How IFRA and the EU continue to destroy the art of perfumery

I read through this information, but I don't know enough to make heads or tails out of some of it. Can some knowledgeable person give us a breakdown of what all of this means?

Unless I'm very much mistaken (I have only skim-read it) it basically confirms everything we keep moaning about on BN with regard to IFRA and perfume/ingredient legislation, proves that a good chunk of IFRA decisions are made without any scientific evidence to defend those decision, and shows that such legislation has more serious effects than just a few 'fume heads being put out by not being able to buy the original forumaltion of their favourite juice.

It needs to be read properly as it appears to be very interesting, however I don't have the time at the moment. Bookmarked for later...

After developing a rash this morning from a fragrance, I have to laugh at the IFRA's idea that banning certain things will somehow make fragrance "safe" from those allergic. One can't control fragrance allergies by restricting fragrance ingredients any more than you can control food allergies by banning some foods! Awareness is the key...

If nothing else, the IFRA should rethink its guidelines given that people still have the skin reactions to IFRA-approved frags.

People can have allergic reponses to ANYTHING.

Take me for example. I don't get migraines through regular coffee. I get them through DeCaf coffee. Go figure.

We are heading for a totally sanitised world where any organisation is so afraid of lawsuits from the greedy, we'll end up with nothing but blandness. Oh, hold on we already have that, it's called Calvin Klein.

Yup - totally agree ! I got a rash - for the first time ever from Voyage d'Hermes ! Not from vintage Mitsouko ,Shalimar or Joy parfum . God knows I marinated myself in those three old perfumes so much and not one reaction. 'New' Shalimar of all concentrations makes my skin 'burn' but not 'old' Shalimar. Voyage d'Hermes gave me red raised itchy bumps/rash all over my arms for a good 2-3 days.
When will the IFRA learn that you cannot control everything.
People have to make their own choices in this world too .
They have to learn to accept responsiblity for their own actions too. If you have allergies to perfume ,don't use it, for goodness sake.

I do ,in part, understand , what the IFRA are trying to achieve. Stephen Weller from the IFRA replied graciously, to my rant ,I sent the IFRA.
The perfume industry as a whole, are trying to foresee future problems and protect the industry by restricting themselves now because the anti perfume lobbyists are so darned vocal . The problems begin with the anti perfume lobbyists .The anti perfume lobby are seeking people and things to blame IMHO. However allergies will occur no matter what .

Animal hair causes allergies ,as does pollen,grass..in fact all manner of things including newly painted buildings , dust - so are we to ban all animals and flowers ,plants and grass now too ? The world is going insane with this nonsense.

We have got to stop bending over backwards to accomodate those people against perfume because of allergies. "Give them an inch and they'll take a yard"

When will everyone say 'enough is enough' learn to live with your allergies and stop making everyone else's life a misery .
Ok ,rant over.

That is too long to read. Anyone have the short version?

Everyone could get allergies over time. Some people are allergic to flowers, grass, things that smell good. Banning ingredients is an odd solution to a small allergy problem.

Is it fragrances they want to allow/ban? Or are there chemicals?
I'd be against banning natural ingredients, but maybe for truth in labeling for synthetic or chemical ingredients. Phthalates are supposed to be banned in child's toys, so why should I spray them on my body? Should the girl in the perfume dept be entitled to know what she is breathing in all day long? And when I choose a new scent, should I be entitled to read the box to find a natural one?

How is monitoring heavy metals in paint to protect children from lead any different than monitoring toxins you'd spray on your neck like pthalates and solvents to protect adults, children, and workers from cancer and birth defects?

A part of me is mad...

I got suckered into Creed's marketing. Old world technology and perfume making, using natural ingredients, 200 years of experience, etc. Then here at basenotes I read that it is just as synthetic, but higher quality than more of the popular dept store scents. It isn't like creed has to mention how much of its fragrance is synthetic, last night on basenotes I learned how creed forged its own history! They are allowed to use both deceptive marketing and ingredients. The sales girl at Saks told me they use all natural ingredients, which is apparently not true.

It's one thing to ban dangerous substances like phthalates ( note: now removed from Dior's Poison ) and another to restrict / ban naturals like jasmine, oakmoss, birth tar - part of the traditional perfumer's palate. The difference to some maybe subtle but it is distinct.

Lots of things can potentially cause allergies etc. Just like oil can potentially be spilled and cause environmental havoc ( and it has done ) but I don't see petroleum being banned/restricted any time soon.

The world will be destroyed by an acronym

This isn't new; I believe it's the legacy of OSHA, come to haunt us. The earliest I can recall was during the late 1980s, when I worked in California's "Silicon Valley". I had several co-workers who complained of reactions -- physical and psychological -- to the "out-gassing" of chemicals in synthetic office carpeting and electronic equipment (desktop computers), as well as to the aftershave/cologne/perfume of others. I remember being asked to not wear any afterscents to work, and refused to comply.

It's a psychology of "entitlement", coupled with a desire to be "protected" by a Greater (Higher?) Power. What is both ironic and frightening is that these people were ardent Left-wingers, yet they've created a situation in the US and Europe where they welcome Big Government into their lives, while cursing it for its very existence. This is what happens when people either don't want to take responsibility for their decisions, or aren't sufficiently educated to do so.

Ideology running roughshod over Reality... ya gotta love it.

