When materials like oakmoss extracts are restricted by the exiting [sic] culture of toxicological imperialism on dubious safety grounds (and this applies also to other vital perfume ingredients such as coumarin and citrus oils - see elsewhere), the ‘art of the possible’ in perfumery’ dies back even further, with a result that fragrance companies, instead of vigorously opposing regulatory change, end-up producing cheap, conformist and essentially poor-quality perfumes with little consumer re-purchase potential, for a increasingly non-discerning market slot.
— From Sale / use of fragrant lichen commodities to become virtually illegal in Europe? at the aromaconnection blog, a must-read (albeit, a depressing read) for perfumistas.
It's sort of sad, but I don't know what to think: I can't wear oakmoss/treemoss myself b/c of respiratory irritation. Clearly there's some hope that some intensive work on the part of aromachemicals manufacturers could yield an interesting replacement to oakmoss?? Else I'll just have to keep not wearing dear yatagan…
It's such a shame, but it seems everything disposable these days….
Thank you for posting this Robin. I'm going to grump a little here, in the hopes that it might have an effect, but if you don't think this is an appropriate comment feel free to delete.
I keep thinking that someone should sit down and read all this stuff thoroughly, ask the necessary questions, and get the word out to the interested masses. Then I try to volunteer myself for the job. Then I flee the room. And I'm a determined reader who really cares about the issue.
It's not just the science. It's that they're reporting on a series of political battles between entities who are never fully defined. And sometimes the politics are so thick its hard to find the story. “Culture of toxicological imperialism?” Be still my ex-academic cultural theorist heart.
As I say, I really care about what's happening and I'm grateful for the activists who are battling for our side, but I'd be more likely to help if I could understand them.
I feel for anyone who has problems with oakmoss, but hey, I want mine!! I mean, I'm sympathetic but it seems to me that if you remove every potential allergen from perfume, you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I'd much prefer label warnings.
Yep.
A, I agree wholeheartedly. My eyes glaze over just looking at that article. Someone needs to start a blog that summarizes the issues for perfumistas, who as a group are interested but not likely to care about the politics or the chemistry. But it ain't gonna be me — I'm fleeing the room right after you.
Reposted to remove long link:
On August 29, 2008 Lars Lapsus said:
It is all a bit confusing but I'm glad there seems to be some substance to the article. I don't get the impression that it's just polemics.
I don't know yet what to think. On one hand it's scary how common allergies have become, compared to many decades ago. Apparently, in Germany nowadays up to 15% of all kids starting school have Neurodermatitis and 25 to 30% some pollen allergy, with upward tendency
http://tinyurl.com/68yp33
On the other hand: if the concerning substances were stated on the label people allergic towards it could avoid them, you don't have to ban them altogether… garlic isn't banned either although there are quite some people with big time allergic reaction to it.
I really think if they find out about phototoxic potentials of a substance the customer should be advised not to use it on skin exposed to sun. I heard that a lot of substances are phototoxic when on skin exposed to sun – I mean, the sun alone is phototoxic if you want!!! toasters aren't banned either just because burned cereals are carcinogenic.
I just DO NOT WANT to imagine an EdCologne without real citrus…
Lars,
As far as I 'm concerned, put warning labels all over them. I'm guessing more people face serious health risks from peanut butter than do from fragrance…
And obviously not scientific, but I wear citrus in the sun all summer long, and never had a single problem. Again, a label seems sufficient to me — let people decide what they want to do and what risks they are willing to take.
I seriously don't understand why the fragrance companies are doing nothing at all to stop this.
Is there anything at all that at least a few people aren't allergic to? I just don't think that it is right or fair to restrict the use of an ingredient due to the fact that a small portion of the poplation have issues with it. Otherwise, where does the regulation stop? People that have allergies will generally be aware of their need for care and will take steps to avoid using products containing these allergens.
the annoying thing about trying to remove citrus oils from perfume due to photosensitivity issues is the fact that the alcohol that it is used as a base to almost all perfumes is in itself causes photo sensitivity. Basically, it can cause skin discolouration and burning in the sun but it is a no brainer really. All you need to do is spray it on skin that isn't exposed to the sun and you are fine! Do we really need to regulate on EVERY LITTLE THING that may harm us? Soon we will be wrappned in hypoallergenic, non bleached cotton wool, lest we injure ourselves in any way! Geeze, is it just me, or has the world gone mad?
I totally agree with you both, I don't think the issue receives the depth of coverage necessary for us to make an informed decision about it.
And now I'm racing you to the door, and abdicating responsibility ;-)/
The world has gone mad…
From the looks of things, the regulations won't stop until perfumes are entirely synthetic — no natural materials at all.