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 / 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
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.