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.
Health effects / Review of other studies
The cosmetics industry's own expert safety panel states plainly, in its own report, that no data exist — published or industry-submitted — on whether PTFE (Teflon) is absorbed through the skin or how the body distributes, metabolizes, or excretes it.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Absence of data is not evidence of harm; the tested endpoints (acute toxicity, irritation, sensitization, genotoxicity) were negative at cosmetic use concentrations. This narrow claim is about dermal absorption/ADME only — it does not extend to endocrine or environmental effects, which this document does not address at all.
Source: CIR 2018 Industry-funded Link to this fact
Health effects / Measured in people or real products
Most patients with scent- and chemical-triggered breathing symptoms in this study (8 of 12) were already taking asthma inhalers or steroid inhalers and said the drugs gave little or no relief, matching an independent Canadian clinic's finding that a similar scent-triggered condition does not respond to asthma medication.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Both this and the corroborating study (Hoy 2010) are single-clinic case series (n=12 and n=30); 'little relief' is patient-reported, not measured by a controlled inhaler-response trial.
Health effects / Review of other studies
In 2019, IARC upgraded styrene from Group 2B to Group 2A ("probably carcinogenic to humans"), based mainly on mechanistic/genotoxicity evidence, with limited human epidemiological evidence linking occupational styrene exposure to lymphohematopoietic cancers (leukemia and lymphoma).
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Classification by an international expert Working Group reviewing all available literature, not a single primary study; "limited evidence" in humans is the IARC term of art, one tier below "sufficient".
Source: IARC 2019 (Vol. 121) Link to this fact
Health effects / Government agency
The cosmetics industry's own 2021 safety report on benzophenone-3 cites FDA's 2019 proposed sunscreen rule stating there is insufficient data to determine benzophenone-3 is 'generally recognized as safe and effective' as a sunscreen active ingredient, specifically naming 'the potential for endocrine activity' as a reason further developmental and reproductive toxicity data are needed.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
This is FDA's stated position on the sunscreen-active use, reported (not disputed) by CIR; CIR's own conclusion covers a different, non-sunscreen use and does not resolve or address FDA's endocrine-activity concern.
Source: CIR 2021 Benzophenones Industry-funded Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
Formaldehyde, benzene, and other combustion byproducts measured in this candle study are not intentionally added fragrance ingredients; they form from incomplete combustion of the wax and fragrance materials when a candle burns.
Strong evidence: Direct statement from the paper's Discussion, consistent with our other candle chamber primaries.
Source: Petry 2014, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Health effects / Self-reported survey
Migraine patients who report osmophobia in the premonitory phase (hours before headache onset) report odors as a migraine trigger significantly more often than patients without premonitory osmophobia (p<0.0001); the same pattern holds for photophobia and light-as-trigger, and for food craving and food-as-trigger.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Independently replicated in a second German tertiary-care cohort (Gossrau et al. 2022, n=113): preictal hypersensitivity was significantly associated with self-reported odor-triggered attacks (OR=2.896, 95% CI 1.139-7.364, p=0.026) and with ictal hypersensitivity (OR=10.611, 95% CI 3.355-33.557, p<0.001). Both studies remain cross-sectional and retrospective self-report, so neither can establish which direction (if either) is causal, nor rule out odors also acting as genuine independent triggers in some patients.
Source: Schulte 2015, The Journal of Headache and Pain Link to this fact
Health effects / Government agency
New Zealand's 2026 cosmetics amendment cut the maximum permitted concentration of the sunscreen UV filter homosalate from 15% to 10%, with a separate, longer phase-out (15%-compliant stock may still be imported/manufactured until 30 June 2027, supplied until 30 June 2028, and must be disposed of by 31 March 2029).
Strong evidence: Primary legal text (Schedule 8 Table 1 entry 3; Schedule 2 transitional provision 4A, explicitly titled "Phase out of products containing 15% homosalate").
Source: Cosmetic Products Group Standard 2020 (NZ, HSR002552, consolidated and current to 1 Jan 2026) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
A 2010 Cochrane review of 202 randomized trials covering 60 conditions, each comparing placebo with no treatment, found no important clinical effect of placebo in general; the pooled relative risk for binary outcomes (44 trials, 6041 patients) was 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99).
