Are Toxic Fragrances Making You Sick?
By Brian Joseph, FairWarning
For Joyce Miller, one sniff of scented laundry detergent can trigger an asthma attack.
“What happens is I feel like someone is standing on my chest," the 57-year-old professor of library science in upstate New York said. “It's almost like a choking feeling—pressure and choking. And then the coughing starts."
Miller is among the many Americans sensitive to “fragrance," the cryptic ingredient added to thousands of products, from cleaning supplies to toiletries. The term encompasses thousands of combinations of chemicals that give consumer goods their pleasant odors. But specific chemicals in any given product rarely are disclosed to consumers.
For decades, fragrance makers have insisted on treating their recipes as trade secrets, even as complaints about negative health effects have become more common. A 2009 study, for example, found that more than a quarter of Americans were irritated by the smell of scented products on other people while 19 percent experienced headaches or breathing difficulties from air fresheners.
The industry, with estimated global sales of $40 billion per year, says that it ensures the safety of fragrances through a rigorous system of self-regulation administered by its trade group, the International Fragrance Association. But a tiny women's advocacy organization in Missoula, Montana, recently outlined what it says are troubling flaws in the industry's science as well as scores of toxic chemicals used in its mixtures.
The industry association's North American branch declined to speak to FairWarning about the findings. Chemical giant BASF, an association member, also declined comment. Calls to four other members—Phoenix Aromas & Essential Oils, Premier Specialties, Flavor & Fragrance Specialties Inc. and Bedoukian Research—were not returned.
“There's a real kind of state of ignorance on the part of scientists, on the part of researchers, on the part of consumers, on what is in fragrance and how safe fragrances are for your health," Alexandra Scranton, the director of science and research at Women's Voices for the Earth, a nonprofit seeking to eliminate toxic chemicals that predominately affect women, said. “We were trying to pick apart the claim that the industry is making that they are ensuring the safety of fragrance."
Questions about the safety of fragrances are not new. A 2005 California law, the California Safe Cosmetics Act, requires cosmetics manufacturers to report any products that contain ingredients known or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm. The data is posted on a website at safecosmetics.cdph.ca.gov. However, the public database does not list ingredients identified as trade secrets, including fragrances. The program also has met with complaints from experts that some cosmetics firms failed to report their ingredients.
At the federal level, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Consumer Products Safety Commission have limited oversight of fragrances. The FDA, which has authority over cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients, doesn't require cosmetics makers to prove their products or ingredients are safe before putting them on the market. It's up to the agency to prove harm before a product can be pulled from the shelves. The FDA also requires cosmetics to list their ingredients, but allows a trade secret exemption for chemicals deemed to be fragrance or flavor.
Meanwhile, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has authority over other scented products, such as laundry detergents and air fresheners. The commission, however, does not have an active program to screen fragrances.
“Government has failed to provide a real regulator," which is a problem, Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, said. “There are plenty of examples of where counting on the good graces of industry has wound up being a mistake."
In 2008, Women's Voices began pressing the industry to reveal the specific ingredients. Two years later, the International Fragrance Association posted on its website a list of some 3,000 chemicals used by its members.
Late last year, Women's Voices published a review of those chemicals, finding that a large number of them appear on official lists of hazardous chemicals or are banned or restricted in consumer products. For example, a comprehensive classification of chemical hazards adopted by the United Nations tags 1,175 chemicals on the fragrance list with the word “warning" and labels another 190 fragrance chemicals as a “danger," according to Women's Voices.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, classifies seven fragrance chemicals as possible carcinogens in humans, the organization said. Fifteen chemicals on the fragrance association's list are barred from use in cosmetics in the European Union, Women's Voices said.
Scranton, who authored the Women's Voices study, is careful to note that the industry's list gives no indication of how much these chemicals are used, making it difficult to know if consumers are in actual danger.
“When I see styrene (a possible carcinogen) on the list of chemicals in fragrance, that's a red flag," she said. “Is it only used very, very rarely, in very small amounts? Possibly and maybe it's not as much of a problem. Is it used in every fragrance that you come across? Then it's going to be a problem."
In a brief paper available on its website, the fragrance association touts the industry's ability, through self regulation, to ensure “the highest levels of safety of fragranced products." It says the industry can adapt to new scientific findings “more quickly and efficiently through self-regulation as opposed to diverse legislation in different countries on different continents."
The industry association works with its research arm, the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, to produce standards that it says are based on science. Women's Voices, however, says there are several shortcomings in the system.
For one, the group maintains that the vast majority of scientific studies exploring fragrance safety are produced by fragrance houses themselves or the industry's research institute. Rarely are these studies published or even peer reviewed, the organization says. No one is independently reviewing laboratory practices or levels of significance or ensuring “that the results of these studies have not been manipulated," Women's Voices said.
Over the last year, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety reviewed studies by the research institute and repeatedly noted failings in the institute's methods, including incomplete data and invalid protocols.
