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 / Review of other studies
Linalool and linalyl acetate are registered in the EU at over 1,000 metric tons a year each for fragrance use in home-care and air-care products; the study states its purpose as adding to the dataset for future hazard-classification decisions as the EU adds endocrine disruption to its classification rules.
Strong evidence: Registration tonnage and regulatory context as stated by the paper; dossier-building and scientific inquiry are not separable here.
Source: Hareng 2024, Archives of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
In the EU, chemical mixtures containing a skin sensitizer must carry the warning 'May produce an allergic reaction' (EUH208), but cosmetics are exempt from that warning and from CLP hazard symbols.
Strong evidence: Legal analysis as of 2016 (CLP Art. 1(5), Annex II 2.8); cosmetics do have to name listed allergens in the ingredient list.
Source: Klaschka 2016, Environmental Sciences Europe Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
FDA names laundry detergents, fabric softeners, dryer sheets, and room and carpet fresheners as fragranced products that fall under the Consumer Product Safety Commission rather than FDA cosmetics regulation.
Strong evidence: Statement of jurisdiction only; says nothing about what CPSC does or does not require of these products.
Source: FDA 2026 (Fragrances in Cosmetics) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
As of 2010-11 the EU banned or restricted over 1,000 cosmetic ingredients (Cosmetics Directive Annex II) plus a general ban on ingredients known or suspected of being carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic; the US federal list of specifically banned cosmetic ingredients numbered about fifteen, with no positive list and no general CMR ban.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The US count is confirmed still accurate: MoCRA (2022) added no ingredient bans at all. The EU count from 2010-11 is likely a substantial understatement of the EU's current banned-ingredient list after subsequent CLP/CMR reclassification rounds; not independently verified against a current primary count in this evidence base.
Source: Reebs 2011 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
As of 1998, EPA and other bodies had classified about 165 pesticide active or inert ingredients as known, probable, or possible human carcinogens; most uses of the known and probable-with-limited-evidence groups had already been canceled, but dozens of possible/probable carcinogens still had active food and other uses pending a new 10-year tolerance-review schedule.
Strong evidence: A regulatory-status snapshot as of 1998; classifications and permitted uses have changed substantially since (not reconciled against current EPA status by this ingest).
Source: Goldman 1998, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The entire FDA sunscreen active-ingredient monograph (21 CFR Part 352) has carried an indefinite stay since an effective-date note dated June 4, 2003/2004, as printed in the CFR's own 2023 edition.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The captured text states only the stay itself; it does not mention the 2019 proposed rule or the 2020 CARES Act OTC monograph reform that are understood (from outside this document) to now govern the monograph's actual reassessment.
Source: 21 CFR Part 352 (2023 ed.) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Of 11 citizen petitions asking FDA to act on GRAS substances between 2004 and 2008 (including salt, trans fats, aluminum additives, MSG, carrageenan, and diacetyl), FDA had decided only one (a stevia petition, denied) as of December 2009, usually citing limited resources.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Petition status is as of December 2009; the petitions' scientific claims were not assessed by GAO. Later decisions (e.g., FDA's 2015 action on partially hydrogenated oils) are outside the report.
Source: GAO 2010, GAO-10-246 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
In July 2010 the UK Government rejected a parliamentary committee's call to stop NHS funding of homeopathy, saying local NHS bodies and clinicians, not Whitehall, are best placed to decide, and that it would not remove Primary Care Trusts' flexibility.
Strong evidence: A statement of government position, not evidence about homeopathy; says it will 'keep the position under review'.
Source: UK Department of Health, Government Response to the Science and Technology Committee report 'Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy', Cm 7914 (July 2010), Command Paper Cm 7914 (July 2010) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
EWG Verified is a voluntary certification run by an advocacy nonprofit; it is not a government standard and carries no legal authority.
Strong evidence: Straightforward from the program's description as a certification and licensing scheme.
Source: EWG Verified FAQ, verified-portal.ewg.org, accessed 2026-10-16, EWG Verified portal web page Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
In 2010 the EU's cosmetics safety committee (SCCS) ruled that sodium perborate, a hydrogen peroxide-releasing bleach in powder hair dyes, counts as a hydrogen peroxide releaser under the EU cosmetics hydrogen peroxide entry, so the hydrogen peroxide limits (12% for hair care) apply to it.
Strong evidence: Committee advice, not itself a legal limit; the opinion does not convert the 3% perborate into a hydrogen peroxide percentage.
Source: SCCS 2010 (SCCS/1345/10), SCCS opinion SCCS/1345/10 (PDF) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
FDA's 2021 proposed order states that the 1999 sunscreen monograph text, including oxybenzone at up to 6 percent, is the Deemed Final Order under the CARES Act, so the stayed-Part status printed in the CFR is not the whole legal picture.
Strong evidence: This describes FDA's legal reading in a 2021 proposal, not a court ruling. Later changes are not known from this document.