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Only 8% of trials were at low risk of bias; moderate heterogeneity (I2 45%); the no-treatment comparison cannot be blinded. Cochrane review by independent authors with no declared interests.
Source: Hróbjartsson 2010, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
By simple arithmetic, a homeopathic remedy diluted beyond 12C (a trillion-trillionth, 10^-24) is not expected to contain even one molecule of the original substance; the common over-the-counter 30C would need water with more than 15,000 times the Sun's mass to hold one molecule.
Strong evidence: Theoretical arithmetic, single author; low-potency products (below 12C) are not covered. Strength reflects the arithmetic, not any clinical result.
Source: Grimes 2012, Focus Altern Complement Ther, Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
EU thermal process flavorings (heat-made Maillard-type flavors from amino compounds and reducing sugars) must be made at no more than 180 degrees C, no more than 15 minutes at 180 degrees C (time doubling per 10 degrees C drop, up to 12 hours) and pH no higher than 8.0, with at most 50 micrograms per kg each of the heterocyclic amines PhIP and 4,8-DiMeIQx.
Strong evidence: The document states limits only; it gives no toxicology, no measured levels in products and no compliance data.
Source: EU Regulation 1334/2008, Annex V Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
Homeopathic dilutions beyond 12C (24X) are unlikely to contain a single molecule of the original substance.
Strong evidence: Arithmetic of serial 1:100 dilutions; not itself evidence about clinical effect.
Source: AVMA 2017 (JAVMA News) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
The EU committee's margin of safety for 6% oxybenzone was about 36-38 for whole-body sunscreens (aerosol 36, cream and pump spray 38), far below the 447 for face cream, 317 for hand cream, and 1257 for lipstick; the SCCS uses a 100-fold margin as the benchmark in its guidance.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Margin = 67.9 mg/kg/day rat NOAEL divided by estimated absorbed dose; the 100 benchmark is stated in the separate guidance, not this opinion. Absorption includes a 2-standard-deviation add-on for a flawed lab study.
Source: SCCS 2021 (BP-3 opinion), SCCS final opinion (PDF) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
The EU committee called the evidence that benzophenone-3 disrupts hormones 'inconclusive, and at best equivocal' across computer-modeling, cell, and animal studies, and asked for further investigation; it did not conclude that BP-3 is an endocrine disruptor.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Absence of a conclusion is not a clearance: the same opinion set its safety limit from a reproductive-organ effect in rat offspring (fewer spermatocytes at 3,000 ppm) that it said 'may be due to an ED effect'.
Source: SCCS 2021 (BP-3 opinion), SCCS final opinion (PDF) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
Australia's NHMRC based its 2015 homeopathy advice on an overview that found 57 systematic reviews covering 68 clinical conditions (published 1997 to January 2013), plus separate reviews of studies that homeopathy supporters submitted: 343 articles before the overview and 153 during public consultation.
Strong evidence: Describes the review process only; the findings are in the Information Paper, which this report does not contain. The consultation-stage counts do not add up as printed.
Source: NHMRC 2015 Administrative Report on the homeopathy review (CAM02B) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
NHMRC says it chose homeopathy as its first complementary medicine to review because it is widely used in Australia and worldwide and its 'underlying premise is not consistent with our current understanding of the biological, physiological, and pharmacological sciences.'
Strong evidence: This is NHMRC's stated rationale in a process document, not a finding from the evidence review.
Source: NHMRC 2015 Administrative Report on the homeopathy review (CAM02B) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
NHMRC's review process included an independent Cochrane methodological review, three expert reviewers (two Australian, one international), and a public consultation from 9 April to 2 June 2014 that drew 48 submissions.
Strong evidence: NHMRC's own account of its process; the independent reviewers' comments are not reproduced.
Source: NHMRC 2015 Administrative Report on the homeopathy review (CAM02B) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
NHMRC counted a late-submitted study only if it was a prospective controlled study (or a systematic review of such studies), publicly available in English, in people with a clinical condition, with a comparison group and clinically relevant outcomes.
Strong evidence: Inclusion criteria as printed; whether supporters' evidence was excluded unfairly is a dispute the report does not address.
