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 EU's 2018 endocrine disruptor policy Communication states that endocrine disruptors are regulated completely differently depending on the law: under pesticide and biocide rules, once a substance is proven to be an endocrine disruptor it can in principle no longer be authorized at all, with very limited exceptions, but under the EU's main chemicals law (REACH) and under cosmetics, toys, and food-contact-material rules, an identified endocrine disruptor is instead assessed case by case and can still be allowed at a managed exposure level.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The Commission itself calls this inconsistency an open question, not a settled policy failure, and says a 'Fitness Check' (not yet published as of this 2018 document) will examine whether it needs to change.
Source: EU Commission 2018 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The FTC says homeopathic drugs get no special treatment in advertising: claims that a homeopathic product treats a condition must have a reasonable basis before they are made, and 'there is no basis under the FTC Act to treat OTC homeopathic drugs differently than other health products.'
Strong evidence: Agency's own legal position, not a court ruling; applies to OTC products for self-limiting conditions amenable to self-diagnosis.
Source: FTC 2016 OTC homeopathic enforcement policy statement, Federal Register 81(239):90122-90123 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Under the FTC's 2016 policy, a homeopathic ad for an unproven use is not necessarily deceptive if it clearly tells consumers there is no scientific evidence the product works and that its claims rest only on 1700s homeopathy theories not accepted by most modern medical experts.
Strong evidence: Enforcement policy, not a safe harbor: the FTC doubts many disclosures will work and will judge the ad's overall net impression.
Source: FTC 2016 OTC homeopathic enforcement policy statement, Federal Register 81(239):90122-90123 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
FDA's position in 2017 was that homeopathic drugs are subject to the same requirements as other drugs and that nothing in the FD&C Act exempts them from adulteration, labeling, misbranding, or approval rules; marketing without approval is tolerated only under conditions in Compliance Policy Guide 400.400.
Strong evidence: This is the agency's stated legal reading in one letter; CPG 400.400 was later replaced by the 2022 guidance.
Source: FDA warning letter 521717, 7 Sep 2017, FDA warning letter (MARCS-CMS 521717), 7 September 2017 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
FDA states that homeopathic drugs are 'subject to the same regulatory requirements as other drugs' and that nothing in the FD&C Act exempts them from adulteration, labeling, misbranding, or approval requirements; they are marketed unapproved only under an enforcement policy (CPG 400.400).
Strong evidence: Agency statement of law and enforcement policy (the same position appears in FDA's 2022 guidance); it describes the legal rule, not how often it is enforced.
Source: FDA warning letter 17-NWJ-09, 20 Jun 2017 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
In its 2019 draft, FDA said that homeopathic products labeled and formulated to meet its old 1988 policy (CPG 400.400) had still caused or could have caused significant harm, which is why it proposed replacing the 1988 policy with risk-based enforcement priorities.
Strong evidence: FDA's stated rationale; whether the harm rate is high or low is not quantified in the document.
Source: FDA draft guidance, Drug Products Labeled as Homeopathic (Oct 2019) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
A 2015 CMAJ editorial (Flegel & Martin, CMAJ 187:1187, DOI 10.1503/cmaj.151097) states hospital environments free from artificial scents 'should become a uniform policy, promoting the safety of patients, staff and visitors alike'; the US CDC's own workplace policy separately says fragrance 'is not appropriate for a professional work environment' (CDC wording still unverified against a primary CDC source).
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
CMAJ quote now verified against the primary editorial, now in our evidence base (src-2015-artificial-scents-no-place-hospitals): exact wording is 'should become a uniform policy' (ASEQ-EHAQ's paraphrase drops the article 'a', not a substantive misquote). The editorial is opinion/commentary, not a study — its own cited prevalence numbers (30% scent sensitivity, 27% of asthmatics worsened) are the same Caress & Steinemann survey figures used elsewhere in our evidence base. CDC portion remains unverified; the CMAJ editorial itself never mentions the CDC.
Source: ASEQ-EHAQ 2020 (quoting CMAJ 2015 and CDC) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
As of 2015, no Canadian hospital accreditation standard required a scent-free policy, and it was not policy in all Canadian hospitals.
Moderate evidence: The editorial's own 2015 assessment; the policy landscape may have shifted since — see Roy 2026 for a later, focus-group-based assessment of implementation gaps.
Source: Flegel & Martin 2015, CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) Link to this fact
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 / 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 / Other evidence
Under FDA policy a flavor's GRAS status applies only to the designated use (its function in food, the food categories, and the use levels), not to the substance itself, so a flavor judged GRAS as a flavoring is not GRAS for a different use such as sweetening.
Moderate evidence: Industry-authored summary of FDA policy, which it quotes at length; enforcement is described as selective (FDA often comments only on the technical effect).
Source: Hallagan 2020, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Before 2016 the FTC had 'rarely challenged' misleading claims for homeopathic products, and FDA's 1988 Compliance Policy Guide let marketers sell OTC homeopathic products without demonstrating efficacy.
Moderate evidence: The FTC's own description of its enforcement history and of the FDA policy; not independently counted.
Source: FTC 2016 OTC homeopathic enforcement policy statement, Federal Register 81(239):90122-90123 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
FDA's homeopathic enforcement policy is nonbinding and risk-based: many unapproved homeopathic products fall outside its six priority categories, so they stay on shelves although they lack approval.
Moderate evidence: FDA also states any illegally marketed product is subject to enforcement at any time; 'tolerated' is an inference from priority-setting.
Source: FDA 2022 Homeopathic Drug Products guidance Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
For environmental sensitivities, the CHRC says making facilities 'accessible and safe' means reducing chemical use, having a scent-free policy, buying less toxic products, and notifying people before construction or maintenance work.
Moderate evidence: Recommended measures from the regulator; the sheet cites no outcome evidence that they work.
Source: [[src-2019-chrc-environmental-sensitivity-scent-free-policies|CHRC 2019]] Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The CHRC lists implementing and enforcing a scent-free policy, using least-toxic scent-free products, and notifying workers and clients before construction or maintenance as part of keeping facilities accessible and safe for people with environmental sensitivities.
Moderate evidence: Guidance wording, not a statute; the page gives no outcome evidence that these measures work.
Source: CHRC 2026 web Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
EWG calls the lack of public safety information on chemicals in everyday products 'a major failing of the nation's outdated chemical policy' and says manufacturers and government 'largely leave consumers in the dark' about cleaning-product contents.
Weak evidence: Advocacy-organization position in 2012, with no data or citation in this piece.
Source: Andrews, EWG, 2012 (web page) Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.