Every fact on this site, with its evidence grade, its caveats, and a link to the source.
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 / Review of other studies
The main published review arguing eye drops should shift toward preservative-free and sustained-release drug-delivery devices to avoid BAK toxicity was written entirely by employees of Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. — a company that sells sustained-release ocular drug-delivery products, including one (DEXTENZA) of the same type the review names as the field's future direction — and the company funded the paper's editorial assistance and open-access fee.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
This doesn't make BAK's documented cytotoxicity untrue, but the review's framing of sustained-delivery platforms as the best long-term fix should be read as the stated position of a company that sells that exact product category.
Source: Goldstein 2022, Eye Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Review of other studies
All but one author of this fragrance-industry potency review were full-time, fully paid employees of the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM) at the time of the work, and the remaining author was paid by RIFM for the time spent preparing the paper — a fully industry-funded and industry-staffed study that sets the potency categories RIFM and IFRA use to justify their own safety limits.
Strong evidence: Disclosed by the authors themselves in the paper's own conflict-of-interest statement.
Source: Na et al. 2022, Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Measured in people or real products
The independent dermatologists who ran this study concluded deodorants should contain isoeugenol at less than 0.0063% to protect people already sensitized, about 3x stricter than IFRA's current 0.02% ceiling for consumer products.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Authors' own recommendation, not a regulatory outcome; the 0.02% IFRA cap (set in 1998) was not derived from this elicitation data, and 0.0063% is only the lowest concentration this study tested, not a demonstrated safe floor.
Source: Bruze et al. 2005, Contact Dermatitis Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
A 2014 peer-reviewed critique disputing the WHO-UNEP 2012 endocrine-disruptor report's evidence standards was funded by six chemical- and pesticide-industry trade associations (American Chemistry Council, CropLife America, CropLife Canada, CropLife International, Cefic, and the European Crop Protection Association), which were given the opportunity to review and comment on the draft before publication; most of the authors are employees of industry-consulting firms (Exponent, Gradient) or paid consultants/testifying experts for the chemical industry in litigation over pesticides, PCBs, and dioxins.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
This describes the funding and authorship of the critique itself, not the truth or falsity of any individual claim it makes — several of its specific factual points are independently checkable against the primary sources it cites.
Source: Lamb et al. 2014, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Government agency
The European Commission describes its 2018 endocrine disruptor strategy as aiming to protect health and the environment 'at the same time' as preserving 'an internal market which delivers for consumers and where all EU business can thrive' — explicitly balancing precaution against industry competitiveness rather than only minimizing exposure.
Strong evidence: This is the Commission's own stated framing of its goals, not an independent assessment of whether the balance struck is adequate.
Source: EU Commission 2018 Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
A 2017 review concluding that mineral oils and waxes in cosmetics do not penetrate skin or pose a health risk was written entirely by employees of cosmetics manufacturers (L'Oreal, Johnson & Johnson, Kao, Procter & Gamble, Henkel, Beiersdorf) and the German cosmetics trade association IKW, and funded by that same trade association, despite the paper's own statement that its authors 'report no conflicts of interest.'
Strong evidence: This is a direct quotation from the paper's own Conflict of Interest and Acknowledgment sections, not an inference.
Source: Petry et al. 2017, Toxicology Letters Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Government agency
The EU's cosmetics safety regulator (SCCS) assumes 50% of a cosmetic ingredient is absorbed through skin when no measured dermal absorption data exist, and requires at least a 100-fold safety margin between an animal no-effect dose and estimated human exposure before an ingredient is judged safe.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
General default methodology, not a finding about any specific chemical; the 50% is used only in the absence of adequate measured data, and a 12th revision (2023) may have updated it.
The industry / Government agency
As of 2021, the EU's cosmetics regulator states directly that it is not yet possible to use the fragrance industry's QRA2 methodology to set a concentration below which a fragrance chemical is unlikely to cause allergy in new users.
