Many top-selling fragrance products - from Britney Spears' Curious and Calvin Klein Eternity, to Abercrombie & Fitch Fierce and Old Spice body spray - contain a dozen or more secret chemicals not listed on labels, multiple chemicals that can trigger allergic reactions or disrupt hormones, and many substances that have not been assessed for safety by the beauty industry's self-policing review panels, according to a study released today by Environmental Defence Canada and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics in the United States (U.S.).
— Read the rest at Hazardous Chemicals Revealed in Celebrity Perfumes, Teen Body Sprays at Digital Journal.
According to the Personal Care Product Council’s chief scientist John Bailey, a new report alleging that many popular perfumes contain “secret” ingredients that could cause harm to consumers “grossly misrepresents the science on fragrance ingredients and presents a distorted picture of how they are regulated and labeled."
— Read the rest at The Council Blasts EWG’s ‘Report’ on Fragrances at Happi.
Oh great…more fuel for the fire. There are so many chemicals in everything we put on our bodies or ingest. It actually is pretty amazing that we’re all still alive and kicking!!!
Would love it if our world and all of our products were free of toxins and chemicals and pollutants, etc. How can we possibly backtrack? It’s pretty depressing when you look around and realize the crisis. Will our bodies adapt? Or will it kill us all off? Can we stop it? Does every little bit help or are we fighting a losing battle?
Ugh. I think I’ll go spray on some perfume…
Yes – I was going to suggest a little aromatherapy!
Seriously. If it exists, you can be allergic to it – very simple. I need to get cracking on marketing John Travolta style ‘boy-in-bubble’ bubbles. I bet I could make a fortune
Three notes:
1) EVERYTHING is made out of “chemicals”. That’s what things *are*. Water is chemicals: hydrogen plus oxygen. It’s dihydrogen monoxide. Salt is made of two unbelievably toxic, bad-for-you (in their pure form) things: chlorine and sodium.
2) The dose makes the poison, as they say. Enough water will kill you. A spritz of fragrance is maybe a tenth of a millilitre; eighty to ninety-seven per cent of that is water and alcohol (itself a toxin, we might as well note). That leaves between three and twenty milligrams of active ingredients. If you *swallowed* that much potassium cyanide, you’d survive, and you’re not swallowing perfume. Most of the things in scents are provably harmless and the rest, whatever their qualities, are present in extremely tiny amounts.
3) The human body has evolved to get rid of things it doesn’t like. That’s what sweat, urine, feces, the liver and kidneys are for.
I am not unsympathetic to the concerns of environmentalists, but I have had enough of their fearmongering.
Pyramus, I nominate you to be our voice in front of the IFRA!!!! Thank you for the sanity.
I second this!
Preach it.
I could not agree more.
Pyramus = the voice of reason.
Well said, Pyramus.
You took the words out of my mouth: everything is composed of chemicals! Thank you for being the voice of reason. Now excuse me while I go dab on a little En Passant…..:-)
Your first bit – that’s what I have been saying and keep saying and will probably be saying until Doomsday before it clicks with anyone around me. GAH. SO FRUSTRATING.
I do take exception to lumping these alarmist fluffy bunnies with mainstream environmentalists – that’s quite a different cup of tea there.
Really? Toxic and chock full of allergens? How unusual! I wonder what else could be riddled with undiscloseed ingredients…Food, pesticides, water…the world is such a scary place!
I could be totally wrong about this, but I recall reading somewhere that the most toxins we are exposed to each day are in our homes or the buildings we work in. I think carpet glue is one of the worst. Again, I have a mind like a sieve, but I would swear I read this somewhere.
Oh, and I would add that swimming pools are also loaded with chlorine, a veritable bonanza of chemical activity.
Well done, dear Pyramus. Aldehydes do not exist in nature like -say- strawberries, and typing on this computer right now causes probably more harm to the environment than wearing Chanel, really. I think those people are a bit too paranoid about the global conspiracy against nature, and anyway the progress cannot be reversed, cliché’ as it sounds. However, now there’s a good reason to withdraw from the market Britney Spears’ hideous fragrances. Shall we investigate some more on Cool Water for men? I’m sure there’s some evil ingredient there too
Ah. That’s nothing. What about chocolate?? Did you know that chocolate contains FIVE HUNDRED “secret” chemicals, NONE of which are listed on that innocuous-looking bar of Valrhona your unsuspecting wife may be carrying in her purse this very moment? And that some of those chemicals are WELL KNOWN to cause significant ELEVATIONS in mood? And further, that the sale and use of chocolate is entirely UNREGULATED and UNRESTRICTED?
Gaaaaaaaaaa.
Please sign my petition and
Oops. The rest of my comment got chopped. Mea culpa. But you get the drift . . .
