Code of Conduct
Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: CHEMICALS! RUN!

  1. #1

    Default CHEMICALS! RUN!

    I've been meaning to write this post for a long time and a really good entry on Luca Turin's blog has finally got me fired up enough to write. I apologize in advance for the somewhat angry and sarcastic rant that follows, but I hope it can be both educational and even entertaining.

    That bottle of himalayan mountain spring mineral water next to your computer is made of chemicals. The hardwood floor under your chair is made of chemicals. The organic hummus and alfalfa sprout pita you ate for lunch is made of chemicals. The air you are breathing is made of chemicals. And don't tell anyone but... YOU are made of chemicals.

    I'm so sick and tired of hearing concern about synthetic chemicals - especially when people just say "chemicals" to mean "harmful synthetics" as if everything they have ever encountered in life on earth were not a chemical. There are more poisonous, toxic, rash inducing, pain causing, mind altering, paralyzing, debilitating, life ending CHEMICALS produced in NATURE than man will ever produce in a laboratory. You want a little brown recluse spider venon in your perfume? Come on - its all natural. Wait, a natural substance will make my arm die and rot while still attached to my body? No way - only chemicals are bad for you, man!

    So I have to ask, where do you draw the line between "natural" anything and evil "synthetic" chemicals. I didn't notice any hand picked rose petals floating in your "all natural" perfume. Where did the petals go? Thats where the rose smell is "naturally", right? Oh, the perfumer had to extract the fragrant oils from the rose petals to make them useful. Well, how did he do it? Soak them in alcohol? But isn't alcohol a chemical? Oh, he used only all natural alcohol, well I guess that makes it ok.

    Anyone know where alcohol comes from? Thats right. Yeast + sugar, usually from grain or fruit for the alcohol we drink and I think they use corn husks and cobs for industrial (read: perfumery) alcohol. So, this chemical comes from natural stuff? No way! Actually - look around you. All the "stuff" we have to work with is natural. All those nasty, dangerous synthetic chemicals get manufactured/extracted/created from something. So I guess we can draw the line at a certain amount of processing done to a material when it transitions from "natural" to "synthetic." Maybe the line is drawn at chemical reactions. We can soak our roses in alcohol and the oils will dissolve in the alcohol. Thats a purely physical process - right? - no chemicals are being changed or altered. Good, we have all natural rose essence. Wait! Nooooo! Our all natural alcohol was made in a chemical reaction inside of yeast, so that criterial is no good. But the yeast are alive, so maybe that makes it ok.

    But - aren't we alive too? Is a mindless yeast making alcohol that much different than a human chemist mixing in a lab? Are people not part of nature as well? Is it the fact that we choose to manufacture more chemicals than just the ones we are biologically programmed to make the problem?

    The point of all of this is to hopefully get people thinking about the natural vs. synthetic ingredients of perfumery in a different way. Naturals are not safe by virtue of being made inside an organism and synthetics are not dangerous by virtue of being made in a lab. Both sets are completely, 100% unquestionably equally likely to be safe or dangerous. They are also equally likely to smell good or bad. If anything - the synthetics are MORE LIKELY to be SAFE because the chemist has carefully crafted the substance and knows everything that went into making it, though I won't go so far as to actually make that claim. I think we can all agree that the rose plant does not have a degree in organic chemistry and is not monitoring its scent to make sure it is safe for human skin. I should point out that there are hundreds of different compounds in that natural rose oil that do not contribute to the smell and are thus unneccessary "risks."

    Aside from all this stuff about safety - there are major advantages to sythethics for perfumery. Luca Turin made a good point that in the natural essences, you get a big package with many different smells rolled into one. If there are 5 predominant molecules that combine to make "rose" then you have much, much more flexibility to craft your rose just the may you want it if you have those 5 chemicals in 5 test tubes and pick the exact blend yourself. Hypothetically, one of the parts of "rose" might really clash with a part of "iris" so that in natural form, the two would never be mixed. But if you can choose to leave out the one chemical that creates the problem, you can have (more or less) rose and iris that smell good together. Synthetics give perfumers options that they don't have with naturals. A perfumer may choose to use a natural ingredient because it is exactly what he needs, but to artifically limit his possibilities seems silly.


