Uh oh.. Massive fragrance changes in 2021/2022. (opoponax, jasmine, ylang ylang)..

annetteo

Well-known member
Sep 20, 2014
Sad news..... Caron has already cut a LOT,interesting thread on it on the same topic somewhere on basenotes.
 

Dane

Well-known member
Jan 9, 2002
Meh...this used to really bother me, and I backed up most of my favrourites, but it almost seems inevitable at this point.

Very pessimistic of me, but I've been reading about regulations for so long now, and brilliant perfumers always seem to find a way to create new things.
 

SydnorIII

Well-known member
Jan 5, 2017
True (eugenol, etc) but not enough!

But, really, Jasmine and Ylang Ylang have been restricted in their use for at least 5 years as it is

Now that’s sad to me...two absolutely beautiful florals


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

cazaubon

Moderator
Moderator
Basenotes Plus
Jan 1, 2005
Hiram Green has responded that so far he thinks only Hyde is affected (and will require changes by mid-2020), but he has not had a chance to study the new regulations in depth yet (Sarah has advance knowledge because she is on the committee).
 

cazaubon

Moderator
Moderator
Basenotes Plus
Jan 1, 2005
Not good news for most.

I won't be stocking up on back-up bottles. I don't do it now, nor have I in the past, with the exception of a handful of fragrances. And that, was only because I got those back-up bottles for dirt cheap. At 57 y.o., I have enough for perfume for the rest of my life anyway...

Realistically, at 53, I am in the same boat. What I currently own should last for the duration. But I have a a couple of scents with high amounts of jasmine or opoponax in them that I will back up as I love them so much. But I will only buy 1 backup of each.
 

Diamondflame

Frag Bomber 1st Squadron
Basenotes Plus
Jun 28, 2009
Perhaps now’s as good time as any to find a new hobby... Certainly I need another bottle of fragrance in my wardrobe like I need a hole in my head.
 

Bonnette

Missing Oakmoss
Basenotes Plus
Jul 25, 2015
I feel sorry for future generations, who won't know what they've missed unless they stumble across something wonderful and develop the vintage bug.
 

cazaubon

Moderator
Moderator
Basenotes Plus
Jan 1, 2005
Perhaps now’s as good time as any to find a new hobby... Certainly I need another bottle of fragrance in my wardrobe like I need a hole in my head.

LOL, I’ve thought about it. I have a couple of other things in mind. Maybe the turn of the decade is a sign to focus on something else.
 

slpfrsly

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Apr 1, 2019
No it is not a small price worth paying. If you're allergic to something, then that does not mean no one else in the world gets to enjoy it anymore. It would be akin to banning peanut butter.

All well and good until people start smearing themselves (and consequently ATM screens, all public handles etc.) in peanut butter and then someone collapses and dies because there are people out there who think it's ridiculous they have to stop wearing peanut butter, to hell with anyone else.
 

GoldWineMemories

Well-known member
Nov 22, 2019
All well and good until people start smearing themselves (and consequently ATM screens, all public handles etc.) in peanut butter and then someone collapses and dies because there are people out there who think it's ridiculous they have to stop wearing peanut butter, to hell with anyone else.

It's a good thing aroma chemical allergies to that extent does not exist -- per Luca Turin.
 

Mayberry2

Well-known member
Nov 18, 2018
I am surprised the perfume companies don't try to fight those so called regulations.Those regulations have zero to do with safety.
 

darinaldi

Well-known member
Jun 8, 2018
All well and good until people start smearing themselves (and consequently ATM screens, all public handles etc.) in peanut butter and then someone collapses and dies because there are people out there who think it's ridiculous they have to stop wearing peanut butter, to hell with anyone else.

Bravo. This might be one of the greatest reductiones ad absurdum I've read in a long time.
 

GoldWineMemories

Well-known member
Nov 22, 2019
I suppose in due time America will be the perfumery capital of the Western world. Middle East will continue with their time honoured traditional perfumes, and with Europe becoming a castrato American perfumery will be the only nation in the west that continues to allow real perfume to be made. Of course that doesn't mean the French houses won't attempt to stay relevant so get ready for heavy marketing and lots of woody-amber fragrances with different top notes.
 

thrilledchilled

All Is Beautiful
Basenotes Plus
Nov 17, 2018
I suppose in due time America will be the perfumery capital of the Western world. Middle East will continue with their time honoured traditional perfumes, and with Europe becoming a castrato American perfumery will be the only nation in the west that continues to allow real perfume to be made. Of course that doesn't mean the French houses won't attempt to stay relevant so get ready for heavy marketing and lots of woody-amber fragrances with different top notes.

