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 / Government agency
The overall strictness of occupational exposure limits varies nearly threefold between the strictest and most lenient of 18 regulators studied, and the European Union's own limits, despite being described as purely health-based, are on average less strict than Germany's national limits.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
One systematic study, not replicated by another research group; a database-wide average that does not predict the direction for any single chemical (e.g. Germany's ethyl acetate limit is reportedly higher than the EU's for that one substance).
Source: Schenk et al. 2008, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
Even though EU law requires 26 specific fragrance allergens to be named individually above 0.01% concentration, 60% of the 1,447 scented detergents in this German household study listed only the generic term 'perfume', 'fragrance', or 'aroma' rather than naming any specific allergen, and only 46% named any of the 26 at all.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Generic wording can be legal (allergen absent, below threshold, or arriving undeclared via a natural extract, which the rule exempts); this paper did not test which explanation applies in which product.
Source: Wieck 2018, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The UK continues to apply essentially the same EU cosmetic-claims rule after Brexit, unchanged in substance, as retained domestic law, with the UK's own legislation register confirming no outstanding legal effects have altered it.
Moderate evidence: Confirmed as of this single 2026-09-27 capture of legislation.gov.uk; the register could change at any later date and was not tracked over time here.
Source: Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The European Commission's own guidance on cosmetic 'free from' claims (agreed with industry in 2017) says a 'free from perfume' claim should not be used if the product contains any ingredient that exerts a perfuming function, regardless of that ingredient's other functions — wording that would exclude a masking fragrance, not permit one.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Non-binding guidance, not the regulation itself, and it never uses the words 'fragrance-free', 'unscented' or 'masking agent'; this is our reading of its 'free from perfume' wording, not a direct statement about masking.
Source: EC Technical Document on Cosmetic Claims 2017 Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
EU guidance says a 'hypoallergenic' cosmetic claim requires the company to actively rule out known and suspected skin sensitizers through six named routes (including its own consumer-complaint records) and states plainly that the claim 'does not guarantee a complete absence of risk of an allergic reaction'.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Non-binding guidance (agreed by the Working Group on Cosmetic Products, not itself EU law); no EU product-testing study in our evidence base checks whether products actually meet this bar in practice.
Source: EC Technical Document on Cosmetic Claims 2017 Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Under the EPA's Safer Choice program, 'fragrance-free' and 'unscented' are not the same claim: 'unscented' still allows a masking chemical added to cover other ingredients' smell, while 'fragrance-free' specifically bars masking scents as well as added scent.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
This is the program's own written definition (evidence/agency), not a product-testing result; it applies only to products certified under this specific EPA program, not to any product that merely uses the words on its own label.
Source: US EPA Safer Choice Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
As of this page's 2026-09-27 capture, FDA's own consumer guidance states it "does not have the same legal authority to require allergen labeling for cosmetics as for food," and does not mention MoCRA or any pending/final fragrance-allergen rule, more than three years after MoCRA required FDA to write one.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
This evidence base did not independently check the Federal Register/FDA rulemaking docket for a §609(b) rule; the page shows no "last updated" date, so it may simply be stale rather than reflecting the current rule status.
Source: FDA 2026 (Fragrances in Cosmetics) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Multiple chemical sensitivity has no dedicated diagnostic code and is instead coded, when coded at all, under nonspecific ICD-10 codes for unspecified respiratory conditions from inhaled fumes/gas/chemical vapors (J68.9) or unspecified allergy/hypersensitivity/idiosyncrasy (T78.4); some countries and agencies (US EPA, US ADA, Germany, Austria) have given the condition some form of recognition, while Italy's health ministry has declined to recognize it as a rare disease due to diagnostic-nosology difficulty.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Regulatory-recognition landscape as of this review's 2015 search cutoff and largely focused on Italy; recognition status in individual US states, agencies or other countries may have changed since, and the review does not cite the specific EPA/ADA source documents establishing "recognition.".