  2. #2
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6,710

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    You make some very good points and for the most part I agree. My only concern is that in recent years more synthetic ingredients are being used, and it seems that more people are complaining about headaches and respiratory problems as reactions to fragrances. Cause and effect?

  3. #3

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    Stuigi,

    What I'm trying to convey here is that it is doesn't matter that a headache is caused by sythetic ingredients (which we don't really know, we are guessing). The point is that there is nothing fundamentally different about something being synthethic vs. natural. Saying one synthesized compound causes a problem does not say anything at all about any other synthesized compound. Lumping all synthetics together is like the chemical equivalent of stereotyping. Try to turn that around - there are natural ingredients which give people headaches. Does that mean there is something wrong with all naturals? Of course not - most obviously because we ourselves are made of natural ingredients. To say that some NEW ingredients in perfumery may be bad is reasonable - but to point out their origin as synthetic is irrelevant and just creates fodder for the anti-everything greenie organic co-op shoppers. More importantly, it creates an irrational fear of synthetic materials and ingredients among people who don't know any better. Some things are both synthetic and dangerous, but nothing is dangerous because it is synthetic.

  4. #4
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6,710

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    Perhaps there are SOME synthetic ingredients being more frequently used than others recently. Perhaps THOSE are causing the increased adverse reactions.

  5. #5

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    I agree with a lot of the points you made. Even if there were rose petals floating in a bottle of perfume, the fertilizer used to grow that rose would make it unnatural. I really don't think about the ingredients of my scents because if they smell good, that's all that matters to me.

  6. #6

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    I agree with a good deal of what you have to say... to be honest, anyone that smells XS by Paco Rabanne as well as Himilaya and still shells out the extra cash for Himilaya gets a :-? out of me. However, I once had an organic chemistry professor make these kinds of points to me. One thing he mentioned was that it was ridiculous to pay for natural vanilla extract when vanillin is just as good. I think that anyone who has ever made food with vanillin can testify against that argument! ;D

  7. #7

  8. #8

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    Maybe we'll start to see organic fragrances, like organic foods, appearing in 2006... :

  9. #9

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    Quote Originally Posted by Xen
    Maybe we'll start to see organic fragrances, like organic foods, appearing in 2006... :
    They already have organic fragrances. :

  10. #10

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    We've had this discussion (in various forms) in the past, and the consensus was that not all man-made chemicals are dangerous, and not all naturally-occurring chemicals, safe.
    The thing that does concern (some) people though is the inclusion of the already known dangerous (man-made) chemicals (such as Propylene Glycol) which continue to be used in the cosmetic industry.

  11. #11

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    Actually, synthetics are more DANGEROUS because even though they construct these chemicals, they don't know any of the side effects that might ensue. That's why it takes around 10 years for any pharmaceutical company to produce drugs - most of the time it's just testing the synthetic drugs for side effects.

    Natural fragrances, however, have been since the dawn of time and they've been studied for ages. The effects they have are pretty much well know.

    And even though synthetics and natural chemicals are all chemicals, the difference is that one is produced in a lab through unnatural means ie. synthetic. No one EVER said that natural fragrances aren't chemicals - only that they're produced in nature and are relatively safe.

  12. #12

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    I agree with that nowadays the word chemical has a negative sound to it. One chemistry teacher told he once saw a grocery package that roughly translated "Doesn't include chemicals". Wow! I really want to know what kind of anti-matter that was.

    Everyone is worried about the synthetic chemicals in fragrances and food while living in a city and almost literally breathing air out of a cars tail pipe. Things should be put in propotion. Same thing is true with genetically manipulated food. Ok, I admit it has to be tested but it is tested a lot more carefully than natural food. And the plants or whatever didn't design themselves to be eaten either...

