...I've often wondered about the actual safety of the chemical replacements being required by the IFRA for the allergins being replaced.Has anyone seen any articles on this subject? I did read about the BHT.In general though, it seems to me when a chemical is created to replace a naturally occurring substance, how can it be adequately tested to assure that it is indeed safer than the substance being replaced? Assuming some testing is being done, how could the testing have been for long term side effects? Many natural substances have been used for over 100 years. How long do they test these chemicals? Some of the natural substances being replaced were used by individuals for 70 and 80 years. They can't possibly be testing the effects of using these chemicals for 70 or 80 years because if they did they would still be in the early stages of testing.I remember when margarine was healthy, avocado and nuts were unhealthy and fattening, fatty fish like salmon was considered inferior to lean fish.I think some of us are going to be really upset in 20 or 30 years when we find out that some of these chemicals are less healthy than the natural substances they are replacing. What if "irritants" are being replaced with (as yet unknown) carcinogens? What if long term absorption of these chemicals through the skin ends up increasing your odds of getting Alzhimers? Or Arthritis? or Parkinsons? Think of how many drugs have had to be recalled over the years because it turns out they had unknown side effects or were just plain dangerous. They were all "tested" before being released. By drug companies that sponsored their testing. I don't trust the testing of these chemical replacements to be truly objective and thorough.

...I think it's real. I've bought one of those off of ebay and mine sure smells real.