The perfume industry certainly needs a safety organisation to protect its interests – but maybe not this one, which is guilty of over-regulating the industry, and confuses the career interests of its composite toxicologists over and above its function to be a balanced safety policy-making unit for the trade.
— Tony Burfield of Cropwatch, writing about the IFRA standards for melissa oil in Robertet Reveals its Evidence on Melissa Oil to Cropwatch at The Aromaconnection Blog. You can also read more at The melissa oil scandal & IFRA at 1000 Fragrances.
I admit I’m coming late to the discussion of IFRA standards and its recent restrictions, but does anyone know how the testing and regulation of perfume ingredients compares to that for other cosmetic products?
From what I understand of the FDA’s regulation of cosmetic products in the U.S., they investigate when “clusters” of problems are reported and really aren’t concerned with individual allergic reactions. (And of course they’re only investigating after the fact, not preapproving anything before it’s sold.) Does the cosmetics industry in the EU have an organization similar to the IRFA that can restrict or prohibit ingredients before they’re marketed?
I am not at all knowledgeable on this subject at all, but can tell you that IFRA, unlike the FDA, is not a governmental body — they rely on essentially voluntary adherence to their standards. For reasons that remain entirely mysterious to me, they seem to be bent on regulating materials that have not been at all problematic for consumers in terms of actual allergic reactions, and that aren’t even widely used…such as the melissa oil in question here.
If it helps, there is a long statement here from the Director of Communications for IFRA:
https://nstperfume.com/2009/04/04/rip/
Scroll down to the commenter called “Sweller”.
Thanks, Robin! I remember reading your original post but hadn’t seen all of the comments on it.
This is beyond ridiculous, to say nothing of the fact that it is almost impossible to find “pure” or “real” melissa. It is almost all adulterated so God only knows what they were really testing.
For the millionth time, I truly don’t understand why the fragrance industry is supporting this nonsense.
Robin, I’m old and cynical, and I’d say that it is a matter of $$$. The big companies are in league with the chemical companies and it behooves everybody to outlaw the bad ole naturals and use the cheaper, but patented, synthetics.
Well, that’s what lots of people assume, but at this point I find it hard to swallow. It cannot save the industry money to have to reformulate everything on the books, and then to do it again in 2 years when they come out with new restrictions.
I have to agree with Robin. As tasty as a big conspiracy theory might be, I have a hard time believing that large fragrance and chemical companies need legal injunctions to give them an excuse to stop using higher-priced ingredients. Just look at Guerlain (sob). $$$ does factor into it, but I think it’s just plain ol’ pragmatism: what multinational wants to take its chances when people are litigation-happy on both sides of the pond?
What I still don’t understand is why there is an insistence on banning/restriction when it seems a simple list of ingredients would go just as far to indemnify fragrance producers and placate nervy consumers.
It’s a good question: why not just print warnings on the box? People don’t read warnings on boxes anyway.