and President's quote; the page's FAQ on whether this is a ban is not captured.

Source: RCVS 2017 complementary and alternative medicines position statement Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

FEMA's GRAS 28 document does not mention FDA, the Delaney Clause, or the 2018 FDA delisting of six synthetic flavors; its only withdrawal statement is for methyl eugenol, and pulegone and benzophenone are not named in the text.

Moderate evidence: Absence of text in one industry document; it does not show what the panel decided about pulegone or benzophenone elsewhere.

Source: FEMA Expert Panel 2018 (GRAS 28), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

FDA classed King Bio's 'Cold Sores & Herpes,' 'Adrenal Burnout' and 'Lymph Detox' as prescription drugs that lacked the 'Rx only' symbol, because website and podcast claims showed intended uses to treat or prevent disease (including a podcast recommending Lymph Detox to prevent cancer).

Moderate evidence: Regulator's legal determination of three products; the firm may have disputed it.

Source: FDA warning letter to King Bio, 20 Mar 2019, FDA warning letter (20 March 2019) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

The EU committee noted the FDA placed benzophenone-3 in category III (insufficient data) in February 2019 for inadequate developmental and reproductive toxicity data, and that BP-3 was not on the REACH candidate list as a substance of very high concern for endocrine disruption as of 2 December 2020.

Moderate evidence: Regulatory status statements as of the opinion's date; second-hand from the SCCS. The SCCS paraphrases FDA's category as 'not safe for use as UV filter'.

Source: SCCS 2021 (BP-3 opinion), SCCS final opinion (PDF) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

FDA's homeopathic enforcement policy is nonbinding and risk-based: many unapproved homeopathic products fall outside its six priority categories, so they stay on shelves although they lack approval.

Moderate evidence: FDA also states any illegally marketed product is subject to enforcement at any time; 'tolerated' is an inference from priority-setting.

Source: FDA 2022 Homeopathic Drug Products guidance Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

Canada's general ingredient-naming section, B.01.010, ties acceptable names to a separate Common Names for Ingredients and Components Document, so the practical list of permitted names lives outside the regulation text.

Moderate evidence: Inference from how the text incorporates the Document by reference; the Document itself was not reviewed.

Source: Canada FDR B.01.010 (Justice Laws, current to 2026-09-30), Canadian regulation Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

EWG Verified counts fragrance in its VOC limits and does not use California's fragrance exemption (0.25 percent by weight for several cleaner categories from 2031).

Moderate evidence: Program rule, not a measured emission result; compares a voluntary standard with California's regulation.

Source: EWG Verified criteria for cleaning products (10.24), Environmental Working Group, 2024 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

FDA says homeopathic products are often shelved next to OTC drugs that FDA has reviewed and marketed as natural, safe, and effective alternatives, which can make them hard for consumers to identify.

Moderate evidence: Agency's characterization of retail practice; no survey of shelf placement or consumer understanding.

Source: FDA consumer page: Homeopathic Products, FDA web page Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

FDA says it has issued more than 20 warning letters to homeopathic-product companies since 2020, including for sterility concerns and contamination.

Moderate evidence: Undated total on a web page; the letters are not listed, and only some are on this evidence base.

Source: FDA consumer page: Homeopathic Products, FDA web page Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

The industry panel's flavor list reached FEMA number 5,029 by 2024, with 49 new substances in one list (FEMA 4981-5029), including plant extracts, an oxidized patchouli oil, hyaluronic acid, and myoglobin.

Moderate evidence: FEMA numbers include a few later withdrawn; this is the industry's own list, not an FDA list.

Source: FEMA Expert Panel 2024 (GRAS 31), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

Seasoning and spice blends may keep the sub-ingredients collective ('spices'), so a consumer reading the list may not see the sub-ingredient names even though a major allergen is still named.

Moderate evidence: Seasoning mixes containing non-spices (e.g., salt) must list their sub-ingredients (21 CFR 101.4(b)(2)).

Source: FDA food allergen Q&A Ed. 5 (2025), FDA guidance for industry (Docket FDA-2022-D-0099) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

EWG Verified applies the EU's 26-allergen labeling thresholds (above 0.01% in rinse-off and 0.001% in leave-on products) to licensed products, even when the allergen arrives inside a fragrance ingredient.

Moderate evidence.

Source: EWG 2026, EWG program criteria (PDF) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

The Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) 8.1 caps formaldehyde in finished goods at "< 16 mg/kg", about one-fifth of the 75 mg/kg skin-contact limit the same standard applies to accessories.

Moderate evidence: These are the 8.1 rules, effective for audits from 1 March 2027; the earlier version's limit was not checked. A voluntary private standard, not law.

Source: GOTS 8.1 (2026) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

GOTS certification relies on audits and each certified company's own risk-based testing plan: entities set their own testing frequency, test types and sample numbers, with inspector, and unannounced supply-chain sampling allowed.

Moderate evidence: Describes the rule, not how often tests happen in practice.

Source: GOTS 8.1 (2026) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

OEKO-TEX Standard 100 is a voluntary, industry-run certification: the applicant signs a Declaration of Conformity, the certificate lasts one year, renewals normally use a reduced testing program, and on-site visits happen at least once every three years.

