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 / Review of other studies
Linalool and linalyl acetate are registered in the EU at over 1,000 metric tons a year each for fragrance use in home-care and air-care products; the study states its purpose as adding to the dataset for future hazard-classification decisions as the EU adds endocrine disruption to its classification rules.
Strong evidence: Registration tonnage and regulatory context as stated by the paper; dossier-building and scientific inquiry are not separable here.
Source: Hareng 2024, Archives of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
In the EU, chemical mixtures containing a skin sensitizer must carry the warning 'May produce an allergic reaction' (EUH208), but cosmetics are exempt from that warning and from CLP hazard symbols.
Strong evidence: Legal analysis as of 2016 (CLP Art. 1(5), Annex II 2.8); cosmetics do have to name listed allergens in the ingredient list.
Source: Klaschka 2016, Environmental Sciences Europe Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
FDA names laundry detergents, fabric softeners, dryer sheets, and room and carpet fresheners as fragranced products that fall under the Consumer Product Safety Commission rather than FDA cosmetics regulation.
Strong evidence: Statement of jurisdiction only; says nothing about what CPSC does or does not require of these products.
Source: FDA 2026 (Fragrances in Cosmetics) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
As of 2010-11 the EU banned or restricted over 1,000 cosmetic ingredients (Cosmetics Directive Annex II) plus a general ban on ingredients known or suspected of being carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic; the US federal list of specifically banned cosmetic ingredients numbered about fifteen, with no positive list and no general CMR ban.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The US count is confirmed still accurate: MoCRA (2022) added no ingredient bans at all. The EU count from 2010-11 is likely a substantial understatement of the EU's current banned-ingredient list after subsequent CLP/CMR reclassification rounds; not independently verified against a current primary count in this evidence base.
Source: Reebs 2011 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
As of 1998, EPA and other bodies had classified about 165 pesticide active or inert ingredients as known, probable, or possible human carcinogens; most uses of the known and probable-with-limited-evidence groups had already been canceled, but dozens of possible/probable carcinogens still had active food and other uses pending a new 10-year tolerance-review schedule.
Strong evidence: A regulatory-status snapshot as of 1998; classifications and permitted uses have changed substantially since (not reconciled against current EPA status by this ingest).
Source: Goldman 1998, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The entire FDA sunscreen active-ingredient monograph (21 CFR Part 352) has carried an indefinite stay since an effective-date note dated June 4, 2003/2004, as printed in the CFR's own 2023 edition.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The captured text states only the stay itself; it does not mention the 2019 proposed rule or the 2020 CARES Act OTC monograph reform that are understood (from outside this document) to now govern the monograph's actual reassessment.
Source: 21 CFR Part 352 (2023 ed.) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Of 11 citizen petitions asking FDA to act on GRAS substances between 2004 and 2008 (including salt, trans fats, aluminum additives, MSG, carrageenan, and diacetyl), FDA had decided only one (a stevia petition, denied) as of December 2009, usually citing limited resources.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Petition status is as of December 2009; the petitions' scientific claims were not assessed by GAO. Later decisions (e.g., FDA's 2015 action on partially hydrogenated oils) are outside the report.
Source: GAO 2010, GAO-10-246 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
In July 2010 the UK Government rejected a parliamentary committee's call to stop NHS funding of homeopathy, saying local NHS bodies and clinicians, not Whitehall, are best placed to decide, and that it would not remove Primary Care Trusts' flexibility.
Strong evidence: A statement of government position, not evidence about homeopathy; says it will 'keep the position under review'.
Source: UK Department of Health, Government Response to the Science and Technology Committee report 'Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy', Cm 7914 (July 2010), Command Paper Cm 7914 (July 2010) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
EWG Verified is a voluntary certification run by an advocacy nonprofit; it is not a government standard and carries no legal authority.
Strong evidence: Straightforward from the program's description as a certification and licensing scheme.
Source: EWG Verified FAQ, verified-portal.ewg.org, accessed 2026-10-16, EWG Verified portal web page Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
In 2010 the EU's cosmetics safety committee (SCCS) ruled that sodium perborate, a hydrogen peroxide-releasing bleach in powder hair dyes, counts as a hydrogen peroxide releaser under the EU cosmetics hydrogen peroxide entry, so the hydrogen peroxide limits (12% for hair care) apply to it.
Strong evidence: Committee advice, not itself a legal limit; the opinion does not convert the 3% perborate into a hydrogen peroxide percentage.
Source: SCCS 2010 (SCCS/1345/10), SCCS opinion SCCS/1345/10 (PDF) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
FDA's 2021 proposed order states that the 1999 sunscreen monograph text, including oxybenzone at up to 6 percent, is the Deemed Final Order under the CARES Act, so the stayed-Part status printed in the CFR is not the whole legal picture.
Strong evidence: This describes FDA's legal reading in a 2021 proposal, not a court ruling. Later changes are not known from this document.
Source: FDA proposed order OTC000008 (2021) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The 2024 talc evaluation replaces IARC's earlier labels: perineal talc body powder was Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic) in 2006 and inhaled talc without asbestos was Group 3 (not classifiable).
Strong evidence: Classification history as printed by IARC.
Source: IARC Press Release 352 (2024) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
US food law lets companies leave incidental additives off the ingredient list if they are present at insignificant levels and have no technical or functional effect in the finished food; this covers carry-over from another ingredient, some processing aids, and substances migrating from equipment or packaging.
