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.
Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products
In 34 California childcare centers, the chemicals at the highest levels in the air children breathed came from cleaning and personal-care products: a silicone ingredient called D5 (median 51 µg/m³) and the citrus-scent chemical limonene (median 33 µg/m³).
Strong evidence: Single-day samples; upper values capped by calibration (underestimates).
Children and pregnancy / Review of other studies
About half of children's cosmetics in a Danish registry (634 of 1,179, 53.8%) listed perfume or a named fragrance allergen, and a US survey of 533 baby/child personal care products found a closely similar share (255/533, 47.8%; Bonchak 2018); in Danish baby-care products the commonest named allergens were linalool, limonene, and benzyl alcohol (the US primary does not report limonene or linalool by name).
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Danish half is primary (Botvid 2023): baby-care products specifically were 38.0% (178/468), the least fragranced category — do not write 'half of baby products' for Denmark. 'Fragranced' there includes products naming only an allergen such as benzyl alcohol (often a preservative). US half is now also primary (Bonchak 2018): 47.8% (255/533) across wipes/diaper care/soap/moisturizer/shampoo/sunscreen — but Bonchak's fragrance count is a ~20-keyword composite that does not report limonene or linalool individually, so the 'top three' allergen list is confirmed only for Denmark. Label counts remain lower bounds.
Source: Sukakul 2024, Acta Dermato-Venereologica Industry-funded Link to this fact
Children and pregnancy / Review of other studies
Children exposed to household chemical/cleaning products before birth or in their first year wheeze more often, now replicated in four independent prospective birth cohorts. The founding ALSPAC cohort (UK, n=7,019, Sherriff et al. 2005) found that an 11-product, frequency-weighted prenatal household chemical (TCB) score was significantly associated with persistent wheeze through 3.5 years (adjusted OR 1.06 per unit increase; top-vs-bottom-decile adjusted OR 2.3), but not with transient early or late-onset wheeze; this is the same ALSPAC cohort and composite-score methodology that both Casas 2013 and Mikeš 2019 name as their model. In the Canadian CHILD cohort (n=2,022), frequent use in early infancy was linked to higher odds of recurrent wheeze (adjusted OR 1.35) and asthma diagnosis (adjusted OR 1.37) by age 3, but not isolated skin-prick allergy (adjusted OR 1.14, ns), though wheeze combined with allergy was itself raised (adjusted OR 1.49). In the Czech ELSPAC-CZ cohort (n=3,411), each 1-SD increase in an 18-product household chemical exposure score at 6 months raised the odds of intermediate-onset transient, intermediate-onset persistent, and early-onset persistent wheeze phenotypes through age 5 (adjusted OR 1.23-1.36), and those persistent phenotypes carried 5-8x higher odds of doctor-diagnosed asthma at age 7 (pediatrician records, not self-report). In the pooled Spanish INMA cohorts (n=2,292), prenatal (third-trimester) use of cleaning sprays raised the odds of both wheezing (OR 1.37) and lower respiratory tract infection (OR 1.29) in the first year of life, with solvents raising wheezing odds (OR 1.30) and air fresheners raising LRTI odds (OR 1.29); bleach, ammonia, and non-spray cleaners showed no association.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
All four cohorts are observational and use self-reported product-use frequency, not measured indoor air chemistry. The ALSPAC/Sherriff 2005 and ELSPAC-CZ signals are specific to persistent-type wheeze phenotypes, not wheeze in general; ALSPAC found no association with transient early or late-onset wheeze. The 'not atopy' finding remains single-cohort (CHILD only); ELSPAC-CZ's atopic-rash variable is a covariate, not an outcome, and Casas 2013 measured neither atopy nor a physician asthma diagnosis, only maternal-reported LRTI and any-wheezing through 12-18 months, so it neither confirms nor refutes the atopy finding; ALSPAC/Sherriff 2005 did not assess atopy or asthma at all. Casas 2013 is the only cohort among the three post-2010 cohorts with genuinely prenatal (rather than early-postnatal) exposure measurement, but ALSPAC/Sherriff 2005 is also prenatal and its composite score behaved like CHILD's and ELSPAC-CZ's (significant), not like Casas's (null) — evidence against prenatal timing per se explaining the Casas null. Casas 2013's own summed cleaning-product-count score was NOT a significant predictor, unlike ALSPAC's, CHILD's, and ELSPAC-CZ's frequency-weighted composite scores — an open methodological tension (register entry C262) that means 'more products used' is not yet a uniformly replicated exposure metric across all cohorts, even though several specific products (sprays consistently, plus solvents and air fresheners) are.
