Environmental Medicine Matters » Asthma

Scented store environments, dangerous to the health of employees and customers

Silvia — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 06:10:16 +0000

Scent marketing alarms the trade supervision and labor unions

Businesses that use fragrances in order to encourage customers to linger and buy, are becoming increasingly common. The scent marketing industry promotes the retail branch strongly. The fragrances that one finds in the shops are mixtures of different natural essential oils or chemical compositions. Neither is harmless for employees or customers. In Denmark, the trade supervision and labor unions are keeping their eye on the American fashion chain, “Abercrombie & Fitch”. The fashion chain is known for using the fragrance Citronellol, an aromatic oil that is classified as questionable because it can be harmful to one’s health and it can trigger allergies. The Danish trade supervision is currently committed to putting an end to the scenting in order to protect the employees and customers of the fashion chain.

Authorities and labor unions are going up against scented store environments

In Denmark, labor unions are paying close attention to the authorities’ course of action against the American fashion company “Abercrombie & Fitch”. In their shops, it smells strongly of perfume. The significant fragrance is supposed to bind the customer to the brand and increase sales. The newspaper “Politiken DK” reports that so-called scent marketing has extremely increased in Denmark in the past three years. Anyone who visits certain stores frequently or is employed there, can develop allergies. It is an unnecessary burden on the employees, because many of the fragrances can cause allergic reactions – the newspaper quoted the head of the trade supervision.

Contamination of indoor air with chemicals and allergenic fragrance oils

The perfumes for a scented environment are often led directly into the store through the air conditioning and ventilation system. Smaller shops set up bottles with aromatic oils, containing wooden sticks which release the fragrance into the room. Both are questionable, not only for people who already suffer from perfume allergies, but also for asthmatics and chemically sensitive people (MCS). Even healthy people may sensitize over time and develop allergies.

The trade supervision wants to protect employees and customers

We are most likely dealing with allergens, which are injected into the stores, is what the head of the trade supervision told the newspaper “Politiken DK”. That’s why the authorities tried to contact “Abercrombie & Fitch” at the end of last year. The authorities tried to make it clear to them that they wanted to protect employees against the high concentration of perfume in the shops, because it is an unnecessary burden.

Labor unions are receiving more and more complaints

Danish labor unions report that they receive more and more complaints from union members about the scenting of their workplace. Therefore, the actions of the trade supervision in the case of “Abercrombie & Fitch” are being closely observed. It is a major health problem for the employees in those stores, but also for the customers, said a union spokesperson to “Politiken DK”. The customers, unlike the employees have the choice and can simply stay away from the scented store. The employee unfortunately does not have this choice, especially in times when everyone is happy to even have a job.

It remains to be seen how the American company will behave, what measures the Danish trade supervision will take, and how much pressure the Danish labor unions will make. If the Abercrombie & Fitch” management is smart, they will stop exposing their employees and customers to substances that can cause illness. Sick employees cost a company money, and when customers realize why they don’t feel well in a shop and stay away, they too, can cost the company a lot of money.

The German Federal Environmental Agency has been warning against the use of fragrances for this purpose for years – through several press releases and it’s own published background paper which writes about this issue, „Fragrances: When something pleasant becomes a burden.” (german) An increase of scented shops has also been reported in Germany. So far, there is no authority or union which is really trying to prevent it.

Autor: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, 17. Januar 2012

Literatur:

Politiken.DK, Duftende butikker er farlige for ansattes og kunders helbred, 13. Januar 2012

Related Articles:

Airline pays passenger €50,000 because of pesticide on board

Silvia — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:11:57 +0000

Life-threatening asthma attack in airplane triggered by Permethrin

An Irish businessman suffered from a severe allergic reaction during an Air France flight because the airline sprayed the pesticide permethrin on board. James Lapham sued Air France and received €50,000 compensation for damages for the first time in history as was stated in the Irish Independent newspaper. Mr. Lapham, an asthmatic, barely survived the incident and is still receiving medical treatment after 8 months.