Moderate evidence: Operator's own description of its scheme; actual audit failure rates are not given.

Source: OEKO-TEX Standard 100 (2026) Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

In Canada, an "Artificial" or "Imitation" flavor is any flavor whose principles "may be derived in whole or in part from sources other than the aromatic plant after which it is named" (9.1.4), so the Canadian split is by botanical source of the named flavor, with no separate "natural" category for flavor from a different source.

Moderate evidence: The absence of a middle category is my reading of the text; no CFIA interpretation was captured.

Source: CFIA Canadian Food Compositional Standards Vol. 9 (page dated 2025-05-01) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

The Canadian flavoring standard (Volume 9, 9.1) sets what a named flavor is and may contain, but says nothing about listing the flavor's constituents for consumers; the label-exemption question is in B.01.009 and is unresolved in the wiki.

Moderate evidence: Silence in a 3-page capture; other Canadian documents govern label lists.

Source: CFIA Canadian Food Compositional Standards Vol. 9 (page dated 2025-05-01) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

GOTS 8.1's 16 mg/kg formaldehyde cap for finished goods is the same as OEKO-TEX Standard 100's baby class (Class I, 'n.d.' = 16 mg/kg), and about one-fifth of OEKO-TEX's 75 mg/kg skin-contact class.

Moderate evidence: Two documents of different editions; GOTS 8.1 audits start March 2027; both cite Japanese Law 112 but GOTS also allows ISO 14184-1.

Source: OEKO-TEX Service GmbH, Standard 100 limit values Annexes 4-5, Ed. 02.2025 Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

In Canada, an allergen inside an exempt flavor or spice preparation must still be shown: B.01.010.1(2) requires the source of any food allergen or gluten present in a prepackaged product, and (8) and (9) say where to show it when the component carrying it is not itself listed.

Moderate evidence: This is a plain reading of the regulation text; CFIA enforcement guidance and recall data were not read.

Source: src-2026-canada-food-drug-regulations-b-01-009-to-b-01-010-4-allergens, Canadian regulation Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

Canada's allergen list is broader than the US nine (it includes mustard and mollusks, and sesame was already listed) and narrower than the EU's 14 (no celery or lupin), counting only the texts and not outcomes.

Moderate evidence: Comparison of legal texts only; EU text read is the original 2011 wording; no recall or reaction data compared.

Source: src-2026-canada-food-drug-regulations-b-01-009-to-b-01-010-4-allergens, Canadian regulation Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

Across Canada, the US, and the EU, none of the three lets a shopper see the individual constituents of a 'flavor' or 'natural flavor'; each lets the flavor stand as one word and pulls back only a short named list plus allergens.

Moderate evidence: Comparison of legal texts; the US and EU facts come from existing evidence base pages, not re-read here.

Source: src-2026-canada-food-drug-regulations-b-01-009-to-b-01-010-4-allergens, Canadian regulation Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

The OEKO-TEX 2026 limit-value notice contains no change to formaldehyde, disperse dye, or fragrance/odor rules; those stay as in the earlier table and the standard.

Moderate evidence: Absence in one notice only; OEKO-TEX could have changed them elsewhere.

Source: OEKO-TEX Association, Limit values: New regulations 2026 (customer information, 03.03.2026) Industry-funded Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

A licensed UK homeopathic arnica 30C product carried the label 'used within the homeopathic tradition for the symptomatic relief of sprains, muscular aches, bruising and swelling', though a 30C dilution contains no active ingredient; the committee judged MHRA's label user-test defective.

Moderate evidence.

Source: UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy (HC 45), Feb 2010 Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

The UK Government said EU law (Directive 2001/83/EC Articles 13-14) requires a simplified registration route for homeopathic products with no proof of efficacy, and that applying conventional-medicine standards would force these products off the market as medicines.

Moderate evidence.

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

UK registration of a homeopathic product does not mean the regulator endorses it: the Department of Health said MHRA registration 'does not imply that the regulator is endorsing homeopathic products' and promised to review product labeling and guidance so the position on efficacy is clearer.

Moderate evidence: A promise to review, not a rule change; the outcome is not in this document.

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

In 2012 US law required ingredient labels on food, cosmetics, and drugs but not on household cleaning products, according to EWG.

Moderate evidence: Stated by an advocacy group without citation; the legal position since 2012 has changed in some states, so date the claim.

Source: EWG press release, Sept. 10, 2012, EWG press release (web page) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

NHMRC told Australians that homeopathy 'should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious', and that people who reject or delay effective treatment may put their health at risk.

Moderate evidence: This is advice grounded in lack of reliable effectiveness evidence; the review explicitly did not assess safety of homeopathic medicines.

Source: NHMRC 2015 Information Paper on the effectiveness of homeopathy (CAM02A) Link to this fact

Laws and loopholes / Other evidence

In the UK only osteopathy and chiropractic practitioners are regulated like conventional medicine practitioners, and animal acupuncture must be done by a qualified vet or a vet nurse under a vet's guidance; other therapies rely on voluntary registers.

Moderate evidence: BSAVA's summary as of its 2024 review; verify against RCVS and legislation before citing as law.

Source: BSAVA position statement on complementary and alternative therapies (reviewed 2024) Link to this fact