This month Mid Brain reports on new cosmetic science stories while the Left and Right Brains take time off to work on the new Beauty Brains book.
Mid Brain reports:
The International Fragrance Association (IFRA) has decided to limit how much jasmine is allowed in perfumes and fragrances for beauty products. While critics say this could drastically change the scent of some of the world’s most famous perfumes, the organization is concerned about the high numbers of products that cause rashes and other skin reactions because of jasmine.
I think this is a good example of how the cosmetic industry polices itself. Putting safety first is an important decision and should be applauded.
Loading ...
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
I disagree. While jasmine can certainly cause irritation in people who are allergic to it, it shouldn’t be limited or controlled. I felt the same way about oakmoss. I am personally sensitive to jasmine and you know what? I don’t buy jasmine-scented things! I check the label, and if I’m not sure, I ask a sales associate. It’s as easy as that. I would understand if, you know, jasmine caused cancer or some sort of other life-threatening disease, but if we start banning or limiting EVERY fragrance that causes a reaction (nearly all of them do), we will wind up with very little to no scented cosmetics industry. I mean, I know plenty of people who have reactions to just general fragrance or “parfum” in bath and body products, so while we’re at it, why don’t we ban fragrance all together? Here’s a solution: put a warning on the label like they do with peanuts. If you have a reaction to jasmine, then you can just not buy it or sniff it. There’s no need to change entire iconic scents by telling people what FLOWER they can or can’t use in their perfume.
I disagree as well. This is completely ridiculous. If we banned everything that ever caused any reaction there’d be nothing left. If a purely *non-essential* product causes sensitivity DO NOT USE IT. Perfume isn’t soap, and it’s not required in your daily routine. I’m intolerant to gluten but I don’t expect the world to ban it from everything, nor would I even suggest such a thing. Not everyone can use everything and that’s okay with me.
I agree that most legitimate efforts for industry self-regulation should be applauded. But the IFRA usage suggestions are not such a case. If you investigate this whole debacle you’ll find that it began as a minor issue trumped up by opportunists in Brussels looking to make names for themselves in EU bureaucratic circles. The whole thing snowballed and now ingredients that cause problems for only the tiniest fraction of consumers are being over-regulated in the interest of “public health”. The Beauty Brains are constantly debunking hysterical beauty myths like cosmetics that cause fluctuations in hormones or deodorant’s supposed link to cancer. If you do some more investigation on the EU’s allergen regulations and IFRA’s subsequent suggestions you’ll find the same sort of story.
I am sensitive to certain fragrances, and it can be very challenging to find fragrance-free products if I want to go beyond the basics. I live in an area without a lot of in-store options, and on-line the ingredients lists can be skimpy or nonexistent. If certain fragrances are known to be common culprits, it sure would be helpful to flag them at least!
Kathryn: While I certainly agree that fragrance as an additive in other products should be optional and clearly labeled, I think the IFRA regulations are specifically geared toward stand-alone perfumes.
The EU seems determined to put the perfume industry out of business and the perfume industry doesn’t seem to object. Stock up on your favorites now; they might be gone or altered beyond recognition in the future.
I wonder how many people would rush to agree with the banning of jasmine if the Brains ran this story with the chemical name of the compound that produces the scent instead of calling it “jasmine?”
“Ban jasmine” and “ban hexachlorocarboniferacious phosphate-17″ (made that up) would probably get wildly different reactions.
Seriously — suddenly the potential LIFETHREATENING!!!!ZOMG!!!!!!!!!! aspects of chemical sensitivities mean so much less when it’s a pretty little white flower causing it. Put a long strong of o-chem prefixed in front of a number, and all of a suddent scare stories about how something that is spelled almost the same caused cancer in babies.
“Rush to disagree” sorry …
Does this mean that those products with Jasmine will increase in price? Will there be a need to invest time, effort and of course money into improving the synthetic options of the scent so to improve the products that use it? Will there be an increase in import tariffs and taxes? sooo many thoughts involving the various stop points between product and consumer come to mind after reading this…
As co-author of PERFUMES: THE GUIDE (there’s my disclaimer) and as a person who suffers skin sensitivity issues (have had eczema, asthma, and general allergies on and off since infancy) I want to express my opinion, on what has otherwise been a wonderfully sensible blog that I’ve been quietly following, that the IFRA regulations on jasmine and other things are not *really* about public safety so much as they are about the bottom line.
