Basenotes › Features › IFRA Promotes Creativity – An Interview With Lisa Hipgrave, Director Of IFRA UK – PART 2

IFRA Promotes Creativity – An Interview With Lisa Hipgrave, Director Of IFRA UK – PART 2

Part 1 of the interview ended with my asking Ms Hipgrave about the publics perception of IFRAs powers and responsibilities.

---

118661

Persolaise: I accept that theres definitely one major misunderstanding out there, which is that IFRA is the law. But then EU regulation does mirror IFRA quite closely.

Lisa Hipgrave: With the Cosmetics Directive, there are some materials that have been put into Annex 2 and 3 of the Directive, because they are restricted or prohibited within the Code. With the allergens that came via the dermatologists and the SCCS wanting these materials being labelled* I guess IFRA were unable to act quickly enough to prevent those materials being known as allergens. Actually, I think weve done enough testing now to know that only 50% of them are weak sensitisers and the rest arent sensitisers. But too late. Theyre in the Cosmetics Directive and they have to be labelled. Thats not an IFRA guideline. What IFRA have done is theyve taken those allergens and have done the testing and restricted the materials at a level where they dont elicit an allergy in the future. Personally, I think thats a great thing for the fragrance industry, because the fewer people there are having an issue with it, the less of a safety spotlight will be on the industry. I think theres had to be some pro-active work done to try and support the industry more and ensure that in the future there wont be so many issues.


Would you say that IFRA has an interest in seeing some Standards being implemented as EU law?

LH: I think so, yes. The Code itself deals with all sorts of things other than restriction and materials. It deals with good manufacturing practice and intellectual property. But I think that if IFRA can get their Code and their Standards recognised and accepted by some of the regulatory bodies, I think that would be a much more common sense place. If we can have a much more pragmatic and common sense insert within the regulations, rather than the EU referring to a group of focused people that have got their own focus It has to be balanced.

What about the issue of labelling? A lot of people would like to know why the perfume consumer isnt being given greater choice. Why cant a perfume package simply say: Warning This perfume contains X amount of such-and-such a substance?

LH: I can understand why the labelling issue is pushed.

For instance, if I had a severe nut allergy, I could walk into any supermarket, pick up a packet of peanuts bearing the words, This product may contain nuts and I could eat the whole packet, knowing that this would almost certainly kill me. I could do that, if I so chose.

LH: (pause) I think that a nut allergy could kill you and nuts are so prevalent in every food. But whats actually happened is that everything you pick up says, This may contain nuts, even though it doesnt.

As a woman who has children, you could have chosen to smoke several packets of cigarettes whilst you were pregnant. It may not have been the right thing to do, but you could have chosen to do it.

LH: Yes.

So what makes the case of perfume different?

LH: I think that you have to protect people. You have to protect the lowest common denominator.

But why is there a distinction between perfume and other industries?

LH: I think that there are all sorts of political things afoot and I think probably, if cigarettes were being brought out now, they would be banned. But I dont want to get into other industries.

But can you see why this seems illogical? Why cant a perfume package simply state that it contains over a certain level of, for instance, vetivert? If I had some sort of an allergy to vetivert, and if I didnt care about getting a rash, I could still exercise the right to spray the perfume all over myself.

LH: But that is what were doing from an allergy point of view. We are labelling for allergies. But the materials that have other health issues reprotoxic (may damage the reproductive process) or mutagenic (may cause genetic mutation) or carcinogenic I wouldnt feel comfortable putting something in and saying, Oh, by the way, if you cant read, tough. You know, its like dry cleaning fluid was banned because it was discovered that it was carcinogenic. And it would be wrong to use something like that and say, Well, you can use it. Be it on your head, and not protect everybody.

But its all right for the cigarette and food industries to sell unsafe products?

LH: I cant explain.

And its all right for me to eat massive quantities of basil leaves?

LH: No, thats completely different. Anything that is absorbed through the skin is metabolised very differently from something thats ingested. And so just because its safe to ingest it, doesnt mean its safe to put it on the skin.

How is IFRA funded?

LH: By its members. In the UK, were trying to reach out now to bespoke perfumers and individual perfumers and weve introduced a new level of membership so that we can try and get more of the individuals inside the camp, if you like, because theres an awful lot of people that do say, This shouldnt be restricted. And actually, if weve got a chance to speak to those people and take their test data, then thats better for us. But on top of those people, we have members who are charged a minimum amount per year which is £500 and then after that, it goes up in bands, so that depending on their turnover, the more costly it is for them to join. And then our executive is made up of those people that want to be part of it. I think at the moment weve got about a 50:50 ratio of big companies to small companies.

And what are the voting rights?

LH: If youre a full member, you have one vote. Theres no weighted voting.

Would you say that, in the future, theres any scope for any of the current Standards to be loosened?

LH: Absolutely.

Okay, Id like to conclude by looking ahead. You must be aware that many people are worried about the future of perfumery. Guerlains perfumer, Thierry Wasser, used some choice language in a public setting last year when he described his feelings towards the issue of restrictions and regulations. Patricia De Nicolaïs website currently features some text which appears to lament the loss of certain materials which are crucial in the creation of a lily of the valley note. Various people have written that they feel creative perfumery has to move out of Europe if it is to survive. So whats your final word on the future of perfumery?