I think so too. The future is bright for american perfumery.
 

slpfrsly

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Apr 1, 2019
It's a good thing aroma chemical allergies to that extent does not exist -- per Luca Turin.

I know - the peanut example is bad - but the general point is perfume/fragrances aren't essentials in any way, and yet they're likely to have many negative impacts on both wearers and those around them. Could just be skin reactions; more damningly, it's looking like they disupt gene expression and are carcinogenic.

I would say this is a general trend to move fragrances in to a place where they're less damaging and less toxic to both wearers and the general pbulic. Back door social change.
 

GoldWineMemories

Well-known member
Nov 22, 2019
I know - the peanut example is bad - but the general point is perfume/fragrances aren't essentials in any way, and yet they're likely to have many negative impacts on both wearers and those around them. Could just be skin reactions; more damningly, it's looking like they disupt gene expression and are carcinogenic.

I would say this is a general trend to move fragrances in to a place where they're less damaging and less toxic to both wearers and the general pbulic. Back door social change.

You are wrong about having a negative impact on those around them. As I already said, again per Luca Turin, there are no aroma chemicals that are going to give people horrible asthma attacks or allergic reactions; it is just not the way these chemicals interact with the body. The worst impact it could have on someone is they do not enjoy the smell. As to being potential carcinogens, well everything is, and that argument is banal. Plus, the fantastic thing about perfumes is no one makes you wear them, so promoting regulating them on that basis is ignorant.

The most heinous statement you just made by far though is that since perfumes aren't essential to life that we should not care if they're regulated. The idea that art isn't as necessary to life as food or water is evil and ugly.
 

slpfrsly

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Apr 1, 2019
You are wrong about having a negative impact on those around them. As I already said, again per Luca Turin, there are no aroma chemicals that are going to give people horrible asthma attacks or allergic reactions; it is just not the way these chemicals interact with the body. The worst impact it could have on someone is they do not enjoy the smell. As to being potential carcinogens, well everything is, and that argument is banal. Plus, the fantastic thing about perfumes is no one makes you wear them, so promoting regulating them on that basis is ignorant.

The most heinous statement you just made by far though is that since perfumes aren't essential to life that we should not care if they're regulated. The idea that art isn't as necessary to life as food or water is evil and ugly.

And yet, quite literally, people have coughing and sneezing fits based on peoples' perfumes. It sounds like you're too wedded to perfumes being totally fine and 'safe'.

If something isn't essentials, trades on limited materials, with dubious if not outright negative health impacts on the users and wider populations, then you, there's nothing heinous about playing it safe and regulating them. Sorry. You're missing nuances within a fragrance - your human rights really aren't being impinged here. Heinous? You're taking this far too seriously for someone who, I'm going to guess, is just a consumer.
 

Hothamwater

Well-known member
Apr 25, 2012
And yet, quite literally, people have coughing and sneezing fits based on peoples' perfumes. It sounds like you're too wedded to perfumes being totally fine and 'safe'.

If something isn't essentials, trades on limited materials, with dubious if not outright negative health impacts on the users and wider populations, then you, there's nothing heinous about playing it safe and regulating them. Sorry. You're missing nuances within a fragrance - your human rights really aren't being impinged here. Heinous? You're taking this far too seriously for someone who, I'm going to guess, is just a consumer.

Again, it's nothing to do with safety.

Required reading: http://www.kafkaesqueblog.com/2014/05/26/the-perfume-industry-eu-regulations/
 

Rüssel

Well-known member
Dec 23, 2010
I suppose in due time America will be the perfumery capital of the Western world. Middle East will continue with their time honoured traditional perfumes, and with Europe becoming a castrato American perfumery will be the only nation in the west that continues to allow real perfume to be made. Of course that doesn't mean the French houses won't attempt to stay relevant so get ready for heavy marketing and lots of woody-amber fragrances with different top notes.

You guys are forgetting about China. China, dude.
 

speedracer

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Nov 12, 2015
Apparently straight from Sarah McCartney of 4160 Tuesdays.

