CHEMICALS, FRAGRANCES AND PROBLEMS WITH HEALTH

Statement of Betty Bridges, R.N; June 20, 2000
 

This is great documentation on the dangers of fragrance and chemicals in personal hygiene and beauty products.. You will probably want to save it for reference when you need to educate others. We are fortunate to have Betty Bridges championing our cause. Shelley

From: "Lawrence A. Plumlee"
Subject: Statement of Betty Bridges, R.N; June 20, 2000 Halifax, Nova Scotia; Industry Motivation: Personal Rights or Profits- For Broadcast

Bravo, Betty! This is a very clear and effective rebuttal of the industry, and extremely compelling. Many, many thanks for undergoing the discomfort of your road trip to Halifax to speak on behalf of those made ill by fragrances. Did you have a sizable audience of reporters? Were copies of these remarks given to many?
Sincerely,
Larry Plumlee

Industry Motivation: Personal Rights or Profits

Statement of Betty Bridges, R.N., bcb56@ix.netcom
http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/fpin.htm
June 20, 2000 Halifax, Nova Scotia

The fragrance industry has been quite vocal on the restriction of the use of fragranced products in Halifax, Nova Scotia. They have expressed indignant outrage at what they describe as a threat to individual freedoms. While it is asserted there are no scientific data to support concerns, there has been no presentation of scientific data on the part of the industry to dispel health concerns. And there has been little concern for the rights of those negatively impacted by fragranced products, nor any concern for consumers' "right to know" so that informed choices may be made.

For all its assertions that scientific data to support concerns do not exist, there has been no opportunity for the scientific data that is available to be presented. There is an increasing body of scientific, medical, and industry literature that supports concerns over health, safety, and environmental aspects of fragrances. Rather than responsibly address these recognized issues the industry has chosen to play upon controversy of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

There are mounting reasons for the industry to be concerned. A petition before the FDA in the U.S. asks that existing labeling laws be enforced. Thepublicity over the events in Halifax threatens the image and profits of the industry. In Europe changes that will require labeling of skin sensitizers are imminent. These are the reasons for the industry's great financial concern, which are thinly disguised by assertions that personal freedoms are at stake.

Unfortunately, many of these issues have been misrepresented in the media coverage of the "scent debate" in Nova Scotia. Questions raised by the article "Cosmetics industry wafts into Nova Scotia's scent debate" by Jonathon Gatehouse from the Tuesday, April 25, 2000 issue of THE NATIONAL POST are addressed below along with a summary of concerns supported by scientific, medical, and industry data.

Assertion #1: Fragrance has been used for centuries with few adverse effects. History of use indicates fragrances are safe.

Rebuttal: Fragrant materials have been used for centuries. Up until the 1800s the primary use was medicinal, religious, and ceremonial purposes. These materials were thought to have powers to ward of disease and prevent harm. The elite used scented oils to enhance beauty. Cleopatra is famous for such use, but this use was limited to those with power. Up until the late 1800s the raw materials were obtained from plant and animal sources. (1)Modern fragrances are primarily synthetic materials developed since World War II. (2) Multiple fragranced products are now used on a daily basis. (3) Both materials exposed to and the amounts of exposure are vastly different from centuries ago nullifying any comparison and voiding any validity to history of use.

Assertion #2: "People have had the freedom to use fragrances and scented products for centuries, both for their enjoyment as well as personal hygiene" (Charles Low, president of Canadian Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association) 
Rebuttal: Fragrance was used to mask the stench of unwashed bodies during a period bathing and personal hygiene was greatly lacking, not as a part of personal hygiene. Perfumery as a distinct entity used strictly for its
scent properties did not exist until about the 1800s. (1)


Assertion #3: There is no scientific evidence to justify all out fragrance bans.

Rebuttal: There are actually considerable scientific data available to support bans on fragrances in certain environments. There is certainly enough evidence to support health, safety, and environmental concerns. A review of existing medical, scientific, and industry literature yields considerable data. Though in relationship to the use and exposure to fragrance materials, the available information is extremely sparse. This further reflects concerns on the fragrance industry's ability to adequately ensure the safety of its products with little oversight and regulation. These concerns are reflected by the analysis of a popular perfume.

