The average label on a bottle of baby lotion lists 16 ingredients. Testing the same bottle in a lab reveals 51. That gap – more than three times the disclosed count – sits at the center of a major 2026 study that found undisclosed chemicals in personal care products are far more widespread, and far more hazardous, than labeling practices suggest.
The research, published in August 2026 in the journal Environment & Health, with Kim Schultz and Johanna Rochester as lead authors and Jenna Hua, PhD, MPH as senior author, along with co-authors from Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, deployed a methodology called nontargeted analysis – a broad-spectrum chemical screening technique that detects everything present in a sample, not just the ingredients a manufacturer chooses to list. The results challenge a fundamental assumption most consumers hold: that reading a label is a reliable form of self-protection.
The findings carry particular weight because the products tested were not obscure or specialty items. Sunscreens, baby lotions, shampoos, soaps, and other everyday products – the kind purchased routinely at Target, Walmart, Amazon, and Dollar Tree – made up the test pool. Consumers who have spent years trying to make informed choices by scrutinizing ingredient lists now face an uncomfortable conclusion: the label may be incomplete by design, by accident, or by regulatory failure. In many cases, all three.
What the Study Actually Found
The researchers tested 113 personal care and cleaning products across 12 categories. On average, each product contained 51 detected chemicals, more than three times the average of 16 ingredients listed on the label.
Overall, 98% of products contained at least one unlabeled chemical, and 85% contained at least one unlabeled chemical with known or suspected health hazards. Undisclosed harmful chemicals were found across product categories, price points, company sizes, and marketing claims, with products advertised as “natural,” “non-toxic,” or “organic” frequently containing undisclosed chemicals linked to health harm.
The undisclosed chemicals included endocrine-disrupting compounds such as phthalates and parabens, fragrance chemicals, silicone contaminants, and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). Some of those chemicals arrived as intentional but unlisted additives – the study’s authors cite examples such as fragrance enhancers added to coconut oil products that never appear on the label. Others appear to be contaminants that enter products through raw materials, manufacturing equipment, or packaging.
The investigators stressed that this does not necessarily mean manufacturers added these chemicals on purpose. Contamination can enter through raw materials, processing equipment, chemical reactions, storage, or packaging. That distinction matters for attribution, but it does not change what a consumer actually absorbs when using the product.
Researchers found synthetic chemicals in some products marketed as “100% natural,” as well as fragrance, phthalates, parabens, silicones, or oxybenzone in products claiming to be free of those substances. Some products labeled “hypoallergenic” contained known allergens or sensitizers. The 2026 Environment & Health study documents phthalates detected in products specifically labeled “phthalate-free.”
There was one notable exception. Oral care products – toothpaste, mouthwash, whitening products – were the only category to pass testing without significant findings. The FDA classifies products intended to treat or prevent disease, or to affect the structure or function of the body, as drugs rather than cosmetics – a category that includes most therapeutic oral care items and subjects them to stricter pre-market requirements. The study’s authors suggest this regulatory difference may explain the disparity in results.
The Chemicals and Their Health Implications
Phthalates
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), including bisphenols, phthalates, and parabens, are widely used in plastics, personal care, and household products and are linked to adverse health outcomes such as cancer, metabolic disease, and infertility. Phthalates – softening agents widely used in plastic manufacturing – are among the most documented of these compounds when it comes to human exposure through personal care products.
A 2024 systematic review in the International Journal of Public Health examined the relationship between prenatal and childhood phthalate exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes, including motor skills, cognition, language acquisition, and behavior. A separate body of research has examined impacts on newborns specifically: a 2025 Nature Communications study led by Dr. Donghai Liang at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health found that prenatal phthalate exposure can alter an infant’s metabolic profile at birth, with biological signals suggesting lasting effects on neurological development.
Parabens
Parabens are antimicrobial preservatives added to cosmetics to prevent mold and bacterial growth. The Environmental Working Group notes that parabens have not yet been exhaustively researched, but are known to interact with estrogen – a hormone involved in numerous physiological processes – with potential effects on hormones and fertility. Parabens have been detected in breast tissue biopsies in prior research, though a causal link to cancer has not been conclusively established in human trials.
Bisphenols, phthalates, and parabens can interfere with the body’s hormone system, with associations including breast cancer, obesity and metabolic disorders, diabetes, miscarriage, and infertility. Consumers attempting to limit their exposure based on label reading are working with fundamentally incomplete information when these compounds appear in products without disclosure.
