Is fragrance bad for your health?

Yes, if you ingest it.

There are a bunch of threads on this with a lot of different opinions.

I personally just spray and don't worry about such things.

:-)

*In tears*. I think Pure Malt is the perfect fragrance for him.

Many mixed views on this.

hey pauly, i used to worry about this. I am an 18 year old gym junkie too, follow a meal plan, diet, no carbs after 3, gym every day and I used to wonder if it would damage my health. Well honestly, it will, but i feel the effects are extremely minuscule that it would not matter. I mean, we are putting chemicals on our body, but sometimes if we evaluate everything we eat (shakes) those aren't always the most healthy also. There are many things in this world that are also damaging to your body, but theres not much you can do, so just enjoy and spray.

Yes and no.

If you're going to worry about adverse effects then it's likely to be a mild stressor, and there's pretty convincing evidence that a prolonged stress response is bad for you. On the other hand, if you enjoy it and it relaxes you, then you can probably expect just the opposite effect.

Don't ask me about how the chemicals themselves interact with your body. Read JaimeB's post for a discussion on that.

Ain't that the truth. Here's a prime example of living life and a local hero in the state of Florida.

Capt. Tony died. Tony Tarracino. At 92.

A Key West icon. A Key west legend.

Word has it that Capt. Tony was a gambler, a skilled charter fisherman, a gunrunner for the Cuban Revolution, a saloonkeeper and untiring ladies man. Allegedly he fathered 13 children with 8 women.

Along the way, he also served as elected Mayor of Key West. He had the necessary ability and experience. And his time as Mayor was a good one for Key West!

Two of Capt. Tony's involvements require special mention.

The first involves Ernest Hemingway. Capt. Tony owned and operated a bar for many years bearing his name. Capt. Tony's. Since sometime in the 1930s. It was the successor to the original Sloppy Joe's, the place where Hemingway penned some of his famous novels while seated at the bar.

The other involves Jimmy Buffett. Buffett used to play guitar and sing his tunes at Capt. Tony's. For a few bucks and a couple of beers. Of course, those were the days when Buffett was a nobody. Just a young kid seeking his way.

Capt. Tony was a well respected member of the Key West family. He will be missed.

Key west is changing. Everything and everyone changes. I doubt there are any more Capt. Tony's here. Perhaps anywhere.

I'll be 52 in July and fragrance has not bothered me yet.....So at this point I'm not concerned!!!
Gary

Only one and it's called Angel Men by Mugler and it is very toxic to the wearer and those around them. Extreme caution is advised on its use! Though smoking 40 a day and drinking a bottle of whisky while having fun with a 20 year old nymphomaniac everyday is considered the healthy alternative.lol

I find that the fragrance hobby is extremely toxic to my financial health....I make impulse buys....then I go home and live with the guilt and the shame while crying in a corner screaming "whhhhhyyyyyyyyyyy?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?"

If you're the type of person who worries often and a lot about what is and isn't bad for you, it's a slippery slope. I gather there are other posts on the question that can be found in here.

At a certain point, the worrying about whether it's bad for you causes stress that is worse than the chemicals in the scent.

It certainly hasn't had any bad effect on my physical health...will be 60 this summer and working out every day, eating right, etc. The real challenge is to keep from over-spending on the myriad great choices out there today.

From what I've learned there used to be more harmful chems in frags, and the chems used today aren't proven harmful but obviously we don't know everything about the issue either.

Relatively speaking though, it's a drop in the bucket. Unless you use frag like Napoleon I wouldn't worry about it.

I think it would be healthy if you would have a bourbon every now and then Paulyboy.

It is believed to be linked to cancers and respiratory problems - none which can be totally 100% backed. But you have to understand you are apply chemicals to your skin and inhaling fumes in the process which eventually into your blood steam.

When he turns 21 , indeed, a bourbon won't kill him.

LOL Had me giggling for over a minute with this reply.

I've been wearing fragrance for a long time and I'm pretty damn healthy.

You know, if anything, I'd say it probably good for your health in that it can be calming, keep the mind occupied and interested...overall it just makes life more pleasant. I'd say that's the case for most of us here. And that's healthy, right?

