Fragrance avoidance
Not a strong fit for fragrance avoidance because it carries Fragrance.
The ingredient itself is a fragrance-linked signal, so it is better treated as an avoid case when fragrance exposure is the main concern.
EPA CPDat observed this chemical in 0 composition records across product categories including unclassified products.
Concern score
The concern value reflects this ingredient's chemical identity — its hazard profile from the published classifications and regulatory status below — not the safety of a product it appears in. A score near 40 is the baseline for ingredients with no specific signal (water scores 40 by design), so a mid-range value is not a safety verdict.
Concern score 5/100 · limited confidence.
Prevalence of Chicle in our catalog (epa_cpdat).
Brands
2
Typical roles
Context-specific fit derived from published classifications and the current ingredient evidence profile.
Fragrance avoidance
Not a strong fit for fragrance avoidance because it carries Fragrance.
The ingredient itself is a fragrance-linked signal, so it is better treated as an avoid case when fragrance exposure is the main concern.
The published evidence profile currently shaping this ingredient record.
Primary documents currently linked to this ingredient record.
Structured claim signals pulled from linked ingredient research.
Published jurisdiction-level classifications and regulatory designations for this ingredient.
US
EPA
EPA CPDat observed this chemical in 0 composition records across product categories including unclassified products. EPA CPDat classifies this chemical for functional uses including Fragrance, Flavouring and nutrient.
US
FDA
openFDA substance registry classifies this ingredient as structurallydiverse.
US
FDA
openFDA substance registry classifies this ingredient as concept.