New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New IFRA restrictions and ban

post #1 of 15
7/21/10 at 3:41am
Thread Starter 
I saw a post on POL about new/revised restrictions. The thread is here:
http://www.perfumeoflife.com/talk/in...e-ingredients/

Among others, Verbena Absolute has a revised restriction and Quinoline is banned:

http://www.ifraorg.org/files/documen...egulations.pdf

I can see the irritant aspect of verbena; I generally feel a bit of sting/burn after spraying on verbena but it subsides in a minute or so and has no further ill effects, so it certainly hasn't put me off wearing verbena, which I love. I wonder how much the revised restriction will impact verbena fragrances?

And Quinoline? I'm interested in what others have to say about what will be affected. On the POL thread (and see their link to the 1000 Fragrances blog post on Quinolines) lilac was mentioned. Are there other sources of lilac scent other besides Quinoline? I understand Quinoline also accounts for a leather note.


edit: I corrected the spelling-- not Quinolone (a medicine) but rather Quinoline!
further edit: I'm wondering which perfumes will be affected. Anyone have boxes with quinoline listed as an ingredient?
Reply
Reply

Features on Basenotes

Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
post #2 of 15
7/21/10 at 7:40am
Thanks for this 30 Roses . So Lilac, mossy and leather notes are affected ?
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 15
7/21/10 at 8:49am
Thread Starter 
Edited original post; am wondering which specific fragrances may be affected by this. Does anyone have a box for a leather, moss, or lilac perfume that has Quinoline listed as an ingredient?
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 15
7/21/10 at 8:54am
Did a abit of a search but not too much luck ..
Tabac Blond ?
Bandit ?
Gres Cabochard ?
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 15
7/21/10 at 10:52am
I'd looked into this when I saw the new regulations as leather frags are what got me into this whole silly perfume thing in the first place and are dear to my heart.

Fortunately, it looks like the new regulations won't affect the isobutyl quinoline leathers (Bandit, Cabochard, Aramis etc. not that there is much left to destroy at this point). Quinoline is a precursor to IBQ but it isn't the same chemical (different CAS numbers etc). IFRA regulations have banned dangerous precursor chemicals while allowing their tamer cousins. If they wanted to ban IBQ they'd have to single it out explicitly. As always, I could be mistaken!
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 15
7/21/10 at 11:25am
More nails, courtesy of the IFRA, hammered into the coffin of perfumery IMO.

Allow me to understand this process. The industry supports a private laboratory to unilaterally issue decrees of diminished use of certain chemicals or out and out banishment of them, which in turn reduces the industry's pallet of olfactory resource to produce fragrance. I know of no other scientific group that has so much authority to act in the absence of public, industry and government oversight.

Ultimately, show me the evidence that any fragrance has ever, in and of itself, caused a serious, life threatening, disease causing health issue to a normal human being in use that is not excessive and not based on circumstantial or general correlations. Absolute cause and effect should IMO be the only criterion for banishment.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 15
7/21/10 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zizanioides View Post

I'd looked into this when I saw the new regulations as leather frags are what got me into this whole silly perfume thing in the first place and are dear to my heart.

Fortunately, it looks like the new regulations won't affect the isobutyl quinoline leathers (Bandit, Cabochard, Aramis etc. not that there is much left to destroy at this point).

I do so hope you're right. The thought of quinoline leathers being banned makes me want to cry.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 15
7/21/10 at 2:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zizanioides View Post

I'd looked into this when I saw the new regulations as leather frags are what got me into this whole silly perfume thing in the first place and are dear to my heart.

Fortunately, it looks like the new regulations won't affect the isobutyl quinoline leathers (Bandit, Cabochard, Aramis etc. not that there is much left to destroy at this point). Quinoline is a precursor to IBQ but it isn't the same chemical (different CAS numbers etc). IFRA regulations have banned dangerous precursor chemicals while allowing their tamer cousins. If they wanted to ban IBQ they'd have to single it out explicitly. As always, I could be mistaken!