Source: Salonen 2024, Environment International Link to this fact
Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products
In the US, everyday chemical products (paints, inks, glues, cleaners, personal care products, and pesticides) now release about twice as much air-polluting vapor as cars and trucks: 7.6 vs 3.5 million metric tons in 2012.
Strong evidence: All chemical products, not fragrance specifically; coatings/inks/adhesives are 58%.
Fragrance is everywhere / Measured in people or real products
Scientists can identify which everyday products are polluting a city's outdoor air just by measuring a handful of specific chemical fingerprints: a silicone compound (D5-siloxane) for personal-care products and citrus/pine-scent chemicals (monoterpenes, mostly limonene) for fragranced products, confirmed by mobile-lab measurements across New York City, Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Denver.
Strong evidence: Outdoor air only; four US cities, no LA data; tracer status is based on population-density correlation and inventory apportionment, not a direct source test.
Source: Gkatzelis 2021, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact
Fragrance is everywhere / Government agency
There are no longer any pristine, unpolluted places on Earth: endocrine-disrupting chemicals such as PFOS have been measured in marine-mammal tissue from the Arctic to remote Southern Hemisphere waters, far from any point source, carried by long-range air and ocean transport and biomagnified through food webs.
Strong evidence: Illustrated with wildlife biomonitoring data (marine mammals), not a direct measurement of fragrance or consumer-product chemicals specifically.
Source: WHO/UNEP 2012 Link to this fact
Green, natural and unscented / Review of other studies
Fragrance allergens turn up in "fragrance-free" moisturizers and personal-care products across at least four independent surveys: Scheinman named ten US "fragrance-free" products with fragrance ingredients in 1999 (benzyl alcohol in 5 of 10), dermatologists named nine more major-brand examples containing benzyl alcohol in 2007 (including a baby lotion), two of Scheinman's own named products (Cetaphil Moisturizing Cream, Moisturel Therapeutic Lotion) reappear on this list, a 2016 survey of best-selling US body moisturizers found 18 of 40 labeled "fragrance free" (45%) listed at least one ingredient dermatologists flag for fragrance-allergic patients, and a 2015 survey of 187 US pediatric personal-care products found that of the 52 labeled "fragrance free," 42 (80.8%) contained at least one contact allergen from the standard NACDG screening tray (55.8% had >=2).
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Four independently compiled surveys (1999, 2007, 2016, 2015) across adult and pediatric products now agree that 'fragrance-free'-labeled products commonly contain contact allergens. Hamann 2015's screening tray is broader than fragrance chemicals alone (also preservatives, surfactants; preservatives were in fact its largest allergen category), so its 80.8% is not a pure fragrance-allergen count like Xu 2017's CAMP cross-reactor tally, but the direction and scale match. Still label-based, not chemical analysis; don't name current products without checking today's labels.
Green, natural and unscented / Other evidence
OEKO-TEX Standard 100's limit table has no limit and no list for fragrance chemicals or fragrance allergens; the only fragrance-related rule is an odor test that requires 'no odor from mold, high boiling fraction of petrol, fish, aromatic hydrocarbons, or perfume'.
Strong evidence: Edition 02.2025 table only; the 2026 change notice mentions no fragrance row but the full 2026 table was not captured; odor test is a sensory judgment with no stated scale.
Source: OEKO-TEX Service GmbH, Standard 100 limit values Annexes 4-5, Ed. 02.2025 Industry-funded Link to this fact
Health effects / Review of other studies
In 2019, IARC upgraded styrene from Group 2B to Group 2A ("probably carcinogenic to humans"), based mainly on mechanistic/genotoxicity evidence, with limited human epidemiological evidence linking occupational styrene exposure to lymphohematopoietic cancers (leukemia and lymphoma).
