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 / Journalism
The first press coverage of a 2011 study finding 133 undisclosed chemicals in 25 best-selling scented products, in the US government's environmental-health journal, quoted no manufacturer or industry group; the underlying numbers should be cited from the study itself (Steinemann 2011).
Weak evidence: Media-coverage note only; all product numbers belong to the primary src-2011-fragranced-consumer-products-chemicals-emitted-ingredients-unlisted.
Source: Potera 2011 (EHP news), Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
The industry / Review of other studies
The author of a 2023 clinical review arguing that chemical sensitivity is primarily psychogenic (not caused by product chemistry) previously received partial, later-withdrawn funding for an uncompleted IEI genetics study via an unrestricted grant from the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, the fragrance industry's own research and trade body.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
The funding is disclosed by the author, was withdrawn before the study was completed (due to poor enrollment, not a documented data or conclusions issue), and does not by itself invalidate the paper's clinical arguments; it is a conflict-of-interest fact worth weighing, not proof of bias in this specific manuscript.
Source: Binkley 2023, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Measured in people or real products
A 2022 Korean study proposes prioritizing the specific hormone-disrupting chemical combinations that most often turn up together in household products, rather than testing chemicals one at a time, for future mixture-toxicity testing and regulatory management.
Weak evidence: This is a testing-prioritization proposal based on ingredient co-occurrence, not new toxicity data showing that any of the proposed mixtures cause harm.
Source: Lee & Ji 2022, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
An earlier FDA-lab study found that musk xylol, a synthetic musk fragrance ingredient, did move out of a 24-hour skin reservoir and into the bloodstream over time, unlike the self-tanner and hair-dye chemicals in the 2004 follow-up study.
Weak evidence: Cited secondhand from Yourick 2004's discussion; the Hood 1996 primary source has not been independently read and ingested into this evidence base.
Source: Hood 1996, cited in Yourick 2004, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
EWG's 2006 annual report listed its donors only in dollar bands (top band $250,000 or more: Hewlett, Joyce, Luce, and Park Foundations plus one anonymous donor), and no chemical, fragrance, or cosmetics company is evident in the list.
Weak evidence: Bands not amounts; anonymous donors are undisclosed; one year only; EWG is an advocacy group with its own agenda, so 'no industry money' is not the same as 'unbiased'.
Source: EWG 2006 Annual Report, EWG annual report (PDF) Link to this fact
The industry / Review of other studies
EWG counted 35 of the 91 ingredients in the tested fragrances as not assessed by the industry panels CIR, IFRA, or RIFM (66% of the secret chemicals versus 19% of those on labels).
Weak evidence.
Caveats
'Assessed' was judged from public sources only (RIFM's study list is not public); the report gives IFRA's count as 27 of 91 in one place and 22 of 91 in another, and 35 unassessed splits 11 plus 25 (=36).
Source: Sarantis et al. 2010 (Not So Sexy, Canadian edition) Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
In a 2006 reply, vom Saal and Hughes said 100% of animal studies showing low-dose BPA effects were government-funded and 100% of chemical-corporation-funded studies found none, and that the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis report disputing low-dose effects was funded by the American Plastics Council and reviewed only 19 studies.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
The authors' own tally, restated without new data; they say 'over 125 experiments' while the 2005 review counted 115; the authors are academic advocates for the low-dose view (declared no competing financial interests).
Source: EHP letters 2006, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.