Code of Conduct
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 56 of 56
  1. #31
    DustB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    9,210

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    Quote Originally Posted by elizabeth mink
    Thank you for saying it better than I did. That is EXACTLY my point. And while this thread is old, it's new to me because I'm a new member, and apparantly it's a very passionate topic for some. I just wonder, if we all readily admit there are plenty of things in nature that are bad for us, why so many people unwilling to admit there are tons of man-made chemicals that are bad for us too? What about the recall of Teflon pans and the link to cancer? Are we still arguing that Teflon is good? We used those for years. Parabin (sp) which is found in lotion and is a plasticizer has been linked to testical shrinkage and low sperm count. Does anyone think it's still worth using lotions with parabins? And my last question what do people have AGAINST naturals?
    You've made your point in the first post you made resurrecting this thread. Therefore members can read it and consider it for themselves. Can you be content with that? Further, this is a discussion board. Posts on it, including yours, get discussed.

    Subjects not involving fragrance, which you mention significantly in this post, are not the subject of Basenotes interest and serve to hijack threads. Did you register to talk about these other things or to talk about fragrances?
    --Chris
    That girl, that bottle, that mattress and me.

  2. #32

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    Quote Originally Posted by Motecuzoma
    I think it's quite obvious (or apparently not) what elizabeth mink is trying to say.
    I agree. She's been sucked into the "nature as loving mother" mentality and is now parroting the common belief that natural substances are inherently safer, gentler, or more beneficial than synthesized ones, which are apt to be poisons created by maverick chemists messing with forces they can't understand.

    But you can't sit here and say "water is a chemical" or "Arsenic is natural" with a pompous attitude all the while discounting the facts regarding the potential health hazards and proven, detrimental consequences of numerous "man-made chemicals."
    Actually, I can. As someone else pointed out, the natural/synthetic dichotomy is a false one, and this is the point that people are trying to make with "pompous" statements about how water is a chemical and some natural materials are dangerous. Unfortunately, people like Elizabeth and yourself stubbornly cling to your beliefs even after they've been falsified.

    Her point, which is so readily being shot down, is that a large percentage of mass produced chemicals created in laboratories with the intention of human consumption (?fragrances?, sweetener, insecticide, hormone injected cattle, etc... etc... etc...) have been proven to be carcinogens.
    This is a strawman. We are speaking of perfume, not insecticide.

    Furthermore, many so-called "carcinogens", such as artificial sweeteners, are only toxic at doses that are levels of magnitude greater than would ever be used in practice. Yes, if you inject sixteen pounds of Nutrasweet into your bloodstream, you may develop tumors; do you plan to do this?

    I think there's question to this statement. I won't go too far into my personal views, but "chemophobia" is a strong word, as is "nature worship." Both, in this context, capricious and arbitrary. Both extrapolated through only a few sentences.
    Neither capricious or arbitrary.

    we, as human beings, all sit with the longest life expectency this species has had since it's evolution/creation. That's a great thing, isn't it? I want to have more of it and that is exactly why I and others like to question the possibility of the unnecessary use of synthesized, untested and virtually unknown chemicals.
    Man-made chemicals are generally understood as well as naturally-occuring ones, if not better.. and most synthetics in use in perfumery have been used by large human populations for years, if not decades.

    Skepticism is a fine thing, but it must be tempered by reason, not paranoia or superstition.

  3. #33

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    I'm not going to argue on this matter anymore, as there are quite opposite views contending in a thread not intended for them. To say that natural compounds and chemicals are, in a general sense, more dangerous than man-made chemicals is ludicrous to me. <shrug> But that's just the hippy in me I guess. Stupid hippy. Stupid straw man making hippy.
    Last edited by Motecuzoma; 30th September 2006 at 01:49 AM.

  4. #34

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    I feel compelled to defend myself against the "nature as loving mother" comment. I am an Ms. Mink's side. I am not a hippy drippy type and I am not "paranoid" and the allegations you are making are downright insulting. I challenge you to find very many studies about the negative health effects of the chemicals found in popular fragrances, but I expect we will see more and more. We've been using OPI nail polish for years and just today OPI announced they will remove a harmful chemical called dibutyl phthalate from their nail polishes. We learn new things every day and it's best to have a skeptical attitude. Those who've argued against me so vehemntly still haven't answered her question. Why are you so AGAINST naturals, or do you just like to argue for arguement sake? DO ANY OF YOU WEAR NATURALS?
    Last edited by kathypape; 30th September 2006 at 06:01 PM.

  5. #35

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    Quote Originally Posted by kathypape
    Why are you so AGAINST naturals?
    I'm not. What I'm against is the notion that there are two distinct kinds of chemicals, "natural" and "synthetic", and that a given chemical's toxicity can be inferred from its origin, and the continual attempts by paranoid hippies to spread such ignorance in a world that has too much ignorance already.

  6. #36

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    You obviously have some major disdain for "hippies" but I'd like to correct you. I am not a "pot smoking free lovin hippie" as I believe you see people who have views that are opposite yours. I am a conservative Texas businesswoman, who's read a lot of reasearch on this matter. I have no doubt that as people become more informed and push for change more and more companies (including fragrance companies) will join OPI and some of the major cosemitic companies by removing toxic chemicals from their products. It's not a bunch of paranoid hippies who got Wal Mart to start carrying organic products, it's mainstream America.
    Last edited by kathypape; 30th September 2006 at 06:04 PM.