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Classification by an international expert Working Group reviewing all available literature, not a single primary study; "limited evidence" in humans is the IARC term of art, one tier below "sufficient".
Source: IARC 2019 (Vol. 121) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
IARC's alphabetical list (last update November 2018) printed formaldehyde (Vol 100F, 2012), benzene, ethylene oxide, trichloroethylene and vinyl chloride as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans, as of that date.
Strong evidence: 2018 snapshot; hazard classification only, not a statement of risk at product-use levels; later re-evaluations are not reflected.
Source: IARC 2018, Agents Classified by the IARC Monographs, Vols 1-123 Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
In July 2024 the WHO's cancer agency (IARC) classified talc as 'probably carcinogenic to humans' (Group 2A), the second-highest certainty level, on limited human evidence for ovarian cancer, sufficient animal evidence (rats) and strong mechanistic evidence.
Strong evidence: This is a hazard classification, not a measure of risk at any exposure level; the human evidence is rated only limited.
Source: IARC Press Release 352 (2024) Link to this fact
Health effects / Other evidence
IARC's new talc evaluation covers talc not containing asbestos; talc containing asbestos was left out because it is already part of the definition of asbestos, a Group 1 carcinogen that causes mesothelioma and cancers of the lung, larynx and ovary.
Strong evidence: Asbestos classification dates from 2009; this release restates it.
Source: IARC Press Release 352 (2024) Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products
In lab tests of 213 US household and personal-care products, not one label listed a phthalate, yet the phthalate DEP, a common fragrance solvent, turned up in half of the pooled conventional product samples.
Strong evidence: Products bought 2007-08; composited samples; content not dose.
Source: Dodson 2012, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Review of other studies
The industry's own safety panel wrote that a single fragrance can contain 50-300 ingredients, that formulas are 'carefully guarded', and that the industry 'is often perceived as rather less than forthcoming by consumers and their physicians'.
Strong evidence: Direct quotation from an industry-authored 2003 paper; 50-300 is a range, not a measured count.
Source: Bickers 2003 (RIFM Expert Panel), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products
Unlisted PFAS impurities (perfluorocarboxylic acids, including chain lengths that overlap PFOA) were found in nearly every PFAS-containing cosmetic tested in a 2024 study, and these unlisted impurities transferred into artificial sweat far more readily (43-76%) than the PFAS ingredient actually printed on the label (which showed negligible transfer).
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Bioaccessibility (partitioning into artificial sweat) is a precursor to, not proof of, skin absorption; sebum was not included in the assay and may raise this further; small sample; no PTFE-containing products were tested.
Source: Namazkar 2024, Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Measured in people or real products
Health Canada's own testing of 252 Canadian cosmetic and personal care products found the fragrance solvent DEP in 70% of fragrance products, at levels up to 2.6% by weight, yet every DEP-positive product was labeled only with the generic term "parfum" — never DEP or any phthalate.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
N=252 individually tested products, Canadian market, 2007-08; detection frequency is lower than two smaller earlier surveys (Hubinger & Havery 2006, EWG 2002) found for fragrances specifically.
Source: Koniecki 2011, Environmental Research Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Journalism
A low Skin Deep hazard score can simply mean little is known: missing toxicity data carries zero weight in the hazard score, and EWG advises choosing products with low hazard AND at least "fair" data availability.
Strong evidence: EWG's own advice and weighting table. The data-availability rating is built half from PubMed study counts, so heavily studied ingredients rate higher regardless of safety.
Source: EWG Skin Deep methodology page (2026 capture) Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Other evidence
The CIR draft says 1,4-dioxane, a known animal carcinogen, can contaminate ethoxylated ingredients such as polysorbates and that industry 'reported that it is aware' of it and uses 'additional purification steps' (polysorbates are steam-stripped), but it reports no measured 1,4-dioxane or ethylene oxide levels.
