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.
Indoor air / Measured in people or real products
In unscented candles, formaldehyde and other carbonyl emissions stayed flat and low (39-54 micrograms per hour) regardless of wax type, wick type, or whether the flame was steady or flickering, which the study's authors attribute to the absence of added fragrance or dye, since those additives (not the wax or wick) are understood to be the main source of a candle's aldehyde emissions.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
The attribution to fragrance/dye is the authors' interpretation, citing prior literature (Derudi et al. 2014), not a within-study comparison against scented versions of the same candles; this study tested no scented candles.
Indoor air / Measured in people or real products
Benzo[a]pyrene, a combustion-linked carcinogen, was measurable in 5 of 24 candle-burning experiments (up to 12 nanograms per candle per hour) and only in scented candles; none of the 4 unscented candles produced a detectable amount.
Moderate evidence: Small n (5/24 detections); detection near the analytical limit of quantification, which the authors themselves note adds uncertainty to the calculated exposure comparisons.
Source: Salthammer 2021, Environment International Industry-funded Link to this fact
Indoor air / Measured in people or real products
One kiwi-melon scented candle emitted more total measured VOC while sitting unlit (12,742 ppbC) than while it was actually burning (2,766 ppbC) — more than 4 times as much — and the unlit figure was comparable to a published emission rate for a carpet cleaner.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
TVOC is a summed, toluene-equivalent proxy, not a hazard-weighted measure; the carpet-cleaner comparison is to a different study's figures for a different product, not a side-by-side measurement.
Source: Ahn et al. 2015, Journal of Hazardous Materials Link to this fact
Indoor air / Measured in people or real products
Of every ingredient/route combination in this deodorant risk assessment, the tightest safety margin was for inhaling didecyldimethylammonium chloride (DDAC), a quaternary-ammonium biocide, from spray deodorants used at home or in cars: its calculated margin of exposure was 30, only about 1.2 times the regulatory target of 25, driven by an unusually low reference concentration for DDAC rather than by high measured exposure.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Still above the regulatory safety threshold in this study's own framework (no risk was formally identified); a single Korean government assessment, modeled exposure rather than measured personal or biomonitoring exposure.
Source: Kim et al. 2018, Science of The Total Environment Link to this fact
Indoor air / Other evidence
Burning scented candles releases VOCs, SVOCs, and particulate matter, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (benzo[a]pyrene, naphthalene, anthracene, pyrene) classified as carcinogenic.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
This is a secondhand restatement in a two-page opinion piece, not a new measurement; our own chamber primaries (Salthammer 2021, Andersen 2021) independently confirm PAH/VOC output but find it strongly formulation-dependent rather than universal to all scented candles.
Source: Singh 2023, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact
Indoor air / Other evidence
In a small case series, removing mothballs and reducing scented cleaning/personal-care products, candles, and stored chemicals cut targeted indoor-air VOC categories by roughly a quarter to over 95% (e.g., naphthalene from mothballs down 96%, p-dichlorobenzene from moth crystals down 56-80%, odorants/fragrances down 26-80%) across three homes, measured by GC/MS air sampling before and after a structured home intervention.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Small, uncontrolled, non-blinded case series with multiple co-occurring intervention elements per home (product substitution, education, counseling, and in one case new chemical storage); cannot isolate the VOC-reduction effect from other changes.
Source: Rincón et al. 2024, Primary Health Care Research & Development Link to this fact
Indoor air / Animal study
Air brought from a federal office building under litigation for poor indoor air quality (carried to the lab in sealed bags) caused the same objective sensory-irritation signature in mice as the consumer-product tests, dropping their respiratory rate to about 46% of baseline before partial recovery; air from buildings people considered acceptable did not cause this effect.
Moderate evidence: Single building, single lab, one comparison air sample; the underlying human complaints were not independently verified against objective health measures in this paper.
Source: Anderson & Anderson 1999, Toxicology and Industrial Health Link to this fact
Indoor air / Other evidence
Spraying a trigger-type car air freshener for about a minute made a burst of fine particles in a parked SUV: particle counts at the driver seat rose from about 14,100 to as high as about 23,600 per cubic centimeter, and most of the particles were smaller than 100 nanometers.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
One lab, three repeats, three unnamed sprays and three SUVs, stationary and engine off; particle chemistry, instrument size limits and health effects not reported, and no unsprayed control is described.