Source: Rossi 2018, Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Journalism
Neither the US Food and Drug Administration nor the Consumer Product Safety Commission requires individual fragrance ingredients to be listed on product labels or Material Safety Data Sheets.
Moderate evidence: Regulatory/legal statement, not a chemistry finding; drawn from the article's own citations to FDA and CPSC statutes.
Source: Kessler 2011 (EHP Forum), Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
The EU's mandatory '26 allergens' cosmetic label did not reduce allergen use in German deodorants: the share containing at least one of the 26 EU-labeled fragrance allergens rose from 52% (2008) to 83% (2011), years after the labeling rule took effect.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Three non-representative convenience samples of the German market (n=66/200/108), not a tracked panel of the same products; the author states representativeness for the whole market is not established.
Source: Klaschka 2012, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
Deodorants marketed with words like 'sensitive', 'soft' or 'skin soothing' were not allergen-free: 95% still contained perfume and 15% contained a strong allergen above the labeling threshold.
Moderate evidence: N=102 of 308 products across the 2010-2011 samples; single-country, label-based.
Source: Klaschka 2012, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
Where two specific fragrance allergens (Lyral, oak moss extract) did become rarer in German deodorants, it tracked binding IFRA/SCCNFP maximum-concentration recommendations introduced around 2004-2009, not the general disclosure-only labeling rule.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
A within-paper contrast drawn by the author from the same three-year dataset; only 2 of the 26 allergens had a specific concentration cap recommended, so this may not generalize to the other 24.
Source: Klaschka 2012, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The same biocidal preservative gets an EU environmental risk assessment when used in a laundry detergent but not when used, at the same concentration limits, in a shampoo or lotion, because personal-care-product preservative safety is delegated to REACH instead of the Biocidal Products Regulation — and REACH was not designed to environmentally assess substances with intended biological effects. A 2016 household-inventory study found 63.8% of all biocidal-substance uses observed (2,618 of 4,106) had no environmental risk assessment coverage under the Biocidal Products Regulation.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Single study's regulatory analysis of the German/EU legal structure circa 2015-2016; the 63.8% figure reflects this household sample's specific product mix, not a formal EU-wide audit.
Source: Wieck 2016, Environment International Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Under the EU's REACH chemical regulation, data from the mouse sensory-irritation bioassay are generally not accepted to classify a chemical as causing respiratory tract irritation (that classification is limited to tests showing direct tissue damage); the bioassay's data can only be used case-by-case to help set a short-term safe-exposure value.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Describes the regulation's stated scope as the authors summarize it (citing ECHA 2012, 2017 guidance documents), not an independent legal analysis; the authors argue this restriction rests on a misreading of an earlier study by a different group.
Source: Nielsen & Wolkoff 2017, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
A scoping review of 63 fragrance-free/scent-free policies from Canadian and US institutions found that fewer than half (47.6%) actually define what counts as "fragranced," leaving most policies to rely on an undefined, subjective standard.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Gray-literature document review (no peer-reviewed policy literature qualified for inclusion); findings are overwhelmingly North American (59/63 documents) and describe policy text, not enforcement in practice.
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Only about 1 in 3 (36.5%) of 63 reviewed fragrance-free policies set a default fragrance-free standard; most instead require an individual to request accommodation or file a complaint before anything changes.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Document analysis of published policy text, not a measure of what actually happens when a complaint is filed; sample is gray literature the authors could find online, not a census of all such policies.
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Fewer than half (46.0%) of 63 reviewed fragrance-free policies included any supply-chain or procurement control over the cleaning, laundry, or air-freshening products the institution itself buys, even though named triggers in the companion focus-group study rank cleaning and laundry products alongside or above perfume.
Moderate evidence: Document analysis; does not establish that procurement control would reduce measured exposure, only that most policies do not attempt it.
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Two-thirds (65.1%) of 63 reviewed fragrance-free policies describe some enforcement mechanism, but only about 1 in 5 (22.2%) specify an actual consequence for breaking the rule, and responsibility for compliance is left unclear in 42.9% of policies.