Strong evidence: The absence of numbers is a fact about this draft only; other sources may hold specifications or FDA measurements.
Source: CIR 2015 draft Industry-funded Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Other evidence
In IARC's 2018 list, titanium dioxide (Vols 47, 93, 2010), carbon black (2010), diethanolamine (2013) and coconut oil diethanolamine condensate, the cocamide DEA surfactant (Vol 101, 2013), were each printed as Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans.
Strong evidence: 2018 snapshot; 2B is limited evidence; hazard not risk; the list does not give exposure from any product.
Source: IARC 2018, Agents Classified by the IARC Monographs, Vols 1-123 Link to this fact
Hidden ingredients / Other evidence
The 2018 list printed talc without asbestos or asbestiform fibers as Group 3 and perineal use of talc-based body powder as 2B (Vol 93, 2010), with a note that asbestos-containing talc should be regarded as carcinogenic to humans.
Strong evidence: Superseded in part: talc was reclassified in 2024 (Vol 136); this page records only the 2018 printed status.
Source: IARC 2018, Agents Classified by the IARC Monographs, Vols 1-123 Link to this fact
Indoor air / Measured in people or real products
Limonene was detected in every childcare room studied and was more than 1,000 times higher indoors than outdoors, so it came from products used inside.
Strong evidence: Outdoor detected in 1/20 sites.
Indoor air / Measured in people or real products
Across decades of US monitoring where people carried personal air samplers, the air they breathed held more of almost every hazardous chemical than outdoor air did: exposure happens indoors, not at the outdoor monitoring station.
Strong evidence: Older studies include smokers' homes; compound-specific.
Source: Weisel 2002, Environmental Health Perspectives Link to this fact
Indoor air / Measured in people or real products
Scent-type chemicals typical of fragranced and cleaning products (limonene, pinene, carene) were the signature of home air: close to zero outdoors but tens to hundreds of times higher inside homes.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Small original study (n=7); the indoor-source signature (not the specific product-category attribution) is now independently replicated by a much larger 2021 UK study with real paired outdoor sampling (Heeley-Hill 2021, 60 homes: limonene indoor:outdoor ~19x, alpha-pinene ~10x), though that larger study also found cumulative product-use frequency does not predict concentration (only insecticide/plug-in-air-freshener use showed weak covariance with limonene) — so the indoor-source signature is strong, the specific 'cleaning products' attribution stays inferential. Givaudan-funded (COI); analysis independent.
Source: Gokhale 2008, Science of the Total Environment Link to this fact
Indoor air / Measured in people or real products
In a controlled chamber, the people themselves were the main thing reacting with indoor ozone: four seated adults removed about 60–65% of it, in two separate campaigns with men and with women, and their skin oils turned it into carbonyls such as 4-oxopentanal and 6-MHO. The same DTU chamber's protocol paper independently reproduced the ~60–69% removal in three more groups, teenagers and seniors as well as adults, across 26 experiments, and showed the sink is dermal (a breath-only control lost almost no ozone).
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Same DTU 22.5 m³ chamber and fan setup in all campaigns (Wang 2024: 4 men, ~37 ppb; Zannoni 2021: 2 groups of 2 women + 2 men, ~35 ppb; Bekö 2020: 5 groups — 3 adult, teenagers, seniors — same chamber/fans, ~35 ppb); mixing fans put deposition velocities at the top of the literature range, and a furnished home also loses ozone to surfaces, so the occupant share there will be lower. Chemistry only, no health endpoint; ICHEAR 6-MHO values may be inflated by an inlet artifact.
Source: Wang 2024, Environmental Science & Technology Link to this fact
The industry / Review of other studies
By the industry's own figures, about 60% of fragrance goes into soaps, fabric softeners, cleaners, and detergents, yet its 2003 method for estimating people's exposure counted only 10 personal-care products applied to skin, and breathing fragrance in was not part of the calculation.
Strong evidence: Describes the 2003 process; later RIFM aggregate-exposure work may differ. Shows the route was not assessed, not that it causes harm.