Fragrance Chemicals
Fragrance is one of the most common routes through which undisclosed chemicals enter personal care products – and one of the most legally protected. The word “fragrance” or “parfum” on a product label legally represents an undisclosed mixture of various scent chemicals and ingredients, allowing manufacturers to keep formulations proprietary under trade secret protections.
Fragrance chemicals and scented ingredients may be linked to hormonal disruption, allergies, skin irritation, and respiratory issues. Products labeled “fragrance-free” should, in principle, be free of this problem – but the 2026 Environment & Health study found fragrance components in products carrying that specific claim, suggesting that either cross-contamination during manufacturing or the use of fragrance-adjacent compounds under different names is occurring.
Silicone Contaminants
D5 silicone, a cyclic siloxane commonly detected as a contaminant in personal care products, can bioaccumulate in the human body after being discharged through factory wastewater. Silicones in the D4, D5, and D6 range appear widely in hair care and skin care formulations as smoothing and conditioning agents.
Animal data raise further developmental concerns. A 2022 study found that maternal D5 exposure has developmental neurotoxicity and can cause behavioral disorders in the offspring of mice – findings that have not yet been replicated in human clinical trials, but are consistent with the broader pattern seen across endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
Botanical Ingredients and the “Natural” Illusion
Plant-derived ingredients carry a strong halo of safety in consumer marketing, but the chemistry of botanical sourcing is considerably more complex. Contaminants may be introduced into a botanical ingredient during growth, including heavy metals or herbicides from soil or water, as well as solvents introduced during processing.
In high concentrations or without proper dilution, essential oils can irritate skin, trigger allergic reactions, and cause hormonal disruption. The study’s authors found botanical-derived contaminants in products that carried no corresponding label disclosure – meaning a consumer choosing a product specifically because it contains “natural” ingredients may be unknowingly absorbing pesticide residues or heavy metal traces alongside the chamomile extract listed on the front panel.
The Undisclosed Chemicals Personal Care Regulations Still Don’t Catch
The 2026 Environment & Health study’s findings are not primarily an indictment of individual manufacturers. They are a structural indictment of a regulatory framework that has never required finished-product testing at scale.
Although the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 expanded the FDA’s authority over cosmetics, routine testing of finished products for undisclosed chemical contaminants is still generally not required.
MoCRA, signed into law on December 29, 2022, represented the first major update to the FDA’s cosmetics authorities since 1938 and amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to include new provisions for cosmetic products. The law grants the FDA more control over cosmetics, introducing recall authority, facility registration requirements, and improved labeling – but it does not compel the FDA to review or restrict harmful chemicals.
The U.S. has lagged behind more than 80 other countries that have taken action to protect consumers from chemicals linked to cancer and reproductive harm. In the European Union, chemicals classified as carcinogens, mutagens, or reproductive toxicants are automatically banned from cosmetics under Article 15 of the EU Cosmetics Regulation. As The Hearty Soul has reported, a May 2026 ban on 15 additional CMR substances in the EU left those same chemicals still legal in personal care products sold in the United States.
There are no federal standards or definitions that govern the use of the term “hypoallergenic” on cosmetics, and manufacturers of cosmetics labeled as hypoallergenic are not required to submit substantiation of their claims to the FDA.
Terms like “natural,” “plant-based,” and “non-toxic” have no legal definition in cosmetics regulations, making them commercially persuasive claims with no enforceable meaning. A brand can print any of those words on a label without meeting a single chemical threshold. U.S. oversight relies largely on ingredient disclosure by manufacturers – and the 2026 Environment & Health study’s central argument is that this system cannot catch what it doesn’t require to be measured.
How Contamination Enters the Supply Chain
The study’s methodology distinguished between two categories of undisclosed chemicals: those that appear to have been intentionally added (such as fragrance-enhancing compounds added to scented oils but not listed) and those that arrived through contamination pathways in the supply chain.
Contamination can enter at multiple points: raw material sourcing, where botanical extracts may carry pesticide or heavy metal residues; manufacturing equipment, where chemical residues from previous production runs or cleaning agents can transfer to new batches; chemical reactions between ingredients during processing or storage that produce new compounds not originally present; and packaging materials, including plasticizers that migrate from containers into product formulations over time.
The authors of the study argue that this gap is not simply a manufacturer accountability problem – it is a gap that nontargeted finished-product testing is specifically designed to close.