Moderate evidence: Document analysis of stated policy language; a policy can specify consequences on paper and still not apply them, which this review cannot measure.
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Only 15.9% of 63 reviewed fragrance-free policies included formal staff training, and only 22.2% specified a review or evaluation cycle, despite 74.6% naming a responsible authority and 95.2% stating a rationale for the policy.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Gray-literature document review; the gap between naming an authority and specifying monitoring is a feature of the published text, not a direct measurement of institutional follow-through.
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
The natural extracts Evernia furfuracea (tree moss) and Evernia prunastri (oak moss) were labeled on only 14 and 3 of 5,588 cosmetic products respectively, far rarer than their frequency as sensitizers in European patch-test clinics, most likely because they are used in concentrations below the EU's 10 ppm (leave-on) / 100 ppm (rinse-off) labeling thresholds.
Moderate evidence: The paper infers the below-threshold explanation; it did not chemically analyze product concentrations to confirm it.
Source: Bennike 2017/2018 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Only 26 fragrance allergens currently must be individually listed on EU cosmetic labels; the report states the European Commission was expected to expand this list by another 62 allergens.
Moderate evidence: As of this report (2022) the expansion was 'expected'; the actual expanded EU list (Regulation 2023/1545) was adopted after this report was published.
Source: Tegengif 2022 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Lilial (butylphenyl methylpropional) was banned from EU cosmetics starting March 2022 on reproductive-toxicity grounds (CMR Category 1B classification from its REACH dossier), a different and separate hazard axis from the endocrine-disruption and genotoxicity questions that remain contested or unconfirmed in the literature for the same compound.
Moderate evidence: Regulatory background restated from the paper's introduction (citing Regulation (EU) 2021/1902), not this paper's own new data.
Source: Jablonská 2023, Sci Rep 13:18536, Scientific Reports Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
EU cosmetics law caps aluminum-zirconium antiperspirant complexes at 20% hydroxychloride and 5.4% zirconium and bans them outright in aerosol sprays, but sets no equivalent binding limit on plain aluminum salts such as aluminum chlorohydrate.
Moderate evidence: Regulatory text as relayed by a single review; not independently verified against the current consolidated Annex III text.
Source: Martini 2020, Annales de Dermatologie et de Vénéréologie Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
After regulators banned BPA from baby bottles (EU 2011, Canada 2010, US FDA 2012-2013), manufacturers increasingly switched to substitute bisphenols such as BPS and BPF, which several human studies now also link to obesity and which are not proven to be safer than BPA.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Some studies of BPS/BPF exposure found no significant association with obesity, so the evidence is not unanimous, though none of the substitutes has been shown to be free of hormone-disrupting activity.
Source: Dalamaga 2024, International Journal of Molecular Sciences Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Some salicylate compounds not approved by the FDA as sunscreen UV filters (e.g. butyloctyl salicylate, tridecyl salicylate) are added to mineral sunscreens under the ingredient category "stabilizer" rather than "UV filter" — a practice the review calls "doping" — letting manufacturers reduce the white cast of mineral formulations while avoiding the UV-filter regulatory category.
Moderate evidence: Single secondary citation for the labeling practice; not independently verified against product labels in this review.
Source: Hodge 2025, Marine Pollution Bulletin Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Octocrylene, which sunscreen manufacturers adopted as an alternative after bans on oxybenzone in reef-protective jurisdictions (Hawaii, Key West Florida, Bonaire, Aruba, Palau, US Virgin Islands), is itself contaminated with benzophenone during manufacture and cannot be fully purified of it; it also undergoes a slow retro-aldol condensation reaction in the finished product that continuously regenerates more benzophenone as the sunscreen ages.
Moderate evidence: The underlying primary (Downs et al. 2021a) is not yet a evidence base source; treat the aging/regeneration mechanism as reported by this review pending that primary.