Source: Bickers 2003 (RIFM Expert Panel), Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Industry-funded Link to this fact
The industry / Other evidence
The cosmetics industry's own safety panel (CIR, funded by the Personal Care Products Council) concluded in 2012 that 52 trimonium conditioner and surfactant ingredients, including cetrimonium, steartrimonium and behentrimonium chlorides, are safe as used only 'when formulated to be nonirritating', and set no numeric concentration limit.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Literature review by an industry-funded panel, so this is the industry's own position; about half the 52 ingredients are cleared on read-across with no ingredient-specific data. CIR is financed by the Personal Care Products Council, the cosmetics industry trade association.
Source: Becker et al. 2012 (CIR), Int J Toxicol, International Journal of Toxicology Industry-funded 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
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
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 / 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
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 / Government agency
The entire FDA sunscreen active-ingredient monograph (21 CFR Part 352) has carried an indefinite stay since an effective-date note dated June 4, 2003/2004, as printed in the CFR's own 2023 edition.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
The captured text states only the stay itself; it does not mention the 2019 proposed rule or the 2020 CARES Act OTC monograph reform that are understood (from outside this document) to now govern the monograph's actual reassessment.
Source: 21 CFR Part 352 (2023 ed.) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Of 11 citizen petitions asking FDA to act on GRAS substances between 2004 and 2008 (including salt, trans fats, aluminum additives, MSG, carrageenan, and diacetyl), FDA had decided only one (a stevia petition, denied) as of December 2009, usually citing limited resources.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Petition status is as of December 2009; the petitions' scientific claims were not assessed by GAO. Later decisions (e.g., FDA's 2015 action on partially hydrogenated oils) are outside the report.
Source: GAO 2010, GAO-10-246 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
In July 2010 the UK Government rejected a parliamentary committee's call to stop NHS funding of homeopathy, saying local NHS bodies and clinicians, not Whitehall, are best placed to decide, and that it would not remove Primary Care Trusts' flexibility.
Strong evidence: A statement of government position, not evidence about homeopathy; says it will 'keep the position under review'.
Source: UK Department of Health, Government Response to the Science and Technology Committee report 'Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy', Cm 7914 (July 2010), Command Paper Cm 7914 (July 2010) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
EWG Verified is a voluntary certification run by an advocacy nonprofit; it is not a government standard and carries no legal authority.
Strong evidence: Straightforward from the program's description as a certification and licensing scheme.
Source: EWG Verified FAQ, verified-portal.ewg.org, accessed 2026-10-16, EWG Verified portal web page Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
In 2010 the EU's cosmetics safety committee (SCCS) ruled that sodium perborate, a hydrogen peroxide-releasing bleach in powder hair dyes, counts as a hydrogen peroxide releaser under the EU cosmetics hydrogen peroxide entry, so the hydrogen peroxide limits (12% for hair care) apply to it.
Strong evidence: Committee advice, not itself a legal limit; the opinion does not convert the 3% perborate into a hydrogen peroxide percentage.
Source: SCCS 2010 (SCCS/1345/10), SCCS opinion SCCS/1345/10 (PDF) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
FDA's 2021 proposed order states that the 1999 sunscreen monograph text, including oxybenzone at up to 6 percent, is the Deemed Final Order under the CARES Act, so the stayed-Part status printed in the CFR is not the whole legal picture.
Strong evidence: This describes FDA's legal reading in a 2021 proposal, not a court ruling. Later changes are not known from this document.
Source: FDA proposed order OTC000008 (2021) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
The 2024 talc evaluation replaces IARC's earlier labels: perineal talc body powder was Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic) in 2006 and inhaled talc without asbestos was Group 3 (not classifiable).
Strong evidence: Classification history as printed by IARC.
Source: IARC Press Release 352 (2024) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
US food law lets companies leave incidental additives off the ingredient list if they are present at insignificant levels and have no technical or functional effect in the finished food; this covers carry-over from another ingredient, some processing aids, and substances migrating from equipment or packaging.
Strong evidence: Legal text, not a safety finding; the section says nothing about allergens or health. Current as of the eCFR snapshot of 2026-10-15.
