Code of Conduct
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 43 of 43
  1. #31
    Basenotes Institution
    Mimi Gardenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Exactly Where I Should Be
    Posts
    16,437

    Default Re: Email sent to: IFRA

    Quote Originally Posted by Thalia View Post
    Off-topic, but urea's actually great for your skin - it's an ingredient in a lot of therapeutic lotions for dry or sensitive skin for that very reason. Gross, however, if you think about it.

    I just have not heard about a wave of oakmoss-related death and destruction ... the stuff has been used in fragrances for around 100 years, hasn't it? Wouldn't we have noticed people keeling over before now?
    The other one is human placenta. That is big business - if you don't want your placenta sold to perfume companies after your baby is born ,take it home with you ! *LOL*
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/370...o-Profumo-Onda
    For sale. Carnal Flower and Vero Profumo Onda.

  2. #32

    Default Re: Email sent to: IFRA

    Lovely activism guys!

    If I may, I would like to play the Devil's advocate just a little: you've got to think that IFRA has a lot on their plate because they're getting harassed from two directions. There are the perfumistas (us). But there are also the (particularly North American) NGOs, such as the EWG who publish hysterical manifestos about 'the secret chemicals in perfumes' despite there being a fully public list on IFRA's website of everything used in perfumes today.

    The raison d'etre for IFRA is to become law in the representative countries and thus bypass official government regulation. I can imagine this would raise suspicion on both sides.

    What would be the better solution?

    I think my biggest current frustration with all of this is the lack of proper care with the science and funding of certain projects. Some materials aren't deemed worth the effort of either, which can mean a meaningless restriction or a ban.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,522

    Cool Re: Email sent to: IFRA

    My thoughts on this, from The Male Fragrance Forum in the thread entitled

    " How IFRA and the EU continue to destroy the art of perfumery. "

    1. Do you have any idea how much a crate of Oakmoss costs these days?

    2. You try to take control of your life only to find it's controlled for you by petty bureaucracy

    3. There has to be something more to life than just being safe.

    4. We're not all stupid. We don't all need nursemaiding.

    I mean, if I lightly sprayed Bois du Portugal and had asthmatics pass out whenever I entered an elevator I think I wold get the idea.

    ( I probably wore A*Men by mistake )

    When did life become so dangerous, anyway?


    The OP article shows that the "science" is questionable:

    • Toxicological testing requirements for cosmetics are not specified, although the SCC(NF)P / SCCS ‘expert’ committee offers opinions "

    ( Why, Oh why, did they not have rats sprayed with Patou PH vs Axe? )

    You know, if I developed acute contact dermatitis by wearing Curve I'd probably conclude that, gee I'm allergic to Curve and shouldn't wear it, or that C.G. Jung's Collective Unconscious is telling me: " For God's sake! Get a bit of class . . ."

    Has anyone tried getting drunk by drinking a bottle of Chanel # 5?
    BRING BACK PROHIBITION!

    We are not all stupid!

    Tax the stupid people:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUosm_BBv9g

    Cheers, sweetie darling.

    Mario

    P.S. I still think the world might be destroyed by an acronym. . .
    My Wardrobe

    Reviews: http://www.basenotes.net/reviews/30

    Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder.

    My Antaeus can beat up your Armani.

  4. #34
    Basenotes Plus
    scentsitivity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,818
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Email sent to: IFRA

    Quote Originally Posted by Nukapai View Post
    What would be the better solution?
    One problem with the current IFRA philosophy is that it seems to retreat immediately to the position of eliminating sensitizers. This feels defeatest to me. One would think that the initial position would be to label fragrances with sensitizers: just like we do with food! Why is that unreasonable? Perhaps there may be cases where it is, but I suspect that in the majority of cases, we are talking about contact allergens.

    I am allergic to dairy products. I appreciate a label of food items that says CONTAINS MILK. It is helpful to me, as in many cases milk is not an obvious ingredient. It is a sufficient solution for me. I am not lobbying to have milk (or any other food allergen) removed.

    Am I being reasonable or am I insensitive to the sensitivity of the sensitizers?
    Currently wearing: Augusto by Mazzolari

  5. #35

    Default Re: Email sent to: IFRA

    Quote Originally Posted by scentsitivity View Post
    One problem with the current IFRA philosophy is that it seems to retreat immediately to the position of eliminating sensitizers. This feels defeatest to me. One would think that the initial position would be to label fragrances with sensitizers: just like we do with food! Why is that unreasonable? Perhaps there may be cases where it is, but I suspect that in the majority of cases, we are talking about contact allergens.

    I am allergic to dairy products. I appreciate a label of food items that says CONTAINS MILK. It is helpful to me, as in many cases milk is not an obvious ingredient. It is a sufficient solution for me. I am not lobbying to have milk (or any other food allergen) removed.

    Am I being reasonable or am I insensitive to the sensitivity of the sensitizers?
    I agree with your proposed solution.

    So one has to wonder: why hasn't the fragrance industry gone in the same direction as food allergy labelling? This would provide consumers the choice between 'may contain nuts' or 'free-from' type ranges which could be created in fine fragrance lines too.