Consider what chemicals are actually in a typical modern perfume. In 1999 several concerned individuals frustrated with the lack of available information had the popular fragrance Eternity by Calvin Klein analyzed by a
company that is a member of the International Fragrance Association and specializes in the analysis of fragrance and flavors. Due to limited resources and the high cost of analysis, only one product could be analyzed. This particular perfume was chosen because it was frequently mentioned as triggering adverse symptoms and it was typical of modern products, which are very strong and long lasting.

The analysis (OVER) revealed substances that were present at levels down to ..01% in the product. Forty-one substances were revealed. Available health and safety data was then researched on these materials. Available literature revealed that substances in the product included materials that were toxic, respiratory and skin irritants, respiratory and skin sensitizers, possible carcinogens, had central nervous system effects, and were possible hormone disruptors. The chemical, physical, and toxicological properties had not been thoroughly investigated on most of the materials. The material at then highest level; Iso E Super, a very common fragrance material had no publicly available health and safety data. (4) Based on this data the Environmental Health Network of California filed a
petition with the FDA asking that this perfume be declared misbranded because it contained materials which the safety had not be substantiated and did not carry the warning label required by U.S. law. Over 900 comments/signatures have been sent in to the FDA supporting petition #99P-1340. (5)

Though the FDA has not made a formal ruling on the petition, it has included in its year 2000 priorities developing strategies to issue warnings for products formulated with ingredients which the safety has not been established. (6) 
Assertion #4: The cosmetic industry wants to explain its position on fragrances.

Rebuttal: In order for any resolution of problems the industry must be willing to do much more than state its position. It must be willing to engage in open dialogue and address health, safety, and environmental concerns. It must refrain from using diversionary tactics to shift focus from well-established concerns to controversial health topics.

Although health, safety, and environmental concerns have been raised for some time the industry has chosen not to address these issues. Only since their profits and image have been threatened has there been any willingness to concede that fragrances can trigger health effects in some individuals.

Assertion #5: Fragranced products are well regulated.

Rebuttal: Due to trade secret status of fragranced products, regulation is extremely limited. Ingredients in the fragrance portion of the product do not have to be revealed to anyone including regulatory agencies. Other than a handful of materials, virtually anything can be used as a raw fragrance material. Testing for safety and health effects are not required before marketing. (7,8)

U.S. law requires a warning label on products when safety has not substantiated for all the ingredients and the final product. (7) By its own admission the fragrance industry has tested less than half of the over 3000 raw materials in use. (8) This law is not enforced as virtually no fragrance products carry the required warning.

Canadian law requires that labels warn of any avoidable hazards associated with the product that the consumer should be aware of. (9) There are known skin sensitizers used in fragrances that can cause skin allergy. No warning of this known hazard appears on labels.

After years of work by dermatologists, new labeling requirements regarding skin sensitizers in fragranced products are imminent in Europe. The extent of this labeling requirement has not yet been determined or at least not made public. The U.S. and Canada will probably follow the European Commission's lead in labeling skin sensitizers. (10) 

Assertion #6: Scented products are not the worst offenders as there are many other allergens and materials that can cause adverse effects.

Rebuttal: In order to gauge what rank an allergen has, there must first be a way of measuring this. In dermatology, fragrances rank as one of the most common allergens and the numbers of people with skin allergies to fragrance continue to rise. Given the airways and lungs are generally more susceptible than the skin to allergens, it is prudent to consider that fragrances may also rank high as respiratory allergens. There is no available testing for fragrances as respiratory allergens, so there is no way to determine whether fragrances are the worst offenders.

Until such testing is available the only way to gauge how problematic fragrances are, is by clinical and patient accounts. Fragranced products are frequently cited as triggers for asthma, allergies, and other problems. Virtually every organization and agency concerned with respiratory health list fragrances as triggers for asthma. (11,12)

Testing needs to be developed to determine which fragrance materials are respiratory allergens. Until problematic materials are pinpointed and are eliminated from use, or listed on the label the only way to avoid exposure to problematic materials is to avoid all exposures to fragranced products.

