Search Forum
1 - 25 by 34

Your Thoughts on the IFRA?

Your Thoughts on the IFRA? 10 years ago
I've looked around the forum and didn't see a thread on this subject.

Here is a blog article which I think contains a fairly compelling argument for warnings versus banning or restricting certain materials.

http://thescentsofself.com/2012/11/13/in-defen se-of-the-e-u-perfume-regulations/
10 years ago
They are FASCIST!!
Re: Your Thoughts on the IFRA? 10 years ago
Cryptic:
I've looked around the forum and didn't see a thread on this subject.

Here is a blog article which I think contains a fairly compelling argument for warnings versus banning or restricting certain materials.

http://thescentsofself.com/2012/11/13/in-defen se-of-the-e-u-perfume-regulations/

I am rather suspicious of the motives behind reformulation.
Certain nagging contradictions do not make sense to me.
Here's a link to my "Open Letter to the IFRA":

salondeparfum-sherapop.blogspot.com/2012/05/pe ople-with-allergies-do-not-wear.html

Cool
10 years ago
Does beg the question that if many people suffer peanut allergies why they don't ban peanuts?

In regard to the perfume industy, in deciding to prohibit the use of certain substances you have to wonder just whose interests are being upheld.
10 years ago
That was thought-provoking, Sherapop. I don't necessarily agree that people with allergies don't wear perfume, Ari (see my link) and myself, to a lesser extent, being an example of the opposite, but something is certainly afoot with the barrage of IFRA restrictions. I was tempted to start checking my perfumes for BHT, but I decided I'd rather not know.
10 years ago
Interesting article Cryptic, and great letter, Sherapop. I agree warning is definitely the solution, instead of banning. One thing is restriction if the ingredient is, i dont know, endangered, fr example, that makes sense. But otherwise, put a label, a booklet if neccesary, detailing the ingedients. Anyways, the master touch of a genius perfumer is in the proportions, they all use same ingredients, for not talking about this machines that already tell you what does it contain...
10 years ago
I wish we had the option of buying perfumes with banned/restricted elements, provided we were willing to sign a release. I'd do it in a flash. Here in the US, we have to sign a form every time we buy a box of Sudafed, so I'm used to a certain level of regulatory aggravation.
10 years ago
It's all about cold, hard cash. The IFRA owns laboratories that make synthetic perfume ingredients. In banning whichever ingredients that are not manufactured in their labs and forcing perfume creators to use IFRA owned ingredients, they insure themselves wirth huge profit for a long, long time.
Of course, the only way to make that happen was to make sure that the IFRA acquired political clout in order to force perfume makers into compliance.

Interestingly, I had read a very detailed article a couple of years ago about the IFRA's business practices and the reasons behind it. Stupid me, I didn't copy and save the article itself, I only saved the link to it.
The article vanished from the internet several months later. I can't find it anywhere.

The IFRA is in Europe what Monsanto is in the US: Nearly unlimited political clout and total sleaze. Monsanto ruins the food supply for profit, the IFRA ruins the perfume industry for profit.

As for their so called concern for allergies: I have worn vintage classics with absolutely no problems for years, but I have experienced skin reactions after testing some reformulations. I cannot possibly be the only one.
10 years ago
LiliumLibido:

The IFRA is in Europe what Monsanto is in the US: Nearly unlimited political clout and total sleaze. Monsanto ruins the food supply for profit, the IFRA ruins the perfume industry for profit.

Fascinating! Cool
10 years ago
LiliumLibido:
It's all about cold, hard cash. The IFRA owns laboratories that make synthetic perfume ingredients. In banning whichever ingredients that are not manufactured in their labs and forcing perfume creators to use IFRA owned ingredients, they insure themselves wirth huge profit for a long, long time.
Of course, the only way to make that happen was to make sure that the IFRA acquired political clout in order to force perfume makers into compliance.

Wow. Shocked
10 years ago
I'm still trying to find that article, Sherapop, but it seemed to have vanished into thin air, it's reallt weird.
10 years ago
I was also thinking of Montsanto while i was reading you, Lilium. By logic there is a lot of what you are saying, just money and monopoly... but thats me, give me a conspiracy theory and i am in! My question is, is it mandatory that every independent perfume house have to subscribe the IFRA regulations to sell their products, please excuse my ignorance.
10 years ago
Ysbrand:
My question is, is it mandatory that every independent perfume house have to subscribe the IFRA regulations to sell their products, please excuse my ignorance.

I'm fairly certain that they do not. In fact, a group of Indie perfumers banded together a while back and formed something called The Outlaw Scent Project which deliberately flouted the IFRA regs. Gaia had an informative article about it.
http://www.thenonblonde.com/2010/11/outlaw-per fume-revolution-has-started.html
10 years ago
Cryptic:
Ysbrand:
My question is, is it mandatory that every independent perfume house have to subscribe the IFRA regulations to sell their products, please excuse my ignorance.

