Code of Conduct
Results 1 to 55 of 55
  1. #1
    Dependent Akahina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,986

    Default IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    It has only been the last couple of years that I have gotten interested in wearing fragrances. I used to use just a couple and only rarely. Why? Because when I would walk through the fragrance department in department stores (which seem to always be by the entrance), I would always choke up! I would instinctively hold my sleeve or a handkerchief over my nose and walk through quickly. I would sneeze or my nose would start running. I have always had allergies and fragrances bothered me.

    A few years ago I noticed that I could actually walk through stores and not have a reaction. My assumption was that I had grown out of some sort of allergy.

    So, a couple of years ago I started sampling fragrances and have only had a problem with one sampled fragrance.

    Reading about the IFRA's restrictions I have wondered for some time now if I was one of those allergic to oakmoss or some other restricted ingredient. There is no way I will know for sure if it is one of those ingredients that I was allergic to of if I have indeed grown out of some allergy as I have aged.

    So, I have come to the conclusion that even though the pallet that perfumers have to work with has been limited to some degree and that some classic fragrances have had to be reformulated, the end result may be that more people can really enjoy fragrances without having a reaction. This includes people that wear fragrances and those that have to smell fragrances that others wear.

    Wondering about your thoughts on this topic...
    My Favorites
    1a. Slumberhouse Zahd
    1. Amouage Epic man
    2. Dior Leather Oud
    3. Amouage Tribute Attar
    4. Le Labo Patchouli 24
    5. Amouage Opus VII
    6. Bond No.9 New York Oud
    7. Norma Kamali Incense


    Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.


    The IFRA can bite me!

  2. #2

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Certain allergies do improve with time (others do not), but it sounds more as if you got used to perfume, since your reaction was across the board.

    Note also that IFRA restrictions are only because of skin rashes, not because of asthma and breathing problems. I doubt you get breathing problems when you drink jasmine tea (jasmine having been restricted) or cut an orange peel (ditto).

    cacio

  3. #3
    Dependent fragranceman88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Dundee, Scotland
    Posts
    2,159

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    While i do see your point on this issue, you cant get away from the fact that most of the big perfume houses have had to fin alternate ingredients for fragrances and thus, have changed the overall smell. Not drasticly I mean but enough that experienced noses would pick up on. So when you say that companies gain customers with the new reformulations, they also loose them.

  4. #4
    Dependent Akahina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,986

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by cacio View Post
    Certain allergies do improve with time (others do not), but it sounds more as if you got used to perfume, since your reaction was across the board.

    Note also that IFRA restrictions are only because of skin rashes, not because of asthma and breathing problems. I doubt you get breathing problems when you drink jasmine tea (jasmine having been restricted) or cut an orange peel (ditto).

    cacio
    My reaction was not across the board, perhaps I did not make that point clearly. I did have a couple that I wore, but when walking through a store with hundreds of scents mingled together in the air I would choke up. I had a disincentive to sample anything because just being around something in the air was unpleasant.
    My Favorites
    1a. Slumberhouse Zahd
    1. Amouage Epic man
    2. Dior Leather Oud
    3. Amouage Tribute Attar
    4. Le Labo Patchouli 24
    5. Amouage Opus VII
    6. Bond No.9 New York Oud
    7. Norma Kamali Incense


    Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.


    The IFRA can bite me!

  5. #5
    Dependent Akahina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,986

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by fragranceman88 View Post
    While i do see your point on this issue, you cant get away from the fact that most of the big perfume houses have had to fin alternate ingredients for fragrances and thus, have changed the overall smell. Not drasticly I mean but enough that experienced noses would pick up on. So when you say that companies gain customers with the new reformulations, they also loose them.
    I agree. That is one of the minuses for sure and I had that thought too. So there are pluses and minuses to these restrictions. I for one can now enjoy fragrances like never before. Sad that the great scents of the past have been changed to some degree. But, I can breath better and perhaps others around us can too?

    Thanks for your reply. The point of this thread was to weigh those pluses and minuses in an open forum.
    My Favorites
    1a. Slumberhouse Zahd
    1. Amouage Epic man
    2. Dior Leather Oud
    3. Amouage Tribute Attar
    4. Le Labo Patchouli 24
    5. Amouage Opus VII
    6. Bond No.9 New York Oud
    7. Norma Kamali Incense


    Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.


    The IFRA can bite me!

  6. #6
    hednic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    McLean, NYC, & Búzios
    Posts
    77,324

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    To the Op: It's possible that you might have been allergic to a specific ingredient no longer used, but more likely your body has changed and grown out of a specific allergic reaction.

  7. #7

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Are you sure that the allergic reaction was due to specific elements? Did this happened only at a store or when applying the fragrances too? Because maybe the reason wasn`t the elements, but the excess of fragrance in the air. It`s a common practice to spray the fragrances they are promoting in the air of the store in order to induce the client to get interested on that fragrance and, this way, increase the sales of that perfume. In this case, we would be blaming the wrong thing.

  8. #8
    Dependent pluran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    6,747

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akahina View Post
    ...........even though the pallet that perfumers have to work with has been limited to some degree........

    ............the end result may be that more people can really enjoy fragrances without having a reaction.......
    Quote Originally Posted by Akahina View Post
    ............Sad that the great scents of the past have been changed to some degree.........


    1. The effects on perfumers are far more than "limited to some degree".

    2. Many of the great scents have been changed far more than “to some degree”. Many of them have been changed beyond recognition or watered down to pale watercolors in vegetal shades.

    3. Most of the restrictions have little to do with genuine concern for your health. Most of it is based on politics, and most of the reasons given are not enough reason to ban or restrict things anyway.

    4. Many of the new things in the perfumes are not necessarily any better for you than the things that are restricted (which probably aren't bad for you in the first place).

    5. The whole thing is mostly a waste of money and time.

    Last edited by pluran; 23rd November 2011 at 08:21 PM.

  9. #9

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Hmmm....

