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 / Measured in people or real products
US product rules written to limit smog (ozone) exempt several chemicals that still form fine particles, and fragrance ingredients do not have to be disclosed.
Moderate evidence: Regulatory analysis in the paper.
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
In the US, "fragrance-free" means that no ingredient is used solely to give a smell. A fragrance chemical that also does another job, such as benzyl alcohol used as a preservative, can legally be in a "fragrance-free" product.
Moderate evidence: US definition as quoted by dermatologists in 2007; not a legal analysis; FDA has no binding definition of "fragrance-free".
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
More than 40% of US occupational exposure limits are set to prevent eye, nose, and throat irritation, and a systematic comparison of 18 agencies confirms that US, German, and EU regulators set substantially different limits for the same chemicals, overall stringency ranges from Poland's geometric-mean level of 0.23 to US OSHA's 0.61 (a 2.67-fold spread), with the EU's own 'health-based' indicative limits sitting above Germany's stricter national MAK limits.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Workplace limits, not consumer or home limits. The >40%-for-irritation figure is still secondhand (Edling & Lundberg 2000, not independently in our evidence base). The 'agencies differ' clause is now backed by a large, systematic primary (Schenk et al. 2008: 18 agencies, 1,341 substances), but the claim stays below 'strong' because the irritation-basis figure remains unverified.
Source: Dalton & Jaén 2010, Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
A fragrance-and-flavor company reported that about half of the chemicals it handles are classified hazardous, and that few of the more than 3,000 flavoring substances in use have workplace exposure limits.
Moderate evidence: Industry self-description, no inventory published; flavor materials at one company.
Source: Angelini 2016, PLoS ONE Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
US product labels only have to say "fragrance", not which chemicals, and household products need not list ingredients at all; MoCRA (2022) requires companies to name on cosmetic labels the fragrance allergens FDA designates by regulation (proposed rule was due June 2024), which the authors expect to be many, but not all.
Moderate evidence: Check current MoCRA rule status before quoting; household products are outside MoCRA; statute §609(b) is a mandate; check final rule status.
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 / Review of other studies
People with chemical sensitivities asked the US Justice Department to consider fragrance as an access barrier during its 2008 ADA rulemaking.
Moderate evidence: Shows the issue was raised in the record; the attachment makes no legal argument and our evidence base has no record of DOJ's response.
Source: DONTSPRAYCALIFORNIA 2008 (DOJ ADA docket) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
In the US, fragrance sensitivity or multiple chemical sensitivity can count as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but not automatically: it is decided case by case, usually on whether breathing is substantially limited.
Moderate evidence: Authors' reading of statute in a 2009 business-conference paper; no case survey; the 2008 ADA Amendments postdate their cases.
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
US law has never defined "fragrance-free"; the only definition is of fragrance itself ("used solely to impart an odor", 21 CFR 700.3(d)), so an ingredient that smells but is also claimed as a preservative or moisturizer can go into a "fragrance-free" product. FDA's own website said in 1999 that "fragrance-free" products, like "unscented" ones, may contain fragrance chemicals.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Legal point from a 1999 commentary quoting the FDA's own website of that era, not a legal analysis or product survey. The US statute (MoCRA 2022) still has not defined 'fragrance-free' 23 years later.
Source: Scheinman 1999, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
A 2006 Lancet review found that of roughly 3,000 US high-production-volume industrial chemicals, basic toxicity data were publicly unavailable for nearly half, and 80% had no information on developmental or pediatric toxicity at all.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Cites the US EPA's own 1998 Chemical Hazard Data Availability Study directly, one citation hop closer to a primary than the Goldman 1998 chain behind our other testing-gap claim. Concerns general developmental/pediatric toxicity testing, a broader category than the narrower 'developmental neurotoxicity' endpoint in the related claim — not a strict numeric confirmation of it. About industrial chemicals in general (solvents, metals, pesticides); no fragrance ingredient named.
Source: Grandjean & Landrigan 2006, Lancet Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Under the EPA's Safer Choice program, 'fragrance-free' and 'unscented' are not the same claim: 'unscented' still allows a masking chemical added to cover other ingredients' smell, while 'fragrance-free' specifically bars masking scents as well as added scent.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
This is the program's own written definition (evidence/agency), not a product-testing result; it applies only to products certified under this specific EPA program, not to any product that merely uses the words on its own label.
