For a long time, many of us have suspected, rightly or wrongly, that IFRA’s underlying policy agenda is primarily to support synthetic aroma chemicals at the expense of natural aromatic ingredients. This is because synthetics have attractions over natural aromatics for the major aroma industry players...They are invariably cheaper, they can sometimes be produced in-house, & they and their applications may be patentable. Their composition is constant, and unlike natural aromatic ingredients, their price stability & constancy of supply are variables which are not so subject to the vagaries of the world’s ever-changing climate.
[...] In a new departure, IFRA’s Information Letter 815 indicates that opoponax (which they claim botanically derives from ‘Commiphora Erythrea var. glabrascens Engler’ – we have reproduced their incorrect botanical formatting) does not have robust enough data to allow application of Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) methodology, and that there is a need for more ‘up to date’ sensitization data. IFRA claims it cannot support the required studies financially, and without these studies there is a high risk that IFRA will prohibit the material. Similarly for styrax...
— From IFRA Gives Up Supporting More Natural Aromatics: Opoponax & Styrax Next for the Chop at the Aromaconnection blog.
If you need background, you might start at IFRA proposes restrictions on use of citrus oils and IFRA proposes restrictions on use of citrus oils, part two, and work your way backwards through the links. Please feel free to comment, but I can't comment on the science or even the accuracy of the claims.
The world went black for a moment. I adore opoponax. This is crazy!
Do these substances actually get banned, or is it just that they can't be used without telling the customer? Why can't the perfume companies just put on a tiny label saying 'This scent contains X, Y and Z, which may cause reactions in some people.”? It doesn't seem to have stopped people buying cigarettes here in the UK, and those labels are BIG.
Yoicks – I love citrus notes. I only skimmed a bit of one of those links, but it said few perfume companies were abiding by regulations to limit certain ingredients…so I wonder how strong enforcement would be. But of course, if it's the manufacturers themselves who are lobbying for these changes for financial reasons, that doesn't bode well for us citrus lovers.
They don't get banned, they just require label warnings if the concentration goes over a set percentage of the formula. Why the perfume companies don't just use the labels warnings rather than reformulating is a mystery to me — but all of this is a mystery to me.
I'm guilty of only skimming too. It does seem like the IFRA regulations pretty much de-oakmossed perfumery, so I assume all of this is bad news down the road for perfumista.
*Sigh*
OK. 2009 may be the year in which I finally put on my journalist and academician hats and go sort through all that terrible activist and government bureaucrat prose and try to figure out what the $#@! is going on with this $#@! and translate it for the general public. I mean both the why and the how–as proffered by both sides.
What say you, Robin — guest spot on NST if I manage it?
Somebody ought to do it. The aromaconnection blog is wonderful but clearly directed at insiders — I never know what they're talking about except in the vaguest sense, and it doesn't help that the chemical & regulatory issues would make my eyes glaze over no matter what.
That would be a huge perfumista public service!
All this craziness about reformulations and banning gorgeous ingredients provides me with further rationalization for buying up everything…NOW! '~)
Also makes me sort of glad that I came late to the perfume party, so to speak, and do not even know what these scents 'used' to smell like. If I do not know what I am missing, it makes it easier to truly love the scents that are still available today. (sticking head back in the sand)
Why have the perfume companies allowed this to happen? As a source (that I cannot reveal told me, he's a retired perfumer with deep roots in Europe and the USA) told me after we had a two hour conversation about 1.5 years ago: “We were asleep at the wheel.” I've been blogging about this for two years come Jan. 09.
It's getting much worse – the FDA is trying to pass Globalization here which will bring those regs to the USA and levy yearly fees of $2000-$12,000 on artisan perfumers. Jolly easy way for the corporations that support these measures to put the little guys out of business.
The EU, which passes these insane laws, recently relented on some fruits and veggies. Yes, fruits and veggies. Can't have a crooked carrot in the EU, you know, might harm your psyche. Or something. Feh.
I blogged about this recently under “Pass me the oakmoss and a crooked banana, I'm going to live dangerously.” Robin, forgive my link to my own blog, but I labored for over an hour to pull together all my past blogs on this subject, and even though a few of the posts are technical, I think your readers will find a lot to gnash their teeth about. I've asked the “why can't they label it” question in the form of “peanuts vs. perfume” – one kills, is on ever store shelf with a label; one might give you a rash, it's stripped of its chemical. Oh, double feh.
I find 80% of my life is consumed by all this right now, including trying to rally artisan bread makers and cheese makers, vinters, etc. – cause guess what? Globalization is after them, too.
http://anyasgarden.blogspot.com/2008/12/pass-me-oakmoss-and-crooked-banana-im.html
All this is ridiculous. Time for a perfumista rally, or call-to-arms, or something.
