Code of Conduct
Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1

    Default Is it plausible that ....

    .... an increased use of alcohol-based fragrances contribute to skin cancers? At this point, I've invested too much money into my collection to care .... alcohol tends to have a dessicating effect, causing dryness and sometimes irritation (oddly, I get red blotches which disappear after a few minutes - does this happen to anyone on this board?) furthermore, alcohol is also a bactericidal agent (which kills off any harmful bugs on the skin ... perhaps another reason to add a bottle to the collection :-) In all seriousness, are any of you concerned with this issue?

  2. #2

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    Quote Originally Posted by NUNdo
    In all seriousness, are any of you concerned with this issue?
    In a word: nope.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    You ask a really good question that merits some discussion.

    I certainly have not read any studies--or even suggestions--that alcohol in frags may be linked to cancer, but I do wonder about about the frequent (ie, daily) use of frags may be irritating to the skin.

    I personally haven't experienced that, and have worn fragrances for many years, but I do wonder if it affects other people.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    You ask a good question that merits some more research...
    Let your nose be your pilot

  5. #5

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    When in a paranoid mood, or simply looking for information, you may check :
    http://www.fpinva.org
    Perhaps someone has a clue about the organization that is behind this group devoted to fragrance-related health concerns. At least when I visit their site, I can no longer plead ignorance.
    Obvious candidates for legitimate worries seem to be asthma and allergies.
    As for me, I'm extremely happy to live an unhealthy life, provided I can choose my own sweet form of perfume-assisted suicide. I confess to being a consenting victim of the conspiration organized by greedy perfumers who poison the world. I promise I won't sue them.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    Alcohol in the fragrances is the least of the problem.
    The real killers come from the Propylene family of the chemicals that do the real (slow) damage by getting absorbed into the skin and then deposited in your internal organs (just do a Google search on dangers of Propylene Glycol or see: http://www.aubrey-organics.com/about/articles/peg.cfm ).

    I love fragrances a lot to stop using them; so instead I apply them to my shirts, and other inconspicuous areas (rarely do I spray them on the skin).
    The thing that really bugs me is the knowledge of the fact that manufacturers can certainly create fragrances without the use of these known carcinogens, yet they refuse to do so. There were certainly a lot of beautiful smelling fragrances in existence prior to the mass use of these dangerous compounds. Nowadays, you'll be hard pressed to find one fragrance which does not use these chemicals.
    [smiley=angry.gif]

  7. #7

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    Alcohol evaporates too quicky to have an impact. However, other substances are less harmless, particularly phthalates. See this excellent IHT article:

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/27/news/perfume.php

    The Greenpeace press release with a link to the PDF version of the report is here:

    http://eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/c...rfumes-Eng.pdf
    Lovesick the wind that carries it

  8. #8

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    Nah, just look at one of our moderators, who is an 80year old Colonel from the Royal Armed Forces. He has about 1000 fragrances, smokes cigars and is alive and kicking. No worries whatsoever! [smiley=laugh.gif]

  9. #9

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    If you apply 0.5 mL of a scent that is 90 % (v/v) alcohol, that equates to 0.45 mL pure alcohol. Which will evaporate within minutes of application.
    If you drink one glass of wine (about 100 mL?) that is, say, 8 % (v/v) alcohol, that equates to 8 mL pure alcohol. And that's going to stay in your body until your liver can metabolise it (via the rather nasty acetaldehyde intermediate).
    So rest assured, the alcohol in fragrances is really not a problem. [smiley=wink.gif]

    "Cheers",
    Gavin

  10. #10

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    Quote Originally Posted by milamber
    Nah, just look at one of our moderators, who is an 80year old Colonel from the Royal Armed Forces. He has about 1000 fragrances, smokes cigars and is alive and kicking. No worries whatsoever! [smiley=laugh.gif]
    Right on! I feel much better now!

    /lights a cigarette

    [smiley=cheesy.gif]
    Top 3: London Gentleman, Blackbeard's Delight, and Sex Panther. (It works 60% of the time, every time.)

  11. #11

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    I drink two glasses of wine every day, somedays more, so I'm really not worried about applying alcohol to my skin, especially in minute doses from fragrance.

