Look at what these anti-Angel scare artists are up to now...

They'll probably start a class action lawsuit soon. Good grief. My husband will die if they ban Angel.

I think I'll die if they don't ban A*men.

No need for heckling...I was referring to the women's Angel fragrance anyway, which he loves on me.

Hi Michelle, tvlampboy wasn't heckling, his hatred of A*Men is well-known on Basenotes, but mostly on the Male Fragrance Discussion board .

Good heavens! What an incredible load of male bovine solid waste! (bullshit)

Is this organization a one-person obsessive crusade, or a front for some competing industry?
A banned basenoter seeking revenge? Part of "THE" conspiracy?

It could very well be a competitor or some nut, lots of new fragrances contain *ingredients* which I think should be banned for safety reasons, why single out Angel and why don't these perfume lines just use ingredients that don't make people sick or allergic like they used to do? Because of their stupidity and greed, many people are no longer allowed to use *any fragrance at all* in the office or whatever and nobody ever talks about the difference between them and what they contain. I don't know anything about Angel and coumarin, I was just talking in general.

PS I think their petition to reclassify Angel as a drug certainly indicates these people are not in the least bit honest about what they're doing and why.

I may be the only person on basenotes who has never smelled any of the Angels, so I won't address that other than to say that Matt was joking (and I thought it was funny), but as to the ban- do these idiots think we are drinking the stuff?

Coumarin can be found in tonka bean and cinnamon, too.

What exactly is coumarin? What do these people claim makes it dangerous?

This person is a head case with animus towards Nordstrom/Clarins/Angel. Coumarin is dangerous because it is in Angel and this person hates Angel/Nordstrom/Clarin.

We get a lot of bozos trying to involve themselves in "causes" because they have some personal bone to pick at home or nothing better to do with their lives. It makes them feel important, I guess.

Whatever one may think of Angel or the individuals trying to get Angel classified as a drug, the fact is that coumarin is considered a toxin when ingested in large doses and is a drug when ingested in prescribed doses. Coumarin is the active (lethal) ingredient in many rat poisons; it's also used as a blood anticoagulant and is prescribed for persons at high risk for blood clots. In short, coumarin should not be considered as a benign chemical that can be used willy-nilly.

The issue reallly hinges on the quantity of coumarin that could potentially be ingested (breathed into the lungs or mouth) when spraying perfume. Coumarin is non-volatile, so there's a vanishingly small chance of inhaling it once it's been deposited on the skin. However, I'm not sure whether coumarin is absorbed through the skin. I also can't tell from this discussion whether the ban proposal is based on real science or is merely harassment.

Personally, I think there are other chemicals in perfumes that pose an equal risk to users, but the risks are almost certainly extremely low.

My 2c worth...

Anything is toxic when ingested in large quantities, even water.


I believe that you are confusing coumarin with other substances such as Coumadin (Warfarin) which are somewhat structurally related to coumarin


Used for the very reason that it is much more toxic to rodents than to people.

Coumadin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfarin

Coumarin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coumarin


Is it only Angel that uses coumarin "willy-nilly", how about all the other fragrances that contain coumarin?

I think the point is that Angel was *singled out* and coumarin is not really a drug. It's also present in some natural substances, as I mentioned. We have a mouse in the house, maybe I should sprinkle cinnamon around.

Ah, yes - I stand corrected! I should have been more careful; coumarin is not quite the same as coumadin/warfarin. After a little searching (which I failed to do before my first post), I found that coumarin has an estimated LD50 of 275 mg/kg vs. 100 mg/kg in humans. And yes, it is much more toxic to rodents than humans. However, I still contend that coumarin should be considered more than a simple ingredient since it has proven physiological effects, especially for persons who should not be exposed to anticoagulants. In any case, my main argument is that the issue should be judged on the science, not on the politics. I'm still not sure I understand why someone would have a vendetta against Angel since as you say, there are so many other products that contain coumarin.

