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.
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 tonnes 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
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.