Source: Lee 2024, Science of The Total Environment Link to this fact
Indoor air / Other evidence
The same car sprays raised limonene, ethyl acetate, and cyclohexane in the cabin air; limonene at the driver seat in one medium SUV rose from about 10 to about 125 micrograms per cubic meter (about 165 with another spray).
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Single small lab study; limonene values are read from a chart, so they are approximate; the small SUV had a much higher unexplained limonene baseline (about 280 micrograms per cubic meter before spraying, read from Fig. 5b3).
Source: Lee 2024, Science of The Total Environment Link to this fact
Indoor air / Self-reported survey
About 1 in 9 US adults (10.9%) said the scent of laundry products, fabric softeners, or dryer sheets vented outside irritates them (2005-06 survey; asked in the second survey only).
Moderate evidence: Self-report from a single survey; 'irritation' is not defined further and no exposure was measured.
Source: Caress & Steinemann 2009, Journal of Environmental Health Link to this fact
Indoor air / Other evidence
In a four-cigarette comparison, sidestream smoke carried far more of the nitrosamine NDMA (597-735 ng per cigarette) than the smoke a smoker inhales (4.3-31.1 ng), and about 2 to 4 times more benzo[a]pyrene in filtered cigarettes.
Moderate evidence: Single study of four cigarettes, compiled by industry authors; the catechol row's unit is misprinted so it is not used.
Source: Rodgman & Perfetti 2013 Industry-funded Link to this fact
Indoor air / Other evidence
In a controlled office experiment with 30 young women, more outdoor air (3, 10, then 30 liters per second per person) made the air seem fresher on entering (about 38% then 31% then 15% dissatisfied) and reduced dry mouth and throat, difficulty thinking clearly and feeling bad, while a carpet that gave off chemicals stayed in the room.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
One 4.6-hour exposure per condition, 30 young female students, self-reported ratings, subjects could smell the difference on entering; percentages approximate (read from Fig. 4); the improvement in air quality during the sit was not significant.
Indoor air / Other evidence
A carpet used as the constant pollution source released about 127 micrograms of volatile chemicals per square meter per hour, including toluene, acetic acid, hexanal and small amounts of the scent terpenes limonene and alpha-pinene.
Moderate evidence: One used carpet, lab emission test at 23 C; terpenes were a small part of the mixture; not a fragrance product.
Indoor air / Other evidence
Soot (elemental carbon) measured inside classrooms was about 94% of the level outdoors, and higher indoor soot went with a 13% smaller one-year gain in working memory (4.2% to 23.1%) between the lowest and highest quarters of schools.
Moderate evidence: Single classroom per school, two 1-week measurements; observational association, not a test of filtration or ventilation.
Source: Sunyer 2015 (BREATHE, Barcelona), PLOS Medicine Link to this fact
The industry / Review of other studies
The fragrance industry's safety assessment of 17 salicylates counted exposure from 10 personal-care product types only. Household cleaners and detergents, which the same report lists as uses, and breathing fragrance in were not included.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
As of 2024, RIFM/Creme Global's aggregate exposure model (Lee 2024) does now cover household care, air care, and inhalation industry-wide, but that 2024 paper does not report salicylate-specific numbers, so it is unconfirmed whether this specific 2007 dossier's gap has since been closed for these 17 materials. A decade after this 2007 dossier, RIFM's own broader exposure model (Comiskey et al. 2017, Phase 2) had still not reached household cleaning or laundry products either — explicitly named as future work — confirming the product-type gap this claim describes persisted within the industry's own more advanced modeling program well past 2007, closing only with Lee 2024 industry-wide (still not salicylate-specific).
Source: RIFM Expert Panel / Belsito 2007, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Review of other studies
As of 2024, the fragrance industry's aggregate exposure model finally covers household-care, air-care, and oral-care products and the inhalation route for its full ~3,000-ingredient inventory — a scope earlier industry safety dossiers from 1994, 2003, and 2007 explicitly left out or dismissed by a single-ingredient calculation.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Whole-inventory average from an industry-run model; the paper does not show that any specific earlier dossier (e.g. the 2007 salicylates group review) was individually re-run through the expanded model, so whether that scope gap has closed for those specific materials is unconfirmed.
Source: Lee 2024 (RIFM/Creme Global), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Review of other studies
The industry's own model finds fragrance exposure from household-care and air-care products is far lower than from cosmetics and personal-care products, and almost entirely by inhalation rather than skin contact (household 95th percentile 0.2 ug/kg/day, air care 5 ug/kg/day, versus cosmetics/personal care about 50 ug/kg/day, nearly all dermal).