Source: NHMRC 2015 Administrative Report on the homeopathy review (CAM02B) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
The NHMRC homeopathy review looked at effectiveness only: it excluded laboratory and animal studies, prevention, homeopathic 'vaccines' and general wellbeing, and says its focus 'was on the effectiveness of homeopathic medicines, not their safety'.
Strong evidence: Plain statement of scope in the document.
Source: NHMRC 2015 Information Paper on the effectiveness of homeopathy (CAM02A) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
NHMRC counted 68 conditions that the 57 reviews searched for homeopathy research but found published research on only 61; seven (including dementia, glaucoma, and bedwetting) had none.
Strong evidence: The Administrative Report's '68 conditions' is the searched count, not conditions with evidence; the two documents agree.
Source: NHMRC 2015 Information Paper on the effectiveness of homeopathy (CAM02A) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
Australia's national health research council (NHMRC) concluded in March 2015 that 'there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.'
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Agency conclusion about the reliability of evidence, based on 57 systematic reviews; the details are in the Information Paper. 'No reliable evidence' is not the same as proof of no effect.
Source: NHMRC 2015 Statement on Homeopathy (CAM02) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
NHMRC's review drew on 57 systematic reviews containing 176 individual controlled studies, and found no good-quality, well-designed study with enough participants showing homeopathy beat placebo or matched another treatment.
Strong evidence: Counts and wording as printed in the short statement; study-level data are in the Information Paper, not here.
Source: NHMRC 2015 Statement on Homeopathy (CAM02) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
NHMRC says that for some conditions studies found homeopathy no better than placebo, for others only poor-quality studies reported benefit and were judged unreliable, and for the rest there was too little evidence to reach any conclusion.
Strong evidence: The statement does not name which conditions fall in each group.
Source: NHMRC 2015 Statement on Homeopathy (CAM02) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
NHMRC defined an effective treatment as one producing health improvements that cannot be explained by placebo, are meaningful for overall health, are unlikely to be due to chance, and are seen consistently in several studies.
Strong evidence: This is the agency's health-technology-assessment-style threshold, a stricter bar than a single positive trial.
Source: NHMRC 2015 Statement on Homeopathy (CAM02) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
NHMRC counted only controlled studies that compared people given homeopathy with a similar group not given it, and rated each study's quality and size for bias in favor of homeopathy, placebo, or another treatment.
Strong evidence: Method description only; no study-level results in this document.
Source: NHMRC 2015 Statement on Homeopathy (CAM02) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
The EU committee that cleared hair-conditioner quats (cetrimonium, behentrimonium chloride) said they can irritate skin, especially when more than one is combined, and that concentrated forms are corrosive to skin and eyes.
Strong evidence: Animal irritation data on concentrates; the committee judged finished products unlikely to irritate at intended use levels.
Source: SCCS 2009 trimoniums, SCCS opinion (PDF) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
The EU's safety margin of 192 for conditioner quats (cetrimonium, steartrimonium, behentrimonium chloride) rests on a skin-absorption value borrowed from a different, shorter-chain chemical (laurtrimonium bromide, rat, 1979) and a 12-month rat study of cetrimonium bromide; the committee itself called the absorption value a compromise.
Strong evidence: The committee also says rat skin is usually more permeable than human skin, so 3.15% may overestimate; the MoS is a worst-case figure against a benchmark of 100.
Source: SCCS 2009 trimoniums, SCCS opinion (PDF) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
Sodium perborate, an ingredient in powder hair dyes, is legally classified in the EU as toxic to reproduction: category 2 ('may cause harm to the unborn child') and category 3 (possible impaired fertility), because of boron.
Strong evidence: Classification is from animal studies (rat gavage doses of 100-1000 mg/kg bw/day), not from human cosmetic use.
Source: SCCS 2010 (SCCS/1345/10), SCCS opinion SCCS/1345/10 (PDF) Link to this fact
Health effects / Government agency
The EU committee said in 2012 that one fragrance allergen, HICC, had caused more than 1,500 published allergy cases in a decade and should not be used in consumer products, even at 200 ppm, and that voluntary industry reductions were insufficient.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Case counts come from published literature and are described as a severe underestimate; the 'voluntary restrictions are insufficient' judgment is the regulator's reading of available evidence; industry's counter-position is not presented in this document.
