They are already using treemoss.
What I don't understand about the IFRA and Oakmoss is that they're banning higher concentrations of oakmoss from being used because the IFRA say that it's an allergen and there are sensitivity issues right? But if that's so then why was oakmoss used in so many chypre perfumes that were so popular way back in the day? Did people's parents and grandparents go around scratching their necks until their necks were raw or something?
That's a bit strange. Also someone on Basenotes said that treemoss is similar to oakmoss and that treemoss was considered less of an allergen. Does anyone know if IFRA plans to let perfume makers substitute oakmoss for treemoss yet?
They are already using treemoss.
Haha - I've been using the 'old' Caleche with oakmoss since the early 1970's, probably have enough to last me out (& that's not an offer of sale - hanging on to it like grim death)
I have allergies - whole family does.
I have experienced no reaction from ANY scent so far, including Amouage (old) attars & many of those vintage scents re-formulated in recent times, agarwood oil (oudh), patchouli oil, rose attars, endless list really.
Maybe I'm just lucky!
Last edited by lpp; 1st March 2013 at 07:43 PM.
IWhat I don't understand is why it can't just be listed as an allergen, the way dairy, soy, treenuts, etc are listed on food products. Let the buyer decide. IFRA is the party-pooper of the century.
What do insomniac perfumers do to fall asleep? They count chypres!
Exactly - with food allergies you avoid those that you know affect you.
But anaphylactic shock is a problem for a few, don't personally know enough to have the statistics on that for scents.
One could, on the other hand, be more probably crushed by a bus (in areas where buses are still common), & buses were not banned or regulated in terms of concentration last time I looked .
Last edited by lpp; 1st March 2013 at 11:39 PM.
As a Perfumer, I have chosen to compose my fragrances to a standard of Excellence, instead of to the standard of weakness of IFRA.
IFRA has decided to eviscerate the Art of Perfumery. And I'm not falling in line with these fascists.
Warning labels should be enough.
If a peanut can kill a person , and a warning label is enough for impending death, then a warning label is enough for something that *may* in 1 in 100,000 people give a little rash if worn repeatedly in that very same spot.
No matter the moss, it is restricted by IFRA, and close to being banned.
Oakmoss, treemoss, Cedarmoss, etc...
Boy am I hopping mad... And I want the other 5000 perfumers worldwide to speak up about this travesty of monumental injustice and stupidity.
I'll get off my soapbox now... :-)
Gold Medal for "Best Aroma"; Los Angeles Artisan Fragrance Salon
Thanks for getting on it in the first place Paul
And for choosing quality.
Oh, forgot to mention wasps, a common, widely available cause of anaphylactic shock - are they next?
Last edited by lpp; 2nd March 2013 at 08:02 AM.
The big companies(yes I mean you LVMH etc), are dare I use the word, morons??????? The little sticker idea, everyone on the boards likes this idea. But the companies are so worried that we the buying public cannot read, they don't want to chance it.
The answer that IFRA gives, when asked "why not a warning sticker?" is that an allergen can work over a long period of time, so that it is not possible to predict when (or indeed if) an allergy will occur. Personally, I think that answer is pretty feeble, but IFRA has no intention of changing its regulations.
I'm afraid that the argument that people have been using and wearing Oakmoss (and Bergamot, and Jasmin and.....) for centuries doesn't impress IFRA either.
The fact that it is only about 1.0% to 3.0% of the population that will become allergic to one of the 26 (soon to be increased) doesn't work either.
The companies such as LVMH clearly don't care about perfumery at all (the farce of changing Miss Dior shows that), they only care about profit. So long as the punters keep buying, then the quality of fragrance can go hang. Sad but true.
Thanks, David, sadly agree.
Last edited by lpp; 2nd March 2013 at 01:54 PM.