Source: US EPA Safer Choice Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Multiple chemical sensitivity has no dedicated diagnostic code and is instead coded, when coded at all, under nonspecific ICD-10 codes for unspecified respiratory conditions from inhaled fumes/gas/chemical vapors (J68.9) or unspecified allergy/hypersensitivity/idiosyncrasy (T78.4); some countries and agencies (US EPA, US ADA, Germany, Austria) have given the condition some form of recognition, while Italy's health ministry has declined to recognize it as a rare disease due to diagnostic-nosology difficulty.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Regulatory-recognition landscape as of this review's 2015 search cutoff and largely focused on Italy; recognition status in individual US states, agencies or other countries may have changed since, and the review does not cite the specific EPA/ADA source documents establishing "recognition.".
Source: Rossi 2018, Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Under the EU's REACH chemical regulation, data from the mouse sensory-irritation bioassay are generally not accepted to classify a chemical as causing respiratory tract irritation (that classification is limited to tests showing direct tissue damage); the bioassay's data can only be used case-by-case to help set a short-term safe-exposure value.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Describes the regulation's stated scope as the authors summarize it (citing ECHA 2012, 2017 guidance documents), not an independent legal analysis; the authors argue this restriction rests on a misreading of an earlier study by a different group.
Source: Nielsen & Wolkoff 2017, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded 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 / Government agency
HUD's own Occupancy Handbook (4350.3 REV-1, Exhibit 2-6, June 2007) states that for a HUD-assisted housing resident with chemical sensitivity disorder, it is not an undue financial and administrative burden for the owner to give advance notice before cleaning common areas and to use nonchemical alternative cleaning methods where practical.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Binding operational guidance for HUD-assisted multifamily housing, not a court ruling; applies only to owner-controlled common-area cleaning, not to other tenants' or staff's personal fragrance/scent use, and 'where practical' is left case-by-case.
Source: HUD Occupancy Handbook 4350.3 REV-1, Exhibit 2-6 (2007) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The same HUD guidance states it would be an undue administrative burden for a HUD-assisted housing owner to survey every tenant in a building for what chemicals they use to clean their own units and when, and compile that into a weekly report for a chemically sensitive resident.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
HUD's stated reason is administrative capacity ('could not be handled by the existing staff'), not cost; this refusal is specific to a full building-wide, ongoing, per-tenant monitoring and reporting scheme, not to lesser accommodations.
Source: HUD Occupancy Handbook 4350.3 REV-1, Exhibit 2-6 (2007) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
EU law now states, as a general principle, that fragrance substances able to transform into known contact allergens via air oxidation or bioactivation ('prehaptens and prohaptens') should be regulated the same as the allergens they become — but this 2023 amendment does not apply a specific hydroperoxide limit or peroxide-value restriction to limonene or linalool, the two chemicals most discussed in the oxidized-fragrance-allergen literature.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Recital 7 states the principle in general terms; reading the Annex directly shows no limonene- or linalool-hydroperoxide entry and no peroxide-value cross-reference for either chemical (only the new Pinene entry is linked to an existing peroxide-value restriction).
Source: Regulation (EU) 2023/1545 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 the 2005 procedure, safety of an essential oil is judged from its chemical constituents compared with generic intake thresholds (1,800, 540, or 90 micrograms a day by structural class), not from toxicity tests on the oil itself, unless a constituent group exceeds its threshold.
Moderate evidence: A screening threshold, which the paper itself describes as a trigger for more data, not a proof of safety. Industry-authored (FEMA).
Source: Smith 2005, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
A 2013 audit of FDA's own toxicology database found that 63.9% of the 3,941 chemicals allowed to be added directly to US food had no animal feeding study of any kind on file.
Moderate evidence: Counts studies in databases, not safety; authors are Pew-affiliated (Pew funded the work, not industry); route-based definition ignores study quality; data from 2012.
Source: Neltner et al. 2013, Reprod Toxicol, Reproductive Toxicology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Only about 1 in 5 chemicals added directly to US food (21.6%) has an oral study of the type used to estimate a safe level of intake in FDA's database, and 6.7% have any reproductive or developmental toxicity data.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
'Oral study' is defined by route only; 47% of FDA-graded oral studies fail FDA's core standards, so the share with adequate data is lower still. Absence of data is not evidence of harm.
Source: Neltner et al. 2013, Reprod Toxicol, Reproductive Toxicology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Since 1997 companies can bring a new food chemical to market through a voluntary 'GRAS notice' to FDA; more than 60% of 191 chemicals notified this way had no published feeding study, even though the regulation says a GRAS decision must rest on published studies.
Moderate evidence: Published-literature database only; some notices cite unpublished company studies, which this count does not capture.