    The IFRA thing is bumming me out. I make and sell jewelry. I work in gold, silver and bronze. A small amount of people get skin that turns color when they wear any one of these metals, it doesn't mean they are allergic. In most cases it means their skin chemistry is oxidizing the metal because of the acidic food they eat. They just need to let the metal oxidize and it will stop, or they can coat the metal with clear nail polish if they think its too unsightly. But it doesn't mean they are truly allergic. Tthere is a small, small amount of people who do have legitmate skin allergies -- which is probably less than those allergic to mascara and mangoes. Should I stop using metals because of a few people?

    My opinion, whether its metal, fragrance, peanuts, or pet dander is that people need to learn through life what they have reactions to, and to be able to distinguish if its hard core allergy or a minor reaction and then learn what choices they have on how to deal. With fragrance, people can spray clothes and not skin. With jewelry people can coat the metal with clear nail polish. And just like with fragrance or cats, sometimes it takes a couple weeks for the skin/nose to get used to whatever it is in contact with. If they truly are allergic, then avoid the fragrance or wear a synthetic.

    In regard to IFRA, the whole thing reminds me more of whats happening in Big Pharma. Big Pharma is big business. If lobbyists for certain companies can get certain ingredients banned, then their synthetic will be the thing to buy, forcing the market in their favor.

    The whole IFRA thing smells hinky/stinky to me.
    Last edited by firehorse; 23rd November 2011 at 08:30 PM.

  10. #10

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    It all has to be political. Otherwise a simple allergy warning label on the box and bottle would be sufiicient. And the fragrance sections in stores make me sneeze a lot and make my eyes water. But I'm sure it is the sheer volume of fragrance in the air. I've never had an allergic reaction to an individual wearing fragrance.

    Ironically, one fragrance made me sneeze a little when I wore it. Guess what? It was the new formulation of Halston Z-14 WITHOUT Oakmoss in it. Not to mention it just sucked, so I got rid of it. Now I am on the hunt for Z-14 with Oakmoss in it, not just because it doesn't make me sneeze, but because it is an awesome scent. A work of art that is in limited supply and will likely never be made the right way again (because of restrictions put in place).

    I'm tired of people telling me what is and isn't good for me. Then placing restrictions, bans etc on products while pretending like they actually care about that, when it's clear to me they have a hidden agenda.
    Last edited by jclaxton78; 23rd November 2011 at 09:20 PM.
    "You do not merely want to be considered just the best of the best. You want to be considered the only ones who do what you do." J.G.

  11. #11

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    PS, I got a major rash a couple weeks ago from applying Vaseline intensive care unscented lotion on my body. So I took it back to Walmart, went online and bought grapeseed oil to use as a moisturizer. No problems, no chemicals. However, I'm not looking to ban whatever is in that lotion. I just won't ever use it.
    "You do not merely want to be considered just the best of the best. You want to be considered the only ones who do what you do." J.G.

  12. #12
    AromiErotici
    Guest

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    I have nothing good to say about the restrictions. I do not believe, for a moment , that their decisions to ban anything pertain to a genuine concern about my health.

    I believe it's all about the buck. Nothing more. Now they can peddle the current ingredients. They make mucho denaro and we buy inferior perfumes.

  13. #13

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Just as the fragrance industry is all about money (what commerce is not?), think of pharmeceuticals.

    Are pharm companies in business to make people healthier? No way! Just think if they came up with a cure for the common cold. All those cold remedies, which sell in the billions, would go away. Ditto for chemotherapy drugs. If cancer was cured, there were be no need for all those sales reps in doctor's offices. Many doctors, by the way, are in bed with the pharm industry, and many must disclose this relationship for ethical reasons, esp. if you might be a guinea pig as one of their patients.

    Limiting the ingredients or removing scents is not about health; it's about money.

    I walk down the home fragrance aisle of a grocery store is trip into noxious synthetic fragrances in home deodorisers and cleaners. Can anyone make all those scents go away?

    I have allergies (and even some fragrance allergies) and have learned to cope with them. I don't demand the world revolve around my personal sensitivities.
    "No sweet perfume ever tortured me more than this." Desert Rose by Sting and Cheb Mami, Album 1999.

  14. #14

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    @ OP: I had the same problem. Funny, though, cause I could even wear a couple of heavy-hitting fragrances like Drakkar or Joop! But walking through the fragrance department was torture. I could hardly breathe! Several years later I noticed I could walk through without a problem. No more itchy watery eyes, gasping for breath, or anything. But that was in the 90's before IFRA really started messing with everything.

    I think you out-grew it, too. Congratulations!!
    Anakin: What was that all about?
    Obi-Wan: Well, R2 has been...
    Anakin: No loose wire jokes.
    Obi-Wan: Did I say anything?
    Anakin: He's trying.
    Obi-Wan: I didn't say anything!

    -ROTS


  15. #15

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Are you sure it was even allergic, or perhaps it was the 80's and it's Nuclear scents!!!
    “Perfume is like cocktails without the hangover, like chocolate without the calories, like an affair without tears, like a vacation from which you never have to come back.”

  16. #16
    Dependent Akahina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,986

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quiptos View Post
    Are you sure it was even allergic, or perhaps it was the 80's and it's Nuclear scents!!!
    Not at all sure and I don't know exactly how I could be sure...all food for thought though.
    My Favorites
    1a. Slumberhouse Zahd
    1. Amouage Epic man
    2. Dior Leather Oud
    3. Amouage Tribute Attar
    4. Le Labo Patchouli 24
    5. Amouage Opus VII
    6. Bond No.9 New York Oud
    7. Norma Kamali Incense


    Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.


    The IFRA can bite me!

  17. #17
    Dependent Akahina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,986

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by firehorse View Post
    Hmmm....
    Should I stop using metals because of a few people?

    If they truly are allergic, then avoid the fragrance or wear a synthetic.
    Devil's advocate here. No, you don't have to stop making jewelery. The person wearing it has the reaction, not those around them.

    As to fragrances, people around a person wearing a fragrance have to smell it and if it causes a problem for people should they be forced to not be able to breath or sneeze uncontrollably when around you? I accept your point of view but there is a flaw in the reasoning I think.

    Perhaps it is politics but politics is the way of the world. Anarchy is not a good alternative...
    My Favorites
    1a. Slumberhouse Zahd
    1. Amouage Epic man
    2. Dior Leather Oud
    3. Amouage Tribute Attar
    4. Le Labo Patchouli 24
    5. Amouage Opus VII
    6. Bond No.9 New York Oud
    7. Norma Kamali Incense


    Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.