Source: 21 CFR 101.100 (eCFR, 2026-10-15) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Four things cannot be hidden under 'natural flavor': protein hydrolysates used for flavor must carry their specific name, and onion, garlic, and celery powder, salt and monosodium glutamate must be named too (21 CFR 101.22(h)(3)-(5), (h)(7)).
Strong evidence: Named exceptions only; every other flavor constituent may stay under the collective term.
Source: 21 CFR 101.22 (eCFR 2026), Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Section 101.22 (eCFR) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Government agency
EFSA's polysorbate exposure estimate counts only food additive uses; it states that exposure from cosmetic ingredients, personal care products, textiles and pharmaceuticals was not considered, and that carrier uses in flavorings, colors and nutrient preparations were also left out.
Strong evidence: Stated limitation in the opinion; no quantification of the omitted sources.
Source: EFSA ANS Panel (2015), full opinion, EFSA Journal Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
For the not-foreseeable set, the act requires that the person be informed of means to relieve suffering, including counseling, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care, and be offered consultations with relevant professionals.
Strong evidence: States a duty on the practitioner to inform and offer; the act does not require that any service be provided or available.
Source: S.C. 2021, c. 2 (Bill C-7), annual statute page Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Most committee members agreed that in the MCSS case the MAiD process "should give way to urgent social services intervention and maximize supportive healthcare options to reduce symptoms and suffering prior to proceeding with MAiD."
Strong evidence: A majority discussion view (members' opinions were not counted), not a binding direction.
Source: Ontario MDRC Report 2024-3 (OCC, 2024; non-official copy) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
When natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, the practitioners must ensure the person has been informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, including where appropriate counseling, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care, and has been offered consultations with relevant professionals (s. 241.2(3.1)(g)).
Strong evidence: The duty is to inform and offer consultations, not to provide the services. Consolidation current to 2026-09-30.
Source: Criminal Code s. 241.2 (consolidation current to 2026-09-30) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Section 241.2(1) requires eligibility for government-funded health services, age 18 or older with capacity, a grievous and irremediable medical condition, a voluntary request not made as a result of external pressure, and informed consent after being informed of the means available to relieve suffering, including palliative care.
Strong evidence: Statute text as consolidated to 2026-09-30.
Source: Criminal Code s. 241.2 (consolidation current to 2026-09-30) Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Under the Track Two safeguards, the person must be informed of available and appropriate means to relieve their suffering, including counseling, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care, and be offered consultations with those professionals.
Strong evidence: States a duty to inform and offer, not a duty to provide the services or to find housing.
Source: Justice Canada: Canada's MAID law (captured 2026-10-21), Justice Canada web page Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
OSHA lists perfumes and colognes, cleaning products, pesticides and personal-care products among sources of workplace indoor air pollutants, but sets no limit or rule for any of them.
Strong evidence: Mentions are brief source lists; fragrance is not named as a category, and no health data are given.
Source: OSHA 3430-04, 2011 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
EFSA kept the acceptable daily intakes for the six colors tested (sunset yellow, tartrazine, carmoisine, Ponceau 4R, quinoline yellow, allura red) and for sodium benzoate unchanged, saying the trial's lack of consistency, weak effect and unknown clinical meaning made it an insufficient basis for change.
Strong evidence: It is the Panel's weighing of the evidence in 2008, not a finding of no effect; it did not assess later studies.
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
Since 20 July 2010, EU food containing sunset yellow (E 110), quinoline yellow (E 104), carmoisine (E 122), allura red (E 129), tartrazine (E 102) or Ponceau 4R (E 124) must carry the warning 'may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children', except meat health marks and egg stamping; a food-color finding, not a fragrance one.
Strong evidence: Original 2008 text; later amendments are not in this capture, so check the current consolidated text. The Regulation states no evidence for the warning.
Source: EU Reg 1333/2008 Link to this fact
Laws and loopholes / Other evidence
EU food flavorings are carved out of the food-additives regulation and governed by a separate regulation (1334/2008); the colors warning in Reg 1333/2008 therefore says nothing about flavorings.