Women's Voices also says that an independent expert panel that reviews the industry's research bases its safety opinions on information curated by the fragrance industry itself. The expert panel meets in secret and no transcripts or meeting minutes are publicly available, Women's Voices said.
“The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials is like a black box," Janet Nudelman, the director of program and policy for the Breast Cancer Fund and the director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, said. “They attempt to assure the public that they have the safety of fragrance chemicals under control, that they're looking at all of the safety data regarding fragrance chemicals. But none of their safety studies are publicly available."
The industry has either banned or restricted the use of 186 substances in fragrance products. But Women's Voices says the industry does little to ensure that its standards are actually being followed.
The fragrance industry has not commented directly on Women's Voices' research, but a few days after the organization released its report in November, the research institute put out a statement saying “the industry is committed to addressing consumers' interests through a continuous health and environmental safety review."
The industry, however, remains opposed to greater transparency of its ingredients. In California, the industry association has opposed Assembly Bill 708, by Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, a Los Angeles Democrat, which would require cleaning products to disclose their ingredients on their product labels. In a letter, the industry said it was worried about counterfeiters.
“It would be very helpful if companies could list on labels the chemicals that they use for their fragrances," Miller, the professor from the Glens Falls area of New York who suffers from fragrance sensitivity, said. “Fragrance is not just some pretty concept. It actually can be a fairly nasty combination of chemicals."
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Eleven peaceful activists from the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise have taken to the water in inflatable boats with handheld banners to oppose the Statoil Songa Enabler oil rig, 275 km North off the Norwegian coast, in the Arctic Barents sea.
The banners say: "People Vs. Arctic Oil" and are directed at Statoil and the Norwegian government, which has opened a new, aggressive search for oil in the waters of the Barents Sea.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) paved the way Friday for the 600-mile, 42-inch fracked gas Atlantic Coast Pipeline to proceed when it issued the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). A joint project of utility giants Duke Energy and Dominion Energy, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline would move fracked gas from West Virginia into Virginia and North Carolina.
In April, the Sierra Club submitted more than 500 pages of legal and technical comments on FERC's draft EIS, which were joined by more than 18,000 individual comments detailing opposition to the project. The pipeline has been met with widespread opposition, with more than 1,000 people participating in public hearings across the three affected states. The Sierra Club recently requested that FERC issue a new environmental review document analyzing information that came in after or late in, the public comment process.
By Jessica Corbett
"It's time Rex Tillerson step down or be removed," said Gigi Kellett of Corporate Accountability International, following an announcement on Thursday that ExxonMobil will pay $2 million for violating U.S. sanctions against Russian officials while the now-secretary of state was the company's CEO.
"ExxonMobil demonstrated reckless disregard for U.S. sanction requirements," according to enforcement filing released by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which issued the penalty. Though the fine is reportedly the maximum penalty allowed, it's pittance to one of the world's most profitable and powerful corporations, which last year reported a profit of $7.8 billion.
New analysis from Amory B. Lovins debunks the notion that highly unprofitable, economically distressed nuclear plants should be further subsidized to meet financial, security, reliability and climate goals. The analysis, which will appear shortly in The Electricity Journal, shows that closing costly-to-run nuclear plants and reinvesting their saved operating costs in energy efficiency provides cheaper electricity, increases grid reliability and security, reduces more carbon, and preserves (not distorts) market integrity—all without subsidies.
By Christian Detisch and Seth Gladstone
In the wake of Senate Republicans' ever-deepening debacle over their flailing attempts to strip health insurance from 22 million people, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is desperate to do something—anything—to show that he can get legislation passed. To this end, he's bypassing the standard committee review process to push a complex 850+ page energy bill straight to the full Senate floor. Perhaps not surprisingly, this legislation, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, would be a disaster for public health and our climate.
A new law passed this week in South Miami will require all new homes built in the city to install solar panels. The measure, which was inspired by a proposal from a teenage climate activist, will go into effect in September.
The text of the ordinance details the climate impacts facing South Miami.
By Ben Jervey
Just last week, we fact-checked and debunked every line of The Dirty Secrets of Electric Cars, a video produced by Fueling U.S. Forward, a Koch-funded campaign to push fossil fuels. That video represents the group's first public pivot from fossil fuel boosterism to electric vehicle (EV) attacks. More electric vehicle experts are also picking the video apart.
One effort is this video highlighting many of the same falsehoods we wrote about, and which adds key context about some of the video footage. Like, for instance, the fact that the photo that Fueling U.S. Forward claims is a lithium, cobalt or cerium mining operation is actually a copper mine.
By Katherine Paul and Ronnie Cummins
A recent series of articles by a Washington Post reporter could have some consumers questioning the value of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) organic seal. But are a few bad eggs representative of an entire industry?
Consumers are all for cracking down on the fraudulent few who, with the help of Big Food, big retail chains and questionable certifiers give organics a bad name. But they also want stronger standards, and better enforcement—not a plan to weaken standards to accommodate "Factory Farm Organic."