    The IFRA can bite me!

  18. #18

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akahina View Post
    but when walking through a store with hundreds of scents mingled together in the air I would choke up. I had a disincentive to sample anything because just being around something in the air was unpleasant.
    The first part is perfectly understandable - the air in some of the bigger stores is noxious with fumes, but your second point is a little sad, it's like not wanting to try a fine wine with dinner because you had the misfortune to be dragged through a booze barn late on Friday night after gallons of beer and a few shooters had been spilled into the carpet

    As far as IFRA goes, I think pluran put's it pretty succinctly and in a related thread Nukapai outlines things very concisely.

    Make no mistake about this - the IFRA 'regulations' have effectively destroyed the perfume industry. It is as simple as that. The severe limitations on, or outright ban of, a number of key natural ingredients that are indispensible to such genres as chypres and fougeres, and a lot of florals, can only breed watered down, synthetically enhanced apologies. Replicants.

    The simplest analogy I can think of is telling people that you can still attend orchestral concerts but the cello section will be replaced by one cellist and guy playing a keyboard with some sampled cello sounds to make it feel like the real thing. Knock citrus back and you can safely wipe out the flute section, heliotrope - okay the harp player gets fired too. It may still look like an orchestra, and sound like an orchestra - sort of - but the depth has gone and so has the sparkle.

    Of course, if you have never heard a full orchestra before, then no problem. The companies who control the industry know this - they are banking on it. Once the grumbling from the 'older customers' quietens down there will be a whole new generation of shoppers who never knew the original and will therefore settle with whatever is put in front of them. They, quite literally, do not know what they are missing.

  19. #19

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    With regard to allergies, I have come to the conclusion (a not very scientific one, I admit ) that many allergies (mostly no matter against what) are a sign of a suppressed immune system (food - e.g. simple sugars, environmental influences, plastic/toxins exposure etc.). I had suffered from hayfever for more than 20 years and got rid of it from one year to the other and it has never come back again. This does not cover the whole topic here, but I think is an aspect/thought that belongs here.

  20. #20

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akahina View Post
    Devil's advocate here. No, you don't have to stop making jewelery. The person wearing it has the reaction, not those around them.

    As to fragrances, people around a person wearing a fragrance have to smell it and if it causes a problem for people should they be forced to not be able to breath or sneeze uncontrollably when around you? I accept your point of view but there is a flaw in the reasoning I think.

    Perhaps it is politics but politics is the way of the world. Anarchy is not a good alternative...
    Again here, the case is not the fragrance itself, but the dosage. People should be educated to not overapply intense scents. Banning important materials because of allergies caused to the exaggeration of some is absurd. Is like banning some dishes because a few one don`t have moderation in eating them.

  21. #21

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akahina View Post
    Devil's advocate here. .... Anarchy is not a good alternative...
    In your original post you said walking into perfume stores caused you to choke but that you are having an easier time now. And you tried to connect your experience to IFRA's restrictions. Someone pointed out above that the allergies IFRA referenced is on skin contact not breathing.

    I have a problem smelling some fragrances, does that mean I support IFRA's restrictions? No. More people are allergic to smelling kitten dander. Should kittens be banned too?

    The consumer has choices, they are not victims of oakmoss and heliotrope and its not anarchy to bring this up. The consumer can choose not to walk in perfume stores and instead limit their fragrance smelling through ordering samples of their choosing. The consumer can take a zyrtec...(this is what I do for my cats and orris root). The consumer can wear fragrance on clothes not skin. The consumer can get expose themselves to a note slowly over a few weeks till they get used to it. And if none of this is satisfying, the consumer can choose to avoid a note entirely and instead enjoy other fragrances.

    ETA: I met a woman whose favorite flower is peony. She loves them and grows the around her yard. Last week she found out touching causes her skin to break out in a rash the way some do with poison oak. She has now learned she can't touch the flower, but she still is going to enjoy looking at them. Should IFRA ban peonies? She can smell them, but she can't rub it on her skin. I'm the same way with mangoes and mascara, should IFRA ban those too? I can eat a mango, I can smell one, ... I just cant touch the skin of one.
    Last edited by firehorse; 24th November 2011 at 03:53 PM.

  22. #22

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Completely agree with firehorse!
    Some perfumes have actually given me contact dermatitis, but that's a mild inconvenience. I just don't put them on my skin any more. I take a cetirizine tablet every day because my skin is so reactive, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy perfume, nor would I want any scent ingredient banned just because I can't wear it myself.
    But the reformulations are surely just as much about money as about safety. If you sell something with a cheaper ingredient, and not many people will know about or object to it, then many companies will do just that.
    It's true that one day, nobody will actually remember what the great perfumes smelled like (unless they are among the very few privileged to visit the Osmoteque). Then the complaints about reformulations will stop. Sadly.
    I love the analogy of the orchestra, mr reasonable. My own specialty is English literature, and one of my favourite authors is Jane Austen. Imagine the nightmare if every publisher were free to change, say, Pride and Prejudice at will. Some publisher's editor thinks that Elizabeth Bennett ought to be quiet and submissive, while Mr. Darcy is rewritten so that he's charming and friendly. New readers won't know the difference, they might just think it's a not very good piece of writing.
    But I would know! And I would protest! But when all the English majors were gone .... ?
    Same thing with perfume. We must continue to protest loud and long about the alteration of that piece of cultural heritage that is perfume. IMO.

  23. #23
    AromiErotici
    Guest

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Come on people, they are saving you from yourselves !!!

  24. #24

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    This is interesting to me. I abandoned wearing scent in the early '90's because I began to experience breathing difficulties when passing thru a perfume department, or if in proximity to someone wearing a great deal of scent, or perhaps a particular scent, that bothered me. Men's scents were more irritating than women's scents, in general. The whole idea of scent became unappealing and I quit wearing it altogether.

    Currently I am searching for some scents to start a new wardrobe after a 20 year hiatus. I have been pleased that I can go to a perfume counter and check out scents with out gagging and gasping.

    I still can't breath when my mother wears white linen... That one just closes down the pipes instantly. I was so happy when she found a scent in Spain that's citrus based. I am ordering her more online so she keeps wearing it and doesn't go back to the estee lauder...

