• About
  • Login to comment
    • Facebook
    • RSS
    • Twitter

Now Smell This

a blog about perfume

Menu ▼
  • Perfume Reviews
  • New Perfumes
  • Perfumers
  • Perfume Houses
  • Shop for perfume
  • Resources

Not safe. Safe.

Posted by Robin on 12 May 2010 43 Comments

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.

Filed Under: perfume in the news

Advertisement


43 Comments

Leave a comment, or read more about commenting at Now Smell This. Here's our privacy policy, and a handy emoticon chart.

  1. Karin says:
    12 May 2010 at 8:57 am

    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… :-)

    Log in to Reply
    • RusticDove says:
      12 May 2010 at 9:11 am

      Yes – I was going to suggest a little aromatherapy! ;-)

      Log in to Reply
  2. pigoletto says:
    12 May 2010 at 9:12 am

    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 ;-)

    Log in to Reply
  3. pyramus says:
    12 May 2010 at 9:50 am

    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.

    Log in to Reply
    • Karin says:
      12 May 2010 at 9:55 am

      Pyramus, I nominate you to be our voice in front of the IFRA!!!! Thank you for the sanity.

      Log in to Reply
      • Thanna says:
        12 May 2010 at 10:33 am

        I second this!

        Log in to Reply
    • mals86 says:
      12 May 2010 at 10:25 am

      Preach it.

      Log in to Reply
    • miss kitty v. says:
      12 May 2010 at 11:08 am

      I could not agree more.

      Log in to Reply
    • RusticDove says:
      12 May 2010 at 11:28 am

      Pyramus = the voice of reason.

      Log in to Reply
    • ggperfume says:
      12 May 2010 at 12:00 pm

      Well said, Pyramus.

      Log in to Reply
    • bookgirl says:
      12 May 2010 at 12:17 pm

      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…..:-)

      Log in to Reply
    • zeezee says:
      12 May 2010 at 5:53 pm

      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.

      Log in to Reply
  4. pfumepatrol says:
    12 May 2010 at 10:15 am

    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!

    Log in to Reply
    • miss kitty v. says:
      12 May 2010 at 11:11 am

      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.

      Log in to Reply
    • miss kitty v. says:
      12 May 2010 at 11:17 am

      Oh, and I would add that swimming pools are also loaded with chlorine, a veritable bonanza of chemical activity.

      Log in to Reply
  5. lupo says:
    12 May 2010 at 10:45 am

    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 :)

    Log in to Reply
  6. Robin R. says:
    12 May 2010 at 10:46 am

    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

    Log in to Reply
    • Robin R. says:
      12 May 2010 at 10:47 am

      Oops. The rest of my comment got chopped. Mea culpa. But you get the drift . . .

      Log in to Reply
  7. TallulahRose says:
    12 May 2010 at 10:59 am

    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/

    Log in to Reply
  8. monkeytoe says:
    12 May 2010 at 11:01 am

    Do you have any idea how many secret chemicals are in a forest!!!!!

    (I know I am preaching to the choir and all.)

    Log in to Reply
  9. Robin says:
    12 May 2010 at 11:14 am

    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

    Log in to Reply
    • miss kitty v. says:
      12 May 2010 at 11:20 am

      Excellent.

      Log in to Reply
    • Robin R. says:
      12 May 2010 at 6:18 pm

      Thanks, R. This kind of level-headedness is definitely in order. Funny how quickly it puts the whole picture into perspective.

      Log in to Reply
  10. Joe says:
    12 May 2010 at 3:09 pm

    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.

    Log in to Reply
    • Joe says:
      12 May 2010 at 3:14 pm

      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)

      Log in to Reply
      • Robin R. says:
        12 May 2010 at 4:03 pm

        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.

        Log in to Reply
      • Robin R. says:
        12 May 2010 at 6:24 pm

        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. ;-)

        Log in to Reply
        • Joe says:
          12 May 2010 at 7:48 pm

          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?

          Log in to Reply
    • zeezee says:
      13 May 2010 at 6:59 am

      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)

      Log in to Reply
  11. RavenNightMyst says:
    12 May 2010 at 4:06 pm

    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.

    Log in to Reply
    • Robin says:
      12 May 2010 at 4:31 pm

      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.