I guess I'd better grab a bottle of my Imperial Opoponax soon!!!
Yes, I too am starting to buy absolutely everything I really want, in the expectation that many things will be reformulated beyond recognition or eliminated. Since I really only wear niche perfumes, mine will probably be the first to go.
Anya, thanks for the link.
A (probably stupid) question — assuming the proposed FDA business rules fell through, IFRA regs don't really affect what natural perfumers are doing, do they?
Divinemama, it is true that in perfume, in many ways, ignorance IS a kind of bliss. Most of the vintage scents I've smelled have ended up making me unhappy, one way or the other.
Probably won't affect them since none I know of are members of an organization that is a member of IFRA – but – if there should be a liability claim against one, the company could deny coverage because the NP (or any other artisan/niche perfumer) isn't following “industry norms.”
It is ridiculous. No-one slathers perfume on. I refuse to feel guilty unless a perfume has to kill an animal. I'd much rather have chemical or found ambergris. The gov. is hypocritical. They should spend more time and money on things that truly hurt people and the environment-there are so many.
Globalization is here, and it is up to us to make it what we will; if we don't, the big corporations and Big Pharma will, and we shall all pay through the nose for everything we need and want- not just perfumes. If we are not diligant, this world will become something out of George Orwell's 1984, and that is not a pretty thought.
On a happier note, we have each other, and the Internet and telephone, and we can stop this nasty trend.
I love it- “Pass me the oakmoss and a crooked banana-I'm going to live dangerously.”-I'm with you, and while we are at it, let's have a cup of real coffee, with (gasp) real cream and sugar! Oh, the caffeine! Oh, the sugar and cream! What decadence! Isn't it great?
Seriously, I am so tired of these bean-counting bloodless beaureacrats thinking they can tell us how to live, when they themselves have no idea of what it means!
I'm going to get some coffee, and spray on some perfume, and proceed to live dangerously!
More later, let's keep up the good work (and play)-
Cheers,
CB
Thanks!
It's already closer to 1984 than I'd imagined it would be…
Tama, get it while you can
Actually IFRA does ban or 'prohibit' the use of some ingredients totally – for example costus root oil. The label warnings on retail packaging are a different thing – a regulation put in place by EU/SCCNFP (Scientific Committee for Consumer Products and Non-Food Products) so that people who supposedly know they are allergic to certain ingredients can look out for them.
Fragrance companies aren't required to comply with IFRA, but many of them choose to, for the simple fact that a lot of the guidelines are based on scientific evidence from organisations such as RIFM.
Compliance with IFRA is a sensible way for a fragrance house to reduce the risk of a lawsuit later down the track…..
I would say the main reason an IFRA-banned ingredient would disappear totally from use is because most formulators would choose to discontinue using the ingredient on account of the IFRA ban, and therefore demand would fall, and therefore supply would cease. I agree it would be a pity for opoponax to join the ranks.. it's such beautiful stuff!
But still I will not wear a niche perfume made by a 'self-taught' perfumer who does not comply with IFRA…..
I'm pretty sure I already wear niche perfumes by self-taught perfumers who don't comply w/ IFRA! But thanks for the clarification.
I never realized I needed to be so protected from evil fragrances! Give me a prozac and a bottle of Windex to dab behind my ears and everything will be OK.
I've recenlty been buying back-up bottles of all my favorite frags anyway. They could easily be secretly reformulated for cost regardless of the issue of natural materials, etc.
A good policy — and quite so, they've all been reformulated many times over for other reasons.
Corporate manufacturers are afraid of lawsuits. If they put a warning label on the package, it does not remove the possibility of litigation and enhances a negative connotation (just like the warning on cigarette labels). It would be nice to see the Fragrance Foundation/ Manufacturers of Fine Fragrance running ads in magazines that would support such labeling and explain to the consumer what it means. Unfortunately, this is not likely to occur as the industry has an extremely poor record of educating consumers in the press and at counter.
Could be it, also could be that aromaconnection is correct that the real reason they're so “unwilling” to battle IFRA is that they make much of their profit off proprietary synthetic molecules.
Yes and no. Not all synthetic molecules are cheap. Battling IFRA is political; challenging IFRA sheds an unfavorable light on a company whether that challenge is rooted in a need to preserve the tradition of perfumery arts or a company's self interest. The real litmus test would be to see how RIFM and IFRA decide what ingredients to investigate, how they select scientists to run the studies, and what the background/benefit of findings are beyond the study; to the scientists and the organizations. An industry that polices itself is not beyond politics and power. This is a job for a good investigative journalist, a la The Wall Street Journal, a journalist with integrity who possesses a track record for uncovering the truth.