Code of Conduct
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 61 to 120 of 183
  1. #61
    Dependent Akahina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    3,242

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    http://www.basenotes.net/content/616...me-ProjectHere is an article posted by Grant himself several years ago. Worth a read and well worth supporting the group and the listed perfumers.
    Some Favorites
    1. Amouage Epic man
    2. Dior Leather Oud
    3. Perris Monte Carlo Oud Imperial Black
    4. Le Labo Patchouli 24
    5. Amouage Opus VII
    6. Byredo Bullion
    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.

  2. #62

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Read and heard about this the past few days. Would have no problem with that, as long as no or few scents were affected.

  3. #63

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by jarrodrocks View Post
    I feel that we (basenotes members) have more power than you may think. We may take fragrances more seriously than the average consumer, but we also purchase much, much more than the average consumer. The average person won't own 50+ perfumes. We may not be able to stop the IFRA but we can support the fragrances that don't follow their rules which will in turn create more options in the niche market.
    ***********
    You are correct that Basenoters won't stop IFRA or even slow them down. It's my opinion that the collective buying power of Basenoters doesn't even come close to the money attached to lobbyists. Also remember, some of the same niche perfumes are sold on both sides of the ocean and it is costly to produce different versions for each country/area regs. Niche & Indie produced in the U.S. is a different matter, they may follow the regs/specific laws or not. (Laurie Erickson, Sonoma Scent Studio, U.S., reformulated all her frags that did not comply. But she also pushed the limit to the max amounts allowed.)
    "Lubin" and many more are not 'mainline' (dept store) perfume houses, yet they do comply with all the regs being located in the EU and importing to the U.S. other countries.

    It also limits the growth of niche/indie businesses into areas where they would need to comply. So much for expanding....
    And yes, I agree on supporting the niche/indie businesses. That's where and who I do 95% of my business with.

  4. #64

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Is this a conspiracy? Is there a grand Machiavellian master control scheme at work behind the systematic IFRA recommendations? I think so. Like deep throat said at Watergate - "follow the money."

    The IFRA is funded and underwritten by the three largest flavor and odorant companies in the world: Symrise, Givaudin, and International Flavors & Fragrances. Yes, they are funded by the very companies that appear to be hurt the most!? But who is helped the most by creating new patented fragrance chemicals that replace these old natural occurring banned things. Yes, it is Symrise, Givaudin and IF&F. Does this remind anyone else of the situation in the U.S. in which large chemical companies have been buying up the design patents on genetically created seed crops for basic foodstuffs? The use of legal intimidation prevents farmers from using any but the seeds owned by the large agrochemical companies. It is a complex scheme, but is insidious in its implications. Similarly, the mega fragrance chemical companies are creating new, patented molecules that recreate similar essences to the IFRA banned stuff and these companies are ready with replacements that are patented and exclusively under their control. It is hard for a corporate giant to patent lavender, rose, oak moss, birch tar etc. but they can certainly remove these naturals from the market so their competition will not have any options in which to compete. Of course all this happens under the veil of "health concerns" and allergies etc. Look at the big picture, the long game and determine which way the wind is blowing. It ends up back at the doorstep of the companies that funded the IFRA to do "the public good" in the first place. It doesn't smell right to me - no pun intended.

    Also of note is the fact that there really is no legal requirment for manufacturers to comply, but they are intimidated into compliance by the threat of liability which compels them to do so. If they use oakmoss and someone gets respiratory illness that may have resulted from oakmoss among many other possible causes, then the basis of lawsuit against the manufacturer is that they knowlingly used this ingredient when they were aware that IFRA recommendations were to stop using it. It puts them in a liable situation from the day they use it in their formula. If they go against the IFRA they are putting a big target on their chest for any class action lawsuit attorney to take aim. It is sort of like saying, "I'm going to defy saftety recommendations, please come and sue me I will have to pay you!". This is a compelling reason to fall in line and not use the natural materials that are being banned.
    Last edited by Buzzlepuff; 14th February 2014 at 04:15 PM.

  5. #65
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,534
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Have there ever been instances of anyone suing and winning a perfume corporation for ANY disease or allergy? I've never heard of any. This is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. Totally wack. Anyway, I won't buy their worthless crap. And I won't be adding to my collection anymore, I guess.

  6. #66

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Unless houses and perfumers stand up and voice their concerns and actually do something (thanks Wasser) then restrictions and regulations will just keep on getting worse. I'm surprised, as mentioned earlier, that [I]very[I] few people in the industry have spoken or advocated for what the EU and IFRA have done to the fragrance industry and will soon enough destroy perfumery; I truly think something can be done but it seems like this whole thing is a war that no one is prepared, or willing, to go into and fight. It would be a long, painstaking process but it would be worth it.
    There is definitely an agenda behind the EU and IFRA on this but what it exactly it is, we'll likely never know. If this keeps up, then I guess newer purchases by me will also diminish over time and I'll have to stick with my favourites and seeking out older stuff.

    This has become quite absurd and out of hand.

  7. #67

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
    Have there ever been instances of anyone suing and winning a perfume corporation for ANY disease or allergy? I've never heard of any. This is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. Totally wack. Anyway, I won't buy their worthless crap. And I won't be adding to my collection anymore, I guess.
    I have personally never heard of anyone suing. However, fear can be a powerful motivator to ensure compliance. All it would take is just one {male or female} gold digger who smelled a reward of multiple millions at the end of the rainbow. And the result would be a very black eye {bad press}for the Perfume House. That could result in even more monetary losses. Not to mention copycat lawsuits! oy.

  8. #68

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I think in most cases, perfumers are employees or independent contractors whose livelihoods depend on the fragrance makers and the aroma chemical companies. It doesn't seem to be a situation where most would feel comfortable saying anything that could be interpreted as derogatory about the product or the ingredients that are, or will in the future be, used.

    And that's probably the situation the houses are in, too. Imagine you are a giant company that sells hundreds of millions of dollars or euros of fragrance very year. Would you ever say "these restrictions would make Perfume X a shadow of itself"? You just couldn't. You have to maintain the illusion that your products are as good as, or better than, ever.

  9. #69

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by Meow7 View Post
    ***********
    You are correct that Basenoters won't stop IFRA or even slow them down. It's my opinion that the collective buying power of Basenoters doesn't even come close to the money attached to lobbyists. Also remember, some of the same niche perfumes are sold on both sides of the ocean and it is costly to produce different versions for each country/area regs. Niche & Indie produced in the U.S. is a different matter, they may follow the regs/specific laws or not. (Laurie Erickson, Sonoma Scent Studio, U.S., reformulated all her frags that did not comply. But she also pushed the limit to the max amounts allowed.)
    "Lubin" and many more are not 'mainline' (dept store) perfume houses, yet they do comply with all the regs being located in the EU and importing to the U.S. other countries.

    It also limits the growth of niche/indie businesses into areas where they would need to comply. So much for expanding....
    And yes, I agree on supporting the niche/indie businesses. That's where and who I do 95% of my business with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzlepuff View Post
    Is this a conspiracy? Is there a grand Machiavellian master control scheme at work behind the systematic IFRA recommendations? I think so. Like deep throat said at Watergate - "follow the money."

    The IFRA is funded and underwritten by the three largest flavor and odorant companies in the world: Symrise, Givaudin, and International Flavors & Fragrances. Yes, they are funded by the very companies that appear to be hurt the most!? But who is helped the most by creating new patented fragrance chemicals that replace these old natural occurring banned things. Yes, it is Symrise, Givaudin and IF&F. Does this remind anyone else of the situation in the U.S. in which large chemical companies have been buying up the design patents on genetically created seed crops for basic foodstuffs? The use of legal intimidation prevents farmers from using any but the seeds owned by the large agrochemical companies. It is a complex scheme, but is insidious in its implications. Similarly, the mega fragrance chemical companies are creating new, patented molecules that recreate similar essences to the IFRA banned stuff and these companies are ready with replacements that are patented and exclusively under their control. It is hard for a corporate giant to patent lavender, rose, oak moss, birch tar etc. but they can certainly remove these naturals from the market so their competition will not have any options in which to compete. Of course all this happens under the veil of "health concerns" and allergies etc. Look at the big picture, the long game and determine which way the wind is blowing. It ends up back at the doorstep of the companies that funded the IFRA to do "the public good" in the first place. It doesn't smell right to me - no pun intended.

    Also of note is the fact that there really is no legal requirment for manufacturers to comply, but they are intimidated into compliance by the threat of liability which compels them to do so. If they use oakmoss and someone gets respiratory illness that may have resulted from oakmoss among many other possible causes, then the basis of lawsuit against the manufacturer is that they knowlingly used this ingredient when they were aware that IFRA recommendations were to stop using it. It puts them in a liable situation from the day they use it in their formula. If they go against the IFRA they are putting a big target on their chest for any class action lawsuit attorney to take aim. It is sort of like saying, "I'm going to defy saftety recommendations, please come and sue me I will have to pay you!". This is a compelling reason to fall in line and not use the natural materials that are being banned.
    Quote Originally Posted by Meow7 View Post
    I have personally never heard of anyone suing. However, fear can be a powerful motivator to ensure compliance. All it would take is just one {male or female} gold digger who smelled a reward of multiple millions at the end of the rainbow. And the result would be a very black eye {bad press}for the Perfume House. That could result in even more monetary losses. Not to mention copycat lawsuits! oy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mocha View Post
    I think in most cases, perfumers are employees or independent contractors whose livelihoods depend on the fragrance makers and the aroma chemical companies. It doesn't seem to be a situation where most would feel comfortable saying anything that could be interpreted as derogatory about the product or the ingredients that are, or will in the future be, used.

    And that's probably the situation the houses are in, too. Imagine you are a giant company that sells hundreds of millions of dollars or euros of fragrance very year. Would you ever say "these restrictions would make Perfume X a shadow of itself"? You just couldn't. You have to maintain the illusion that your products are as good as, or better than, ever.
    One word comes to mind:
    Clusterf_ck!
    "You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality." - Ayn Rand

    "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical...It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." - Thomas Jefferson

  10. #70

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Apart from the larger issue of the industry's (artistic) self-destruction, which is indeed the fundamental problem, I'm more immediately concerned about these new regulations. The chemicals now under review are used in practically every fragrance out there right now -- they're huge, in other words. Linalool, coumarin, eugenol? I mean, you thought killing oak moss was bad -- this would be a fully scorched earth. Given that, how can we follow these developments and what warning signs should we look for? Honestly, if these new restrictions go through, there are any number of fragrances I'll want to grab back-up bottles of while I can. Could be things are about to get really bad, folks.

  11. #71
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    13,283

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    To put things in perspective, a number of substances are very strictly controlled in the products currently on sale and new alternatives are constantly being sought and used.

  12. #72

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzlepuff View Post
    Is this a conspiracy? Is there a grand Machiavellian master control scheme at work behind the systematic IFRA recommendations? I think so. Like deep throat said at Watergate - "follow the money."

    The IFRA is funded and underwritten by the three largest flavor and odorant companies in the world: Symrise, Givaudin, and International Flavors & Fragrances. Yes, they are funded by the very companies that appear to be hurt the most!? But who is helped the most by creating new patented fragrance chemicals that replace these old natural occurring banned things. Yes, it is Symrise, Givaudin and IF&F. Does this remind anyone else of the situation in the U.S. in which large chemical companies have been buying up the design patents on genetically created seed crops for basic foodstuffs? The use of legal intimidation prevents farmers from using any but the seeds owned by the large agrochemical companies. It is a complex scheme, but is insidious in its implications. Similarly, the mega fragrance chemical companies are creating new, patented molecules that recreate similar essences to the IFRA banned stuff and these companies are ready with replacements that are patented and exclusively under their control. It is hard for a corporate giant to patent lavender, rose, oak moss, birch tar etc. but they can certainly remove these naturals from the market so their competition will not have any options in which to compete. Of course all this happens under the veil of "health concerns" and allergies etc. Look at the big picture, the long game and determine which way the wind is blowing. It ends up back at the doorstep of the companies that funded the IFRA to do "the public good" in the first place. It doesn't smell right to me - no pun intended.

    Also of note is the fact that there really is no legal requirment for manufacturers to comply, but they are intimidated into compliance by the threat of liability which compels them to do so. If they use oakmoss and someone gets respiratory illness that may have resulted from oakmoss among many other possible causes, then the basis of lawsuit against the manufacturer is that they knowlingly used this ingredient when they were aware that IFRA recommendations were to stop using it. It puts them in a liable situation from the day they use it in their formula. If they go against the IFRA they are putting a big target on their chest for any class action lawsuit attorney to take aim. It is sort of like saying, "I'm going to defy saftety recommendations, please come and sue me I will have to pay you!". This is a compelling reason to fall in line and not use the natural materials that are being banned.
    Thank you for your clear synopsis of the situation.

    But... it doesn't make much sense to me that the EC/EU regulators can consider banning ingredients that have been used and consumed for centuries - to be substituted for new, synthetic, patented molecules for which the long term effects are not known.

    I mean, why aren't there health/consumer groups calling for long term health studies for these new chemicals? What about carcinogens, neurotoxins, immunotoxins, endocrine disruptors etc - aren't those the greater danger?

  13. #73
    Dependent Akahina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    3,242

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by chypre View Post
    Thank you for your clear synopsis of the situation.But... it doesn't make much sense to me that the EC/EU regulators can consider banning ingredients that have been used and consumed for centuries - to be substituted for new, synthetic, patented molecules for which the long term effects are not known.I mean, why aren't there health/consumer groups calling for long term health studies for these new chemicals? What about carcinogens, neurotoxins, immunotoxins, endocrine disruptors etc - aren't those the greater danger?
    In a word, yes. But the chemical manufacturers can't control every flower or leaf. They can control patented chemicals though. It's about money and control, not ultimate safety IMHO.
    Some Favorites
    1. Amouage Epic man
    2. Dior Leather Oud
    3. Perris Monte Carlo Oud Imperial Black
    4. Le Labo Patchouli 24
    5. Amouage Opus VII
    6. Byredo Bullion
    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.

  14. #74
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,534
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I just think it should be up to the Food and Drug admin. And as long as you use this stuff as intended, namely spray a small amount on skin and LET IT AIR DRY, and it doesn't harm you, then it should be deemed 'safe to use'. One has to wonder what ill effects they've found in people who have used these exact same products for ALL THESE YEARS? What terrible things should we be concerned about?

  15. #75

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by Akahina View Post
    In a word, yes. But the chemical manufacturers can't control every flower or leaf. They can control patented chemicals though. It's about money and control, not ultimate safety IMHO.
    Quote Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
    I just think it should be up to the Food and Drug admin. And as long as you use this stuff as intended, namely spray a small amount on skin and LET IT AIR DRY, and it doesn't harm you, then it should be deemed 'safe to use'. One has to wonder what ill effects they've found in people who have used these exact same products for ALL THESE YEARS? What terrible things should we be concerned about?
    Thanks for replying. I understand why the F&F companies would do it, but what puzzles me is, why would the EC regulators (the people charged with keeping the population safe) risk the long term health of the people for this? It seems illogical to ban, say, oakmoss/clove/bergamot etc. for the risk of dermatitis, when the long term risks of the new chemicals could be much worse.

  16. #76
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    13,283

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Not all of the restricted allergens are known in nature.
    Last edited by lpp; 14th February 2014 at 09:44 PM.

  17. #77

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by Akahina View Post
    I think it may be time to insist on labeling rather than banning...
    I agree. Heck, I wouldn't mind being required to sign a Terms & Conditions agreement prior to purchasing. I'd rather have that than ban the ingredients all-together. It would be a win-win situation, perfumers would be able to use whatever ingredients they like and consumers can enjoy the fragrances and at the same time not be able to sue.

  18. #78

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Anyone know when this is likely to take effect? I'd like to get some backup bottles of my favourites before reformulation. I don't want to wait too long and end up having to pay silly money for pre-reformulation juice on ebay.

  19. #79
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,534
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    They could strike at any time. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Better take out a mortgage on your house, PDQ!

  20. #80
    Dependent Arij's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Montréal
    Posts
    1,330

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzlepuff View Post
    Does this remind anyone else of the situation in the U.S. in which large chemical companies have been buying up the design patents on genetically created seed crops for basic foodstuffs?
    Excellent point, I meant to bring up Mosanto case yesterday in my argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by canuck21 View Post
    I'm surprised, as mentioned earlier, that [I]very[I] few people in the industry have spoken or advocated for what the EU and IFRA have done to the fragrance industry and will soon enough destroy perfumery; I truly think something can be done but it seems like this whole thing is a war that no one is prepared, or willing, to go into and fight. It would be a long, painstaking process but it would be worth it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mocha View Post
    I think in most cases, perfumers are employees or independent contractors whose livelihoods depend on the fragrance makers and the aroma chemical companies. It doesn't seem to be a situation where most would feel comfortable saying anything that could be interpreted as derogatory about the product or the ingredients that are, or will in the future be, used.
    I concur with Mocha, they can't talk or act, because they all work for the majors. From the plantation owner to perfumers, most of the industry is a stakeholder in these mega-corps. Can't bite the hand that feeds.

    Quote Originally Posted by onethinline View Post
    The chemicals now under review are used in practically every fragrance out there right now -- they're huge, in other words. Linalool, coumarin, eugenol? I mean, you thought killing oak moss was bad -- this would be a fully scorched earth.
    Everyone always overlooks Citral, yet it's the one they're most worried about loosing within the industry. Without citral, forget about what oakmoss meant for the death of fougères - [INSERT SARCASM] The masses are going to loose their precious freshies!?!?! "It's apocalyptic! My Aqua de Gino lemon water, now smells like just water!"

    Quote Originally Posted by chypre View Post
    I mean, why aren't there health/consumer groups calling for long term health studies for these new chemicals? What about carcinogens, neurotoxins, immunotoxins, endocrine disruptors etc - aren't those the greater danger?
    Health/Consumer groups don't have the lobbying power that the IFRA has for example. Meanwhile, people are defending straw men, while the legitimate real issue you have proposed with synthetics is very real. As the case with Mosanto mentioned above, who knows what GMO's do to our DNA? It's as usual, a case of the technological advances of today, becoming the plagues of tomorrow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akahina View Post
    But the chemical manufacturers can't control every flower or leaf. They can control patented chemicals though. It's about money and control, not ultimate safety IMHO.
    To defend your point; By taking away eugenol which is found in rose oil, makes a rose note near impossible to accomplish. That is unless for example, you use Givaudan Turkish Rose® ! *eye roll*

    The end is neigh, even for the Aqua de Gino's of this world.

  21. #81

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients


  22. #82
    Basenotes Junkie bigbloke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    719

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients



    Is this basically going to affect all perfumes or particular ones?
    Im thinking about backup bottles!

  23. #83
    Dependent pluran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    6,952

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by bigbloke View Post
    .....Is this basically going to affect all perfumes or particular ones?..........
    It's been affecting them for twenty years. Just intensifying as the years go by.

  24. #84
    Dependent pluran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    6,952

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    .................................................. .......................................
    Last edited by pluran; 15th February 2014 at 07:56 PM.

  25. #85

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by bigbloke View Post

    Im thinking about backup bottles!
    Good idea. It helps if you know what you currently own and enjoy is most at risk - I started some years ago and managed to keep ahead of the grim reaper - obviously oakmoss was in the sights early but as time has gone by pretty well anything has become fair game. It was nearly 10 years ago when some of the citrus stuff being used in perfumes came under fire and Tania Sanchez made the point that her skin would be exposed to WAY more of this 'potentially harmful molecule' by simply peeling and eating an orange than taking a bath in perfume. It's madness and most of the damage has already been done but there is still an opportunity to pick up some good stuff before it all disappears.

  26. #86
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    13,283

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    There's some info. here - scroll down re. Opoponax, etc.,
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/370...ed-24-08-2013)

  27. #87
    Basenotes Junkie bigbloke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    719

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. reasonable View Post
    Good idea. It helps if you know what you currently own and enjoy is most at risk - I started some years ago and managed to keep ahead of the grim reaper - obviously oakmoss was in the sights early but as time has gone by pretty well anything has become fair game. It was nearly 10 years ago when some of the citrus stuff being used in perfumes came under fire and Tania Sanchez made the point that her skin would be exposed to WAY more of this 'potentially harmful molecule' by simply peeling and eating an orange than taking a bath in perfume. It's madness and most of the damage has already been done but there is still an opportunity to pick up some good stuff before it all disappears.
    The bit in your reply about knowing what is at risk is the tricky bit for myself. Is there a way of finding out what is at risk?

  28. #88
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,534
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Anything good, that has depth and integrity seems to be on the chopping block. You can't tell me these new chemicals that burn the eyes and choke you are an improvement. The other day I was standing next to a couple of women who were wearing "La Vie Est Belle" and it was harsh-smelling stuff. These new perfumes are just dreadful.

  29. #89
    Basenotes Junkie bigbloke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    719

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I know what you mean! There are a few thousand people in my workplace and I get wafts that choke me on a daily basis!

    I'm going to have to draw up an 'endangered' list!
    Last edited by bigbloke; 15th February 2014 at 05:22 PM. Reason: Grammar!

  30. #90

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by bigbloke View Post
    The bit in your reply about knowing what is at risk is the tricky bit for myself. Is there a way of finding out what is at risk?
    I don't see anything in your wardrobe you need to worry about, altho if it were me I'd grab another Chergui. Read some of the articles, it won't take you long to get a handle on what's what. And what kumquat says.

  31. #91
    Basenotes Junkie bigbloke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    719

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Will do, thanks

    Also need to update my wardrobe...

  32. #92
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,296
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Here's a great example of molecular Stockholm syndrome:

    "We broadly welcome the proposed measures," said Pierre Sivac, president if the International Fragrance Association, the perfume industry's self-regulatory body.
    OY! Broadly welcome, as in, "We're not dead."

    The regulators won the day, not by promising a giant nanny state, but by only putting forth tiny pieces, one at a time. That gives the appearance of irreversibility, because everybody thinks that you can't move the colossus back for any one over-reach. But people are basically sick of over-regulation in toto. That is how to play this. Don't try to use fragrance over-regulation as objectionable for its own sake - just make it a symptom of OTHER PEOPLE'S misery.

    "You lost your job because of X? Just because the company couldn't afford a lawyer? Sheesh. Sorry, man. Yeah, they're even over-regulating fragrance, if you can believe THAT!"

    "Really? Maybe that's why all the colognes suck now."

    "Exactly! You got it, man!"

    Perfume propaganda!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaern View Post
    Right -- Enough is Enough

    I'm going to get a second mortgage and stock up with thousands of fragrances and live in a cabin in the woods.

    I am going to become a 'Fragrance Survivalist'
    Dang! I'm a fragrance survivalist, and I didn't even know it! [First mortgage, though. I have to admit that my Unabomber box is pretty spiffy! ]

    Hey - as long as my cabin has an internet connection, it's as good as a gun port!
    * * * *

  33. #93
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,296
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. reasonable View Post
    I love that this was posted on Valentine's day! How...... well, you know.

    Great blog post - thanks for the link!
    * * * *

  34. #94
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,534
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. reasonable View Post
    This is grotesque. So tragic. You'd think some politicians would intervene. So stupid. And what repugnant sauce are they going to concoct to replace 'natural' ingredients? More dangerous chemicals. We have to take their word for it that the new stuff is better than the stuff that's been around for generations- harming no one. I'm sure that if anyone has a bad reaction to a perfume they simply stop wearing it. Let's see a show of hands- how many of you spray perfume on and cover it with a patch so it stays wet for 30 minutes at a time? How many of you are breaking out in a rash when you wear perfume?

  35. #95

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    The focus on allergens interests me. When my son was small, he had to have allergy tests. This was 12 years ago, so I could be incorrect, but I distinctly remember the doctor distinguishing between natural products, which can result in allergies, and man-made chemicals, which are only categorized as intolerances. Therefore if your regulatory focus is on allergy, it may be that the man-made substitutes will never fall into that particular dragnet, but only natural substances.

    The scary part is, except for water, what natural substance is there that no one is allergic to? They are talking here about banning substances in roses and citrus, for goodness sake.

  36. #96
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,296
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
    You'd think some politicians would intervene.
    When people make the issue of generalized over-regulation their number one priority, it will induce change in the political parties. In America, both major parties are largely controlled by people who are happy with regulation. Calling people out as "knee-jerk regulators" and voting for their opponents in primaries may be the way forward. There is already a strong anti-regulatory element in the Republicans, but growing a similar faction in the Democrats may be difficult. Waxman's replacement might be a start. She is described as "new-age", but that is the exact place to initiate an anti-regulatory sentiment in the Democrats. (Watch IFRA and Monsanto start lobbying her within weeks of this post! ) Seriously, the ball is in the Democrat court, IMO. If an anti-regulatory sentiment can grow there, we may stand a chance.

    PS - trying to keep this as politically neutral / balanced as possible, and I'd appreciate it if replies could stay cool enough to appear in Foreign Affairs.
    * * * *

  37. #97

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Is there anyone here with substantial industry knowledge or experience that can comment on this proposal? I'm trying to parse through the emotional responses and get a true understanding of its impact.

    Specifically, there are current IFRA guidelines that affect most fragrances sold today, and I'm trying to understand whether this EU proposal simply mirrors the existing industry self-regulated guidelines, or whether it goes even further than current guidelines in terms of bans and restrictions of certain materials. For example, will a 2013 fragrance that contains citral, geraniol, etc. to the maximum allowed IFRA percentages need to be weakened further once this proposal passes into law?
    Last edited by TrimmTrabb; 15th February 2014 at 11:15 PM.

  38. #98

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by TrimmTrabb View Post
    Is there anyone here with substantial industry knowledge or experience that can comment on this proposal? I'm trying to parse through the emotional responses and get a true understanding of its impact.
    I'd like to know as well. Especially from those that work for or own a fragrance house.

  39. #99
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,296
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by TrimmTrabb View Post
    Is there anyone here with substantial industry knowledge or experience that can comment on this proposal? I'm trying to parse through the emotional responses and get a true understanding of its impact.

    Specifically, there are current IFRA guidelines that affect most fragrances sold today, and I'm trying to understand whether this EU proposal simply mirrors the existing industry self-regulated guidelines, or whether it goes even further than current guidelines in terms of bans and restrictions of certain materials. For example, will a 2013 fragrance that contains citral, geraniol, etc. to the maximum allowed IFRA percentages need to be weakened further once this proposal passes into law?
    The article answers your questions precisely. In my opinion, it's good reporting, so I would trust it. The journalist clearly talked to the right people, who are probably not going to be commenting on this thread. Everything they are saying matches up with what I've read elsewhere.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0LI4BQ20140213

    According the the article, the proposal definitely goes beyond current IFRA standards. Not just definitely, but SIGNIFICANTLY. Repeating - it goes further than current guidelines being followed voluntarily by the industry.

    [This is my opinion: it could have been a lot worse. When this was on the horizon, years ago, people were worried that it would be far more draconian. Oakmoss / treemoss + 12 is almost a slap on the wrist, compared to what might have been. The early commentary coming from the European bureaucrats was almost scary in its tone, IIRC. People were worried that natural fragrances would essentially be banned. Some of that was hysteria, but we will have to see what happens here. The Natural Perfumers Guild will likely have a statement at some point.]

    And YES - if adopted, there will be significant changes, as described in the article. Those changes might be slightly watered down by the time they are approved, but there will be changes of some sort, almost for sure. It would be very surprising if the EU simply backed off, in which case there would be no changes. That is highly unlikely, in my opinion. IFRA seems to be OK with the level of changes. Perfumers are generally not pleased if they pass in the current form - mostly because of citral, from what I have gathered on threads. But perfumers have little power in this, IMO.

    Yes - a fragrance at current maximum levels will almost certainly have to be reformulated. If the currently proposed levels pass, they will DEFINITELY have to be reformulated. Actually, LOTS of fragrances will have to be reformulated. According to the second link, IFRA estimated over 9000 fragrances would be affected at the current levels of the proposed changes.

    http://akafkaesquelife.wordpress.com...ct-on-perfume/

    I'm planning to stock up on oldies. This is The Year of Buying Vintage.
    * * * *

  40. #100
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,534
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I feel bad for any new people coming into collecting perfume. It's already hard to come up with recomendations.

  41. #101
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,296
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
    I feel bad for any new people coming into collecting perfume. It's already hard to come up with recomendations.
    I hear ya, kumquat. Although maybe many will not realize what they're missing.

    Let's say they do the "big hit" - 9000 perfumes affected. Frankly, I will bet that EVERY well-known fragrance from 2012 backwards will need tinkering. I will bet that half of those reformulations will be obvious to people like us who compare closely.

    It will be a big deal to people who have been at this a while. We will remember the original compositions of all the formulations that will be unsuccessfully reformulated. Young people won't be shocked until they smell "vintage", and notice the difference.
    Last edited by Redneck Perfumisto; 16th February 2014 at 01:23 AM.
    * * * *

  42. #102
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,534
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Especially since many people are so resistant to the idea of "niche". This is the reason why I gravitate towards it.

  43. #103
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,296
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
    Especially since many people are so resistant to the idea of "niche". This is the reason why I gravitate towards it.
    I wonder how much damage will be done to niche. Presumably, a lot of stuff like "Prive" lines will be affected. The question is really whether some niche lines rebel, or none at all.
    * * * *

  44. #104
    Dependent Akahina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    3,242

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    There are alternatives to European bans and restrictions. Look to indie perfumers from the west coast, which seems to have a growing number of houses. I particularly like the following statement which I will cut and paste from Sanoma Scent Studio's website. Seems so reasonable to me and the way this concern should have been handled in the first place."Sonoma Scent Studio follows generally accepted usage guidelines for essential oils and ingredients that are suspected of being more likely to cause irritation and/or sensitivity reactions. We do not use some oils at all, such as massoia bark, and we use limited amounts of others, such as natural oakmoss. We do use small amounts of real oakmoss, but we only use the low-atranol type that has had nearly all of the allergen atranol removed. If you know you have an oakmoss allergy, you can check the notes listed for each scent and avoid those that contain moss. Likewise, if you have a citrus allergy, you can check the ingredients lists for citrus. No sunscreen additives, preservatives, or colorants are used in our perfumes. The perfumes and body products are paraben-free. If you are prone to allergies, discuss the use of fragrance with your physician and you may want to use fragrance on clothes or in a scent locket rather than in direct contact with your skin. Regardless of whetheryou have known allergies, it is always prudent to test a little bit of scent on a small area of skin before trying a larger application (a skin patch test). If you do experience a skin reaction to one of our perfumes (redness, itching, irritation etc.), wash the perfume off with water and discontinue use. The perfumes are for external use only; avoid getting them in the eyes or mouth. Do not use on the face. Keep perfumes away from children and pets. Use common sense with perfumes as you would for any cosmetic products. We cannot predict how each person will react to the scents, but we are happy to answer any questions you have about specific scents if you email."
    Some Favorites
    1. Amouage Epic man
    2. Dior Leather Oud
    3. Perris Monte Carlo Oud Imperial Black
    4. Le Labo Patchouli 24
    5. Amouage Opus VII
    6. Byredo Bullion
    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.

  45. #105
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,534
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Ajne in California is also great, IMO.

  46. #106
    Basenotes Institution 30 Roses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    11,548
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
    I feel bad for any new people coming into collecting perfume. It's already hard to come up with recomendations.
    I have been having a hard time making recommendations for some time now.

  47. #107

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto View Post
    The article answers your questions precisely. In my opinion, it's good reporting, so I would trust it. The journalist clearly talked to the right people, who are probably not going to be commenting on this thread. Everything they are saying matches up with what I've read elsewhere.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0LI4BQ20140213

    According the the article, the proposal definitely goes beyond current IFRA standards. Not just definitely, but SIGNIFICANTLY. Repeating - it goes further than current guidelines being followed voluntarily by the industry.

    According to the second link, IFRA estimated over 9000 fragrances would be affected at the current levels of the proposed changes.

    http://akafkaesquelife.wordpress.com...ct-on-perfume/

    This is The Year of Buying Vintage.
    Yeah - it's sort of The Year of Buying Pretty Much Anything That's Any Good . . . some stuff released in the last 5 years will be hit.

    Quote Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
    I feel bad for any new people coming into collecting perfume. It's already hard to come up with recomendations.
    Exactly. How often now do you see people prefacing a rec with 'Vintage' or 'before the bottle / label design changed' etc.

  48. #108

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto View Post
    The article answers your questions precisely. In my opinion, it's good reporting, so I would trust it. The journalist clearly talked to the right people, who are probably not going to be commenting on this thread. Everything they are saying matches up with what I've read elsewhere.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0LI4BQ20140213

    According the the article, the proposal definitely goes beyond current IFRA standards. Not just definitely, but SIGNIFICANTLY. Repeating - it goes further than current guidelines being followed voluntarily by the industry.
    I think you might put too much stock in some Reuters reporter cranking out a story. I, having no inside knowledge, can see glaring inaccuracies and errors in the reporting by just glancing over the source documents:


    "It also proposed an outright ban on tree moss and oak moss, which provides distinctive woody base notes in Chanel's No.5 and Dior's Miss Dior."

    Inaccurate. The proposed ban is on atranaol and chloroatranol contained in oakmoss and treemoss. Current IFRA guidelines restrict the content of these 2 molecules rather than ban them. However, the industry has for years been attempting to rid moss extract of these so they can be used. I'm unaware of the progress that has been made on this. At a different point in the article, they correctly state the ban is on the specific molecules, not the entire extracts. But this portion is misleading.


    "The report recommended restricting the concentration of 12 substances - including citral, found in lemon and tangerine oils; coumarin, found in tropical tonka beans; and eugenol, found in rose oil - to 0.01 percent of the finished product."

    As far as I can dig up, this is just plain wrong. Looking at the 2012 scientific report this proposal is based on, the conclusion was that any of these high-risk substances can safely be used at 0.01% concentration with adequate confidence they won't harm the public. However, it said, additional research needs to be carried out in order to find the appropriate individual percentage for each substance. 0.01% was just a generalised recommendation due to inadequate research.

    Next, the EU proposal discussed in the article doesn't even appear to force manufacturers to lower the percentages to 0.01%. All it proposes is that any rinse-off product containing more than 0.01% or any leave-on product containing more than 0.001% must be labeled to tell consumers it contains the substances. The EU proposal also states that additional research must be done to determine exactly what the restricted percentage for each substances should be. The current IFRA guidelines already heavily restrict these substances, and who knows whether additional research will lower them further.


    "The proposal, which will effectively take the form of an amendment to the Cosmetics Regulation adopted in 2009, will undergo a public consultation period of 12 weeks and could be adopted as early as the end of this year."

    Finally, the above paragraph leaves out the important fact that manufacturers will have a transitionary period for these new guidelines, where they may still introduce new products onto the market that don't conform for 2 years after the date the law is enacted, and must only stop selling affected products 5 years after the date the law is enacted.


    So, based on my understanding of reading the source documents, we are talking about 3 things happening with this EU proposal:

    1. Banning of atranaol and chloroatranol. This is more stringent than the current IFRA guidelines, which merely restrict them to some ridiculously low amount. However, we don't know how much modern fragrances have already been reformulated and whether atranaol-free and chloroatranol-free oakmoss is already in use in the industry. This one is potentially a devastating change or a trivial change — I simply have no idea and would like an informed person to tell me.

    2. Further scientific research to determine the maximum percentages for 12 substances - including citral, coumarin, and eugenol. Given these are already heavily restricted and there is currently no firm outcome, this represents no change from today.

    3. The labelling of any of the restricted substances above when perfumes contain more than 0.001% of those substances. As far as I can tell from my own current bottles, this is already being done today.

    I can find no further changes currently being proposed by the EU. Again, I'm not in the industry and I'm open to being corrected and would love insight from someone more knowledgable than I am. But in the meantime, I would definitely not put too much trust in a generalised article written by the general press, when a quick glance at the source documents on the EC website seem to contradict it. If the end is nigh and we must all go out and hoard our favourites, so be it. But I'm not convinced we're at that point yet.
    Last edited by TrimmTrabb; 16th February 2014 at 06:51 AM.

  49. #109

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    TrimmTrabb, I appreciate your thorough analysis. Thank you.

  50. #110

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by CaliDude View Post
    TrimmTrabb, I appreciate your thorough analysis. Thank you.
    In case anybody would like to check my work, and I encourage everyone to help try and make sense of this for our benefit, here are the sources:

    The original scientific report prepared for the EC: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientifi...sccs_o_073.pdf

    The call for public consultation on the newly proposed EC regulations: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consu..._201402_en.htm

    The actual proposed regulations: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consu...4_annex_en.pdf

    The existing, industry-regulated IFRA guidelines for restricted substances: http://www.ifraorg.org/Upload/Downlo...Annex%20I.xlsx

    Note that the newly proposed regulations document does in fact contain a small handful of materials for which a maximum percentage is proposed, but I lack the understanding to properly match them up to the corresponding entries in the IFRA document to compare them.
    Last edited by TrimmTrabb; 16th February 2014 at 09:41 AM.

  51. #111

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    TrimmTrab - some thoughts on oakmoss.

    The chypre and fougere genres of perfumery have been destroyed. This kicked in several years ago - the restrictions prevented enough oakmoss being used to warrant either style having enough in there to establish the necessary three part harmony to qualify. Basically they started to feel 'thin', 'watered down', 'lacking body' etc. My anaolgy is that the 'forest floor' ceased - or, imagine a trio of violin, viola and cello where the cellist has his/her instrument replaced with a ukelele to play the lower lines

    The oakmoss debate is really all over bar the shouting.

    Thierry Wasser has done his best to restore the reference chypre (Mitsouko) to something decent after a few very bad years but while it is recognisably more like the real thing, it is still quite a pale representation and lacks anything like the 'body' and depth of Mitsouko from even just a decade ago. All hail Wasser for giving it his best shot with the new 'molecularly sanitised' stuff but there's really no comparison.

    Guerlain had the decency to just pull Philtre d'Amour and Parure completely rather than add insult to injury (they required oakmoss) but classics like Mitsy and Vol de Nuit obviously had to be saved.

    Try to compare Chanel Pour Monsieur from a decade ago with the current one - that's a good, simple illustration of what happens when you remove oakmoss from a lighter chypre based sturcture.

    I'm very interested in what is happening with some of Roja Dove's stuff - Diaghilev has been getting high praise from friends, but despite having oakmoss I, personally, find it a bit of a 'smug chypre'. If it is leaning on the new stuff and a bit of sleight of hand it's done beautifully but it seems a bit too tightly packed for me. The whole thing with oakmoss in chypres was that it was EXPANSIVE. It provided an organic feeling, dark and damp base point for the other stuff to open up above on. Take it away and you have to replace it with patchouli, vetiver etc.(done beautifully in the recent Mon Parfum Cheri par Camille) to approximate the effect OR you can do what Chanel did with 31 Rue Cambon and just have nothing - it's essentially the top thirds of a chypre. A tease that actually annoys me - I feel like someone is setting me up with a vinatge scotch or something and then just as I'm admiring the aroma they pull the rug out from under me.

    Honestly, we can read and discuss all we like but the bottomline comes down to the experience of spritzing the stuff on and experiencing how it performs over a few hours. The current figures being thrown around of .01 or .05 or whatever are almost meaningless when in the original compositions the % may have been 2.0 to 5.0 (I don't have access to formulas but one of our resident perfumers mentioned 5% in a similar discussion a few years back - or it may have been '10 times as much as currently allowed' or words to that effect - perhaps Chris or David could chime in?).

    I have Mitsouko from different years over the last couple of decades and the trajectory is plain to see. However, if you haven't experienced some of the classics over the last couple of decades then believe what you want - it's really all academic now. If oakmoss should be entirely banned I imagine it will affect a handful of very recent compostions I like - Granville (Dior Privé), where the space in the composition allows whatever is used to be 'felt', and possibly L'Heure Fougueuse (Cartier Les Heures). I have few spares already.

    Now is not really the time to start to start hoarding stuff with oakmoss. That was about 7 or 8 years ago.

    Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist or a perfumer - I just follow my nose.
    Last edited by mr. reasonable; 16th February 2014 at 10:23 AM.

  52. #112
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,296
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Well, I get the impression from the article that the reporter talked to some perfumers and others "on background" - that's where the more dire tones are coming from. And I agree that they should have said that untreated oakmoss and treemoss are banned, because that is actually the wording that is used in one of these documents. Treated oakmoss is a question (see below). But if you're talking about plain old oakmoss, it's gone.

    Let's let people judge for themselves. Here are the links:



    The Reuters Article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0LI4BQ20140213

    Press Release - IFRA welcomes the EU proposed measures on fragrance allergens: http://www.ifraorg.org/en-us/press-r...document/23365

    IFRA Press Release - EU Commission reviews fragrance allergens program: http://www.ifraorg.org/en-us/press-r...document/23353

    Business Report - Commission consultation on fragrance allergens: http://www.eubusiness.com/topics/con...ance-allergens

    Consultation (Subject of Article): HTML: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consu..._201402_en.htm

    Consultation (Subject of Article): PDF: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consu...514_sum_en.pdf

    Labeling Modifications (Annex Document): PDF: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consu...4_annex_en.pdf

    Original Report Before "Consultation" - SCCS OPINION on Fragrance allergens in cosmetic products: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientifi...sccs_o_073.pdf

    Interesting EU Guidelines on Delivery to Market: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/polic...epublic_en.pdf

    Extremely Interesting Study and Opinions on Oakmoss: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/c...sccp_o_131.pdf



    Read the end of the latter in combination with Reference 7 of the HTML version of the Consultation (5th link down). You will see the tenuous position oakmoss is in. Basically, the prohibited components are allowed to be present, in unavoidable quantities, to the extent that the products can be shown to be "safe". What they are essentially saying is that you CAN have oakmoss or treemoss at up to 0.1% total provided that the combined levels of atranol and chloroatranol are reduced as far as possible (<2 ppm) AND the safety has been demonstrated by clinical studies.

    Does the SCCP recommend any further restrictions with regard to the use of oakmoss/treemoss extract in cosmetic products?

    It appears that it is possible to reduce, on a commercial scale, the levels of the main allergens (chloroatranol and atranol) in oakmoss to < 2 ppm each in the ‘neat’ product. The levels of these allergens, which would then be present in cosmetic products where oakmoss is used at 0.1%, would be such that the risks of induction and elicitation of allergic reactions to them would be low. However, appropriate clinical studies on individuals with characterised contact allergy to oakmoss are required to demonstrate the dose response characteristics of allergic elicitation reactions with the modified preparations.
    People can read these and draw their own conclusions.

    One thing I like is that there will be a LOT more labeling of ingredients. I would say that this ties in closely with recent EU regs on intellectual property theft, also on the IFRA site: http://www.ifraorg.org/en-us/press-r...document/23349
    * * * *

  53. #113

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I'd be happy with a lable warning, like peanuts on restaurant menus.

  54. #114
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,296
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. reasonable View Post
    TrimmTrab - some thoughts on oakmoss.

    The chypre and fougere genres of perfumery have been destroyed. This kicked in several years ago - the restrictions prevented enough oakmoss being used to warrant either style having enough in there to establish the necessary three part harmony to qualify. Basically they started to feel 'thin', 'watered down', 'lacking body' etc. My anaolgy is that the 'forest floor' ceased - or, imagine a trio of violin, viola and cello where the cellist has his/her instrument replaced with a ukelele to play the lower lines

    The oakmoss debate is really all over bar the shouting.

    Thierry Wasser has done his best to restore the reference chypre (Mitsouko) to something decent after a few very bad years but while it is recognisably more like the real thing, it is still quite a pale representation and lacks anything like the 'body' and depth of Mitsouko from even just a decade ago. All hail Wasser for giving it his best shot with the new 'molecularly sanitised' stuff but there's really no comparison.

    Guerlain had the decency to just pull Philtre d'Amour and Parure completely rather than add insult to injury (they required oakmoss) but classics like Mitsy and Vol de Nuit obviously had to be saved.

    Try to compare Chanel Pour Monsieur from a decade ago with the current one - that's a good, simple illustration of what happens when you remove oakmoss from a lighter chypre based sturcture.

    I'm very interested in what is happening with some of Roja Dove's stuff - Diaghilev has been getting high praise from friends, but despite having oakmoss I, personally, find it a bit of a 'smug chypre'. If it is leaning on the new stuff and a bit of sleight of hand it's done beautifully but it seems a bit too tightly packed for me. The whole thing with oakmoss in chypres was that it was EXPANSIVE. It provided an organic feeling, dark and damp base point for the other stuff to open up above on. Take it away and you have to replace it with patchouli, vetiver etc.(done beautifully in the recent Mon Parfum Cheri par Camille) to approximate the effect OR you can do what Chanel did with 31 Rue Cambon and just have nothing - it's essentially the top thirds of a chypre. A tease that actually annoys me - I feel like someone is setting me up with a vinatge scotch or something and then just as I'm admiring the aroma they pull the rug out from under me.

    Honestly, we can read and discuss all we like but the bottomline comes down to the experience of spritzing the stuff on and experiencing how it performs over a few hours. The current figures being thrown around of .01 or .05 or whatever are almost meaningless when in the original compositions the % may have been 2.0 to 5.0 (I don't have access to formulas but one of our resident perfumers mentioned 5% in a similar discussion a few years back - or it may have been '10 times as much as currently allowed' or words to that effect - perhaps Chris or David could chime in?).

    I have Mitsouko from different years over the last couple of decades and the trajectory is plain to see. However, if you haven't experienced some of the classics over the last couple of decades then believe what you want - it's really all academic now. If oakmoss should be entirely banned I imagine it will affect a handful of very recent compostions I like - Granville (Dior Privé), where the space in the composition allows whatever is used to be 'felt', and possibly L'Heure Fougueuse (Cartier Les Heures). I have few spares already.

    Now is not really the time to start to start hoarding stuff with oakmoss. That was about 7 or 8 years ago.

    Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist or a perfumer - I just follow my nose.
    Personally, I think that the chypre is best saved by stepping up the science to the next level. Chypre needs to be understood at a receptor combinatorial level, and new ligands that "pull it off" need to be found. Basically, artificial chypres. Pretty much the same thing as finding drugs by finding things that serve as ligands at the same receptors. "Oakmoss disccovery". Find some cheap synthetic chemical that comes in roughly where oakmoss does, but no bad guys in the mix. Limonene may need work, too. That's one of the "dirty dozen".
    * * * *

  55. #115

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    People smoke, drink alcohol, smoke weed or hashish but god forbid using natural substances in fragrances lol. Tricking public into believing synthetics are safer than materials used for centuries is just idiotic.I will have to stock up before the shitstorm comes next year.

  56. #116
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,534
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    It seems fairly obvious (now) that these giant corporations intend to drive everyone out of business because they will be the only ones able to produce the only acceptable chemicals.

    The new stuff they are making is vile, however. I predict dark days ahead for perfume lovers.
    These are the ​End Times.

  57. #117

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I'm not holding my breath but it would be quite interesting to see some legal action (pro-bono or otherwise) to protect those such as naturals producers and others adversely affected, either directly or indirectly by IFRA. Perhaps the case made against IFRA would be on anti-competition grounds: i.e. IFRA, or more precisely the Industry giants, would be sued on unfair business practices through the collective creature of a system whose design results in decreased competition, whether intentional or not. Any lawyers with EU experience have any insight on this? Seems the EU has no problem with putting big business under the anti-monopoly/anti-competition microscope (e.g. Microsoft, Google).

    As for EU regulatory bureaucrats... as long as they keep it to labeling, no harm no foul. Otherwise, it's quite up to the taxpaying and voting EU citizenry to put the appropriate pressure upon the appropriate pressure points to control the, presumably, overzealous toxicologists & dermatologists within the apparatus, no?
    Last edited by DuNezDeBuzier; 16th February 2014 at 07:27 PM.
    Simplex Sigillum Veri

  58. #118

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Thanks for your thoughts, Redneck and Mr. Reasonable. Unfortunately, it leaves me no less confused.

    As you say, the damage to moss-based fragrances has been occurring over the last several years, and affected fragrances are already reformulated today. Not to trivialise that, but I'm specifically wondering about formulations as they are today, and whether they will be further degraded by the latest EU regulations — or, whether the proposed regulations simply codify into law what's being enforced by the IFRA today. I do realise there may be niche houses who are not part of the IFRA and who will be affected by EU regulations, but let's only consider the most popular houses (IFRA members) for the purpose of my question.

    The Reuters article seems to imply that, yes, the vast majority of fragrances on the market will be affected by these new proposed regulations, but we seem to be at loss to explain how they've arrived at that conclusion, as we can mostly only point to changes that already affect fragrances today due to the IFRA. Is that right?

    (P.S. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I'd never experienced fragrances with proper moss concentrations, so I have no idea what I'm missing.)

  59. #119
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,296
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by vinramani09 View Post
    People smoke, drink alcohol, smoke weed or hashish but god forbid using natural substances in fragrances lol. Tricking public into believing synthetics are safer than materials used for centuries is just idiotic.I will have to stock up before the shitstorm comes next year.
    Allergies trump everything, apparently. Actually, it makes sense. The cause-and-effect is so obvious, there seems to be less need for debate. And nobody gets addicted to fragrance, except possibly us!

    TrimmTrabb makes an excellent point - there will not be a sharp cutoff. Clearly the industry lobbied hard to cushion the blow, and somebody listened. So this will happen slowly, over a period of years. But it will happen. Some of it may have already happened, in anticipation of the rules. If I was in the industry, I would certainly start formulating in anticipation of a virtual certainty. Maybe loosely, but still. We do know this - anything from this moment on is subject to the possibility of a change. The exact changes seem to be up in the air. But the regulations should solidify (more or less) over the next 5 years. Some are designed to be flexible. The oakmoss one is a case in point. If they can magically remove all atranol and chloroatranol from oakmoss and treemoss, and come back with a clean bill of health from clinical tests, they could keep the current maximum. They could even lobby to increase the maximum, if they could create hypoallergenic oakmoss. Wouldn't that be cool? The trick is taking the atranol and chloroatranol to nearly zero - not easy.

    That is why I don't think you'll be hearing too much on the progress against the oakmoss problem. Think about it. How much is that secret worth? Billions. Literally, billions of dollars, for years and years. If one of the big boys has it, they will use it, and the others will have to resort to licensing or parallel technology. Either way, it's worth big bucks.

    My impressions from reading the report is that people are being reasonable, if you start out with the assumption that buyers should be nebulous about allergies - that they should be able to treat perfume as a product they can buy without worrying about the possibility of allergic response. Personally, I think that's too nanny-state, but others are free to disagree. The nanny state exists until we actually decide to change it. And it may be that some people want nanny state, and others don't, in which case we may have both. I personally think the world would be more interesting that way.

    I think what we need to do is listen very carefully for solid discontinuation rumors - mostly from perfumers and industry insiders - so we know what is on the chopping block for a discontinuation. It's the ones that will only be weakened that are going to be harder to spot. We will need to sniff new bottles of old favorites in stores like bloodhounds to catch the sucker-punched fragrances. Nobody is going to tell us when these things get neutered - the industry will be singing the opposite tune on those. "No change! It's all in your imagination!" But we should not be nasty about it - if the reformulations are good, we need to be honest about that, too. There are a lot of us who now admit to preferring modern formulations over old ones - some of the reformulations will be positive, even if they are obviously changed. BNers will respond in a mixed fashion, like they did to the DHI reformulation.

    Quote Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
    It seems fairly obvious (now) that these giant corporations intend to drive everyone out of business because they will be the only ones able to produce the only acceptable chemicals.

    The new stuff they are making is vile, however. I predict dark days ahead for perfume lovers.
    These are the ​End Times.
    If you love the old styles of fragrances (like I know you do) - all of which were allergenic - then yup - not good.

    I'm lucky - I love the new stuff. Polo Red - perfect example. A strong fragrance if you pay careful attention, but you don't even know it's there. So modern. Kind of big and fluffy - it's like a giant pillow or a passing wind - a blur. No sharp edges. And absolutely antithetical to the chypre. It's another Hello Kitty oriental, all of which I love!

    HOWEVER - I think there is some hope.

    The world changes. There are two hopes here, that the Chanel no.5 of old days will still be here.

    ONE - technology. Farm grown sandalwood. GMO oakmoss with zero atranol and chloroatranol. Breakthroughs in allergy science. Radical new oakmoss purification. Receptor-based aromachemicals. You can trust that the industry is working hard on all of these.

    TWO - political choice. A significant fraction, if not a majority of people, decide they don't want the nanny state. Free states with an anti-regulatory bent emerge, but perhaps in harmony with the nanny states. This could even be a preferred solution for people in both types of states. No reason that a bottle of REAL Mitsouko in Texas or China, with no labels, can't be sold with a red skull and crossbones and a doctor's permission slip in California and Europe. And you could even sell different versions. Designers are already selling different fragrance lineups in different countries. No reason they can't sell different fragrance compositions, if there is a market for it. The global homogenists will fight this, of course, but once they figure out that the global heterogenists are making more money on political diversity, they may change their tune. There will probably always be a tension there.

    So I remain hopeful. It's not so much stopping change, as helping the change find better directions.
    * * * *

  60. #120

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    ^ with respect to low atranol oakmoss absolute, it's apparently easily available currently and IFRA compliant (Edens Botanicals, for one).

    While atranol's role as a skin sensitizer is well publicized, I've yet to read anything as to whether atranol contributes to the positive qualities of natural oakmoss in perfumery. Perhaps science can't pinpoint as much and it's left to subjective determination? Some might like current Mitz and some may still lament, regardless.

    edit: I'm a little confused re this 'IFRA compliant' bit... unless I'm mistaken, even the low-atranol oakmoss is still subject to the same overall restriction of .1% in finished product. Anyone aware of any 'carve out' exceptions?
    Last edited by DuNezDeBuzier; 16th February 2014 at 08:48 PM.
    Simplex Sigillum Veri

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 24th February 2013, 02:38 PM
  2. EU Prepares to regulate more fragrance ingredients
    By Chris Bartlett in forum General Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 14th August 2012, 07:12 AM
  3. Where To Buy Fragrance Ingredients
    By Carla02 in forum Just Starting Out
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 8th April 2012, 05:48 PM
  4. High-end vs. low-end fragrance ingredients
    By Cbalducc in forum General Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 1st February 2012, 02:13 AM
  5. Too many ingredients?
    By stuigi in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 23rd May 2006, 03:40 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
  •  



Loving perfume on the Internet since 2000