Pesticides are often part of everyday life on board

The spraying of pesticides on planes is not unusual. For hygiene reasons, and because it is feared that pests could be transported, many countries require the spraying of pesticides. Normally, the passengers are not informed or warned. The estimated number of passengers who suffered health problems during a flight due to pesticide on board is most likely high. Airlines worldwide now fear that this case could constitute a precedent, and that other passengers suffering from ailments may call upon this case.

A German lawyer led a lawsuit against Air France in 2008. He had also suffered health problems caused by the spraying of pesticides on board. The airline denied him the information as to what pesticide had been used. The Frankfurt regional court’s verdict in December 2008 gave the attorney only half right.

An even bigger worry for the airlines than the single passenger cases, is complaints from flight staff who have become ill due to pesticides and may take advantage of the current case.

Asthma attacks caused by pesticides

The Independent writes that James Lapham was on a flight from Rabat to Dublin when the incident occurred. He had only been on board for 10 minutes when he experienced breathing difficulties. The Irish Independent reports that the flight attendants had sprayed permethrin, a neurotoxic pesticide, in the cabin. Permethrin is a Pyrethroide, and is a pesticide which is known for, among other things, triggering allergic and non-allergic asthma. Permethrin is prohibited on flights in the U.S. because the pesticide has been classified by the EPA as carcinogenic since 1997.

Emergency landing due to asthmatic’s reaction to pesticide

The Irish businessman reacted so violently to the permethrin that the flight attendants had to give him oxygen. This intervention was not enough and Mr. Lapham’s asthmatic condition worsened and the aircraft was forced to make an emergency landing in Morocco. The businessman was brought by ambulance to a hospital, where he was stabilized with cortisone. The Independent stated that Mr. Lapham might indeed work again, but is still in need of medical treatment.

Sick due to pesticides in airplane – not an isolated case

The Irish businessman James Lapham is not an isolated case. Particularly flight staffs on long-haul flights in hot regions have been complaining for years about the use of pesticides and the damaging health effects caused by the toxic chemicals. Court cases in different countries are pending and flight attendants have organized internationally for years.

James Lapham pled at the Irish High Court at the Montreal Convention. Passengers cannot receive more than € 100,000 damages under this convention, the Irishman won half, €50.000. Whether more cases will be recognized can not be predicted, because airlines still claim that permethrin had been recommended by the WHO, although scientific studies on the health damaging effects of neurotoxic pesticide are increasing.

Author: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, 21. August 2011

Literature: Independent, Airline pays out €50,000 in pest-killer spray case, August 09, 2011

Support for sufferers of Aerotoxic Syndrome: AEROTOXIC ASSOCIATION

Related CSN Articles:

Causes of mildew in the house

Silvia — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 11:39:44 +0000

Construction and other influences which promote the growth of mold

Mold needs nutrients and moisture to grow. As always, building nutrients are present and readily available in various forms, but the moisture in a building will play a crucial role. The moisture threshold is about 70% and below relative humidity at the surface which no growth from mold to materials will occur. As the moisture content increases so will the likelihood of mold growth. At 80% relative humidity at the surface, the growing conditions for almost all indoor air mold species are reached. At even higher surface moisture all mold and bacteria can grow. However it must be noted that the growth conditions of humidity and temperature cannot be considered separately, since the position of the minimum and optimum moisture can move at different temperatures. The minimum values of relative humidity which are necessary for germination or mycelium growth can be achieved only at optimal temperatures. When these optimal temperatures are there, germination or mycelial growth takes place only at higher humidity.

Conditions for mold growth

In addition to the interaction of moisture and temperature, the pH range for growth of mold is also important. The optimum growth range is between pH 5 and pH 7, taking into account that some species of mold grow are in a pH range from 2 to 11. Wallpaper and paint, for example, often have a pH of 5 to 8. Calcareous materials, like plaster for example, or concrete can have pH values above 12. Nevertheless, even then there can be mold growth if, for example, thin biofilms were formed on the material. This medium is due to dust or trapped grease, deposits, etc. available in sufficient quantity on all component surfaces.

Mold is formed only under certain conditions

Basically, mold growth can occur only if the above growth conditions are met. Moisture plays a significant role. This is important to note that hot air – with the same relative humidity – contains more moisture than cold air. This moisture can come from the structure itself or introduced by the room users.