The potential danger of many synthetic ingredients has been discussed ad nauseum here before. Many natural substances can be extremely toxic as well. Angel is my girlfriend's favorite perfume. I showed her the article, and she thought that refraining from its use for a week or so might positively affect her chronic nightly sinus congestion. For the past few nights she has slept much better than before. Perhaps a coincidence, but many ingredients in perfumes have allergenic concerns. There might be something to it after all.

I have trouble finding things I can use, that's how I ended up on the perfume boards to begin with.

We should remember that a toxin is different from an allergen. A toxin is a "chemical compound that is harmful to cells or organisms." microbes.limnology.wisc.edu/outreach/glossary.php In other words, a toxin damages our cells, and it has the same effect on everybody.

An allergen is "a harmless substance that triggers the immune system to mount an inappropriate response known as an allergic reaction." www.health.harvard.edu/dictionary/A.htm In contrast, an allergen is harmless by itself to most people; some people are endangered by it because of a hypersensitivity to it by their immune systems.

All that is to say that your girlfriend may be allergic to coumarin (discounting for the moment other explanations), but that does not make it toxic to herself or to others.

I would argue that the distinction is important. If a substance is really a toxin, then I think that it would be proper to ban it. On the other hand, if the substance is an allergen to some people, then it would be more proper to label it so that allergic people could avoid it, but the rest of us could continue to use it.


We should also remember that there is a difference between inhalation and ingestion (and topical exposure, for that matter). Some substances are appropriate for us to ingest but not inhale (water, for instance). Some substances are safe to put on our skin but not in our stomachs (isopropyl alcohol, for instance).

I agree. I was making the point that the claims should not be dismissed as a vendetta or otherwise.

I confess that I am perfectly willing to dismiss this group and its demands, and maybe that points to some character flaw that I should really examine. Your position is probably the more gracious one.

However, re-reading these posts, one other thing jumped out at me. Normally, the debate is about whether "synthetic" chemicals are "bad." However, coumarin is a substance that occurs naturally, for example in tonka beans. I wonder if the coumarin in fragrance is "natural" in the sense of being extracted from some source, or if it is synthesized from some chemical reaction? Does anyone know?

Good question, I wondered that myself. I do know cinnamon oil can be an irritant.

lol, good point, fab thread this one!.

If this means the Clarins Group will buy back my $100 bottle of A*Men, I'll be happy. I can only hope...

Coumarin's already been banned as a food additive. It's a toxin and a carcinogen. Fun fact: it's a potent rat poison.

I promise that I will not drink my perfume, then. Although any ill effects from that might not be from the coumarin in it. At an LD50 of 275 mg/kg, I would have to eat an ounce of pure coumarin. I wonder how much Angel I would have to drink.

Wikipedia has this to say about the rat-poison argument: "[R]ats and other rodents largely metabolize it to 3,4-coumarin epoxide, a toxic compound that can cause internal hemorrhage and death. Humans largely metabolize it to 7-hydroxycoumarin, a compound of lower toxicity." So, unless I am some kind of genetic freak who metabolizes coumarin like a rat and not like a person, that argument is irrelevant.

Some more fun facts, courtesy of Wikipedia: "It has clinical medical value as the precursor for several anticoagulants, notably warfarin." Clearly there are circumstances under which the use of coumarin is beneficial.

You are right. Flexitral (Turin) has created a coumarin that isn't allergenic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coumarin
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx...international/

Well, we don't stop people from buying bleach, though if they somehow consumed it, they'd get a stomach ache. I don't get it. What is the point? You want it labeled? Good. I don't give a flying funbag. If YOU'RE allergic, don't wear it.
- Rich

Well, that organization's website looks really dodgy - not just the bad design, and the seeming obsession with Clarins, and the hysterical erratic tone of many of the commentaries, but there's no "About Us" page!

However, I'm always really surprised at how so many of you guys/gals are ready to just laugh off any concern about ingredients in perfumes. How many of you who laughed off the whole subject even looked at that website first, or even looked at any of the articles about Coumarin?

