questionsdo you think fragrance makers should have to list…

vote-for26vote-against
vote-for13vote-against

Aside from having a consumer compiled list, probably not. I'm sure that perfume companies could be convinced to put warning labels on their products for allergy purposes, but a full list of ingredients is unlikely.

If you know any particular brands, I would send them an email suggesting it, or if you have one in mind you're unsure of, send an email asking if anything you're allergic to is present in the product.

vote-for6vote-against

Unfortunately this is the kind of thing that has to be handled on a case by case basis. Although some ingredients could be considered "harmful," there are many people who aren't affected by the ingredients, and care more about how it smells than what it's made of. From a business stand point, they would lose a lot of potential customers if a complete list and warnings were present on every bottle. Of course in my personal opinion I believe as consumers we should have access to that information, but it would make more sense for them to have a website with a search feature so you can look up whatever fragrance you are interested in and check the ingredients yourself. The truth is, many people don't care so it isn't in their best interest to put unwanted warnings on the bottle itself :/

vote-for5vote-against

@dows: I don't think so. Soda carries the warning "Phenylketonurics - contains phenylalanine" and I don't think it affects their sales. Fragrance makes could just put it in the fine print, so only the people who already to know to look for it would be really see it.

vote-for5vote-against

I think they should, but there's a bigger issue. If department stores would give you some other way to enter their stores than through a cloud of perfume-stink, then we could move on to complaining about which brand contains what. As it is, you're bombarded with all of them just trying to get to the clothing section.

vote-for4vote-against

I do think they should.But they won't, unless laws change. They consider their ingredients to be proprietary. They don't want to make it easier for knock offs. And they also don't want to scare you away !
Sort of like the secret recipe for Col. Sanders . or Classic Coke.

Here is a decent article in Scientific America
about secret ingredients in perfumes, and why they are able to get away with not listing everything that is in the bottle.
It's also tells about some of their own tests that found some very unfriendly secret ingredients. Don't worry, it's actually a rather succinct article.

vote-for5vote-against

I think most things should have ingredient labels. I think "natural flavors/scent" shouldn't be allowed - that label is used to cover many, many horrifying things.

vote-for4vote-against

Of course not. The ingredients of many juices are trade secrets. No way should they be required to list them and make it easier for bootleggers to make knock-off juice.
The cosmetics industry is highly regulated. If there was something around that was giving people cancer or something, it wouldn't be in cosmetics for long.
Just because something has a long, unfamiliar, scientific name doesn't make it harmful.

vote-for3vote-against

@stryker4526: The fragrance industry is almost completely unregulated and the ingredients that are used don't stand up to scrutiny. Depending on brand name or generic products there is methanol, formaldehyde and many other chemicals being used to preserve and create long lasting scents. The essential oils in themselves are usually not bad for you but there is no rule that says they can't add toxic chemicals to improve the longevity of the scent.

vote-for1vote-against

@mybestuser1: The fragrance industry is regulated by the FDA. They are just not required to individually list fragrance blends, as it should be.

Regarding the toxic chemicals... pure water is toxic as well, in high enough doses. So is oxygen.
Haven't you ever heard the phrase "the dose makes the poison?"

vote-for5vote-against

As someone who works in a flavor house, I can assure you that adding an ingredient panel to fragrances accomplishes absolutely nothing in favor of the consumer.

It's not all "lavender oil" or "essence of bergamot."

You'll see stuff like linalool, cis-3 hexanol, or d-limonene. I understand what those compounds are because I work in the industry. To the layman, it's just another scary term.

Even if you're allergic or sensitive to it, you'll just experience irritation. Nothing life threatening like anaphylaxic shock. So it's not really worth it if someone's life is in danger.

You can go ahead and pass a law requiring the labeling. I'm not against it. I'm all for the consumer's right to know. But you'll see MANY more stories like this:

http://goo.gl/OT7XG

"OMG, MY FOOD AS PROPYLENE GLYCOL IN IT! ISN'T THAT WHAT'S IN ANTI-FREEZE?!"
"Yeah, it's a flavor carrier and isn't toxic in the doses present in food. What's your point?"