    Life is dangerous and the one guarantee of this game is, nobody gets out alive. Enjoy everything...be moderate in your hedonism and enjoy the ride...you never know when your ticket will be punched.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    No it is NOT the alcohol as such. But Alcohol used for cosmetics is not 'clean'. There are additives with phtalates among them. This is done on purpose in many countries. Saving on liquor tax, believe it or not, is one of the reasons! There are changes intended but as long as there is merely a likelihood, no real proof of carcinogenic elements, it is hard to ban them. If you spray your clothes instead of skin directly - you inhale a certain amount of poison nevertheless. The problems are manifold. Fragrance elements can pile up in your system (certain synthethic musks, I believe) and certain odors go directly from the nose into your brain while others go thru the lungs into your blood and the liver, where some just prefer to stay forever....
    I changed my habits a little: less body splash, odorless shower gel, if possible, and definitely no luxury body lotions in the future! If I were responsible for other beings I would ban Child Perfume, for sure! Does it even exist in Europe yet?



    'Il mondo dei profumi č un universo senza limiti: una fraganza puo rievocare sensazioni, luoghi, persone o ancora condurre in uno spazio di nuove dimensioni emozionali' L. V.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Coleman
    [quote author=NUNdo link=1119507533/0#0 date=1119507533]In all seriousness, are any of you concerned with this issue?
    In a word: nope.
    [/quote]


    Coleman is a mans man. He uses napalm for aftershave. Nothing phases him :-p

  14. #14

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    With respect to inhaling dangerous compounds from perfumes etc. (and having them persist in our systems), I think simply eating certain foods posses much more risk to our long-term health. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the US in particular, beef is choc-full or growth hormones, poultry and dairy products contain significant levels of antibiotics, and I'm sure that washing fruits and vegetables doesn't remove 100 % of spray residues. Also, high fructose corn syrup (almost certainly from transgenic corn) seems to be in everything. The list could go on and on.
    I think that, unfortunately, in our modern world, we are constantly being bombarded by potentially harmful compounds. We need to understand and assess what risks are associated with using different consumer products and simply not use them if we deem them to be too dangerous. Eventually, the market will "vote with it's feet". People still eat chicken and still drink milk.

    Gavin


  15. #15

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    Quote Originally Posted by IPaidForThisName
    Coleman is a mans man. He uses napalm for aftershave. Nothing phases him :-p
    Am I that bad? LOL!
    Yeah, and don't smoke too close to me after I've just shaved.... FOOM!
    [smiley=evil.gif]

  16. #16

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    Quote Originally Posted by narcus
    If I were responsible for other beings I would ban Child Perfume, for sure!
    Curious as to why you have singeled out Child? Is this just a perfume that you personally dislike or have you found information on it that proves it's an unusually dangerous chemical composition by comparison to what is presently on the market?

    Just an inquiring mind wanting to know.

    Thanks.
    Scent is such a lovely, simple pleasure!

  17. #17

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....




    Hi all,

    this is going out of proportion I believe.

    First of all, if there really was even a tiny chance of getting problems from perfume WE WOULD ALL KNOW IT BY NOW BECAUSE IT WOULD BE WRITTEN ON THE BOTTLE AS BIG AS THIS.

    Do you really believe that the BILLION fragrance market would even risk to be involved with prosecutions which would be the result of it.

    Now this is not Tabacco or Alcool consumption this billions of sprays all arround the world every morning !!!!

    GIVE ME A BREAK AND GET A LIFE !



    LAURENT
    Invisible Power

  18. #18

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    Quote Originally Posted by laurent
    WE WOULD ALL KNOW IT BY NOW BECAUSE IT WOULD BE WRITTEN ON THE BOTTLE AS BIG AS THIS.
    It's a relief to see there's still decent folk around that get their wisdom from reading perfume bottles.
    Lovesick the wind that carries it

  19. #19

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    Laurent,

    With all due respect, this is a forum for fragrance discussion therefore everyone is entitled to an opinion, correct?

    Yes, I agree with your astute observation that the fragrance industry is a billion dollar operation, but the purpose of this thread was not to advocate environmentally based policies nor further reasons not to use fragrances. In fact, the reality is if there were lawsuits over the use of fragrances it would keep lawyers like me wealthy. Finally, I was just curious over whether my fellow basenoters ever gave consideration to the very negligble risks associated with this activity ....

    Cheers,

    Nick

  20. #20

    Default harm reduction

    Here http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep/...erfume/Cologne is a report from the Environmental Working Group on the potential health impact of specific ingredients and specific perfumes.

    I note that coumarin is apparently pretty bad for you. I believe it's responsible for the loveliness of Kingdom, among others. And you know what? I still love my Kingdom.

    I don't mean to undermine the idea that yes, we should be aware of what we're putting on, and therefore into, our skin. But in the mental health and addiction field we have a term called "harm reduction." In other words, if you can't completely stop doing bad things, can you at least do things that are less bad for you? Can you have two glasses of wine instead of six? Can you take ecstacy instead of crystal meth?