Strong evidence: Additives used inside flavorings are still covered by 1333/2008 (Annex III Part 4, not captured here).
Source: EU Reg 1333/2008 Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products
In a 2015 survey of 187 US pediatric personal-care products marketed as hypoallergenic, dermatologist-recommended, fragrance-free, or paraben-free, 89% (167/187) contained at least one contact allergen from the standard NACDG screening tray, with a mean of 2.4 allergens per product.
Strong evidence.
Caveats
Single-metro US convenience sample (six unnamed Redlands, CA retailers, 2013), label-based (no chemical verification, no concentrations), and allergen matching by an unaudited custom algorithm; the four marketing-term categories overlap (a product can carry more than one), so subgroup percentages are not independent comparisons.
Source: Hamann 2015, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Link to this fact
Skin allergy / Measured in people or real products
In a clinical study of 658 hand-eczema patients across 3 European centers, 67 (10.2%) reacted on patch testing to at least one fragrance chemical selected because it is common in household cleaning and personal-care products used on the hands.
Strong evidence: Clinic-referred hand-eczema population (3 tertiary centers), not a random sample of the general public.
Source: Heydorn 2003, Contact Dermatitis Industry-funded Link to this fact
What you can do / Review of other studies
Choosing fragrance-free personal care products is a reasonable way to cut DEP exposure, since DEP is used as a fragrance solvent; label reading alone will not catch phthalates.
Strong evidence: Reasoned advice; not tested as an intervention in this paper.
Source: Crinnion 2010, Alternative Medicine Review Link to this fact
What you can do / Measured in people or real products
Choosing fragrance-free cosmetic and personal care products is an effective way to cut DEP exposure, since fragrance is consistently the most DEP-dense product category across three independent national surveys and DEP is never named on a label when present via fragrance.
Strong evidence: Based on product-content measurement across three independent surveys (Hubinger & Havery 2006, Dodson 2012, Koniecki 2011), not a tested behavioral intervention.
Source: Koniecki 2011, Environmental Research Link to this fact
Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products
Childcare air had about three times more limonene than new California homes (33 vs 11 µg/m³), which the authors link to frequent cleaning.
Moderate evidence: Comparison with a different study (Offermann 2009); daytime vs 24-h sampling.
Children and pregnancy / Self-reported survey
In a Brazilian hospital survey, caregivers said two in three children aged 14 and under (182 of 276, median age 4) wore perfume.
Moderate evidence: One Curitiba tertiary-hospital clinic sample, 2015-16; 'perfume' undefined; no frequency, age, or sex breakdown; count identical to children's shampoo (possible copy error).
Source: Melo 2020, Revista Paulista de Pediatria Link to this fact
Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products
93% of children's facial-care products in a Danish registry (80 of 86, almost all lip balms) listed fragrance, averaging nearly two named fragrance allergens each.
Moderate evidence: Label data; n=86; registry sample.
Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products
In a US label survey of 533 personal care products marketed for babies and children, 48% (255/533) contained a fragrance-category allergen and 55% (294/533) contained at least one of eight screened contact allergens.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Single US retail platform (Drugstore.com/Walgreens), one 2018 snapshot; fragrance is a ~20-keyword composite tally, not a per-chemical breakdown; no chemical verification of labels.
Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products
Cheaper baby and children's personal care products contain significantly more contact allergens than pricier ones: products with two or more screened allergens averaged $1.39 per ounce versus $4.35 per ounce for products with none.
Moderate evidence.
Caveats
Correlation only, no mechanism tested; a similar but non-significant trend was found in adult moisturizers (Xu 2017), so the effect size and significance may not generalize beyond baby products.
Children and pregnancy / Measured in people or real products
In a small pilot study of 14 Washington DC childcare facilities, chloroform – a byproduct of the chlorine bleach used to clean – was found in every single air sample, at levels averaging 1.4-1.8 times higher than in a comparable California childcare study.
Moderate evidence: Small unfunded pilot (14 facilities), single-day snapshot, convenience sample; measured no fragrance chemicals at all.
Source: Quirós-Alcalá 2016, Environmental Research Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.