  7. #37
    DustB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    9,210

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    Quote Originally Posted by kathypape
    I have no doubt that as people become more informed and push for change more and more companies (including fragrance companies) will join OPI and some of the major cosemitic companies by removing toxic chemicals from their products.
    So are you our self-appointed shepherd to inform us to make this push?

    Quote Originally Posted by kathypape
    I feel compelled to defend myself against the "nature as loving mother" comment. I am an Ms. Mink's side.
    I found it odd that you, Kathypape, for your first post on this thread, defend yourself. As if you'd been on it earlier and been attacked. Then I noticed that you and the member Elizabeth Mink share the same IP number, and that today you are alternately logged in. No wonder you're "an Ms. Mink's side."

    The current use of multiple username memberships is against Basenotes rule (http://www.basenotes.net/cgi-bin/art...ame=forumrules) number nine:

    "Members are permitted to have more than one Basenotes account, provided that the older accounts are no longer in use. Members who use multiple accounts to pretend they are more than one person, may (at our discretion) be banned or have the extra accounts deleted. They also would be advised to seek help."

    --Chris
    Last edited by DustB; 30th September 2006 at 07:13 PM.
    That girl, that bottle, that mattress and me.

  8. #38

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    Quote Originally Posted by elizabeth mink
    And my last question what do people have AGAINST naturals?
    Obviously, there are natural chemicals that are appropriate for use in fragrances. If a natural chemical smells good and is safe for topical use, then I am happy to use products that contain it. For instance, Dr. Bronner's Pure-Castile Liquid Soap with Tea Tree Oil is heavenly.

    Really, no one wants to put toxic chemicals on his or her skin. However, asking the wrong question ("Is this chemical natural?") will not prevent that. Perfumers have stopped using certain natural chemicals, e.g., damascones, oakmoss, and coumarin, because those natural chemicals irritate some people.

    There are other problems with natural chemicals as well. The use of some natural fragrances has brought some species to the brink of extinction, e.g., sandalwood and rosewood. The use of other natural fragrances involves killing animals, e.g., the musk deer. Irrational demand for all-natural products causes some much more harmful consequences.

    Obviously, there are also toxic synthetic chemicals as well. I would not put paint stripper into an atomizer and spritz it into my decolletage. However, it is simply illogical to conclude that, if I can not grow it in my back yard, I should not buy a product containing it.

    Also, toxicity is not an either-or proposition. Even toxic chemicals must be introduced into the body in sufficient doses, over a sufficient period of time, to harm the body. Some chemicals are safe to spritz on the skin but not to drink straight by the liter.

    Finally, some risks are simply not significant enough to spend too much time worrying about. Drakkar Noir may or may not kill me, but I probably ought to pay more attention to whether my diet will contribute to heart disease, or whether my health insurance will refuse to cover some life-saving treatment, or whether that jerk on the road is on his cell phone or had one to many at the bar.

  9. #39

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    Excellent post Advocate and welcome btw!

    MMM

  10. #40

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    Quote Originally Posted by kathypape
    I am a conservative Texas businesswoman, who's read a lot of reasearch on this matter.
    And by "research", you mean alarmist propaganda promulgated by well-meaning fools and superstitious axe-grinders, right?

    There are places on the internet where your misbegotten disdain for all synthetics will be validated. I don't think this is one of them.

  11. #41

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    If I could stick my neck out here... I hope I don't get it chopped off. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the people in this forum and your immense knowledge about fragrances. I would just like to try to unemotionally clarify a few issues that get a little muddy when the health merits of "naturals vs synthetics" get discussed. People often confuse the issue of allergies and chemical sensitivity. In the interest of full disclosure, I do sell naturals, as well as a brand that might contain some synthetics.

    For people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), the problem with synthetic fragrance chemicals isn't so much about allergic skin reactions or the possibility of them causing cancer. It's about their neurotoxic effects on the central nervous system.

    There are about 40 million people in the USA with some degree of MCS. People with MCS (and I'm one of them) are anywhere from 100-1000 times more sensitive to the neurotoxins in synthetic fragrance chemicals than are healthy people. This is why someone can douse themself with a synthetic fragrance and feel fine, but someone across the room can feel terrible from it.

    Healthy people can break down the chemicals in their synthetic fragrances and eliminate them from their bodies. People with MCS can't, so the chemicals build up to the point that the slightest exposure can be debilitating. No one knows the cause of MCS, but it seems that people can develop it suddenly and without any warning.

    Natural ingredients from essential oils or absolutes can indeed cause skin reactions in sensitive individuals. People can die from ingesting Wintergreen oil. But natural fragrances, to the best of my knowledge, are not neurotoxic.

    So I do advocate using naturals as far as possible, both to reduce one's risk of developing MCS, and as an act of courtesy for others who may not be able to tolerate synthetics in public.