Strong evidence: A regulatory verdict on methodology validity, not a finding that current fragrance concentration limits are unsafe; QRA2 remains in industry use for setting IFRA limits regardless.
The industry / Government agency
The EU's cosmetics regulator treats chemicals suspected of disrupting hormones the same way it treats other health-concern chemicals: through a risk assessment weighing exposure level, not an automatic hazard-based ban.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
This is the SCCS's stated position for cosmetics specifically; other EU sectors (pesticides, biocides) use a stricter hazard-based approach for the same class of chemicals, a policy split the regulator itself has acknowledged elsewhere.
The industry / Measured in people or real products
This 24-formulation detergent skin-irritation comparison was sponsored and funded by the Soap and Detergent Association trade group, with test formulations supplied by a consortium including Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, Shell Chemical, Unilever, Reckitt Benckiser, S.C. Johnson, Clorox, and Access Business Group (Amway); the study's statistical analysis was performed by a named Procter & Gamble scientist.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Funding and authorship are directly stated in the paper's acknowledgments and affiliations; this is a description of the study's sponsorship, not an independent replication of its findings.
Source: Robinson et al. 2005, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
All nine authors of this 2025 industry review of cosmetic spray inhalation exposure are current staff of cosmetics/fragrance manufacturers (L'Oreal, Chanel, Reckitt, Henkel, Beiersdorf x2, Unilever) or the EU cosmetics trade association Cosmetics Europe, plus one independent consultant who is a former Beiersdorf scientist — yet the paper's Declaration of Competing Interest states the authors have no known competing financial interests.
Strong evidence.
Source: Steiling et al. 2025, Toxicology Letters Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Government agency
The EU gave cosmetics manufacturers a 3-year transition period to reformulate products and a 5-year period to sell through existing non-compliant stock after this fragrance-allergen expansion — explicitly citing 'the large number of new fragrance allergens to be individually labeled and the significant number of cosmetic products concerned' as the reason for the longer-than-usual timeline.
Strong evidence: Quoted from recital 11 of the regulation; this is the EU's own stated rationale for industry accommodation, not an independent assessment of whether the timeline is appropriate.
Source: Regulation (EU) 2023/1545 Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
All eight authors of this scented-candle health-risk-assessment paper are employees of the fragrance industry's research institute (RIFM), fragrance houses, a regulatory consultancy, or consumer-goods manufacturers with major candle and home-fragrance product lines, and the paper's own funding statement names a RIFM-organized consortium of companies.
Strong evidence: Direct quotation from the paper's own Conflict of Interest statement and title-page affiliations.
Source: Petry 2014, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Government agency
This hair-dye systemic-exposure study was conducted and written almost entirely by the hair dye's own manufacturer: 4 of its 5 authors, including the senior and corresponding author, were L'Oreal Research employees, with the human clinical phase subcontracted to TNO (Netherlands); no independent funding source or conflict-of-interest statement is printed in the paper.
Strong evidence: Named funder/sponsor: L'Oreal (Global Safety and Cutaneous Bioavailability and Metabolism groups); the specific hair dye brand/manufacturer tested is not named in the text.
Source: Hueber-Becker et al. 2004, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Government agency
This hairdresser hair-dye exposure study was sponsored by major international hair dye producers, and three of its seven authors, including the corresponding author, are L'Oreal employees in L'Oreal's own Worldwide Safety Department.
Strong evidence: Named funder: L'Oreal (Worldwide Safety Department), plus unnamed co-sponsoring hair dye producers.
Source: Hueber-Becker et al. 2007, Food and Chemical Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Review of other studies
This review's literature search and analysis were funded directly by Firmenich, SA, one of the world's largest fragrance and flavor manufacturers, and the review's organizing term "aromachology" was itself coined by the fragrance industry's own Sense of Smell Institute in 1982.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Funding disclosure is stated verbatim in the paper itself. Industry funding of the review does not by itself invalidate the 18 underlying primary studies, most from independent academic labs; it is flagged so readers can weigh the review's framing and conclusions accordingly.