Health effects / Other evidence
IARC's alphabetical list (last update November 2018) printed formaldehyde (Vol 100F, 2012), benzene, ethylene oxide, trichloroethylene and vinyl chloride as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans, as of that date.
Strong evidence: 2018 snapshot; hazard classification only, not a statement of risk at product-use levels; later re-evaluations are not reflected.
Source: IARC 2018, Agents Classified by the IARC Monographs, Vols 1-123 Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
In July 2024 the WHO's cancer agency (IARC) classified talc as 'probably carcinogenic to humans' (Group 2A), the second-highest certainty level, on limited human evidence for ovarian cancer, sufficient animal evidence (rats) and strong mechanistic evidence.
Strong evidence: This is a hazard classification, not a measure of risk at any exposure level; the human evidence is rated only limited.
Source: IARC Press Release 352 (2024) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
IARC says the studies linking perineal body-powder use to ovarian cancer were consistent, but asbestos contamination could not be excluded in most of them and reporting bias could not be ruled out, so a causal role for talc 'could not be fully established.'
Strong evidence: Agency statement of its own evidence rating; the underlying epidemiology is not reviewed in this release.
Source: IARC Press Release 352 (2024) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
IARC's new talc evaluation covers talc not containing asbestos; talc containing asbestos was left out because it is already part of the definition of asbestos, a Group 1 carcinogen that causes mesothelioma and cancers of the lung, larynx and ovary.
Strong evidence: Asbestos classification dates from 2009; this release restates it.
Source: IARC Press Release 352 (2024) Link to this fact
Health effects / Measured in people or real products
This Korean child ADHD-symptom study measured only DEHP and DBP metabolites; MEP, the marker of the fragrance phthalate DEP, was not measured, so it says nothing about perfume or fragrance.
Strong evidence: Only MEHP, MEOP (MEOHP) and MNBP were analyzed.
Health effects / Review of other studies
Pooled analyses of seven international studies support the conclusion that no safe level of childhood lead exposure exists for IQ, and lead exposure in early childhood is also associated with later school performance and delinquency.
Strong evidence: Lead is the best-replicated developmental neurotoxicant; the 'no safe level' phrase is the authors' reading of the pooled dose-response.
Source: Grandjean & Landrigan 2014, Lancet Neurology, The Lancet Neurology Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
The study could not tell which additive caused the effect: every active drink was a mixture of four colors plus sodium benzoate, so no single color or the preservative can be blamed or cleared.
Strong evidence: This is the authors' own limitation, shared by EFSA.
Health effects / Other evidence
Because the trial tested two mixtures, EFSA says no single food color or sodium benzoate can be blamed for the behavior differences seen.
Strong evidence: Applies to this trial only; earlier studies on single dyes (e.g., tartrazine) were small and in selected hyperactive children.
Health effects / Other evidence
A 2019 genome-wide study of 20,183 people with diagnosed ADHD and 35,191 controls found 12 common DNA regions linked to ADHD, each raising odds by only about 8-20%.
Strong evidence: Mostly European-ancestry samples; the 12 regions explain only a small share of ADHD risk. Genetic result, not an exposure finding.
Health effects / Review of other studies
Across 37 twin studies, ADHD is about 74% heritable on average, meaning most of the difference between people in ADHD symptoms in these samples is tied to genetic differences.
Strong evidence: A population statistic that also includes gene-environment interplay; it does not say 74% of any one person's ADHD is genetic or that environment is unimportant.
Source: Faraone 2019, Molecular Psychiatry Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
The review's abstract says human paraben exposure increases TSH, but its conclusion says more human studies describe decreases in TSH than increases.
Strong evidence: Internal inconsistency in one paper, checkable in its text.
Source: Azeredo 2023, International Journal of Molecular Sciences Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
Adult ADHD estimates differ greatly between studies: in this 40-study review nearly all variation (I2 94-99% in every group) was between studies, and diagnostic tool, DSM version, sex, urban or rural setting and decade did not explain it.
Strong evidence: Based on one meta-analysis of heterogeneous surveys; the authors call for a standard adult diagnostic procedure.
Source: Song 2021, Journal of Global Health Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products
In lab tests of 213 US household and personal-care products, not one label listed a phthalate, yet the phthalate DEP, a common fragrance solvent, turned up in half of the pooled conventional product samples.