Source: Hodge 2025, Marine Pollution Bulletin Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Global DEHP regulation is patchy and mostly national: Japan restricted DEHP in food packaging and childcare products in 2003, the EU in 2006, and Canada, the USA, and Australia later banned DEHP above set concentrations in children's products, but many countries still lack comprehensive DEHP regulation, and the exposure data analyzed in this study (2008) predate most of these rules.
Moderate evidence: Regulatory history as summarized in the paper's Discussion, not independently verified against primary legal texts.
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
A year before DOJ's case-by-case ruling, HUD's own internal guidance (Technical Guidance Memorandum 91-3, June 1991) told its regional Fair Housing investigators without qualification that "HUD presently recognizes MCSD as a 'handicap' under the Fair Housing Act" and that people with it "are also considered 'individuals with handicaps' under Section 504" — a more categorical stance than DOJ later endorsed.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
This is an internal HUD policy memo, not a court ruling or DOJ's own position; DOJ's 1992 letter (the same file) declines to adopt this categorical framing, and nothing in our evidence base shows whether HUD later revised the memo.
Source: HUD TGM 91-3 (1991) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
In a 1993 letter of findings, the US Department of Justice determined that a public entity is not required to prohibit employees from wearing perfume or other scented products, because that would not be a "reasonable" modification to personnel policy under ADA title II.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
A technical-assistance letter states DOJ's own enforcement position; it is not a regulation or court ruling and does not bind courts. Addresses title II public access only, not title I employment accommodation.
Source: DOJ Civil Rights Division 1993 (TAL 383) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The same 1993 DOJ letter states that failing to adopt any access policy for individuals with environmental illness does not itself violate title II of the ADA, and that nothing in the ADA or its legislative history shows Congress meant to require public entities to regulate employees' use of scented products.
Moderate evidence: DOJ's own stated position at the time; not a court ruling, and DOJ explicitly declined to decide whether environmental illness meets the ADA's disability definition.
Source: DOJ Civil Rights Division 1993 (TAL 383) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
In 1995 the US Department of Justice told a member of the public that under the ADA, it would 'usually' not be legally required for a medical facility to make its staff stop wearing fragrance to accommodate a patient with multiple chemical sensitivity, because fragrance use is treated as an employee's personal choice rather than a business policy.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Informal technical assistance to one inquirer, not a regulation or case law; DOJ's own letter states it 'does not constitute a legal interpretation of the statute' and 'is not binding on the Department.' 30 years old; predates the 2008 ADA Amendments Act's broadened definition of disability (a separate legal question this letter does not address).
Source: DOJ TAL605, 1995 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
DOJ's letter answered a general, facility-wide framing of the question ('require their employees to refrain from wearing fragrances'), not the complainant's actual, narrower request for one department to go fragrance-free for one scheduled day.
Moderate evidence: DOJ's reply never analyzes the narrower request or any undue-hardship balancing; the mismatch is visible only by reading the attached correspondence alongside the reply.
Source: DOJ TAL605, 1995 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
HUD's own Occupancy Handbook (4350.3 REV-1, Exhibit 2-6, June 2007) states that for a HUD-assisted housing resident with chemical sensitivity disorder, it is not an undue financial and administrative burden for the owner to give advance notice before cleaning common areas and to use nonchemical alternative cleaning methods where practical.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Binding operational guidance for HUD-assisted multifamily housing, not a court ruling; applies only to owner-controlled common-area cleaning, not to other tenants' or staff's personal fragrance/scent use, and 'where practical' is left case-by-case.
Source: HUD Occupancy Handbook 4350.3 REV-1, Exhibit 2-6 (2007) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The same HUD guidance states it would be an undue administrative burden for a HUD-assisted housing owner to survey every tenant in a building for what chemicals they use to clean their own units and when, and compile that into a weekly report for a chemically sensitive resident.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
HUD's stated reason is administrative capacity ('could not be handled by the existing staff'), not cost; this refusal is specific to a full building-wide, ongoing, per-tenant monitoring and reporting scheme, not to lesser accommodations.
