Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Fragrance Industry and General Fragrance Discussion › guess who's been threatening the IRFA to ban more ingredients
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

guess who's been threatening the IRFA to ban more ingredients

post #1 of 24
7/8/10 at 4:15am
Thread Starter 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel..._b_625648.html

the cancer people.
Reply
Reply

Features on Basenotes

Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
post #2 of 24
7/8/10 at 5:30am
What about just applying the fragrance to fabric, rather than the skin?
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 24
7/8/10 at 5:33am
Oh dear.

So spray it on your shirt.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 24
7/8/10 at 6:01am
Well, one specific organization, the Cancer Prevention Coalition.

So while we think of IFRA as the "bad guys", this article reminds us that they are pressured by people who would be even more restrictive. (And, no, I am not defending IFRA.)
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 24
7/8/10 at 6:34am
Everything allegedly gives you cancer these days , just live your life , do what you want to do
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 24
7/8/10 at 7:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pour_Monsieur View Post

Everything allegedly gives you cancer these days , just live your life , do what you want to do

Yes, quite true.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 24
7/8/10 at 7:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pour_Monsieur View Post

Everything allegedly gives you cancer these days , just live your life , do what you want to do

There are lots of things that there are no serious claims that they cause cancer. Type "watermelon causes cancer" into google and you get two hits, neither of which are serious.

Type "cigarettes cause cancer" in google and one gets 858,000 hits.

I think one has to assess risks vs. benefits and do what works for them accordingly.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 24
7/8/10 at 9:00am
I dislike agreeing with a perspective I think is probably hyper-vigilant and paranoid, but he has a point.
Whatever the IFRA's aims, protecting consumers from serious threats isn't high on their agenda, and, with the legal loopholes that prevent regulation of trade secret products, there is a need for proper disclosure and regulation.
There are numerous known carcinogens in the IFRA ingredients list, most of which are unregulated by the IFRA.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 24
7/8/10 at 1:07pm
I'm sick of being "protected". Enough is enough.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 24
7/9/10 at 10:39am
  • RHM
  • online
  • Gender:
Seems really silly considering the Gulf of Mexico is being polluted. Not to mention the fumes from the dispersants and the burn off....come on people. Let's get our priorities straight here.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 24
7/9/10 at 10:57am
Climate change is a real threat to our existence. Not perfume. Perhaps it would make more sense to focus on that...but wait, that would involve international cooperation and perhaps prioritisation of something other than profit...nah, its too difficult. Lets regulate perfume instead.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 24
7/9/10 at 11:15am
Ahh... the Huffington, Puffington Post.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 24
7/9/10 at 11:56am
Any press coverage that roasts the IFRA's "consumer protection" program for not actually protecting consumers is a good thing; it helps keep alive my deluded notion that the whole system could eventually be abandoned.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 24
7/9/10 at 6:38pm
The interesting... um... dichotomy... here is how the US views things like that versus the views of the IFRA folks: Here, we can market products and can do so unless they're proven harmful. Europe has the view that you must prove it's safe FIRST.

Somewhere in the middle lies the sane way to control ingredients.

Sigh.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 24
7/10/10 at 10:45am
...like it or not, those people are right. Perfumes do contain a lot of cancerigens. Applying on the fabric won't help too much.

Just because you LIKE and USE a certain product, that doesn't automatically CANCEL it's negative effects, nor it hides them under the carpet. People mult be informed, and truth must be told, so people will be well aware of the risks. If those risks are higher or lower than ones of other more commonly used products, it's totally irrelevant.

Thinking about it... I also don't like reformulations, but I realize modifications might be safer for me too. Now, if you want, if you really really want original stuff, search for vintages.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 24
7/10/10 at 10:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zizanioides View Post

There are numerous known carcinogens in the IFRA ingredients list, most of which are unregulated by the IFRA.

very true. but still, less is still better here...
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 24
7/10/10 at 11:02am
I agree with both sides, somewhat. If an ingredient in anything is harmful, proven beyond a doubt... it should be controlled.