Source: Herz 2009, International Journal of Neuroscience Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
As of 2008, no US federal law required companies to list all the chemicals in a consumer product or in its fragrance; air fresheners and laundry products did not even have to say they contained fragrance.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
US law as of 2008; MoCRA (2022) later required FDA-designated fragrance-allergen labeling for cosmetics only (rule pending at enactment); household products still uncovered for cosmetics.
Source: Steinemann 2009, Environmental Impact Assessment Review Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
This non-disclosure was legal: US law doesn't require household products to list ingredients, and lets 'fragrance' stand in for a whole undisclosed mixture.
Strong evidence: Regulatory analysis as of 2010 (pre-MoCRA).
Source: Steinemann 2011, Environmental Impact Assessment Review Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
When US EPA scientists built a database of chemicals in 8,921 consumer products from their safety data sheets, they could not record fragrance ingredients at all: more than 3,060 fragrance materials can legally be listed as 'trade secret' with no name, so those entries had to be thrown out.
Strong evidence: Document analysis of one US retailer's MSDSs (2012).
Source: Goldsmith 2014, Food and Chemical Toxicology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Product safety data sheets are written for workers, not shoppers, and only have to list hazardous ingredients present above 1% (0.1% for cancer-causing ones), a level most individual fragrance chemicals fall below.
Strong evidence: 'Most fragrance chemicals below 1%' is general formulation knowledge, not measured in this paper.
Source: Goldsmith 2014, Food and Chemical Toxicology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
A 2023 EU rule expands the list of fragrance allergens that must be named on cosmetic labels from 26 to about 80 entries (56 substances plus related forms), phasing in from 2026 to 2028, above set concentration limits.
Strong evidence: Only above threshold concentrations; cosmetics only.
Source: Sukakul 2024, Acta Dermato-Venereologica Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Since the 2022 MoCRA law, most cosmetic makers must list their products with the FDA; in its December 2025 report the FDA found PFAS ("forever chemicals") intentionally added to about 0.4% of listed US cosmetics (1,744 of 430,134), mostly eye and face makeup, and had too little data to judge the safety of 19 of the 25 most-used PFAS.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Manufacturer listings, not product testing; small businesses and drug-cosmetics do not list; corrected 2026-09-26 from 0.03%/no fragrances (EU KEMI figures). Independently corroborated 2026-09-27: Balan et al. 2024 (10.1021/acs.est.3c06539, California DTSC) estimated PFAS-containing-product prevalence from a different, non-federal dataset (Mintel Global New Product Database + EWG Skin Deep, ~65,000+ formulations) and found prevalence under 3% in every one of 16 product subcategories studied (range 0.00-2.68%), consistent with FDA's 0.41% aggregate figure. Both remain database/listing-based estimates, not chemical measurements, and the two studies measure slightly different things (an economy-wide aggregate vs. per-subcategory prevalence in 16 categories), so this is convergence of two independent large datasets rather than a replication of the identical statistic.
Source: FDA 2025, FDA report published under MoCRA §3506(b) (FDA website) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
In the US, "fragrance" can be listed as a single word because the mixture is protected as a trade secret, so the individual chemicals are rarely named on the label.
Strong evidence.
Source: Pinkas 2017, Environmental Research Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
There are no federally enforceable US standards for volatile organic compounds in homes, schools, or other non-industrial indoor settings.
Strong evidence.
Source: US EPA 2026 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Linalool and linalyl acetate are registered in the EU at over 1,000 metric tons a year each for fragrance use in home-care and air-care products; the study states its purpose as adding to the dataset for future hazard-classification decisions as the EU adds endocrine disruption to its classification rules.
Strong evidence: Registration tonnage and regulatory context as stated by the paper; dossier-building and scientific inquiry are not separable here.