Source: HUD Occupancy Handbook 4350.3 REV-1, Exhibit 2-6 (2007) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The EU sets a specific migration limit of 0.6 mg/kg for benzophenone as a plastics additive (Directive 2002/72/EC) and caps its deliberate use as a flavoring at 0.5 mg/kg in beverages and 2 mg/kg in foods generally (Council of Europe, 2000), while US reported flavoring-use levels range from 0.57 to 3.27 ppm across beverage, baked-good, and frozen-dairy categories.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Regulatory limits describe permitted/reported levels, not measured exposure; actual food-content surveys cited elsewhere in the monograph found some samples above these reference levels (e.g., 7.3 mg/kg in one high-fat chocolate).
Source: IARC 2013 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The ACCC's 2019 consultation paper compared Australia's cosmetics labeling rules against the EU, New Zealand, US, and ISO standards in detail and identified nanomaterial disclosure and additional label fields (expiry date, batch number, responsible person, product function) as the substantive gaps worth reforming — fragrance-allergen disclosure was not raised anywhere in the paper as an issue, gap, or reform option.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Absence of a topic in a policy document is evidence the ACCC did not identify it as an issue at that time; it is not proof the ACCC considered and affirmatively rejected an allergen list.
Source: ACCC 2019 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
The Endocrine Society calls for EDC regulation generally to be hazard-based and precautionary rather than risk/threshold-based, the same hazard-based approach the EU currently applies only to pesticides and biocides and not to cosmetics, toys, or food-contact materials.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
The statement itself does not discuss the EU's cosmetics carve-out or recommend extending hazard-based regulation to cosmetics specifically; the link to the EU's two-track policy is this evidence base's inference, not the Society's stated position.
Source: Endocrine Society 2025 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
MoCRA's mandated talc-in-cosmetics asbestos testing-methods rule was proposed by FDA in December 2024 and then withdrawn in November 2025.
Moderate evidence: Based on FDA's own overview page's link labels and dates, not on the Federal Register documents' full text, which were not separately captured in this batch.
Source: FDA MoCRA overview page, accessed 2026-09-28 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The New Zealand cosmetics standard amendment taking effect 1 January 2026 (decision APP204297, dated 25 January 2024) covers the group standard's scope, Schedules 4 to 8, and a PFAS phase-out, according to the superseded document's own regulatory-history table — labeling requirements are not named as part of what changed.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
This is a secondhand summary from the pre-amendment document's own regulatory-history table, not the amendment's full text; the actual current EPA document was not fetched or read in this ingest.
Source: Cosmetic Products Group Standard 2020 (NZ, HSR002552, consolidated to 2025) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Self-reported survey
MCS is legally recognized as a disability in Canada, but in a national survey most people with MCS who asked for a workplace or housing accommodation before the pandemic (85% of 119) were refused at least once (the paper's own figure: 'at least 78%').
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Self-reported, cross-sectional, community-based convenience sample of 119 recruited substantially through an MCS advocacy charity's own channels (ASEQ-EHAQ, which also funded the study and paid some authors); over-represents Quebec; likely under-represents the most severely affected.
Source: Diallo 2026 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Self-reported survey
Fear of retaliation, stigma, and losing support increasingly kept Canadians with MCS from even requesting an accommodation: the share who did not request one nearly tripled, from 15% before the COVID-19 pandemic to 42% after, and every listed fear-based reason for not requesting increased over the same period.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Self-reported, n=119 (18 and 50 respondents gave reasons in the two periods respectively), multi-select so percentages exceed 100%; cannot separate deterrence from reduced need (e.g., remote work) as the cause.
