[COM] – The potential harm of fragrance

Passage 2

The potential harm of fragrance

A.     In the 21st century, we are surrounded by fragrance and scents; these are found in perfumes, deodorants, air fresheners and many other products with which we come into daily contact. Even their packaging is scented. The British Plastics Federation website reports that fragrances are being used in stores in order to produce the right kind of mood for shopping. But this increasing use of fragrance is coming under scientific scrutiny. Researchers believe fragrance may pose health risks, from mild skin allergies to extreme migraines.

B.     Many companies within the fragrance industry have disputed the suggestion that fragrance might be toxic to some people. Gareth Wyllie is executive director of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association of New Zealand. He says that fragrance ingredients are highly regulated to remove risks to consumers, and that companies are obliged to carry out extensive tests prior to products going to market. Therefore, he believes fragrance-related health problems should be rare. Nonetheless, in a 2001 American study, 60% of those suffering from migraines identified smell as the primary trigger. A follow-up study three years later revealed three-quarters of patients affected by odours blamed perfume as the most common trigger, ahead of paint and petrol.

C.     In her book The Case Against Fragrance, researcher Kate Grenville discusses her investigation in Australia. She began with the label on a fragrance from her local pharmacy. The label listed 16 ingredients. The fact that six of them are known as potential eye, respiratory and skin irritants is not disputed by experts. Ten of those same chemicals are restricted by the European Union’s consumer-protection authorities. The restrictions are not bans as the ingredients may still be used, but they must be listed on the label and limits imposed on amounts of each. Some of the chemicals Grenville found were not scents at all: they were antioxidants, colour stabilisers and fixatives. That last function was once performed by ambergris, the high-priced substance produced by sperm whales, but there is now more commonly a synthetic alternative that is used in all except the finest perfumes. Grenville observes that the actual chemicals used to produce the scent remained hidden under the generic term ‘fragrance’ to protect fragrance designers’ commercial rights.

D.     For non-contact fragrances – the air fresheners and dispersers that send out tiny particles of scent into the air in lobbies, restaurants and theatres – there is even less requirement to itemise the ingredients. The fragrance industry says you don’t put it on your skin so it can’t do you any harm. But you breathe it into your lungs! Grenville explains. In recent times, we have been perfuming our environments with everything from designer scents to tropical laundry detergents and perfumes have become an everyday item. Perfume was once the costly privilege of the wealthy but in the 1950s, chemists perfected ways to isolate the chemicals responsible for familiar scents and create cheaper ‘nature-identical’ versions that could be sold in supermarkets.

E.     According to some researchers, however, it’s not just synthetic fragrances which can cause allergic reactions and migraines. Many people allergic to fragrance mixes also react to what is growing in their garden, says University of Auckland dermatologist Amanda Oakley, referring to common plants. And what they may not realise, she explains, is that so-called ‘natural’ essential oils are made from huge concentrations of ingredients not usually encountered by our immune systems. It takes four tonnes of petals to make one kilogram of rose oil, for example.

F.     For some, contact with either natural or synthetic fragrance results in red eyes, migraines and runny noses, but certain chemicals used in synthetic fragrance have been associated with more serious health effects. A 2010 Canadian study found that seven out of ten scented spray deodorizers contained chemicals that could have a serious impact on the way a person’s hormones behaved. Galaxolide is another synthetic fragrance people are concerned about. It’s a compound that imparts the distinctive new-car smell, and while it has not been subjected to long-term studies, research is now finding evidence of it accumulating in waterways and affecting aquatic life.

G.     So what measures have companies taken to address the problem of fragrance in public spaces and the workplace? In 2010, Susan McBride, a city planner in the US city of Detroit, won US$100,000 in compensation after her employer refused to address her allergy to her co-worker’s perfume. After this, some workplaces around the country adopted ‘low-scent’ policies to avoid possible litigation. In Portland, Oregon, the local government coated surfaces of public buildings to only wash floors with liquids and sprays free of fragrance. Canada also responded, and now has many fragrance-free hospitals. Its airport in Vancouver has constructed a separate walkway for people wanting to avoid going through the perfume section in the duty-free zone. Australia’s occupational health and safety regulator Workplace OHS says on its website that it is in the employers’ best interests ‘to address the issue of perfumes and personal hygiene products in the workplace’ as these ‘adversely affect workers’ health’.

H.     Despite the fragrance industry’s claims that each chemical ingredient added to a product is safe in small amounts, Grenville remains concerned. People often use multiple products with that exact same ingredient every morning in the bathroom, she says. And they don’t always follow usage directions. Extra squirts of deodorant or the rinse-off conditioner left on the hair may all push the recommended safety limits for these chemicals. Grenville says she is not out to ban fragrance: she says, “They have a product to sell and they are going to sell it using seductive images and words that induce people to think it is very glamorous to use perfume. And that is their right. But my right… is to assert that there is a different way of looking at this product.”