Moderate evidence: Based on a 350-ingredient sample modeled from industry-supplied concentration and use-frequency survey data, not measured breathing-zone concentrations.
Source: Lee 2024 (RIFM/Creme Global), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Industry source
The fragrance industry's aggregate consumer exposure model did not include any estimate of inhaled fragrance exposure until 2017, when it added an inhalation route for air fresheners, scented candles, and personal-care sprays only — 23 years after the industry's 1994 safety package dismissed inhalation testing.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
This is a modeled inhalation exposure fraction from a compartmental model run at single default parameter values, not measured breathing-zone data; the model's own validation against real chemical concentrations is reported in a companion paper (Safford et al. 2017) not yet in this evidence base.
Source: Comiskey 2017 (RIFM/Creme Global), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Government agency
California's 2022 law banning intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics (AB 2771), effective January 1, 2025, is expected by state toxicologists' own modeling to reduce PFAS reaching California wastewater treatment plants, particularly from shaving creams and gels, hair care products, and facial cleansers rather than from makeup.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
This is a projection from the same modeled estimate, not a before/after measurement; the ban had not yet taken effect when the paper was published, and DTSC has an institutional interest in the policy it also administers.
Source: Balan 2024, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact
The industry / Animal study
A commercial testing laboratory's mouse-bioassay claims of consumer-product toxicity (the same ASTM E-981/FOB method the lab later applied to air fresheners and colognes) failed an independent, blinded EPA/ManTech replication attempt when applied to carpets; the largest toxicity-looking signals traced instead to stress from the restrained-exposure test procedure itself, present even in air-only control animals.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Applies to carpets specifically (2 CPSC-complaint carpets, one lab-replication attempt); the fragrance papers' headline airflow-limitation (mid-expiratory flow) endpoint was never measured by this study, so it is method/lab-level caution about the testing program, not a direct refutation of the fragrance-specific findings.
Source: Tepper et al. 1995, American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal Link to this fact
The industry / Review of other studies
The US fragrance and cosmetics industry's principal safety-review and standard-setting bodies (IFRA, RIFM/REXPAN, the Personal Care Products Council, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, the Voluntary Cosmetics Regulation Program) are industry-created and industry-funded, and their safety findings are not legally binding on member companies.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Institutional description only, as of 2010-11; does not measure whether member companies actually comply. IFRA's Standards list was described as subscription-only at the time; a separate, later 'IFRA Transparency List' is cited elsewhere in our evidence base as publicly accessible, so 'IFRA's list is not available to the public' should not be repeated without specifying which list.
Source: Reebs 2011 Link to this fact
The industry / Animal study
Unilever toxicologists reviewed 92 public rat inhalation toxicology studies (from US EPA HPV/OECD SIDS reports and BfR, TNO, and ECETOC evaluations) and derived generic inhalation 'thresholds of toxicological concern' (TTCs), so that a consumer aerosol ingredient's measured exposure could be compared to a threshold instead of running a new ingredient-specific inhalation toxicology study.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Single industry research group (Unilever); the TTC framework is a conservative screening tool, not a replacement for chemical-specific testing when structural alerts or existing hazard data raise concern, and it explicitly excludes polymers and several other chemical classes.
Source: Carthew, Clapp & Gutsell 2009, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Animal study
The paper's proposed inhalation systemic TTC ranges from 16.4 μg/kg/day for the least-toxic Cramer Class 1 chemicals down to 2.8 μg/kg/day for the more toxicity-presumptive Class 3 chemicals (roughly a 6-fold spread), while its separate local respiratory-tract TTC ranges from 2.1 to 0.73 μg/g lung tissue/day (about a 3-fold spread) — equivalent to 980/170 μg/day and 1400/470 μg/day respectively for a 60 kg adult.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Derived from the 5th percentile of NOAEC/NOAEL across 92 rat studies plus a 25-fold uncertainty factor; a conservative statistical screening threshold, not a measured no-harm level, and the paper treats local and systemic thresholds as two separate comparisons that later citations sometimes conflate.
Source: Carthew, Clapp & Gutsell 2009, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Animal study
The dataset behind these inhalation TTCs excluded genotoxic carcinogens, in vivo mutagens, heavy metals, dioxins/PCBs, organophosphates, and polymers — chemical classes the authors say would already be disqualified from consumer aerosol use on other safety grounds — before applying a default uncertainty (safety) factor of 25 to the 5th-percentile NOAEC/NOAEL of the remaining 92 rat studies.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Exclusion criteria and the 25-fold uncertainty factor are the authors' own choices, following precedent from the oral/dietary TTC literature; not independently audited by a regulator.