TL;DR - pointless to label, accomplishes nothing.

vote-for2vote-against

@stryker4526: The dose is not a problem when the exposures are cumulative, It is the buildup of toxins from repeated exposures that is. I used to be able to wear aftershave but now I get allergic reactions from all of the products that I used to wear. PS I bought major brand names and not fake products.

vote-for1vote-against

@justagigilo85: Propylene glycol is toxic and as you say it probably won't harm anyone in the amounts in the food but it is cumulative unless it is consumed with alcohol(the antidote) or alcohol is present in the digestive system. There is no reason to panic but it still is a questionable ingredient and I avoid such products.

vote-for1vote-against

@mybestuser1: Cumulative exposure is only a problem for things that actually accumulate on the skin (in the case of fragrances) or in the tissue (in the case of foods and such). Fairly certain propylene glycol exposure isn't cumulative, and if you shower well hey, neither is fragrance.
As for the change in your skin, it happens. I used to not have sensitive facial skin. Now I do. It happened as I got older and at around the same point that it happened to my mother. Your body chemistry changes over time, but that doesn't mean that there's some scary "cumulative exposure" limit on things like aftershave or fragrance.
By the way, if you're talking about traditional aftershave splash, that's mostly alcohol with some fragrance, essential, or synthetic oils mixed in in very small quantities for smell. If you mean balm, well that's just scented lotion.
There's also the chance that you were exposed to a sensitizer elsewhere, leading to an allergic reaction with another product.

vote-for1vote-against

By the way, regarding propylene glycol:
It's not cumulative. We metabolize it.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/fcnDetailNavigation.cfm?rpt=scogsListing&id=262
A little self-education about big scary names goes a long way.

vote-for1vote-against

@stryker4526: You are right about skin exposure not being an effective delivery system for toxic chemicals but in the case of perfumes, aftershaves etc. the lungs are very effective at delivering the chemicals directly in to the blood stream so if you can smell it you are being exposed. Inhalation of toxic substances is dangerous. PS propylene glycol while not very dangerous requires alcohol to metabolize.

vote-for2vote-against

no, if you don't want to buy it because of that then don't. When left alone, the market eventually weeds out what people don't like.

vote-for2vote-against

@thedogma: soda is a food regulated by the FDA, cosmetics are not a food that you consume.

vote-for1vote-against

@kamikazeken: It is not that I don't like fragrances, it is the violent cough attacks I get from the wrong chemicals in a few of them since some of the chemicals break down into formaldehyde in the air. Thankfully My usual reaction to a fragrance is a stuffy nose and if it is on my skin a red rash.

vote-for2vote-against

@stryker4526: Thanks for posting that link to the FDA's website. I knew PG isn't toxic in normal levels but 6g per kg of body weight being toxic is laughable. You have to be intentionally consuming PG to reach that.

@mybestuser1: Here's another interesting fact for ya. Alcohol (usually ethanol) is also used as a flavor carrier and when total alcohol is below 0.5% by volume, it does not have to be labeled as such. :]

vote-for2vote-against

@mybestuser1: Stop being misleading. You make it sound like you need to ingest spirits or something to metabolize PG.
Propylene glycol is metabolized by alcohol dehydrogenase, or ADH, an enzyme naturally present in the human liver.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=12&po=14
Propylene glycol is not toxic unless you somehow manage to ingest huge amounts of the stuff.

vote-for1vote-against

They have hundreds of years of tradition of keeping hush on ingredients. Sperm whale vomit as a primary ingredient just was not a big selling point.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/31/tech/social-media/apparently-matters-bellini-whale/index.html?iref=allsearch

vote-for1vote-against

The question is still about ingredients in fragrances and the need to itemize the ingredients in order to be able to avoid chemicals like formaldehyde, Toluene (methyl benzene), ACETONE, BENZALDEHYDE, BENZYL ACETATE , BENZYL ALCOHOL , CAMPHOR , ETHANOL, ETHYL ACETATE , LIMONENE , LINALOOL and METHYLENE CHLORIDE. Sorry about the shouting but I was pasting from a document with capital letters only. PS inhaling any of these chemicals can have nasty side effects, then again Ethanol could be nice.