Further fragrances are volatile compounds that add to indoor air pollution. Indoor air quality affects everyone and those with asthma, allergies, sinus problems, and other respiratory disorders are much more severely impacted. On the basis of air quality issues alone restrictions on the use of fragranced products are prudent. (13)

In Nova Scotia, fragrance reduction policies are part of an over all effort to reduce exposure to indoor air pollutants of all types from numerous sources.

Assertion #7: Fragrance bans violate personal rights.

Rebuttal: Personal rights are very relative because we do not live in the world alone. When personal rights collide, there has to be an evaluation of the situation. It causes the user no harm to refrain from using a scented product. For those that have adverse reaction, such use can cause great harm. When actions by one triggers illness in another which prevents access to work, health care, and essential services; whose rights are being violated?

Assertion #8: "Individuals freedoms are pretty quick to be removed if given half a chance by anyone who has some kind of special interest," (Charles Low, president of Canadian Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association)

Rebuttal: The only interest of those seeking to limit the use of fragranced products in public spaces is health, hardly a "special interest". Perhaps the special interest is an industry that wishes to maintain the status quo and not have to account for the effects of the products its produces.

Assertion #9: Problems can be solved by encouraging "responsible use" of grooming products.

Rebuttal: Certainly education is a very important aspect. Before responsible use can be accomplished, responsible products must be available. Use of multiple scented products is encouraged by the industry making subtly impossible. The same industry that says one's fragrance should not be detected more than an arm's length away produces products which when used as directed, permeate a room for hours.

"Materials that combine high odor volume with high inherent strength are diffusive, in that they can be smelled at a great distance and are very effective at the dry-out stage". (Calkin RR, Jellinek JS. Perfumery: Practice and Principles; pages (166-167) (Wiley 1994)

Columnist Leah Mclaren claims she deliberately applied numerous fragranced products and went to the waiting area of Halifax Children's Hospital which had a fragrance ban. This children's hospital serves many asthmatics and others affected by fragrance chemicals. There should be no debate over fragrance bans in medical facilities as health care should be accessible for all. Such actions by a few demonstrate how mean-spirited people can be. It
only takes the actions of one person using fragrance to undo the efforts of many that are willing to be courteous and responsible. (14)

Assertion #10: The fragrance industry is adequately addressing health, safety, and environmental concerns.

Rebuttal: Present testing protocols are inadequate. Testing of individual raw materials do not reflect real use condition. Synergistic and modifying effects must be considered. Testing should be expanded to include respiratory, neurological and systemic effects.

There needs to be in place an industry wide means of reporting adverse reactions to fragrances with a contact number listed on labels of products. This data could then be used to pinpoint problematic products and materials. The present program in place to help dermatologist pinpoint ingredients in products that their patients have adverse reactions needs to be expanded to include other adverse effects and practitioners.

Consumers need to be educated that fragrance may trigger and exacerbate well known medical conditions such as asthma, allergies, and migraines. Labeling to this effect also needs to be included.

Products need to be formulated so they are less diffusive and intrusive to, others. Functional products need to be less highly scented and more offered without fragrance, including masking fragrance. 
Perhaps most important of all, the fragrance industry must be willing to responsibly address concerns raised. Avoiding these issues will in the long run cause great harm to the industry. With the present levels of fragrance use problem  will continue to rise. Refusal to address concerns casts great doubt on the industry's ability to regulate itself. Cooperation with those that are having adverse effects could greatly help the industry in the long run. A panel composed from industry, medical and scientific community, and those having adverse symptoms from fragrance material needs to be formed to
formally identify concerns. It is only through hard work and cooperative efforts that these complex and important issues can be resolved.