    Humbly,

    Siri Amrit

  12. #42

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    No offense, but this MCS seems very debated and not widely recognized within the medical community. I remain very sceptic. Just like with people claiming to be allergic to electricity.


    links:

    http://198.102.218.57/environment/mcs/toc.htm

    http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...opics/mcs.html

    http://www.acoem.org/guidelines/article.asp?ID=46

    http://www.acoem.org/guidelines/article.asp?ID=46


    Plenty of heavy governmental and serious medical info and studies to be found within those.


    quotes:

    "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity:
    A Spurious Diagnosis

    Stephen Barrett, M.D.

    The expression "multiple chemical sensitivity" ("MCS") is used to describe people with numerous troubling symptoms attributed to environmental factors. Many such people are seeking special accommodations, applying for disability benefits, and filing lawsuits claiming that exposure to common foods and chemicals has made them ill. Their efforts are supported by a small cadre of physicians who use questionable diagnostic and treatment methods. Critics charge that these approaches are bogus and that MCS is not a valid diagnosis".



    Multiple chemical sensitivity" is not a legitimate diagnosis. Instead of testing their claims with well-designed research, its advocates are promoting them through publications, talk shows, support groups, lawsuits, and political maneuvering (such as getting state governors to designate a Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Awareness Week). Many are also part of a network of questionable legal actions alleging injuries by environmental chemicals.

    "Many people diagnosed with "MCS" suffer greatly and are very difficult to treat. Well-designed investigations suggest that most of them have a psychosomatic disorder in which they develop multiple symptoms in response to stress. If this is true -- and I believe it is -- clinical ecology patients run the risks of misdiagnosis, mistreatment, financial exploitation, and/or delay of proper medical and psychiatric care. In addition, insurance companies, employers, other taxpayers, and ultimately all citizens are being burdened by dubious claims for disability and damages. To protect the public, state licensing boards should scrutinize the activities of clinical ecologists and decide whether the overall quality of their care is sufficient for them to remain in medical practice".


    MMM

  13. #43

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    Further:



    "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome

    MICHAEL K. MAGILL, M.D., and ANTHONY SURUDA, M.D., M.P.H.
    University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah

    Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is a syndrome in which multiple symptoms reportedly occur with low-level chemical exposure. Several theories have been advanced to explain the cause of MCS, including allergy, toxic effects and neurobiologic sensitization. There is insufficient scientific evidence to confirm a relationship between any of these possible causes and symptoms. Patients with MCS have high rates of depression, anxiety and somatoform disorders, but it is unclear if a causal relationship or merely an association exists between MCS and psychiatric problems. Physicians should compassionately evaluate and care for patients who have this distressing condition, while avoiding the use of unproven, expensive or potentially harmful tests and treatments. The first goal of management is to establish an effective physician-patient relationship. The patient's efforts to return to work and to a normal social life should be encouraged and supported.

    Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) has been described under various names since the 1940s.1,2 MCS syndrome is characterized by the patient's belief that his or her symptoms are caused by very low-level exposure to environmental chemicals. The term "chemical" is used to refer broadly to many natural and man-made chemical agents, some of which have several chemical constituents. Health care professionals who focus on MCS often refer to themselves as practicing "clinical ecology." MCS syndrome has led to great controversy among clinicians, researchers, patients, lawyers, legislators and regulatory agencies. The absence of scientific agreement on MCS has contributed to the development of emotionally charged, extreme and entrenched positions. Gots2 summarized the controversy as follows:
    {short description of image}
    See editorial
    on page 652.
    {short description of image}

    "[MCS] has been rejected as an established organic disease by the American Academy of Allergy and Immunology, the American Medical Association, the California Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the International Society of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. It may be the only ailment in existence in which the patient defines both the cause and the manifestations of his own condition. Despite this, it has achieved credibility in workmen's [sic] compensation claims, tort liability, and regulatory actions."

    Position statements from a variety of medical and governmental organizations on MCS and clinical ecology are shown in Table 1.3-8 No consensus has been reached as to whether MCS is a new illness or has a biologic basis, what causes it or how it should be treated. As we await answers to these questions, clinicians must care responsibly and compassionately for patients experiencing this syndrome."




    I think it´s pretty safe to say that MCS is a theory at most and more likely just peoples projections. Also just spoke to my dad who´s a physician and he heard about it and confirmed it´s not accepted in Europe either, and this after extensive studies...


    MMM

  14. #44

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    Further:

    From: http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/0192.html

    What is the research on MCS?

    Does MCS really exist? Some researchers claim it does, others claim it doesn't and some say it might. Why do they disagree?

    To date, most studies of MCS have been anecdotal--isolated case studies of individuals or very small groups of people. These people have come to physicians already experiencing the reactions, so discerning cause is very difficult. Although the number of cases is increasing, there is still not a large enough mass of cases to determine any significance between or among cases. Recognizing that the definition and symptoms are vague, several research projects have identified why there are reasons to question the existence of MCS as a disease:

    * There is no consistent pattern of symptoms.
    * There are no consistent diagnostic test results.
    * There is no known mechanism of illness (specific triggers).
    * Many of the patients have psychiatric problems.
    * Treatments do not work.

