“Perfume and fragrance products are more complicated than they may seem. The word 'fragrance' on a label can represent a mixture of many ingredients, and some components may not be individually disclosed because of trade-secret protections. Some fragranced products may contain phthalates or other chemicals that are being studied for…”

On the label point. Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 requires an ingredient list, and provides that perfume and aromatic compositions and their raw materials are declared by the collective terms "parfum" or "aroma". That is the legal basis for a single word standing in for many substances in the EU. The exception is not unlimited: Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/1545, adopted 26 July 2023, expanded Annex III so that a longer list of individually named fragrance allergens must be declared separately above set thresholds, following an SCCS opinion adopted at its plenary of 26 and 27 June 2012. In the United States, FDA's own labelling guidance states that the ingredient list required under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act cannot be used to force disclosure of trade secrets, citing FPLA section 1454(c)(3), and gives fragrance and flavour ingredients as the example of components that need not be listed individually. Under MoCRA, FDA was directed to propose a fragrance allergen disclosure rule by 29 June 2024; that deadline passed and, per the most recent Unified Agenda entries cited in legal trade briefings, the proposed rule has been repeatedly rescheduled and had not been issued as of the latest reporting located. On phthalates. The SCCP opinion on phthalates in cosmetic products records that DEHP, DBP and BBP are Annex II (prohibited) substances in EU cosmetics, with traces tolerated only where technically unavoidable under good manufacturing practice, and that the industry association stated there was no intentional cosmetic use of DMP, BBP or DEHP. The same opinion records that diethyl phthalate (DEP), the phthalate conventionally used in fragrance, received a positive SCCNFP opinion on safe use in cosmetics (SCCNFP/411/01, 20th plenary, 4 June 2002), confirmed at the 26th plenary on 9 December 2003. So the phthalate most present in fragrance is not the same phthalate as the one carrying the strongest endocrine evidence. On phthalates and thyroid specifically. A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies examined DEHP exposure and serum thyroid hormone levels, and its own framing states that the relationship between DEHP exposure and thyroid function remains debated. These are observational human studies measuring urinary metabolites against hormone levels: association, not demonstrated causation, and the dominant exposure routes studied are dietary and inhalational, not perfume on skin. For DEP, the thyroid evidence located is a subacute oral dosing study in female Wistar rats reporting reduced T3 and T4, raised TSH and thyroid structural change. That is an animal oral study, not a human dermal one. A separate controlled human study of 16 volunteers exposed to deuterium-labelled DEP and DEHP found metabolites excreted after both inhalation and dermal exposure, confirming that dermal uptake occurs, with high variation between individuals. On the thyroid and neck claim. Fact-check desks that traced the viral Instagram reel found no evidence supporting it. The Week's assessment is that some perfume chemicals such as phthalates may act as endocrine disruptors and can be absorbed through skin into the bloodstream, but that there is no evidence that spraying perfume on the neck affects the thyroid because of proximity, and that any scientific concern discussed relates to overall long-term exposure rather than application site. DUBAWA's verdict on the same claim was "misleading", reporting that experts told it other factors govern thyroid function and that research does not support the perfume claim. NewsMeter reached a comparable conclusion, describing the claim as an oversimplification of a review on pollutants in perfumes. On the "number of seconds" figure. The most commonly circulated version is "26 seconds to absorb into your bloodstream". Consumer press that attempted to trace it did not find a source study, and the reporting notes that absorption rate depends on molecular size, formulation and evaporation rather than a single fixed interval. No primary source producing that figure was located.