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.
Green, natural and unscented / Government agency
Health Canada's current guidance (accessed 2026-09-27) states that a cosmetic labeled 'unscented' or 'fragrance-free' may contain a masking agent added to hide other odors, confirming a 2010 secondhand quote of the same policy word for word.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Confirmed directly against Health Canada's current (2025-03-17/2026-04-24) guidance and its Cosmetic Regulations s.21.4(3) legal basis; no longer resting on a 2010 secondhand NGO quote alone. Does not measure how often masking actually occurs in Canadian products.
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 / Other evidence
The FTC says homeopathic drugs get no special treatment in advertising: claims that a homeopathic product treats a condition must have a reasonable basis before they are made, and 'there is no basis under the FTC Act to treat OTC homeopathic drugs differently than other health products.'
Strong evidence: Agency's own legal position, not a court ruling; applies to OTC products for self-limiting conditions amenable to self-diagnosis.
Source: FTC 2016 OTC homeopathic enforcement policy statement, Federal Register 81(239):90122-90123 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Under the FTC's 2016 policy, a homeopathic ad for an unproven use is not necessarily deceptive if it clearly tells consumers there is no scientific evidence the product works and that its claims rest only on 1700s homeopathy theories not accepted by most modern medical experts.
Strong evidence: Enforcement policy, not a safe harbor: the FTC doubts many disclosures will work and will judge the ad's overall net impression.
Source: FTC 2016 OTC homeopathic enforcement policy statement, Federal Register 81(239):90122-90123 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
FDA's position in 2017 was that homeopathic drugs are subject to the same requirements as other drugs and that nothing in the FD&C Act exempts them from adulteration, labeling, misbranding, or approval rules; marketing without approval is tolerated only under conditions in Compliance Policy Guide 400.400.
Strong evidence: This is the agency's stated legal reading in one letter; CPG 400.400 was later replaced by the 2022 guidance.
Source: FDA warning letter 521717, 7 Sep 2017, FDA warning letter (MARCS-CMS 521717), 7 September 2017 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
FDA states that homeopathic drugs are 'subject to the same regulatory requirements as other drugs' and that nothing in the FD&C Act exempts them from adulteration, labeling, misbranding, or approval requirements; they are marketed unapproved only under an enforcement policy (CPG 400.400).
Strong evidence: Agency statement of law and enforcement policy (the same position appears in FDA's 2022 guidance); it describes the legal rule, not how often it is enforced.
Source: FDA warning letter 17-NWJ-09, 20 Jun 2017 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
In its 2019 draft, FDA said that homeopathic products labeled and formulated to meet its old 1988 policy (CPG 400.400) had still caused or could have caused significant harm, which is why it proposed replacing the 1988 policy with risk-based enforcement priorities.
Strong evidence: FDA's stated rationale; whether the harm rate is high or low is not quantified in the document.
Source: FDA draft guidance, Drug Products Labeled as Homeopathic (Oct 2019) Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.