    Although each of these factors has validity in the studies in which they were identified, other researchers have been able to address each of these five concerns by suggesting that MCS is not an "allergy" and that comparing MCS to more common allergic patterns, tests, triggers, and treatments will not work. These researchers claim that as this is a distinct type of illness, it must be viewed and managed differently. Some researchers point to Sick Building Syndrome, which, when it was first suggested as a problem, was criticized in a similar way. Other researchers have suggested that the psychiatric problems are not the explanation for the illness, but that people with depression or other problems are more likely to be affected by MCS or that the onset of MCS has created a situation in which the individual becomes psychologically troubled by stress, fear, isolation and other outcomes of having MCS. The result is depression, panic disorder, or paranoia. To determine if MCS is a disease, the real challenge is in trying to find the cause of the physical illness--which came first, the reaction to the chemicals or the emotional problems and did one cause the other, or are they simply related but not causally linked?



    Btw, I don´t want to attack you Tigerflag, went to your website, it looks good. I´m sure you´re sensitivity to chemicals may very well be true. However it is the general diagnosis that I feel extremely sceptical about. I´ve read lots of stuff now and all blind, double blind etc studies on the subject point in the same direction. If you have different scientific material from credible sources, please post them.

    Regards
    M

  15. #45
    teflondog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,335

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    To answer the original question, as long as it smells good I really don't care if it's natural or not. I've read a few people state that the reason why some niche scents don't last long is because they use only natural ingredients. I personally don't think that is a valid excuse for poor longevity. If they don't last, then they don't last. They shouldn't be defended with such a statement, which is probably false anyways. Don't get me wrong; I like my Dzing! and I hate that it only lasts 2 hours on me. But I'm not going to justify it by saying that the reason is due to natural ingredients. 4711 is very fleeting yet I don't hear anybody defending that one. When I buy a niche scent, it's not because of its "natural ingredients". I buy it because I like how it smells and for the collecting aspect of this hobby.

    Topper Schroeder recreated Gendarme with a very high oil percentage along with glycerin for people with sensitive skin and allergies. But many would dismiss this scent and head straight to the more expensive scents instead since higher price = higher quality.

    Last edited by teflondog; 1st October 2006 at 08:44 AM.

  16. #46

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    Tigerflag, can you please provide any piece of research that demonstrates:

    a/ "neurotoxins in synthetic fragrance chemicals"

    b/ "natural fragrances, to the best of my knowledge, are not neurotoxic"


    It would also help if you could explain what you mean by 'natural fragrances'. Do you mean perfumes manufactured by people who label them natural? Do you mean essential oils? Do you mean fragrances in nature (eg my rose bush)?

  17. #47

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    Quote Originally Posted by Nutmeg
    Tigerflag, can you please provide any piece of research that demonstrates: a/ "neurotoxins in synthetic fragrance chemicals" b/ "natural fragrances, to the best of my knowledge, are not neurotoxic" It would also help if you could explain what you mean by 'natural fragrances'. Do you mean perfumes manufactured by people who label them natural? Do you mean essential oils? Do you mean fragrances in nature (eg my rose bush)?
    OK, here goes. My definition of "Natural Perfumes" is: "Perfumes or fragrances made from natural sources, including plant essential oils, absolutes, enfleurages, spices, herbs, woods, shells, etc." Ethical considerations adside, animal-derived substances such as musks, civet and ambergris would be included in this definition. Synthetic fragrance chemicals are derived from petrochemicals. While oil comes out of the ground and is therefor "natural" in a sense, I think we all understand the distinction being made.

    Here is a list of some EOs used in aromatherapy and natural perfumery, with their possible hazards. Glancing over it, the only one I see listed as neurotoxic is Camphor. Many of these EOs are listed as not being safe for pregnant women: Essential Oils Safety Information

    Nature's Gift is widely respected as a supplier of essential oils and absolutes, and their site is a virtual encyclopedia of these oils. They have a different "take" on the safety and risks of many EOs: Essential Oil Warnings

    (People with skin sensitivity to perfumes can get around it by putting a dab of perfume on a bit of clothing that doesn't contact their skin and doesn't show. Natural perfumes with their relatively short scent-life actually last a lot longer when applied this way.)

    From my experience, many people who react severely to synthetic perfumes can tolerate natural perfumes. Anectdotally, I read in a natural perfumer's forum about a woman who had severe asthma attacks in the presence of synthetic perfumes. This is a common reaction to synthetics. The perfumer let this woman sit at her worktable and sniff dozens of natural absolutes with no bad affect whatsoever.

    People with allergies to certain plants will not be able to tolerate them in a natural perfume. Some people with MCS have become so sensitized that they cannot tolerate any fragrances, even natural ones. But there are enough people, (me being one of them) who have no problem tolerating naturals but we have terrible problems around synthetics. This makes me believe that the naturals are probably much safer from a neurotoxic standpoint.

    I have very little respect for Quackwatch. Their bias frequently ignores massive scientific evidence that contradicts their positions, and that's not good science in my book. They still list the non-toxic treatments that cured me of cancer as being unproven, and even deadly. As if chemo isn't deadly... Questions about Quackwatch

    In "Twenty Most Common Chemicals Found in 31 Fragrance Products" You will see a number of volatile organic solvents present, which are the neurotoxic agents of which I speak. Wherever you see "CNS", that means the chemical adversely affects the central nervous system. The reason why is thoroughly explained by Dr. Martin Pall in the articles I list below.

