Non-IFRA-compliant fragrance on the market

by Grant Osborne, 26th October, 2011

According to IFRA, It has been publicly alleged that a finished product on the market contains a fragrance material that has been banned IFRA. Sadly, they don't say what the product is, or what it contains.

IFRA has been investigating the product to see whether or not it constitutes a case of non-compliance to the IFRA Code of Practice. "According to the procedures of our Compliance Program we will now investigate the matter using an independent laboratory to establish the facts and consider appropriate action if required," said Pierre Sivac, IFRA President.

  • Share this article

Categories

    Advertisement

    Comments

      • Sybarite | 27th October 2011 00:52

        Hooray ! ~ So it seems that there are still some brave perfumers out there, willing to bend/break the rules. :o)

        The only down side is now having to suffer the consequences. (I feel for them !)

        I wonder what those consequences will be exactly ???

      • bokaba | 27th October 2011 02:15

        IFRA can certainly give you bad PR, but as far as I know IFRA has no legal power to stop anyone from doing anything. I suppose they could bring a lawsuit in international court, but I suspect the court has better things to do.

      • Partario | 27th October 2011 04:21

        Good for them. Hopefully other perfumers will follow.

      • Larimar | 27th October 2011 06:03

        If only more had the guts for disobedience for this 'industry-driven nonsense'...

      • SculptureOfSoul | 27th October 2011 06:40

        I always find it odd when I see either calamus or costus root listed in scents, as both of those are IFRA prohibited. Of course, there may be some synthetic fascimile that I'm not aware of that is allowed.

        I suppose Hermes' Santal Massoia is a contender, too, as massoia bark is completely prohibited.

        Would love to know what scent it is. I'm curious if the house/designer can be held responsible at all or if all responsibility would lie with the perfumer and his/her parent company, seeing as most houses/designers don't own (and presumably don't even know) the formula for the scents in their name.

      • Redneck Perfumisto | 27th October 2011 07:02

        I'm pretty sure that the Hermès scent is just using the massoia lactone, much like Boss Pure.

        Personally, I would buy a bottle. I suppose that's why they're not releasing the name. Perfume lovers might show support.

        Where is this "scoffrag"? Habeus liquidus!

      • Redneck Perfumisto | 27th October 2011 07:50

        Yeah, I'm sure you're right. It's listed as prohibited in this IFRA spreadsheet.

        My guess is that it's using things like the saturated analogs of the massoia lactones. I think those may be merely restricted.

      • SculptureOfSoul | 27th October 2011 07:56

        Interesting. Some day I'm going to delve into synthetics and isolates. Not sure I'll be looking for a massoia substitute though - I experimented with it a bit in the past and a single wearing of a perfume with an (unkowingly!) overdosed massoia note turned me off; it combined with the cedar and other components to create a sort of milky coconut/vomit/cedar-sawdust-vomit-powder accord. :shocked:

      • Redneck Perfumisto | 27th October 2011 08:27

        LOL. Except for the "v factor" in that one, it sounds pretty good to me! :evil:

        I'm still VERY curious which frag is the violator.

      • Hob Dobson | 27th October 2011 13:09

        Some of the prohibition violations could be triggered by batch variations in natural materials (e.g., safrole). Or the reporting could be based on finding an allowed component of a prohibited gum or oil, with the erroneous assumption that if part is present the entire material is present (e.g., verbena oil). I'm guessing that IFRA's gunning for one of the natural perfumers or an American multinational company promoting its use of "natural extracts" in a shampoo or something.

      • Pour_Monsieur | 27th October 2011 14:49

        Its a joke really , I mean the whole IFRA thing . On a crusade , I mean acting in the interests of the consumer ? I really dont think so . After the interiew Persolaise conducted with their mouthpiece , who dodged questions and who came across as really quite defensive , I seriously wonder what their real agenda is , money I shouldnt wonder , certainly not Joe publics health and safety but anyway .....

        We are adults , are we not allowed to make our own decisions anymore ....

      • MonkeyBars | 27th October 2011 17:14

        I hope this signals a trend!

        Srsly as a dude I would be MORE inclined to buy a frag if it had a big fat warning label on it.

        [SIZE="5"]Warning: Contains Oakmoss! May cause slight rash in 1 in 100,000 people!! (skull & crossbones, photo of mild rash etc)

      • Mysticman | 27th October 2011 18:16

        Amen! Some people are violently allergic to peanuts, shellfish, or other foodstuffs, and can even have a fatal reaction to them. Yet nobody is calling for an outright ban on any of those, and they continue to be available for people who can eat them with no ill effects.