  13. #13

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    The thing that does concern (some) people though is the inclusion of the already known dangerous (man-made) chemicals (such as Propylene Glycol)
    Propylene glycol is dangerous? Where did you hear this nonsense?
    All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

  14. #14

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    I fear the aldehydes they put in lots of perfumes.

  15. #15

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    I fear the aldehydes they put in lots of perfumes.
    Why?
    All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

  16. #16

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    The vast majority of department store fragrances don't smell harsh because they're made up of chemicals, they smell harsh because they're poorly made. I have no problems what so ever with aromachemicals. Of course I'm a bit of a romantic and the idea of precious natural materials appeals to me, but I value their appeal for what it is; a romantic notion.

  17. #17

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    Quote Originally Posted by godzilla
    We've had this discussion (in various forms) in the past, and the consensus was that not all man-made chemicals are dangerous, and not all naturally-occurring chemicals, safe.
    The thing that does concern (some) people though is the inclusion of the already known dangerous (man-made) chemicals (such as Propylene Glycol) which continue to be used in the cosmetic industry.
    Isn't the verdict still out on propylene glycol? Dipropylene glycol can be found in virtually all fragrances as it's used to dilute the stronger aroma chemicals like aldehydes to make them easier to dose. I'm not afraid of propylene glycol at all. I think it's a highly innocuous ingredient.

  18. #18

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    On a side-note, I have to say that the heated discussion on Turin's blog (and the continuation on PoL) was an eye-opener to me. It clearly showed how people love or prefer all-natural perfumes for various, different reasons, and that those who categorically dismiss the use of synthetics in perfumery have different perspectives on the subject, using different types of arguments. It was not a simple discussion between two homogeneous, diametrically opposed camps.

    Turin's comment that the perfume industry partly owes the "bad rep" to its own lack of transparency ("The fragrance world has been coy about its chemical origins virtually since it started&quot fascinates me. I think there's a lot of truth in that.
    [font=verdana][url=http://del.icio.us/scentedpages][b]my bookmarks on del.icio.us[/b][/url][/font]
    [font=verdana][url=http://www.nstperfume.com/perfume-books/][b]my book reviews on NST[/b][/url][/font]
    [font=verdana][url=www.scentedpages.com][b]ScentedPages.com[/b][/url][/font]

  19. #19

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    I'm personally more concerned about what smells good than about perfumes being dangerous for you.
    A given molecule is what it is, it has zero impact whether it's been synthethised or found in nature. In that sense, the very distinction is a meaningless one.
    However, what is less meaningless *is that a fragrance is meant to stimulate emotions. A natural fragrance contains a large bouquet of molecules, perhaps hundreds of them. Yes, maybe each one can be manufactured in a lab, but nobody will actually bother to manufacture anything but the main, dominant molecules in a scent.
    Now, the thing is that a lot of what scents do to us, at least in my opinion, comes from arousing either our own memories *- think of a hay scent, think of a fig scent - or in some cases probably genetically-imprinted preferences from thousands generations of Homo Sapiens (why do I like Sandalwood, even though I've never had one in my garden ?).
    Natural fragrances, having the original, wider bouquet coming from these hundreds of molecules, usually carry more emotional power for us. In theory they could be entirely replicated synthetically, and would then be just as good; in practice, purely synthetic fragrances would have fewer molecules, and therefore not the same emotional footprint. And they may have molecules which do not exist in nature, and which therefore may carry less emotional power because Homo Sapiens is not trained to smell and love them.
    I guess what is fine is to have some of the notes coming from a mono-scent synthetic, just to replace an expensive natural molecule, as long as it's mixed with a rich enough natural background.

  20. #20

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    I have to say, the addition of hedione in Eau Sauvage was great. It would smell pretty dated without the inclusion of that.

