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.
Health effects / Other evidence
Laboratory attention tests showed a reliable but small-sample effect of food colors (6 studies, 154 children, 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.47); the authors judge it too small and too old to support clinical or policy recommendations.
Weak evidence: Only 68 children in FDA-color-only studies; the colors-only result is vulnerable to single-study removal.
Source: Nigg 2012 Industry-funded Link to this fact
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EWG calls the lack of public safety information on chemicals in everyday products 'a major failing of the nation's outdated chemical policy' and says manufacturers and government 'largely leave consumers in the dark' about cleaning-product contents.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
What you can do / Other evidence
The CHRC says a scent-free policy should list the types of products to avoid, be flexible, be mentioned in a letter of offer, and that an employee with environmental sensitivities who must leave because of a trigger should not suffer negative impacts.
Weak evidence: Guidance for federally regulated employers; no evidence on effectiveness, and a person outside that sector cannot rely on it as a legal entitlement.
Source: [[src-2019-chrc-environmental-sensitivity-scent-free-policies|CHRC 2019]] Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.