Strong evidence: Legal text, not a safety finding; the section says nothing about allergens or health. Current as of the eCFR snapshot of 2026-10-15.
Source: 21 CFR 101.100 (eCFR, 2026-10-15) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Four things cannot be hidden under 'natural flavor': protein hydrolysates used for flavor must carry their specific name, and onion, garlic, and celery powder, salt and monosodium glutamate must be named too (21 CFR 101.22(h)(3)-(5), (h)(7)).
Strong evidence: Named exceptions only; every other flavor constituent may stay under the collective term.
Source: 21 CFR 101.22 (eCFR 2026), Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Section 101.22 (eCFR) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
EFSA's polysorbate exposure estimate counts only food additive uses; it states that exposure from cosmetic ingredients, personal care products, textiles and pharmaceuticals was not considered, and that carrier uses in flavorings, colors and nutrient preparations were also left out.
Strong evidence: Stated limitation in the opinion; no quantification of the omitted sources.
Source: EFSA ANS Panel (2015), full opinion, EFSA Journal Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
For the not-foreseeable set, the act requires that the person be informed of means to relieve suffering, including counseling, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care, and be offered consultations with relevant professionals.
Strong evidence: States a duty on the practitioner to inform and offer; the act does not require that any service be provided or available.
Source: S.C. 2021, c. 2 (Bill C-7), annual statute page Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Most committee members agreed that in the MCSS case the MAiD process "should give way to urgent social services intervention and maximize supportive healthcare options to reduce symptoms and suffering prior to proceeding with MAiD."
Strong evidence: A majority discussion view (members' opinions were not counted), not a binding direction.
Source: Ontario MDRC Report 2024-3 (OCC, 2024; non-official copy) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
When natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, the practitioners must ensure the person has been informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, including where appropriate counseling, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care, and has been offered consultations with relevant professionals (s. 241.2(3.1)(g)).
Strong evidence: The duty is to inform and offer consultations, not to provide the services. Consolidation current to 2026-09-30.
Source: Criminal Code s. 241.2 (consolidation current to 2026-09-30) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Section 241.2(1) requires eligibility for government-funded health services, age 18 or older with capacity, a grievous and irremediable medical condition, a voluntary request not made as a result of external pressure, and informed consent after being informed of the means available to relieve suffering, including palliative care.
Strong evidence: Statute text as consolidated to 2026-09-30.
Source: Criminal Code s. 241.2 (consolidation current to 2026-09-30) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Under the Track Two safeguards, the person must be informed of available and appropriate means to relieve their suffering, including counseling, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care, and be offered consultations with those professionals.
Strong evidence: States a duty to inform and offer, not a duty to provide the services or to find housing.
Source: Justice Canada: Canada's MAID law (captured 2026-10-21), Justice Canada web page Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
OSHA lists perfumes and colognes, cleaning products, pesticides and personal-care products among sources of workplace indoor air pollutants, but sets no limit or rule for any of them.
Strong evidence: Mentions are brief source lists; fragrance is not named as a category, and no health data are given.
Source: OSHA 3430-04, 2011 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
EFSA kept the acceptable daily intakes for the six colors tested (sunset yellow, tartrazine, carmoisine, Ponceau 4R, quinoline yellow, allura red) and for sodium benzoate unchanged, saying the trial's lack of consistency, weak effect and unknown clinical meaning made it an insufficient basis for change.
Strong evidence: It is the Panel's weighing of the evidence in 2008, not a finding of no effect; it did not assess later studies.
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Since 20 July 2010, EU food containing sunset yellow (E 110), quinoline yellow (E 104), carmoisine (E 122), allura red (E 129), tartrazine (E 102) or Ponceau 4R (E 124) must carry the warning 'may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children', except meat health marks and egg stamping; a food-color finding, not a fragrance one.
Strong evidence: Original 2008 text; later amendments are not in this capture, so check the current consolidated text. The Regulation states no evidence for the warning.
Source: EU Reg 1333/2008 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
EU food flavorings are carved out of the food-additives regulation and governed by a separate regulation (1334/2008); the colors warning in Reg 1333/2008 therefore says nothing about flavorings.
Strong evidence: Additives used inside flavorings are still covered by 1333/2008 (Annex III Part 4, not captured here).
Source: EU Reg 1333/2008 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
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
In the EU, free formaldehyde in cosmetics is capped at 0.2% (0.1% in oral hygiene products) and products with formaldehyde or releasers must carry a 'contains formaldehyde' warning above 0.05%, whereas the authors say the US has no specific norms.
Weak evidence: Regulatory statement from a 2011 discussion citing a 1986 directive; rules have changed since (see the Goossens 2022 page) and the US statement is not checked here.
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The CHRC says scent-free policies should apply to employees and non-employees alike, name the products to avoid, be flexible, and carry consequences for non-compliance, and that employers should stay open to other accommodation options.
Weak evidence: Policy-design advice with no cited evidence base (footnotes not captured).
Source: CHRC 2026 web Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Station wastewater treatment in Antarctica (biological treatment with UV or chlorine) is judged by the authors to be ineffective for personal-care chemicals, and one-third of permanent and two-thirds of summer stations have no treatment.
Weak evidence: Efficacy is asserted, not quantified for these compounds; the authors admit plant conditions differ too much to compare treatments.
Source: Balakrishna 2023 (review), Environmental Research Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.