My smelly Valentine: Europe's perfumers wake to V-Day nightmare A number of key ingredients used in perfume brands could soon be banned or restricted in the European Union, following health concerns about some of the compounds used in well-known fragrances including Chanel No 5. Brussels officials recommended on Thursday that three substances found in woody scents, including the oak and …
In the past cosmetics have included atropine, antimony and arsenic.
It's strange how there are people out there who distrust doctors, but if they think it'll make them more attractive they'll plaster themselves in stuff made by people with no medical or scientific qualifications.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Food has to include a nut warning, and this has saved lives.
Has it though? Everything has a nut warning on it. Could have been a good idea but the warnings are so ubiquitious that they are just noise - like Website cookie warnings have become.
"May contain nuts" means that it might contain a stray nut or fragment from another production line in the same factory. The allergic consumer knows whether that could mean rapid death. With a less serious allergy he'll probably chance "may" whereas plain "contains nuts" is a definite no-no.
The only really silly one is seeing "may contain nuts" on packets of nuts! (Though thinking about it, perhaps they mean "may contain other sorts of nuts"?
Glad my allergies lie elsewhere, and I can eat all the nuts I like.
>Noise to you, perhaps. Important information to me.
What about if every single food item a supermarket sells lists "may contain nuts" - after all you can't be too careful - what use is then?
It's like the "this facility contains substances cause cancer" warnings you get in california. Since they included laser printer toner and tippex on the list, every single shop and office has the warning posted - so it's completely useless when you are entering a chemical plant
"What about if every single food item a supermarket sells lists "may contain nuts"..."
So you use fear-mongering to object to hypothetical fear-mongering? It doesn't work that way -- oddly enough, the "may contain nuts" warning tends to occur only on products that may contain nuts.
Honestly, get a grip.
John G - I didn't mean to be dismissive of people with nut allergies, it's just that I think they are getting a raw deal - it's just a cop out of food manufacturers to put 'may contain nuts' on almost everything. What you really need is a label that tells you a food is nut free, but I bet nobody would dare ...
"Has it though? Everything has a nut warning on it. Could have been a good idea but the warnings are so ubiquitious that they are just noise - like Website cookie warnings have become."
Which indicates how widespread peanut based products are used in food. Nothing wrong with peanuts.. High in protein.
Unless of course, you are allergic.
What were you expecting? after a few years, that peanut allergies would go away, and the warning could be dropped?
Im very sensitive to certain perfumes, i go into sneezing fits that can last upto an hour. My throat tightens and my eyes stream all becuase someone wants to smell "nice". Its not an allargy i can avoid, like nuts or gluten, as by the time i realise what the person is wearing its far too late.
Me too, and I know more people who have the same problem. So it isn't 100 cases as some ppl want to be.
Some chemicals are harmful and/or alergenic, and if they are dangerous they should be banned.. for the same reason tobacco has been banned from the workspace in most sensible countries.
Same here. If I walk past perfume stores like the Douglas store close to my favourite book store, I have to hold my breath. I once had to buy a present there, and I really should have been wearing a gas mask. Next time, should it be unavoidable, I am sorely tempted to wear one (do designer gas masks exist?)
Worse, some department stores place their cosmetics department on the ground floor, near the entrance. I try to avoid these places, and if I have to enter, I walk through it swiftly and without inhaling. Entering a department store with a gas mask is probably an ill-advised manoeuvre, and might lead to overreaction from security bods.
Yup, another sufferer here -some start me sneezing
One of the (many, many) things I like about my wife is that she never uses it.
Who the hell ever gave people (well women actually) that the opposite sex would like them to smell of some random collection of plant and animal extracts??
I suspect that we have the Romans to blame for it
Perfumes can irritate* me. Cigarette smoke too. I don't see the point. Label the stuff and you can choose not to buy it. If you do actually need to work with someone who wears it, you should be capable of working it out amicably amongst yourselves.
*Ironically, the ones most likely to do it are men who bathe in them and call it 'cologne'.
I am actually surprised that people still wear fragrance. Most offices in this area (U.S. Midwest) ban wearing fragrance to avoid issues with worker chemical sensitivities and the general level of complaints (one person's hint of fragrance is the next person's bathed in the stuff).
Sorry ladies (and gents) but I am sick of being wedged on a tube or bus next to someone wearing an overly powering array of exotic chemical weaponry - sometimes nearly physically sick. The worst is when a collective waft of some disgusting but expensive chemical mush drifts up the escalators or when trapped in a lift with it.
Please stop.
I too experience allergic reactions when I use many substances that contain fragrances (though I haven't worn Chanel No. 5, as it doesn't fit my lifestyle). I also find that banging my head against the wall causes discomfort.
As a result, I abjure both activities, but I don't see why the EU needs to get involved.
Let's start in the beginning:
1. You wash your clothes with perfumed fabric softener.
2. You wash yourself with perfumed detergent (called soap-free body wash, loaded with nasty chemicals)
3. You put on perfumed deodorant. (more nasty chemicals)
4. You put on perfume / cologne / aftershave (more nasty chemicals)
Which smell exactly is 'you'?
And you wonder why you get sick, since your millions of years of evolution have never met this toxic cocktail before and does not know how to handle it?
As they say, this is a MULTI-BILLION euro business, I am sure the regulators will find a way to make an exception. They are politicians after all. Just think of a certain French ex-prime minister and brown envelopes from a major beauty products company. Not saying anything was ever proven, just "nil combustibus pro fumo" ( © Flanders & Swann)
Years ago I had to negotiate a discharge licence with the water authority. The expert was completely unworried about what we were planning to put in his sewers (so long as we complied with limits): he said his biggest problems were caused by all the unnecessary chemicals in stuff for washing people.
Our sewage bills would be considerably lower if we could get people to use soap instead of all those gels, lotions and other substances with a viscosity resembling a certain bodily fluid.
I second that, just had ANOTHER dv6500 bite the dust because of this problem.
If you ask me, RoHS, REACH and suchlike are the biggest threat to technological civilization since the 1859 Carrington event.
Possible solution:- Refit the Brussels headquarters with X-ray portal scanners but use lead free shielding in compliance with RoHS. And watch the problem Darwinate itself :-)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
