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
In 2000, EU cosmetics could declare an entire fragrance as the single word 'parfum'; the EU committee noted dermatologists' estimate that up to 2% of people have perfume allergy, against industry's claim that the true figure was 'far lower'. The EDEN population-based patch-test study (Diepgen 2015; n=3,119 patch-tested across 5 European countries) directly confirmed the dermatologists' estimate: 1.9% (95% CI 1.5-2.5) clinically relevant fragrance contact allergy, and 1.8-2.6% for fragrance mix I alone.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
EDEN is the largest general-population patch-test study of fragrance allergy to date and a large, well-controlled multi-country primary (not a single-lab or single-cohort study), which is why this moves to strong. Note EDEN was itself funded by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM), the fragrance industry's own body — the industry-funded study still confirmed the higher, consumer-relevant estimate over the industry's own 'far lower' claim.
Source: SCCNFP 2000 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 / Lab study (cells or chemistry)
A finished perfume is usually not toxicity-tested as a whole; its safety is assessed on paper from its secret ingredient list. When researchers tested 42 whole perfumes directly, they found hazards that ingredient-by-ingredient assessment is not designed to catch.
Moderate evidence: EU framework described by the authors; the hazards are in vitro and unidentified.
Source: Morlock & Heil 2025, Journal of Chromatography A 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 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 / 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 / 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 / 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 / Other evidence
The Canadian Human Rights Commission's 2019 information sheet says a reaction to much lower levels of chemicals or perfumes than the average person tolerates "is a medical condition. It is a recognized disability."
Moderate evidence: Agency position stated without citation or test; a two-page information sheet, not a ruling. Says 'allergies or environmental sensitivity', never 'multiple chemical sensitivity'.
Source: [[src-2019-chrc-environmental-sensitivity-scent-free-policies|CHRC 2019]] Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
Musk ambrette, banned in the EU for years, was still detected in the blood of 2 of 100 young Austrians tested, and testing the specific lotion and perfume one of them used did not find musk ambrette in the product itself, so the source of the banned chemical could not be pinned down.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
N=2; the tested products were negative for musk ambrette, so contamination, an unlisted supply-chain source, or a different untested product cannot be distinguished; no source identified.
Source: Hutter 2009, Science of the Total Environment Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.