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 / 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
Laws and loopholes / Journalism
Skin Deep is a private database, not a regulator's finding: its weights, score categories, and evidence-to-points tables are described by EWG as "professional judgment" and "subjective assessment", and the page reports no outside validation of the scores.
Moderate evidence: The absence of any described validation is from one page; it does not prove none exists elsewhere.
Source: EWG Skin Deep methodology page (2026 capture) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
When EWG changes the Verified criteria, licensed companies get until the end of their contract plus 18 months to reformulate and resubmit or remove the mark; a reformulation or supplier change requires resubmission.
Moderate evidence: EWG's own program terms; not a legal or regulatory requirement.
Source: EWG Verified FAQ, verified-portal.ewg.org, accessed 2026-10-16, EWG Verified portal web page Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The 2006 ADBAC inhalation benchmark (NOAEL 3 mg/kg/day, 100% absorption assumed) came from an oral rabbit developmental study because no inhalation study existed; EPA listed a 90-day rat inhalation study as confirmatory.
Moderate evidence: Whether the study was later submitted or changed the benchmark was not checked.
Source: EPA RED 2006 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The hair-product concentrations industry asked the EU committee to approve in 2005-2006 (2.5% rinse-off and 1.0% leave-on for cetrimonium and steartrimonium chloride; 5.0% and 3.0% for behentrimonium chloride) became EU law in 2014.
Moderate evidence: Follow-on legal outcome after a later SCCS opinion; the 2014 law also extended the leave-on face limit to all leave-on face products and made limits sum-based.
Source: SCCP 2006 Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The flavor industry trade association's expert panel (FEMA) made 2,702 of the 6,204 current US safety decisions allowing substances in human food in 2011 (44%), more than FDA's own 1,921; FEMA sends its decisions to FDA but FDA does not formally evaluate them.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Counting is the Pew authors' own method (each CFR section one decision; FEMA reports one decision per substance); FEMA's count is as of 2009-2011 reports; counts decisions, not substances' hazard or exposure.
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
FDA's own 'Everything Added to Food in the United States' database includes less than half of the substances FDA allows and under 10% of those allowed in the past 10 years, per Pew authors in 2011.
Moderate evidence: Authors' comparison from 2011; FDA has changed its databases since; the paper does not list the comparison step by step.
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
FDA reports no 'insufficient basis' GRAS letters since 2001 while allowing 31 withdrawn notices; a company that withdraws can still sell the ingredient on its own GRAS decision, and the Pew authors knew of no enforcement action in that situation.
Moderate evidence: Secondhand count from a law-firm source; absence of known enforcement is the authors' awareness, not a survey; 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
For most food additives and GRAS substances there is no requirement to reassess safety or report new research after the product is on the market; only pesticide makers must report new hazard research, while the flavor panel itself requires use reports every 5 years and reassesses about every 12.
Moderate evidence: Authors' legal summary as of 2011, before FDA's later rules; FEMA's reassessment practice is as reported to the authors by FEMA.
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 / Government agency
The EU committee said that substances which turn into known allergens by air oxidation or in the skin should be treated the same as the allergens themselves, and suggested limiting peroxides in limonene and linalool to 10 ppm.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
A scientific recommendation, not law; the regulation that followed (2023) states the principle but, as recorded on its evidence base page, adds no peroxide limit for limonene or linalool.
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The EU committee said a general level of 0.8 micrograms per square centimeter (0.01%, 100 ppm in a product) would limit, but not prevent, allergic reactions in already-allergic people, and that ingredient labeling stays necessary.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
The 0.8 figure is the median dose that triggers reactions in 10% of sensitized people in patch tests (16 studies, 8 allergens, 2 of them fragrances); it excludes natural extracts and does not protect the most sensitive.
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The CIR Panel's control of 1,4-dioxane and ethylene oxide in polysorbates is an instruction that industry 'should continue to use the necessary procedures'; the draft sets no limit or test requirement.
Moderate evidence: CIR is an industry-funded review body with no enforcement role; FDA and state rules were not reviewed here.
Source: CIR 2015 draft Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
FDA said this homeopathic maker did not adequately test incoming components such as belladonna for identity, purity, strength and quality, and relied on supplier certificates of analysis without periodic validation.
Moderate evidence: FDA's description of inspection findings and the firm's replies; the firm's own records are not shown.
