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.

Of the 50 products randomly tested from around the world as part of the IFRA Compliance Program’s third cycle (May 2008 to April 2009) one finished product has been identified as containing a recently banned fragrance material. [...]

“This is the first time we have identified a banned fragrance material in the three years of running the Compliance Program,” explained Jean-Pierre Houri, IFRA Director General. “Since the material has only recently been banned it is possible that the finished product is part of batch that is simply running its course through the retail pipeline...”

— From Fragrance industry spots non-compliant product at IFRA. Most unfortunately, they don't name the product or we could all run out and buy a bottle.

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.