    I have no idea if it is any result of these bans. I would guess not, since one of the base notes in all my past favorites was oakmoss...

    But still... interesting.

    I would think that perhaps the industry has made these restriction in an effort to combat the society wide turning against scent? So many public places have prohibited the wearing of scent as a result of the discomfort it caused the non wearers. That can't have been good for business. Don't know that these restrictions have improved that issue. Sounds less than clear cut.

  25. #25

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    sarafina:

    White Linen is an aldehydic bomb. Could that be what you don't really like? Try Chanel no 5 and No 22 (other aldehyde heavy perfumes, though not as much as white linen) and see what happens. Even more so, Stephen Jones by Comme des Garcons (available at Barneys).

    The industry certainly hasn't banned natural substances because of the discomfort caused to people. I bet few people really experience discomfort when smelling orange peel, jasmine, or muguet. But that's what was banned, not calone or ambroxan.

    cacio

  26. #26

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    An aldehydic bomb huh? I totally believe you but I am confused. If I don't like the white linen, the aldehydic bomb, then why are the perfumes I remember liking the most seemingly described as aldehydic;
    Caleche- citrus-rose-aldehydes-musk
    Ivoire- green metallic,aldehydic lemon

    I don't really understand what makes a scent 'aldehyde'. I still have a lot of reading to do I guess ; -)

    Casio, I saw your suggestions in reply to my request thread for help finding a new fragrance and have noted them. Thanks!

    Ok, enough thread drift.

    If it isn't really allergic reactions and market repercussions then I am not understanding what is driving these restrictions. And how are they enforced. I know of no international body that controls substance use in any industry. They may make suggestions, but forbid usage? Is it a case of the self regulating body in the industry being able to withhold some stamp of approval? What would the political motives be?

  27. #27

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by sarafina View Post
    If it isn't really allergic reactions and market repercussions then I am not understanding what is driving these restrictions. And how are they enforced. I know of no international body that controls substance use in any industry. They may make suggestions, but forbid usage? Is it a case of the self regulating body in the industry being able to withhold some stamp of approval? What would the political motives be?
    Read Part I (Below), Part II and the responses - that should be enough to get you started. Then read between the lines

    http://www.basenotes.net/content/731...tor-Of-IFRA-UK

  28. #28

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    So, after an initial read of all the interviews with the director of IFRA and the Guerlain noses I am left with this general picture;

    Historically the makers of perfume have been rabid about secrecy of formulation and process and refused to enter into any kind of cooperative relationship with each other. As a result of this the natural leaders in the industry were unprepared for the concerted attack by the artificial/synthetic ingredients manufacturers.

    Those companies have funded and supported legislation to ban some natural ingredients. They have funded and supported the (then) BFA (now) IFRA as a public face. In response to the legislation IFRA claims to be the supporter of the industry, in its work to proactively respond to concerns about ingredients and their effect on the consumer, by self regulating the use of such ingredients.

    The stick they use to turn their "guidelines" effectively into statutes can be summed up by this quote,
    "a side effect of the bad science is that if a perfumer has liability insurance, and they are sued, the insurer may say that they're in violation of "industry standards" and the insurance will be voided."

    Anya McCoy

    So they have manufacturers of the perfumes running scared from litigation. They have legislation in action to limit the use of naturals. They have created an artificial need for synthetic ingredients and the subsequent market value of their products. They have empowered a front for defusing any attempt by the perfume industry to regulate itself in a way that makes sense (ie by labeling).

    Have I got that pretty much right?

    Pretty slick!
    Last edited by sarafina; 1st December 2011 at 01:32 PM.

  29. #29

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Sarafina, thank you for a really interesting post. The fear of litigation is ruining so many goods and services now - when I broke my pelvis, the nurse who came to see me in A & E refused to help me on to the examination table because she was worried about being sued!
    But I digress ... I think you're right about one of the main drivers of this situation, but I'm still not clear why the perfumers couldn't get around the legislative threat by providing clear labels. Almost everything I buy from the supermarket these days has something like "produced in a factory where nuts are processed" or "may contain nuts", etc. So they have effectively placed themselves beyond the possibility of being sued. It's up to the consumer (me) to read the label and act accordingly. Which I do, because my daughter's partner has a serious nut allergy which could kill him.
    So why can't perfumers do the same? The fact that they don't makes me suspect, as others have also pointed out, that costs figure largely in this fiasco. Synthetics are cheap. So profits are larger. Isn't this also behind the thinking?
    Last edited by redrose; 1st December 2011 at 09:42 AM. Reason: omitted key word

  30. #30

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Sarafina:

    I think you are right in your assessment of the main reason for the IFRA regulations. IFRA is the association of aromachemical companies (most perfumes are developed in aromachemical companies, very few brands do things in-house).

    This could also explain a little the point made by redrose. For most companies, the perfumers cannot get around the ban because they are employed by the aromachemical companies themselves. this is not true for all, though.

    cacio

  31. #31

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by sarafina View Post
    An aldehydic bomb huh? I totally believe you but I am confused. If I don't like the white linen, the aldehydic bomb, then why are the perfumes I remember liking the most seemingly described as aldehydic;
    Caleche- citrus-rose-aldehydes-musk
    Ivoire- green metallic,aldehydic lemon

    I don't really understand what makes a scent 'aldehyde'. I still have a lot of reading to do I guess ; -)

    Casio, I saw your suggestions in reply to my request thread for help finding a new fragrance and have noted them. Thanks!

    Ok, enough thread drift.

    If it isn't really allergic reactions and market repercussions then I am not understanding what is driving these restrictions. And how are they enforced. I know of no international body that controls substance use in any industry. They may make suggestions, but forbid usage? Is it a case of the self regulating body in the industry being able to withhold some stamp of approval? What would the political motives be?
    Sarafina, regarding your reaction to White Linen, maybe this one has an specific aldehydic molecule that you have allergie and that isn`t used in the others you mentioned.

    Do you have an idea of the names of other fragrances that you had severe allergic reactions?