The eccentric diet habits and personal insecurities inherent with being a gym junkie are far more dangerous than any fragrance on the market ever thought of being, and I don't say that in light tone.

Dr. Daryl

This is a divided topic. There are a lot of toxic chemicals in our perfumes. Smoking has been shown to cause health problems.

George Burns, never seen without a cigar, died at the age of 100. Go figure.

I had a delicious Big Mac for lunch.

Well it is a fair question. Those 10 carbon aromachemicals can be fairly toxic. That is why I, and I know it makes me a heretic in here, am fairly happy that an external body tests these chemicals and makes rulings on what can be safely used in perfumes.

If you look at a fairly well studied chemical Linalool, the dose you will need to take to have an acute effect on your health is from 0.25g to 4 g/kg. That is if your body chemistry works like a rabbit. (well you did say you were a gym-bunny). So If you weigh 100kg you need to be splashing on between 25g to 400g per day of pure linalool on your skin to get the central nervous system depression in the study. Let's say your favourite fragrance has 2% linalool, then you will need to spray about twelve bottles a day to start affecting you.

In other words if you are using about 1 ml per day of fragrance you are ingesting about 1/1000 of the acute dose of linalool.

On the other hand, if you drink 20 litres of water you will probably die. And each day you probably drink 2. That is 1/10 of the toxic dose.

Hmm..Mister Burns and his cigar, that is a logical fallacy. Smoking 'only' kills about 50% of the users. Yes, there are plenty of people who will die before tobacco gets them. On the other hand if Chanel No 5 only killed 50% of its users, I don't think that it would be on sale. Or it would be reformulated without the Sarin.

Bumping this up after 1 year. I have being posing the same question recently and why start a new thread hey.

There are actually a fair few studies on the subject and a lot of worrisome results, particularly when studies are finding up to 17 chemicals used in fragrance that are not even listed as an ingredient. Of the ingredients listed about 65% have been tested and of the ones not listed only approx 10% have been tested. The issue gets deeper though as when tested the tests may not have been performed on how the fragrance reacts on us humans, further more they have not been tested in conjunction with each other so the results while can be scary there is even more potential dangerous not highlighted.
The scary thing is some of the most popular brands scored the highest dangers.

From the products tested D&G light blue ( not sure if it was mens or womens) seemed to test as one of the lower dangers, however it still contains potential hormone interfering chemicals etc although much lower than others on the test.
I am going be placing cologne on clothing rather than the skin to help eliminate the absorbed chemicals but it is still a worry about chemicals that are ingested via breathing etc

there are a few places who advocate using safe chemicals and I am yet to check out the quality of these products but I am definitely interested.
I am unsure how people can say the subject is even debatable as all evidence points to potential damaging effects, the key word been potential. I think people subscribe to the idea that if it hasn't happened its safe, but that doesn't remove potential risks and likewise people who are in good health, could they potentially be in better health?
Also the issue is the build up of the chemicals in the system and longer term damage. Because the risks are potential someone could have no issues while others might so it is really hard to make a judgement based on users results.
To reply to the previous poster that used the water as a guide, that is a poor example and really is not a proper comparison. Water intoxication is of course a serious and very real issue, however drinking a healthy amount of water each day is in fact beneficial to health and it wont cause a 10% risk at all in fact it would be healthier, using any level of cologne is going to poss a risk regardless so no healthy level exists. Therefore the 2 cannot be compared, it would be more reasonable to say cologne verse the affect of pollution we are exposed to daily, in both cases they are posing a risk so they are like sources and hence comparable.

In terms of those who subscribe to the theory that other things do more damage like second hand smoking, while it may be true (I don't know the figures). The point is though that one does not cancel out the other so by using two risk factors we are just compounding our risk factor so while it might be minimal in the scheme of things it still adds to the dangerous we encounter every day.

Cologne smells good but and while I don't want to stop wearing it I will try find more natural sources of use or ones that are of very less danger if I cant find a decent natural one.
interested to see after 1 year if anyone's opinion has changed on the matter or if others are becoming more aware of the issues.