Oh, I wish you would go post on the comment board of the paper I was just reading this article in… All the chemically sensitive individuals are out, asking that scents not be used because they are sensitive to them. I sympathize, but I don’t think that banning perfumes — as in the kind we buy in a bottle to spritz ourselves with — is the answer.
I think that the chemicals we are unknowingly exposed to, or needlessly exposed to, are far worse. The chemicals in our food, our water, the chemicals in our furniture, carpeting, computers, pop bottles…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/perfumes-contain-hidden-harmful-chemicals-environmental-groups-say/article1565965/
Do you have any idea how many secret chemicals are in a forest!!!!!
(I know I am preaching to the choir and all.)
Hey guys, sorry I’m late getting to the comments on this one. Waking up slowly today…and still not able to get all worked up about this, but if anyone wants to see the response of The Fragrance Foundation, it’s here:
http://www.perfumerflavorist.com/fragrance/regulatory/93575234.html
Excellent.
Thanks, R. This kind of level-headedness is definitely in order. Funny how quickly it puts the whole picture into perspective.
Hmmm. I’ve got to be honest, I started reading with an eyebrow raised thinking, “Oh great… more complaining!”
But you know, reading all that DID make me wonder. I put a LOT of fragrance on my skin, almost every day, and I do wonder how much gets absorbed transdermally (not to mention what I’m inhaling). Yes, it’s my choice and I could stop, but it’s probably not good to mass produce anything IF it contains chemicals that aren’t thoroughly tested for effects on humans. I don’t mean allergens, I mean the stuff that really might disrupt hormones or other body functions.
Seriously, that Digital Journal article gives me pause. If I were a young woman thinking about becoming pregnant someday or in the near future, instead of an old man ;), I would want someone thinking about this.
Also, I can’t jump on the “everything’s polluted, so let’s break out the booze and have a ball” bandwagon. No, I’m not going to stop wearing perfume, but I’m also not willing to just say, “sure, whatever the beauty industry wants to do is fine, because look how effed-up everything else is.” I mean, people on this very blog have mentioned many a time how they won’t use cosmetic with parabens or whatever else in them.
Sorry, I also just watched “Food, Inc.” last weekend and I’m hypersensitive to everything too! Carry on… and you all smell terrific! (as do I… in a cloud of violet)
Honestly, Joe, I think you’d have to drink a couple of quarts of fragrance a day to run any kind of health risk. A few mls on the skin is negligible exposure.
And you know, like with a lot of things, the benefits can outweigh the risks. I mean, there are an awful lot of chemicals in the 100 SPF sunblock I slather all over my skin, but, having had one significant basal cell cancer removed from my chest already (and I have the ugly little scar to prove it), I’ll keep on slathering.
I also think that there are all kinds of important emotional, intellectual — heck, even spiritual — advantages to having a healthy interest in fragrance that can’t be measured. (Financial, maybe not so much.
) Life’s too short, etc.
I think one of the marvelous aspects of a litigious society is that it keeps manufacturers on their toes. I doubt whether the beauty industry would knowingly leave themselves open to a bunch of very costly class action suits by incautiously cramming dangerous chemicals into their products.
You would think, yes! But I’m also not a big fan of an “in the long run, equilibrium” view of self-regulation and self-preservation either. From an actuarial standpoint, yes, mishaps, disaster, and injury have a low probability.
But do I still think every ingredient in consumer products should have at least some level of testing perfomed? Yes. And transparent labeling at the very least should be a nonissue, right? Why fight that?
You’re right, of course. It’s easy (and wise, generally!) to dismiss the alarmist, chemophobic and uninformed nonsensical fear of “chemicals” – that does however not mean that there’s no truth to what they say. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, yaknow?
Personally, I’m more invested in more tangible/proven dangerous additions and/or remnants in consumer products (for instance, the very real and entirely unregulated amounts of dioxin found in tampons – which are placed in direct contact with some of the most absorbent tissues in the human body for a large period of time)
Although I’m not concerned for myself as I’m on the edge of being a geezer in age, and I think it may be yet another “paranoid” bandwagon for people to jump on, one passage did bother me.
“A recent cord-blood study by EWG found Galaxolide and Tonalide – two synthetic musks associated with toxicity to the endocrine system – inside the bodies of most babies tested. Only one product in this study did not contain one of these musks.”
If this is true that it is toxic to the endocrine system, this is a possible concern for these yet unborn infants.
Truthfully, I wish natural components weren’t so cost-prohibitive. I use them my own concoctions, but even for a small scale dabbler like me, it’s pricey. Unfortunately, I’d be willing to bet that even naturally derived components may have some toxic effects, even if it’s just to a small percentage of the population.
Will just add that artificial musks are in EVERYTHING…antiperspirant, laundry detergent, cosmetics, you name it. Skipping the perfume is of limited value unless you’re going to start buying only unscented, all-natural products.
(And meant to add — they’re in the water too. So even if you watch your product usage, you’re still in trouble)
I’m with you on that one, Robin !