Source: Neltner et al. 2013, Reprod Toxicol, Reproductive Toxicology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
In a review of 327 FDA GRAS notices, just 1% assigned the chemical a 'Concern Level' (FDA's tool for deciding how much testing is needed), and only 37% reported reproductive toxicity results.
Moderate evidence: Text-search of notice documents for key terms; a notice could use different wording.
Source: Neltner et al. 2013, Reprod Toxicol, Reproductive Toxicology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
A 2013 review by Pew Charitable Trusts staff matched 28 of the 35 suggestions FDA's own 1970s-80s expert committee (SCOGS) made for testing food chemicals to concerns that scientists raised at 2011 workshops, whose organizers had not read the SCOGS report.
Moderate evidence: Authors' own judgment of what counts as a match and as 'unresolved'; Pew-funded and co-convened the workshops; no independent rater; shows process gaps, not harm from any chemical.
Source: Maffini 2013, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 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
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 / 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 / Other evidence
CTV wrote: "The underlying problem is that there is no government agency that is assigned to help people with environmental sensitivities get housing free from chemicals."
Moderate evidence: A journalist's statement without a cited source; not checked against program inventories. Attribute to CTV. Death by MAiD is the article's subject; add 988 line in published use.
Source: CTV News, April 2022 (via Smoke-Free Housing BC; redacted copy), CTV News (news article) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The CHRC describes environmental sensitivity as an umbrella term that includes allergies, asthma, and disabilities such as multiple chemical sensitivity, ME/CFS and fibromyalgia.
Moderate evidence: Agency framing, not a diagnostic definition; MCS appears as one example.
Source: CHRC 2026 web Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The authors say two obstacles stall control of developmental neurotoxicity: large gaps in testing chemicals for it, and the very high level of proof demanded before regulation, so few chemicals have been regulated on these grounds.
Moderate evidence: Authors' policy argument; both are long-standing advocates of precautionary regulation.
Source: Grandjean & Landrigan 2014, Lancet Neurology, The Lancet Neurology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Grandjean and Landrigan propose three reforms: legally mandated testing of existing chemicals and pesticides, legally mandated premarket evaluation of new chemicals with precautionary methods, and an international neurotoxicity clearinghouse modeled on IARC that would not require absolute proof of toxicity.
Moderate evidence: A proposal, not an adopted policy; the clearinghouse was a recommendation in 2014.
Source: Grandjean & Landrigan 2014, Lancet Neurology, The Lancet Neurology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The authors call the presumption that new chemicals are safe until proven otherwise a fundamental problem and say voluntary controls seem to be of little value; they want mandatory, transparent assessment followed by regulation.
Moderate evidence: Expert opinion supported by historical examples (asbestos, thalidomide, CFCs, lead), not a trial of voluntary versus mandatory systems.
Source: Grandjean & Landrigan 2014, Lancet Neurology, The Lancet Neurology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The review notes that rapidly excreted chemicals such as phthalates and bisphenol A are hard to assess from a few urine samples and that this imprecision might lead to underestimation of the true neurotoxicity risk.
Moderate evidence: Methodological point by the authors; it cuts toward under-detection, but it cannot show that an effect exists.
Source: Grandjean & Landrigan 2014, Lancet Neurology, The Lancet Neurology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The Endocrine Society's 2015 statement urges that chemicals be safety tested for hormone-like activity at low doses before sale, warns that replacement chemicals can be sold without disclosure or adequate testing, and cites the BPA substitute BPS as acting like BPA in experiments.
Moderate evidence: Advocacy recommendation by a professional society, not a regulatory finding; BPA and BPS are not fragrance ingredients.
Source: Gore et al. 2015, Endocr Rev 36(6):593-602, Endocrine Reviews Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The 2016 TENDR statement said that when a toxic chemical is banned, manufacturers often swap in a similar, barely tested one, citing neonicotinoid and pyrethroid pesticides replacing OP pesticides, other halogenated and organophosphate flame retardants replacing PBDEs, and new phthalates replacing banned ones.
Moderate evidence: Examples are the authors' characterization, supported by emerging rather than established evidence for the replacements.
Source: Bennett et al. 2016 (TENDR Consensus Statement, EHP), Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The TENDR authors noted that of the tens of thousands of chemicals on the US EPA inventory, nearly 7,700 are made or imported at 25,000 pounds or more a year and nearly 3,000 at over 1 million pounds a year, and that only a minority have been tested for neurotoxicity in adults and even fewer for effects on children's brain development.
Moderate evidence: Volume counts are as of 2006 and 2012 and are not current.
Source: Bennett et al. 2016 (TENDR Consensus Statement, EHP), Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.