REFERENCES:
1. Calkin RR, Jellinek JS. Perfumery: Practice and Principles; pages (19-20) Wiley 1994

2. AROMA CHEMICALS AND THE FLAVOR AND FRAGRANCE INDUSTRY., Chemical Economics Handbook.) p. 503.5000 A. Laszlo P. Somogyi, Birgitta Rhomberg, Yasuhiko Sakuma 
3. Fundamentals of cosmetic product safety testing; Cosmetics and Toiletries; (v111 n10) Start Page: p79(7) ISSN: 0361-4387; Romanowski, Perry Schueller, Randy 4. Petiton #99-1340 filed with the FDA by the Environmental Health Network of California

5. Petition can be viewed at:http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/Petition.htm or
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/051199/cp00001.pdf

6. CFSAN 2000 Program Priorities: U. S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition February 10, 2000
7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Office of Cosmetics Fact Sheet February 3, 1995. "FDA Authority Over Cosmetics"

8. Nitro musks in fragrance products: an update of FDA findings.(includes related article on self-regulation by the fragrance industry) Cosmetics and Toiletries; June 1996 (v111 n6) Start Page: p73(4) ISSN: 0361-4387; Wisneski, Harris S. Havery, Donald C.

9. AVOIDABLE HAZARD - Section 24 of the Cosmetic Regulations (Food and Drugs Act) Canada

10. FRAGRANCE ALLERGY IN CONSUMERS: A REVIEW OF THE PROBLEM ANALYSIS OF THE NEED FOR APPROPRIATE CONSUMER INFORMATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF CONSUMER ALLERGENS: SCCNFP/0017/98 Final December 1999

11. American Lung Association: Asthma Magazine Article: Wheezing at Work -- The Office Can be Home to an Assortment of Asthma Triggers by: Dawn Marvin and Jackie Trovato http://www.lungusa.org/pub/ast_article4.html )

12. JAMA: What Triggers Asthma? Education and Support Center http://www.ama-assn.org/special/asthma/support/educate/triggers.htm

13. The Analysis of Perfumes and their Effect on Indoor Air Pollution By John J. Manura Presented at EAS, Somerset, NJ., November 1998)

14. Non-scents in Nova Scotia; LEAH McLAREN; The Globe and Mail; Saturday, April 29, 2000)



SUMMARY OF SCIENTIFICALLY BASED CONCERNS ON FRAGRANCE SAFETY

1. By all accounts the fragrance industry is primarily self-regulated. Part of this self-regulation includes testing and evaluating the safety of fragrance materials. 
2. Testing by the fragrance industry primarily focuses on skin effects. Individually raw materials are tested which do not reflect actual use conditions. Present testing often fails to identify allergens found in actual use and clinical testing. Less than half of the materials in use has been tested for skin effects. Testing for respiratory, neurological, and systemic effects are not done.

3. 1-2% of the population has skin allergies to fragrances and the incidence is rising. (1) There is a direct correlation between use and development of allergy. Materials used in combinations have synergistic and modifying effects. (2,3) The only way to avoid fragrance allergens is to avoid all use of fragranced products as it is impossible to know if a particular allergen is in a product. For those that have symptoms triggered by indirect contact and airborne allergens, avoiding personal use of products is not enough.
What is on surfaces and in the air can trigger symptoms. (4) For these people skin allergies can be disabling.

4. Absorption through the skin is a pathway for fragrance materials in the body. (5) Several fragrance chemicals have been found to enhance dermal absorption and to greatly facilitate the absorption of other materials into the skin. (6,7)

It is not known if these materials have a similar effect on the airways. If they do, it could help explain why fragrances are so problematic and provide a plausible explanation for the increased susceptibility to allergens such as mite that have been around for centuries. This is an area that needs to be studied.

5. The vast majority of materials used in fragrances are respiratory irritants. There are a few that are known to be respiratory sensitizers. Most have not been evaluated for their effects on the lungs and the respiratory system. Respiratory irritants are known to make the airways more susceptible to injury and allergens, as well as trigger and exacerbate such conditions as asthma, allergies, sinus problems, and other respiratory disorders. With the increase in asthma and other respiratory disorders reduction to exposures to irritants is essential. In addition there are a subset of asthmatics that are specifically triggered by fragrances suggesting fragrances not only trigger asthma, they may also cause it in some cases. (8,9,10)

A recent Institute of Medicine study sponsored by the EPA put fragrances in the same category as second hand smoke as a trigger for asthma in school age children and above. (11) This is especially significant, as there are relatively few studies on respiratory effects of fragrances. This suggests that the data that is available is strong. The study also indicates more study is needed in this area.