"These take into account that people might use a shower gel, then a cream and then a perfume, all of which have safety limits, that that piled on top of each other, they break them.
This cumulation of irritants in essential oils and the occasional synthetic is the reason that people sometimes spray on a perfume and think that the perfume makes their skin sting, while it could be that it was their shower gel that was close to the limit, and the perfume just pushed it over the top."


Hmmm, this reminds me of the Joker's plot to poison Gotham in Batman from 1989.
 

4160Tuesdays

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Aug 30, 2009
I don't see this info anywhere on the 4160 website or blog. May I ask where you got this?

I took it down from my Facebook page, because it had been massively misunderstood. It was never on my website or blog, I put it on the page to let my own customers know what was happening over the next two years.

We need to reformulate by 2022, so I'm sure some perfumers aren't looking into it yet because it seems like a long time away.
Besides we have around 90 fragrances now. Reformulating and paying for new Cosmetics Products Safety Reports isn't do bad if you have less than ten out there, but I can't afford the £18,000 it would take to keep them all legal to sell.

None of this is new; it's been in the public domain for around the last five years, ever since the EU chemicals regulators first proposed the changes. In fact after IFRA's negotiations, it is a lot less hard hitting than we originally expected.
 

Redneck Perfumisto

League of Cycloöctadiene Isomer Aestheticists
Basenotes Plus
Feb 27, 2008
I took it down from my Facebook page, because it had been massively misunderstood. It was never on my website or blog, I put it on the page to let my own customers know what was happening over the next two years.

We need to reformulate by 2022, so I'm sure some perfumers aren't looking into it yet because it seems like a long time away.
Besides we have around 90 fragrances now. Reformulating and paying for new Cosmetics Products Safety Reports isn't do bad if you have less than ten out there, but I can't afford the £18,000 it would take to keep them all legal to sell.

None of this is new; it's been in the public domain for around the last five years, ever since the EU chemicals regulators first proposed the changes. In fact after IFRA's negotiations, it is a lot less hard hitting than we originally expected.

Thank you for the clarification!

I have a question which you may remember the answer to. Maybe around 8-10 years ago, IFRA finished a round of reductions (I don't recall what they were), but next up was vanilla, vanillins, or both. I remember that people on here ridiculed the idea as absurd, given the massive daily consumption of vanilla in foodstuffs. Within roughly 6 months to a year, I think it was, we then heard that the proposed regulations were withdrawn. With both relief and a good laugh!

First - do you remember anything like this? Next, if so, can you shed any light on what the thinking was? Lastly, are they still talking about going after vanilla? It's one of the few things they've allegedly proposed that really just seemed either pointless or just downright Orwellian.
 

fritter

Well-known member
May 13, 2018
This layering nonsense (shower gel / cream and perfume) is probably the most idiotic thing I've heard so far. Where is this going to stop, especially that every single cosmetic may be applied in different amounts? Why not just ban everything outright? Hope I won't give anyone stupid ideas here...

Put a warning label on it already and be done with it.
They never stop, these burocrats need to justify their existence.
 

fritter

Well-known member
May 13, 2018
I think it's the (generally quite reasonable) position that far more people use shower gels and soaps - an essential for hygiene - than perfume, which is not.

This is one thing which, although disappointing, I can understand and accept. I'm not outright allergic to anything in perfumes, but I'm definitely sensitive, and many vintage fragrances almost always make me sneeze, give me a headache, and/or cause my nose to block. Sooo...I'm glad that the changes made in the last 30 years have meant that very few fragrances now do this, and it's only overspraying or the odd unlucky scent that tends to provoke that reaction in me.

To then take that experience and transpose it on to someone who literally IS allergic and/or more sensitive to more elements used in perfumery, where contact with their skin could cause significant issues...it's a small sacrifice worth paying. There are more options for perfume than ever before - and while you can bemoan 'things ain't what they used to be', I just cannot fathom this being a major issue. Synthetics can be great. Perfumers will adapt.

I wrote in my review of Dior's Eau Sauvage EDP that I wonder whether the 2017 reformulation was allergen based, as the 2012 version reacted with me. Ultimately, the world is a better place for the vast, vast majority of people with these rules. Red tape or not. There is a tiny minority of people on these sites who actually "need" vintages or certain ingredients, and I would suggest that need is more emotional and/or hobbyist than anything else...which, again, there are bigger fish to fry, in my view.
I don't accept it, screw that, put a warning label on it. People with allergies should just avoid perfume then.
 

Staff online

Latest News

Top