New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How Dangerous is Perfume ?

post #1 of 29
11/7/11 at 11:56am
Thread Starter 
The IFRA keeps banning substances used in perfumes.
Just how dangerous are they ? Is it just scaremongering ?
I remember all the fuss with artificial sweeteners years ago........they pumped laboratory rats full with obscene amounts, then were surprised and horrified that they developed cancer etc........now I believe those sweeteners are all back on the scene.
Is the same thing happening with the !FRA ?
I remember when Versace´s Blonde was suddenly pulled from the shelves.....cancer inducing substances being the reason. I heard this was also the reason for the sudden disappearance of the hugely popular Envy For Men.
For obvious reasons this is all kept very hush-hush.
Does anyone have insight/information regarding this very grey area ?
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 29
11/7/11 at 12:25pm
Dont try to make sense of it. Tobacco kills thousands of people a day but Gucci Envy might give 3 people a rash..........
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 29
11/7/11 at 12:36pm
^ Very well said.

It's not scaremongering, it's misplaced priorities.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 29
11/7/11 at 12:43pm
It is complete foolishness.....Gary
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 29
11/7/11 at 1:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by G.303 View Post

It is complete foolishness.....Gary

Agree
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 29
11/7/11 at 1:43pm
'All fleshe is Grasse'
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 29
11/7/11 at 1:49pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by G.303 View Post

It is complete foolishness.....Gary

Okay, but why then doesn´t the perfume indstry ignore IFRA guidelines ? They are after all....... only guidelines I believe ?
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 29
11/7/11 at 3:17pm
The human body is amazingly durable. I highly doubt two sprays of something on the neck (not ingesting) will do any serious harm.

Of course the liberal-socialist activists will continue to get their facts mixed up and protest for stringent regulations on fragrances.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 29
11/7/11 at 3:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdrakkar View Post

The human body is amazingly durable. I highly doubt two sprays of something on the neck (not ingesting) will do any serious harm.

Of course the liberal-socialist activists will continue to get their facts mixed up and protest for stringent regulations on fragrances.

Those damn filthy stinking fragrance hating commies!!!!!!!!!!! Try to regulate this bottle hippie!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 29
11/8/11 at 9:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by david View Post

Okay, but why then doesn´t the perfume indstry ignore IFRA guidelines ? They are after all....... only guidelines I believe ?

Good question. Are they just guidelines, or is there some kind of legal punch behind them ?

It may be different for different countries, and France may have a set of regulations of it's own which do have some legal backing ?
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 29
11/8/11 at 9:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by david View Post

Okay, but why then doesn´t the perfume indstry ignore IFRA guidelines ? They are after all....... only guidelines I believe ?

No doubt scared that people will start suing them. Money talks and bullsh*t walks as they say.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 29
11/8/11 at 9:48am
I don't think it's healthy but ain't gonna kill you
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 29
11/8/11 at 10:23am
I've been wearing frags since high school and I'm in my 50's now and have no major health issues. Fine frags are one of the good things in life... luckily it doesn't seem like they have any health consequences if used appropriately.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 29
11/8/11 at 4:02pm
But what about those who use them inappropriately ??

One shudders to think.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 29
11/8/11 at 6:05pm
It's on par with too much masturbation.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 29
11/8/11 at 6:54pm
  • kbe
  • offline
  • Gender:
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 29
11/8/11 at 7:20pm
It's all tied to money.

You have regulating industries in big pharma approving medicines that a year later are recalled for causing health issues and deaths.

Death by perfume is certainly near the bottom of the list of harmful chemicals out there.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 29
11/10/11 at 6:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbe View Post


Kind of like soap poisoning?

Reply
Reply
post #19 of 29
11/10/11 at 1:07pm
...
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 29
11/11/11 at 5:55am
"Why doesn't the perfume industry just ignore IFRA guidelines" - this illustrates how misunderstood IFRA as a concept is, generally. I don't know whether they need to improve their PR or not - but I don't think they will ever be able to be fully transparent, so any PR currently comes across as rather spin-heavy.

You see, IFRA *is* the perfume industry. They are run by the biggest companies in the industry, many of whom make a large chunk of their profits manufacturing new odour materials which can initially be patented. This gives them a huge commercial advantage since perfume formulas can't be patented. The molecules are 1) put into any blends made in-house at cost price which gives them an advantage and 2) sold to other perfume manufacturers for profit. Once the patent expires, lots of copies appear immediately, so it needs to be a continuous effort of Research & Development to keep this going.

IFRA was started as a response to government regulators knee-jerk-reacting to allergens found in essential oils. The industry reacted by trying to form a body that would be substantial enough to prevent the ban of too many materials outright. So the trend was originally going towards goverments just outright banning certain materials based on some extremely iffy science (results not correctly applied to how these materials were being used - and consequences of demanding 'allergen free' fragrances not really being understood).

So I think that the concept of having an industry body who at least is supposed to understand the full implications - and is supposed to be in the position of safeguarding perfumery - is actually a very strong one.

