After investigation, non-IFRA-compliant scent was actually compliant

by Grant Osborne, 08th November, 2011

Following a public allegation that a finished product on the market contained a fragrance material that has been banned by IFRA, an investigation was conducted in accordance with the IFRA Compliance Program. The finished product in question was sent to an independent laboratory for testing and the result is that the product is completely compliant with IFRA Standards.

"Following such an allegation it is our duty to investigate to establish the facts and take action if required," said Pierre Sivac, IFRA President. "On this occasion I am pleased to see that the product is compliant and that the supplier was fully cooperative throughout the investigation. The matter is now closed as far as IFRA is concerned"

  • Share this


    Advertisement — comments are below


      • sherapop | 8th November 2011 23:51

        I am so baffled by the bans. At the same time that once-classic perfumes are being mangled in the name of public health, millions of soft-drink-swilling people are being pumped with sucralose, nutrasweet (one of the breakdown products of which is formaldehyde, believe it or not) and every other artificial sweetener sure to be added to the lengthening "Mistakes were made" list of what are now known to be carcinogens (cyclamates, saccharine...). Yet a tiny possibility of allergy necessitates a complete ban of minuscule amounts of oakmoss, etc., in perfume?

        I have some news for the paternalistic, officious do-gooders at IFRA: those who are prone to allergies are usually the last people to wear perfume!

      • Nymphaea | 9th November 2011 01:25

        These IFRA bans are nothing more than smoke-screens for their real agendas...corporate control of proprietary chemicals and roadblocks for small businesses.

      • Partario | 9th November 2011 02:30

        Too bad. I was hoping that it would not have met the standards and rocked the boat a little.

      • Pour_Monsieur | 9th November 2011 09:31

        OK but what was it , seems a bit silly not to say

      • CoL | 9th November 2011 12:08

        If they did mention the fragrance, this could encourage others to do the same 'challenge' for free advertising!

      • Birdboy48 | 10th November 2011 19:42

        The original news story said :

        "According to IFRA, It has been publicly alleged that a finished product on the market contains a fragrance material that has been banned IFRA...."

        One has to wonder who it was who "publicly alleged" that something contained a banned material, what sort of evidence they had, what venue they made their accusation in, and what their motivation was. It would also be interesting to know what the product was. For all we're told, it could have been scented laundry detergent.

        Whatever the case, it would seem that the accusation was made in such a manner that IFRA found themselves so rattled that they felt forced to both investigate and respond.

        It would certainly be interesting to know the full story behind all of this, and why IFRA feels the need to keep mum about the details.

      • Nukapai | 12th November 2011 10:44

        They only name and shame if they find out that someone has actually broken the rules. That's the claim. It is in IFRA's best interest to make sure they are seen to be 100% effective. If they are not seen as effective, then the various NGOS, campaigners and government bodies may begin to wrestle regulatory control away from IFRA, at which point we do risk being in a far, far worse position with people demanding 'allergen free fragrances' (wave goodbye to all natural materials!).

        IFRA is obviously run by the industry - and the unfortunate part is that some of the people involved in managing and voting as part of it have their profits firmly in mind (if you design new odoour materials, of course you won't mind that much that there are lots of companies looking for alternatives that aren't on the IFRA naughty list). However, even this fox-guarding-the-hens approach is better than the original direction things were heading towards. And there have been some really sensible things done in recent years - the development of citrus oils without furanocoumarins (which cause bad photosensitivity) is a good thing and may not have happened without IFRA.

        In an ideal world, there would be an expert regulatory body working closely with government and not run by anyone who has anything to do with profit; just health and safety. But who would fund such a body? I doubt tax payers would. So it's basically a choice between cracking a walnut with a giant hammer (if we leave it in non-expert government hands) or IFRA...

        A more elegant solution would be nice.

        And it's true that it seems insane that we're allowing the tobacco industry get away with murder (almost literally!), yet the fragrance industry has been harrassed over a couple of skin rashes. Alas, the two aren't directly correlated (just because the government and NGOs are behaving one way in one case doesn't directly relate to the other). Go figure.

      • SculptureOfSoul | 14th November 2011 06:34

        By Kilian lists Costus root oil in one of their scents. GO GET'EM IFRA!

      • AromiErotici | 15th November 2011 04:45

        I know my manner of speech is rough around the edges, but all these bans and restrictions is a crock of shit.

        Do you think I really believe that all this is to curtail risks to my health? I live in the real world and we all know it's about the almighty buck.

      • LaNose | 21st November 2011 00:29

        Wow! The devil is truly in the details! Reprehensible!

      • Dorian Gray | 22nd November 2011 21:59

        Could it be Black Afgano? Off the shelves for a while and now it's back...

      • xilonic | 30th November 2011 14:25

        A public allegation? Was it something like "OMG, this is too good to be legal!"