The factors that may be responsible for increased moisture in the building can be summarized as follows:

Inadequate insulation and low heat storage
Thermal bridges
Increased heat transfer resistance
Insufficient or inadequate heating
Increased production of moisture in the interior
Inadequate or improper ventilation
Poor moisture buffering of building materials
Moisture in the building construction
Thermal bridging, insulation

In winter the building can be well dried at low temperatures by venting the air. The cold outside air is heated in the apartment and takes on additional moisture that is transported with the fan to the outside. On the other hand, it can be critical in warm humid places in the apartment to cool the air. For example, this is important in cooler areas like bedrooms or for thermal bridges like corners. In general, it can be assumed that is achieved at a room temperature averaging 21 ° C and a surface temperature of the inner surface of the outer wall of 11 ° C dew point. When below this 11 ° C, the state of the air runs along the saturation line, it creates condensation on the cooler surface. In this case it is necessary to perform thermal insulation of the walls to the interior wall surface to increase temperature.

It must be noted however, that the insulation may be confused with the heat storage. A higher heat storage capacity for heavy building materials (solid walls) can compensate for temperature fluctuations better than lightweight structures and thus also provide a better buffer of the air. Sufficient insulation, proper ventilation, and heating are crucial for the prevention of mold.

Furniture, curtains, and the like are hardly resistant to humidity, like the indoor humidity which penetrates behind the furniture to the walls. At the same time the heat gets into a space by a reduced convective, and then radiating heat is transferred behind furniture and curtains. The wall along such areas means the relative indoor humidity is increased and can lead to mold growth. Therefore, care should be taken to have sufficient convection behind such furnishings.

Temperature regulation, moisture reduction

An increase in air temperature is caused by heat – at the same absolute water content of the air – a decrease of relative air humidity. It also is increased by heating the room, the surface temperature of the inner walls. Both effects contribute to a reduction in the risk of mold growth. If single rooms are not heated or even less, rises in reverse, there is the risk of mold growth. This is particularly true in areas (like bedrooms) that may be used for many hours. A lot of moisture is produced, and it increases the humidity and cold walls are at the risk of condensation. Therefore, unused or little used rooms should be heated slightly over a longer period. Doors to seldom used rooms should be closed. It does not make sense to control the temperature of cool rooms with air from warmer areas. This means consumers will not only heat them, but also the moisture is carried into the cooler room. If the air then cools, the relative air humidity changes and turns on the risk of mold growth. Here, too, it is important to note that the surface moisture on the inner surfaces of outer components is not only related to the ambient humidity, but also is dependent on temperature differences between air and surface. This is significantly influenced by the moisture production in the living room. A high moisture production leads to higher air humidity and thus to higher surface moisture. The ventilation is the most effective means to remove moisture from the home. An exchange of air from the interior to the outside walls of the structure is often mistakenly believed there but it is not the case. The term used in this context, like the “breathing wall” is only seen in connection with the regulation of humidity (moisture buffering).

The moisture regulation will change according to the wall’s ability to take in or release water into the room’s air. As mentioned, solid walls usually have a stronger buffering effect than lightweight structures. The speed and possibility of compensation for the absorption depends strongly on the porosity and the ab-and desorption of the building materials used. A brick has a higher porosity than many natural stones and is therefore cheaper in the humidity regulation.

Proper ventilation

The ventilation of living spaces means the actual exchange of air. Convection (air movement) can only come through different air temperature states. If one allows the windows to remain open in the wintertime with the radiators turned off, then the air exchange isn’t as efficient. A temperature balance between outdoor and indoor air leads to the stoppage of ventilation. If the radiators are turned off near the titled windows, airflow is stagnant and there is not a good air exchange.