  32. #32

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    OK, this could be a silly question, but I'm just wondering how far the long arm of IFRA actually reaches. Does it just regulate Europe? How does Amouage manage to ignore it and continue making great perfumes? Can't the perfumers just have their creations made outside Europe (not if they're employed by the major IFRA-supporting companies, obviously, but they aren't all, are they? - and then we could order them from Europe. We'd have mailing costs, but to me it would be worth it to be able to buy, say, the original version of Mitsouko. I do this with some skincare products that I can buy in the US, but not in Europe. So why not for perfume, too?
    I'm relatively new to the world of frags, so please forgive me if this was a daft question!

  33. #33
    Basenotes Institution
    Mimi Gardenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Exactly Where I Should Be
    Posts
    16,345

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    I am bumping this thread because i am wondering about Heliotrope now which seems to either next on the list for restriction or already restricted.
    So many of my loved perfumes have his material in them and I do wonder how heliotrope will be replaced in some of them ...
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/370...o-Profumo-Onda
    For sale. Carnal Flower and Vero Profumo Onda.

  34. #34

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    http://perfumeshrine.blogspot.hk/201...eliotrope.html

    It seems to be getting a bit more of the spotlight turned on it, now. I took note years ago when Turin mentioned it in his review of L'Eau d'Hiver and while that one seems to be intact (bought a bottle a few months back) it sounds like Aprés l'Ondee has flipped into more iris and L'Heure Bleue is paler now. I picked up some Guerlain back-ups in 2009 (they are from 2007) and I'm glad I did.

    I find it rather ironic that in the year that L'Heure Bleue celebrates its Centenary it should be neutered by IFRA, but maybe Thierry Wasser has pulled something out of the hat for this new trio that's coming. He did mention in an interview that he wanted to see if somehow Guerlain could have a 'Heritage Collection' free from IFRA restrictions, presumably with a health warning of sorts, but I can't really see him pushing that one past LVMH legal, can you? Good luck to him, anyway.

    As far as replacing it I imagine the labs will have come up with a new synthetic just in time to save us all AND put a smile on the shareholders faces while they're at it

  35. #35

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. reasonable View Post
    I find it rather ironic that in the year that L'Heure Bleue celebrates its Centenary it should be neutered by IFRA, but maybe Thierry Wasser has pulled something out of the hat for this new trio that's coming. He did mention in an interview that he wanted to see if somehow Guerlain could have a 'Heritage Collection' free from IFRA restrictions, presumably with a health warning of sorts, but I can't really see him pushing that one past LVMH legal, can you? Good luck to him, anyway.
    From recent interviews, it doesn't sound like it's going to happen - primarily due to most of Guerlain's old suppliers having long gone out of business.

    It's a sad state of affairs indeed.

  36. #36
    Basenotes Institution
    Mimi Gardenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Exactly Where I Should Be
    Posts
    16,345

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Gosh ,it gets worse, doesn't it ??!
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/370...o-Profumo-Onda
    For sale. Carnal Flower and Vero Profumo Onda.

  37. #37

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akahina View Post
    It has only been the last couple of years that I have gotten interested in wearing fragrances. I used to use just a couple and only rarely. Why? Because when I would walk through the fragrance department in department stores (which seem to always be by the entrance), I would always choke up! I would instinctively hold my sleeve or a handkerchief over my nose and walk through quickly. I would sneeze or my nose would start running. I have always had allergies and fragrances bothered me.
    Lots of good info in this thread, and I wanted to point out one more thing with respect to your respiratory distress. I never shared your allergic reaction, but I definitely remember when I was young the perfume counter air that you're talking about--a heavy miasma of fumes that, even if it didn't make you tear up, could overwhelm. I believe one thing that may have improved is ventilation (and perhaps its attendant regulations). I simply can't recall any recent experience in a department store or even fragrance boutique where I had to contend with a Hostile Fume Cloud.

  38. #38

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by redrose View Post
    OK, this could be a silly question, but I'm just wondering how far the long arm of IFRA actually reaches. Does it just regulate Europe? How does Amouage manage to ignore it and continue making great perfumes? Can't the perfumers just have their creations made outside Europe (not if they're employed by the major IFRA-supporting companies, obviously, but they aren't all, are they? - and then we could order them from Europe. We'd have mailing costs, but to me it would be worth it to be able to buy, say, the original version of Mitsouko. I do this with some skincare products that I can buy in the US, but not in Europe. So why not for perfume, too?
    I'm relatively new to the world of frags, so please forgive me if this was a daft question!


    No this is actually a very good question. I mean there are markets in which the kind of regulations we in Europe and North America almost completely take for granted do not exist at all, and where insurance liability for not meeting industry standards is not an issue. Selling products produced in those markets into the regulated markets of Europe and North America however poses a huge problem for vendors who do then incur liability should consumers end up having reactions to these products.

    My other personal concern about the drift of this discussion is that we seem to be saying that this is a conspiracy on the part of synthetic aroma-chemicals manufacturers but I'm under the impression (perhaps completely mistaken, and I would gladly be corrected on the point) that IFRA has supported industry regulations for the use not only of naturally occurring odorants but also synthetic aromachemicals. IFRA supports the current restrictions on the use of certain kinds of synthetic musk for instance and this is currently driving a kind of chemical-musk arms race as companies compete to produce ever more regulation friendly and nose pleasing musks. Or am I wrong?

  39. #39

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Hilaire, you are a treasury of information! Do you have in mind any particular markets, and how we might access them from the US and Europe? How about the very interesting Arabian scents being made now, attars, etc.?
    I'm willing to take the risk of death-by-rose-oil!

  40. #40

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by redrose View Post
    Hilaire, you are a treasury of information! Do you have in mind any particular markets, and how we might access them from the US and Europe? How about the very interesting Arabian scents being made now, attars, etc.?
    I'm willing to take the risk of death-by-rose-oil!


    Ah well, don't be deceived by many of the Arabian attars and such on the market. I'm not an especial expert (there are experts on these boards whose advice on this sort of thing would be much more useful I imagine) but if the use of synthetic Oud alternatives is anything to go by then Arabian perfumery is just as apt to the use of synthetic materials as European perfumery. Nor is that in any way a bad thing in my view.