Fragrance materials are readily absorbed into the body via the respiratory system and once in the body can have systemic effects, which can effect other body systems. (12)

6. Migraine headaches are frequently triggered by fragrances. Fragrances are known to modify blood cerebral blood flow. Several common fragrance materials are known to have potent sedative effects via inhalation. (13) Recent studies suggest fragrance materials can act on the same receptors in the brain as alcohol and tobacco altering mood and function. (14) Materials that were widely used for decades in the past had severe neurotoxic properties and accumulated in body tissues. (15,16,17) In spite of this most fragrance materials have never been tested for neurological effects. Olfactory pathways provide a direct route to the brain. (18)

7. Synthetic musk compounds bioaccumulate in human tissue and are only slowly excreted. These materials are found in blood, adipose tissue, and breast milk. (19)

8. Phthalates, suspected of being hormone disrupters are used as fixatives at relatively high levels. (20)

9. Citral has been found to cause enlargement of the prostate gland in animal models and has estrogenic effects. (21)

10. Other fragrance and chemical materials are probable carcinogens. (22)

11. Several fragrance chemicals when inhaled affect the immune response of the skin. (23) The systemic and long- term effects of most fragrance materials are not known.

12. There are environmental concerns as well. Fragrances are volatile compounds and some of every fragrance product used gets into the air. Given the widespread use and sheer numbers of products used this has a serious impact on indoor air quality. Not only is indoor air impacted, outdoor air is as well. A recent in Norway found fragrance in outdoor air, even in a remote area. (24) 
13. Air is not the only concern as synthetic musk compounds contaminate aquatic environments and wildlife all over the world. Wastewater treatment does not remove fragrance chemicals. (25) Many of these materials are persistent in the environment, while others act as persistent because of the constant influx of materials. (26)
There are other concerns as well, which are impossible to cover in a short amount of time and space. More information can be found at the Fragranced Products Information Network's website:
http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/fpin.htm or you can contact me personally at bcb56@ix.netcom.com


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY of SCIENTIFIC BASED CONCERNS RELATED TO FRAGRANCE
SAFETY

1. FRAGRANCE ALLERGY IN CONSUMERS: A REVIEW OF THE PROBLEM ANALYSIS OF THE
NEED FOR APPROPRIATE CONSUMER INFORMATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF
CONSUMER ALLERGENS: SCCNFP/0017/98 Final December 1999

2. Johansen JD, Skov L, Volund A, Andersen K, Menne T. Allergens in combination have a synergistic effect on the elicitation response: a study of fragrance-sensitized individuals. Br J Dermatol. 1998 Aug;139(2):264-70. PMID: 9767240; UI: 99068953

3. Ford RA. Studies of the quenching phenomenon. Contact Dermatitis. 1992 Jul;27(1):60-1.. PMID: 1424601; UI: 93047926

4. Hayakawa R, Matsunaga K, Arima Y. Airborne pigmented contact dermatitis due to musk ambrette in incense. Contact Dermatitis. 1987 Feb;16(2):96-8. PMID: 3568644; UI: 87188939

5. Hawkins DR, Ford RA. Dermal absorption and disposition of musk ambrette, musk ketone and musk xylene in rats. Toxicol Lett. 1999 Dec 20;111(1-2):95-103. PMID: 10630705; UI: 20094401

6. Zhao K, Singh J. In vitro percutaneous absorption enhancement of
propranolol hydrochloride through porcine epidermis by terpenes/ethanol. J Controlled Release. 1999 Dec 6;62(3):359-66. PMID: 10528073; UI: 99459174 
7. Kanei N, Tamura Y, Kunieda H. Effect of Types of Perfume Compounds on the Hydrophile-Lipophile Balance Temperature. J Colloid Interface Sci. 1999 Oct 1;218(1):13-22. PMID: 10489275