  21. #21

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    Subjective, unsubstantiated, unproven opinions-masking-as-fact like "synthetics are dangerous" are actually what are truly dangerous. They reflect the alarming trend one sees today (and in this country in particular) with regards to the knee-jerk, uneducated backlash against science and the validity of the scientific method (Yes, I was obliquely referring to the promotion of so-called "intelligent design" as a science. Thank you district Judge John E. Jones for shining the brilliant light of reason on this dark rubbish).

    Here is a fact. We are surrounded by synthesized chemical compounds. To claim they are all dangerous is to claim science is, in toto, dangerous which I then I assume means you are going to stop driving your car (gasoline is synthesized), cease using electronic devices (like the computer in front of which you are currently sitting and which contains a cornucopia of synthetic compounds), avoid contact with all plastics (good luck with that one) and of course, discontinue the application of all fragrances that you didn't personally either witness being distilled or you distilled yourself.

    Griff

    PS: Ah... it's nice to be back. I am wearing Dior Homme today, redolent in its astonishing synthetic iris root ambrosia. Time to rethink this one. It may be a giant.

    Griff
    _____________________
    Follow me on FaceBook and Twitter
    And of course, eBay Radio

  22. #22

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    Found something intresting

    http://www.gina.antczak.btinternet.co.uk/CU/PERF.HTM

    "Fig leaf, fresh and preparations (Ficus carica)

    Prohibited. Should not be used as a fragrance ingredient based on the sensitizing and extreme phototoxic potential."

    And these (men´s)frags have Fig leaf

    --------------------

    Conquest for Men by Agatha Brown

    Far Away for Men by Avon

    Image by Cerruti

    Good Life by Davidoff

    Unbound for Men by Halston

    OP Juice by Ocean Pacific

    Unless for Men by Panouge

    ---------------------


    I also found out that Oak moss and Musk are not good for you!!

    http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/Comment...tml#Conditions

    ""Musk AETT(23) and Musk ambrette, two tested raw materials of the hundreds of untested chemicals used in fragrances and flavors have demonstrated potent neurotoxic effects and the capacity to induce the breakdown of nerve cells and myelin sheath in the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves.(24) Countless other substances applied daily to the skin of consumers in the form of soaps, perfumes, aftershaves, and detergents have yet to be tested for their chronic neurotoxic effects."

    There are 481 frags that contain Musk!


    And Oak moss

    ------------------

    L'Essence de Déclaration by Cartier

    Wild Fern by Geo F Trumper

    Tabac Original by Mäurer & Wirtz

    Nautica Competition (original) by Nautica

    Richard James by Richard James

    --------------------

    "A large percentage of skin allergies can be pinpointed by the use of the screening agent called "fragrance mix". Fragrance Mix contains 8 known skin sensitizers and is diagnostic for 70-80% of those with skin allergies to fragrances. (22) The eight materials are:

    *[Alpha]-amylcinnamic aldehyde (CAS# 122-40-7)

    * Cinnamic alcohol (CAS# 104-54-10

    * Cinnamic aldehyde (CAS# 104-55-2)

    * Eugenol (CAS# 97-52-0)

    * Geraniol (CAS# 106-24-1)

    * Hydroxycitronellal (CAS# 107-75-5)

    * Isoeugnol (CAS# 97-54-1)

    * Oak moss (CAS# 9000-54-4)



    Im concerned


    edit.
    also found this

    http://www.fpinva.org/Newsletter/02_03_article_3.htm

  23. #23

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    Quote Originally Posted by Peace
    Found something intresting

    http://www.gina.antczak.btinternet.co.uk/CU/PERF.HTM

    "Fig leaf, fresh and preparations (Ficus carica) *

    Prohibited. Should not be used as a fragrance ingredient based on the sensitizing and extreme phototoxic potential."