Source: Hareng 2024, Archives of Toxicology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
The US Microbead-Free Waters Act (2015) bans plastic microbeads only in rinse-off cosmetics, not in makeup that stays on the skin.
Strong evidence: Statement of US law as summarized in the review.
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Because PTFE is a polymer, the EU's REACH law never required companies to register it or submit safety data, and a planned change to cover polymers was postponed.
Strong evidence: Describes EU law only; the EU universal PFAS restriction proposal may change this.
Source: Jomaa 2024, Journal of the Netherlands Society of Toxicology (JNST) Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Industry source
In 1994 a scientist at the fragrance industry's own research institute wrote that no country required fragrance ingredients to be approved, safety-tested for consumer use, or listed on product labels, and called this "of great benefit to the industry".
Strong evidence: Describes 1994; EU labeling of 26 (now more) allergens and US MoCRA came later.
Source: Ford 1994 (RIFM) Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
In 2000, EU cosmetics could declare an entire fragrance as the single word 'parfum'; the EU committee noted dermatologists' estimate that up to 2% of people have perfume allergy, against industry's claim that the true figure was 'far lower'. The EDEN population-based patch-test study (Diepgen 2015; n=3,119 patch-tested across 5 European countries) directly confirmed the dermatologists' estimate: 1.9% (95% CI 1.5-2.5) clinically relevant fragrance contact allergy, and 1.8-2.6% for fragrance mix I alone.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
EDEN is the largest general-population patch-test study of fragrance allergy to date and a large, well-controlled multi-country primary (not a single-lab or single-cohort study), which is why this moves to strong. Note EDEN was itself funded by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM), the fragrance industry's own body — the industry-funded study still confirmed the higher, consumer-relevant estimate over the industry's own 'far lower' claim.
Source: SCCNFP 2000 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Since the 2022 Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act, cosmetic companies must send the FDA any report they receive of a serious reaction to their product, including serious and persistent rashes, within 15 business days, and the FDA can now order a recall.
Strong evidence: Statute text (FFDCA §§604-605, 611); 'serious' threshold excludes most transient reactions; enforcement from 2023-12-29.
Source: MoCRA 2022 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
US cosmetics still need no FDA approval before sale: the company itself must keep records showing the product is safe, and the law says "minor and transient reactions" do not make a product unsafe.
Strong evidence: Statute §608; substantiation judged by 'qualified experts', no required tests, no inhalation requirement.
Source: MoCRA 2022 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The 2022 US cosmetics law does not cover air fresheners, cleaning products, or laundry products at all.
Strong evidence: MoCRA amends the FFDCA cosmetics chapter only; household products fall under CPSC/EPA law.
Source: MoCRA 2022 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Until 2023 EU labels only had to name 26 fragrance allergens (above 10 ppm in leave-on and 100 ppm in rinse-off products); every other fragrance ingredient could be hidden under 'parfum'.
Strong evidence: EU Regulation 2023/1545 expanded the list; say 'until 2023' or name the new list.
Source: Pastor-Nieto 2021, Current Treatment Options in Allergy Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
In the EU, chemical mixtures containing a skin sensitizer must carry the warning 'May produce an allergic reaction' (EUH208), but cosmetics are exempt from that warning and from CLP hazard symbols.
Strong evidence: Legal analysis as of 2016 (CLP Art. 1(5), Annex II 2.8); cosmetics do have to name listed allergens in the ingredient list.
Source: Klaschka 2016, Environmental Sciences Europe Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
In the EU, tampons and pads are not cosmetics: as of 2020 only general product-safety law applied, so manufacturers could add fragrance allergens without restriction or labeling, signaling scent only with words like "fresh".
Strong evidence: Legal status as of 2020 (GPSD 2001/95/EC, since replaced by GPSR 2023/988); no product-level exposure data.
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
The US FDA has no directive at all regulating the use of the word 'hypoallergenic' on a cosmetic product, and in a 2015 survey the products so labeled had the highest contact-allergen rate (88.2%) of any of four marketing terms tested (hypoallergenic, dermatologist recommended, fragrance free, paraben free).