Source: Diallo 2026 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
As of 2019, FDA's own proposed sunscreen rule found insufficient data to confirm avobenzone, oxybenzone, and octocrylene as 'generally recognized as safe and effective' sunscreen actives — of 16 monograph ingredients, only the mineral filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide had cleared that bar — while the codified US sunscreen regulation (21 CFR Part 352) still lists all of them as permitted, and that Part has carried a 'stayed indefinitely' notice since 2003-2004.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Reflects the regulatory status as of the 2019 trial and the 2023 CFR codification captured in this evidence base; a finalized monograph rule issued after either date would supersede this.
Source: Matta 2019, JAMA Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
A 2026 primary measurement study of cosmetic spray products concluded that current cosmetic safety assessment lacks any framework for inhalation exposure, stating there is an urgent need for regulatory frameworks targeting inhalation exposure from cosmetic sprays.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
This is the authors' stated policy conclusion, not a dose-response or health-outcome finding; it extends, but does not resolve, our existing C178 (no inhalation branch in fragrance/cosmetic safety review processes).
Source: Dai et al. 2026, ACS Environmental Au Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
EU law now states, as a general principle, that fragrance substances able to transform into known contact allergens via air oxidation or bioactivation ('prehaptens and prohaptens') should be regulated the same as the allergens they become — but this 2023 amendment does not apply a specific hydroperoxide limit or peroxide-value restriction to limonene or linalool, the two chemicals most discussed in the oxidized-fragrance-allergen literature.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Recital 7 states the principle in general terms; reading the Annex directly shows no limonene- or linalool-hydroperoxide entry and no peroxide-value cross-reference for either chemical (only the new Pinene entry is linked to an existing peroxide-value restriction).
Source: Regulation (EU) 2023/1545 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The EU regulation's own recital states that only 24 fragrance allergens required individual labeling before the 2023 amendment, not the commonly cited figure of 26.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
The 2-substance gap between the EU's legal '24' and the SCCS's own scientific classification baseline of 26 (per Kumar 2020) is not explained in the regulation's text; a plausible but unconfirmed mechanism is that 1-2 of the original 26 were later banned outright from cosmetics by a separate EU restriction.
Source: Regulation (EU) 2023/1545 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
None of the 14 air fresheners NRDC tested in 2007 disclosed phthalates on the product label, consistent with the wiki's broader finding that no US law requires full fragrance-ingredient disclosure on consumer products.
Moderate evidence: Observation from this report's own 14-product sample, not an independent legal survey.
Source: NRDC 2007, Clearing the Air Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
None of the 10 NYC nail salons studied in 2017 had installed the local exhaust ('source capture') ventilation at manicure and pedicure stations that New York State's own nail-salon ventilation regulation requires, even though all 10 had general HVAC and 7 were running it.
Moderate evidence: The regulation's full compliance deadline was 2021 (this study ran in 2017), so this documents a pre-deadline baseline, not a current violation.
Source: Pavilonis, Roelofs & Blair 2018, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
New York State's 2014 ban on methyl methacrylate (MMA) in nail salons appears reflected in 2021 air measurements: NY salons showed higher ethyl methacrylate (EMA, the substitute, median 0.55 ppb) than MMA (median <0.09 ppb), while New Jersey salons, with no such ban, showed the opposite pattern (MMA median 1.77 ppb vs EMA median 0.12 ppb).
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
The study did not examine nail-product ingredients directly, so the MMA/EMA state pattern is the authors' inference from a state-law difference, not a confirmed causal test; single small pilot study.
Source: Han et al. 2022 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
FDA's own expanded absorption data — now covering 6 sunscreen active ingredients across two trials, all exceeding the agency's 0.5 ng/mL toxicology-waiver threshold — has not been reflected in the codified US sunscreen monograph (21 CFR Part 352), which has remained stayed since 2003/2004 and still permits these same ingredients at their original concentrations.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
This is a regulatory-timing gap, not evidence the ingredients are unsafe; the paper itself frames exceeding the threshold as triggering a request for more toxicology data, not a safety conclusion.
Source: Matta 2020, JAMA Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
The EU's Scientific Committee on Food said in 2003 that the toxicology data on parabens were inadequate, and the food ADI from 1974 rests on 1950s-60s studies without reproductive or developmental testing.
