Article Start
A study was released by Anne Steinemann, a researcher at the University of Washington claiming fragrance ingredients contained in a selection of consumer products are potentially toxic. The fragrance materials industry has the highest concern for the safety of its products.

We have a sound four-step safety testing process. RIFM, the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (an internationally recognized scientific body), examines multiple endpoints and exposure for fragrance materials destined for use in consumer products. RIFM's findings are evaluated by the RIFM Expert Panel (REXPAN), an independent and international group of dermatologists, pathologists, environmental scientists and toxicologists who have no ties to the fragrance industry. REXPAN's findings are in turn used by IFRA, the International Fragrance Association, to develop standards on fragrance material usage. The IFRA Standards form the basis of the globally accepted and recognized risk management system for the safe use of fragrance ingredients and are part of the comprehensive program contained in the IFRA Code of Practice. As a result the IFRA Code of Practice contains about 150 substances which have been either banned or restricted in their use in fragrance products. All members of the Fragrance Materials Association of the United States (FMA) are required, as a condition of membership, to observe the IFRA Code of Practice. The fragrance industry spends approximately $8 million (annually) in joint research on the safety of fragrances, and much more at the individual company level.

The Steinemann study presents no new data or breakthrough analysis. Furthermore, while Steinemann clearly states the study does not address links between exposure to chemicals and health effects, she goes ahead and makes that assertion anyway. She claims that, simply because certain chemicals are present in the analyzed products they pose a health risk to all consumers. This is hardly sound science, but rather more like crystal ball gazing and cannot be compared to the sound, independent four-step safety testing process outlined above which is carried out by the fragrance industry.

Steinemann says she's concerned about "potential toxicity" of the chemicals found in the tested products. The concept of "potentially" hazardous is so broad that it may encompass any naturally occurring material in commerce. Many chemicals, including water, have no harmful effects at low concentrations, but may be "potentially toxic" at high concentrations. We are certain that, when used in compliance with Standards, the materials which are listed by Steinemann and used as fragrance ingredients are safe and can be used (if desired) with confidence.

The study found 58 different volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at levels above a concentration of 300 parts per billion but did not list the concentration of each chemical. To put this in context, 300 parts per billion is just above the level of analytical detection for these materials. Ingredients which sound scary when listed by their chemical names are materials that occur naturally in everyday items, often in much larger quantities than may be used in fragranced products. Some examples include: alpha-Pinene (pine forests); Acetone (cheddar cheese, apple juice, strawberries); 2- Butanone (coffee, citrus fruit, grapes); Benzaldehyde (white bread - at >40,000 ppm, roasted coffee - at 2,000 ppm, apple juice - at around 300 ppm); Ethanol (blackberries, cauliflower, cherries, cucumbers); Ethyl acetate( honey, tomatoes, vinegar).

It would be folly to declare the numerous pine forests lining the west and east coasts toxic or hazardous just because they give off the VOC, alpha-pinene. Even more folly to put a hazard warning on a tomato which naturally contains 8501 parts per million of benzaldehye. Or even to require forests and tomatoes to be labeled with their constituent chemicals. So why does Steinemann want the fragrance industry to label the very low levels of these same chemicals when contained in our products, and why does she impute that these chemicals are hazardous when clearly that is not the case?

We recognize that a small number of individuals may experience sensitivity to certain materials in the environment, both natural and man-made. People who experience such sensitivity to consumer products can choose to avoid using the products. We respect that right to choose and only ask that all people - including those who choose to use fragranced products - are afforded the same privilege. Consumers can get information through various consumer products websites such as the Consumer Specialty Products Association, Soap and Detergent Association, Personal Care Product Council and other consumer websites. Consumer product companies will answer specific questions about their end use products, especially if there is a health concern. In turn, raw material suppliers will provide information to their customer companies for consumer questions. Each fragrance supplier has a designated regulatory contact who will supply dermatologists and other medical professionals with otherwise private information to assist in the diagnosis and treatment of an individual's personal situation.