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
Fewer than 20% of the roughly 3,000 high-production-volume (HPV) chemicals in the US have been tested for potential to cause developmental neurotoxicity.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Sealey 2016 relays this figure faithfully from Landrigan 2010, but Landrigan 2010's own citation to Goldman 1998 (Environ Health Perspect), now read directly in this evidence base (src-1998-chemicals-childrens-environment-risks), is not supported: Goldman 1998 contains no '20%' statistic and no developmental-neurotoxicity-specific testing figure. Its actual EDF-sourced figures (71% no basic toxicity data at all, 63% not tested for carcinogenicity, <50% tested for any chronic toxicity) describe different, broader endpoints.
Source: Sealey 2016 (citing Landrigan 2010), Environment International Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
Musk ambrette, banned in the EU for years, was still detected in the blood of 2 of 100 young Austrians tested, and testing the specific lotion and perfume one of them used did not find musk ambrette in the product itself, so the source of the banned chemical could not be pinned down.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
N=2; the tested products were negative for musk ambrette, so contamination, an unlisted supply-chain source, or a different untested product cannot be distinguished; no source identified.
Source: Hutter 2009, Science of the Total Environment Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
A leading pediatric environmental-health review states that fewer than 20% of the roughly 3,000 high-production-volume industrial chemicals in the US have been tested for potential to cause developmental neurotoxicity.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Landrigan 2010 attributes this figure to Goldman 1998 (Environ Health Perspect), now read directly in this evidence base (src-1998-chemicals-childrens-environment-risks): Goldman 1998 contains no '20%' statistic and no developmental-neurotoxicity-specific testing figure. Its actual EDF-sourced figures (71% no basic toxicity data at all, 63% not tested for carcinogenicity, <50% tested for any chronic toxicity) describe different, broader endpoints. The citation does not support the specific number or endpoint claimed.
Source: Landrigan 2010, Current Opinion in Pediatrics Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
No US program requires VOC emission testing of cleaning products: EPA Safer Choice certifies fragrance-free products but, per the authors, does not require or disclose emission testing, and the chamber data show hundreds of emitted chemicals missing from labels and industry databases.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
EWG-authored (advocacy nonprofit that ranks cleaners and licenses EWG VERIFIED to cleaner makers); Skyline Foundation grant; unblinded; The authors' characterization of Safer Choice (2016 reference); not independently checked against current program rules.
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
EWG calls the lack of public safety information on chemicals in everyday products 'a major failing of the nation's outdated chemical policy' and says manufacturers and government 'largely leave consumers in the dark' about cleaning-product contents.
Weak evidence: Advocacy-organization position in 2012, with no data or citation in this piece.
Source: Andrews, EWG, 2012 (web page) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The EPA work plan says ADBAC is subject to EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program but reports no endocrine screening results, and notes that being on a screening list does not mean a chemical is a known or likely endocrine disruptor.
Weak evidence: The document contains no endocrine data; absence of results here is not evidence either way.
Source: US EPA 2017 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Inclusion Canada says a woman with multiple chemical sensitivities was forced to live in one room from October 7, 2019, after the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal did not provide safe air quality in her apartment.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Advocacy post by an organization, written a year later; not independent reporting. Attribute to Inclusion Canada. The post gives no Tribunal file number, date or order; the Tribunal context rests on one sentence.
Source: Inclusion Canada: Remembering Sophia (advocacy post, Feb 22, 2023; redacted copy), Inclusion Canada blog post Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Disability ethicist Heidi Janz says that Sophia, a Toronto woman with MCS who died by MAiD in 2022, asked her to keep telling her story "in the hopes that other people wouldn't have to make the decision that she did."
Weak evidence: Single interview testimony relayed through a support person; the transcript is reconstructed from page HTML; no documents.
Source: Chemical Sensitivity Podcast ep. 101, 2026 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
A friend of Sophia says an attempt to seal Sophia's building made conditions worse because the person doing the work "really wasn't qualified to understand the way the air movement was working in the building," and that Sophia chose MAiD afterward.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
One friend's recollection; contractor, building and dates unidentified; not corroborated by any record on this page; speaker's account is not a finding about why Sophia sought MAiD.
Source: Chemical Sensitivity Podcast ep. 101, 2026 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Janz says she believes Sophia had spent two years writing to local, provincial and federal officials about her housing situation, with doctors also advocating, without result.
Weak evidence: Testimony only; the same episode gives her age as 51 (host) and 53 (Janz), so details recalled by speakers are not independently confirmed.
Source: Chemical Sensitivity Podcast ep. 101, 2026 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Janz argues that the choice of MAiD cannot be considered free for disabled people until they have free choice in where, with whom and how they live, and that without safe, affordable housing and supports MAiD "amounts to a eugenics program."
Weak evidence: Stated opinion of one disability-rights activist; she says it is strong language; this page records the position, it does not assess it.
Source: Chemical Sensitivity Podcast ep. 101, 2026 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Janz says that under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities governments must ensure access to safe housing and safe environments for people with MCS, and that Canada, though a signatory, tends to ignore those commitments.
Weak evidence: Opinion on treaty compliance; no legal analysis in the episode.
Source: Chemical Sensitivity Podcast ep. 101, 2026 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Janz says clinicians who cannot or will not distinguish illness from chemical exposure in housing are being discriminatory and have an ethical duty to work harder to diagnose those factors.
Weak evidence: Ethicist's opinion; no clinical evidence presented.
Source: Chemical Sensitivity Podcast ep. 101, 2026 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Station wastewater treatment in Antarctica (biological treatment with UV or chlorine) is judged by the authors to be ineffective for personal-care chemicals, and one-third of permanent and two-thirds of summer stations have no treatment.
Weak evidence: Efficacy is asserted, not quantified for these compounds; the authors admit plant conditions differ too much to compare treatments.
Source: Balakrishna 2023 (review), Environmental Research Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.