    One thing that helped me quit smoking was telling myself that my nose would work better if I didn't smoke, so I could enjoy my beloved 'fumes more. It was kind of a trade off. And 'fumes are definitely less bad than cigarettes.

    And frankly, 'fumes are much less bad, and much less expensive, than certain things I used to put up my nose. [g]

  21. #21

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    Quote Originally Posted by milamber
    Nah, just look at one of our moderators, who is an 80year old Colonel from the Royal Armed Forces. He has about 1000 fragrances, smokes cigars and is alive and kicking. No worries whatsoever! *[smiley=laugh.gif]
    LOL!

    Who the hell is that then?

  22. #22

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    Quote Originally Posted by CoL
    [quote author=milamber link=1119507533/0#7 date=1119518610]Nah, just look at one of our moderators, who is an 80year old Colonel from the Royal Armed Forces. He has about 1000 fragrances, smokes cigars and is alive and kicking. No worries whatsoever! [smiley=laugh.gif]
    LOL!

    Who the hell is that then?[/quote]

    Col. Murchie, sir, permission to speak freely?

    You shouldn't be modest about you participation in the Royal Armed Forces. Working as a SAS operative for over a decade isn't a small thing. Liberating british hostages in hot zones throughout Libya isn't small. You're age has also earned you nothing but respect from a youngster like myself. You've survived more hostile encounters in Africa alone than most soldiers will in an entire lifetime, around the world.

    Captain, you are my captain, SIR!

  23. #23

    Default Re: Is it plausible that ....

    Quote Originally Posted by IPaidForThisName
    [quote author=CoL link=1119507533/15#20 date=1119733323][quote author=milamber link=1119507533/0#7 date=1119518610]Nah, just look at one of our moderators, who is an 80year old Colonel from the Royal Armed Forces. He has about 1000 fragrances, smokes cigars and is alive and kicking. No worries whatsoever! *[smiley=laugh.gif]
    LOL!

    Who the hell is that then?[/quote]

    Col. Murchie, sir, permission to speak freely?

    You shouldn't be modest about you participation in the Royal Armed Forces. Working as a SAS operative for over a decade isn't a small thing. Liberating british hostages in hot zones throughout Libya isn't small. You're age has also earned you nothing but respect from a youngster like myself. You've survived more hostile encounters in Africa alone than most soldiers will in an entire lifetime, around the world.

    Captain, you are my captain, SIR![/quote]



    Very funny young sir


    FYI I'm 33 and a nurse, ahem.

  24. #24

    Default EWG Skin Deep Report

    Executive Summary

    FDA cannot require companies to do safety testing of their cosmetic products before marketing.

    — FDA Office of Cosmetics and Colors (FDA 1995)

    About 10,500 different cosmetic ingredients and a similar number of fragrance ingredients are being used by the cosmetic industry.

    — FDA Office of Cosmetics and Colors (FDA 2000)

    Most consumers would be surprised to learn that the government does not require health studies or pre-market testing for cosmetics and other personal care products before they are sold. According to the government agency that regulates cosmetics, the FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors, "...a cosmetic manufacturer may use almost any raw material as a cosmetic ingredient and market the product without an approval from FDA" (FDA 1995).

    The toxicity of product ingredients is scrutinized almost exclusively by a self-policing industry safety committee, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) panel. Because testing is voluntary and controlled by the manufacturers, many ingredients in cosmetics products are not safety tested at all. Environmental Working Group's analysis of industry and government sources shows that:

    * Eighty-nine (89) percent of the 10,500 ingredients FDA has determined are used in personal care products (FDA 2000) have not been evaluated for safety by the CIR, the FDA, or any other publicly accountable institution (FDA 2000, CIR 2003).

    The absence of government oversight for this $35 billion industry leads to companies routinely marketing products with ingredients that are poorly studied, not studied at all, or worse, known to pose potentially serious health risks.

    The Environmental Working Group's (EWG's) six-month computer investigation into the health and safety assessments on more than 10,000 personal care product ingredients found major gaps in the regulatory safety net for these products. To help people use what we learned we developed an online rating system that ranks products on their potential health risks and the absence of basic safety evaluations. The core of the analysis compares ingredients in 7,500 personal care products against government, industry, and academic lists of known and suspected chemical health hazards.