    How and ever, my point wasn't that in these unregulated or less regulated markets there exists a paradise of natural perfumery in which the list of IFRA scheduled naturally occurring ingredients are used abundantly in perfumes. There might be perfumes containing those ingredients to be had, doubtless, but the corollary of there being no or less regulation in these markets (China being the first to spring to my mind) is that you simply don't know what the perfumes you might be buying from them contain. You might think you've bought a ex-IFRA masterpiece containing oodles of citrus, oakmoss and heliotrope, but you could have bought a toxic mess which will give you welts and rashes.
    Last edited by Hilaire; 31st July 2012 at 12:00 PM.

  41. #41

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Hillaire:
    conspiracy is a loaded word. We economist use the word cartel. There are many ways in which firms collude and negatively affect the market. The CEOs of aromachemical companies do not have to sit down at a table and decide, year after year, which natural substances to ban. It just so happens that IFRA's overly strict examinations do the job eminently on their own, unsurprisingly since natural substances contain hundreds of molecules, some of which are likely to cause a rash in one person out of a thousand. In the process, some synthetics are banned too (heliotropin being one of them), but they are likely not big money makers, and it is a price worth paying for the big firms.

    Mimi:
    as mr reasonable was saying, things have already happened (in the case of l'Heure Bleue not just heliotrope, but also eugenol). Perfumeshrine is always positive and tries to say good things, but no.

    redrose:
    some of our Arabian BNers should chime in. My impression was that Arabian perfumery (which is oil based) favors combinations of a few high quality ingredients. So it is still possible to find excellent jasmine extract, now banned from Western perfumery. But not, say, stuff like vintage Guerlain. (plus, apart from jasmine, I do not think that many other materials like said heliotropin or eugenol played a big role in serious Arabian perfumery).

    cacio

  42. #42
    Basenotes Institution
    Mimi Gardenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Exactly Where I Should Be
    Posts
    16,345

    Default

    Cacio - I wonder about L'eau d'Hiver ?
    If it has changed since I sampled it last year ? I have always wanted to get a big bottle of it but am afraid to in case it has changed .

  43. #43

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    I think rather than conspiracy I would use the term 'conflict of interest'.

    We are, indeed, looking at a 'self regulating' cartel, which, unless I am mistaken, is made up of the companies who create and market patented molecules that are used to replace the the naturals and/or freely available molecules/aromachemicals that it has banned or restricted.

    These companies are also responsible for making the majority of the perfumes on the market - I saw some numbers recently, was it 60% or higher than that? I'll try to find the info.

    If you're really interested there are several Threads floating around here already with lots of info about IFRA and a hilarious interview persolaise conducted with the UK IFRA representative.

  44. #44

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Perfumery is an art, you can only control it for so long. The new IRFA rules have been devastating for many fragrances, the whole chypre genre has evaporated , but I feel this will be momentary. Eastern Perfumery do not have these limitations and do not follow IFRA. You will still find many fragrances and CPOs rich in Jasmine absolute, Oakmoss, etc. I have an Indian attar blend called Agar Hina, which has a 20% Oakmoss content and is just stunning.

  45. #45

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Well, I'm definitely going to look into the Arabian and Indian attars. I'm not against synthetics because they can be very useful in extending natural frags' longevity, and it's hard to argue against them when animal cruelty might be involved, or when species are endangered. But I'd like to discover scents which have more of the banned IFRA ingredients. Yes, they could cause contact dermatitis or more serious allergies, but as someone with hyper, hyper allergenic skin I always patch test first. And contact dermatitis is hardly life-threatening.
    Bring on the banned IFRA substances - I'm willing to be the canary here!

  46. #46

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    When I read threads like this, I sometimes wonder about the knowledge and science behind the issues. For example, Akahina mentioned choking up and linked it to allergies and then to IFRA restrictions. As firehorse and redrose noted, IFRA restrictions are for contact dermatitis. From a cursory search on Goggle, I found out that smelling perfumes and scents do not cause allergies; they only cause allergy-like symptoms, and are classed as irritants rather than as allergens.

    This leads to the point that even if IFRA does restrict many ingredients/materials, there is no guarantee the ones left do not cause irritation to hypersensitive people smelling the perfumes.

    Anyway, just my two cents on the initial part of the thread pertaining to allergies (and growing out of allergies).

  47. #47

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilaire View Post
    My other personal concern about the drift of this discussion is that we seem to be saying that this is a conspiracy on the part of synthetic aroma-chemicals manufacturers but I'm under the impression (perhaps completely mistaken, and I would gladly be corrected on the point) that IFRA has supported industry regulations for the use not only of naturally occurring odorants but also synthetic aromachemicals. IFRA supports the current restrictions on the use of certain kinds of synthetic musk for instance and this is currently driving a kind of chemical-musk arms race as companies compete to produce ever more regulation friendly and nose pleasing musks. Or am I wrong?
    i'm not sure about these conspiracy theories, there could be some truth in there, in that some people in the business might indeed think that way.

    your argument is also easily countered. what about patents? they run out. others will start making money on your invention, and they will put it on the market for a lower price than you like. so, if the molecule in question gets banned, that would be good news. because you have developed something new, which might not be as good as the previous one, but since no-one can use that anymore, more profit will be generated for your newly patented products. hence, the big boys stay on top.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Maque View Post
    I found out that smelling perfumes and scents do not cause allergies; they only cause allergy-like symptoms, and are classed as irritants rather than as allergens.

    This leads to the point that even if IFRA does restrict many ingredients/materials, there is no guarantee the ones left do not cause irritation to hypersensitive people smelling the perfumes.
    ifra does look at irritants, and there is a range of materials being restricted as such.

  48. #48

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by gido View Post
    ifra does look at irritants, and there is a range of materials being restricted as such.
    That's interesting! Are the common ingredients we are lamenting as being restricted by IFRA classified as allergens or irritants then (e.g. jasmine, oakmoss)? Allergens tend to be rather individual-specific; are irritants similar, or do they affect a bigger class of people?