Source: FDA warning letter 320-17-45, 2 Aug 2017 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
FDA rejected a homeopathic firm's claim to be only a private-label distributor, treating Homeolab USA and parent Homeocan as a single manufacturer because they share address, facility, CEO and head of quality, and said quality agreements cannot delegate CGMP responsibility to a contract maker.
Moderate evidence: FDA's position; the firm's side is known only through FDA's quotes.
Source: FDA warning letter 320-17-45, 2 Aug 2017 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Suffolk County Local Law 15-2016 required the county health department to build a consumer-facing system categorizing garment-cleaning solvents; US EPA will no longer allow perchloroethylene cleaners to operate in residential buildings after 2020, and New York already requires closed-loop machines.
Moderate evidence: Describes law as the report states it in 2018; later regulatory changes were not checked.
Source: SCDHS 2018 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
FDA's letter says homeopathic drugs are subject to the same requirements as other drugs, and that eye drops and an intimate spray sold as homeopathic for post-cataract-surgery use, chronic cystitis and genital ulcers should be prescription products labeled 'Rx only'.
Moderate evidence: This is FDA's legal position in one letter; it did not charge these two products as unapproved new drugs, and the letter is not a court ruling.
Source: FDA warning letter 570947, 2 May 2019, FDA warning letter (MARCS-CMS 570947), 2 May 2019 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
FDA treated a 'natural mineral' cleansing bar sold with claims that it prevents skin diseases and skin cancer as an unapproved new drug.
Moderate evidence: FDA's allegation based on brochure claims; the soap was not described as homeopathic.
Source: FDA warning letter 570947, 2 May 2019, FDA warning letter (MARCS-CMS 570947), 2 May 2019 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
In the US, FDA banned sulfites on fresh fruit and vegetables in 1986 and requires labels on packaged foods above 10 ppm, but food from restaurants, bakeries and cafes, or sold directly from the place it is made, is exempt.
Moderate evidence: Secondary summary of regulation; check current FDA text before quoting.
Source: Choi 2024, Cutis Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
FDA treated a homeopathic seller's own website text (the 'most common indication … is cataracts') as proof that the product is intended as a drug, so homeopathic strength labeling did not shield it.
Moderate evidence: One letter, one quoted claim; allegation, not a court finding.
Source: FDA warning letter 708635 (25 Aug 2025), FDA warning letter (MARCS-CMS 708635), 25 August 2025 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
FDA's 2026 proposal rests on its authority under FD&C Act sections 201, 402, 409 and 701 and no longer repeats the 2016 statement that it 'lack[s] express statutory authority' to require GRAS notice; the legal question has not been tested because the rule is only proposed.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Based on the Legal Authority section as printed; the pages read do not explicitly address the 2016 statement, so this is a reading of omission, not an FDA concession. Any final rule could be challenged.
Source: FDA 2026, 91 FR 51834 (proposed) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
FDA says confidence in government's ability to keep the food supply safe fell among U.S. adults from 68 percent in 2019 to 57 percent in 2024 (those saying 'great deal' or 'fair amount'), and proposes mandatory GRAS notice partly to rebuild that confidence.
Moderate evidence: The poll figures are cited by FDA from an outside survey (Ref. 25); the rationale is FDA's own, in a proposed rule.
Source: FDA 2026, 91 FR 51834 (proposed) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The authors framed the EU cost analysis as the health-benefit side missing from the European Commission's impact assessment, which they describe as focused on the economic impact of regulating endocrine disruptors on industry.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
This is the authors' description of the Commission's assessment, not verified against that document; the study was funded by the Endocrine Society and foundations, with a panel that includes NGO-affiliated members.
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
By 1982 US cosmetic labels had to declare ingredients, with the exception of individual fragrance ingredients, so patients could avoid a named allergen by reading labels but not a fragrance component.
Moderate evidence: Author statement of 1982 labeling practice; not independently checked against the regulation text.
Source: Eiermann 1982, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
EU and US safety committees evaluate the safety of the maximum preservative concentration the industry requests; antimicrobial efficiency is not part of that evaluation, so nothing in the review shows the legal maximum is the minimum that works.
Moderate evidence: Description as of 2008; both systems have changed since; the CIR panel includes industry-nominated members.
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Under Australia's 1999-2000 NHMRC guidelines, joining a genetic register is voluntary: a registrant can ask at any time to have their identified information and stored DNA removed, and consent should usually be in writing.