8. Norback D, Bjornsson E, Janson C, Widstrom J, Boman G. Asthmatic symptoms and volatile organic compounds, formaldehyde, and carbon dioxide in dwellings. Occup Environ Med. 1995 Jun;52(6):388-95.PMID: 7627316; UI: 95353437

9. Millqvist E, Lowhagen O. Placebo-controlled challenges with perfume in patients with asthma-like symptoms. Allergy. 1996 Jun;51(6):434-9. PMID: 8837670; UI: 96434746

10. Baur X, Schneider EM, Wieners D, Czuppon AB. Occupational asthma to
perfume. Allergy. 1999 Dec;54(12):1334-5. PMID: 10688444; UI: 20151152

11. Clearing the Air: Asthma and Indoor Air Exposures; Committee on the
Assessment of Asthma and Indoor Air, Division of Health Promotion and
Disease Prevention, Institute of Medicine

12. Lorig TS. EEG and ERP studies of low-level odor exposure in normal subjects. Toxicol Ind Health. 1994 Jul-Oct;10(4-5):579-86. PMID: 7778116; UI: 95296964

13. Buchbauer G, Jirovetz L, Jager W, Plank C, Dietrich H. Fragrance compounds and essential oils with sedative effects upon inhalation. J Pharm Sci. 1993 Jun;82(6):660-4. PMID: 8331544; UI: 93322933

14. Aoshima H, Hamamoto K. Potentiation of GABAA receptors expressed in Xenopus oocytes by perfume and phytoncid. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 1999 Apr;63(4):743-8. PMID: 10361687; UI: 99290038 
15. Spencer PS, Bischoff-Fenton MC, Moreno OM, Opdyke DL, Ford RA. Neurotoxic properties of musk ambrette. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1984 Sep 30;75(3):571-5. PMID: 6474483; UI: 84301013 
16. Spencer PS, Sterman AB, Horoupian DS, Foulds MM. Neurotoxic fragrance produces ceroid and myelin disease. Science. 1979 May 11;204(4393):633-5. MID: 432669; UI: 79159581

17. Furuhashi A, Akasaki Y, Sato M, Miyoshi K. Effects of AETT-induced neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis on learning ability in rats. Jpn J Psychiatry Neurol. 1994 Sep;48(3):645-53. PMID: 7891432; UI: 95198389

18. Hastings L, et al. Olfactory primary neurons as a route of entry for toxic agents into the CNS. Neurotoxicology. 1991; 12(4): 707-714.

19. Liebl B, Ehrenstorfer S. [Nitro-musk compounds in breast milk].
Gesundheitswesen. 1993 Oct;55(10):527-32. German. PMID: 8268706; UI: 94093258

20. Gray LE Jr. Xenoendocrine disrupters: laboratory studies on male reproductive effects. Toxicol Lett. 1998 Dec 28;102-103:331-5. Review. PMID:10022274; UI: 99144872

21. Geldof AA, Engel C, Rao BR. Estrogenic action of commonly used fragrant agent citral induces prostatic hyperplasia. Urol Res. 1992;20(2):139-44.PMID: 1372772; UI: 92205895

22. NTP Reports: TR-491 Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Methyleugenol (CAS NO. 93-15-2) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Gavage Studies)

23. Hosoi J, Tsuchiya T. Regulation of cutaneous allergic reaction by odorant inhalation. J Invest Dermatol. 2000 Mar;114(3):541-4. PMID: 10692115; UI: 20156590

24. Kallenborn R, et al. Gas chromatographic determination of synthetic musk compounds in Norwegian air samples, Journal of Chromatography A, 846 (1999) 295-306 
25. Rimkus GG. Polycyclic musk fragrances in the aquatic environment. Toxicol Lett. 1999 Dec 20;111(1-2):37-56. Review. PMID: 10630702; UI: 20094398

26. Daughton CG, Terns TA Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: agents of subtle change? Environ Health Perspect 1999 Dec;107 Suppl 6:907-38


Additional Resources

1. Millqvist E, Bengtsson U, Lowhagen O.
Provocations with perfume in the eyes induce airway symptoms in patients with sensory hyperreactivity. Allergy. 1999 May;54(5):495-9. 

For Safe Products for your body

For Moms and their families