Random blabbering in defense of natural ingredients

I read an article today which featured a natural perfumer reduced to having to defend the very artistic value of all-botanical perfume.
Art value aside, we are pretty much between a rock and a hard place with even semi-synthetic fragrance. How long do we have left before it's ALL banned but the chemical soup?

Hence the question. Is there anything being actually done to protect the right to use naturals? The corporations gain on the botanicals all the time. Starting with fake trendsetters denouncing natural perfumery and all the way to the biggest chemo-lobby scam, the IFRA.

“Research” is being constantly done to ban natural raw material as allergens etc.
Does anyone know of any well founded, scientifically based counter evidence published as to the far greater harm inflicted by all those endless cheap aromachemicals forced upon us? I would be thrilled to see some.

Pictures feature the beautiful Alexandra Balahoutis of Strange Invisible Perfumes and distillation process at SIP, and belong to Ms. Balahoutis.

I strongly feel that people ought to be able to buy all natural ingredient perfumes if that is their choice.

As long as labels are accurate, there is no danger with this.

If you know what you are allergic to, (and if you are allergic to the point of anaphylaxis, you DEFINITELY KNOW what you are allergic to,) then there is no problem.

Here are Damascus Roses before hydrodistillation:

The interests of allery sufferers cannot be put aside - although the IFRA is only using these arguments for their own interests.

Personally, I have problems with hayfever. It is not a big deal. My desensibilization was rather successful although it was a bit annoying to get it done.

Very theoratically, I am continously at risk of live-threatening asthma attacks - but one day in hospital was all that I had to pay for my curiosity for frangrances so far.

If the authorities protect me from getting into contact with oakmoss and other fragrant substances, why don't they protect me the same way from getting into contact with highly allergenous food: strawberries, carrots, apples, peaches, abricots, hazelnuts, raw soy products such as soy milk and many others?

FloraMilena, those roses are so beautiful! I want to bury my face in that heap and just breathe their aroma!

I wonder if our cries are even being heard, you know? For years the perfume community has been suggesting extensive labelling, all to no avail. I wouldn't fall out of love if my favorite perfume had a label slapped on like a pack of cigarettes! In fact, I would welcome that as a means to prevent that 5% of population from getting sick. Of course the chemical lobby profits so much more by just restricting and banning everything beautiful and natural and swapping it out for their chemicals...

Apicius, I agree on the need to address the issue of allergens, and like FloraMilena says, people know when they are allergic. Many food labels have warnings about "traces of nuts", milk etc. Nobody just goes and bans peanuts or shellfish because they are allergens to certain people. And I never heard of anyone dying of Oakmoss overdose, whereas peanuts have been fatal on more than one occasion.

And synthetic musks found in women's breast milk?! That's just so completely appalling, and yet it's become the norm, since all the seafood we eat swims in rivers and seas filled with the stuff that's used as odorant in our detergents. Those molecules, as everyone knows, are engineered to endure and just don't degrade too easily. There's no conclusive evidence of their effect on health and development of breast-fed children, and we don't see IFRA rushing to present any.

Only a member of IFRA has to comply to IFRAs rules. If the perfumer is not a member then they can use whatever they like. The more people who obey, then the stronger the rule becomes. We should be safeguarding the freedom of ingredients with a label saying what is inside. Then the consumer has the full choice whether to buy or not.

The beauty of natural perfumery is already in grave danger with this over regulation.

I don't think this is correct. As far as I know the IFRA regulations are directly transferred or part of the European legislation. No globally active perfume house who wants to engage itself in the European market is ignoring that.

And this is why IFRA regulations should concern you even if you do not live within the European community.

Anyone can potentially be sensitive to any substance.

Anyone can potentially develop sensitivity to any substance.

So then if we had to consider every substance that could be a possible irritant, all commerce would end. It's just not realistic.

If you have anaphylactic potential to things, then you should be on a daily dose of antihistimines and carry an epipen with you at all times. Each person should take precautions for themselves. I think as adults we have this responsibility.

I had a friend who had alaphylactic reactions to oranges. She never went to the produce section in the grocery store, always a friend went. We were careful at work not to eat oranges when she was there. Just smelling the torn rind could close off her airway.

Everyone cannot live in a plastic bubble though. It's not realistic to expect this type of protection out in public.

This is a fascinating topic and I've been wrestling with the various sides of the debate in my own mind this whole week after discovering how much I and apparently everyone else I come into contact with) love a particular totally synthetic musk and some other totally synthetic creations. Yet, I don't want to give myself or a loved one cancer, asthma or sneezing fits over a fragrance. So then I started to research all sorts of more "natural ingredient" options from the houses of Strange Invisible Perfumes, Trance Essence, EBBA, Honore de Pres, etc. But I can't say I like any of these offerings enough to buy them- still searching for a good balance between less toxic and what I actually like to smell, so far they just don't work for me...it's quite a conundrum.

I am afraid it is, Apicius.
"Abiding by the IFRA Code of Practice is a prerequisite for all fragrance supplier companies that are members of IFRA".
Source: www.ifraorg.org/en-us/code-of-practice#.UhOZMH 9TCuY
Whether or not non-members actually choose to not comply with the Code of Practice, is a different matter.

Except for the ban of Musk xylene via REACH, IFRA restrictions are neither directly transferred to nor part of EU law. On the contrary, the current EU regulation relevant for perfume, Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, is significantly less rigorous than IFRA restrictions when it comes to allergens. (Though still debatable when expecting sane regulation. For an excellent analysis refer to this article.)

The IFRA may, however, have influenced the SCCS's (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) "Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products" to some extent, which the Commission consults prior to deciding on new laws for cosmetic products. Above Opinion has been produced in 2012 and is potentially new legislation.

So is it fair to say that you all believe in the IFRA-aromachemical company conspiracy?

Nope, I do not.