Therefore it doesn’t make any sense to open all windows before leaving the house in the morning. Make sure the heating is off before leaving the house. On behalf of the Federal Environmental Agency in relation to the proper ventilation of the living space, see the following information:

The most effective way to remove moisture from the living space is by doing cross ventilation several times a day. This short-term procedure (5-10 mins., depending on the number and arrangement of windows) will help to remove moisture. If this moisture can only be released in the morning after rising, according to season, room size and air temperature, etc. it is best to ventilate for 30-40 mins. (shock and / or cross ventilation). Only ventilating at night is not a good idea. Then the room must be aired for a longer time (1 hour and longer), because the moisture has been fixed in the walls and furniture, and only slowly escapes. During the ventilation, the heating shouldn’t be stopped completely. In this regard, noted that on a long term ventilation is not recommended because of the tilted windows which are associated with high heating costs. Also the removal of the corpus lip seals in newer, thick windows is not recommended in any case.

It is recommended if one cannot ventilate correctly, to then install a ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC system) in the house. HVAC systems provide fully automatic proper ventilation and heating exchange due to their characteristics (the exhaust heat warms the fresh air) and it also contributes to energy conservation.

Conclusion:

Mold on interior walls have at least one adverse health effect, contrary to many opinions. The causes of mold growth can be discovered by examining the civil engineering of the building. It is therefore recommended always to seek professional advice directly at the scene. Experts in evaluation would include a biological and building surveyor.

Author:

Gerhard Holzmann; Holzmann-Bauberatung; Certified expert office, construction and management consultant – so that everything fits like it should – www.Baubegriffe.com Phone 0049-8293-965648

Translation: Christi Howarth for CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network

Original article: Ursachen von Schimmelbildung im Haus

Related Articles:

Participatory Action: Help Your Local Santa Claus and the Sick Children in Your Area

Silvia — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 09:59:16 +0000

A Real Santa Claus Does Not Wear Perfume

Santa has an ear for the needs of all children, including children with allergies, asthma and chemical sensitivity (MCS). Santas are always open to hear everything a child desires, meaning their secrets, worries and concerns. For many children this seasonal private talk with Santa is an important event when they can privately disclose what is really on their mind.

So this year we wish that all children, including those who suffer from allergies, asthma and chemical sensitivity (MCS), will have the opportunity to whisper something special into Santa’s ear. We have designed an action card for printing. (The best way to print the cards out is on more solid paper or light cardboard).

And because Santa Claus is known for really loving ALL children, with some help, we can make sure every Santa Claus may share the Christmas warmth with every child. Hand the Santa a Christmas card, asking them to give up after-shave, cologne, fabric softener, strong smelling deodorant, and other fragrances this season. Whisper in the ear of the Santa Claus when presentating the card, that this small favor of being fragrance free will make all children’s hearts and eyes glow with gratitude.

ACTION CARD >>>

The real Santa Claus does not wear perfume, because he loves all children. Even those with asthma, allergies, or chemical sensitivity.

Spanish Action Card >> El verdadero Papá Noel no usa Colonia

German Action Card >> Der echte Weihnachtsmann trägt kein Parfüm

Facts about Perfume, Scented Products:

Scented consumer products shown to emit many unlisted chemicals

Silvia — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:14:09 +0000

University of Washington

For Immediate Release

Oct. 26, 2010

The sweet smell of fresh laundry may contain a sour note. Widely used fragranced products – including those that claim to be “green” – give off many chemicals that are not listed on the label, including some that are classified as toxic.

A study led by the University of Washington discovered that 25 commonly used scented products emit an average of 17 chemicals each. Of the 133 different chemicals detected, nearly a quarter are classified as toxic or hazardous under at least one federal law. Only one emitted compound was listed on a product label, and only two were publicly disclosed anywhere. The article is published online today in the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review.

“We analyzed best-selling products, and about half of them made some claim about being green, organic, or natural,” said lead author Anne Steinemann, a UW professor of civil and environmental engineering and of public affairs. “Surprisingly, the green products’ emissions of hazardous chemicals were not significantly different from the other products.”

More than a third of the products emitted at least one chemical classified as a probable carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and for which the EPA sets no safe exposure level.

Manufacturers are not required to disclose any ingredients in cleaning supplies, air fresheners or laundry products, all of which are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Neither these nor personal care products, which are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, are required to list ingredients used in fragrances, even though a single “fragrance” in a product can be a mixture of up to several hundred ingredients, Steinemann said.