Source: Carthew, Clapp & Gutsell 2009, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Animal study
Only 5 of the 92 chemicals in the database had local (respiratory-tract) NOAECs below the study's own 5th-percentile benchmark — sulfuric acid, trimellitic acid, glutaraldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, and 1,2-dichloro-4-nitrobenzene — and all were strong acids, bases, or reactive irritants that the authors say would already be excluded from consumer aerosol use on physicochemical grounds alone.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
A post-hoc observation about which chemicals happened to fall below the benchmark in this specific 92-study set; not a claim that physicochemical screening alone catches every locally toxic inhalable chemical.
Source: Carthew, Clapp & Gutsell 2009, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Animal study
The paper reports its inhalation-derived systemic TTCs (980 μg/day Class 1, 170 μg/day Class 3, for a 60 kg adult) sit within, and are not dramatically lower than, the oral-exposure-derived systemic TTCs for the same Cramer classes (1800 and 90 μg/day) — despite the inhalation calculation assuming 100% absorption versus the oral route's assumed 50% absorption factor.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
A comparison the authors themselves frame as reassuring; it does not establish that the inhalation route is equally well characterized as the oral route, only that the two threshold estimates are of similar magnitude for these particular chemical classes.
Source: Carthew, Clapp & Gutsell 2009, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Review of other studies
All three named authors of this inhalation-TTC methodology paper were Unilever employees at Unilever's own research center (Colworth Science Park, UK), and the paper states 'The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest' even though the work was industry research explicitly aimed at reducing inhalation-toxicology testing requirements on the authors' own company's aerosol consumer products under REACH and the EU Cosmetics Directive's 2013 animal-testing ban.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
A self-declared 'no conflicts of interest' statement from an industry-employed author group performing industry-funded research aimed at reducing regulatory testing burden on their own company's products.
Source: Carthew, Clapp & Gutsell 2009, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Industry source
The fragrance industry's aggregate consumer exposure model began in 2015 covering 19 personal-care and cosmetic product types across a 36,446-subject Europe/US survey, using dermal and oral exposure routes only — it did not estimate inhaled fragrance exposure at all.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
This is the founding Phase 1 methods paper of the same RIFM/Creme model line whose Phase 2 (Comiskey 2017) added a first, partial inhalation route two years later, and whose Phase III (Lee 2024) closed the gap industry-wide nine years later.
Source: Comiskey 2015 (RIFM/Creme Global), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The fragrance industry's own probabilistic (Monte Carlo) exposure model estimated aggregate systemic exposure for four fragrance ingredients (vanillin, benzaldehyde, BMHCA, isoeugenol) at 11.5 to 25-fold lower than the deterministic worst-case method recommended by the EU's SCCS for assessing cosmetic ingredient safety.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Industry-funded (RIFM); both sides of the comparison are modeled, not measured; limited to 4 of the 8 ingredients studied and to 13 of the SCCS's 17 product types (the model does not cover 4 make-up categories).
Source: Safford 2017, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Self-reported survey
The cosmetics industry generated its own dataset for how much lipstick, body lotion, and face cream people actually use, written by staff of the cosmetics trade association (CTFA), the fragrance industry's safety institute (RIFM), a contract statistics firm, and personal-care manufacturers including P&G, Unilever, Avon, Johnson & Johnson, Mary Kay, L'Oreal, Bath & Body Works and Takasago.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
No funding statement is printed in the paper, but every author's affiliation is a cosmetics/fragrance trade body or personal-care manufacturer; absence of a disclosure is not evidence of independence.
Source: Loretz 2005, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Self-reported survey
The cosmetics and fragrance industry generated its own dataset for how much perfume, hairspray, foundation, shampoo, body wash, and antiperspirant people actually use, written by staff of the cosmetics trade association (CTFA), the fragrance industry's safety institute (RIFM), and personal-care manufacturers including P&G, Unilever, Avon, Johnson & Johnson, Mary Kay, L'Oreal, Dial, and Takasago.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
No funding statement is printed in the paper, but every author's affiliation is a cosmetics/fragrance trade body or personal-care manufacturer; absence of a disclosure is not evidence of independence.