LH: The future is fragrant.

But not necessarily citrus fruit fragrant? You must know that there are many unhappy people in the industry saying, Get off my back.

LH: (pause) Regulations and legislation but not IFRA, because were not regulators

But youve got a lot of power.

LH: Yes, with our membership.

The EU listens when you talk.

LH: (pause) The safe use of fragrances has to be continued. And none of us like regulations. But we have to protect the consumer. And if a material is safe to be used, then IFRA will absolutely stand by it and defend it. IFRA promotes creativity. And luckily, we have power with the regulations.

Finally, is there anything you feel youd like to say? Is there any area you wanted to talk about which I didnt raise in any of my questions?

I dont think so, no.

Thanks very much for your time.

---

I suspect that many of you will wish to react to some of what youve read above (and in Part 1), and Im very pleased to be able to tell you that Ms Hipgrave ended our meeting by offering to answer a few follow-up questions. Please leave any queries or observations as a comment below. Theyll all be forwarded to Ms Hipgrave and when/if she responds, well publish her answers here on Basenotes. So think of something good!

---

* Ms Hipgrave is referring to the 26 substances that were included in a piece of anti-allergen legislation passed by the EU in 2003.




About the author

Persolaise is a Jasmine Award shortlisted writer and amateur perfumer who has had a strong interest in the world of fine fragrance for over 25 years. You can find out more about his work at www.persolaise.com or by emailing him at persolaise at gmail dot com.

Comments (58)

"I think that you have to protect people. You have to protect the lowest common denominator."

From what exactly? A rash? Come on! Cigarettes can kill you, yet the tobacco industry is only required to place a label on every box. Peanuts and shellfish can kill you if you're allergic to them, yet people eat peanuts and shellfish every day. Educating the consumer by proper labeling and having information available to the public versus restricting and banning is a more logical answer. I'm not a smoker but occasionally I do enjoy a good cigar, and though I know the risks involved with smoking any kind of tobacco, I still choose to do so once in a while. If I know bergamot is phototoxic, then I'll spray it on my clothes if I'm going to be out and about on a sunny day. If I ever become sensitized to oakmoss, then I'll stop using anything with a label that says "contains oakmoss". It's common sense. I'm not oppose to the IFRA testing different materials (natural or synthetic) because I do want to know what each ingredient can or can't do to you, but all of these restrictions and banning is preposterous.
Yes, thanks for pushing that question. It's the aspect of the whole subject which I find most annoying. I think she couldn't answer it properly because there is no convincing reason behind it, except 'Nanny knows best'! ;-)
I echo the comments above.
I still don't buy it re. labelling food is different from perfumery . Ms Hipgrave was unable to elaborate further . Consumers are able to think for themselves and do not need protection in the way Ms Hipgrave talks about it- I found it a rather patronising response.
1. What do you think about the proposition that certain fragrances, formulated prior to a certain cut-off date and meeting certain (yet-to-be-determined) criteria would be granted 'legacy status' and allowed to be manufactured and sold using their original formulas? (I can immediately see that this isn't cut-and-dry because of issues such as nitro musks but I do think the idea has serious merit and could be considered).
2. Do you think that some manufacturers blame IFRA recommendations for why they've had to reformulate - when, in fact, they have been doing it all along to cut costs?
3. What would you say to claims that the IFRA recommendations encourage the trend towards declining natural material production and, thus, increased prices of whatever crops remain (which, in turn, feeds into the scenario above). Isn't this bad for the growers and bad for the industry? Should there not be some attempt at conservation and protection of these traditional practices?
4. Do you think IFRA helps to calm down the phenomenon of chemophobia and perfume-phobia (where perfume has become akin to secondary smoke or worse in some areas of the world and people are banned from wearing it at work or in public places). If so, how does IFRA help? Or do you think it actually legitimises perfume-phobia?
5. Do you think using the precautionary principle is the most effective way in which to determine fragrance material risk? If so, why?
I now do understand IFRA's position on regulatory issues. However, Mrs. Hipgrave's answers to labelling aspects shows IFRA's weak position when it comes to support allerts on the usage of some (controversial) materials, besides the fact that she clearly admits that labelling went out of their control.