    And these (men´s)frags have Fig leaf

    --------------------

    Conquest for Men by Agatha Brown

    Far Away for Men by Avon

    Image by Cerruti

    Good Life by Davidoff

    Unbound for Men by Halston

    OP Juice by Ocean Pacific *

    Unless for Men by Panouge *

    ---------------------


    I also found out that Oak moss and Musk *are not good for you!!

    http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/Comment...tml#Conditions

    ""Musk AETT(23) and Musk ambrette, two tested raw materials of the hundreds of untested chemicals used in fragrances and flavors have demonstrated potent neurotoxic effects and the capacity to induce the breakdown of nerve cells and myelin sheath in the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves.(24) Countless other substances applied daily to the skin of consumers in the form of soaps, perfumes, aftershaves, and detergents have yet to be tested for their chronic neurotoxic effects." *

    There are 481 frags that contain Musk!


    And Oak moss

    ------------------

    L'Essence de Déclaration by Cartier *

    Wild Fern by Geo F Trumper

    Tabac Original by Mäurer & Wirtz

    Nautica Competition (original) by Nautica

    Richard James by Richard James *

    --------------------

    "A large percentage of skin allergies can be pinpointed by the use of the screening agent called "fragrance mix". Fragrance Mix contains 8 known skin sensitizers and is diagnostic for 70-80% of those with skin allergies to fragrances. (22) The eight materials are:

    *[Alpha]-amylcinnamic aldehyde (CAS# 122-40-7)

    * Cinnamic alcohol (CAS# 104-54-10

    * Cinnamic aldehyde (CAS# 104-55-2)

    * Eugenol (CAS# 97-52-0)

    * Geraniol (CAS# 106-24-1)

    * Hydroxycitronellal (CAS# 107-75-5)

    * Isoeugnol (CAS# 97-54-1)

    * Oak moss (CAS# 9000-54-4)



    Im concerned *


    edit.
    also found this

    http://www.fpinva.org/Newsletter/02_03_article_3.htm
    The two musks you mentioned are no longer used in perfumery.

    The 8 skin-sensitizers mentioned are part of a larger amount of raw material that has to be specified in the list of ingredients in the EU. If you want to avoid them, just read the box. And good luck, because these chemicals are very common. And they appear in large quantities in a lot of NATURAL raw materials.





  24. #24

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    Quote Originally Posted by Peace
    Found something intresting

    http://www.gina.antczak.btinternet.co.uk/CU/PERF.HTM

    "Fig leaf, fresh and preparations (Ficus carica) *

    Prohibited. Should not be used as a fragrance ingredient based on the sensitizing and extreme phototoxic potential."

    And these (men´s)frags have Fig leaf

    --------------------

    Conquest for Men by Agatha Brown

    Far Away for Men by Avon

    Image by Cerruti

    Good Life by Davidoff

    Unbound for Men by Halston

    OP Juice by Ocean Pacific *

    Unless for Men by Panouge *

    ---------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by Concord
    [
    The two musks you mentioned are no longer used in perfumery.

    The 8 skin-sensitizers mentioned are part of a larger amount of raw material that has to be specified in the list of ingredients in the EU. If you want to avoid them, just read the box. And good luck, because these chemicals are very common. And they appear in large quantities in a lot of NATURAL raw materials.

    Hmmm..i see it might be a LONG HARD ROAD ahead of me , if i would avoid ALL of them completely.


    But what about the Fig leaf info? I think it well be better for me to stay away from them

  25. #25

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    This got my attention.