    Our analysis shows that ingredients in cosmetics range from essentially harmless components like table salt and oatmeal, to chemicals known to cause cancer in humans. Notably, natural ingredients are no more likely to have been assessed for safety than synthetic chemicals. Individual ingredients vary tremendously in their ability to soak through the skin. Some absorb in only miniscule amounts, while others can quite easily penetrate the skin to the blood vessels below. Few individual ingredients pose excessive risks, but most people use many products in the course of a day, so it well may be that these risks are adding up. A survey of 2,300 people conducted as part of this research effort shows that the average adult uses 9 personal care products each day, with 126 unique chemical ingredients. More than a quarter of all women and one of every 100 men use at least 15 products daily.

    Little research is available to document the safety or health risks of low-dose repeated exposures to chemical mixtures like those in personal care products, but the absence of data should never be mistaken for proof of safety. The more we study low dose exposures, the more we understand that they can cause adverse effects ranging from the subtle and reversible, to effects that are more serious and permanent.

    Overall, our investigation of product safety shows cause for concern, not alarm. Much more study is needed to understand the contribution of exposures from personal care products to current human health trends.

    Findings. Our safety assessment of 7,500 personal care product labels, documented in this web-based review, shows that:

    * Just 28 of the 7,500 products we analyzed have been fully assessed for safety by the cosmetic industry's self-regulating panel, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR). All other products — 99.6 percent of those examined — contain one or more ingredients never assessed for potential health impacts by the CIR. This panel, run and funded by the cosmetic industry's trade association, is billed as the organization that "thoroughly reviews and assesses the safety of ingredients used in cosmetics" on behalf of the industry (CIR 2004). The government does not systematically review the safety of personal care products and has banned or restricted just nine of the more than 10,000 ingredients used in personal care products.

    * One of every 120 products on the market contains ingredients certified by government authorities as known or probable human carcinogens, including shampoos, lotions, make-up foundations, and lip balms manufactured by Almay, Neutrogena, Grecian Formula, and others. An astonishing one-third of all products contain one or more ingredients classified as possible human carcinogens.

    * Seventy-one hair dye products contain ingredients derived from carcinogenic coal tar. These products have all been granted a specific exemption from federal rules that deem products to be adulterated when they contain ingredients that can harm human health. Coal tar containing products include dyes made by Clairol, Revlon, L'Oreal, and others. Coal tar hair dyes are one of the few products for which FDA has issued consumer advice on the benefits of reducing use, in this case as a way to potentially "reduce the risk of cancer" (FDA 1993).

    * Fifty-five percent of all products assessed contain “penetration enhancers,” ingredients that can increase a product's penetration through the skin and into the bloodstream, increasing consumers' exposures to other ingredients as well. We found 50 products containing penetration enhancers in combination with known or probable human carcinogens.

    * Nearly 70 percent of all products contain ingredients that can be contaminated with impurities linked to cancer and other health problems. Studies by FDA and European agencies show that these impurities are common, in some cases occurring in nearly half of all products tested (FDA 1996, DTI 1998). Some manufacturers buy ingredients certified by an independent organization called United States Pharmacopeia (USP). These ingredients may contain lower levels of harmful impurities, but the criteria for certification are not public. There are no federal standards for ingredient purity. While it seems likely that some companies purchase or manufacture refined, purified ingredients, it is equally likely that many do not. Consumers and government health officials have no way to know.

    * Fifty-four products violate recommendations for safe use set by the industry's self-regulating Cosmetic Ingredient Review board. Most of these products contain ingredients found unsafe for the intended use of the product they are found in. Examples include ingredients found unsafe for use in baby products but used in diaper cream, ingredients found unsafe for use on injured or damaged skin contained in products marketed specifically for use on chapped and injured skin, and ingredients not safe for sprays but found in spray products. Brand name products found in violation of industry recommendations include Neutrogena, Desitin, Herbal Essences, and Rite Aid.

    * In its 67-year history of monitoring cosmetic safety, FDA has banned or restricted just nine personal care product ingredients (FDA 2000). In its review of 1,175 ingredients, the industry's safety panel has found just nine ingredients (a different nine) unsafe for use in cosmetics (CIR 2003). By contrast, 450 ingredients are banned for use in cosmetics in the European Union, although the vast majority of these have never been used by the industry. The regulatory vacuum in the U.S. gives cosmetic companies tremendous leeway in selecting ingredients, while it transfers potentially significant and largely unnecessary health risks to the users of the products.

    http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep/...ve_summary.php
    Lovesick the wind that carries it

Similar Threads

  1. Plausible explanation for bad longevity/sillage
    By Scentronic in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 15th January 2007, 01:34 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