  49. #49

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    you can look up virtually every product with the search engine that goes through the database of the good scents company site. when you've found it, open the link and look under the safety and safety in use headers. fyi, fine fragrances are falling under category 4.

    here it is: http://users.tpg.com.au/adsleh6r/TGSCsearch.htm

  50. #50

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by gido View Post
    i'm not sure about these conspiracy theories, there could be some truth in there, in that some people in the business might indeed think that way.

    your argument is also easily countered. what about patents? they run out. others will start making money on your invention, and they will put it on the market for a lower price than you like. so, if the molecule in question gets banned, that would be good news. because you have developed something new, which might not be as good as the previous one, but since no-one can use that anymore, more profit will be generated for your newly patented products. hence, the big boys stay on top.

    It wasn't an argument it was a conjecture. Also why would a company intentionally produce something of inferior quality (when there's no particular connection between cost of production and quality in aromachemical terms, with many excellent aromachemicals being extremely low in cost) to replace a banned chemical of higher quality?

    Givaudan have just developed Cosmone, which is a musk which finally reproduces the qualities of the Nitro-musks which made the mid-20th century a golden era in perfumery but which were also found to be harmful. They've spent decades trying to come up with musks which equal the old nitro-musks in quality, they haven't been attempting to develop ever poorer replacements. Givaudan are not alone, many of the big aromachemical companies have spent fortunes in R&D attempting to come up with the highest quality ingredients to replace naturally occurring ingredients or indeed man-made ones which have either been banned or become extremely rare indeed, Sandalwood being one example. You may not feel they have been entirely successful yet but that doesn't mean they haven't been trying.

    There's just a whole lot of excessive suspicion and received opinion going on here. Big corporation = out to rip you off and sell you muck for gold, Aromachemical = Inferior, Naturally Occurring odorant = superior, Arabian and Indian perfumery = all natural perfumery. All of these presumptions are fallacious to varying degrees and all rely on a number of faulty assumptions.

    One of those assumptions is downright insulting to people who actually go to work every day with a passion for what they do; the people who develop aromachemicals at companies like Givaudan and Firmenich etc aren't crooks looking for every cunning ploy to rip us off, they actually have a genuine passion for the work they do and have been responsible for producing some of the most astounding scents and odours ever used in perfumery and for helping to create some of the greatest perfumes of all time. Are they doing this to make a living? Yes, but so are the "Arabian and Indian" companies people are lauding in this thread, which is exactly why they also use synthetic Musks, synthetic Oud, and other synthtetic ingredients (most developed by the big aromachemical companies that are getting it in the neck around here) to produce the perfumes they make.

    Honestly if you think looking outside of the IFRA regulated perfume industry is going to send you back in time to when people only used naturally occurring ingredients you're kidding yourself. Only a tiny proportion of perfumers use exclusively naturally occurring ingredients for commercial purposes and most of them are not in Arabia or India, most of them are artisans and indie perfumers working in the U.S. or E.U.
    Last edited by Hilaire; 5th July 2012 at 09:23 PM.

  51. #51

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    of course they're trying the best they can, at the development department. but no musks have improved on the nitro musks. no great substitute for coumarin has been made. and so on.

    i don't blame the developers, not at all. all these restrictions probably give them headaches, too.

    i'm just saying, for these big companies, financially speaking it might be not a bad thing if an old chemical is banned. the same goes for naturals, ban oakmoss and the demand for verymoss and other products will suddenly rise significantly. and i don't think the financial departments aren't aware of this.

  52. #52

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by gido View Post
    you can look up virtually every product with the search engine that goes through the database of the good scents company site. when you've found it, open the link and look under the safety and safety in use headers. fyi, fine fragrances are falling under category 4.

    here it is: http://users.tpg.com.au/adsleh6r/TGSCsearch.htm
    My query was a more general one. Which class of fragrance materials are considered respiratory/olfactory irritants? It seems to me (with a cursory search through both your link and the IFRA website) that the majority of the materials under study are dermal allergens or cause dermal irritation. Which substances can specifically cause irritation when smelled?

  53. #53

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilaire View Post
    It wasn't an argument it was a conjecture. Also why would a company intentionally produce something of inferior quality (when there's no particular connection between cost of production and quality in aromachemical terms, with many excellent aromachemicals being extremely low in cost) to replace a banned chemical of higher quality?

    Givaudan have just developed Cosmone, which is a musk which finally reproduces the qualities of the Nitro-musks which made the mid-20th century a golden era in perfumery but which were also found to be harmful. They've spent decades trying to come up with musks which equal the old nitro-musks in quality, they haven't been attempting to develop ever poorer replacements. Givaudan are not alone, many of the big aromachemical companies have spent fortunes in R&D attempting to come up with the highest quality ingredients to replace naturally occurring ingredients or indeed man-made ones which have either been banned or become extremely rare indeed, Sandalwood being one example. You may not feel they have been entirely successful yet but that doesn't mean they haven't been trying.

    There's just a whole lot of excessive suspicion and received opinion going on here. Big corporation = out to rip you off and sell you muck for gold, Aromachemical = Inferior, Naturally Occurring odorant = superior, Arabian and Indian perfumery = all natural perfumery. All of these presumptions are fallacious to varying degrees and all rely on a number of faulty assumptions.

    One of those assumptions is downright insulting to people who actually go to work every day with a passion for what they do; the people who develop aromachemicals at companies like Givaudan and Firmenich etc aren't crooks looking for every cunning ploy to rip us off, they actually have a genuine passion for the work they do and have been responsible for producing some of the most astounding scents and odours ever used in perfumery and for helping to create some of the greatest perfumes of all time. Are they doing this to make a living? Yes, but so are the "Arabian and Indian" companies people are lauding in this thread, which is exactly why they also use synthetic Musks, synthetic Oud, and other synthtetic ingredients (most developed by the big aromachemical companies that are getting it in the neck around here) to produce the perfumes they make.

    Honestly if you think looking outside of the IFRA regulated perfume industry is going to send you back in time to when people only used naturally occurring ingredients you're kidding yourself. Only a tiny proportion of perfumers use exclusively naturally occurring ingredients for commercial purposes and most of them are not in Arabia or India, most of them are artisans and indie perfumers working in the U.S. or E.U.