I am confident things will change for the better due to generalized criticisms: if the plan to recruit new members proves succesful, small and mid-sized members could be responsible for positive changes, plus the fact that IFRA's allerts having a negative impact on quality means more opportunities for manufacturers located overseas. As soon as traditional companies get affected, they will raise their complains.
I am not convinced either.
Arguing that IFRA rules promotes creativity is ridiculous. An artist can create their own challenges, they can limit their own palette if they choose to do so. I don't think soviet russian artists would agree that the suffering censure and limitation was good because they made them such good artists.
I echo the comments above.
I still don't buy it re. labelling food is different from perfumery . Ms Hipgrave was unable to elaborate further . Consumers are able to think for themselves and do not need protection in the way Ms Hipgrave talks about it- I found it a rather patronising response.
Yes, thanks for pushing that question. It's the aspect of the whole subject which I find most annoying. I think she couldn't answer it properly because there is no convincing reason behind it, except 'Nanny knows best'! ;-)
Thanks for asking so insistently, even if it evidently created some discomfort. To me the "we have to protect the consumer" mantra sounds like no more than a convenient front, as is evident from Ms. Hipgrave's inability to provide reasonable answers to your reasonable questions about IFRAs unreasonable policies.
I find the "we're not legislators" satement to be spurious. If somebody sued a company for prodcing a perfume which gave them a rash and it turned out it didn't adhere to the "industry guidelines" i.e. IFRA recommendations then the case would be settled immediately. This effectively means IFRA guidelines are law because nobody would risk that lawsuit.
Something seems lacking here from the IFRA perspective. The answers seem evasive and unsatisfying. As the_good_life stated, Ms. Hipgrave seemed uncomfortable and not centered on the facts, as if she was promoting some corporate idealogy that she herself doesn't completely understand or, perhaps, believe.
Question: why has the ingredient quality dropped so dramatically in recent years to the extent that most new perfumes just do not smell good to anyone with experience?
1. What do you think about the proposition that certain fragrances, formulated prior to a certain cut-off date and meeting certain (yet-to-be-determined) criteria would be granted 'legacy status' and allowed to be manufactured and sold using their original formulas? (I can immediately see that this isn't cut-and-dry because of issues such as nitro musks but I do think the idea has serious merit and could be considered).
2. Do you think that some manufacturers blame IFRA recommendations for why they've had to reformulate - when, in fact, they have been doing it all along to cut costs?
3. What would you say to claims that the IFRA recommendations encourage the trend towards declining natural material production and, thus, increased prices of whatever crops remain (which, in turn, feeds into the scenario above). Isn't this bad for the growers and bad for the industry? Should there not be some attempt at conservation and protection of these traditional practices?
4. Do you think IFRA helps to calm down the phenomenon of chemophobia and perfume-phobia (where perfume has become akin to secondary smoke or worse in some areas of the world and people are banned from wearing it at work or in public places). If so, how does IFRA help? Or do you think it actually legitimises perfume-phobia?
5. Do you think using the precautionary principle is the most effective way in which to determine fragrance material risk? If so, why?
I now do understand IFRA's position on regulatory issues. However, Mrs. Hipgrave's answers to labelling aspects shows IFRA's weak position when it comes to support allerts on the usage of some (controversial) materials, besides the fact that she clearly admits that labelling went out of their control.

I am confident things will change for the better due to generalized criticisms: if the plan to recruit new members proves succesful, small and mid-sized members could be responsible for positive changes, plus the fact that IFRA's allerts having a negative impact on quality means more opportunities for manufacturers located overseas. As soon as traditional companies get affected, they will raise their complains.
"I think that you have to protect people. You have to protect the lowest common denominator."

From what exactly? A rash? Come on! Cigarettes can kill you, yet the tobacco industry is only required to place a label on every box. Peanuts and shellfish can kill you if you're allergic to them, yet people eat peanuts and shellfish every day. Educating the consumer by proper labeling and having information available to the public versus restricting and banning is a more logical answer. I'm not a smoker but occasionally I do enjoy a good cigar, and though I know the risks involved with smoking any kind of tobacco, I still choose to do so once in a while. If I know bergamot is phototoxic, then I'll spray it on my clothes if I'm going to be out and about on a sunny day. If I ever become sensitized to oakmoss, then I'll stop using anything with a label that says "contains oakmoss". It's common sense. I'm not oppose to the IFRA testing different materials (natural or synthetic) because I do want to know what each ingredient can or can't do to you, but all of these restrictions and banning is preposterous.
I am not convinced either.
Arguing that IFRA rules promotes creativity is ridiculous. An artist can create their own challenges, they can limit their own palette if they choose to do so. I don't think soviet russian artists would agree that the suffering censure and limitation was good because they made them such good artists.
Dear Persolaise! You was great in your insistent efforts to reveal the truth about parfum future. Stay in power to be so straightforward person! And, good luck in creativity!!
Thanks for asking so insistently, even if it evidently created some discomfort. To me the "we have to protect the consumer" mantra sounds like no more than a convenient front, as is evident from Ms. Hipgrave's inability to provide reasonable answers to your reasonable questions about IFRAs unreasonable policies.
With respect to everyone else, and acknowledging that I don't endorse banning things for being allergens (as opposed to toxins), the argument that we shouldn't ban, e.g., oakmoss because cigarettes are so much worse but are still allowed is not a very good one. I think we all understand that cigarettes, if invented today, would likely not be legal.
Dear Persolaise! You was great in your insistent efforts to reveal the truth about parfum future. Stay in power to be so straightforward person! And, good luck in creativity!!
Basenotes › Features › IFRA Promotes Creativity – An Interview With Lisa Hipgrave, Director Of IFRA UK – PART 2