Moderate evidence: One country's guidance, effective 1 January 2000, possibly superseded; 'should' language, not a statute.
Source: NHMRC 2000 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The NHMRC's 2000 guidelines say a register may give a registrant's information to blood relatives or a spouse only with the registrant's consent, and that the registrant's refusal should ultimately bind staff, except in rare cases of large, serious, imminent and preventable risk to relatives, where breaching confidentiality may be considered after taking advice.
Moderate evidence: Australian guidance from 1999-2000; the exception is a consideration, not a duty to disclose; may be superseded.
Source: NHMRC 2000 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The 2000 NHMRC genetic-register guidelines require the registrant's written informed consent before information goes to insurers, employers or financial organizations, and tell registrants that such information might be sought in determining eligibility for life insurance.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Australian guidance from 1999-2000; says nothing about what insurers may lawfully ask for; may be superseded. Consent may come from the registrant or from another person or body able to give legally valid consent (for example a legal representative or guardianship board), per s5.1(b)(vii).
Source: NHMRC 2000 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Under the NHMRC's 2000 guidelines, a register that lacks statutory protection can be forced by subpoena to produce its records, and registrants should be told of this possibility and informed immediately if access is sought, so they can challenge it.
Moderate evidence: Describes Australian law as understood in 1999; a subpoena only requires production to the court, which then decides on release; may be out of date.
Source: NHMRC 2000 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The NHMRC's 2000 guidelines say pedigree-building records identified information about relatives who have not consented, so registers must flag it, not disclose it identified, and remove identifiers if consent is never obtained.
Moderate evidence: Australian guidance from 1999-2000; the text notes 'some consider' this a privacy breach, so it is a contested practice, not settled law; may be superseded.
Source: NHMRC 2000 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Research on register data or stored DNA needs ethics-committee (HREC) approval plus approval by the register's advisory committee and should use the minimum identification needed, and registrants are told they are unlikely to receive any financial benefit from resulting products.
Moderate evidence: Australian guidance from 1999-2000; may be superseded.
Source: NHMRC 2000 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The industry panel cleared trimoniums in hair sprays without inhalation toxicity data, reasoning that spray droplets (mean about 38 micrometers) are not respirable.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
This is a panel policy decision based on particle size, not a toxicology study; the same report says particles below 10 micrometers are respirable. CIR is financed by the Personal Care Products Council, the cosmetics industry trade association.
Source: Becker et al. 2012 (CIR), Int J Toxicol, International Journal of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
EPA's March 2017 registration-review work plan lists residential and public-access uses of ADBAC (a benzalkonium-chloride-class quat), including hard-surface sprays and wipes, humidifier water (7-510 ppm), waterbed water, carpet deodorizers, pools and exterior decks, among 667 registered products.
Moderate evidence: Label uses as of March 2017; the document does not say how many products are sold for home use, and later registrations were not read.
Source: US EPA 2017 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
EPA states that some ADBAC product labels allow end-use concentrations on food-contact hard surfaces (up to 16,000 ppm) above the 200 or 400 ppm tolerance exemptions, and that existing labels were not yet in compliance with the risk-mitigation measures of its 2006 decision.
Moderate evidence: EPA's own statement as of March 2017; whether labels were later brought into compliance was not read.
Source: US EPA 2017 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
EU limits on benzophenone-3 (oxybenzone) as a UV filter: 6% in face, hand and lip products (not sprays), 2.2% in body products including propellant and pump sprays, 0.5% in other products; octocrylene 9% in propellant sprays and 10% in other products.
Moderate evidence: Secondary summary by a regulatory consultancy (Obelis); cite the Regulation itself for these numbers.
Source: COSlaw.eu (Obelis) 2022, UV filters news Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Products that met the old EU rules for benzophenone-3 and octocrylene could be placed on the EU market until 28 January 2023 and made available until 28 July 2023; the Regulation took effect 28 July 2022.
Moderate evidence: Secondary source; cite the Regulation.
Source: COSlaw.eu (Obelis) 2022, UV filters news Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Retail repackaging exempts a food from the name-and-place-of-business and common-name statements if a sign or the original labeling is displayed, but the exemption list in 21 CFR 101.100(b) does not include the ingredient declaration.
Moderate evidence: Reading of what the list omits; other provisions not read on this page may also apply to repackaged food.