Strong evidence: The regulatory point (no FDA directive) is a stated fact, not itself a measured statistic; the 88.2% figure is from a single-region convenience sample of 135 products.
Source: Hamann 2015, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
No EU or Belgian law requires fragrance ingredients in topical medicines to be named on the label, or restricts which fragrance chemicals they may contain — unlike cosmetics, where the EU has required disclosure of major fragrance allergens since 2005.
Strong evidence: Regulatory statement as described in a 2009 paper; check current EU medicines regulation for any changes since.
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
A systematic comparison of occupational exposure limits from 18 countries and agencies found that only 25 of 1,341 chemicals studied have a limit set by every agency, and more than a third of the chemicals are regulated by only one of the 18.
Strong evidence: Workplace limits only, not consumer or indoor-air limits. A single (if large and systematic) comparative study; the paper does not analyze why the differences exist.
Source: Schenk et al. 2008, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
In the EU and UK, any cosmetic claim – including 'fragrance-free,' 'unscented,' 'free from X' or 'hypoallergenic' – is legally required to meet six common criteria (legal compliance, truthfulness, evidential support, honesty, fairness, and informed decision-making) and must be backed by evidence the company holds on file, under a binding, directly applicable EU regulation in force since 2013.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The regulation sets these six generic criteria but does not itself specify what evidence threshold applies to any particular claim wording; that level of detail sits in separate, unacquired Commission and industry guidance.
Source: Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The EU regulation that governs cosmetic claims deliberately declines to define the terms 'free from,' 'hypoallergenic,' 'fragrance-free,' or 'unscented' – it states outright that the common criteria are not meant to define or specify permitted or forbidden claim wording, leaving that to case-by-case enforcement and separate guidance.
Strong evidence: Read from the regulation's own Recital 7 and confirmed by the absence of any of these terms anywhere in its text.
Source: Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Under US regulations, fragrance and flavor ingredients in a cosmetic can be listed simply as "Fragrance" or "Flavor" on the label, because the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act cannot be used to force a company to disclose trade secrets, and fragrance/flavor formulas are the cosmetic components FDA itself identifies as most likely to qualify.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
This is the legal rule itself, quoted from FDA's own page (captured 2026-09-27); it says nothing about how many or which chemicals this hides in practice (see Steinemann/Dodson/Goldsmith measurements for that).
Source: FDA 2026 (Fragrances in Cosmetics) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
FDA names laundry detergents, fabric softeners, dryer sheets, and room and carpet fresheners as fragranced products that fall under the Consumer Product Safety Commission rather than FDA cosmetics regulation.
Strong evidence: Statement of jurisdiction only; says nothing about what CPSC does or does not require of these products.
Source: FDA 2026 (Fragrances in Cosmetics) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Starting April 12, 2026, Canadian cosmetics must individually name 24 specific fragrance allergens (expanding to 81 by August 2026 for new products and August 2028 for existing products) when present above 0.001% in leave-on products or 0.01% in rinse-off products — a named, dated, threshold-based mandate the parallel US MoCRA fragrance-allergen provision (FFDCA section 609(b)) still lacks.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The allergen list and thresholds are incorporated by reference from the EU's Annex III list, so Canada's implementation tracks the EU rather than being independently derived; it covers only named allergens, not the rest of any fragrance mixture. The MoCRA comparison is based on the statute's own text (no confirmed final rule as of this evidence base's last check) and FDA's own current consumer page, which as of the same 2026-09-27 capture date states FDA lacks cosmetic allergen-labeling authority and does not mention MoCRA at all.
Source: Health Canada 2026 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
Canada requires cosmetic fragrance ingredients to be declared as 'parfum' (the word 'fragrance' alone is not acceptable), but does not require disclosure of the fragrance mixture's non-allergen constituents.