A relief - counting on you being right, Z !
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 15
7/21/10 at 5:35pm
Yeah, my reading of this is no hidden explosives. Looking at the notes of the things being restricted, there should be plenty of alternatives, although I'm sure it's more work for perfumers of some compositions. And quinoline is not nearly as important as it's derivatives, so we're good.

Let's just hope this isn't to put us to sleep for the next time, when they ban all the important stuff.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 15
7/22/10 at 9:41am
Well good, I was afraid for my Tabac Blond for a few minutes there. Okay seriously, what are they going for, though? The eventual ban of all perfume? Why does everything that happens lately remind me of 1984?
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 15
7/22/10 at 1:24pm
I am so happy that the IFRA is attempting to save me from myself and the collateral damage caused by other aficionados wearing scent. I cannot imagine the catastrophic damage I am causing by wearing discontinued classics that contain these malignancies.

On a similar note: I am a smoker and have been my entire life. Last year, the tax levied on roll-your-own tobacco skyrocketed 2000%. Yes....2k%. Now, I know non smokers could care less...or possibly applaud this tax. The reason I am bringing this up in this particular thread is this :

The last few months, when I go to the tobacco store to purchase a bag of my brand, I am shrewdly directed to the "Pipe Tobacco" bags that are huge with no levied tax on THEM. They are the same price my tobacco used to be....and magically, there is cigarette tobacco mistakenly put inside these pipe tobacco bags.

My point is that maybe, just maybe, some very intelligent and shrewd parfumeurs will find a way around this intrusive watchdog group and maintain some semblance of quality.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 15
7/22/10 at 9:04pm
The restrictions have very little to do with things being bad for you.

Most of it is political, making way for the use of new aromachemicals (tens of thousands of them) owned by various corporations.

People still believe that oakmoss is an allergen, but it's actually tree moss that causes them (usually minor stuff even in high quantites). That info was discovered about a year after the EU restrictions on oakmoss. So according to that, the new fragrances with higher percentage of tree moss are even worse for your health. But I don't think you'll see a reversal of the oakmoss restrictions.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 15
7/22/10 at 9:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluran View Post

The restrictions have very little to do with things being bad for you.

Most of it is political, making way for the use of new aromachemicals (tens of thousands of them) owned by various corporations.

People still believe that oakmoss is an allergen, but it's actually tree moss that causes them (usually minor stuff even in high quantites). That info was discovered about a year after the EU restrictions on oakmoss. So according to that, the new fragrances with higher percentage of tree moss are even worse for your health. But I don't think you'll see a reversal of the oakmoss restrictions.


Thanks Pluran ! I really wish the IFRA would eat 'humble pie' and reverse the restrictions on oakmoss then !
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 15
7/22/10 at 11:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluran View Post

The restrictions have very little to do with things being bad for you.

Most of it is political, making way for the use of new aromachemicals (tens of thousands of them) owned by various corporations.

People still believe that oakmoss is an allergen, but it's actually tree moss that causes them (usually minor stuff even in high quantites). That info was discovered about a year after the EU restrictions on oakmoss. So according to that, the new fragrances with higher percentage of tree moss are even worse for your health. But I don't think you'll see a reversal of the oakmoss restrictions.

But wait, it gets better!
The IFRA can't rely on just any research done by any little organization out there, they have a whole team of neutral academics (who they pay, but that's not the point) to review the very special studies done by the IFRA/RIFM's lab team. Nevermind that the board always follows IFRA's recommendations and that the chemicals chosen for review are selected by the companies that manufacturer the patented molecules that will replace whatever gets the axe. And when countries adopt IFRA regulations in whole as law, well, the IFRA get's what it pays for and another a market has been shut down for the banned ingredients.

*perfume nerd rage over*
Where did you find that interesting bit about Oakmoss? I'd love to see the report.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 15
8/17/10 at 6:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluran View Post

The restrictions have very little to do with things being bad for you.

Most of it is political, making way for the use of new aromachemicals (tens of thousands of them) owned by various corporations.

Precisely. Unfortunately, such is the way of much of the world right now.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home