I'm fairly certain that they do not. In fact, a group of Indie perfumers banded together a while back and formed something called The Outlaw Scent Project which deliberately flouted the IFRA regs. Gaia had an informative article about it.
http://www.thenonblonde.com/2010/11/outlaw-per fume-revolution-has-started.html

Wow that's really cool. I hope it grows.
10 years ago
There was a rumor circulating a few weeks ago about Chanel No.5 being under fire, so this article came as a little bit of good news.

www.nstperfume.com/2012/11/24/false-to-say-tha t-the-european-commission-wants-to-ban-chanel- 5/
10 years ago
As Apicius pointed out on another thread, it's no wonder that the IFRA is eliminating natural substances as potentially allergenic, since the organization is compromised of aromachemical companies with a vested interest in replacing naturals with synthetics. Givaudan, Firmenich, IFF, Robertet ... they're all members. Here's a link:

http://www.ifraorg.org/en-us/ifra_membership_2

Seems a bit like the fox guarding the henhouse to me, and I'd be interested to know how it was possible for this to happen in light of such potential for conflict of interest. More importantly, how is it that the big, influential fragrance houses allowed this to occur? Sorry for the rant.
10 years ago
I think it's stupid.
10 years ago
Here is a short IFRANA (North American branch of the IFRA) propaganda film that cropped up in the Basenotes forum and on Fragrantica's News Page. I'm not sure what the purpose of it is, unless they belatedly realized that the online perfume community is disgruntled and are trying to combat negative perception by making a feel-good video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atT51oBrbwg
10 years ago
This is all about politics and money.
There is no logic behind the ban of certain ingredients.
I mean, for heaven's sake, cigarettes are still sold, no one bans them, and everyone knows there is rat poison in them. It's all about the money...

The logical solution would be to stick a warning label on perfumes, like we can see on cigarettes and alimentary products that contain e.g. peanuts.
Now, how difficult a solution was that to come up with? They mustn't have hurt their brain too much over at the IFRA trying to solve this allergy problem.
10 years ago
IFRA will not bring more health to people, only more money into their pockets Sad

Let´s ban everything that is harmful.....let´s ban life *irony*...I can really see no point in blocking so-called allergants, they could simply put a warning on the INCI´s. This will enable everyone concerned to read the label before applying the juice.

But, well, money has always been a strong motivator for all kinds of cocolores Sad
10 years ago
The issue is more complex than I originally thought. Apparently it is the European Union that is insisting that potential allergens be eliminated from perfume, and synthetics are being targeted along with naturals. The IFRA's problem seems to be an inability to organize its members in opposition to these regulations. Sorry for the confusion.

Here are two informative blogs pieces that discuss the issue in depth:

http://boisdejasmin.com/2012/12/fragrance-regu lations-like-an-atomic-explosion.html
boisdejasmin.com/2012/11/is-chanel-no-5-being- banned.html
10 years ago
I have never, ever run into any human being who was felled by either wearing classic ingredients or being near someone who was.

It's all total bullshit and simply a scheme to corner the market and become more wealthy than they already are.

If somethings barks and wags its tail, more than likely it's a dog folks.
10 years ago
AromiErotici:
I have never, ever run into any human being who was felled by either wearing classic ingredients or being near someone who was.
Sorry Aromi, I am the first then. Testing the discontinued Crown Fougère and Buckingham gave me one day in hospital.
10 years ago
The IFRA is an entity that has raised my blood pressure on several not so wise decisions, beginning with oakmoss and vetiver being dangerous. Why not patcholi? I have had oakmoss on my skin in one form or another since 1977.

Imagine banning rose because it is "dangerous". The ultimate shocker was banning Guerlain's Mahora because it was too provacative. Ultimately, they will self destruct. Once the masses wise up to the synthetic rose water on the market with high pricetags, sales will decline and eventually they will stop. The final blitz is expected next year with a ban on all natural ingredients. What will they micromanage then? The will probably declare all European museums dangerous and begin altering the collections. Perfume is just the tip of the iceburg.

Unfortunately, once the damage is done, most natural ingredients are going to become impossible to produce. Yes, they continue to build condos over the fields in Grasse! Sandalwood, Cedar, frank and myrrh are becoming extinct. The loss is unimaginable.

The IFRA has created the perfect storm for the art of perfumery. Welcome to the 21st Century!

On the other hand, my vintage collection has grown beyond a lifetime of use. I am talking gallons! Had the crisis never began, I would have never hunted down every Guerlain(among others), much less sample and adore them.
10 years ago
Cryptic:
As Apicius pointed out on another thread, it's no wonder that the IFRA is eliminating natural substances as potentially allergenic, since the organization is compromised of aromachemical companies with a vested interest in replacing naturals with synthetics. Givaudan, Firmenich, IFF, Robertet ... they're all members. Here's a link:

http://www.ifraorg.org/en-us/ifra_membership_2

Seems a bit like the fox guarding the henhouse to me, and I'd be interested to know how it was possible for this to happen in light of such potential for conflict of interest. More importantly, how is it that the big, influential fragrance houses allowed this to occur? Sorry for the rant.

This has been my opinion of it for a while now. Nothing to do with protecting people, just pocketbooks.
Display posts from previous:
Forum Overview Miscellaneous Your Thoughts on the IFRA?
1 - 25 by 34
Jump to