    There are some ingredients that simply aren't sensible, even with labelling (say bergamot oil containing furanocoumarins - might as well take those out since we can these days). But many, MANY of the restrictions are merely recommendations, and a lot of the allergen science is more than a bit iffy. Especially since a lot of it relies on animal testing.

    I have this suspicion that the situation actually is not quite as we perceive as 'perfumistas'.

    It's not 'perfumistas' versus 'the industry'. It's actually the anti-perfume lobbyists versus the industry. The chemical-illiterati, over-zealous hysteria-generating general public that currently makes the most noise. The industry seems to be responding to that. They seem to have IFRA on the back-foot.

    So maybe the real solution would be us (the perfumistas) to join forces with IFRA and start a massive campaign to get some scent sense in the world. Maybe?

    I don't know. The way it's currently heading with jasmine being strangulated and all that other jazz; it's no fun for anyone.

  6. #36
    Basenotes Plus
    scentsitivity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,818
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Email sent to: IFRA

    Quote Originally Posted by Nukapai View Post
    I agree with your proposed solution.

    So one has to wonder: why hasn't the fragrance industry gone in the same direction as food allergy labelling? This would provide consumers the choice between 'may contain nuts' or 'free-from' type ranges which could be created in fine fragrance lines too.

    There are some ingredients that simply aren't sensible, even with labelling (say bergamot oil containing furanocoumarins - might as well take those out since we can these days). But many, MANY of the restrictions are merely recommendations, and a lot of the allergen science is more than a bit iffy. Especially since a lot of it relies on animal testing.

    I have this suspicion that the situation actually is not quite as we perceive as 'perfumistas'.

    It's not 'perfumistas' versus 'the industry'. It's actually the anti-perfume lobbyists versus the industry. The chemical-illiterati, over-zealous hysteria-generating general public that currently makes the most noise. The industry seems to be responding to that. They seem to have IFRA on the back-foot.

    So maybe the real solution would be us (the perfumistas) to join forces with IFRA and start a massive campaign to get some scent sense in the world. Maybe?

    I don't know. The way it's currently heading with jasmine being strangulated and all that other jazz; it's no fun for anyone.
    Good comments. I think that before perfumistas join forces with IFRA there needs to be a consensus position. We haven't gotten there yet. Threads like this could serve as a springboard for discussion, but how do we go forward?

    Also, I would suspect that we don't even have a consensus position within the 'perfumista community'. Perhaps a discussion in a fresh thread on what IFRA should do (if anything) is in order. I would like to see the diversity of opinions out there.
    Currently wearing: Augusto by Mazzolari

  7. #37

    Default Re: Email sent to: IFRA

    Quote Originally Posted by Nukapai View Post
    I agree with your proposed solution.

    So one has to wonder: why hasn't the fragrance industry gone in the same direction as food allergy labelling? This would provide consumers the choice between 'may contain nuts' or 'free-from' type ranges which could be created in fine fragrance lines too.
    That's the million dollar question: why are safety and ingredient labeling good enough for food and medicine and not enough for perfumes?The standard IFRA response doesn't make much sense.
    From an interview with Stephen Weller on mimifrou.com: "However, not all consumers read labels or indeed understand the information on the label.
    Therefore, IFRA Standards are needed to help reduce the incidents of sensitisation to certain materials. Experience shows that labelling alone does not have the desired effect.
    "
    A major issue with this opposition to labeling is it forces member companies into a precarious position. Warning labels exist to protect the consumer and the manufacturer. If someone had an adverse reaction, perfume companies are entirely naked to "failure to warn" suits, a kind of product defect tort where a company is liable for any foreseeable dangers they didn't proclaim. It's one of the reasons everything in the U.S. from pillows to candy bars comes with a disclaimer concerning relevant threats. If perfumes were a significant source of consumer harm (or any real source) every manufacturer would make the ingredients a matter of public record to prevent legal suicide, just like food manufacturers. Just how real is the threat of perfumes if companies can't be bothered to take basic steps in protecting themselves?*

    -Disclosing relevant information is simple via the internet, Proctor and Gamble have an entire site devoted to the ingredients of their products and companies aren't liable to make you understand the information, just to present it.

    It could be a matter of trade secrets but, as Burr explains, competitors are the first to analyze new releases hence the only people who don't know the ingredients are the general public, the ones least likely to exploit them and most likely to be harmed. The outline of Coca-Cola's recipe, one of the most valuable trade secrets in the world, is printed on every can and no one has run them out of business yet. So why doesn't it work for perfume?

    *(From Hafner v. Guerlain "Evidence at the trial indicated that of some 270,000 sales of the perfume in 1963, there were only 25 complaints received." And this is back in the golden age of nitro-musks. If anyone has statistics on the number of perfume complaints/lawsuits each year I'd love to see them)
    Last edited by Zizanioides; 9th June 2010 at 06:24 AM.

  8. #38

    Default Re: Email sent to: IFRA

    I can only speculate that the majority of fragrance manufacturers fear loss of sales and marketing 'magic' more than they fear a couple of law suits...