    It is just not true that MCS doesn't exist, or exists in only a few people with probable psychological problems. That is outdated information that does not hold up against the most recent research.

    From Dr. Martin Pall, who advanced the "Elevated Nitric Oxide/Peroxynitrite/NMDA Model of MCS":

    Excerpt from "MCS: The End of the Controversy"

    Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), where people report being exquisitely sensitive to a wide range of organic chemicals, is almost always described as being "controversial." The main source of this supposed controversy is that there has been no plausible physiological mechanism for MCS and consequently, it was difficult to interpret the puzzling reported features of this condition. As discussed below, this is no longer true and consequently the main source of such controversy has been laid to rest. There still are important issues such as how it should be diagnosed and treated and these may also be allayed by further studies of the mechanism discussed below.

    MCS in the U. S. appears to be surprisingly common. Epidemiologists have studied how commonly MCS occurs in the U. S. and roughly 9 to 16 % having more modest sensitivity. Thus we are talking about perhaps 10 million severe MCS sufferers and perhaps 25 to 45 million people with more modest sensitivity. From these numbers, it appears that MCS is the most common of what are described as "unexplained illnesses" in the U. S.

    Those suffering from severe MCS often have their lives disrupted by their illness. They often have to move to a different location, often undergoing several moves before finding an tolerable environment. They may have to leave their place of employment, so many are unemployed. Going out in public may expose them to perfumes that make them ill. They often report sensitivity to cleaning agents used in motels or other commercial locations. Flying is difficult due to jet fumes, cleaning materials, pesticide use and perfumes.

    The exquisite sensitivity of many MCS people is most clearly seen through their reported sensitivity to perfumes. MCS people report becoming ill when a person wearing perfumes walks by or when they are seated several seats away from someone wearing perfume. Clearly the perfume wearer is exposed to a much higher dose than is the MCS person and yet the perfume wearer reports no obvious illness.

    This strongly suggests that MCS people must be at least 100 times more sensitive than are normal individuals and perhaps a 1000 or more times more sensitive. Thus a plausible physiological model of MCS must be able to explain each of the following: How can MCS people be 100 to 1000 times more sensitive to hydrophobic organic solvents than normal people? How can such sensitivity be induced by previous exposure to pesticides or organic solvents? Why is MCS chronic, with sensitivity typically lasting for life? How can the diverse symptoms of MCS be explained? Each of these questions is answered by the model discussed below.

    See Also"Multiple Chemical Sensitivity"

    And: "NMDA sensitization and stimulation by peroxynitrite, nitric oxide, and organic solvents as the mechanism of chemical sensitivity in multiple chemical sensitivity"

    Exerpt from: "Synopsis of studies proving the existence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity" :

    A tool used by Nuclear Medicine Specialists is the SPECT brain scan. SPECT stands for Single Photon Emission Computerized Tomography. Rather than show brain structure like CAT or MRI scans, SPECT scans show functioning of the brain. "Perfusion impairment" means there is a decrease in the flow of blood.

    2A. Neurotoxicologist Dr. Gunnar Heuser performed before and after SPECT brain scans in many MCS patients. The patients were scanned after chemical avoidance, and were then scanned again after being exposed to perfume. His research findings are as follows: MCS patients generally have a decreased flow of blood to the brain, which becomes further decreased upon exposure to perfumes (see Defining Multiple Chemical Sensitivity pgs. 27-30 and a response to the Interagency report by Ann McCampbell, M.D.)

    2B. Nuclear Medicine specialist Dr. Theodore Simon, who trained at Harvard, and his colleagues conducted over 1,500 SPECT scans on MCS patients. 90% of these patients showed brain abnormalities and deterioration in brain function that increased upon chemical exposure. The changes that took place upon chemical exposure were "very different from the changes associated with psychiatric disease."

    2C. Dr. Gerald H. Ross (M.D., C.C.F.P., D.I.B.E.M., D.A.B.E.M., F.A.A.E.M., F.R.S.M., Past President of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine), in a documentary, discusses before and after SPECT brain scans: MCS patients were scanned in a clean environment and then scanned after being exposed to a substance that by history they report being sensitive to, "in an amount that's an everyday experience (...it's not as if they're sniffing glue)." MCS patients have abnormal brain functioning. After the patients were exposed to a substance they were sensitive to a "profound" deterioration in brain function took place. The area in which this function deterioration is present correlates with the brain-related symptoms reported by the MCS sufferers.

    ----------------------------------------
    Please forgive any typos. I tried to proof this but I'm not at my best in the morning.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Siri Amrit
    Last edited by tigerflag; 1st October 2006 at 05:01 PM.

  18. #48

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    OK. I haven't read all of your reply yet, but I will do so with the utmost attention, because you have taken a lot of trouble. Meanwhile...

    I have had a look at the "twenty most common chemicals in 31 fragrance products" as it seemed to come the closest to addressing my original question. There seem to only be 13 chemicals listed(?) but a quick glance showed that all seven of the ones that are used as scent material in perfumes, occur in abundance in natural aroma materials. In fact it would be quite (I suspect very) hard to make a natural perfume without them being present. This is leaving aside ethanol and acetone, both present in natural products, which are not usual active aromachemicals. You can google all this yourself.