However, what percentage of ingredients in perfumes would one need to use in what concentration over what period of time for it actually to become harmful? That's where I think that concentrating on ingredients in cosmetics is kind of "hysteria"...

When there are problems with: Coal ash... air pollution...water pollution... crappy nutrition, herbicide/insecticide issues... dodgy preservatives in food, additives in cigarettes/smoking...etc. etc. etc. that seem to me to be of a much higher order in terms of risk, and more likely to cause serious harm than the ingredients in my perfumes.

All that said: I've done it myself, but I really will never understand (with respect to cosmetics) why people will dye or perm their hair, sit with a pretty concentrated mix of chemicals close to or in direct contact with their scalp... that seems pretty darned risky to me.

But then again, we are all going to die eventually anyway... I suppose there is a bit of that "why worry" philosophy to things that can make you sick but don't kill you instantly.

Humans are weird.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 24
7/10/10 at 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by actiasluna View Post

I agree with both sides, somewhat. If an ingredient in anything is harmful, proven beyond a doubt... it should be controlled.

However, what percentage of ingredients in perfumes would one need to use in what concentration over what period of time for it actually to become harmful? That's where I think that concentrating on ingredients in cosmetics is kind of "hysteria"...

This, in theory, is what the IFRA does. What drives the non-crazy consumer protection groups into a frenzy is that the IFRA has glossed over or excused a lot of the scary neuro-toxins and carcinogens in favor of regulating allergens and potential skin irritants. It's the solvents and stabilizers, the petroleum by-products and even a few industrial wastes that serve no real function in perfume aesthetics, those are the ingredients that really need IFRA regulation.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 24
7/10/10 at 2:49pm
Listing ingredients would expose the proprietary aspect of perfumes. As if there are not enough bogus frags out there already. I guess a rogue dermatologist might sell the secret, eh?
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 24
7/11/10 at 12:47am
Thread Starter 
I like one of the commentors there that pointed out the real reason for the banning of the absolutes -- that they cannot be patented = no profit. I sure hope that professor guy confronts the IRFA about that, and get them to ban the really harmful stuffs.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 24
7/12/10 at 4:01am
I don't understand the concept of banning traces of potentially harmful substances in perfume when there are whole branches of trade that revolve around selling evidentially harmful substances (tobacco, alcohol, sweets etc.). Imagine we would ban all carcinogenic agents from cigarettes.

They should put a warning on the bottle, and let the consumer decide if he wants to take the risk of spraying some microlitres of highly diluted potentially carcinogen substances on top of their skin. I probably get exposed to more carcinogens when I open my car windows in the rush hour.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 24
7/12/10 at 5:07am
  • kbe
  • offline
  • Gender:
Perspective seems somewhat askew concerning carcinogens and health issues. Each year power plants in the USA alone emit around 50 tons of mercury pollution. Facilities that recycle auto scrap are another big source of mercury pollution, pouring 10 to 12 tons of mercury into the air every year. The technology does exist to almost completely catch and safely contain that mercury before it enters the atmosphere. Of course, like almost everything else in the industrial world, that would cost money. What doesn't exist is the political will and power to legislate a requirement that those industries causing the problem clean up their act.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 24
7/12/10 at 7:45am
Both tungsten and kbe make excellent points. Industrial pollution is something to which huge numbers of people and other living organisms are exposed involuntarily and inescapably. It would cost large corporations money to eliminate or reduce it. How easy it is in comparison to try to micromanage what perfumers put into their creations.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 24
7/12/10 at 10:52am
Aren't there people out there pressing for reductions in industrial pollution as well? I suppose the ones that are jumping on fragrance instead do so either because of (a) their experience or (b) their specialized expertise. But I could be wrong.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Features on Basenotes

Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Fragrance Industry and General Fragrance Discussion › guess who's been threatening the IRFA to ban more ingredients