The study’s authors also document examples that appear intentional rather than incidental. The addition of allyl cyclohexylpropionate – a synthetic fragrance enhancer – to coconut oil products without label disclosure is one such case cited in the research. Under current regulations, a company can legally omit this compound from a label if it is classified as a fragrance ingredient and the product does not specifically claim to be fragrance-free.
Connecting chemical exposure to a health outcome is rarely straightforward. Emily Barrett, an epidemiologist at the Rutgers School of Public Health who studies phthalates and pregnancy outcomes, told NPR that effects may not cause “an obvious outcome you can detect right away, like a rash” – instead pointing to elevated risks of breast cancer or fertility problems that may not emerge for decades.
The “Clean” Label Paradox
Products positioned most aggressively around safety and purity are not reliably safer than conventionally marketed alternatives – that finding may be the most commercially disruptive conclusion of the 2026 study.
Of the products tested, 26% contained chemicals that directly contradicted label claims, including products marketed as “natural,” “non-toxic,” or “fragrance-free.”
As Jenna Hua, senior author and founder of the Million Marker Research Institute, put it in a statement to EurekAlert: “We found undisclosed harmful chemicals in products claiming to be free of them. The label can’t protect you when it doesn’t show what’s really in the bottle.”
The premium consumers pay for “clean” beauty products does not appear to correspond to a meaningful chemical safety advantage when products are tested rather than labeled. Products marketed as “clean” and those with no such claims failed finished-product testing at comparable rates, separating the marketing claim from the underlying chemistry entirely.
What the Authors Are Calling For
The researchers wrote that “these findings reveal substantial gaps in product transparency and demonstrate that ingredient labels alone cannot reliably convey product safety.”
The authors argue that testing finished, packaged products for undisclosed chemicals should be a standard part of product safety and quality control – a requirement that would parallel how other FDA-regulated consumer product categories, such as pharmaceuticals and medical devices, are already handled. Voluntary ingredient disclosure, without independent verification of finished products, cannot close the gap the study identified.
The authors also call on third-party certification programs – organizations that issue “clean” or “non-toxic” certifications to personal care brands – to incorporate nontargeted chemical testing into their evaluation criteria. Current certification programs predominantly evaluate ingredient lists submitted by manufacturers, a process that cannot detect unlisted compounds by design.
Although MoCRA expanded the FDA’s authority over cosmetics, routine testing of finished products for undisclosed chemical contaminants is still generally not required. Closing that gap would require either new FDA rulemaking or legislative action – neither of which is guaranteed under current regulatory priorities.
What to Do Now
Ingredient labels are structurally incomplete. With an average of 51 chemicals detected per product against an average of 16 disclosed, label reading captures roughly one-third of actual chemical content. No amount of careful label scrutiny can reveal what a label was never required to include. “Clean,” “non-toxic,” “fragrance-free,” and “hypoallergenic” are marketing terms, not chemical guarantees – none carries a legal definition or requires manufacturers to submit verification to the FDA before use.
The chemicals most commonly found undisclosed – phthalates, parabens, fragrance compounds, and silicone contaminants – are the same ones with the most documented associations with hormonal disruption, developmental harm, and reproductive effects. Their presence as hidden ingredients in products used daily, and in baby care and intimate products, represents a meaningful cumulative exposure risk. Oral care products are the exception not because their manufacturers are more responsible, but because drug regulation requires a higher standard of finished-product scrutiny than cosmetics regulation does.
For consumers, the most practical step is to use independent databases such as EWG’s Skin Deep to cross-reference products, and to prioritize brands that submit their finished products to third-party laboratory testing rather than relying solely on ingredient-list certifications. Reducing the total number of products used daily – particularly those with fragrance – limits cumulative exposure across the routes the study identified as highest-risk. Pregnant individuals and parents of young children face the most urgent version of this calculus given the documented developmental effects of prenatal phthalate and silicone exposure.
The regulatory fix the study’s authors describe is straightforward to articulate and difficult to execute: mandatory nontargeted testing of finished consumer products as a condition of market approval. Until that standard is adopted, the ingredient list on any personal care product represents, on average, fewer than a third of the chemicals the product actually contains.
Disclaimer: This information is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment and is for information only. Always seek the advice of your physician or another qualified health provider with any questions about your medical condition and/or current medication. Do not disregard professional medical advice or delay seeking advice or treatment because of something you have read here.
AI Disclaimer: This article was created with the assistance of AI tools and reviewed by a human editor.