So Steinemann and colleagues have used chemical sleuthing to discover what is emitted by the scented products commonly used in homes, public spaces and workplaces. The study analyzed air fresheners including sprays, solids and oils; laundry products including detergents, fabric softeners and dryer sheets; personal care products such as soaps, hand sanitizers, lotions, deodorant and shampoos; and cleaning products including disinfectants, all-purpose sprays and dish detergent. All were widely used brands, with more than half being the top-selling product in its category.

Researchers placed a sample of each product in a closed glass container at room temperature and then analyzed the surrounding air for volatile organic compounds, small molecules that evaporate off a product’s surface. They detected chemical concentrations ranging from 100 micrograms per cubic meter (the minimum value reported) to more than 1.6 million micrograms per cubic meter.

The most common emissions included limonene, a compound with a citrus scent; alphapinene and beta-pinene, compounds with a pine scent; ethanol; and acetone, a solvent found in nail polish remover. All products emitted at least one chemical classified as toxic or hazardous.

Eleven products emitted at least one probable carcinogen according to the EPA. These included acetaldehyde, 1,4-dioxane, formaldehyde and methylene chloride. The only chemical listed on any product label was ethanol, and the only additional substance listed on a chemical safety report, known as a material safety data sheet, was 2-butoxyethanol.

“The products emitted more than 420 chemicals, collectively, but virtually none of them were disclosed to consumers, anywhere,” Steinemann said. Because product formulations are confidential, it was not possible to determine whether a chemical came from the product base, the fragrance added to the product, or both.

Tables included with the article list all chemicals emitted by each product and the associated concentrations, although do not disclose the products’ brand names. “We don’t want to give people the impression that if we reported on product ‘A’ and they buy product ‘B,’ that they’re safe,” Steinemann said. “We found potentially hazardous chemicals in all of the fragranced products we tested.”

The study establishes the presence of various chemicals but makes no claims about the possible health effects. Two national surveys published by Steinemann and a colleague in 2009 found that about 20 percent of the population reported adverse health effects from air fresheners, and about 10 percent complained of adverse effects from laundry products vented to the outdoors. Among asthmatics, such complaints were roughly twice as common.

The Household Product Labeling Act, currently being reviewed by the U.S. Senate, would require manufacturers to list ingredients in air fresheners, soaps, laundry supplies and other consumer products. Steinemann says she is interested in fragrance mixtures, which are included in the proposed labeling act, because of the potential for unwanted exposure, or what she calls “secondhand scents.”

As for what consumers who want to avoid such chemicals should do in the meantime, Steinemann suggests using simpler options such as cleaning with vinegar and baking soda, opening windows for ventilation, and using products without any fragrance.

“In the past two years, I’ve received more than 1,000 e-mails, messages, and telephone calls from people saying: ‘Thank you for doing this research, these products are making me sick, and now I can start to understand why,’” Steinemann said.

Steinemann is currently a visiting professor in civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University. Co-authors are Ian MacGregor and Sydney Gordon at Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio; Lisa Gallagher, Amy Davis and Daniel Ribeiro at the UW; and Lance Wallace, retired from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The research was partially funded by Seattle Public Utilities.

–

Reference:

University of Washington, Hannah Hickey, Release: Scented consumer products shown to emit many unlisted chemicals,Oct. 26, 2010

More information on the project
More information on volatile organic compounds is available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Library of Medicine

Related Articles:

Study could not confirm link between mental illness and chemical sensitivity

Silvia — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 13:05:40 +0000

For several years the Swedish Prof. Dr. Eva Millqvist researched the disease of hyperreactivity of the respiratory tract and the environmental condition of Chemical Sensitivity (MCS). She specializes in the range of responses to respiratory irritants.

Sick from odors and fragrances

Patients with respiratory symptoms which are triggered by chemicals and odors, are commonly found in allergy clinics. According to Millqvist and her team, these health problems are not explained by asthma or allergic reactions.

German patients frequently report that after they report reactions to chemicals or odors to their allergist, the prospect of seeing a psychologist has been recommended. Whether or not this recommendation is actually appropriate for these patients, it is precisely what this new study from Sweden addresses.