Strong evidence: Products bought 2007-08; composited samples; content not dose.
Source: Dodson 2012, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies
US law does not require the individual chemicals in a fragrance to be listed, so a shopper cannot tell from the label whether a scented product contains diethyl phthalate.
Strong evidence: Regulatory background statement, as of 2013.
Source: Parlett 2013, Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies
None of the products used by the four affected children was ever chemically analyzed; the researchers could only assume that a product labeled as containing lavender oil actually met the international composition standard.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Stated by the authors as a limitation; an industry letter later claimed one named cologne contained diethyl phthalate and no lavender oil, which has also never been independently verified.
Source: Ramsey 2019, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies
The industry's own safety panel wrote that a single fragrance can contain 50-300 ingredients, that formulas are 'carefully guarded', and that the industry 'is often perceived as rather less than forthcoming by consumers and their physicians'.
Strong evidence: Direct quotation from an industry-authored 2003 paper; 50-300 is a range, not a measured count.
Source: Bickers 2003 (RIFM Expert Panel), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Advocacy group testing
Ingredient labels cannot show what is inside 'parfum': a 2010 Canadian cosmetics survey had to leave out diethyl phthalate, a common fragrance solvent, because 'short of a laboratory analysis, there's no way to know'.
Strong evidence: Illustrative quote; for measured prevalence cite Dodson 2012 (DEP in 21/42 conventional composites, no label listed a phthalate).
Hidden ingredients / Government agency
US cosmetic labels can still say just "fragrance". The 2022 law requires companies to name fragrance allergens on the label, but only the ones the FDA lists in a regulation, which the law told the FDA to propose by June 2024.
Strong evidence: Statute §609(b); allergens, number, and thresholds left to FDA; check whether the final rule is in force before saying labels carry them.
Source: MoCRA 2022 Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Government agency
Even the FDA can only ask what is in a cosmetic's fragrance after a serious adverse event it has reason to blame on the fragrance; the company may answer with "categories of ingredients", and the answer is exempt from public-records requests.
Strong evidence: Statute §605(f); 30-day deadline; records access separately excludes formulas (§610).
Source: MoCRA 2022 Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies
About 1 in 10 (370 of 3,820) topical medicines in a Belgian survey were labeled as containing a fragrance ingredient, and there is no EU or Belgian legislation restricting fragrance in topical medicines.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Now sourced directly from the primary (Nardelli 2009), not second-hand via Pastor-Nieto 2021; exact figures confirmed (370/3,820 = 9.7%, rounds to the paper's stated 10%). This is a label survey (fragrance listed as an ingredient), not a reaction-rate or chemical-analysis figure; 127 of the clinic's 3,378 iatrogenic-ACD patients (3.8%) had a confirmed reaction to one of the fragranced products. Nardelli 2009's own abstract misprints the product-count denominator as 3,280 — use 3,820 from its Methods/body.
Source: Pastor-Nieto 2021 (Nardelli 2009), Current Treatment Options in Allergy Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products
Unlisted PFAS impurities (perfluorocarboxylic acids, including chain lengths that overlap PFOA) were found in nearly every PFAS-containing cosmetic tested in a 2024 study, and these unlisted impurities transferred into artificial sweat far more readily (43-76%) than the PFAS ingredient actually printed on the label (which showed negligible transfer).
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Bioaccessibility (partitioning into artificial sweat) is a precursor to, not proof of, skin absorption; sebum was not included in the assay and may raise this further; small sample; no PTFE-containing products were tested.
Source: Namazkar 2024, Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products
In Belgium, about 1 in 10 topical (skin-applied) pharmaceutical products, wound-healing ointments, NSAID gels, antiseptics, antihemorrhoidals, even corticosteroid-antibiotic creams, listed a fragrance ingredient, sometimes disclosed only as the single word "Perfume".
Strong evidence: 370/3,820 products in a Belgian label survey (2009); a label/composition survey, not chemical analysis; historical product list, not a current market snapshot.
Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products
A single undisclosed "Perfume" in one antibiotic-corticosteroid cream (Mycolog/Triadcortyl) caused allergic reactions in 34 patients, more than any other product in a 30-year clinic series, and its 28-ingredient composition was only obtained by directly asking the manufacturer, not from the label.