Source: 21 CFR 101.100 (eCFR, 2026-10-15) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Unlike US cosmetic fragrance, where one word ('fragrance' or 'parfum') stands in for the whole mixture, the food incidental-additive exemption turns on function in the finished food and insignificant level, and the sulfite rule adds a numeric cutoff.
Moderate evidence: Comparison made by our evidence base across two legal regimes; this page did not read the cosmetic rules directly.
Source: 21 CFR 101.100 (eCFR, 2026-10-15) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The Canadian Human Rights Commission's 2019 information sheet says a reaction to much lower levels of chemicals or perfumes than the average person tolerates "is a medical condition. It is a recognized disability."
Moderate evidence: Agency position stated without citation or test; a two-page information sheet, not a ruling. Says 'allergies or environmental sensitivity', never 'multiple chemical sensitivity'.
Source: [[src-2019-chrc-environmental-sensitivity-scent-free-policies|CHRC 2019]] Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The CHRC says the Canadian Human Rights Act protects people with allergies or environmental sensitivities "like any other disability" and that they can ask employers or service providers for accommodation.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Applies to federally regulated employers and service providers only (general legal background; the sheet does not state the limit). Provincial codes govern most workplaces and housing.
Source: [[src-2019-chrc-environmental-sensitivity-scent-free-policies|CHRC 2019]] Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
For environmental sensitivities, the CHRC says making facilities 'accessible and safe' means reducing chemical use, having a scent-free policy, buying less toxic products, and notifying people before construction or maintenance work.
Moderate evidence: Recommended measures from the regulator; the sheet cites no outcome evidence that they work.
Source: [[src-2019-chrc-environmental-sensitivity-scent-free-policies|CHRC 2019]] Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The CHRC states that the right to a scent-free workspace "is not absolute": the duty is reasonable accommodation and may conflict with another employee's rights, such as religion.
Moderate evidence: Information sheet wording; no case law cited. The 2019 sheet does not use the term 'undue hardship'.
Source: [[src-2019-chrc-environmental-sensitivity-scent-free-policies|CHRC 2019]] Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The act added a Criminal Code exclusion under which a mental illness is not considered an illness, disease or disability for MAiD eligibility, and in the same act provided for that exclusion to be repealed.
Moderate evidence: No repeal date appears in the captured text; later acts changed the timing. This act alone does not show the current date; use Justice Canada's page.
Source: S.C. 2021, c. 2 (Bill C-7), annual statute page Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The act expanded federal MAiD data reporting to include, with the person's consent, race or Indigenous identity and disability, and allows regulations on analyzing inequality or disadvantage based on race, Indigenous identity or disability.
Moderate evidence: Enabling provisions; the actual reporting is set by regulations not on this page.
Source: S.C. 2021, c. 2 (Bill C-7), annual statute page Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
CTV reported that Canada's 2021 MAiD revision allows people whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable (Track Two) to be approved, and CTV said the woman in its story "was in this category."
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
CTV's own explanation and classification; the government's description is on the Justice Canada page. Subject matter is a death by MAiD: any published use should carry a crisis-support line (988 in Canada and the US).
Source: CTV News, April 2022 (via Smoke-Free Housing BC; redacted copy), CTV News (news article) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
CTV wrote: "The underlying problem is that there is no government agency that is assigned to help people with environmental sensitivities get housing free from chemicals."
Moderate evidence: A journalist's statement without a cited source; not checked against program inventories. Attribute to CTV. Death by MAiD is the article's subject; add 988 line in published use.
Source: CTV News, April 2022 (via Smoke-Free Housing BC; redacted copy), CTV News (news article) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
CTV reported that four Toronto physicians wrote to federal housing and disability officials: "We physicians find it UNCONSCIONABLE that no other solution is proposed to this situation other than medical assistance in dying."
Moderate evidence: Quoted by CTV; the physicians declined to speak to CTV and are not named on this page. Death by MAiD is the subject; add 988 line in published use.
Source: CTV News, April 2022 (via Smoke-Free Housing BC; redacted copy), CTV News (news article) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Almost all committee members agreed that social needs such as housing should first be approached with an attempt to resolve them, and that this would likely take longer than the minimum 90-day Track 2 assessment period; its practice consideration is that MAiD be deferred while a person waits for appropriate social services or healthcare.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Practice considerations, not law. Some members held that social needs may be considered irremediable once all acceptable and available options are explored; others strongly dissented.
