Sign in / up

back to article 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 …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not the first time

    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.

    13 3
    1. Grease Monkey Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Not the first time

      You forgot lead.

      5 0
      1. JimmyPage Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Not the first time

        and belladonna

        4 1
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Not the first time

          The plant is atropa belladonna, which may explain why I didn't mention it twice.

          OK, there are other alkaloids in belladonna, but it was atropine that was used to "brighten the eyes".

          5 0
    2. Oliver Mayes
      Reply Icon

      Re: Not the first time

      Don't forget those old Radium cosmetics, for that 'healthy' glow.

      0 0
    3. Frankee Llonnygog
      Reply Icon

      Re: Not the first time

      And botulism

      4 0
    4. Tom 13
      Reply Icon

      Re: Not the first time

      Actually these days you'll find a fair number of PhD chemists working for cosmetics manufacturers, especially in the R&D departments. Maybe because of precisely those past issues.

      Not a big user of them myself, but at least I know a smidgen about the industry.

      0 0
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Not the first time

        I'm sure you're right, but isn't it the case that the substances proposed to be controlled were all introduced in the pre-PhD days?

        1 0
  2. Irongut

    100 reported cases of contact sensitisation

    Out of how many people using products containing these extracts?

    12 0
    1. frank ly
      Reply Icon

      Re: 100 reported cases of contact sensitisation

      ... and over what period of time and how are they clustered over time? These products have been used for many years but perhaps only lately have become 'mass-market' (or more affordable by most). Could it be a peanut allergy situation?

      5 0
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 100 reported cases of contact sensitisation

      ... yet the EU and now the UK allow raw Nickel to be used in coinage? The current proportion of sensitized adults is about 10%, its lifelong and can affect anyone after a certain body-burden of exposure.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22956874

      3 0

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. Dazed and Confused
      Reply Icon

      Re: 100 reported cases of contact sensitisation

      Hey, I'm contact sensitive chocolate, but the wife would kill me if I suggested getting that band as a dangerous ingredient.

      4 0
      1. Denarius
        Reply Icon
        Headmaster

        Re: 100 reported cases of contact sensitisation

        @Dazed and Confused: Would not a chocolate band just melt off ? Probably worth banning.

        6 0
  3. bigtimehustler

    100 is an extremely low number, especially seeing a channel number 5 is listed as a possible product, one of the most widely sold perfumes in the world. You will always find someone allergic to everything, how about we start banning cheese next, followed closely by nuts.

    9 0
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      "how about we start banning cheese next, followed closely by nuts."

      And... and... Zoo animals with undesirable DNA!

      5 1
      1. Psyx
        Reply Icon

        "how about we start banning cheese next"

        Lots of cheese types are already banned in the States.

        Probably for tasting like cheese.

        14 1
      2. John Tserkezis
        Reply Icon

        "And... and... Zoo animals with undesirable DNA!"

        And that's only a small step away from seeding out undesirable DNA in humans.

        You do remember what happened the last time they tried that?

        It appears GovCo has a short memory.

        0 0
        1. Francis Boyle Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          Animal husbandry = Hitler

          Seriously?

          1 0

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. John H Woods Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: "banning cheese next, followed closely by nuts."

        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.

        11 1
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "banning cheese next, followed closely by nuts."

          Not everything. Though may contain nuts is widespread. Presumably those allergic to nuts don't eat stuff with warnings on rather than take their chances.

          0 0
          1. Nigel 11
            Reply Icon

            Re: "banning cheese next, followed closely by nuts."

            "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.

            1 0
          2. Pete Spicer
            Reply Icon

            Re: "banning cheese next, followed closely by nuts."

            I've seen *packets of nuts* with 'contains nuts' on it. Seriously, what is this world coming to?

            2 0
            1. poohbear
              Reply Icon

              Re: "banning cheese next, followed closely by nuts."

              What about the instructions on said packets: 1. Open packet. 2. Eat nuts.

              0 0
            2. Mpeler
              Reply Icon
              Mushroom

              Re: "banning cheese next, followed closely by nuts."

              What they really should do is place signs at all entrances to Brussels (hey, why not Belgium) and Strasbourg saying "Caution: Contains Nuts". Those nuts (EU bureautwits) are the real problem....

              0 0
        2. John Gamble
          Reply Icon

          Re: "banning cheese next, followed closely by nuts."

          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.

          Noise to you, perhaps. Important information to me.

          2 0
          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge
            Reply Icon

            Re: "banning cheese next, followed closely by nuts."

            >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

            2 0
            1. John Gamble
              Reply Icon

              Re: "banning cheese next, followed closely by nuts."

              "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.

              0 0
          2. John H Woods Silver badge
            Reply Icon

            Re: "banning cheese next, followed closely by nuts."

            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 ...

            3 0
        3. John Bailey
          Reply Icon

          Re: "banning cheese next, followed closely by nuts."

          "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?

          0 0
    3. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      You don’t know if 100 is extremely low or extremely high.

      Is it 100 out of everybody who used the product or 100 out of a sample of 200 or 1000 or 10,000?

      Without context the 100 figure is useless.

      10 0
      1. Florida1920
        Reply Icon
        Coat

        We need to know the sample size in olympic swimming pools.

        The one with speedos in the pocket.

        2 0
    4. Mark 85
      Reply Icon

      Ban nuts? Would this mean the most commentards would be banned?

      4 0
  4. Mike Brown

    I can see the point

    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.

    9 1
    1. Aitor 1
      Reply Icon

      Re: I can see the point

      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.

      3 5
      1. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: I can see the point

        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.

        6 2
      2. Naughtyhorse
        Reply Icon

        Re: So it isn't 100 cases

        you are correct.

        it's 2

        now how did that help your position?

        2 2
      3. Nigel 11
        Reply Icon

        Re: I can see the point

        Me too.

        I normally put up with it, unless the perfumed one makes any comments about me sneezing my germs in her vicinity, in which case I've been known to tell her what I *really* think of her perfume and her manners!

        1 0
        1. tony2heads
          Reply Icon

          allergy to perfumes

          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

          0 1
    2. Not That Andrew
      Reply Icon

      Re: I can see the point

      While not as bad as you, everytime I have to go near certain "ethical" cosmetics chain stores, it sets off my hayfever.

      2 0
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I can see the point - "ethical" cosmetics chain stores

        Hypocrisy dressed up makes me sneeze, too.

        2 0
    3. Tom 13
      Reply Icon

      Re: I can see the point

      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'.

      0 0
    4. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I can see the point

      Hah! Talk about a bad date!

      0 0
    5. Sherrie Ludwig
      Reply Icon

      Re: I can see the point

      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).

      0 0
  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Let's ban perfumes outright

    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.

    9 4
    1. Ugotta B. Kiddingme
      Reply Icon

      Re: Let's ban perfumes outright

      Agreed. Speaking as someone with allergies, it's not the chemicals themselves nearly so much as it is the idiot users who insist on marinating in the stuff

      4 4
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Let's ban perfumes outright

      I for one prefer being wegded on a bus next to someone with exotic chemical weaponry. The chemical weaponry of the non-exotic, i.e. "natural" kind is often too much to bear.

      1 1
    3. Naughtyhorse
      Reply Icon

      Re: Let's ban perfumes outright

      buy a car

      0 0
  6. Version 1.0 Silver badge

    Alternatives are available

    Personally I like a dab of Talisker behind the ears.

    2 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like