      Log in to Reply
      • Robin says:
        12 May 2010 at 4:35 pm

        (And meant to add — they’re in the water too. So even if you watch your product usage, you’re still in trouble)

        Log in to Reply
      • RavenNightMyst says:
        12 May 2010 at 4:41 pm

        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 :)

        Log in to Reply
        • 50_Roses says:
          13 May 2010 at 1:26 am

          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.

          Log in to Reply
          • Daisy says:
            13 May 2010 at 9:28 am

            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.

        • TallulahRose says:
          14 May 2010 at 10:44 am

          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.

          Log in to Reply
  12. Parul says:
    12 May 2010 at 4:28 pm

    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.

    Log in to Reply
    • Robin says:
      12 May 2010 at 4:30 pm

      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.

      Log in to Reply
  13. lp says:
    12 May 2010 at 5:21 pm

    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.

    Log in to Reply
    • Robin R. says:
      12 May 2010 at 6:14 pm

      It is pretty funny, isn’t it?

      Log in to Reply
    • Joe says:
      12 May 2010 at 7:51 pm

      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)

      Log in to Reply
  14. ppr says:
    12 May 2010 at 10:10 pm

    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

    Log in to Reply
  15. Trish says:
    13 May 2010 at 4:09 pm

    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?

    Log in to Reply

Leave a reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement

Search

From NST at Twitter

  • "Adam Driver on new Burberry Hero scent: “I have a big nose, but I don’t put it to use very often”" (esquire middle… https://t.co/N4qVvv54ME, 9 hours ago
  • "The Best “Green” Fragrances Are a Walk in the Park" (gq) https://t.co/7rBKhhUVwT, 9 hours ago
  • "10 show-stopping oud perfumes" (harper's bazaar) https://t.co/3YUmxwkqio,
  • "New scented pencils could put students in the mood to learn" (cbs8) https://t.co/XGYSWpl98S,
  • "9 Special Perfumes Editors Predict Will Be The Next Baccarat Rouge" (refinery29) https://t.co/8ZAHGqlTMX,

Browse by…

Topic

Perfume talk New fragrances
Shopping Books :: News
Body products Home fragrance
Polls Another subject

Date

July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
Prior months

Author

Robin Jessica
Angela Kevin
Erin Guest Author

Tag

Celebrity perfumes
Cheap thrills
Collector bottles
Perfumista tip series
Video
The complete tag index

Recent reviews

Atelier Cologne Love Osmanthus
Moschino Toy Boy
Arquiste Misfit
Diptyque Eau Capitale
Zoologist Bee
Parfum d’Empire Immortelle Corse
Comme des Garcons Series 10 Clash
Frédéric Malle Rose & Cuir
L’Artisan Parfumeur Le Chant de Camargue
Yves Saint Laurent Grain de Poudre
Régime des Fleurs Chloë Sevigny Little Flower
Chanel 1957
Gallivant Los Angeles
Amouage Portrayal Woman

Blogroll

Bois de Jasmin
Grain de Musc
Perfume Posse
The Non-Blonde
More blogs...

Perfumista lists

100 fragrances every perfumista should try
And 25 more fragrances every perfumista should smell
50 masculine fragrances every perfumista should try
26 vintage fragrances every perfumista should try
25 rose fragrances every perfumista should try
11 Cheap Perfumes Beauty Outsiders Love

Favorite posts

The Great Perfume Reduction Plan
Why I Love Old School Chypres
New to perfume and want to learn more?
How to make fragrance last through the day
Fragrance concentrations: sorting it all out
On reformulations, or why your favorite perfume doesn’t smell like it used to
How to get fragrance samples
Perfume for Life: How Long Will Your Fragrance Collection Last?

Upcoming

TBA September ~ fall swapmeet

TBA October ~ fall splitmeet

List of upcoming Friday projects

Back to Top

Home
About Now Smell This :: Privacy Policy

Shop for Perfume Online
Perfume Shopping in New York
Perfume Shopping in London
Perfume Reviews
New Perfumes
General Perfume Articles
The Monday Mail

Glossary of Perfume Terms
Perfume FAQ
Perfume Links
Perfume Books
Fragrance Awards

Noses ~ Perfumers A-E :: F-K :: L-S :: T-Z

Perfume Houses A-B :: C :: D-E :: F-G
H-J :: K-L :: M :: N-O :: P :: Q-R :: S
T :: U-Z

Copyright © 2005-2022 Now Smell This. All rights reserved.