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