Code of Conduct
Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1

    Default Article: After investigation, non-IFRA-compliant scent was actually compliant


  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somerville, MA
    Posts
    186
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    I am so baffled by the bans. At the same time that once-classic perfumes are being mangled in the name of public health, millions of soft-drink-swilling people are being pumped with sucralose, nutrasweet (one of the breakdown products of which is formaldehyde, believe it or not) and every other artificial sweetener sure to be added to the lengthening "Mistakes were made" list of what are now known to be carcinogens (cyclamates, saccharine...). Yet a tiny possibility of allergy necessitates a complete ban of minuscule amounts of oakmoss, etc., in perfume?

    I have some news for the paternalistic, officious do-gooders at IFRA: those who are prone to allergies are usually the last people to wear perfume!

  3. #3

    Default

    These IFRA bans are nothing more than smoke-screens for their real agendas...corporate control of proprietary chemicals and roadblocks for small businesses.

  4. #4

    Default

    Too bad. I was hoping that it would not have met the standards and rocked the boat a little.

  5. #5

    Default

    OK but what was it , seems a bit silly not to say

  6. #6

    Default Re: Article: After investigation, non-IFRA-compliant scent was actually compliant

    Quote Originally Posted by Pour_Monsieur View Post
    OK but what was it , seems a bit silly not to say
    If they did mention the fragrance, this could encourage others to do the same 'challenge' for free advertising!

  7. #7
    Dependent Birdboy48's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Bend Oregon USA
    Posts
    1,104

    Default

    The original news story said :

    "According to IFRA, It has been publicly alleged that a finished product on the market contains a fragrance material that has been banned IFRA...."

    One has to wonder who it was who "publicly alleged" that something contained a banned material, what sort of evidence they had, what venue they made their accusation in, and what their motivation was. It would also be interesting to know what the product was. For all we're told, it could have been scented laundry detergent.

    Whatever the case, it would seem that the accusation was made in such a manner that IFRA found themselves so rattled that they felt forced to both investigate and respond.

    It would certainly be interesting to know the full story behind all of this, and why IFRA feels the need to keep mum about the details.

  8. #8

    Default

    They only name and shame if they find out that someone has actually broken the rules. That's the claim. It is in IFRA's best interest to make sure they are seen to be 100% effective. If they are not seen as effective, then the various NGOS, campaigners and government bodies may begin to wrestle regulatory control away from IFRA, at which point we do risk being in a far, far worse position with people demanding 'allergen free fragrances' (wave goodbye to all natural materials!).

    IFRA is obviously run by the industry - and the unfortunate part is that some of the people involved in managing and voting as part of it have their profits firmly in mind (if you design new odoour materials, of course you won't mind that much that there are lots of companies looking for alternatives that aren't on the IFRA naughty list). However, even this fox-guarding-the-hens approach is better than the original direction things were heading towards. And there have been some really sensible things done in recent years - the development of citrus oils without furanocoumarins (which cause bad photosensitivity) is a good thing and may not have happened without IFRA.

    In an ideal world, there would be an expert regulatory body working closely with government and not run by anyone who has anything to do with profit; just health and safety. But who would fund such a body? I doubt tax payers would. So it's basically a choice between cracking a walnut with a giant hammer (if we leave it in non-expert government hands) or IFRA...

    A more elegant solution would be nice.

    And it's true that it seems insane that we're allowing the tobacco industry get away with murder (almost literally!), yet the fragrance industry has been harrassed over a couple of skin rashes. Alas, the two aren't directly correlated (just because the government and NGOs are behaving one way in one case doesn't directly relate to the other). Go figure.

  9. #9
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,298
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    I knew it. It was all just fragrance industry psy-ops.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Article: After investigation, non-IFRA-compliant scent was actually compliant

    By Kilian lists Costus root oil in one of their scents. GO GET'EM IFRA!
    ***For sale:

    Iris Pallida 50ml

    Ungaro I 75ml

    and more!
    - http://www.basenotes.net/threads/301...n-Man-and-more

  11. #11
    AromiErotici
    Guest

    Default

    I know my manner of speech is rough around the edges, but all these bans and restrictions is a crock of shit.

    Do you think I really believe that all this is to curtail risks to my health? I live in the real world and we all know it's about the almighty buck.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Article: After investigation, non-IFRA-compliant scent was actually compliant

    Quote Originally Posted by Nymphaea View Post
    These IFRA bans are nothing more than smoke-screens for their real agendas...corporate control of proprietary chemicals and roadblocks for small businesses.
    Wow! The devil is truly in the details! Reprehensible!
    "It's not the scent that recalls the person; it's the person who recalls the scent"

  13. #13

    Default

    Could it be Black Afgano? Off the shelves for a while and now it's back...

  14. #14

    Default IFRA Don't Tread on ME!

    Last edited by pkiler; 28th November 2011 at 08:23 PM. Reason: incomplete

  15. #15

    Default

    A public allegation? Was it something like "OMG, this is too good to be legal!"

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 1st October 2012, 03:38 PM
  2. Article: Non-IFRA-compliant fragrance on the market
    By Grant Osborne in forum Article Comments
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 26th February 2012, 03:57 AM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 17th November 2011, 10:37 AM
  4. IFRA article in Wired magazine
    By Persolaise in forum General Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 26th October 2011, 04:36 PM
  5. Article Pokes fun at IFRA
    By Natural_Juice in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 23rd July 2010, 05:27 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