        And cigarettes (which are GUARANTEED to do harm to ALL users of them) are still available just about everywhere, with warning labels.

        Why a different standard for fragrances? Label for content, and let us make our own choices.

      • SculptureOfSoul | 28th October 2011 05:56

        The funny thing is they're so worried about dermal reactions but seem to fail to notice the increased respiratory reactions (and this applies not only to the wearer but all in his/her vicinity) that the increase in synthetics has led to. Brilliant! :rolleyesold:

      • Indaco | 30th October 2011 06:42

        Naming and shaming doesn't work to curb human rights abuses, so I wonder why IFRA thought it would work for perfumery.

      • claresauntie | 30th October 2011 11:29

        Wow. That sounds like one of the most unpleasant combinations ever. The vomit + sawdust gives me flashbacks to early gradeschool. Urg.

      • Chris Bartlett | 30th October 2011 12:42

        I think I've said elsewhere on Basenotes that although the Standards are not technically part of law (at least not in any country I know of) they are effectively enforced by the fact that once you've been declared non-compliant getting product liability insurance is going to be impossible. And trading (on any significant scale) without such insurance isn't practical.

        I have great sympathy for the company involved and I do hope it's one of those big enough to have the resources to fight back and survive. A small player would simply be put out of business by such an action.

      • Primrose | 2nd November 2011 02:33

        Sadly, there is a movement afoot to remove all of those offending ingredients from the mainstream grocery stores and in grade school cafeterias. The concern is for children with serious allergies.

        BTW, I wonder what parents will do if their children are allergic to bee stings, which can be just as dangerous. Ban bees from the world? Well, no pollinating of plants, folks! Goodbye, bees!

      • tott | 2nd November 2011 06:42

        Hm. Removing shellfish or peanuts might be relatively easy, but I predict that soy, another common allergen, won't be removed – it's used in so many processed foods that it's scary, and makes a lot of money for a lot of people along the whole supply chain. I would personally applaude the removal of soy (for various health reasons) but I don't think it'll happen anytime soon.

        Seriously, I don't think it's reasonable to effectively ban certain foods. People with serious allergies need to take responsibility for their own health. They can't put their lives in the hands of store owners or producers that may or may not truly understand what they're dealing with.

        It's easy to remove nuts from store shelves, but how do you know that a random "vegetable oil" doesn't contain or has been contaminated by nut oils? And how do you know from which sources all additives have been manufactured? Food labels can't always be trusted, especially since process chemicals don't need to be specified.

      • Birdboy48 | 10th November 2011 19:00

        It's interesting that no one is asking exactly who it might have been who blew the whistle on this un-named frag, what their evidence was, and what their motivation might have been.

      • iivanita | 25th February 2012 17:44

        can anyone answer on my PM when those IFRA rules started in production? is shalimar that is produced in january 2010 affected by it? is it better then then the new shalimar? many thanks!

      • kbe | 25th February 2012 18:15

        I agree that folks need to be responsible for their own safety in what they eat, drink or wear--proper notice of what possible allergens could be associated with those products indicated clearly. Lawyers however seem to find slight slits in which to wedge a winning lawsuit despite the best of attempts by manufacturers to alert the consumer of potential allergenic problems. If it weren't for the fact those lawyers only have public safety as their main concern I would tend to get angry at their actions and think they were in it only for the money. :wink:

      • Chris Bartlett | 25th February 2012 22:48

        The IFRA rules started in 1973 and are now in their 46th amendment . . .

      • Hanz Medina | 26th February 2012 04:57

        Sure. Make more synthetics, toxic compounds and replace the naturals and organic. Ooh allergies on skin! How about the long term effect on the respiratory and the brain permanently from blended synthetics and toxic perfume compounds that they approve? One aspect of IFRA's persistent arrogance I can't accept and understand. And to be shamed after. How is it fair that you label a long named synthetic ingredient on the label where people dont really understand even after looking it up (cause most aren't scientists), to a certain natural product that's been used since the mesopotamian and egypt times and people don't die. You guys should go to one of their events. It's hilarious!!!! ''Use this toxic stuff! Be aware of the Naturals and the Natural Perfumers!'' I remembered one of them stood up and arrogantly said ''You should know who we are and where we are coming from''

        WTF? 90% of Arabs are laughing at them openly and most are non-compliance. Cause they know plants shares the same 40% DNA in humans. These compounds - 0% your body rejects it or the compound manipulates your liver. OMG I can so go on and on.... BOO!