Strong evidence: A labeling-word requirement, not a composition disclosure requirement; a full fragrance ingredient list is legally optional, not mandatory, in Canada.
Source: Health Canada 2026 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
NEA enters into a paid, annually renewed license agreement with a brand/manufacturer to allow use of the Seal logo once a product is accepted; renewal depends on the manufacturer's own attestation that the formula has not changed, and any formula change requires restarting the application with new clinical testing.
Strong evidence: No fee amount is disclosed on this page; ongoing compliance between renewals relies on manufacturer self-report, not NEA-initiated re-testing.
Source: NEA 2026 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
US cosmetics law lets a manufacturer declare an entire fragrance mixture as the single word "fragrance" (21 CFR 701.3(a); FDCA), with no requirement to name individual fragrance ingredients, while EU law (as of the Directive's Seventh Amendment) required 26 specific fragrance allergens to be named by name above small concentration thresholds (0.01% rinse-off / 0.001% leave-on).
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The EU side is now out of date: the allergen list expanded from 26 to 56 under Regulation 2023/1545. The US side is largely unchanged, though MoCRA (2022) added a not-yet-confirmed-final allergen-labeling mandate (FFDCA §609(b)).
Source: Reebs 2011 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
As of 2010-11 the EU banned or restricted over 1,000 cosmetic ingredients (Cosmetics Directive Annex II) plus a general ban on ingredients known or suspected of being carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic; the US federal list of specifically banned cosmetic ingredients numbered about fifteen, with no positive list and no general CMR ban.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The US count is confirmed still accurate: MoCRA (2022) added no ingredient bans at all. The EU count from 2010-11 is likely a substantial understatement of the EU's current banned-ingredient list after subsequent CLP/CMR reclassification rounds; not independently verified against a current primary count in this evidence base.
Source: Reebs 2011 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Before 2022, US federal cosmetics law had no mandatory facility registration, no mandatory adverse-event reporting duty, and no FDA recall power for cosmetics; safety was self-substantiated by manufacturers with only reactive (post-market) FDA enforcement.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Superseded by MoCRA (2022), which added mandatory registration/listing, a 15-business-day serious-adverse-event reporting duty, and mandatory-recall authority. Do not describe this as the current state of US law.
Source: Reebs 2011 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The US 1996 Food Quality Protection Act requires EPA to add an extra 10-fold safety factor on top of the traditional 10-fold uncertainty factor when assessing pesticide risks, specifically to account for prenatal or postnatal developmental toxicity in children, unless child-specific data justify a smaller factor.
Strong evidence: This is a description of the law's requirement, not a claim that the added safety factor has eliminated risk for any specific chemical.
Source: Goldman 1998, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
As of 1998, EPA and other bodies had classified about 165 pesticide active or inert ingredients as known, probable, or possible human carcinogens; most uses of the known and probable-with-limited-evidence groups had already been canceled, but dozens of possible/probable carcinogens still had active food and other uses pending a new 10-year tolerance-review schedule.
Strong evidence: A regulatory-status snapshot as of 1998; classifications and permitted uses have changed substantially since (not reconciled against current EPA status by this ingest).
Source: Goldman 1998, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Review of other studies
Under the US Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, cosmetic products and ingredients, including hair products, require no FDA premarket approval, and the FDA does not regulate an ingredient unless evidence suggests it harms human health or the environment.
Strong evidence: This is a description of the regulatory framework, not a finding specific to this study.
Source: McDonald 2018, Environmental Health Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Measured in people or real products
As of July 2020, the EU's REACH regulation requires PFOA contamination in manufactured products to be kept below 25 parts per billion, and PFOA-related compounds below 1,000 parts per billion.
Strong evidence: States the regulatory threshold as described by the study authors in 2020; consult the current REACH/POPs regulation text directly for any later revision to these limits.