Studies showed reactions

Millqvist’s previous studies have shown that MCS patients often have an increased sensitivity to inhaled capsaicin. This ingredient of chili is famous sensory reactivity. A diagnosis of sensory hyperreactivity of the airways (SHR) is proposed for these kinds of complaints.

In a recent study this renowned scientist and two colleagues, sought to discover whether there is a relationship between asthma and sensory hyperreactivity (SHR). In addition, the research team wanted to investigate whether patients with signs of SHR had increased psychiatric morbidity (anxiety, depression, etc.).

Patients were subjected to tests and questionnaires

The researchers took 724 patients with suspected allergies or asthma from an asthma center. All patients had a questionnaire regarding reactions and behavioral disorders caused by fragrant substances.

A standardized Capsaicin test was carried out and then a questionnaire was given to assess psychiatric morbidity in patients with severe chemical sensitivity to identify those who suffer from SHR.

No evidence of depression or anxiety

Only about 6% of the asthma patients from the allergy center, who participated in the study, had sensory hyperreactivity (SHR). Millqvist and her colleagues stated that this is in consistent with the prevalence in the general Swedish population. There was no significant evidence that SHR is consistent with anxiety or is related to depression.

Patients should insist on precise diagnostic evaluation

The study appeared in the July 2010 issue of the medical journal “Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.” Those patients who respond to chemicals and odors with hyperreactive respiratory symptoms should perhaps seek an experienced environmental medicine professional if their allergist makes a reference to the possibility of a mental illness.

Author: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, 2. September 2010.

Translation: Thank’s to Christi Howarth.

Literature:

Johansson A, Millqvist E, Bende M., Relationship of airway sensory hyperreactivity to asthma and psychiatric morbidity, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Central Hospital, Skövde, Sweden, Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2010 Jul; 105(1):20-3.

Reckless Self-Interest Of The Fragrance Industry

Silvia — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:17:22 +0000

People must be protected from exposure to fragrance ingredients that may cause cancer or fetal, hormonal or reproductive toxicity, the Cancer Prevention Coalition warned today. But federal agencies are not regulating these ingredients, leaving the public at risk due to the “recklessly irresponsible” behavior of the fragrance industry, says CPC Chairman Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

Protection of the public would be implemented by passage of Senator Frank Lautenberg’s Safe Chemicals Act of 2010, Dr. Epstein advises. This bill requires manufacturers to provide information on “chemicals of concern” in consumer products.

The bill would provide the public with information on the dangers of these products, especially, says Dr. Epstein, “as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recklessly failed to do so since passage of the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

Perfumes and fragrances are the single largest category of cosmetic and personal care products, especially products used on the hair, face, and eyes. These products represent nearly 50 percent of all prestige beauty dollars now spent in the United States. Fragrances are also extensively used in a wide range of everyday household cleaning products.

Exposure to toxic ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products is predominantly through the skin. In contrast, exposure to toxic ingredients in household cleaning products is predominantly through inhalation.

The FDA has direct authority under the terms of the 1938 Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act to regulate toxic ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products. However, seven decades later, it has still failed to do so. Similarly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has also still failed to regulate these toxic ingredients in household cleaning products.

“In the disturbing absence of any federal regulations,” Dr. Epstein says, the policies and practices of the cosmetics and personal care products industries are determined by its International Fragrance Association (IFRA). This is an international trade organization of over 100 perfume and fragrance manufacturers, representing fifteen regions including the U.S., Europe, South America, Australia, and the Far East.”

The primary objective of IFRA is to protect the self-regulatory practices and policies of the industry by the development of a Code of Practices and safety guidelines, Dr. Epstein says. However, these include maintaining the “trade secret” status of perfume and fragrance ingredients, and pre-empting international legislative labeling and safety initiatives.

Of the more than 5,000 ingredients used in the fragrance industry, approximately 1,300 have so far been evaluated by the industry’s International Research Institute for Fragrance Materials. This institute is a “non-profit” organization, created by IFRA in 1966 to conduct research and testing of fragrance ingredients.