    Back to my rose bush... Ah yes, pure natural rose oil, concrete, absolute, co2 extraction, whatever. Lovely and natural, yes? Contains methyleugenol, a suspected carcinogen - google estragole as well when you check this one. Use in fragrance is very severely restricted because of this. Which is why perfumes mostly use carefully manufactured synthetic alternatives - not because it is cheaper, or easier, not because they don't want to use anything natural, but because it is safer.

  19. #49

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    Rose oil contains between 0-5% percent Methyleugenol.
    Reference: http://eethomp.com/AT/dangerous_oils.html

    The IFRA puts it at 3.5%.

    Assuming it has even 5% Methyleugenol, if you dilute the rose oil to 10% in a carrier (quite strong), that puts the Methyleugenol at 0.005, well within the IFRA safety guidelines for:

    EdT 0.00785 rounded: 0.008
    Fine fragrance 0.01963 rounded: 0.02
    Reference: http://www.ifraorg.org/GuideLines.asp

    The European Cosmetic Directive 76/768/EEC – 7TH Amendment and the
    The (UK) Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 2003 SI 2003/835
    Reference: http://www.a-t-c.org.uk/pages/index....sec=6&page=191

    "These new UK Regulations are quite separate from the 7th Amendment to the European Cosmetic Directive and came into force on 15 April 2003. They take into account amendments that have been adopted since the Cosmetic Regulations were implemented in 1996. The Regulations are published by The Stationery Office and are available from TSO, PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN, Web site: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop under ISBN No: 0-11-045437-5. They prohibit the use of methyleugenol (a naturally occuring substance in many essential oils such as rose oil) when used as a fragrance ingredient except for normal content in the natural essences used and provided that the concentration does not exceed:
    (a) 0.01 per cent in fragrance;
    (b) 0.004 per cent in eau de toilette;
    (c) 0.002 per cent in fragrance cream "

    Math is not my strong point, so if I have made any errors here I would appreciate the correction.

    People have been safely wearing diluted Rose oil in perfumes and attars for thousands of years. Synthetic fragrance chemicals began to be used late in the 19th century, long before there were studies about the possible carcinogenic or other health effects of synthetic or natural fragrances. Synthetics have the advantages of greatly reduced cost, as well as aromatic consistency. Synthetics are also not subject to the vagaries of weather problems or crop failures, so they were eagerly adopted by the fragrance industry.

    Humbly submitted,

    Siri Amrit

  20. #50

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    Siri, I work every day with fragrance materials, natural and unnatural (not that I make a distinction personally). IFRA limits and their calculation are virtually in my blood, so to speak... I take an awful lot of care that this is not literally true, either for myself or for my customers!

    The point is, that what you have defined as natural, some of it, contains toxins. No ifs, no buts, no 'you can still use x amount of it' - in short it contains toxins. Anyone can find out about this - perhaps it takes a little more effort than creating a sockpuppet, but it needs the desire to learn.

    In the example of methyleugenol in rose oil - it is also present in other essential oils. It is easy to go over the IFRA limit if you blindly assume that all natural oils are 'safe - can you see that? And that people have been safely using rose oils for thousands of years - well how on earth can you know that? All we know is that they used them.

    That a product is natural is whatsoever no guarantee that it is not toxic, or a sensitiser, or an irritant. I really have no axe to grind about this, and I have no patience with the idea that a carefully constructed synthetic is automatcally safe either... The natural/unnatural divide strikes me as an emotional sort of thing rather than anything concrete, but that is just my opinion.

  21. #51

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    Everything in this world is made up of chemicals, even natural stuff. Water is a chemical.
    Oh come on - like Motecuzoma says the point is about is about chemicals which are not tested for long term human exposure - everyone knows what the effects of arsenic are - but the effects of inhaling or absorbing Benzoyl Benzoate through osmosis, which is comprised of benzene molecules which are 100% known to be highly carcinogenic, via 5 sprays per day of perfume is completely unknown, and there are plenty of sound scientific reasons to suspect it is detrimental to your health. I would also wonder about inhaling and absorbing 5 sprays of natural oils too, but synthetic chemicals like dioxins can have really pernicious properties than natural poisons like arnsenic or even cyanide don't.

    Man-made chemicals are generally understood as well as naturally-occuring ones, if not better.. and most synthetics in use in perfumery have been used by large human populations for years, if not decades.
    That just isn't true - most chemicals and drugs are only tested in a very limited way, especially since food and drug testing by the Federal government in the US has been deregulated into a joke - the industry does the testing itself, gives itself a green light, and then the real test is done on the general public as we saw with vioxx and phen-phen, etc.

    No one is doing any serious long term tests of chemical additives, because it's costly to do them, and incentives are against it - university researchers who take on such sujects often get in trouble as corporate donors get upset and threaten to wirthdraw funding, etc. That's been a big problem with cell phone testing for example.

    It's one thing to be skeptical of an "everything natural is good/everything synthetic is evil" mentality, but it's just as childish to go to the other extreme and think "who cares, just live, water is a chemical, if it's in a bottle for sale, it's fine" and it's even more childish to insult someone who's worried about those things. Go ahead and point out that natural chemical are also dangerous, go ahead and debate about testing etc, but why insult this woman whose mother is sick. or why insult anyone who thinks about what's in the things they eat and drink and spray?