    "There are also unsubstantiated reports that major fragrance chemicals such as limonene, as well as very minor ones such as benzaldehyde and even substances not used at all in fragrances, such as toluene are respiratory sensitizers. Indeed, no single fragrance material is listed anywhere as, or known to be, a respiratory sensitizer"

    While limonene itself is not a respiratory sensitizer, the breakdown products of limonene are respiratory sensitizers. While it is possible to limit the breakdown of limonene with the use of antioxidants, it can not be eliminated. Once in the air, it is subject to breakdown and formation of respiratory sensitizers.
    There are materials used in fragrance that are listed as and known to be respiratory sensitizers. Both beta-ionone and alpha-ionone are on the EU list Perfume and Aromatic Raw Materials and are known to be respiratory sensitizers according to MSDS sheets from Aldrich Chemical Company. Pine rosen is listed on the EU list of list Perfume and Aromatic Raw Materials. It is known to be a respiratory sensitizer.
    Toluene is a not a direct fragrance chemical. It is one of the major starting materials for synthesis of fragrance chemicals. Toluene may be present in fragrance chemicals as a contaminate from synthesis of fragrance chemical. Fragrance chemicals are often unstable and may breakdown. So toluene may be the breakdown product of fragrance chemicals synthesized from toluene.
    Further fragrance chemicals are not routinely tested for respiratory effects. The industry had no protocol to determine if fragrance chemicals are respiratory allergens. So the truth is it is not known if most fragrance chemicals are respiratory sensitizers or not.
    Respiratory sensitization is not the only way fragrance chemicals can affect the respiratory system. Many fragrance materials are respiratory irritants. Irritants can cause underlying inflammation, swelling, and increased mucus production of the upper airways and lungs. They can cause increased susceptibility to allergens, toxins, and infections. Those with asthma and respiratory problems are especially sensitive to irritants and levels tolerated by others may cause asthma attacks.



    http://www.fpinva.org/Newsletter/02_03_article_3.htm

  26. #26

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    This too was WERY intresting.

    "One study that was done showed that the perfume strips in magazines were triggers for asthma. Another study showed that asthma like symptoms were triggered by fragrance chemicals. This study showed that the symptoms were triggered even when the participants could not detect the odor. It also pointed out that carbon masks while filtering out odor, did not prevent the symptoms.

    Virtually all of the chemicals used in fragrances are volatile organic compounds. These types of chemicals are known to be respiratory irritants. They are often unstable chemicals that are air, light, and heat sensitive. This means they break down in the air, often to more dangerous compounds. The components in the air that can constantly change."

    "The nose is a chemical receptor. When you detect the odor of something you are detecting the chemicals that make up that odor. The sense of smell has a more direct connection to the brain than any other sense. There is no barrier between the brain and the chemicals that you breathe in. While it is well known the effects of "snorting" cocaine, little thought is given to the effects of the other chemicals that pass through our nasal passages.

    Studies have shown that inhaling fragrance chemicals can cause circulatory changes in the brain. Changes in electrical activity in the brain also occur with exposure. Fragrances are a frequent trigger of migraine headaches. Changes in circulatory and electrical activity in the brain can trigger migraines in susceptible individuals."

    One of the most difficult aspects for the person that is sensitive to fragrances is the lack of understanding by others, including the medical profession. Unless one is personally affected or has someone close to them affected it is difficult to comprehend how much one's life is impacted.

    Co-workers will insist they do not have a fragrance on and totally over look the scented soap, shampoo, deodorant, hairspray, and laundry products they use. Or they will say, "I only have a little bit on", never understanding that it may only take a little bit to cause severe symptoms. And others insist it is their personal right to wear fragranced products no matter how it impacts others.


    The fragrance sensitive person is often seen as making ridiculous and unreasonable requests. And since there are so very few studies and literature to support the position that fragrance chemicals pose health problems it is difficult to convince others. The same people that would be highly offended by being exposed to cigarette smoke do not see the parallel between "second hand perfume" and "second hand" smoke even though the chemicals may be identical. Simply going into a medical facility is usually a problem for those sensitive to fragrances. Cleaners used often have fragrance chemicals in them, especially carpet cleaners. The waiting areas often have magazines that contain scented strips that have been shown to trigger asthma. Very often the receptionist has on fragrance and the waiting area is full of fragranced people.





    http://pw1.netcom.com/~bcb56/overview.htm


    This is something to think about.

