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.
What you can do / Review of other studies
Occupational lung specialists treating irritable larynx syndrome recommend a 'low-scent' workplace policy or respiratory protection to limit exposure to triggers.
Moderate evidence: Clinical recommendation, not tested as an intervention.
What you can do / Review of other studies
When relying on a workplace, clinic, or school's fragrance-free policy, check whether it (1) defines what's covered beyond perfume, especially cleaning and laundry products, (2) sets a default fragrance-free expectation rather than a complaint-triggered one, (3) controls what cleaning/laundry products the institution buys, and (4) names a real consequence for non-compliance — a 2026 scoping review of 63 such policies found these structural features present in well under half of cases.
Moderate evidence: Based on a gray-literature document review of North American policies; individual policies may vary, and having these features on paper does not guarantee enforcement.
What you can do / Government agency
After a 1993 ADA complaint over municipal-employee perfume use, San Francisco voluntarily adopted a policy requiring public meeting notices to ask attendees to refrain from wearing perfume or other scented products, to let people with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity attend.
Moderate evidence: One city's voluntary accommodation, reported secondhand in DOJ's own letter; not evidence the policy was enforced or effective, and not a legal requirement.
Source: DOJ Civil Rights Division 1993 (TAL 383) Link to this fact
What you can do / Self-reported survey
65.5% of autistic adults would support a fragrance-free workplace policy and 77.2% would prefer fragrance-free health care facilities and professionals, compared with 46.1% and 45.8% support among non-autistic adults.
Moderate evidence: Stated preference, not an intervention study; self-report survey.
Source: Steinemann 2018, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Link to this fact
What you can do / Other evidence
The FTC says 'has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration' or 'based on traditional homeopathic theory' alone does not adequately warn shoppers that a homeopathic product's claims lack scientific support, and perfunctory disclaimers are unlikely to work.
Moderate evidence: The Commission's judgment about consumer perception; it cites no consumer survey and instead advises marketers to run their own.
Source: FTC 2016 OTC homeopathic enforcement policy statement, Federal Register 81(239):90122-90123 Link to this fact
What you can do / Other evidence
The CHRC says a scent-free policy should list the types of products to avoid, be flexible, be mentioned in a letter of offer, and that an employee with environmental sensitivities who must leave because of a trigger should not suffer negative impacts.
Weak evidence: Guidance for federally regulated employers; no evidence on effectiveness, and a person outside that sector cannot rely on it as a legal entitlement.
Source: [[src-2019-chrc-environmental-sensitivity-scent-free-policies|CHRC 2019]] Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.