“However,” Dr. Epstein warns, “this testing is minimal and restricted to local effects on human skin, and short-term toxicity tests in rodents.”

Evaluation of ingredient safety is then made by a board of toxicologists, pharmacologists, and dermatologists, identified by the institute as “independent” without disclosure of their qualifications, let alone conflicts of interest.

Their findings are presented to IFRA’s Scientific Advisory Board, and then published in its trade journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology. The information reported in this journal is the basis on which IFRA formulates its own “safety guidelines.” However, Dr. Epstein points out, due to the “trade secret” status of fragrances, manufacturers are still not required by the FDA to disclose their ingredients on product labels or in any other way.

“These ingredients include a wide range of allergens. They also include synthetic musks, particularly tonalide and galaxolide, designed to mimic natural scents derived from musk deer and ox,” Dr. Epstein explains. “They are persistent and bioaccumulate in the body, have toxic hormonal effects, and have been identified in breast milk.”

In 1973, in efforts at damage control, IFRA created a Code of Practice listing prohibited ingredients, based on its own safety analyses. This listing has been periodically updated.

In May 1999, in response to repeated complaints of respiratory, neurological, and other toxic effects following the use of Calvin Klein’s Eternity perfume, the Environmental Health Network of California hired two testing laboratories to identify the ingredients in the perfume.

Analysis of these results by the Cancer Prevention Coalition, summarized in Dr. Epstein’s 2009 book Toxic Beauty, reveal the following:

26 ingredients whose “Toxicological properties have not been investigated,” or “toxicology properties have not been thoroughly investigated.”
25 ingredients that are “Irritants.”
5 ingredients that are “Skin sensitizers,” or allergens.
3 ingredients that show “Fetal, hormonal, and reproductive toxicity.”
2 ingredients that “May cause cancer.”

In efforts at damage control, IFRA agreed that information on allergenic ingredients in perfumes like Eternity should be made available, but only on request from dermatologists, for diagnostic purposes. “This “Fragrance On-Call List” action denies the public its right to know,” Dr. Epstein warns.

More disturbingly, Dr. Matthias Vey, president of IFRA, failed to respond to repeated warnings from August to October 2003 from the Cancer Prevention Coalition. These urged “all fragrance products be labeled to the effect that, apart from the absence of known skin and respiratory allergens, they contain no known carcinogens, gene damaging, hormonal, or otherwise toxic ingredients.”

As reported in “What’s That Smell,” a June 2010 report by Women’s Voices of the Earth, faced with continuing criticism of unresponsiveness, IFRA initiated a “compliance program” in 2007. “However,” Dr. Epstein warns, “this is based on testing of a mere 50 fragranced products from the global market place to detect prohibited ingredients.”

A fragrance may be restricted by IFRA on a variety of grounds. These include: use in products at higher-than-recommended concentrations, sensitization, photosensitization, phototoxicity, allergenicity, neurotoxicity, carcinogenicity, undefined biological effects, and inadequate data.

“This restriction, though, works better in theory than in practice,” Dr. Epstein emphasizes. “There is no pre-approval process for ingredient safety other than that claimed by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials.”

Literature: Cancer Prevention Coalition, Reckless Self-Interest Of The Fragrance Industry, CHICAGO, IL, June 28, 2010

Related Articles:

Odor identification ability and self-reported upper respiratory symptoms in workers at the post-9/11 World Trade Center site

Silvia — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:06:02 +0000

Following the World Trade Center (WTC) collapse on September 11, 2001, more than 40,000 people were exposed to a complex mixture of inhalable nanoparticles and toxic chemicals. While many developed chronic respiratory symptoms, to what degree olfaction was compromised is unclear. A previous WTC Medical Monitoring and Treatment Program study found that olfactory and nasal trigeminal thresholds were altered by the toxic exposure, but not scores on a 20-odor smell identification test.

To employ a well-validated 40-item smell identification test to definitively establish whether the ability to identify odors is compromised in a cohort of WTC-exposed individuals and, if so, whether the degree of compromise is associated with self-reported severity of rhinitic symptoms.