  27. #27

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    Ok..this is starting to worry me.

    "In 1986 the National Academy of Sciences targeted fragrances as one of the six categories of chemicals that should be given high priority for neurotoxicity testing. The other groups included insecticides, heavy metals, solvents, food additives and certain air pollutants. In 1991 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analyzed the VOCs which were given off by 31 fragranced products. Their results showed that some of these compounds included linalool, toluene, xylene, methylene chloride, ethanol and limonene all of which can cause serious health problems.

    They also concluded that the air in department and clothing stores, shopping malls, craft/hobby shops and potpourri shops contained more chemicals than the air in the auto part shops, tyre shops, and carpet stores. The most abundant chemical in auto parts stores and perfume sections in department stores was toluene, a chemical which can cause serious health problems"

    "1-2% of the population has skin allergies to fragrances. Fragrance is one of the most common causes of adverse reactions to cosmetics.
    Source: http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/fpin.htmAsthma rates have doubled in the past twenty years. In 1994 there were over 14 million asthmatics (in the USA). In one study 72% of asthmatics were triggered by perfumes and colognes. Each year over 35 million people suffer from sinusitis. Fragrances are general irritants that contribute to the incidence of sinus problems.

    Complaints on health effects from fragrances reported to FDA (USA) increased from 3 in 1996 to 90 in 1999. 95% of chemicals used in fragrances are synthetic compounds derived from petroleum. They include benzene derivatives, aldehydes and many other known toxics and sensitizers capable of causing cancer, birth defects, central nervous system disorders and allergic reactions. "

    884 toxic substances were identified in a list (partial) of 2,983 chemicals used in the fragrance
    industry. "Many of these substances are capable of causing cancer, birth defects, central nervous system disorders, breathing and allergic reactions and Multiple Chemical Sensitivities." 1988 study by U.S. House Subcommittee on Business Opportunities, chaired by Ron Widen (D. OR) and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. The study found 314 fragrance industry chemicals known to cause biological mutation; 218 caused reproduction problems; 778 caused acute toxicity; 146 cause tumors, and 376 caused skin and eye irritations.



    http://www.bargainperfumes.co.uk/fra...atements.shtml


  28. #28

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    Im i the only one thats concerned about how clearly DANGEROUS substances fragrances contain!?

    Im really considering about being fragrance free TOTALLY(no parfumes , deodorants etc)

    http://bestchoice.itgo.com/dangers_top10.htm

    " Fragrance is present in most deodorants shampoos, sunscreens, skin care, body care and baby products. Many of the compounds in fragrance are carcinogenic or otherwise toxic. "Fragrance on a label can indicate the presence of up to 4,000 separate ingredients. Most or all of them are synthetic. Symptoms reported to the FDA have included headaches, dizziness, rashes, skin discoloration, violent coughing and vomiting, and allergic skin irritation. Clinical observation by medical doctors have shown that exposure to fragrances can affect the central nervous system, causing depression, hyperactivity, irritability, inability to cope, and other behavioral changes,"

    And i also read an story how some of the ingredients used in fragrances can *cause same kinda addiction as tobacco!!And you know how people that smoke newer lissen to anyting bad people have to say about smoking and its dangers.It seems its same whit fragrances .I mean i now heres people that have had really BAD symptons.And i my self have been many times chocking just because i have used A*men or Chrome.

    Im wery conserned.I mean i just LOVE fragrances.And i have been waiting for the monent i have money to buy Egoiste.But it seems that i will leave this world behind me.Because seriously , which is more important, smelling good and maybe having serious problems or just beeng fragrance free and maybe more healthy?