Unfortunately, I think that the fact that a lot of these perfumery material manufacturers are in fact in charge of it means that there is a huge temptation to be over-cautious or ban certain naturals when, as if by magic, these manufacturers can then sell the industry a 'safe, non-regulated' alternative.

Also, it is the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials and their expert panel, REXPAN, who actually conduct these animal tests and so on - and make the recommendations - which IFRA then implements.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 29
11/11/11 at 5:45pm
...
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 29
11/12/11 at 2:57am
I worry about perfumery too (as someone who is still studying the topic and hasn't had many pieces of work out; I'd like to get to have a proper go before it all becomes too restricted and synthetic).

From a point of view of purely business-based perfumery; looking to create a perfect fabric softener scent or a more effective air freshener, then losing a lot of the natural material palette might not be a big deal. And the development of new materials is actually a huge advantage (they can be chemically designed to suit the task at hand).

However, from the point of view of appreciating how lovely natural materials smell and are to use; from the point of view of the growers whose livelihood depends on it - I worry a lot about IFRA (and, added to this, the recent REACH regulation with its astronomical costs, administrative burden and unnecessary animal tests)... it's not looking good at the moment for natural materials. I'm not sure what the solution is. There is almost nobody campaigning for a more sensible approach and even if they were, with the European bureucratic monster of REACH added to the equation, this has become like a ticking time-bomb for some materials.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 29
11/12/11 at 7:58am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nukapai View Post

"Why doesn't the perfume industry just ignore IFRA guidelines" - this illustrates how misunderstood IFRA as a concept is, generally. I don't know whether they need to improve their PR or not - but I don't think they will ever be able to be fully transparent, so any PR currently comes across as rather spin-heavy.

You see, IFRA *is* the perfume industry. They are run by the biggest companies in the industry, many of whom make a large chunk of their profits manufacturing new odour materials which can initially be patented. This gives them a huge commercial advantage since perfume formulas can't be patented. The molecules are 1) put into any blends made in-house at cost price which gives them an advantage and 2) sold to other perfume manufacturers for profit. Once the patent expires, lots of copies appear immediately, so it needs to be a continuous effort of Research & Development to keep this going.

IFRA was started as a response to government regulators knee-jerk-reacting to allergens found in essential oils. The industry reacted by trying to form a body that would be substantial enough to prevent the ban of too many materials outright. So the trend was originally going towards goverments just outright banning certain materials based on some extremely iffy science (results not correctly applied to how these materials were being used - and consequences of demanding 'allergen free' fragrances not really being understood).

So I think that the concept of having an industry body who at least is supposed to understand the full implications - and is supposed to be in the position of safeguarding perfumery - is actually a very strong one.

Unfortunately, I think that the fact that a lot of these perfumery material manufacturers are in fact in charge of it means that there is a huge temptation to be over-cautious or ban certain naturals when, as if by magic, these manufacturers can then sell the industry a 'safe, non-regulated' alternative.

Also, it is the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials and their expert panel, REXPAN, who actually conduct these animal tests and so on - and make the recommendations - which IFRA then implements.

Thanks for this fascinating, (frightening !) insight into the bureaucracy of the perfume industry. Thanks too, to everyone else who contributed.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 29
11/13/11 at 2:45pm
Yes, thank you, Nukapai, for a clear explanation of the topic, and thank you, David, for starting this thread. Already a number of formerly great perfumes have been ruined by reformulation to comply with IFRA regs. You just have to read Turin and Sanchez in their latest book. L'Heure Bleue has been sadly reshaped into a ghost of its former beautiful self. So have many others. And it's all so pointless.
After all, people allergic peanuts can die from eating them. So manufacturers have made sure to label every product that could possibly have come into contact with them. They haven't reformulated peanut butter or withdrawn it from sale.
I rest my case.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 29
11/13/11 at 2:53pm
I would like to add two things:

1. I know what you mean about peanuts and tobacco and all of that - but since there is no actual industry correlation between the two (and the fragrance regulations have been deliberately wrestled away from governments by the fragrance industry itself), as illogical as these inconsistencies are, they are not related.
2. I suspect (and this bit I have no way of knowing for sure) that many of the perfume manufacturers who blame IFRA regs on reformulating are also cheapening the juice for extra profitability while they're at it. Sometimes, perhaps, they 'adjust' too far and have to back-track.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 29
11/16/11 at 8:22am
At the end of the day there are a lot worse things than fragrances hurting the world
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 29
11/16/11 at 8:56am
Big thanks to Nukapai for spelling things out so clearly!

The key principle of any kind of regulation is that it must be done by independent authorities and on sound principles. An industry regulating itself will always do so in its own interest - whether its ignoring harmful substances to increase profits or whether its banning supposedly harmful substances to better market patented substitutes. Every decent political system relies on checks and balances, isn't it obvious that economic systems must too, in order to prevent abuses?
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 29
11/18/11 at 6:39am
GREED. That sums it up for me.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 29
11/18/11 at 9:44am
Quoting Primose- "Death by perfume"

That sounds a better fate than most ways to go. I think we need buttons .
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home