Strong evidence: Single-clinic case series; one product's undisclosed formula, not a general claim about all perfume-labeled products.
Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products
Health Canada's own testing of 252 Canadian cosmetic and personal care products found the fragrance solvent DEP in 70% of fragrance products, at levels up to 2.6% by weight, yet every DEP-positive product was labeled only with the generic term "parfum" — never DEP or any phthalate.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
N=252 individually tested products, Canadian market, 2007-08; detection frequency is lower than two smaller earlier surveys (Hubinger & Havery 2006, EWG 2002) found for fragrances specifically.
Source: Koniecki 2011, Environmental Research Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Government agency
A 2004 US law (FALCPA) says a flavoring, coloring, or incidental additive that is or contains one of the major food allergens must be labeled like any other ingredient, "notwithstanding" the older rules that let flavorings and spices be declared as a class (FD&C Act 403(w)(4)).
Strong evidence: Statute text only; covers the listed major allergens, not flavor constituents generally. Effective for food labeled on or after Jan 1, 2006.
Source: FALCPA, Pub. L. 108-282 Title II (2004), Public Law 108-282, Title II, 118 Stat. 905 Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Government agency
Under FALCPA the label must say "Contains" plus the food source next to the ingredient list (in type no smaller than the ingredient list), or name the source in parentheses in the list; it does not require a flavor's other components to be named.
Strong evidence: Source-name rule only. The statute is silent on flavor constituents other than major allergens.
Source: FALCPA, Pub. L. 108-282 Title II (2004), Public Law 108-282, Title II, 118 Stat. 905 Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Other evidence
Under EU flavoring law a consumer ingredient list may say simply 'flavorings' (or a more specific name or description) without naming the flavor's chemical components; business-to-business labels must list the categories of flavorings present but not each flavoring substance.
Strong evidence: Allergen rules sit in other law (see the Regulation 1169/2011 page); Art. 15(1)(g) does require buyers to be told the maximum quantity of components subject to limits.
Source: EU Regulation 1334/2008, Art. 29 and Art. 15 Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Government agency
Celery, mustard, lupin, mollusks, and sulfites (above 10 mg/kg) must be declared on EU food labels because they are on Annex II of Regulation 1169/2011; none of them is on the US major food allergen list.
Strong evidence: Original 2011 text; US comparison rests on other evidence base pages. Does not say how often these allergens cause reactions.
Source: EU Reg 1169/2011 (OJ L 304) Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Government agency
The 2016 rule requires a company that submits a GRAS notice to say whether its manufacturing method contains trade secrets and to explain how experts could conclude the substance is safe without seeing them; FDA states there 'could be no basis' for a GRAS conclusion if trade secret or other non-public information is necessary to reach it.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Response 69 and 21 CFR 170.225(c)(8), 170.250(d)-(e). Applies to notified substances; a company that does not notify FDA is not required to show anyone its trade-secret data. The phrase 'secret GRAS' is not used in the rule.
Source: FDA 2016, 81 FR 54960 Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Government agency
Data in a GRAS notice are treated as public from the day FDA receives them (subject to FOIA exemptions), and FDA says it makes a list of filed notices and its response letters 'readily accessible'; un-notified GRAS conclusions appear on no such list.
Strong evidence: 21 CFR 170.275. The second half is an inference from the rule's structure (a list covers filed notices only); the rule does not discuss un-notified conclusions in these words.
Source: FDA 2016, 81 FR 54960 Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Other evidence
Under Canada's Food and Drug Regulations, section B.01.010(2), every food ingredient or component must be shown in the ingredient list by its common name.
Strong evidence: Governs the general rule only; the capture does not include the separate rules for flavors, spices or allergens.
Source: Canada FDR B.01.010 (Justice Laws, current to 2026-09-30), Canadian regulation Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Other evidence
For EWG Verified cleaners whose fragrance has more than five ingredients, the package may show only 'fragrance*' plus the first five; the full list is online.
Strong evidence: Describes the rule as written; no data on how many licensed products use the shortened form.
Source: EWG Verified criteria for cleaning products (10.24), Environmental Working Group, 2024 Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.