Source: Loretz 2006, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Self-reported survey
Real-time diaries found people using hairspray and other personal-care products up to six times more often than an older survey that just asked women to recall their past use, even though the two studies agreed fairly well on how much was used per application — suggesting recall surveys mainly undercount how often people use a product, not how much they use each time.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
The 1983 comparison survey's protocol was not standardized or described, so the size of the gap cannot be fully attributed to recall bias versus a real change in behavior over the intervening two decades.
Source: Loretz 2006, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Self-reported survey
The cosmetics industry generated its own dataset for how much facial cleanser, hair conditioner, and eye shadow people actually use, written by staff of the cosmetics trade association (CTFA), the fragrance industry's safety institute (RIFM), a contract statistics firm, and personal-care manufacturers including Procter & Gamble, Dial, Unilever, Johnson & Johnson, Mary Kay, L'Oreal, and Takasago, whose own conflict-of-interest statement says 'there are no conflicts of interest.'
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
No separate funding statement is printed in the paper, but every author's affiliation is a cosmetics/fragrance trade body or personal-care manufacturer; the paper's own 'no conflicts' declaration does not amount to independent verification.
Source: Loretz 2008, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Government agency
The cosmetics industry's own safety panel (CIR, funded by the Personal Care Products Council) concluded in 2021 that Benzophenone-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -8, -9, -10, -11 and -12 are 'safe' in cosmetics at their present concentrations of use, including Benzophenone-3 (oxybenzone) used as a light stabilizer or fragrance-formulation ingredient at up to 0.5%.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
This is the industry panel's own conclusion, not an independent or governmental safety finding; CIR is funded by the Personal Care Products Council. The Panel's Discussion and Conclusion sections address only carcinogenicity and incidental inhalation; they never revisit the extensive endocrine-activity data the same report catalogs in its own body.
Source: CIR 2021 Benzophenones Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Government agency
The COSMILE Europe cosmetic-ingredient app and database is run by Cosmetics Europe, described in its own press release as "the European trade association for the cosmetics and personal care industry," together with 12 national cosmetics-industry member associations, not by the European Commission or any EU government body.
Moderate evidence: This is the organization's own self-description of its ownership and funding, not an independent audit; the app itself was first built by a German industry association (IKW).
Source: Cosmetics Europe 2023 Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
As of 2025, the cosmetics industry's own safety scientists say the 'airborne fraction' values used to calculate inhalation exposure to hairspray, deodorant, and perfume sprays are a heuristic convenience carried over from a 2009 model, not physically grounded measurements, and a dedicated industry project (ICCS) to generate real product-specific values is still ongoing.
Moderate evidence: This is the industry's own admission of a data gap in its own exposure model, not an outside critique.
Source: Steiling et al. 2025, Toxicology Letters Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Measured in people or real products
All cleaning products tested in this study (laundry detergent, fabric softener, dust/floor/glass cleaners, and a smoke remover) contained detectable VOCs; alkanes (mainly n-tetradecane, 87 µg/mL in the laundry detergent) and terpenes (mainly limonene, up to 64 µg/mL in the smoke-remover spray) were the dominant classes, while chlorine bleach (not itself tested for VOCs but used liberally) was linked to the chloroform and carbon tetrachloride found in laundry-room air.
Moderate evidence: Only 7 products from one hotel were tested; formulations vary by brand and hotel.
The industry / Other evidence
After inspecting a New York homeopathic drug maker (HomeoCare Laboratories) in January 2017, FDA cited four manufacturing-quality violations: no validation of manufacturing processes, no real in-process uniformity control, no identity test on each ingredient, and no annual product review ever done.
Moderate evidence: One firm, one regulator's letter; it summarizes observations and gives no assay data or lot counts.
Source: FDA warning letter 521717, 7 Sep 2017, FDA warning letter (MARCS-CMS 521717), 7 September 2017 Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
In May 2024 the flavor industry's own safety panel (FEMA) removed estragole, a tarragon and basil constituent it describes as having genotoxic and carcinogenic properties in rodent liver, from its GRAS list when added as such, pending data on DNA damage in human cells.
Moderate evidence: Industry panel's own decision; no date given and no FDA or EU action is described. Says nothing about estragole inside natural oils.
Source: FEMA Expert Panel 2024 (GRAS 31), Food Technology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
In 2010 the UK Government could not say how much the NHS spent on homeopathy: it said the data 'have never been routinely collected', most Primary Care Trusts did not routinely commission it, and gathering detail would be a disproportionate use of resources.
Moderate evidence: No figure given; the PCT survey results are described only as 'the majority', not counted.
