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.
What you can do / Advocacy group testing
This report recommends free consumer apps (Yuka, Tox Fox, Kemiluppen) and trusted ecolabels (Nordic Swan, EU Ecolabel) or fragrance-free certification labels (Asthma Allergy Denmark, Allergy Certified) as ways to identify or avoid suspected EDCs and allergens in personal care products.
Weak evidence: The report does not test whether using these apps or labels measurably reduces a person's chemical exposure or biomarkers.
Source: Tegengif 2022 Link to this fact
What you can do / Other evidence
One in five clinically relevant BAK allergy cases was a health care worker (four nurses, one surgeon, all with hand dermatitis), traced to hand sanitizer in three cases and disinfectant wipes in two.
Weak evidence: Five patients; no comparison of exposure in health care workers with non-workers in this dataset (the 7.5% vs 2.3% comparison is from a cited paper).
What you can do / Other evidence
Washing new clothing before first wear is a reasonable, untested precaution, because the Danish allergy centers said dye reactions occur mostly with new, unwashed clothes.
Weak evidence: The centers observed unwashed clothes in enquiries; no wash experiment or dye-loss measurement was done.
Source: Danish EPA 2014, Survey of Chemical Substances in Consumer Products No. 129 Link to this fact
What you can do / Measured in people or real products
In 21 patients whose hydroperoxide allergy was judged certainly relevant, the products blamed were mostly rinse-off products such as soap and shampoo (15 of 21), then leave-on cosmetics and creams (9 of 21), plus detergents, deodorants and perfumes.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Small subgroup from one clinic; product type is the patient's and dermatologist's identification of products containing limonene or linalool on the label, not confirmed hydroperoxide content.
Source: Dittmar & Schuttelaar 2019, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact
What you can do / Other evidence
In the final model, only 5 of about 40 predictors reached p<0.05 for cosmetic adverse reactions; the abstract's claim that younger age, higher education, allergy history and frequent use predict reactions is not supported by that model.
Weak evidence: Cross-sectional self-report; reference categories not stated; text mixes bivariable and multivariable results.
Source: AlBlooshi 2026, Frontiers in Toxicology Link to this fact
What you can do / Other evidence
The survey's statement that allergy testing is protective rests on a model in which every testing frequency, including never testing, has an odds ratio below 1 against an unstated reference, so the result more likely reflects the reference group than a protective effect.
Weak evidence: Reverse causation (people who reacted before test more) is acknowledged by the authors for label reading and plausible here.
Source: AlBlooshi 2026, Frontiers in Toxicology Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.