Source: Ontario MDRC Report 2024-3 (OCC, 2024; non-official copy) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The committee described the 90-day Track 2 assessment period as introduced "as an arbitrary timeline to approach complex issues" and suggested assessors may pause or defer assessments while consultant, social and other care takes place; it also states the period may legislatively be shortened only for risk of imminent loss of capacity.
Moderate evidence: The legal statement is the committee's reading; check the Criminal Code text and Justice Canada for the statute.
Source: Ontario MDRC Report 2024-3 (OCC, 2024; non-official copy) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Track 2 MAiD recipients in Ontario in 2023 were more likely than Track 1 recipients to live in the most materially deprived areas (28.4% vs 21.5%), by the Ontario Marginalization Index.
Moderate evidence: Neighborhood-level index, not individual income; the report says it may not show individual deprivation.
Source: Ontario MDRC Report 2024-3 (OCC, 2024; non-official copy) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The CHRC lists implementing and enforcing a scent-free policy, using least-toxic scent-free products, and notifying workers and clients before construction or maintenance as part of keeping facilities accessible and safe for people with environmental sensitivities.
Moderate evidence: Guidance wording, not a statute; the page gives no outcome evidence that these measures work.
Source: CHRC 2026 web Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The CHRC says a worker who rejects a reasonable accommodation that meets their needs cannot hold out for their preferred one, and the employer may be found to have met the duty to accommodate.
Moderate evidence: Agency view of its own process; individual cases are decided on their facts.
Source: CHRC 2026 web Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The CHRC describes environmental sensitivity as an umbrella term that includes allergies, asthma, and disabilities such as multiple chemical sensitivity, ME/CFS and fibromyalgia.
Moderate evidence: Agency framing, not a diagnostic definition; MCS appears as one example.
Source: CHRC 2026 web Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Section 241.2(2.1) states that, for the purposes of the illness, disease or disability criterion in (2)(a), a mental illness is not considered to be an illness, disease or disability.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
The provision appears in the consolidated text, but the capture shows no in-force date or conditional note; in-force status was not verified, so check the live page before stating it applies on a given date.
Source: Criminal Code s. 241.2 (consolidation current to 2026-09-30) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Justice Canada says the 2021 law expanded MAID data collection to all assessments after a request and lets the Health Minister require more data on race, Indigenous identity and disability, to look for inequality or disadvantage in how MAID is delivered.
Moderate evidence: Describes regulation-making power and regulations in force from January 1, 2023; the page gives no results from that data.
Source: Justice Canada: Canada's MAID law (captured 2026-10-21), Justice Canada web page Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
OSHA's indoor-air guidance says OSHA standards address hazards 'leading to serious physical harm or death', and the main catch-all rule (the General Duty Clause) is limited to recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm, a high bar for irritation, headache or odor complaints.
Moderate evidence: Our reading of how the threshold applies to common symptoms is an inference; the booklet does not say fragrance complaints fall outside it.
Source: OSHA 3430-04, 2011 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
A few states run their own indoor-air rules for workplaces; New Jersey's IAQ standard (2007) covers existing buildings occupied by public employees, while federal OSHA has none.
Moderate evidence: As of 2011; scope limited to public employees; current status not checked here.
Source: OSHA 3430-04, 2011 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
In the US, federal phthalate rules are minimal: the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned 8 phthalates in children's toys and childcare articles (under industry legal challenge), while FDA still allows 28 phthalates in food-contact materials and has only issued guidance, not rules, on phthalates in medicines.
Moderate evidence: Regulatory status as of the 2020 acceptance date and as described by the authors; rules may have changed since.
Source: Engel 2021, American Journal of Public Health Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
The authors say FDA's authority over cosmetics and personal care products is much less comprehensive than over food or drugs and needs a change in the law, and they recommend mandatory labeling of phthalates in personal care and household products.
Moderate evidence: A policy recommendation by advocacy-affiliated researchers, not a finding; the essay does not discuss the trade-secret 'fragrance' label.
Source: Engel 2021, American Journal of Public Health Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The authors say two obstacles stall control of developmental neurotoxicity: large gaps in testing chemicals for it, and the very high level of proof demanded before regulation, so few chemicals have been regulated on these grounds.
Moderate evidence: Authors' policy argument; both are long-standing advocates of precautionary regulation.
Source: Grandjean & Landrigan 2014, Lancet Neurology, The Lancet Neurology Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.