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 / Review of other studies
Fragrance-free policies are easier to make work when they start with a needs assessment and an inventory of the cleaning and personal products in use, involve employees in drafting, and agree how violations are handled before launch.
Weak evidence: Lessons from unnamed organizations; no outcome data.
What you can do / Government agency
As of 1998, EPA planned to expand its voluntary consumer-labeling initiative beyond pesticides to labels on household and other consumer products such as cleaning agents and latex paint, aiming to give clearer hazard information, especially for children.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
A stated 1998 plan/intention, not a completed program; the paper does not report whether or how it was implemented, and no fragrance-specific labeling requirement is described anywhere in the paper.
Source: Goldman 1998, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
What you can do / Measured in people or real products
Running an ozone-generating device (an ionizer, or some 'air purifiers') at the same time as using citrus- or terpene-scented cleaning or personal-care products creates the same class of reaction-product nanoparticles studied here; keeping the two apart in time, or ventilating, avoids generating them.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
This study alone did not find a significant health effect from the terpene+ozone arm; the precautionary action is supported by the wider ozonolysis-SOA literature in our evidence base (see transformation-products), not by this study's HRV result in isolation. Downgraded to weak 2026-09-28 (Jev audit): the action goes beyond what this paper itself tested.
Source: Hagerman et al. 2014, Atmospheric Environment Link to this fact
What you can do / Measured in people or real products
Regularly cleaning a dryer's lint trap and keeping vent ducting short and well-maintained is associated with differences in how much microfiber reaches the outside vent, based on comparing two homes with different dryer ages and duct setups.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
This is a two-home comparison, not a tested intervention — the study did not clean or modify ducting and measure a before/after change, so this is an inference from correlation, not a demonstrated fix.
Source: Kapp & Miller 2020, PLOS ONE Industry-funded Link to this fact
What you can do / Other evidence
A structured home walkthrough that identifies and removes common VOC sources (mothballs, scented cleaning and personal-care products, candles, garage-stored chemicals) and separates stored chemicals from living space (e.g., moving gasoline/solvents/paints to detached storage) reduced measured indoor VOC levels in the homes studied.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Professional testing and a trained team delivered this intervention over 5 visits across a year; the paper does not test which individual component (removal vs. substitution vs. new storage vs. counseling) drove the VOC reduction. Evidence is one small uncontrolled case series.
Source: Rincón et al. 2024, Primary Health Care Research & Development Link to this fact
What you can do / Self-reported survey
Migraineurs who notice their attacks are triggered by specific odors (most commonly perfume, cleaning products, cigarette smoke, or vehicle exhaust in this sample) may reasonably consider reducing exposure to those specific triggers as a low-cost self-management step.
Weak evidence: Based on self-reported association in one clinical sample, not a controlled-avoidance or provocation trial; benefit of avoidance was not tested.
Source: Fornazieri 2016, Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain Link to this fact
What you can do / Other evidence
Salon-side measures the authors recommend to cut hairdressers' hair-dye skin exposure: single-use disposable gloves put on before mixing the dye, cutting hair before dyeing rather than after, changing work-surface coverings, and cleaning phones, hair dryers, scissors, and combs often.
Weak evidence: Recommendations are the authors' judgment; the study did not test whether these changes lower exposure.
Source: Lind et al. 2005, The Annals of Occupational Hygiene Link to this fact
What you can do / Review of other studies
Professional wet cleaning (water-based, computer-controlled machines, mild biodegradable detergents) was rated the lowest-risk way to clean clothes in a 2016 review; in a California demonstration, seven shops that switched from perc kept 97% of customers with similar problem-garment rates.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
Secondary review funded by Australian Wool Innovation (wool industry body); 'systematic' is a self-label with no study counts or appraisal; relies on agency, trade and manufacturer sources. The 'no identified health hazards' judgment rests on the 2000 California demonstration and agency/trade sources; the review itself found no later comparison studies, no measurements of residues of any non-perc cleaning agent, and says wet cleaning cannot handle every garment.
Source: Troynikov 2016, Journal of Environmental Management Industry-funded Link to this fact
What you can do / Other evidence
EWG's method scores cleaning products from publicly available information (the label, the manufacturer's website, and safety data sheets), so an unlisted ingredient such as a fragrance constituent cannot lower a grade.
Weak evidence: Inference, not a statement in the page. Fragrance is never mentioned; the claim holds only for what is absent from all three sources.
Source: Andrews, EWG, 2012 (web page) Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.