Source: FDA proposed order OTC000008 (2021) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The 2024 talc evaluation replaces IARC's earlier labels: perineal talc body powder was Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic) in 2006 and inhaled talc without asbestos was Group 3 (not classifiable).
Strong evidence: Classification history as printed by IARC.
Source: IARC Press Release 352 (2024) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
US food law lets companies leave incidental additives off the ingredient list if they are present at insignificant levels and have no technical or functional effect in the finished food; this covers carry-over from another ingredient, some processing aids, and substances migrating from equipment or packaging.
Strong evidence: Legal text, not a safety finding; the section says nothing about allergens or health. Current as of the eCFR snapshot of 2026-10-15.
Source: 21 CFR 101.100 (eCFR, 2026-10-15) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Four things cannot be hidden under 'natural flavor': protein hydrolysates used for flavor must carry their specific name, and onion, garlic, and celery powder, salt and monosodium glutamate must be named too (21 CFR 101.22(h)(3)-(5), (h)(7)).
Strong evidence: Named exceptions only; every other flavor constituent may stay under the collective term.
Source: 21 CFR 101.22 (eCFR 2026), Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Section 101.22 (eCFR) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
EFSA's polysorbate exposure estimate counts only food additive uses; it states that exposure from cosmetic ingredients, personal care products, textiles and pharmaceuticals was not considered, and that carrier uses in flavorings, colors and nutrient preparations were also left out.
Strong evidence: Stated limitation in the opinion; no quantification of the omitted sources.
Source: EFSA ANS Panel (2015), full opinion, EFSA Journal Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
For the not-foreseeable set, the act requires that the person be informed of means to relieve suffering, including counseling, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care, and be offered consultations with relevant professionals.
Strong evidence: States a duty on the practitioner to inform and offer; the act does not require that any service be provided or available.
Source: S.C. 2021, c. 2 (Bill C-7), annual statute page Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Most committee members agreed that in the MCSS case the MAiD process "should give way to urgent social services intervention and maximize supportive healthcare options to reduce symptoms and suffering prior to proceeding with MAiD."
Strong evidence: A majority discussion view (members' opinions were not counted), not a binding direction.
Source: Ontario MDRC Report 2024-3 (OCC, 2024; non-official copy) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
When natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, the practitioners must ensure the person has been informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, including where appropriate counseling, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care, and has been offered consultations with relevant professionals (s. 241.2(3.1)(g)).
Strong evidence: The duty is to inform and offer consultations, not to provide the services. Consolidation current to 2026-09-30.
Source: Criminal Code s. 241.2 (consolidation current to 2026-09-30) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Section 241.2(1) requires eligibility for government-funded health services, age 18 or older with capacity, a grievous and irremediable medical condition, a voluntary request not made as a result of external pressure, and informed consent after being informed of the means available to relieve suffering, including palliative care.
Strong evidence: Statute text as consolidated to 2026-09-30.
Source: Criminal Code s. 241.2 (consolidation current to 2026-09-30) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Under the Track Two safeguards, the person must be informed of available and appropriate means to relieve their suffering, including counseling, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care, and be offered consultations with those professionals.
Strong evidence: States a duty to inform and offer, not a duty to provide the services or to find housing.
Source: Justice Canada: Canada's MAID law (captured 2026-10-21), Justice Canada web page Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
OSHA lists perfumes and colognes, cleaning products, pesticides and personal-care products among sources of workplace indoor air pollutants, but sets no limit or rule for any of them.
Strong evidence: Mentions are brief source lists; fragrance is not named as a category, and no health data are given.
Source: OSHA 3430-04, 2011 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
EFSA kept the acceptable daily intakes for the six colors tested (sunset yellow, tartrazine, carmoisine, Ponceau 4R, quinoline yellow, allura red) and for sodium benzoate unchanged, saying the trial's lack of consistency, weak effect and unknown clinical meaning made it an insufficient basis for change.
Strong evidence: It is the Panel's weighing of the evidence in 2008, not a finding of no effect; it did not assess later studies.
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Since 20 July 2010, EU food containing sunset yellow (E 110), quinoline yellow (E 104), carmoisine (E 122), allura red (E 129), tartrazine (E 102) or Ponceau 4R (E 124) must carry the warning 'may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children', except meat health marks and egg stamping; a food-color finding, not a fragrance one.
Strong evidence: Original 2008 text; later amendments are not in this capture, so check the current consolidated text. The Regulation states no evidence for the warning.
Source: EU Reg 1333/2008 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
EU food flavorings are carved out of the food-additives regulation and governed by a separate regulation (1334/2008); the colors warning in Reg 1333/2008 therefore says nothing about flavorings.
Strong evidence: Additives used inside flavorings are still covered by 1333/2008 (Annex III Part 4, not captured here).
Source: EU Reg 1333/2008 Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.