    If one declared the full ingredients list of a perfume, it wouldn't make any sense to a typical consumer. It would look frightening and unnatural. This would probably lead to lost sales generally - and especially in the chemophobic contingent.

    There is a huge failure by the general public to understand the basic concept that everything is made up of chemicals. Plants are giant chemical factories. Humans are too. Etc, etc. It's absolutely no good separating natural and synthetic chemicals - they're all just chemicals from a toxicological viewpoint.

    Additionally, the marketing copy of 'gardenia notes' and the like would look even more fake than it does today because you could quickly see what has actually gone into the juice. Even the natural materials would look scary because of all the allergens they contain.

    I certainly don't think it would be necessary to declare percentages (thereby giving away the whole formula which is certainly not at the best interest of the manufacturer!). However, I have pondered about the pros and cons about declaring all of the ingredients. My personal opinion is that until we somehow manage to tackle the unjustified hysteria about 'evil chemicals' overall, declaring the whole list of ingredients is not the right solution - not yet. Going towards the direction of 'buyer beware' and adopting a system akin to food allergy labelling - that would be great. It would seem the next logical step from the EU regulation of having to declare allergens on the label already.
    Last edited by Nukapai; 9th June 2010 at 07:36 AM.

  9. #39

    Default Re: Email sent to: IFRA

    I'm not sure there's a great deal we can do against the 'evil chemicals' camp and I'm skeptical how much of a role they play in shaping IFRA policy. For one, most of their invective is confined to attacking secondary perfume ingredients (UV-blockers, solvents, stabilizers) and the now demonized DEP and other phthalates. In the much publicized report from EWG, "Not So Sexy: The The Health Risks of Secret Chemicals in Fragrance", http://www.ewg.org/files/SafeCosmetics_FragranceRpt.pdf there is a single mention of oak moss and an entire section devoted to phthalates, one of the few ingredients the IFRA spoke out in defense of. In my limited research, most of these groups don't really care that much about the majority of IFRA restrictions or advocate restrictions on the beloved natural ingredients.

    scentsitivity, I'd be happy to engage in that thread.

  10. #40
    N_Tesla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Center of the Universe; California.
    Posts
    4,599
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Email sent to: IFRA

    Discussing the IFRA's negative impact on we the consumers is good but, how many of you actually sent an email outlining your displeasure as consumers? There is an old saying " if your not part of the solution then you are part of the problem." Consumer pressure does work but only if apathy takes a back seat.

  11. #41
    Basenotes Institution
    Mimi Gardenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Exactly Where I Should Be
    Posts
    16,437

    Default Re: Email sent to: IFRA

    I think Stephen Weller is very happy to comunicate with parfumistas so we should at least tell him how we feel . Nothing to lose that is not already lost.
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/370...o-Profumo-Onda
    For sale. Carnal Flower and Vero Profumo Onda.

  12. #42

    narcus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Königl. Preussen
    Posts
    4,581

    Default Re: Email sent to: IFRA

    Quote Originally Posted by Mimi Gardenia View Post
    I think Stephen Weller is very happy to comunicate with parfumistas so we should at least tell him how we feel .
    That's his job. Public relations people are just a buffer, a waste of time and efforts from the consumer end.
    Last edited by narcus; 11th June 2010 at 05:52 AM.
    'Il mondo dei profumi è un universo senza limiti: una fraganza puo rievocare sensazioni, luoghi, persone o ancora condurre in uno spazio di nuove dimensioni emozionali' L. V.

  13. #43

    Default Re: Email sent to: IFRA

    A personal note: have just experienced contact dermatitis from using a niche perfume sample. Had the same reaction years ago from a now-defunct Helena Rubinstein scent. The solution? I've used a mild cortisone cream and the rash is now subsiding.
    This is an idiosyncratic reaction of my skin to some perfume ingredient and not a cause for banning it. I don't know which ingredient specifically sparked the reaction, but it doesn't matter. I won't be using either of those scents again, but I hope the niche perfume is going to be around for years to come, as it was a great scent and most people don't get reaction.
    My point? What's a little rash on the wrist compared to the risk of losing forever our great perfumes? Nothing at all!
    And incidentally, I've tried a number of "wet wipes" and found I got a really bad reaction from all of them, but there's nothing on the labels to indicate any potential problem.
    So why focus on the very minor issues around certain perfume ingredients, and why ban them when most people are fine with them?
    I'll be e-mailing Mr. Weller to make these points. Thank you for posting the address.

Similar Threads

  1. Ingredients List by IFRA
    By EauxM in forum General Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 16th January 2010, 07:43 PM
  2. Perfumers try to rebel against IFRA
    By sables in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 15th January 2010, 11:34 PM
  3. IFRA, How it should work, IMO
    By N_Tesla in forum General Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 18th November 2009, 11:10 AM
  4. Ifra
    By moreda in forum General Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 4th June 2009, 07:12 AM
  5. IFRA regulation of ISO E Super
    By Minou2 in forum General Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 5th November 2008, 05:19 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