New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

News on IRFA regulations.

post #1 of 6
6/13/09 at 9:57am
Thread Starter 
I stumbled over this site and thought base notes members might find the reading interesting. http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.co...rance-industry
Somehow I don't think it will make you happy. They keep talking about mitigating risks to the public. Show me one person who ever died from fragrance use.
Reply
Reply

Features on Basenotes

Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
post #2 of 6
6/14/09 at 10:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by N_Tesla View Post

I stumbled over this site and thought base notes members might find the reading interesting. http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.co...rance-industry
Somehow I don't think it will make you happy. They keep talking about mitigating risks to the public. Show me one person who ever died from fragrance use.

Tightening the screws some more, obviously. Thanks for the latest on that, Tesla! It's hilarious that the industry itself should feel so concerned about the long and good life of perfume users. Imagine the tobacco industry had started a similar thing in the eighties! They didn't because there is no such thing as synthetically produced 'clean' tobacco!

What happens now is intended to make space for more synthetic products of the giants in the fragrance industry and their legion of professional 'health watchers' and layers: Monsanto for the nose! I still don't know how they got perfume brands like Guerlain etc. aboard. Neither do we know if Caron, Hermes, Malle, Lutens ...are part of the unholy union, or do we?

I too have more confidence in mother nature. Man himself has tested his natural environment in millions of generations. He knows to a great deal by instinct, what is good for him and his genes. That's why we can discern between good smells / tastes, and bitter ones, or the foul smell of death and decay. Until the day I learn about the opposite, I see IFRA as Snow White's step mother . All alarms should ring in her presence!
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 6
6/15/09 at 12:18pm
Thread Starter 
narcus: You express my opinion of this IRFA situation precisely. I quote Shakespeare when I say about their alleged defense of our health "..I think they dost protest too much." and " Something is rotten in the State of Denmark."



Quote:
Originally Posted by narcus View Post

Tightening the screws some more, obviously. Thanks for the latest on that, Tesla! It's hilarious that the industry itself should feel so concerned about the long and good life of perfume users. Imagine the tobacco industry had started a similar thing in the eighties! They didn't because there is no such thing as synthetically produced 'clean' tobacco!

What happens now is intended to make space for more synthetic products of the giants in the fragrance industry and their legion of professional 'health watchers' and layers: Monsanto for the nose! I still don't know how they got perfume brands like Guerlain etc. aboard. Neither do we know if Caron, Hermes, Malle, Lutens ...are part of the unholy union, or do we?

I too have more confidence in mother nature. Man himself has tested his natural environment in millions of generations. He knows to a great deal by instinct, what is good for him and his genes. That's why we can discern between good smells / tastes, and bitter ones, or the foul smell of death and decay. Until the day I learn about the opposite, I see IFRA as Snow White's step mother . All alarms should ring in her presence!
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 6
6/16/09 at 7:14am
Well, if certain ingriedients ARE carcinogenic, coupled with the extreme prevalance of skin cancer, it makes great policy sense to remove some of these factors from the equation. Needs of the many over the needs of the few I suppose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcus View Post

I too have more confidence in mother nature. Man himself has tested his natural environment in millions of generations. He knows to a great deal by instinct, what is good for him and his genes. That's why we can discern between good smells / tastes, and bitter ones, or the foul smell of death and decay.

Sorry mate, but this is rather faulty logic. Our evolutionary biology/psychology allows us to differentiate from overt signals of harm, like you noted, but cellular level carinogens that slowly rot the state of Denmark with a malignant melanoma? I think not.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 6
6/16/09 at 1:13pm
The logic isn't faulty, I think. And it isn't mine, as you may well know. To make your point you have to sometimes reduce a valid theory to it's core. My brief statement wasn't meant to cover each and every dangerous ingredient. Pesticides on strawberries and cherries (mostly from Spain and France, according to todays' news) can neither be smelled nor tasted. They are harmful in more than one way, and so is radiation, all true and well known, of course. One of the historic examples is the slow poisoning from metal wine containers with a high content of lead, or skin cancer caused by paints based on lead oxide (bleiweiss!) .
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 6
6/16/09 at 1:25pm
Specifically on carcinogens: which of the the most dangerous ones have been synthetic, and which are the natural ones? Didn't they err on on oakmoss when they replaced it by tree moss which was later found to be more dangerous than oak moss? The various nitro musks were created in laboratories, rat tested and everything, and later found to be harmful, and I suppose hundreds of perfumes from prestige brands had to be changed for yet another time only because of one ingredient. It seems IFRA was around when nitro muscs were introduced, but I don't know if they were actively supporting those nitros. Set the for to keep the geese...
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Features on Basenotes

Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo