Code of Conduct
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 121 to 180 of 183
  1. #121
    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
    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.)
    You're welcome! Yes - I think you've noticed something very salient in the difference between the Reuters article and the regulations themselves. That difference, to me, helps explain what's going on, but it also makes the future harder to predict.

    It looks to me like the industry bought itself some time and breathing space on allergens. The industry and the EU turned a larger negotiation into a smaller, flexible standard on key substances - all allergens - that can be pinned down over the next few years. The non-key substances - most of IFRA - seem to be basically off the table. The EU is either accepting the IFRA standards, or not caring about things outside their focus. That part is clearly a win for self-regulation.

    As you noted, there is going to be testing. It looks like the EU is saying that is the industry's responsibility, but if the industry can demonstrate non-allergenic levels on the "dirty dozen" (presumably capable of convincing EU scientists that they are as safe or safer than the more arbitrary 0.01% limit), then they can go with those. I appears to me that 0.01% was a reasonable cutoff - and the fact that it is reflected in labeling limits for wash-off products makes it seem fairly generous, if you take the hard line on allergies. Viewed by perfumers, however, those are probably scary, and that is the worrisome tone that slips into the reporting. It's like having your kid in some class where he may be smart, but could theoretically fail the exam. Perfumers whose works are on the line have to be biting their nails. Eugenol could end up with a higher limit, but it could end up defaulting to the 0.01% level. I agree - the documents are not terribly explicit about that point, because the consultation actually drops mention of the 0.01% value, and *TO ME* that appears to be intentionally vague. That was probably a point of negotiation, even if it's only psychological. Numbers have a type of undeserved permanence in discussions where flexibility might serve better, so getting the work product to not mention the value explicitly was a win for the industry. It leaves the baseline up for re-negotiation. If they can't get a good array of values for the dirty dozen, or only for some of them, then there may be excellent arguments that it should be 0.015% or something like that, so why set things in stone? Smart business on both sides to leave some room on that point. But still - where will the values ultimately fall? A value of 0.01% HAS to be scary, because it implies that about 9000 reformulations have to occur. And THAT is part of how they negotiated the nice lag times for implementation.

    Honestly, after seeing how some of this fits together, I have to compliment people on working things out reasonably. The starting premise that fragrances cannot be allergenic is debatable on the social contract level, but if you proceed from that assumption, then the rest of it works out.

    So to answer your question, TrimmTrabb, I simply have to make some speculative assumptions about the outcomes of testing. I think it's far easier to look at the worst-case scenario (9000+ fragrances reformulated to varying extents) and the rather unrealistic best-case scenario (clinical test are a shocker - we did not understand allergy science as well as we thought - current levels are ALL fine - ZERO changes). The value will be somewhere between 0 and ~9000. My guess is that the industry will gain some traction in testing, and the number will be in the thousands, with a few hundred being "significant" enough to demand rebranding, re-bottling, discontinuation, or a similar tactic.

    I understand your question about specific levels of the dirty dozen - how those specific aroma chemicals would change from current IFRA standards to a new value (defaulting to 0.01%). I will look at that later. I have to get offline and do some chores, but it's a very interesting question, because it could give us some insight into actual changes in fragrances. It would be nice for somebody who already knows this to say something - and a few perfumers have spoken in generalities about citral, I know - but I suspect that a lot of them were instructed to keep mum while negotiations were going on, or longer.

    All very fascinating, I have to admit. Not a lot of clear-cut answers, but still - fascinating.
    * * * *

  2. #122
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    13,283

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    The low-atranol oakmoss does not appear to be a totally satisfactory substitute?
    There seem to be concerns that it lacks the complexity of the original substance - unsurprisingly.
    Last edited by lpp; 16th February 2014 at 08:52 PM.

  3. #123
    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 lpp View Post
    The low-atranol oakmoss does not appear to be a totally satisfactory substitute?
    Not really. If you look at that last link I gave above - the oakmoss paper - there was no miracle oak-moss in evidence. Just like M.R. said. They were still showing allergenicity of some sort even at the maximum reduction - which was a pretty impressive reduction, IMO. So they are setting a limit at "none", but since everybody knows that's impossible, they allow the technically unremovable level, provided it is deemed safe. Overall, it's a tight squeeze, but it's realistic. All dependent on testing, just like the other substances. The overall thing is smart - it knows that the science is a moving target. But the pressure is on, for sure.
    * * * *

  4. #124

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto View Post
    You're welcome! Yes - I think you've noticed something very salient in the difference between the Reuters article and the regulations themselves. That difference, to me, helps explain what's going on, but it also makes the future harder to predict.

    It looks to me like the industry bought itself some time and breathing space on allergens. The industry and the EU turned a larger negotiation into a smaller, flexible standard on key substances - all allergens - that can be pinned down over the next few years. The non-key substances - most of IFRA - seem to be basically off the table. The EU is either accepting the IFRA standards, or not caring about things outside their focus. That part is clearly a win for self-regulation.

    As you noted, there is going to be testing. It looks like the EU is saying that is the industry's responsibility, but if the industry can demonstrate non-allergenic levels on the "dirty dozen" (presumably capable of convincing EU scientists that they are as safe or safer than the more arbitrary 0.01% limit), then they can go with those. I appears to me that 0.01% was a reasonable cutoff - and the fact that it is reflected in labeling limits for wash-off products makes it seem fairly generous, if you take the hard line on allergies. Viewed by perfumers, however, those are probably scary, and that is the worrisome tone that slips into the reporting. It's like having your kid in some class where he may be smart, but could theoretically fail the exam. Perfumers whose works are on the line have to be biting their nails. Eugenol could end up with a higher limit, but it could end up defaulting to the 0.01% level. I agree - the documents are not terribly explicit about that point, because the consultation actually drops mention of the 0.01% value, and *TO ME* that appears to be intentionally vague. That was probably a point of negotiation, even if it's only psychological. Numbers have a type of undeserved permanence in discussions where flexibility might serve better, so getting the work product to not mention the value explicitly was a win for the industry. It leaves the baseline up for re-negotiation. If they can't get a good array of values for the dirty dozen, or only for some of them, then there may be excellent arguments that it should be 0.015% or something like that, so why set things in stone? Smart business on both sides to leave some room on that point. But still - where will the values ultimately fall? A value of 0.01% HAS to be scary, because it implies that about 9000 reformulations have to occur. And THAT is part of how they negotiated the nice lag times for implementation.

    Honestly, after seeing how some of this fits together, I have to compliment people on working things out reasonably. The starting premise that fragrances cannot be allergenic is debatable on the social contract level, but if you proceed from that assumption, then the rest of it works out.

    So to answer your question, TrimmTrabb, I simply have to make some speculative assumptions about the outcomes of testing. I think it's far easier to look at the worst-case scenario (9000+ fragrances reformulated to varying extents) and the rather unrealistic best-case scenario (clinical test are a shocker - we did not understand allergy science as well as we thought - current levels are ALL fine - ZERO changes). The value will be somewhere between 0 and ~9000. My guess is that the industry will gain some traction in testing, and the number will be in the thousands, with a few hundred being "significant" enough to demand rebranding, re-bottling, discontinuation, or a similar tactic.

    I understand your question about specific levels of the dirty dozen - how those specific aroma chemicals would change from current IFRA standards to a new value (defaulting to 0.01%). I will look at that later. I have to get offline and do some chores, but it's a very interesting question, because it could give us some insight into actual changes in fragrances. It would be nice for somebody who already knows this to say something - and a few perfumers have spoken in generalities about citral, I know - but I suspect that a lot of them were instructed to keep mum while negotiations were going on, or longer.

    All very fascinating, I have to admit. Not a lot of clear-cut answers, but still - fascinating.
    Thank you, good assessment. That all makes sense to me. Look forward to any additional thoughts you come up with.

  5. #125
    Basenotes Junkie cytherian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Nearby NYC
    Posts
    565

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Isn't history any kind of guide that can be used to measure the potential issues with fragrances? When has there ever been an allergy or significant reaction from fragrances that affected more than 0.01% of the population? Does anyone ever recall a scare where numerous people ended up in the hospital? These bans have been made upon ingredients that have been used without notable issue for many decades. Have any of these recent compound/note introductions raised medical concerns by any other entity/institution/organization? I don't see it.

    I am really expecting that down the road, we'll find some kind of corruption going on with the EU Commission where their decisions are purposefully made with the deliberate intent to bring additional profit to various unreported benefactors.
    Last edited by cytherian; 16th February 2014 at 11:53 PM.

  6. #126
    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
    Thank you, good assessment. That all makes sense to me. Look forward to any additional thoughts you come up with.
    Thank you for getting me to look at those documents more closely. I actually feel better about things, knowing that people are dealing with this thing intelligently on both sides. IFRA's happiness with things seems much more reasonable now.

    At this point, I'm working up the courage to dig into those IFRA numbers. They have a great online database, but OMG - it verges on TMI !

    Quote Originally Posted by cytherian View Post
    Isn't history any kind of guide that can be used to measure the potential issues with fragrances? When has there ever been an allergy or significant reaction from fragrances that affected more than 0.01% of the population? Does anyone ever recall a scare where numerous people ended up in the hospital? These bans have been made upon ingredients that have been used without notable issue for many decades. Have any of these recent compound/note introductions raised medical concerns by any other entity/institution/organization? I don't see it.

    I am really expecting that down the road, we'll find some kind of corruption going on with the EU Commission where their decisions are purposefully made with the deliberate intent to bring additional profit to various unreported benefactors.
    I agree - there is no proportion here to serious, significant allergic reactions - the kind that put people in the hospital and really get their attention. I think the players here are basing this on allergenicity at any observable level, which is a lot bigger number.

    I can explain this on a personal level. I'm slightly allergic to one of my favorite perfumes. If I wear it to bed, I will usually wake up with a stuffy nose and scratchy eyes. Nothing terrible - it certainly doesn't stop me from wearing it. I tend to wear it to bed less often now, or use less, or keep it away from my face. No big deal. Still, I occasionally get a stuffy nose from this one.

    However, what if I was more of a hypochondriac, a complainer, or somebody with a personal injury lawyer on speed dial? That's where the industry has a valid motive. They say to themselves, let's just keep fragrance at the sub-allergic level, so it's never a real issue, and all those problems go away. People say "beauty products", and almost never have to worry about them. I have to be honest - the more I think about this problem, the more I'm led to believe that the high honchos in the industry made the right choice in making those "buy anywhere" fragrances sub-allergenic, or almost so. They are trying to fit everything under a wire that allows them to roll out a very desirable narrative: Our products never hurt anybody or any test animals. Beauty is innocent.

    Can you blame the industry for wanting that? I'm certainly not going to. Judging from the folks around here, the very thought of skin discoloration from phototoxic components in very old fragrances is enough to send them running for the hills. People WANT their beauty products to be super-trustworthy. Even Basenoters do.

    Now - there could be a demand for "special" fragrances that fall into a more allergenic category, where the buyer enters into a different social contract of personal responsibility. I actually like that idea. Edmond Roudnitska advocated keeping perfume off of skin for the fragrance's sake, and in the long run, that would have actually been better for the sake of fragrance as a whole, because the chypre would not have died based on skin allergies. But people love the idea of putting fragrance directly on their skin, and we will never change that, so there's no point in fighting it for mass fragrance. But there COULD be a class of historical fragrances - the old formulas - where the industry actually says "Listen to Roudnitska. Wear old fragrances in old ways. Wear them on cloth, a hanky, gloves or a locket. BE the [ expensive ] old-fashioned fragrance. If you wear it on skin, you're taking a chance." If we could change the ethic in that direction, it might actually be possible to bring back "old" fragrances in all their glory, and keep everybody happy.

    I was thinking about all those old formulas that they have been showing off at Guerlain, that you can sniff in the mothership, but you can't take home. Are they pre-IFRA formulations? Are they attracting some interest? If they aren't, then it's probably not worth the effort, but if people are hooting and hollering about these historic beauties, then - hmmmmmm - sounds like some great test marketing results for the idea of historic fragrances. And THAT solves France's history problem. Actually, it more than solves it - it drives things positive. France NEEDS fragrance history. Not in the Osmothèque, but out in the wild where it stays part of culture and couture. If you can buy a bottle of "special" Chanel no.5 in 2121 or Shalimar in 2525, and they smell roughly like they did in history, THAT is really something. It's actually society's way of doing what Andy Warhol did - wear scents to lay down and then bring back memories of his own history. So in a weird way, we need to treat historic fragrances with more care, if we want to have them. Handling old scents that cause allergies is like reading old books filled with bad ideas from less enlightened but more opportune times. We shouldn't go back and delete those bad ideas - just treat them carefully. Sorry - I guess that's the librarian in me, getting carried away. Saving old books and old fragrances is just in my blood.

    As for the EU and the companies - I understand your concern. Sometimes it's hard to tell corruption from cooperation and collaboration. In practice, it's actually very hard to keep one from segueing into the other. But I think you can rest easy here. I consider myself neither a hater nor a flack of the industry. But the report seems refreshingly honest to me, and I tend to think that there is far more cooperation than cronyism on this deal. One point in particular. There was a point in the 2011 report where they could have REALLY screwed the naturals people, by speculating that complex mixtures either compound or amplify the problems of the "dirty dozen". The writers of the report could have tried to pull exactly the kind of "synthetics over naturals" trick that they are routinely accused of doing. They didn't. Instead, they took the MOST naturals-friendly interpretation - to simply assume that interactions are benign, barring any evidence to the contrary, and to only look at the content of the regulated substances. To me, that shows good intent toward the small fry. I was very pleased when I saw that.

    There is no doubt that government and industry are doing a dance here. But I think they're both trying to do the right thing for their constituencies, which are largely the same people. I also tend to believe that RIFM, IFRA, and EU scientists are playing a clean game. A certain amount of back-scratching is unavoidable - these companies are an important part of the EU. But an adversarial relationship hurts everybody, and it would probably give us a crummy solution in the end. Keep it honest, keep it open, and that way even if people disagree, those disagreements will be valid and open to being revisited.
    * * * *

  7. #127
    Basenotes Junkie cytherian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Nearby NYC
    Posts
    565

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    ^ You make a good point, about the lawsuit potential. I sometimes forget about how our societies have become so litigious. Part of the problem is the judges and magistrates, who ALLOW so many frivolous lawsuits to be processed. There is an inherent conflict of interest. A nice long backlog is JOB SECURITY, especially since there are FEDERAL HOURS that keep them from working overtime. They work their limited hours, go home, and enjoy a long respite before the next day. Lather, rinse, repeat until they collect a hefty retirement income.

    So I can see it... fear of being sued by someone being inconvenienced with an allergic reaction that makes them miss an important business function, ultimately causing them to lose a "highly profitable" opportunity. If such unsubstantiated claims would be rapidly and consistently rebuffed/dismissed, then... wasting all of that money on lawyers suing every easy opportunity would impact their bottom line too much. And maybe they'd stop the nonsense.

    Your other points are also interesting... but alas my fingers are too tired to respond with sufficient intellectual measure.
    Last edited by cytherian; 17th February 2014 at 03:10 AM.

  8. #128
    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 cytherian View Post
    ^ You make a good point, about the lawsuit potential. I sometimes forget about how our societies have become so litigious. Part of the problem is the judges and magistrates, who ALLOW so many frivolous lawsuits to be processed. There is an inherent conflict of interest. A nice long backlog is JOB SECURITY, especially since there are FEDERAL HOURS that keep them from working overtime. They work their limited hours, go home, and enjoy a long respite before the next day. Lather, rinse, repeat until they collect a hefty retirement income.

    So I can see it... fear of being sued by someone being inconvenienced with an allergic reaction that makes them miss an important business function, ultimately causing them to lose a "highly profitable" opportunity. If such unsubstantiated claims would be rapidly and consistently rebuffed/dismissed, then... wasting all of that money on lawyers suing every easy opportunity would impact their bottom line too much. And maybe they'd stop the nonsense.

    Your other points are also interesting... but alas my fingers are too tired to respond with sufficient intellectual measure.
    No problem - we're on the same wavelength. Don't EVEN get me started about lawyers.
    * * * *

  9. #129

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto View Post
    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.
    Not to be flip, Red, I just don't have time to respond in depth to so much of what you have written, but with regard to oakmoss: keeping the current maximum is small consolation because it is not enough for a proper chypre or fougere accord in my opinion - these two genres have been eradicated from contemporary perfumery in all but name. This is why I say it's all over bar the shouting - the current amount is really just adding insult to injury. If a truly safe and sanitised oakmoss can be pulled out of the hat that performs in the same way as an unadulterated one (i.e. what has been used in modern perfume for decades) and usage levels can be restored to the levels that it was used in the past then these genres might have a chance. Given that means getting the amount north of the decimal point, i.e. increasing by at least 10x the current allowance, I will not be holding my breath.

    To anyone still reading this who is even remotely interested in knowing what a real chypre smells and feels like my advice would still be to look to the past - there is no clear cut off date but somewhere round mid 2000's is probably a safe bet. Earlier = better.

  10. #130
    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
    Not to be flip, Red, I just don't have time to respond in depth to so much of what you have written, but with regard to oakmoss: keeping the current maximum is small consolation because it is not enough for a proper chypre or fougere accord in my opinion - these two genres have been eradicated from contemporary perfumery in all but name. This is why I say it's all over bar the shouting - the current amount is really just adding insult to injury. If a truly safe and sanitised oakmoss can be pulled out of the hat that performs in the same way as an unadulterated one (i.e. what has been used in modern perfume for decades) and usage levels can be restored to the levels that it was used in the past then these genres might have a chance. Given that means getting the amount north of the decimal point, i.e. increasing by at least 10x the current allowance, I will not be holding my breath.

    To anyone still reading this who is even remotely interested in knowing what a real chypre smells and feels like my advice would still be to look to the past - there is no clear cut off date but somewhere round mid 2000's is probably a safe bet. Earlier = better.
    I hear you, and I agree. That's why my gut feeling is that the only way to bring it back is either (1) allow "historical" formulations, with attendant caveats for buyers, or (2) find something else that tickles the receptor ivories where full-fledged oakmoss used to, but is non-allergenic. We are just faking it otherwise.

    Me too. Not holding my breath. The history of the chypre will be interrupted at best.
    * * * *

  11. #131

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. reasonable View Post
    Not to be flip, Red, I just don't have time to respond in depth to so much of what you have written, but with regard to oakmoss: keeping the current maximum is small consolation because it is not enough for a proper chypre or fougere accord in my opinion - these two genres have been eradicated from contemporary perfumery in all but name. This is why I say it's all over bar the shouting - the current amount is really just adding insult to injury. If a truly safe and sanitised oakmoss can be pulled out of the hat that performs in the same way as an unadulterated one (i.e. what has been used in modern perfume for decades) and usage levels can be restored to the levels that it was used in the past then these genres might have a chance. Given that means getting the amount north of the decimal point, i.e. increasing by at least 10x the current allowance, I will not be holding my breath.

    To anyone still reading this who is even remotely interested in knowing what a real chypre smells and feels like my advice would still be to look to the past - there is no clear cut off date but somewhere round mid 2000's is probably a safe bet. Earlier = better.
    Does oakmoss still serve much of a purpose at current IFRA amounts? Is it just certain genres that demanded a higher concentration? For example, I can see oakmoss extract listed as an ingredient on the back of my new bottle of Jo Malone Lime Basil Mandarin, a citrus aromatic. I'm wondering if that one will have been different in the past, or if it will change drastically if oakmoss were fully banned in future. Sort of a tough question to ask of anyone but the actual perfumers, I know…

  12. #132

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I believe that in more 'open' compositions where the emphasis is on citrus, lighter floral and herbal notes with no serious base - i.e. an absence of balsamics, patchouli, vetiver etc. 'grounding' the fragrance (and thereby competing with and subsuming the use of oakmoss as a base fixative) that oakmoss can still play a part.

    I imagine in the Jo Malone, and Eau de Guerlain, Granville and possibly L'Heure Fougueuse - all of which lean more towards a classic eau de cologne style (in terms of the ingredients) than a more robust perfume - that even a little oakmoss may add a hint of life because there's not a lot of competition.

    In other words, it is possible that a ridiculously small amount of oakmoss in certain lighter styles of perfume is still better than none at all

    Of course this could all just be wishful thinking on my part

    When you smell some of the Guerlain Eaux de Colognes from a couple of decades ago (Vol de Nuit, Parure, Mitsouko) they have a heft to them that even current Eaux de Parfums and Parfums cannot muster. Back then EDC's were able to employ more oakmoss than current Parfums and even diluted at EDC proportions the shape and space of the thing was magnificent.
    Last edited by mr. reasonable; 17th February 2014 at 06:32 AM.

  13. #133

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I hate these rules. I hope every frag company finds a way around them.

    Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
    Michael ♌

  14. #134
    Dependent pluran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    6,958

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    A knowledgeable and influential person within the perfume industry told me the best thing anyone can do is write to the perfume houses.

  15. #135

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto View Post
    I was thinking about all those old formulas that they have been showing off at Guerlain, that you can sniff in the mothership, but you can't take home. Are they pre-IFRA formulations? Are they attracting some interest? If they aren't, then it's probably not worth the effort, but if people are hooting and hollering about these historic beauties, then - hmmmmmm - sounds like some great test marketing results for the idea of historic fragrances. And THAT solves France's history problem. Actually, it more than solves it - it drives things positive. France NEEDS fragrance history. Not in the Osmothèque, but out in the wild where it stays part of culture and couture. If you can buy a bottle of "special" Chanel no.5 in 2121 or Shalimar in 2525, and they smell roughly like they did in history, THAT is really something. It's actually society's way of doing what Andy Warhol did - wear scents to lay down and then bring back memories of his own history. So in a weird way, we need to treat historic fragrances with more care, if we want to have them. Handling old scents that cause allergies is like reading old books filled with bad ideas from less enlightened but more opportune times. We shouldn't go back and delete those bad ideas - just treat them carefully. Sorry - I guess that's the librarian in me, getting carried away. Saving old books and old fragrances is just in my blood.
    This is really the most heartening news since I read about the recent first harvest of santalum album in Oz!

    Thierry Wasser was talking about the possibility of finding a way to have a 'Heritage Line' or something similar a while back, and the subsequent public comments about how difficult it is to even obtain some of the original ingredients from growers were both exciting and frustrating but, ultimately, very tantalising.

    Ulrik has kicked off some great reviews of the ones done so far and, yes, we have to ask 'why?'. My guess is that at the very least some form of semi-bespoke / private order may be possible at some point . . . and then let's see if there is something as simple as a held harmless agreement type of arrangement that will allow purchases of limited edition runs. It's all about volume and pricing, of course, but given the fact that Arnault is up in arms about the EU / IFRA directives (reportedly) then you have a nice confluence of the creative force at the worlds top perfume company and it's owner - i.e. the bean counters answer to this guy - that might offer the political clout to revive the artistic and historical importance of this stuff to France.

    Let's hope so!

    And yes, pluran, will put pen to paper - I imagine a few epistles might provide a bit more ammunition for the perfumers with policy makers etc.
    Last edited by mr. reasonable; 19th February 2014 at 05:13 PM.

  16. #136
    Dependent Arij's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Montréal
    Posts
    1,333

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    As much as the oakmoss aspect is interesting, it's already happened.

    For those wondering what's next, citral and limonene are used for citrus accords, while linalool is a compound found in rosewood, lavender & bergamot.

    Base notes are the past. Now they're after the top notes.

  17. #137
    Basenotes Junkie cytherian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Nearby NYC
    Posts
    565

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I really wonder if the EUC and IFRA are mandated to provide scientific and medical evidence to support their legislation. If so, shouldn't this be publicly available somewhere? Anyone got a link?

  18. #138

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Hurrah. The CEO of The Different Company, Luc Gabriel, is fighting back, per Grain de Musc. See here.

  19. #139

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by cytherian View Post
    I really wonder if the EUC and IFRA are mandated to provide scientific and medical evidence to support their legislation. If so, shouldn't this be publicly available somewhere? Anyone got a link?
    Here's some of it:

    http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientifi...tion_04_en.htm
    There's probably more recent stuff about allergens somewhere on their site. I'll keep digging. The new regs are also supposedly intended to protect reproductive health too. There should be some information considered about that on the site as well.
    Last edited by socalwoman; 17th February 2014 at 05:46 PM.

  20. #140
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,540
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    http://gawker.com/what-the-hell-is-t...reet-506856608

    Meanwhile- there are some really tragic chemical scandals going on that are being completely overlooked and ignored. Does anyone REALLY care about public safety?

  21. #141

    Unhappy CEO - The Different Company Open Letter - Have you read this?

    Dear friends,
    The latest European regulatory provisions of February 13th concerning raw materials used in fine fragrance, if they are adopted, will sound the death knell of high perfumery within five years.

    Essential natural ingredients such as rose, citral, tonka bean, ylang-ylang, will be banished or accepted in ridiculously weak proportions. Only chemical equivalents will be authorized.

    And a chemical compound, however efficient it is, does not replace the olfactive vibration of a beautiful natural.
    This is a futile issue, you say? Useless?

    Beyond the complications it will entail for our brand and the entire sector, imagine a world without these notes. Imagine losing the memory of these emotions, these mementos, and most of all, imagine depriving future generation of this bit of humanity that cohorts of perfumers, creators, artisans, have allowed us to develop, to experience, to discover. A world without this sum of passions in the service of pure creations and of dreams, of conceiving a beautiful sillage, an exceptional juice; without an art that defines a share of our humanity just like music, gastronomy and laughter.
    And if laughter increased the risk of having a stroke, would comedians also be banned?
    Must the precautionary principle negate free will?

    Some populations can’t access the true taste of certain foods under the pretext of the precautionary principle. We are laying the groundwork that will make us go from a civilized world, with its share of animality and dreams, to a sterilized world in which humanity will become a mechanism, a lovely synthetic molecule like those we will be authorized to manipulate to create soulless fragrances.

    And why will they be suppressed? Because of a public health issue or in the interest of those who produce synthetic molecules?
    Are there any statistics demonstrating the mortal danger of using Chanel N°5 over the years?
    I am more than outraged, and this goes far beyond my personal interest for my company’s continued existence, it is a warning call that must carry, an infinite sadness that must turn into revolt.
    Europe will be killing part of its memory and contribution to the beauty of the world.

    There is still time, the matter will be under consultation for three months by the European Commission Directorate General Health and Consumers, but it urgent to communicate, to act, to lobby.Through your activities and your social circle, you may have access to opinion leaders, intellectuals, physicians, researchers, politicians, designers, company directors.

    So get the message across, even once, even in thirty seconds. I am willing to meet them, to explain, to discuss it.
    At the Esxence fair in Milan in March, I will try to federate the voices of perfumers and brands like The Different Company. But the profession is often secretive, withdrawn, shy.

    One brand took on the slogan “Perfume is dead, long live perfume”. No, perfume will just be dead, taking part of us with it.

    original article found at http://graindemusc.blogspot.com/

    ....what a nightmare this is going to be; the only good outcome for this is that I will not buy another $200 perfume with the implementation of the rule; perfume at most will cost $20 will the exclusion of high price natural essential oils and everything will smell the same

  22. #142
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    13,283

    Default Re: CEO - The Different Company Open Letter - Have you read this?

    Merging this thread in order to keep the info. in one place
    Last edited by lpp; 18th February 2014 at 12:56 PM.

  23. #143

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by Mocha View Post
    They still make cigarettes.
    + 1 000 000


    Add to that GMO shit, aspartame and other **** that we must consume every day... but hey. Its fragrances that are EVIL!
    TOP 3 hot weather:

    1. Gucci Pour Homme II
    2. Lalique Encre Noire
    3. Creed Aventus


    TOP 3 cold weather:

    1. L'Instant de Guerlain Pour Homme Extreme
    2. Chanel Coromandel
    3. Dior Homme

  24. #144
    Dimitrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Beyond the Blue Mountains
    Posts
    3,247

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I wonder which fragrances use loads of these three ingredients ?
    anyone ?

    SALES
    JANUARY 2013 ..http://community.basenotes.net/showthread.php?t=232133

    *** SPECIAL - LUI ROCHAS , 3.3oz Sealed ***

    FLACON .. Updating Soon flacon.ambaric.net/viewtopic.php?t=43

  25. #145
    Dimitrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Beyond the Blue Mountains
    Posts
    3,247

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by lpp View Post
    The low-atranol oakmoss does not appear to be a totally satisfactory substitute?
    There seem to be concerns that it lacks the complexity of the original substance - unsurprisingly.
    A couple of drops of Oakmoss Absolute into yr frags atomiser pumps up the volume !!

    SALES
    JANUARY 2013 ..http://community.basenotes.net/showthread.php?t=232133

    *** SPECIAL - LUI ROCHAS , 3.3oz Sealed ***

    FLACON .. Updating Soon flacon.ambaric.net/viewtopic.php?t=43

  26. #146
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    13,283

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I think it smells lovely by itself (diluted a bit!), Dimitrios!

    This thread has an interesting post re. eugenol - scroll down the page a bit.
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/370...ed-24-08-2013)

  27. #147

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    yep cigarettes and GMO are still wildly available but they ban minute natural essential oils on fragrances

    I did my part and email some fragrance houses to do their part! If this regulation will push through, I will not use any fragrances anymore and let the perfume industry die on its own.
    Last edited by happyscent; 18th February 2014 at 01:51 PM.

  28. #148

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by dreamer81 View Post


    + 1 000 000


    Add to that GMO shit, aspartame and other **** that we must consume every day... but hey. Its fragrances that are EVIL!
    Dreamer, you are spot on. I'd rather have the risk of sneezing when spraying my perfume than not having it at all!

  29. #149
    Basenotes Junkie cytherian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Nearby NYC
    Posts
    565

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    When was the last time the IFRA police issued a ban to retail stores not to sell a given fragrance? Or an IFRA police team raided a perfumery accused of using banned ingredients? Or more plausibly, the IFRA issuing a public warning about perfumeries that have been caught violating their stated bans? I've never seen a stamp on a fragrance package that says "IFRA compliant". Just how is this ENFORCED?

    We see so many different aspects of society where companies "conditionally" abide by regulations and get away with it. Are fragrance companies not confident in their own product testing, instead deferring to the IFRA regulations? Why can't they make a disclaimer on a fragrance about the potential allergenic constituents, much the way the food industry warns everyone that "this product may contain nuts"?

    Forgive me, I am naive on the subject. I just don't understand all of this "fear" that seems attributed.

  30. #150

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    well, you can also write an email to

    sanco-cosmetics-and-medical-devices@ec.europa.eu
    Header: Fragrance allergens - Public Consultation

    tell them what you think as a consumer but i would suggest to stay polite

  31. #151

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I think the EU is more likely to be influenced by input from their constituents than by persons from non-EU countries, so it is especially important that EU citizens use their voice if they disagree with what has been announced as likely to happen this week.

    Please pardon my ignorance on the way things work in the EU, but I imagine there are procedures in place that allow oppty for public input via hearings, written arguments, etc. It's seems likely to me the deadline for such input has expired. The media coverage suggest this is a done deal. Requests that a final decision be postponed to allow more input, in consideration of recent increased public awareness and concern, might be wise at this point.

  32. #152

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consu..._201402_en.htm

    Deadline: May 14th

    worth a try, i would guess they are used to recieve emails from consumers complaining or communicating their opinion directly to the Directorate General

  33. #153

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by cytherian View Post
    Are fragrance companies not confident in their own product testing, instead deferring to the IFRA regulations?
    Virtually all of the mainstream fragrances and many of the niche brand ones - around 70+% of all fragrances - are actually made by the four or five 'majors' who constitute the IFRA (Givaudan, IFF, Symrise et al). They 'police' themselves. The other main perfume companies who have more control over their own manufacture (Guerlain, Chanel and to an extent now, Dior) also have to comply with the regulations put in place by the EU, in collaboration with IFRA.

    Quote Originally Posted by cytherian View Post
    When was the last time the IFRA police issued a ban to retail stores not to sell a given fragrance? Or an IFRA police team raided a perfumery accused of using banned ingredients? Or more plausibly, the IFRA issuing a public warning about perfumeries that have been caught violating their stated bans? I've never seen a stamp on a fragrance package that says "IFRA compliant". Just how is this ENFORCED?


    Forgive me, I am naive on the subject. I just don't understand all of this "fear" that seems attributed.
    The IFRA do have a threatening guideline somewhere (do some reading - there's lots of info around) but what is happening here is politics and big business - it's like Monsanto and the FDA. A European 'standard' has been created and can be enforced. However the real FEAR is simply from a lawsuit. If just one person sued a perfume company for a physical condition, an allergy that might require doctors bills, a day or two off work, embarassment and mental stress because of an unsightly rash . . . use your imagination here, it's a terrific one for the ambulance chasers - then if the perfume company can say 'we are IFRA compliant' then they have the full weight of the scientific resources of the European Union as a defence. If they are NOT IFRA compliant, they can look forward to a long queue of lawyers outside their door the next day - they are fair game.

    Quote Originally Posted by cytherian View Post
    Why can't they make a disclaimer on a fragrance about the potential allergenic constituents, much the way the food industry warns everyone that "this product may contain nuts"?
    Quite. That would be the sensible thing to do. But it might scare off customers - it doesn't exactly gel with the whole romance of perfumery, does it? We all know the roses are picked by virgins at dawn on the summer equinox etc. etc. don't we?

  34. #154
    Basenotes Junkie cytherian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Nearby NYC
    Posts
    565

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. reasonable View Post
    Virtually all of the mainstream fragrances and many of the niche brand ones - around 70+% of all fragrances - are actually made by the four or five 'majors' who constitute the IFRA (Givaudan, IFF, Symrise et al). They 'police' themselves. The other main perfume companies who have more control over their own manufacture (Guerlain, Chanel and to an extent now, Dior) also have to comply with the regulations put in place by the EU, in collaboration with IFRA.
    Well is that self-serving, or what? Wait...it's like the... Federal Reserve! A board constituting large banking corporations making decisions for all financial business to be compliant.

    In any case... there are many processed food products with warnings about "may contain nuts" or was "created in a facility that processes nuts", which don't seem to detract at all from sales. Cigarettes have had cancer warnings on their labels for years with little impact on their sales, at least not until more medical evidence was unearthed, in addition to indictments of tobacco companies for hiding evidence of unhealthy side effects. So a small imprinting on the fragrance package is all that is needed. I seriously don't think this will scare off purchases.

    I think the IFRA does some good with respect to the preservation of rare natural materials that have been over exploited. To me, that should be their primary function. And yes, if a given oil is identified for possibly incurring rashes for 1% or more of the population, then definitely ban the use. Otherwise... let the buyer decide.

  35. #155

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    If Renato's vision comes to pass I will gladly join Kaern in the woods.
    Ban Eugenol and Coumarin? That writes off at least 80% of the frags I own made in the last 20 years. If the future is doomed to smell like Febreze I will do the unforgivable and cut off my own nose.
    "Strange things are afoot. I am one of them and I am up to another." -*^-'._.'-^*- - S.B.

  36. #156
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,540
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I am thoroughly discouraged. I doubt any of these EU officials give a flying fig what some perfume-lover in Nebraska (Nebraska? Is that even on this planet?) thinks about their actions.

  37. #157
    Basenotes Junkie cytherian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Nearby NYC
    Posts
    565

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by socalwoman View Post
    Here's some of it:

    http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientifi...tion_04_en.htm
    There's probably more recent stuff about allergens somewhere on their site. I'll keep digging. The new regs are also supposedly intended to protect reproductive health too. There should be some information considered about that on the site as well.
    Thanks for that link. Very interesting.

    "Most GPs (general practitioners, primary care physicians) in Western Europe, North America and Australia say the number of people diagnosed each year with eczema is has been rising in recent years."

    "Experts say that people with eczema are born with it - it is a genetically inherited condition. It can be worsened with exposure to external or environmental factors such as pollen or pet fur, and internal factors such as hormone levels and stress."

    I wonder if the rate of eczema increase is proportionate to the population increase. Otherwise... it's about environmental triggers causing it in people with the genetic predisposition. Also... once triggered, you can't put it back in remission. It becomes a chronic condition that needs to be controlled. So the medical community is concerned with minimizing the triggers for those who are vulnerable. If certain fragrance ingredients increase the triggers then... I can understand their need to ban.

    We're also faced with the lack of data... regarding the past. Who knows how many people contracted eczema from fragrance related exposure? Certainly newspapers weren't going about reporting these. Just because we didn't hear about any reports doesn't mean they didn't happen.

  38. #158

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I like Redneck Perfumisto's suggestion (and Edmond Rounitska's idea) about wearing perfume on clothes. Perhaps the houses should come up with a non-dermal product, kind like of room sprays, but dedicated to clothes. This could allow us to literally wear perfumes containing all these sensitising ingredients.

  39. #159
    Basenotes Junkie
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    590

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Meanwhile, there are some weird things happening already. I could be totally wrong on this and would hate to instill any paranoia, but just hear me out )

    It looks like Burberry London and YSL's La Nuit are being messed with RIGHT NOW. London is pretty heavy on opoponax which is rumored to get banned. It also has some lavender and is fixed with oakmoss. It is not on Burberrys website anymore. Amazon still has it, but what's remarkable is that they sell it full list price, not a penny discounted. When do they ever do that?

    Second observation - La Nuit de l'homme, heavy on lavender and coumarin, seems harder to come by nowadays as well. I was trying to buy a big bottle the other day - it was sold out in Nordstrom, Sephora had just ONE small bottle left in stock and it is not available on amazon directly (not counting 3rd parties). I did buy a bottle from Macys that day but I have to admit I was surprised I had to do multiple stops in order to make that purchase. I always remembered this scent as something that the shelves were always well stocked with...

    Maybe I am connecting the dots that arent there, but who knows.. At the very least, all of this looks like noticeable disruptions in supply chains so a closer look may be advised...

  40. #160

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I think it was Tania Sanchez who said, several years ago in 'The Guide', something along the lines of:

    "If you find something you really like, buy an extra one because it may not be the same tomorrow".

    More true now than ever.

  41. #161

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by BillyD View Post
    http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consu..._201402_en.htm

    Deadline: May 14th

    worth a try, i would guess they are used to recieve emails from consumers complaining or communicating their opinion directly to the Directorate General
    Thanks for link. I've just sent them email:

    "Dear European Commission,

    I am very sad to see upcomming regulation in using of 3 ingredients that are large part of majority of current perfumes. For a fragrance lover and collector (who buys much more fragrances than your average consumer) this is the end of my fragrance journey and end of my hobby. It is sad to see that you've choosed to ban few ingredients that can be dangerous to maybe 1% of population instead of puting warning labels on boxes. It is sad to see that while you allow selling of cigarettes which have much more dangerous impact on smokers and non smokers, you want destroy many fragrances that we people and consumers loved. It is sad to see that you might be willing to take a chance to contaminate european land with GMO plants (from USA with transatlantic agreement) and risk people health with GMO food (which still is not proved to be safe) but does not hestitate to forbid things that are from our mother earth and with much less impact on general public. I am very disappointed with this new regulations and as a fragrance lover, and a lover of real things from our nature (not some artificial synthetics made by companies which have huge profit from it) I will definitely not support this international companies by buying new soulless fragrances made from few selected synthetics made by few selected companies...

    Sad citizen (and consumer) of EU

    ,,,"
    TOP 3 hot weather:

    1. Gucci Pour Homme II
    2. Lalique Encre Noire
    3. Creed Aventus


    TOP 3 cold weather:

    1. L'Instant de Guerlain Pour Homme Extreme
    2. Chanel Coromandel
    3. Dior Homme

  42. #162

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Some additional investigative work at Grain de musc, which confirms the less scary conclusions some of us have reached as well from the source documents.

    http://graindemusc.blogspot.fr/2014/...-dont.html?m=1
    Last edited by TrimmTrabb; 20th February 2014 at 03:17 PM.

  43. #163
    Basenotes Institution 30 Roses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    11,557
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Still, the loss of Lyral will be another nail in the coffin of LOTV scents (already worsened when hydroxycitronellal was restricted a few years back.)

  44. #164
    Basenotes Junkie cytherian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Nearby NYC
    Posts
    565

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by dreamer81 View Post
    I am very sad to see upcomming regulation in using of 3 ingredients that are large part of majority of current perfumes. For a fragrance lover and collector (who buys much more fragrances than your average consumer) this is the end of my fragrance journey and end of my hobby. It is sad to see that you've choosed to ban few ingredients that can be dangerous to maybe 1% of population instead of puting warning labels on boxes. It is sad to see that while you allow selling of cigarettes which have much more dangerous impact on smokers and non smokers, you want destroy many fragrances that we people and consumers loved. It is sad to see that you might be willing to take a chance to contaminate european land with GMO plants (from USA with transatlantic agreement) and risk people health with GMO food (which still is not proved to be safe) but does not hestitate to forbid things that are from our mother earth and with much less impact on general public. I am very disappointed with this new regulations and as a fragrance lover, and a lover of real things from our nature (not some artificial synthetics made by companies which have huge profit from it) I will definitely not support this international companies by buying new soulless fragrances made from few selected synthetics made by few selected companies...
    I hope you used a spell checker before sending this message. Spelling mistakes like this, and grammatical mistakes (there are some verb tense and pronoun mistakes here as well, e.g. this instead of these) bite into the credibility of the writer.

    I also don't buy that it's 1% of the population for which these ingredients are dangerous. More like 1% of the population where it is inconvenient (a simple rash that goes away with disuse). But maybe 5% of that 1% can develop contact eczema, which is a nasty business. This has been shown to happen with other ingredients that have been banned over the years, but the latest round casts a lot of doubt. Coumarin hasn't been medically confirmed to cause eczema. The claim is not substantiated with medical data as yet. This is based on the document linked previously.

    Where the "fault" lies is regarding communication to the consumer. People who are genetically predisposed to contract eczema need to be aware of their condition and to take precautions. Such people should feel confident to use fragrances stamped with "IFRA approved" (long overdue for having this) and avoid those that don't have this certification. For those who don't have a tendency to get rashes and aren't predisposed to contracting eczema, they don't need to pay attention to this... which is a significant majority of the population (99%).
    Last edited by cytherian; 20th February 2014 at 03:24 PM.

  45. #165
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,540
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I wonder what that "Juicy Couture" "Flower Bomb" note structure is that makes it so special? It's in everything now. Pretty soon that's all you'll be smelling on everyone.

  46. #166

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by cytherian View Post
    I hope you used a spell checker before sending this message. Spelling mistakes like this, and grammatical mistakes (there are some verb tense and pronoun mistakes here as well, e.g. this instead of these) bite into the credibility of the writer.

    I also don't buy that it's 1% of the population for which these ingredients are dangerous. More like 1% of the population where it is inconvenient (a simple rash that goes away with disuse). But maybe 5% of that 1% can develop contact eczema, which is a nasty business. This has been shown to happen with other ingredients that have been banned over the years, but the latest round casts a lot of doubt. Coumarin hasn't been medically confirmed to cause eczema. The claim is not substantiated with medical data as yet. This is based on the document linked previously.

    Where the "fault" lies is regarding communication to the consumer. People who are genetically predisposed to contract eczema need to be aware of their condition and to take precautions. Such people should feel confident to use fragrances stamped with "IFRA approved" (long overdue for having this) and avoid those that don't have this certification. For those who don't have a tendency to get rashes and aren't predisposed to contracting eczema, they don't need to pay attention to this... which is a significant majority of the population (99%).
    You know that in EU, like 90% of population doesnt have English as their native language right? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population IE (its all countries except of UK and Ireland) -that is Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Romania, Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Czech Republic, Hungary, Sweden, Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Slovakia, Croatia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Latvia, Estonia, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta)
    Hopefuly people in European Comission know that and wont be as narrow minded as you.
    TOP 3 hot weather:

    1. Gucci Pour Homme II
    2. Lalique Encre Noire
    3. Creed Aventus


    TOP 3 cold weather:

    1. L'Instant de Guerlain Pour Homme Extreme
    2. Chanel Coromandel
    3. Dior Homme

  47. #167
    Basenotes Junkie
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    590

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Who cares if he used a spell checker, the message is clear. And, unlike many others, he actually acted on it. Good job, dreamer81.

  48. #168

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by dreamer81 View Post
    You know that in EU, like 90% of population doesnt have English as their native language right? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population IE (its all countries except of UK and Ireland) -that is Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Romania, Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Czech Republic, Hungary, Sweden, Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Slovakia, Croatia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Latvia, Estonia, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta)
    Hopefuly people in European Comission know that and wont be as narrow minded as you.
    Good for you, dreamer81!

  49. #169
    Basenotes Junkie cytherian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Nearby NYC
    Posts
    565

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Narrow minded? I'm just pointing out a basic thing that can be done. It helps make a message look more professional. I was not trying to insult you.

    But if that's how it's going to be here, that a tag-team starts happening to make it look like I'm the bad guy then I'll just get out of this special clique and move on. Good bye.

  50. #170
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,540
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Oh, dear, let's not start fighting amongst ourselves. Divided we fall, for sure.

  51. #171
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    13,283

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Please stick to the topic guys - we were discussing EU regulations.

  52. #172
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,540
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    No one has commented on my complaint about the use of 'the patch'. It is placed over the sample which is placed on skin. Thus extending the exposure time. Perfume, when used as intended- air dries in a few minutes.

    I wonder if we pointed out this discrepancy if it would do some good.

  53. #173

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
    No one has commented on my complaint about the use of 'the patch'. It is placed over the sample which is placed on skin. Thus extending the exposure time. Perfume, when used as intended- air dries in a few minutes.

    I wonder if we pointed out this discrepancy if it would do some good.
    Whether or not the alcohol dries out, the perfume residues are still on the skin. Does it really matter whether the patch stays on or not? A possible way to test the effect of the patch, if any, is to systematically test different durations the patch stays on, and whether sensitisation increases as a consequence of patch duration.

  54. #174
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,540
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I'm just not clear on why the patch is necessary. It appears the study is designed to amplify exposure to infinitesimal amounts of substance- oak moss, for instance.

  55. #175

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    It would be interesting to find out what alternatives to banning were considered (for example labeling so that the consumer may make an informed choice to avoid exposure to a particular ingredient) and especially: why those alternatives were rejected.

  56. #176
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,540
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I smell conspiracy. Follow the money. Someone is benefitting here and it ain't us.

  57. #177
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    13,283

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients


  58. #178
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,540
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    Quote Originally Posted by lpp View Post
    Yes, reasonable. I agree with this premiss. This is a travesty unfolding.

  59. #179

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I had no idea the 'tests' were so hamfisted - it's a joke.

    This blog and the article are from Somerville Metro Man, BTW, who used to contribute a lot of insight and good vibes to Basenotes when I first joined - great he has a new blog space

  60. #180

    Default Re: EC Looks to Ban Three Fragrance Ingredients

    I hate those dam people. I just want a perfume house with some balls to create a fragrance with every banned ingredient and call it "BANNED" - "For when your not afraid to smell good"

    Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
    Michael ♌

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