    Judging from your piece, its safe to say you work for these companies. All genre of perfumes do use synthetics in varying degrees, but its a fact IFRA regulations have laid waste to many fragrances, especially with Chypre Fragrances. Ofcourse many Eastern fragrances use synthetics but they also use many of the IFRA banned substances. Oakmoss has been stripped in most fragrances entirely or replaced with moss extract,which is a very poor substitute. Oakmoss is relatively cheap compared with other fragrance notes. I have an Attar which uses Oakmoss in a high concentration, and I love it! Do Givaudian and Firmench come out with great synthetics, ofcourse they do! What is not fine is coming up with ridiculous regulations which lay waste to catalogues of fragrances and leaves fragrance lovers in the dark.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilaire View Post
    It wasn't an argument it was a conjecture. Also why would a company intentionally produce something of inferior quality (when there's no particular connection between cost of production and quality in aromachemical terms, with many excellent aromachemicals being extremely low in cost) to replace a banned chemical of higher quality?

    Givaudan have just developed Cosmone, which is a musk which finally reproduces the qualities of the Nitro-musks which made the mid-20th century a golden era in perfumery but which were also found to be harmful. They've spent decades trying to come up with musks which equal the old nitro-musks in quality, they haven't been attempting to develop ever poorer replacements. Givaudan are not alone, many of the big aromachemical companies have spent fortunes in R&D attempting to come up with the highest quality ingredients to replace naturally occurring ingredients or indeed man-made ones which have either been banned or become extremely rare indeed, Sandalwood being one example. You may not feel they have been entirely successful yet but that doesn't mean they haven't been trying.

    There's just a whole lot of excessive suspicion and received opinion going on here. Big corporation = out to rip you off and sell you muck for gold, Aromachemical = Inferior, Naturally Occurring odorant = superior, Arabian and Indian perfumery = all natural perfumery. All of these presumptions are fallacious to varying degrees and all rely on a number of faulty assumptions.

    One of those assumptions is downright insulting to people who actually go to work every day with a passion for what they do; the people who develop aromachemicals at companies like Givaudan and Firmenich etc aren't crooks looking for every cunning ploy to rip us off, they actually have a genuine passion for the work they do and have been responsible for producing some of the most astounding scents and odours ever used in perfumery and for helping to create some of the greatest perfumes of all time. Are they doing this to make a living? Yes, but so are the "Arabian and Indian" companies people are lauding in this thread, which is exactly why they also use synthetic Musks, synthetic Oud, and other synthtetic ingredients (most developed by the big aromachemical companies that are getting it in the neck around here) to produce the perfumes they make.

    Honestly if you think looking outside of the IFRA regulated perfume industry is going to send you back in time to when people only used naturally occurring ingredients you're kidding yourself. Only a tiny proportion of perfumers use exclusively naturally occurring ingredients for commercial purposes and most of them are not in Arabia or India, most of them are artisans and indie perfumers working in the U.S. or E.U.

    Judging from your piece, its safe to say you work for these companies. All genre of perfumes do use synthetics in varying degrees, but its a fact IFRA regulations have laid waste to many fragrances, especially with Chypre Fragrances. Ofcourse many Eastern fragrances use synthetics but they also use many of the IFRA banned substances. Oakmoss has been stripped in most fragrances entirely or replaced with moss extract,which is a very poor substitute. Oakmoss is relatively cheap compared with other fragrance notes. I have an Attar which uses Oakmoss in a high concentration, and I love it! Do Givaudian and Firmench come out with great synthetics, ofcourse they do! What is not fine is coming up with ridiculous regulations which lay waste to catalogues of fragrances and leaves fragrance lovers in the dark.

  54. #54

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by vinramani09 View Post
    Judging from your piece, its safe to say you work for these companies. All genre of perfumes do use synthetics in varying degrees, but its a fact IFRA regulations have laid waste to many fragrances, especially with Chypre Fragrances. Ofcourse many Eastern fragrances use synthetics but they also use many of the IFRA banned substances. Oakmoss has been stripped in most fragrances entirely or replaced with moss extract,which is a very poor substitute. Oakmoss is relatively cheap compared with other fragrance notes. I have an Attar which uses Oakmoss in a high concentration, and I love it! Do Givaudian and Firmench come out with great synthetics, ofcourse they do! What is not fine is coming up with ridiculous regulations which lay waste to catalogues of fragrances and leaves fragrance lovers in the dark.

    LOL no, I don't work for an aromachemical company or for any company associated with the perfume industry. In fact I'm self employed as an artist. Being able to be objective about the perfume industry (based on dispassionate investigation and research) and not making wildly inaccurate and unsubstantiated assumptions and accusations about that industry does not make me a shill.

    As it goes I haven't said anything which would indicate I actually disagree with what you're saying btw. Mind you I don't feel especially inclined to point out any points of agreement we might share since apparently that would be giving evidence in my own defence. That I do not share many people's hysteria about IFRA regulation or blindly accept completely false assumptions about non-regulated perfumery does not mean I have an agenda or that my opinion is inherently suspicious.

  55. #55

    Default Re: IFRA's banned/restricted ingredients: some thoughts.

    Interesting topic.

    My take on it is -
    I think everything in life carries a certain amount of risk. Perfume is no exception.

    The old rules of 'everything in moderation' apply here. If you spray yourself in excess of 30 sprays every single day, then chances are it aint gonna do you a whole lot of good. But, a couple of light sprays every day isn't going to do anybody any harm.
    Anyway, people keep moving the goalposts regarding things that are good for you and bad for you....
    Who hasn't opened the paper one day to find that such and such is bad for you and should be 'avoided at all costs', only to read the same paper a month later, to then find that that same thing has been given 'super food' properties!
    The whole thing is laughable.
    The only perfume that ever brought me out in a rash was Molecule 01. My solution? I spray it on my clothes instead - No more rash.
    As with all things (perfume or people) in life - form your own opinion and don't listen to too much speculation. Make up your own minds.

    Regarding the many wonderful Eastern fragrances that are around - As with all fragrances, its not a good idea to go blind-buying in bulk without doing a bit of research first. Only a fool would do that, as I don't think all of them are subject to the same regulations as other fragrances are.
    Still, even then, people should be free to make their own decisions (or mistakes) as they see fit.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 1st October 2012, 03:38 PM
  2. Ingredients List by IFRA
    By EauxM in forum General Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 16th January 2010, 07:43 PM

Posting Permissions

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