Let me stress that being the major perfume freak that I am will keep me from ever not purchasing a fragrance due to possible “toxicity issues”. I figure every time I breathe, (even in Alaska where the air is pretty darn clean), I’m sucking in a multitude of possible toxins. I might as well enjoy it
You live in Alaska? I am SOOO envious. Alaska is the most beautiful place I have ever been.
I would like to point out that even “natural” products contain a number of potentially harmful chemicals. For example, almonds contain cyanide. Of course, you would have to eat about 20 pounds in one sitting to get a lethal dose, and no one can possibly eat that much at once, but still–cyanide?! OMG, we are all going to die!!! Oh wait–we ARE all going to die–someday.
I do feel that the wording of many of these article (“secret chemicals”, “undisclosed ingredients”) is done in the name of fearmongering. There is not way to ban every possible harmful substance from our lives. Water is essential to life, but potentially fatal if you inhale it. It is called drowning. It seems that there are elements in our society that want to take away anything is not absolutely necessary to survival or that might serve to provide pleasure. It is time for it to stop.
yup, they like to make as much panic as possible about toxicity in perfume —yet I bet each and every one of them drives a fossil fuel guzzling, toxic emission producing car…..and you can be darn sure they’re using electricity in their homes which in this country is largely produced thru COAL and we don’t even need to go into the health and toxicity problems associated with that! Seems like if they were really concerned with the ongoing welfare of humankind, they’d be better off putting their efforts into something that would effect the greatest numbers of people and with results that would continue to benefit for the foreseeable future by say, promoting energy production thru the use of Wind power , corn or sugar cane! But oh, sorry, that’s not quite titillating enough for them.
I hate to burst your bubble about living in the north, but…
Were you aware that the polar bear is the most polluted species on earth?
That now, the government tells Inuit women, mothers and those planning on being mothers, not to eat “country food” (i.e. polar bear and seal, especially the liver and other innards) because it is so contaminated with toxins?
Did you know how that came to be? You see, the pollution from the south (where are the factories and cars are) rises into the air, and is carried north by winds, and where the cold causes it to be deposited. It land all over everything, and the polar bear, being the top of the food chain, has the toxins concentrated in his body. Tragic, really.
I am not sure where the toxins begin to be deposited — perhaps not as far south as you probably are in Alaska — maybe it is just in the far north, past the treeline. But maybe not.
Banning fragrances outright is certainly not the answer, but honestly I’d like to see a bit more transparency about exact ingredients in the perfumes…after all, shampoos and deodorants and all sorts of personal care products are required by law to list their ingredients. McDonald’s lists the number of calories on their bag, Panera puts nutrition information on the menu, and despite how high those calorie counts are business is going just fine for them. Telling the customer what ingredients are in the product you’re selling is not going to prevent them from buying it.
Have to say — you know, McDonalds puts the calories on their bag, but they don’t tell you what artificial flavorings are used in their products…many people, in fact, have no idea how many chemicals they’re ingesting with those fries.
It’s not so much the sentiment behind these articles that gets me as their style: “secret chemicals” – woooooooh! – concocted at a secret underground meeting of Freemasons, Opus Dei and the CIA, presided over by the CEO of the Coca Cola Company? It makes me laugh.
It is pretty funny, isn’t it?
I sort of agree, but the list of ingredients on shampoo is longer than that on perfume, so why should it be a problem to list more than linalool, SD alcohol, water, and ‘fragrance”? (mostly playing devil’s advocate here)
I’m late to the party, I suppose, but if one is informed, one can then make a choice. I fear for small children whose mothers (fathers too?) are encouraging perfume use. Adults, yes, have a choice, but they shouldn’t be thinking the FDA has actually tested all these aromachemicals for safety, let alone safety on young children, whose bodies and brain cells are still developing. Ditto on the EPA and the environment. Our government relies on industry a great deal to self-regulate.
And, yes, I’m a perfumista!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/business/economy/31leonhardt.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/opinion/16kristof.html?scp=1&sq=chemicals%20and%20our%20health&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/04/15/15greenwire-sen-lautenberg-introduces-chemicals-reform-bil-25266.html?scp=6&sq=chemicals&st=cse
I agree that the “secret chemicals’ thing was over-the-top. It diminishes the point I think.
Thank you “ppr” for posting links to those excellent articles. I avoid dubious chemicals like phthalates and since they are so ubiquitous in mainstream perfumes, I don’t buy them unless I know for sure, and that usually requires contacting the companies myself.
Why shouldn’t perfumes have ingredient lists as all other beauty products do? It hasn’t hurt that segment of the industry and also gives us as consumers a chance to be informed.
And I certainly don’t trust the FDA to have my best interest at heart. Take their recent stance on BPA. First it was safe, and now it’s been changed to being “of concern”. Are phthalates next?