Please remember IFRA is an industry self-regulatory body and its interests are, above all, the industry’s own. What the industry wants to avoid at all costs is listing out all the ingredients in fragrance. That’s why when you look on product labels you see “fragrance” included as a single vague entity: the self-regulatory process exempts fragrance manufacturers from revealing formulas. They can therefore sell a good-smelling “fragrance” to, for example, a manufacturer of scented tissues or lotions or deodorants, without divulging the recipe. Making the recipe public would give the tissue/lotion/deodorant-maker the option of compounding the fragrance themselves, thereby wrecking perfume industry profits.
If IFRA were really on the consumer’s side, all the ingredients would be listed so we could learn by trial and error what to avoid. Instead, by making a big show of rigorously testing and restricting separate materials so they couldn’t possibly cause rashes (since rashy users might discontinue buying the tissue/lotion/deodorant), the fragrance industry retains its right to sell mystery product.
However, IFRA regulates both fine (Joy) and functional (Downy April Fresh) fragrance. I think it’s idiotic to take the jasmine out of Joy (which has harmed whom, exactly?) in order to sell barrels of April Fresh. After all, you can do as I do when I love a perfume that might irritate: I spray it on the outside of my sleeves or I mist a little on the pillows. We test perfumes in stores already: you can test a patch, wait 24 hours, and if no rash occurs go for it, just as you do with every other cosmetic, just as you do with haircolor if you follow the box instructions. When a face cream or hair conditioner makes me itchy (very common in my life) I return it or give it away. I see no reason it can’t be the same with perfume. You can in fact buy jasmine essential oil and slather it on yourself all you like. That’s still legal. And in fact you can put IFRA-restricted materials above IFRA levels in all manner of products, it seems, since I am now finding “natural” cosmetics chock full with things like lavender oil (aka almost pure linalool), oak extract, lemongrass (aka almost pure citronellal), rose oil (often loads of eugenol, citronellal, linalool, what have you) and so on, which have been promoted as part of the base product and no longer “fragrance,” even though they probably do little besides lend a smell. But if I want my old Diorissimo (gorgeous lily-of-the-valley perfume from mid-century) I have to hit the antique stores and estate sales, even if it never gave me a rash. Tell me why this is fair.
I do get cheesed off when perfume turns up in things for which it is not essential. If I want to use the latest greatest face cream and I get a reaction, the dermatologists always assure me it’s probably due to “fragrance” (which is like being allergic to “food”, given that the mixtures are all different) until I find out much later by trial and error it’s lanolin or sesame oil or one of the millions of silly botanical extracts (grapefruit peel, lemon oil, clary sage, clove) they put in products so they can claim natural essential oils are responsible for the effect (when it’s probably the dimethicone, petrolatum, and tocopherol).
And that is the end of my very personal rant.
This is like some of Australia’s nanny state laws, where people are freed from thinking for themselves and so restricted that you can’t buy Grand Theft Auto in the video game stores there, lol. Seriously, if you don’t like something or don’t have a good reaction to it, leave it alone. As long as others are not being hurt by the manufacturing or sale of it, then let those who are being hurt make the choice to stay away. Don’t ruin our favourite products for those who don’t know better.
Personally, I have a violent & painful reaction to nickel. I can’t wear the funky jewellery that most clothing stores have or even wear white gold, as it contains nickel. I know not to buy it, but I won’t campaign for it to be banned.
can it work with fack hair
Everyone reacts differently to different things. They shouldn’t outlaw something like that. My grandmother is allergic to Aloe Vera, but its very soothing to my skin. Pantene gives me a rash, but am I campaigning to get it outlawed? No, i just don’t use it. Come on, people, get a life.
Oh, and i personally love the scent of Jasmine.
I disagree with the author and I disagree with jasmine restrictions by the IFRA. It’s complete nonsense . The worthwhile points have already been made by Tania Sanchez whom I DO agree with.
I echo all she has said.