    People used to think lead and asbestos and DDT and benzene were fine.

    Alot of the chemicals with huge unpronounceable names in fragrances *are* fine, but as a consumer who has no idea what those things are, it's just rational to wonder what those chemicals are, and what long term effects they might have.
    Last edited by GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR; 11th June 2007 at 12:42 PM.
    CAESAR SEEKS:
    Parfums d'Empire: Fougére Bengale

    CAESAR SWAPS/SELLS:
    Sa Majesté La Rose



  22. #52

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    Quote Originally Posted by GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR View Post
    Oh come on - like Motecuzoma says the point is about is about chemicals which are not tested for long term human exposure
    AFAIK, oils and other extracts from natural sources are tested no more than synthetics are.

    the effects of inhaling or absorbing Benzoyl Benzoate through osmosis, which is comprised of benzene molecules which are 100% known to be highly carcinogenic, via 5 sprays per day of perfume is completely unknown, and there are plenty of sound scientific reasons to suspect it is detrimental to your health.
    Such as?

    Their composition is utterly irrelevant unless you can demonstrate that human metabolism, or some other natural process, changes BB into a harmful substance. There are numerous examples of harmless molecules which are dangerous with only a slight change in composition.

    I would also wonder about inhaling and absorbing 5 sprays of natural oils too, but synthetic chemicals like dioxins can have really pernicious properties than natural poisons like arnsenic or even cyanide don't.
    So, we're to believe that all synthetics should be considered as deadly as cyanide, just because you say so?

    food and drug testing by the Federal government in the US has been deregulated into a joke - the industry does the testing itself, gives itself a green light, and then the real test is done on the general public as we saw with vioxx and phen-phen, etc.
    Your implication here is that millions of consumers are being exposed to substances that may be harmful. However, we can see that those millions of consumers have not generally been harmed by the substances you're trying to condemn. For good or ill, that "test on the general public" has already been performed, and perfume passes.

    No one is doing any serious long term tests of chemical additives, because it's costly to do them, and incentives are against it - university researchers who take on such sujects often get in trouble as corporate donors get upset and threaten to wirthdraw funding, etc. That's been a big problem with cell phone testing for example.
    I think that tinfoil hat is getting to you. Did you have it tested for safety?

    It's one thing to be skeptical of an "everything natural is good/everything synthetic is evil" mentality, but it's just as childish to go to the other extreme and think "who cares, just live, water is a chemical, if it's in a bottle for sale, it's fine"
    No one is saying that. What they're doing is providing a rational scientific perspective. Your inability to distinguish one from the other lends no credit to your argument.

    Go ahead and point out that natural chemical are also dangerous, go ahead and debate about testing etc, but why insult this woman whose mother is sick.
    Many people secretly believe that those who lack the ability to think rationally can at least be persuaded to follow those who do through social pressure.

    Alot of the chemicals with huge unpronounceable names in fragrances *are* fine, but as a consumer who has no idea what those things are, it's just rational to wonder what those chemicals are, and what long term effects they might have.
    There is a difference between curiosity motivated by self-interest and blanket condemnation of an arbitrary class of chemicals motivated by fear and ignorance.

  23. #53

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    AFAIK, oils and other extracts from natural sources are tested no more than synthetics are.
    Well maybe they should be testing those too, but mostly we already know that almond oil isn't particularly dangerous, or that oakmoss is an allergen etc. Those things have been around a long time

    Their composition is utterly irrelevant unless you can demonstrate that human metabolism, or some other natural process, changes BB into a harmful substance. There are numerous examples of harmless molecules which are dangerous with only a slight change in composition.
    Well you may be right that Benzoyl Benzoate is totally harmless, even though Benzene isn't but we as consumers don't know that. Plus there is serious debate in among experts on some chemicals like Sodium Benzoate which is also in some fragrances. The argument is that if it interacts with certain ions in your body (I think vitamin C was an example, I don't remember the details) then it will break down into Sodium and Benzene, and then it is harmful. Sodium Benzoate is in many beverages and in many fragrances, and there are strong arguments that it is dangerous, but the science is still debatable at this point, and tests haven't been done in terms of it being sprayed or osmosis, as they've been focused on it as a beverage additive.

    So, we're to believe that all synthetics should be considered as deadly as cyanide, just because you say so?
    You completely misread what I was saying - I said nothing of the sort. I said that some synthetic chemicals interact with the human body in really pernicious ways that are hard to understand, unlike even really deadly natural poisons like cyanide.


    Your implication here is that millions of consumers are being exposed to substances that may be harmful. However, we can see that those millions of consumers have not generally been harmed by the substances you're trying to condemn. For good or ill, that "test on the general public" has already been performed, and perfume passes.
    You're inventing my arguments - I'm not trying to condemn any particular substances, I'm just arguing that it makes sense to be cautious about substances that one knows little or nothing about. What I'm condemning is your bizarre attitude of needing to bash down anyone who is worried that these chemicals might have some negative effects, just like other chemicals in the past that weren't properly tested turned out to have.

