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
As of 2008, no US federal law required companies to list all the chemicals in a consumer product or in its fragrance; air fresheners and laundry products did not even have to say they contained fragrance.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
US law as of 2008; MoCRA (2022) later required FDA-designated fragrance-allergen labeling for cosmetics only (rule pending at enactment); household products still uncovered for cosmetics.
Source: Steinemann 2009, Environmental Impact Assessment Review Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
When US EPA scientists built a database of chemicals in 8,921 consumer products from their safety data sheets, they could not record fragrance ingredients at all: more than 3,060 fragrance materials can legally be listed as 'trade secret' with no name, so those entries had to be thrown out.
Strong evidence: Document analysis of one US retailer's MSDSs (2012).
Source: Goldsmith 2014, Food and Chemical Toxicology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Product safety data sheets are written for workers, not shoppers, and only have to list hazardous ingredients present above 1% (0.1% for cancer-causing ones), a level most individual fragrance chemicals fall below.
Strong evidence: 'Most fragrance chemicals below 1%' is general formulation knowledge, not measured in this paper.
Source: Goldsmith 2014, Food and Chemical Toxicology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Since the 2022 MoCRA law, most cosmetic makers must list their products with the FDA; in its December 2025 report the FDA found PFAS ("forever chemicals") intentionally added to about 0.4% of listed US cosmetics (1,744 of 430,134), mostly eye and face makeup, and had too little data to judge the safety of 19 of the 25 most-used PFAS.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Manufacturer listings, not product testing; small businesses and drug-cosmetics do not list; corrected 2026-09-26 from 0.03%/no fragrances (EU KEMI figures). Independently corroborated 2026-09-27: Balan et al. 2024 (10.1021/acs.est.3c06539, California DTSC) estimated PFAS-containing-product prevalence from a different, non-federal dataset (Mintel Global New Product Database + EWG Skin Deep, ~65,000+ formulations) and found prevalence under 3% in every one of 16 product subcategories studied (range 0.00-2.68%), consistent with FDA's 0.41% aggregate figure. Both remain database/listing-based estimates, not chemical measurements, and the two studies measure slightly different things (an economy-wide aggregate vs. per-subcategory prevalence in 16 categories), so this is convergence of two independent large datasets rather than a replication of the identical statistic.
Source: FDA 2025, FDA report published under MoCRA §3506(b) (FDA website) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
In the US, "fragrance" can be listed as a single word because the mixture is protected as a trade secret, so the individual chemicals are rarely named on the label.
Strong evidence: Secondary statement in a narrative review, not a legal text. MoCRA (2022) directs FDA to require labeling of fragrance allergens, which will narrow this once the rule is issued.
Source: Pinkas 2017, Environmental Research 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 / Measured in people or real products
No EU or Belgian law requires fragrance ingredients in topical medicines to be named on the label, or restricts which fragrance chemicals they may contain, unlike cosmetics, where the EU has required disclosure of major fragrance allergens since 2005.
Strong evidence: Regulatory statement as described in a 2009 paper; check current EU medicines regulation for any changes since.
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
A systematic comparison of occupational exposure limits from 18 countries and agencies found that only 25 of 1,341 chemicals studied have a limit set by every agency, and more than a third of the chemicals are regulated by only one of the 18.
Strong evidence: Workplace limits only, not consumer or indoor-air limits. A single (if large and systematic) comparative study; the paper does not analyze why the differences exist.
Source: Schenk et al. 2008, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Since 2005 the EU has required cosmetic and detergent products to name 26 specific fragrance chemicals on the label if present above 10 ppm in leave-on products or 100 ppm in rinse-off products; every other fragrance ingredient can still be hidden under the single word "parfum" or "fragrance".
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Settled EU statutory requirement as of the review's writing (2020); does not cover the many countries without an equivalent rule, and the EU later expanded the list to 56 substances (2023/1545, tracked elsewhere in our evidence base).
Source: de Groot 2020, Dermatitis 31(1):13-35, Dermatitis® Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The EU's 2018 endocrine disruptor policy Communication states that endocrine disruptors are regulated completely differently depending on the law: under pesticide and biocide rules, once a substance is proven to be an endocrine disruptor it can in principle no longer be authorized at all, with very limited exceptions, but under the EU's main chemicals law (REACH) and under cosmetics, toys, and food-contact-material rules, an identified endocrine disruptor is instead assessed case by case and can still be allowed at a managed exposure level.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The Commission itself calls this inconsistency an open question, not a settled policy failure, and says a 'Fitness Check' (not yet published as of this 2018 document) will examine whether it needs to change.
Source: EU Commission 2018 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
As of November 2018, EU rules for cosmetics, toys, and food-contact materials contained no provisions specific to endocrine disruptors at all; those chemicals were covered only by each law's general safety requirements.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Individual endocrine-linked ingredients (certain parabens, one UV filter, bisphenol A) are still restricted or banned in cosmetics, toys, and food-contact materials product by product, not through an endocrine-disruptor-specific rule.
Source: EU Commission 2018 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
In 1992, the U.S. Department of Justice held that whether multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) or "environmental illness" counts as a disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (and, by the same analysis, the ADA) is decided case by case, not by diagnosis alone: the test is whether the person's impairment substantially limits a major life activity, given their particular circumstances.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
This is DOJ's own legal position as the federal Section 504 coordinating agency, not a scientific finding about MCS; it takes no position on causation or prevalence, only on the legal disability test.
Source: DOJ 1992 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The new EU fragrance-allergen entries are implemented as 45 new Annex III reference numbers (327-371), several of which bundle multiple named plant-oil species or chemical isomers under a single entry number — for example one entry covers 7 named rose species and another covers 4 named lavender/narcissus species.
Strong evidence: Counted directly from the regulation's Annex text, cross-checked against page-image crops of two entries.
Source: Regulation (EU) 2023/1545 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The EU's 2023 fragrance-allergen expansion includes many whole essential oils and plant extracts by species, not just synthetic single chemicals — including lavender, rose, bergamot, ylang ylang, clove, sandalwood, patchouli, cedarwood, geranium, and peppermint oils.
Strong evidence: Each named oil/extract is its own Annex III reference number with its own CAS number(s); 'natural' or 'essential oil' products are not exempt from these labeling obligations.
Source: Regulation (EU) 2023/1545 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Under a 1958 law exception, a food company can decide a chemical is 'generally recognized as safe' (GRAS) without telling FDA; since 1997 FDA's voluntary notice program reviews the company's own conclusion in a private exchange with no formal public comment, and virtually all new direct food chemicals now go this route instead of the formal food-additive petition.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Describes the program's structure as characterized by the paper's Pew authors (an advocacy-side view); structure is documented in FDA's own rules and notices. Still true of the current final rule (2016); FDA proposed in August 2026 (91 FR 51834, not final) to make notice mandatory.
Source: Maffini 2013, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Under US law a company may decide on its own that a food chemical is 'generally recognized as safe' and put it in food with no legal duty to tell FDA; the Pew authors say the decision can rest on the company's own employees or an expert panel it selects.
Strong evidence: Legal description by Pew Health Group authors (advocates of mandatory notice); FDA's 2016 rule confirms notice stays voluntary. Dated 2011.
Source: Neltner et al. 2011, Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The specific OSHA rules OSHA lists as relevant to indoor air are ventilation (29 CFR 1910.94), air contaminant limits (1910.1000), formaldehyde (1910.1048) and laboratory chemicals (1910.1450); none is a fragrance or general IAQ rule.
Strong evidence: List is OSHA's 2011 'some of the applicable' standards, not exhaustive.
Source: OSHA 3430-04, 2011 Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.