The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) was administered to 99 WTC-exposed persons and 99 matched normal controls. The Sino-Nasal Outcomes Test (SNOT-20) was administered to the 99 WTC-exposed persons and compared to the UPSIT scores.

The mean (SD) UPSIT scores were lower in the WTC-exposed group than in age-, sex-, and smoking history-matched controls [respective scores: 30.05 (5.08) vs 35.94 (3.76); p = 0.003], an effect present in a subgroup of 19 subjects additionally matched on occupation (p < 0.001). Fifteen percent of the exposed subjects had severe microsmia, but only 3% anosmia. SNOT-20 scores were unrelated to UPSIT scores (r = 0.20; p = 0.11).

Exposure to WTC air pollution was associated with a decrement in the ability to identify odors, implying that such exposure had a greater influence on smell function than previously realized.

Literature:

Altman KW, Desai SC, Moline J, de la Hoz RE, Herbert R, Gannon PJ, Doty RL.,Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Odor identification ability and self-reported upper respiratory symptoms in workers at the post-9/11 World Trade Center site, Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2010 Jun 30.

EPA conference calls for consideration of asthmatics

Silvia — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:04:56 +0000

First Perfume and Fragrance- free Asthma Conference

The American Environmental Protection Agency is holding a large asthma conference from June 17-19, 2010, in Washington D.C.. For the first time ever, the EPA has a special conference feature which is to renounce fragrances and perfume. Thus, the EPA is sending a signal to indicate the fragrance issue and to provide participants with asthma, the possibility to participate at the 2010 National Asthma Forum. Fragrances are among the principle factors for asthma attacks.

Nearly 300 experts and leaders, whose work is to improve the living conditions of people with asthma, are taking part in this event. Primary decision makers of federal and state authorities, as well as those responsible for guidelines, managers of health authorities, scientists, physicians and leaders of self-help organizations are included in this group. Their goal is to design environments to assist in safe living for all asthmatics.

In order to allow all participants to take part in the conference, meaning a conference free of perfume, aftershave, hairspray, body lotion, fabric softener or scented deodorants, the federal agency sent out the following reminder online:

“Asthma-friendly environments are our business – Please help us to make this a fragrance-free event by using fragrance-free personal care products and avoid perfumes and other irritants.”

This is a very positive step by the EPA. They have removed the largest known barrier for asthmatics and chemically injured people this year for the 2010 National Asthma Forum. World leaders on every continent should incorporate this humanitarian example by the EPA , for those disabled with illnesses affecting the breathing and lung function throughout the world.

Author: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, 17 June 2010

Translation: Thank’s to Christi Howarth

Related Articles:

New blood test for newborns to detect allergy risk

Silvia — Sat, 22 May 2010 21:05:42 +0000

A simple blood test can now predict whether newborn babies are at high risk of developing allergies as they grow older, thanks to research involving the University of Adelaide.

Professor Tony Ferrante, an immunologist from SA Pathology and the Children’s Research Centre at the University of Adelaide, says the new marker may be the most significant breakthrough in allergy testing for some decades.

“A protein in the immune cells of newborns appears to hold the answer as to whether a baby will either be protected, or susceptible to the development of allergies later on,” Professor Ferrante says.

Amounts of the cell signalling protein, called protein kinase C zeta, are much lower in children at risk of allergies.

Professor Ferrante says the blood test is far more effective than previous indicators, such as a family’s clinical history, or measuring the allergy-inducing antibody IgE.

In collaboration with Professor Susan Prescott from the University of Western Australia and Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Professor Ferrante’s research team has refined the new marker for allergy risk, originally discovered in 2007, but now modified to a simple and manageable blood test at birth.

The researchers are also looking at whether fish oil supplements given to both pregnant women and those who have just given birth can reduce the risks of the children developing allergies.

“There is evidence that the levels of this important protein increase with fish oil supplementation to protect against allergy development,” Professor Ferrante says.

Australia has one of the highest allergy rates in the world, with 40% of children now suffering from allergic diseases, including food allergies, eczema, asthma and hay fever. These conditions frequently persist into adulthood, placing a heavy burden on the healthcare system.

Literature: The University of Adelaide, New blood test for newborns to detect allergy risk, 21 May 2010