Source: UK Department of Health, Government Response to the Science and Technology Committee report 'Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy', Cm 7914 (July 2010), Command Paper Cm 7914 (July 2010) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG says it does receive financial and in-kind support from companies, including organic food, personal care, and financial-services companies, plus licensing fees from its EWG Verified program ($2.05 million of licensing and consulting revenue in 2024).
Moderate evidence: No company names or corporate-support amounts are given; the licensing line may also include consulting fees.
Source: EWG Funding & Reports page, 2026, EWG website (web page) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The cosmetics industry's own safety panel (the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, funded by the Personal Care Products Council) concluded in a May 2015 draft that 80 polysorbates, including polysorbate 60, are safe in cosmetics only 'when formulated to be non-irritating'.
Moderate evidence: Industry-funded panel's position, in a draft stamped 'do not cite or quote'; the published version was not read.
Source: CIR 2015 draft Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The cosmetics industry's CIR panel, funded by the Personal Care Products Council, reports hydrogen peroxide use at up to 12.4% in consumer hair dyes, up to 12% in hair bleaches, 15% in a professional developer, 4.6% in dentifrices and 4% in aerosol hair sprays, from a 2017 industry survey.
Moderate evidence: Maximum reported use concentrations from a voluntary industry survey and FDA's voluntary registration database; not measured consumer exposure.
Source: Becker et al. 2024, International Journal of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
More than 70% of the chemicals measured in childcare air had no health-based safety limit; several fragrance compounds were among 12 the authors flagged for further study.
Moderate evidence: Flags come from database/QSAR hazard scores, not measured effects.
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
The EU bans or restricts more than 1,500 chemicals in personal care products and Canada about 800, while the US restricted 11.
Moderate evidence: Secondhand from a 2018 JAMA Intern Med commentary; EU count includes substances never used; US rules changed after MoCRA 2022.
Source: Khalid & Abdollahi 2021, Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Advocacy group testing
In a 2010 Canadian survey, volunteers found no ingredient list on 28% of toothpastes and mouthwashes and 14% of antiperspirants and deodorants; in Canada, personal-care products sold as 'drugs' need list only their active ingredients.
Moderate evidence: Some missing lists were discarded outer packaging; 2010 Canadian law.
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
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
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 / 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
In 1995 FDA exempted food-contact chemicals expected to be below 0.5 parts per billion in the diet from additive regulation (unless a carcinogen is suspected) and asks only for genotoxicity tests up to 50 ppb; the Pew review says the 0.5 ppb value came from cancer potency data and does not consider hormonal or behavioral effects.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
FDA and TTC authors argue a cancer-based threshold covers other endpoints; the review's position is the critics'. Applies to food-contact substances, not to food flavors or fragrance.
Source: Maffini 2013, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
EU labeling rules normally require an ingredient list with quantities, but homeopathic products are exempt: they carry the scientific name of the stock material and the degree of dilution, so a buyer may not realize there is no, or only a minuscule amount of, active ingredient.
Moderate evidence: Policy statement by an evidence-advocacy body; the labeling exception is described, not quoted from the regulation text.
Source: EASAC 2017, EASAC Statement (September 2017) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
In Canada, an allergen inside an exempt flavor or spice preparation must still be shown: B.01.010.1(2) requires the source of any food allergen or gluten present in a prepackaged product, and (8) and (9) say where to show it when the component carrying it is not itself listed.
Moderate evidence: This is a plain reading of the regulation text; CFIA enforcement guidance and recall data were not read.
Source: src-2026-canada-food-drug-regulations-b-01-009-to-b-01-010-4-allergens, Canadian regulation Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
A licensed UK homeopathic arnica 30C product carried the label 'used within the homeopathic tradition for the symptomatic relief of sprains, muscular aches, bruising and swelling', though a 30C dilution contains no active ingredient; the committee judged MHRA's label user-test defective.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
MHRA said user testing showed the wording was comprehensible to the public and that 'used within the tradition' is not an efficacy claim; the committee's reading of test design is its own judgment, and no results of the test are reported in the volume.
Source: UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy (HC 45), Feb 2010 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 / 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 / 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
Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products
In a survey of 187 US pediatric personal-care products, preservatives (57.8% of products) were a more common source of contact allergens than fragrance (29.4%), even though the products were being screened specifically for hypoallergenic/fragrance-related marketing claims.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Category-level result from one survey; the two categories are not mutually exclusive at the product level (a product can carry both preservative and fragrance allergens), and the finding has not been replicated in a different pediatric sample.
Source: Hamann 2015, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.