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.
The industry / Review of other studies
Much of the evidence behind the fragrance industry's 'safe as used' verdict on salicylates is unpublished: about 65 of the cited studies are internal RIFM reports, several submitted by fragrance companies, and no modern cancer bioassay exists for any of the 17 chemicals.
Strong evidence: Counted from the paper's reference list; 'no modern bioassay' means untested, not shown to be carcinogenic.
Source: RIFM Expert Panel / Belsito 2007, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Animal study
The two molecules that give lavender oil its scent, linalool and linalyl acetate, were put through the full regulatory endocrine test battery (OECD guideline cell assays plus rat uterotrophic, Hershberger, and one-generation reproductive studies) and came back negative on estrogen and androgen endpoints, in a study written, run, and entirely funded by BASF, the company that manufactures both chemicals, with all five authors BASF employees.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Guideline designs with working positive controls, so the negative is real; the conflict of interest is disclosed in the paper and should be stated whenever the result is cited. Scope: two constituents, not lavender or tea tree oil.
Source: Hareng 2024, Archives of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
A 2014 peer-reviewed critique disputing the WHO-UNEP 2012 endocrine-disruptor report's evidence standards was funded by six chemical- and pesticide-industry trade associations (American Chemistry Council, CropLife America, CropLife Canada, CropLife International, Cefic, and the European Crop Protection Association), which were given the opportunity to review and comment on the draft before publication; most of the authors are employees of industry-consulting firms (Exponent, Gradient) or paid consultants/testifying experts for the chemical industry in litigation over pesticides, PCBs, and dioxins.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
This describes the funding and authorship of the critique itself, not the truth or falsity of any individual claim it makes — several of its specific factual points are independently checkable against the primary sources it cites.
Source: Lamb et al. 2014, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Government agency
As of 2021, the EU's cosmetics regulator states directly that it is not yet possible to use the fragrance industry's QRA2 methodology to set a concentration below which a fragrance chemical is unlikely to cause allergy in new users.
Strong evidence: A regulatory verdict on methodology validity, not a finding that current fragrance concentration limits are unsafe; QRA2 remains in industry use for setting IFRA limits regardless.
The industry / Government agency
The EU's cosmetics regulator treats chemicals suspected of disrupting hormones the same way it treats other health-concern chemicals: through a risk assessment weighing exposure level, not an automatic hazard-based ban.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
This is the SCCS's stated position for cosmetics specifically; other EU sectors (pesticides, biocides) use a stricter hazard-based approach for the same class of chemicals, a policy split the regulator itself has acknowledged elsewhere.
The industry / Measured in people or real products
This 24-formulation detergent skin-irritation comparison was sponsored and funded by the Soap and Detergent Association trade group, with test formulations supplied by a consortium including Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, Shell Chemical, Unilever, Reckitt Benckiser, S.C. Johnson, Clorox, and Access Business Group (Amway); the study's statistical analysis was performed by a named Procter & Gamble scientist.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Funding and authorship are directly stated in the paper's acknowledgments and affiliations; this is a description of the study's sponsorship, not an independent replication of its findings.
Source: Robinson et al. 2005, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.