Source: Oshima et al. 2020, Scientific Reports Industry-funded Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Since 2005 the EU has required cosmetic and detergent products to name 26 specific fragrance chemicals on the label if present above 10 ppm in leave-on products or 100 ppm in rinse-off products; every other fragrance ingredient can still be hidden under the single word "parfum" or "fragrance".
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Settled EU statutory requirement as of the review's writing (2020); does not cover the many countries without an equivalent rule, and the EU later expanded the list to 56 substances (2023/1545, tracked elsewhere in our evidence base).
Source: de Groot 2020, Dermatitis 31(1):13-35, Dermatitis® Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
The EU's 2018 endocrine disruptor policy Communication states that endocrine disruptors are regulated completely differently depending on the law: under pesticide and biocide rules, once a substance is proven to be an endocrine disruptor it can in principle no longer be authorized at all, with very limited exceptions, but under the EU's main chemicals law (REACH) and under cosmetics, toys, and food-contact-material rules, an identified endocrine disruptor is instead assessed case by case and can still be allowed at a managed exposure level.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The Commission itself calls this inconsistency an open question, not a settled policy failure, and says a 'Fitness Check' (not yet published as of this 2018 document) will examine whether it needs to change.
Source: EU Commission 2018 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
As of November 2018, EU rules for cosmetics, toys, and food-contact materials contained no provisions specific to endocrine disruptors at all; those chemicals were covered only by each law's general safety requirements.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Individual endocrine-linked ingredients (certain parabens, one UV filter, bisphenol A) are still restricted or banned in cosmetics, toys, and food-contact materials product by product, not through an endocrine-disruptor-specific rule.
Source: EU Commission 2018 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
In 1992, the U.S. Department of Justice held that whether multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) or "environmental illness" counts as a disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (and, by the same analysis, the ADA) is decided case by case, not by diagnosis alone: the test is whether the person's impairment substantially limits a major life activity, given their particular circumstances.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
This is DOJ's own legal position as the federal Section 504 coordinating agency, not a scientific finding about MCS; it takes no position on causation or prevalence, only on the legal disability test.
Source: DOJ 1992 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
In 2007, EPA and CPSC both denied citizen petitions (Sierra Club, National Center for Healthy Housing, Alliance for Healthy Homes, NRDC) asking for air freshener ingredient testing and labeling, and there is still no federal requirement that air fresheners disclose their ingredients on the label.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
EPA denied on evidentiary/legal grounds (petitioners had not proven an 'unreasonable risk' as TSCA defines it), not on a finding that the products are safe; EPA states this explicitly.
Source: EPA 2007 (72 FR 72886) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
CPSC refused to even open a docket on the 2007 air-freshener petition because it did not name the specific toxic constituents and their concentrations, the exposure mechanism, or the resulting illness for each product — a documentation standard that is very difficult for an outside petitioner to meet when manufacturers are not required to disclose full ingredient formulas.
Strong evidence: This is CPSC's own stated reasoning, quoted directly in the EPA notice; it does not by itself prove the standard is unmeetable in every case, only that it defeated this petition.
Source: EPA 2007, quoting CPSC's Nov. 2007 letter Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
EPA treated the fact that 70% of US homes use air fresheners as evidence that consumers place significant value on the product, and stated that this kind of market-value benefit is legally cognizable under TSCA regardless of whether the product has any public-health value.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
This is EPA's stated interpretation of TSCA's cost-benefit requirement (15 U.S.C. 2605(c)(1)), not an empirical finding; it shows how a regulatory statute can weigh market popularity as a counterweight to health-risk petitions even absent any health benefit.
Source: EPA 2007 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
In its own 2019 consultation paper preceding the 2020 cosmetics labeling Standard, the ACCC stated that fragrances and flavors in a cosmetic product must be disclosed, but do not need to include the ingredient composition of the fragrance or flavor — the generic-word loophole predates the 2020 Standard and was already the settled Australian position under the 1991 Regulations.
Strong evidence: Primary text quoted directly from the ACCC's own drafting-stage document.
Source: ACCC 2019 Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.