Moderate evidence: Reported secondhand from SCF 2003 and WHO 1974 as of 2004; later regulatory opinions exist and are not covered by this review.
Source: [[src-2004-endocrine-disrupters-estrogenic-chemicals-body-care-cosmetics|Harvey & Darbre 2004]], Journal of Applied Toxicology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Nature printed the 1988 'memory of water' paper with a published editorial reservation stating there is 'no physical basis for such an activity', then arranged an independent investigation.
Moderate evidence: Describes the journal's stance and process, not the biology; the investigation outcome is on the Maddox page.
Source: Davenas et al. 1988, Nature, Nature Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
By the flavor industry's own 1995 count, 1,783 flavor substances held FEMA GRAS status, while FDA had itself regulated only 856 approved flavor additives, 253 GRAS natural flavors and oils, and 21 synthetic flavoring substances, with 'hundreds of additional' FEMA GRAS ingredients lacking an FDA regulation.
Moderate evidence: Counts are the authors' as of 1995 and are not independently verified; some FEMA and FDA lists overlap.
Source: Hallagan 1995, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Flavor GRAS status exempts a substance from mandatory FDA premarket approval; the FEMA panel's decisions are sent to the FDA and published, but the paper itself describes the review as the industry panel's, not the agency's.
Moderate evidence: 1996 description of the program; later FDA and FEMA changes are in other pages. Industry-authored account of the legal mechanism.
Source: Adams 1996, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
A 2002 review concluded homeopathy 'cannot be viewed as an evidence-based form of therapy' because systematic reviews did not support clinical effects beyond placebo.
Moderate evidence: Dated 2002; single-author judgment; says nothing about regulation or harms.
Source: Ernst 2002, Br J Clin Pharmacol, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The FEMA panel's 2005 paper says natural flavor oils were declared GRAS largely on 'long history of use' plus the idea that flavors are 'self-limiting' (they saturate taste and smell receptors at low levels), and announces a composition-based method to reassess more than 300 natural flavor complexes, including more than 100 essential oils.
Moderate evidence: The panel's own account of its history; the paper reports no reassessment results. Industry-authored (FEMA).
Source: Smith 2005, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
In the 2005 procedure, safety of an essential oil is judged from its chemical constituents compared with generic intake thresholds (1,800, 540, or 90 micrograms a day by structural class), not from toxicity tests on the oil itself, unless a constituent group exceeds its threshold.
Moderate evidence: A screening threshold, which the paper itself describes as a trigger for more data, not a proof of safety. Industry-authored (FEMA).
Source: Smith 2005, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
The US Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1939 allowed homeopathic medicines to be sold openly on the US market.
Moderate evidence: One-sentence historical statement without legal detail; says nothing about current FDA enforcement policy.
Source: Loudon 2006, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
MI had no concentration limit in industrial products (paint, glues) in 2011 although cosmetics were capped at 100 ppm, and the authors asked regulators to reassess both and to establish a safe use concentration.
Moderate evidence: 2011 regulatory position; EU rules on MI have since changed (see later pages); the call for action is the authors' opinion.
Source: Lundov 2011, British Journal of Dermatology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Oscillococcinum, sold as a flu remedy at 200C (10^-400), is so diluted that one molecule of its source material would need about 10^320 universes of water, yet it is sold as a product.
Moderate evidence: Rhetorical illustration of an arithmetic limit; says nothing about regulation or about clinical effect (see Ernst 2002 for trials).
Source: Grimes 2012, Focus Altern Complement Ther, Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Between 1997 and 2012 FDA was found to have asked about an unnotified GRAS determination only once: in 2010 it asked four companies whether they had decided caffeine in alcoholic drinks was GRAS, and none had.
Moderate evidence: Authors' search of public records; a single instance, so it shows rarity of such inquiries, not that FDA never acts through other channels.
Source: Neltner et al. 2013, JAMA Intern Med, JAMA Internal Medicine Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.