I wonder if that explains why modern Poison isn't as good. I'm actually wearing some of the vintage stuff today, and what can I say but - Mmmm, phthalates! Oh well...


It's perhaps not the most tasteful thing to say, but if there is ever such a thing as a jasmine oil supertanker spill - I'm there! With buckets!


OMG LOL WTF?

The issue has nothing at all to do with people who have allergies, and unannounced reformulations are the proof.

Anyone who actually lives with allergies or other restrictions learns which products are "safe" for them, and which ones aren't. They tell their friends and family which things they really want to avoid, and which would be nice to get. So it's rather cruel to swap things in and out without letting the consumers know that the recipe has changed.

Thanks a lot for the post, Anya. You and Tony have kept the torch burning in a thankless and small crusade.
A few more examples of fragrances marred by restrictions on ingredients (from Dragoco and Perfumery: Principles and Practices, Calkin and Jellinek, 1992.)
L'Air Du Tempes: Based on a 4.5:1 benzyl salicilate to eugenol accord, originally 15%:3.3%. 10% hydroxycitronellal.
Anais Anais: hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (12%),
Chanel No. 5: hydroxycitronellal (10%) and coumarin (5%) ylang ylang/methyl ionone accord at 1:1 (8%)
There are quite a few more based on Calkin and Jellinek's GC/MS analysis (it's a great book!) which I'll get around to posting later.


Poison used to feature a 10% Lyral content (supposedly) which is now limited to .2% and whopping doses of methyl anthranilate and eugenol (both now heavily restricted). But I'm thrilled to know there is an even better Poison out there for me to hunt down.

The saddest thing about Poison is that it's like it's missing a body. The new stuff is brighter and sweeter but on first spray still smells Poison-y ( Poisonous? ), and then in the drydown it's lacking all the weight and richness the old stuff used to have. The new stuff is still a good fragrance, but I just can't go back to it after smelling the vintage: it feels... cheaper, on a level that has nothing to do with actual price.

FWIW, a recent reformulation of a Guerlain all over shampoo is MUCH more drying and irritating than the old. How can that be if all the "irritating or allergenic" components are at acceptable levels? Why was I getting much better results and NO irritation with the old? Hmm?

(Apparently a post caught the on-the-hour Basenotes database reboot wave, in which I made a comment that asserted the real reason is patenting of compounds both natural and synthetic, not any real health concern...but it was not that eloquent.)

I really do think it's overreaction to activists that have no basis in scientific fact combined with the desire to "monsanto-ize" either patent or synthesize and patent the ingredients that are available, to maximum profits for the giants of the cosmetics industry. But that's me and my tinfoil hat probably is in need of refreshing.

Margarine is better for you than butter.

Don't eat eggs, they are horrible.

Trans fats kill. Hydrogenated oils are the devil.

Eggs are a superfood!

Thank you for that Anya. 1960s- That is a long story !
It seems that the anti perfume people are taking advantage of the' long story' . It's like the rope is being drawn closer and closer.

Suga- yes ,new Poison does seem to have lost some heft to it !

IFRA restrictions have never had anything to do with preventing allergies, etc.

It's all about politics, and it's never static. My new bottles of Jules and Eau Sauvage (both by Dior) contain as much oakmoss as they ever did.

Seems like most of so-called-allergens are unprofitable or not-so-much-profitable to those companies (from LVMH to IFF, from Guerlain to Estee Lauder) which make organized IFRA and support it now.
Let`s hear their secret talk:
- Well, oakmoss is going expensive.
- Yes, and it smells dated - so tells our customers from marketing panel.
- I suppose that everyone has one`s own synthetic molecule with that mossy effect?
- Sure. Yes! Of course!
- So let`s ban it! For profits sake!
- OK, I call to professors, and you call to IFRA.
- See you next time. Be prepare about eugenol, lyral, coumarin and else.

1. Do you have any idea how much a crate of Oakmoss costs these days?

2. You try to take control of your life only to find it's controlled for you by petty bureaucracy

3. There has to be something more to life than just being safe.

4. We're not all stupid. We don't all need nursemaiding.

I mean, if I lightly sprayed Bois du Portugal and had asthmatics pass out whenever I entered an elevator I think I wold get the idea.

( I probably wore A*Men by mistake )

When did life become so dangerous, anyway?


The OP article shows that the "science" is questionable:

• Toxicological testing requirements for cosmetics are not specified, although the SCC(NF)P / SCCS ‘expert’ committee offers opinions "

( Why, Oh why, did they not have rats sprayed with Patou PH vs Axe? )

You know, if I developed acute contact dermatitis by wearing Curve I'd probably conclude that, gee I'm allergic to Curve and shouldn't wear it, or that C.G. Jung's Collective Unconscious is telling me: " For God's sake! Get a bit of class . . ."

Has anyone tried getting drunk by drinking a bottle of Chanel # 5?
BRING BACK PROHIBITION!

We are not all stupid!

Tax the stupid people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUosm_BBv9g

Cheers, sweetie darling.

Mario

You know... being the contrarian, I hope that this would prove to be an interesting challenge for parfumeurs to innovate, and not rely on tried and tested ingredients/components to create new and interesting fragrances. I'm not usually an optimist, but I know that art can survive under, and sometimes even thrive because of duress.

This a really substantive article! I will have to read it more than once and save the link. Very useful!