Some of the articles are just hysterics, but some are links to more reputable websites, science magazines, news articles etc. One of the articles linked to on the site is titled "Even Very Low Levels Of Lead \t\t\tCause Brain Damage In Children. The toxicity of lead isn't controversial anymore, and I wouldn't imagine any of you dismissing it, but I can just imagine if there had been internet forums in 500 B.C. alot of you would have guffawing and laughing it up about the wacky claims that lead-lining in wine carafes is causing retardation in children, chronic fatigue and and premature death in adults, and complaining at how these crazy anti-lead maniacs just want to steal all our life's pleasures!

There's another article linked to on that site " \t\t\tL’Oreal High On Leaded \t\t\tLipstick List. " about there being 5 times as much lead in many women's lipsticks as is allowed by the FDA. Is that something to laugh off also? Companies tend to be allowed to put toxic crap in products like lipstick or toothpaste which are not meant to be eaten, even though, especially with lipstick, for practical purposes people are basically eating them - since most of it gets licked off.

The fact is that we live in a world where most of what we buy comes from giant corporations who do not give a labratory rat's crap about our health. They'll put whatever they can get away with in their products. Alot of these chemicals have not been tested in depth, and no one knows their effects in small amounts. I use all the same perfumees as the rest of you, but given the corproate environment we live in, to me the basic stance I take is that I take it seriously if a consumer rights organization or independent scientists make claims against them,

And that wikipedia article on Coumarin doesn't make it sound particularly safe - just that it's less dangerous than wafarin! It even says " OSHA considers this compound to be only a lung-specific carcinogen..." and that it's been banned for all kinds of uses! I mean frankly, I have no idea whether it's dangerous or not in perfumes, but why just laugh everything off automatically?

Again, I don't have much faith in what that woman's website says (that organization is just one woman by the way) but still, I don't understand why people so automatically dismiss the slightest suggestions that all these weird chemicals we use every day might be dangerous,

Whether lead is dangerous is irrelevant to whether coumarin is dangerous. For what it is worth, however, the lead-poisoning-led-to-the-fall-of-Rome theory is not universally accepted. Apparently, contemporary sources knew that lead was dangerous. See, for example, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/...poisoning.html

A premise of basic logic is that the person who is propounding an argument has the burden to prove his or her proposition. In this case, the propounder has produced no evidence that coumarin, in the amounts used in perfumes, used as perfumes are used, is sufficiently dangerous to be banned. For my part, I did do research on coumarin when the issue first came up, and made an informed decision to laugh off this idiotic concern.

Hey Advocate - do people really think lead caused the fall of Rome? I've never actually heard that! I know that lead lining was used in wine carafes in ancient greece.

I was just using that as an analogy because people seem to react with mocking derision whenever anyone mentions a possible health hazard in perfume ingredients, before even looking at the evidence or arguments.

Like I said, I don't take that woman's website seriously either.

Legume Family: Fabaceae

Tonka Beans (Dipteryx odorata)

Tonka beans: Dark, wrinkled seeds from Dipteryx odorata, a large tree from the rain forests of Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela. The seeds contain the fragrant phenolic compound coumarin which is used in perfumes and as a vanilla-like flavoring in ice creams, candy and pipe tobaccos. Coumarin is a double-ring phenolic compound that imparts the distinctive sweet smell to newly-mown hay. Although it enhances the flavor and aroma of tobaccos, coumarin has been shown to be carcinogenic when burned. Coumarin is also an anticoagulant that represses the synthesis of the protein prothrombin in the presence of vitamin K.

I recall back in the late 90's this same crap was happening to Eternity. People that don't like strong perfume make a vendetta against it. The sad part is its the people that take a mega bath in these fragrances that stir the pot. Point in case a woman in my office must jump into a big vat of Angel and take a bath in it. The entire building just reeks once she steps in the door once can just imagine the amount of money it must cost her in the bottle she must go through its hideous and sad at the same time!

I have never burned my perfumes, not even Angel.

These hysterical people with fax machines give themselves a concerned sounding or scienticic name and send out authoritative proclamations to the papers. I try to avoid worrying about crap like this and wish these people would stop trying to save me from everything I enjoy.

I googled the chick who started this BS and it seems she also tried to blame the formaldehyde in the science class cadavers for her permanent disablity, and she is refusing to pay off her student loans. Seems she is a professional plaintiff.

Zibeline, your post intrigued me, so I did some more research.

The President of the National Toxic Encephalopathy Foundation is Angel De Fazio, also known as Michelle De Fazio. http://www.cosmeticsdesign.com/news/...ins-ntef-legal

In October, 2004, she filed suit against Clarins, claiming that a single spray of Angel left her permanently disabled. The court dismissed her case in 2007, found her guilty of bad faith, and ordered to pay over $77,000 to Clarins in costs, fees, and sanctions. http://www.cosmeticsdesign.com/news/...ins-ntef-legal

Also, in 2006, she publicized her intent to name Clarins and Nordstrom's in a divorce action, claiming $15,000,000 damages. I can not tell from her press release whether this is a separate lawsuit from the one above, or whether she ever actually filed it, or how she calculated her damages at fifteen million dollars. http://pressreleasesonline.biz/pr/Cl...rce_Action.php

You are correct that this is not the first time that she has claimed that someone has left her disabled. Before the spray heard 'round the world, she claimed that her school "poisoned" her because she inhaled formalin. http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Me90P_QiDVIJ:www.accert.org/Angel,%2520President%2520of%2520NTEF,%2520Pariah%2 520Interview.pdf+national+toxic+encephalopathy+fou ndation+%22angel+de+fazio%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl =us&client=firefox-a

Yet the edifice continues to crumble. She claimed that the school "poisoned" her in 1996. She claimed that Clarins and Nordstrom's "assaulted" her some point after that. But, she claims that her toxic encephalopathy was diagnosed in 1991 -- before either alleged causation event! http://www.anma.com/underfir.html

Finally, I was intrigued that she signs her press releases as "Angel De Fazio, B.Sc., A.T." http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

Wow, what could that obscure honorific after her name possibly mean? She sure must be qualified, musn't she? Well, it means Bachelor of Science in Athletic Training. http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/BSAT

Incidentally, Cropwatch has this to say about Angel De Fazio: "It gets worse. The article further treats us to listings of fragrance chemicals supposedly contained in Angel perfume with their alleged health risks, but the author does not seem to understand the difference between hazard and risk, or that toxicity is dose-related. In this context a clear cut case of health risk from Angel perfume has not been presented, period. Further, many of the substances mentioned above are common ingredients of perfumes and/or essential oils, and are not unique to Angel perfume." It would appear to me that Cropwatch would have a vested interest in joining a crusade to ban something if a straight-faced argument could possibly be made. http://www.aromaconnection.org/2007/...n-ntef-an.html

Well here is the "science for laypeople" description of coumarin:
Coumarin is often found in tobacco products and artificial vanilla substitutes, though it has been banned as a food additive in numerous countries since the mid-20th century because it is moderately toxic to the liver and kidneys, with an LD50 of 275 mg/kg - low compared to related compounds. Although only somewhat dangerous to humans, coumarin is a potent rodenticide: rats and other rodents largely metabolize it to 3,4-coumarin epoxide, a toxic compound that can cause internal hemorrhage and death. Humans largely metabolize it to 7-hydroxycoumarin, a compound of lower toxicity.


It does not phase me; I would feel safer soaking in a vat of ANGEL for 3 days, than breathing the air around me. I feel I would fare better with ANGEL, than with the overall air quality.
I am so sickened by all of these crusaders, I can hardly wait till they find their next cause.

Before anyone gets all upset about coumarin, they should look up most of the ingredients and preservatives in their food.
I have terrible asthma, and sodium-metabithsulfite (a common preservative) can bring on a deadly asthma attack. You don't see anyone suing all the major food-producers to have this ingredient removed, nor do you see anyone raising the roof over MSG (mono-sodium glutamate) which also causes issues.

Lets not be fussy about what can kill us, most things in the modern world could cause health problems.