  29. #29

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    Did you know that the oxygen you breath creates free-radicals in your body and that free-radicals cause cancer?
    All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

  30. #30

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    When I use "synthetic" in describing a perfume, it's a very subjective and non-scientific statement. It's almost always couched in "smells synthetic". I've never been naive enough to think that I have any idea as to whether the actual ingredients are synthetic or not. I always assumed there were at least some synthetic constituents, even in those frags that brag about being composed entirely of natural oils. Unless it's actually a vial of mixed essential oils, there's something chemical going on in there as a fixative or what-not. Anyway, when I say something smells synthetic to me, and usually mean it lacks that "rustic", quirky, Bohemian bent that I usually go for.

  31. #31

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    Some people are really hard to reach with logic and reasoning. As pointed out by others in this thread, this is a tremendous problem in our society since the opposite of rationality is irrationality. Irrationality (e.g., emotions) has its place, but science is, and must remain, the realm of rationality. No one should graduate high school in America without having first demonstrated a facility with logic and reasoning. That alone would solve a great many of the problems we face in today's society.

    That some fragrances contain bad chemicals is a valid issue, and troublesome chemicals should be identified and eliminated from products as necessary. It doesn't matter how the chemicals were derived, though. Synthetically derived chemicals are not inherently problematic. That won't stop some from flailing about in grand mal spasms of irrational outbursts, though.

    I agree with everything FatTony says and I wish more people in our world exhibited his ability to reason.

    basenotes rocks

  32. #32

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    Some people are really hard to reach with logic and reasoning.
    Like whoever wrote the stuff in the link Peace posted:

    Im really considering about being fragrance free TOTALLY(no parfumes , deodorants etc)

    http://bestchoice.itgo.com/dangers_top10.htm
    Whoever wrote this either is seriously lacking in the ability to reason logically or is deliberately lying. Actually, now that I notice a link at the bottom of the page selling "Botanical Skin Cream (contains no chemicals)", I think it must be deliberate lies.

    All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

  33. #33

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    Quote Originally Posted by Concord
    Isn't the verdict still out on propylene glycol? Dipropylene glycol can be found in virtually all fragrances as it's used to dilute the stronger aroma chemicals like aldehydes to make them easier to dose. I'm not afraid of propylene glycol at all. I think it's a highly innocuous ingredient.
    Even though the verdict might still be out, I'd rather err on the side of caution, and apply the fragrances on my shirts.
    Given the numerous dangerous chemicals in cosmetics, I'd suppose that Propylene Glycol should not have been my first choice for an example.

    I believe our fellow Basenoter Peace has done an excellent job in digging out various information related to hazardous chemicals, and I'd like to personally thank him for that.

    I've stated this before: Cosmetics are exempt from FDA testing requirements, and known toxic substances are routinely used in their production.

    Here's the proof:
    "FDA cannot require companies to do safety testing of their cosmetic products before marketing." [source: FDA Office of Cosmetics and Colors, Feb. 3, 1995]

    Only 11 percent of the 10,500 ingredients FDA has documented in products have been assessed for safety by the cosmetic industry's review panel. [source: EWG]

    By the way, my purpose for writing this piece is not to convince, force, or coerce anyone from using cosmetics. But rather to share information with the folks who are concerned about these issues. So I would therefore like to ask everyone to please spare me the usual "air is dangerous too" type reponses. Thank you!

  34. #34

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    Ah well, I'll die smelling great. Cheers! [smiley=beer.gif]

  35. #35

    Default Re: CHEMICALS! RUN!

    Quote Originally Posted by Concord
    Ah well, I'll die smelling great. Cheers! [smiley=beer.gif]

    Here, here! ;D

Similar Threads

  1. Fragrance chemicals
    By dcampen in forum Fragrance DIY
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 5th November 2009, 06:28 PM
  2. The Nature of Synthetic Chemicals
    By DrOfTheSoul in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 7th March 2007, 11:16 PM
  3. Natural and synthetic composition breakdown
    By scentophile in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 24th April 2006, 03:59 PM
  4. My fragrance run
    By paranoidandroid in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 27th June 2005, 02:58 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