    And your argument here is really weak - how do you know these chemicals haven't had harmful effects on millions of people who've been using them. Maybe many devellopped allergies, or skin conditions or more serious illnesses after long term exposure and it just wasn't linked to the chemicals. In ancient greece people used lead to line wine kegs. Obviously this must have had serious health effects, and obviously they just didn't link it to the lead.

    I think that tinfoil hat is getting to you. Did you have it tested for safety?
    Well, that's enough for me. Judging from your tone and your general responses I see that you are not particularly interesting in having a discussion. You haven't heard a word I've said and injected a steretypical nonexistant viewpoint into all of my arguments.

    IWhat's definitely hazardous to the public is when people ardently take positions without hearing what the opposition is saying because the sound of their own voice is ringing too loudly in their ears.

    Congratulations you win, your strawman is totally defeated. Good job!
    Last edited by GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR; 12th June 2007 at 04:49 PM.
    CAESAR SEEKS:
    Parfums d'Empire: Fougére Bengale

    CAESAR SWAPS/SELLS:
    Sa Majesté La Rose



  24. #54
    zztopp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    the Dirty South
    Posts
    6,650

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    So this debate still rages on.

    Caesar, gotta love your sig - my colleague in the lab cubicle behind me inquired about the sales and the swaps !
    -

  25. #55

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Flemington, NJ
    Posts
    208

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    Wow, this thread has strayed far away from its original point. Let me rephrase what the original poster was trying to get across. Do you prefer fragrances that are predominantly made of essential oils or ones that are predominantly made of synthetic oils? “Natural” obviously wasn't the correct word choice but I doubt he ever dreamed so many uptight people were going to get butt hurt over it. The same people who are accusing hippies and others being uptight about straying away from chemicals are being uptight of word usage. Talk about hypocritical. It's a message board and no one is going to change their values because of what someone else says.
    So moving on, I tend to wear predominantly synthetic fragrances at work because (just like they are designed to) they appeal to more of the masses than my predominantly essential oil fragrances do. I keep those for myself and wear them for myself because I enjoy them more and they just smell better on my skin. Not all of the essential oil fragrances do but the ones that smell great, smell better than any synthetic fragrances I’ve come across.
    This is not a holier than thou attitude but just my sense of smell and what it prefers. I’m not wearing these fragrances to impress anyone. Honestly, I’m a little bit embarrassed about the money that I would spend on a fragrance or if asked what I was wearing the inquirer would be left wondering what I had just said. Not to mention that it is not widely accepted that a straight male such as myself would have such a fondness of perfumery. Even my girlfriend asked me if I was going to come out of the closet. This was after my interest in essential oil fragrances because it is accepted that straight males wear designer fragrances or axe body spray.
    I just wanted to clear that up seeing on how people are so quick to write off those that prefer essential oil fragrances, as snobs who just want something to brag about. I don’t have anyone to impress on a message board.

  26. #56

    Default Re: Natural or not??

    Quote Originally Posted by GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR View Post
    Well maybe they should be testing those too, but mostly we already know...
    Last I heard, we don't "mostly already know" about a lot of natural aromachemicals, and when we do know, it's because we have performed testing.

    Well you may be right that Benzoyl Benzoate is totally harmless, even though Benzene isn't but we as consumers don't know that.
    I never claimed that BB was harmless, only that it's common for harmless chemicals to be similar to harmful ones, and that the presence of benzene constituents in BB doesn't necessarily indicate that they have similar effects.

    The argument is that if it interacts with certain ions in your body (I think vitamin C was an example, I don't remember the details) then it will break down into Sodium and Benzene, and then it is harmful.
    I can't speak to that, as I haven't seen the studies.

    Incidentally, a debate over the potential toxicity of a different chemical isn't much of a basis for suspicion.

    I said that some synthetic chemicals interact with the human body in really pernicious ways that are hard to understand, unlike even really deadly natural poisons like cyanide.
    You are implying that there is some fundamental difference between synthetic and naturally-occurring chemicals that serves as a basis for predicting their respective effects on the human body. No such difference exists. The labels "natural" and "synthetic" are artificial, and in this context, meaningless.

    You're inventing my arguments - I'm not trying to condemn any particular substances...
    Your posts are couched in the assumptions of chemophobia. Wear the shoe.

    Well, that's enough for me. Judging from your tone and your general responses I see that you are not particularly interesting in having a discussion. You haven't heard a word I've said and injected a steretypical nonexistant viewpoint into all of my arguments.
    If your definition of "discussion" requires that I don't point out the obvious flaws in your claims and assumptions, then no, I'm not interested in having a "discussion" with you. You might try Kansas; I hear the people there don't understand science either.

Similar Threads

  1. Natural and synthetic composition breakdown
    By scentophile in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 26th June 2015, 05:14 AM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2nd June 2008, 10:06 PM
  3. Natural Personal Care For Men - Your Thoughts?
    By heyz in forum Men's Grooming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 15th March 2008, 04:07 PM
  4. do niche houses use more natural ingredients?
    By mochi227 in forum Female Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 25th January 2007, 02:20 PM
  5. Natural Perfumery Month
    By Grant in forum Basenotes Articles
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11th December 2006, 06:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Loving perfume on the Internet since 2000